Sitting of 23 May 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  SLOUGH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Elderly People (Meals)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Food if he has now had an opportunity of examining the results of the experiment for which he granted a licence to Jarrow to enable old people to be provided with a prepared uncooked meal of meat, vegetables and dessert; and whether he is now prepared to issue similar licences to other local authorities.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): When the Jarrow Corporation proposed this most interesting experiment to my Department we agreed with them to run it for a trial period of six months. It was accordingly started on 25th April last. I think I ought to wait at any rate till a rather longer portion of the trial period has elapsed before expressing an opinion on it.
    Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that old people find it extremely difficult to stand in queues waiting for unrationed food, will the Minister ask the council to give some account of the results soon, so that he will be able to exercise his rights elsewhere in a similar direction?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, but we ought to wait rather longer than three weeks out of the six months' period.
    Mr. Shurmer: If this experiment is successful, will the Minister make a
    858
    general appeal to voluntary organisations in the country to help in the distribution of this food?
    Mr. Strachey: This is more a case for the initiative for such an appeal coming from the local authorities. What we would do is to give the necessary licences to the local authorities.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister continue to encourage the excellent meals-on-wheels service now being provided by voluntary organisations in association with local authorities?
    Mr. Strachey: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for mentioning it. I do not think I ought to show any partiality or preference between the forms of doing this very meritorious service.
    Mr. David Renton: Does the last answer but one that the Minister has given mean that he would not issue licences to voluntary organisations, even if they were inclined to be most suitable for the distribution of such meals?
    Mr. Strachey: We should have to judge each case on its merits.

    Potatoes
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Food if he will now say how many tons of potatoes bought by him have been sold for cattle feed; and at what prices.
    Mr. Strachey: I still cannot tell the hon. Member what will be the total amount of potatoes which will be used as animal feedingstuff in order to produce meat. For they are not all sold yet, but on 14th May, about one million tons of potatoes from the 1948 crop had been sold by my Department mainly for feeding pigs, not cattle, at an average price of about 68s. per ton.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that the Ministry of Food give £8 15s. per ton for these potatoes? Is the Minister not aware that because he pokes his nose into the retail distributive business his officials refuse to do business on the telephone, that this leads to delay and that the merchants cannot get what they want because of his interference?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is it with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman that, without removal, the potatoes are sold to his Department for £10 per ton and are sold back to the owners at £3 or £2 10s. per ton, and that the total transaction is to pass a cheque through the post to the farmer for the difference?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. Those are not the figures. It is true that potatoes are fed to animals at a subsidised rate, but then so are all other animal feedingstuffs. Potatoes are not unique in that respect.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: How many tons of these potatoes have been used for cattle and how many have been sold to fish friers?
    Mr. Strachey: The potatoes have been dyed. They could not be sold to fish friers.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Food how many prosecutions by his enforcement officers have been initiated or are pending against potato growers who sold potatoes to his Department at £8 15s. a ton and bought them back at £2 15s. a ton to be dyed for cattle feed and are re-selling them for human consumption; and how many tons are involved.
    Mr. Strachey: One prosecution is pending involving 65 tons of potatoes.
    Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that the Minister lost £10 million speculating with last year's potato crop, how much longer is he to be allowed to play ducks and drakes with the food of the people?
    Mr. Strachey: That is, of course, a grotesque way of describing the fact that the farmers are paid a guaranteed price for their potatoes. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would make it quite clear to the farmers of the country that he is against their being paid a guaranteed price for their crops.

    Ice Cream
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Minister of Food if, in view of the high food value of ice cream and in order to improve the quality, he will consider reducing the control on the using of fresh milk by ice cream manufacturers.
    Mr. Strachey: While not yielding to my hon. Friend in partiality to ice cream, we must meet the needs of the market for liquid milk and essential milk products first, and can only spare small amounts for ice cream.
    Mr. Shurmer: Does that mean that there is a temporary lifting of the ban on the use of milk for ice cream while the milk is de-rationed?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. We have allocated small quantities of milk for ice-cream in recent weeks and shall continue to do so as long as the milk is available.

    Livestock (Grading)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Food, in view of the report of the Auditor General revealing over £2 million loss resulting from faulty grading of animals for slaughter and of further losses still unknown, what steps he is taking to end this inefficiency and waste of taxpayers' money; and what disciplinary action he proposes to take against the officials concerned.
    Mr. Strachey: The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General to which the hon. Member refers relates to the trading accounts of the Ministry for the financial year 1947–48 and an indication is given in that report of the causes of the loss in that year. The report mentioned as one unusual factor in 1947–48 the exceptional condition of the animals following the severe winter of 1946–47 and the subsequent drought. £890,000 of the £2 million was in respect of carcases condemned for reasons that could not be detected at the point of grading: this is quite usual and is allowed for in the prices that are fixed for fatstock. The total loss is under 2 per cent. of the amount spent in the period referred to. Continuous efforts are being made to improve the standard of grading, upon which the financial result in part depends. A staff of livestock inspectors constantly supervises the grading work. These inspectors are instructed to concentrate on centres where grading is least satisfactory. Individual graders are relieved of their appointments if inefficiency is proved against them.
    Sir W. Smithers: Talking of grading, is the Minister aware that in my opinion he is the lowest grade Minister in English history?

    Meat Ration
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Food whether it is proposed to increase or decrease the amount of the meat ration during the remainder of 1949.
    Mr. Strachey: I never speculate on the future level of rations. But on this occasion it may be appropriate to say that at present no factors in the situation are apparent which would compel us to decrease the ration during the remainder of 1949.

    Black Market Inquiry (Newcastle District)
    Brigadier Thorpasked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on the result of his inquiry into "Operation Octopus."
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. The purpose of this operation was to follow up information which purported to show that there was a highly organised black market in the Newcastle district with ramificacations all over the North of England. The people concerned were alleged to be dealing extensively in a large variety of foodstuffs both imported and home-produced.
    The principal source of this information was a recently appointed intelligence officer attached to my Northern Divisional Food Office. This officer was furnished with sums amounting in all to £2,333 in order to make purchases with a view to securing intelligence which would lead to the prosecution of the principals said to be in the background.
    The inquiry has shown that insufficient care was taken to check the original, information furnished by the intelligence officer and that there was inadequate control of that officer by his superiors in the expenditure of the sums advanced to him. There was also undue delay in calling in the police. When Scotland Yard investigators were brought in to carry on with the investigation it was found that there was no reliable evidence to confirm the original suspicions of a big black market in the area and that the intelligence officer had, owing to his inexperience and in spite of warning, made purchases which were open to serious criticism on the ground that they were encouraging the commission of offences. The operation was called off
    862
    and subsequently the intelligence officer resigned from the Ministry.
    The administration of enforcement, both at the Ministry's headquarters and in the divisions, is being reorganised so that divisional food officers shall have a tighter control on the work of enforcement staff and that there shall be the strictest supervision of any officer who is exceptionally authorised to make purchases outside the normal test purchase procedure. I am confident that this reorganisation will prevent a similar occurrence in the future.
    Brigadier Thorp: From the evidence at the inquiry, did it not appear that most of the goods which were coming into the black market came from depôts and not from small dealers? Has Mr. Collins received the salary or wages due to him?
    Mr. Strachey: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I believe they came from both sources, though I could not say the proportion. As to the second part of the supplementary question, Mr. Collins was not an employee of the Ministry at the time.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: In view of the fact that the Minister has used the expression "owing to his inexperience," about the intelligence officer, will he say what steps were taken to see that the man was suitable before he was appointed?
    Mr. Strachey: He was an officer with a very fine military record, but he did not prove suitable for this work.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Was not nearly £2,500 an immense sum for which to have given authority, even if it had been properly spent? Surely, it must have meant acquiescing in very large purchases indeed in the black market in order to get evidence?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I do not think that the size of the sum was necessarily undue, because it was spread over quite a long period, but I think its use was injudicious and, in fact, wrong, and that was why the operation was called off.
    Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the employment of agents provocateurs is not only inimical to the British way of life, but has also been found by long police experience to be

    863
    generally ineffective, and will he consider that very carefully before making experiments such as the one he made in this case?
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why Scotland Yard was not informed and called in at first, instead of the intelligence officer?
    Mr. Strachey: In reply to the first supplementary question, I think that on this occasion the methods used went dangerously near agent provocateur methods and that is why we have taken in this respect the steps which I have outlined. As to the second supplementary question, as I said, I think Scotland Yard should have been called in earlier.
    Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the operation going on a long time. Can he tell the House what was the length of the period?
    Mr. Strachey: Not exactly, without notice, but it was over several months.
    Sir John Mellor: Have we not been frequently assured by the Minister that agents of the Minister would not be used in the way in which this man was used?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I have repeatedly defended the test purchase procedure, and there is a difference of degree between that and what was done here. However, I repeat that I think this officer went too far in the methods he used on this occasion.
    Brigadier Thorp: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have evidence that Mr. Collins has a letter from the Ministry saying that his wages were being held up until the inquiry was completed, and does he still say that Mr. Collins was not employed by the Ministry?
    Mr. Strachey: Mr. Collins was undoubtedly employed as an agent of the Ministry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman used the word "wages." Undoubtedly there were sums due to Mr. Collins out of the amount I have mentioned, but I should not have described them as wages.
    Brigadier Thorp: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Irish Canned Fruit (Prosecutions)
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Minister of Food how many prosecutions he has caused to be instituted against inhabitants of Britain for obtaining canned fruit from the Republic of Ireland; how many of these were successful; and how many prosecutions are pending.
    Mr. Strachey: There have been nine prosecutions of which eight were successful and 15 prosecutions are pending.
    Mr. Macpherson: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing his best to see that publicity is given to these prosecutions so that in future people shall not unwittingly commit offences? Secondly, is there any means of bringing to book the real culprits, who are the sellers in Southern Ireland, as soon as they set foot in this country?

    Chocolates and Sweets
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Food whether he will take action to ensure that manufacturers make a fair allocation of sweets to small shopkeepers.
    Mr. Strachey: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) on 16th May. I shall not interfere with the manufacturers' arrangements until there is a clear case for doing so, but I will willingly look into any case my hon. Friend may have in mind where a small shopkeeper has been left without supplies for an unduly long time.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread dissatisfaction that has been expressed by small shopkeepers all over the country at what they consider to be unfair discrimination by manufacturers in favour of large retailers? Will my right hon. Friend at least ask the manufacturers to exercise a little more discrimination in favour of the small shopkeepers.
    Mr. Strachey: We must see what representations we get from the various trade associations on the matter. We will certainly pay attention to them when we receive them.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Will not the Minister appreciate that consumption has

    865
    been misjudged and that the matter needs complete reconsideration to find out how the problem can be solved?
    Mr. Scollan: In view of the reports he must have been receiving from all over the country, is not the Minister fully satisfied that he was foolish to accede to the requests of hon. Members opposite and take off the ration altogether?
    Mr. Strachey: There is a later Question on that matter.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is not the Minister aware that every Member of Parliament must be getting complaints, especially those from working-class districts, that people who could get sweets when they were on the ration are getting no sweets at all at the moment?
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Food whether he will give details of his release of 1,000 tons of sugar for the manufacture of sweets; and whether he is releasing a corresponding quantity of fats for this purpose.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Food if in view of the continued shortage of sweets and chocolates, he will either further increase the allocations to manufacturers or reintroduce rationing as soon as possible.
    Mr. Strachey: We have now released sufficient sugar, fats, and other ingredients to enable the manufacturers to put an additional 9,000 tons of sweets on the market. As to the suggestion of my hon. Friend that we should at once reintroduce rationing, I should like to say this. In my opinion it would be unfair to consider this step until the new method of free distribution has had at least some months of trial. After all sweets are not by any means a staple food; that was, of course, why we chose them for de-rationing, which had been so strongly pressed upon us in respect not only of sweets but of some staple foods. On the other hand, I agree that if the supply and demand for sweets and chocolate did not by, say, the autumn come into approximate balance both the trade and the public might well prefer the reintroduction of rationing to the indefinite continuance of acute shop shortages.
    Mr. Turton: Arising out of that reply, did not the Minister of Food anticipate that there would be an increased demand
    866
    when sweets were de-rationed, and if so, why did he not make this release much earlier?
    Mr. Strachey: Does the hon. Gentleman think that we made no increased release of ingredients? Of course we made an enormously greater release of ingredients than this some months before de-rationing.
    Captain Crookshank: Will my right hon. Friend make clear what he meant by saying that he was putting 9,000 tons on the market? Within what period of time?
    Mr. Strachey: We have just released the ingredients, and I cannot tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, without notice, exactly how long it takes between that and the coming of the sweets into the shops, but it will be a matter of a few weeks.
    Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman has released the ingredients for the whole 9,000 tons now?
    Mr. De la Bère: Surely this is negligible? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the minimum requirement is 7 oz. per person per week?

    Imported Sugar (Shipment)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Minister of Food how much of the sugar imported from the West Indies in 1948 was carried in chartered boats; how much in regular service passenger and freight vessels; and what was the proportion carried in foreign vessels and British vessels, respectively.
    Mr. Strachey: All sugar imported into the United Kingdom from the British West Indies and Haiti in 1948 was carried on British liners. From Cuba, 764,080 tons were shipped in chartered vessels, of which 38,600, i.e. 5 per cent. were foreign, and 21,000 tons in British liners. From San Domingo 185,691 tons were shipped in chartered vessels, of which 16,000 tons, or 7.6 per cent. were foreign, and 23,750 tons in British liners.
    Mr. Cooper: Has the Minister considered any reports to the effect that the British West Indian shipping services would be greatly stimulated if all contracts from his Department were placed for carriage in British ships? As this would be to the great advantage of

    867
    Colonial development in the West Indies, will he look into this matter with a view to stimulating a regular and more frequent service of British ships with the West Indies?
    Mr. Strachey: I should have thought my reply showed that the margin is rather small.

    Grains (Export)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Food if he will give details of the £49 million of cereals, including cereal feedingstuffs, sold for delivery abroad during the year ended 31st March, 1948, showing the amounts sold to each country.
    Mr. Strachey: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The hon. Member should note that virtually all the grains were intended for human consumption.
    Mr. Turton: Can the Minister give an assurance that these sales were effected at a profit and not at a loss?
    Mr. Strachey: I must have notice of that financial question. Some would be subject to subsidy and some not.
    Following is the information:

    Destination

    Quantity

    Value

    Tons

    £

    Crown Agents for the Colonies.

    791,000

    25,009,000

    Middle East and Oil Companies.

    32,000

    923,000

    Services Overseas, War Office Civil Affairs Admiralty and N.A.A.F.I.

    151,000

    4,332,000

    Egypt

    172,000

    5,156,000

    France

    8,000

    262,000

    Germany

    158,000

    5,945,000

    Saudi Arabia

    9,000

    236,000

    Sudan

    7,000

    209,000

    Eirc

    5,000

    124,000

    India

    229,000

    6,269,000

    Iraq

    18,000

    655,000

    Burma

    15,000

    487,000

    Southern Rhodesia

    8,000

    132,000

    Private Traders

    1,000

    44,000

    TOTAL

    1,604,000

    49,783,000

    Of the total quantity of 1,604,000 tons little over 1,000 tons were delivered out of United Kingdom stocks. The remainder were purchases for countries for which
    868
    we had procurement responsibility or acted as purchasing agents.
    Of the total of £49 million, wheat and flour account for about 84 per cent., maize for 6 per cent., barley for 4½ per cent., and rye and oats together for 1½ per cent. Virtually all these grains were intended for human consumption.

  TRANSPORT

    Railway Electrification (Liverpool Street—Shenfield)
    Mr. Thomas Macphersonasked the Minister of Transport if he has any further information regarding the date when the electrification of the line between Liverpool Street and Shenfield will be completed and the service in operation.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I understand that the British Transport Commission hope to bring this electrification scheme into service by the end of the year.
    Mr. Macpherson: In view of the continued unsatisfactory state of the service, will my right hon. Friend promise to do something to accelerate the completion of this work? It is most desirable that the work should be completed and the service in operation before the winter.
    Mr. Barnes: I cannot indicate that I can use any special measures to accelerate the work, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the British Transport Commission are fully alive to the travelling difficulties in this area and that they will certainly press on as urgently as possible.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: When this work is completed, will my right hon. Friend prevent the dispersal of the labour force engaged on such valuable work, and transfer it to the electrification of the Liverpool Street to Enfield line?

    Buses (Boarding)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Minister of Transport whether his regulations permit a passenger to board a bus which is not full and is stationary at traffic lights.
    Mr. Barnes: The operator of the vehicle may be debarred by the conditions attached to his road service licence from picking up passengers at the place

    869
    concerned. Subject to this, the regulations neither permit nor prohibit the action referred to in the Question.
    Colonel Hutchison: Does that mean that the decision in a matter of this kind is left to the conductor of the vehicle, and is that not leaving it to rather a capricious judge?
    Mr. Barnes: As I have indicated, the law is silent on this matter at the moment and it certainly will have my examination.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the Minister say why it is any more dangerous to get on to a bus at traffic lights than to get off it, which is allowed? Is he also aware that the conductor sometimes refuses to allow people on at lights on the plea that there may be a crowd at the stopping place, even when he is out of sight of the stopping place and when in fact there is nobody there?

    Level Crossings (Accidents)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport how many accidents occurred to vehicles at level crossings during each of the last three years; and whether action has been taken at such level crossings to reduce the danger of accidents.
    Mr. Barnes: The numbers of collisions with road vehicles or gates at railway level crossings in 1946, 1947 and 1948 were 157, 215 and 212, respectively. Preventive action is taken wherever practicable to reduce the likelihood of such accidents.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend give his attention to the possibility of providing some system of lights on the lines of those we have on our roads, so that some of these accidents can be avoided?
    Mr. Barnes: The problem of these crossings is being examined continually, but it is a difficult issue.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Motorcars (Priority Delivery)
    Mr. Peter Thorneycroftasked the Minister of Supply what classes of user now rank for priority for the delivery of motorcars; and in what order of priority is delivery to be made among these various classes.
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): The motor industry is giving priority to orders from doctors, district nurses and midwives. They have also undertaken to give special consideration to orders from veterinary surgeons sponsored by the National Veterinary Medical Association and to distribute the remainder of their supplies to the home market in accordance with the importance and urgency of the user's need.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Would the right hon. Gentleman say where the claims of local authorities and Government Departments come in the question of these priorities?
    Mr. Strauss: As I have indicated, the motor manufacturers have undertaken to give some priority to special cases where the public interest is involved, but there is no special priority for these vehicles.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some retailers, at any rate, are under the impression that Government Departments and local authorities have claims prior to those of doctors and midwives, and will he disabuse them of this idea?
    Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir. That is not so.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether a doctor's priority still has to be certified by the B.M.A.?
    Mr. Strauss: No, not necessarily.
    Mr. William Shepherd: Does the reply of the Minister mean that the local dealer has full authority to decide who shall have the priority? If that is the case, what steps have been taken by his Department or responsible people to make the dealer fully aware of what he has to do?
    Mr. Strauss: The industry itself has undertaken to see that its priority scheme shall be administered properly. My Department has no authority in the matter, and has deliberately given full responsibility to the motor industry.
    Mr. Scollan: Can the Minister tell the House if visiting dentists to rural schools are allowed priority?
    Mr. Strauss: I think that is the kind of case where the applicant would have to get the authority of the British Medical Association or some similar body.

    Imported Metals (Contracts)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Minister of Supply to state, in relation to each base metal bought in bulk by his Department, the length of contracts entered into and the countries with which such contracts have been made.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    My Department has the following contracts for imported metal:
    Aluminium: The current contract covers deliveries from Canada up to March, 1950.
    Copper: Contracts cover deliveries up to the end of this year from Canada, Rhodesia, the Belgian Congo and Chile.
    Lead and Zinc: Contracts cover deliveries up to the end of June, 1949, for both metals from Canada and Australia and for lead from Northern Rhodesia.
    Tin Ore: from Nigeria and East Africa. No period is fixed for these contracts, which are subject to termination by three months' notice.
    Tin Metal: from Malaya. My Department has agreed to buy the total output until further notice.
    Chrome Ore: Current contracts cover deliveries up to the end of October from Rhodesia and Baluchistan; up to September, 1949, from the Philippines; and April, 1950, from Turkey.
    Imported steel is purchased in bulk by the British Iron and Steel Corporation under the supervision of the Ministry of Supply.

    German Timber (Shipment)
    Sir William Darlingasked the Minister of Supply what were the freight and handling costs of importing 625 tons of timber from Blohm and Voss shipyard, Hamburg, in the s.s. "Stream Fisher," discharged at Leith on or about 10th May; and what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence of the waste of public funds resulting from the import of poor quality, second-hand German timber of this nature.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: The cost to the Ministry of Supply of shipping this timber was £1,640. My information is that the timber was shipped as a result of a misunderstanding. The Disposals Group in Hamburg have, however, already been asked for a full report and I will write to the hon. Member when the matter has been investigated.
    Sir W. Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland we look very closely upon the activities of his Department, that it causes us a great deal of disappointment that this import has taken place under a misunderstanding, and that we hope the right hon. Gentleman will do better in future?
    Mr. Strauss: My Department came into this transaction as a sort of shipping agency; we are not responsible. It does not follow that there will be any loss as a result of this transaction.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that in Scotland we are glad to get timber from anywhere?

  NOVEL "THE NAKED AND THE DEAD"
  Mr. Dribergasked the Attorney-General what action he proposes to take in regard to the novel, "The Naked and the Dead," copies of which have been obtained by the police on account of its alleged obscenity.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Yes, Sir. After consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions I have decided not to initiate proceedings in this case, a prosecution in which does not require my fiat. As, however, the matter is of some public importance, perhaps I may indicate the reasons which have led me to this conclusion.
  The matter is a difficult one upon which different views may well be held. I am not prepared to say that no court would treat this regrettable publication as obscene. The matter is one of fact and degree and it may be that some courts would consider that the publication did offend the law. I have, however, never regarded it as my duty to institute proceedings in every case in which it can be argued, possibly successfully, that the criminal law has been infringed. I do

  873
  so only where I consider that the protection of the public interest in a broad sense requires the criminal law to be set in motion, whether in order to punish offenders or to deter others from the commission of offences.
  In cases of the kind involved here, there are two public interests to which I must have regard. It is important that no publication should be permitted to deprave or corrupt morals, to exalt vice or to encourage its commission. It is also important that there should be the least possible interference with the freedom of publication and that the Attorney-General should not seek to make the criminal law a vehicle for imposing a censorship on the frank discussion or portrayal of sordid and unedifying aspects of life simply on the grounds of offence against taste or manners. Whilst there is much in this most tedious and lengthy book which is foul, lewd and revolting, looking at it as a whole I do not think that its intent is to corrupt or deprave or that it is likely to lead to any result other than disgust at its contents.
  Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his decision on a book which, whatever its defects, is a serious attempt at a work of art will be widely welcomed among sensible people; and is he aware that it is desirable that there should be the widest possible distribution among the Atlantic Treaty nations of this gruesome description of war and the psychological chaos in American society?

  AGRICULTURAL LAND
  Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the serious inroads which have been, and are being, made by Government Departments into agricultural land; that, on average since 1945, 50,000 acres are being lost annually to food production; and whether he will consider appointing a Cabinet committee to review land use and censor departmental demands.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The needs of Government Departments necessarily involve taking land, of which some must be agricultural. It is, however, misleading to ascribe to the demands of Departments or other causes a net loss to food production amounting to 50,000 acres annually since 1945. I am sending
  874
  the hon. Member a copy of the answer given to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) on 12th April, which gave the latest information available on this subject.
  I see no need for the appointment of a special committee to control land use, which can be adequately done under existing departmental machinery.
  Mr. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the loss of food production in this country has been very grave and amounts, probably, to something like a quarter of a million acres since the war, which is the equivalent, I think, of something like 28 million dollars a year in food production; and is he further aware that the Ministerial machinery which was set up—on the one side, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and, on the other side, the Ministry of Agriculture's Central Land Advisory Planning Branch—seems to have broken down completely and to have had no effect whatever?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is mistaken in both regards. If he will look at the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Eddisbury, he will find that his figures are quite mistaken. On his other point, there is, as a matter of fact, the fullest co-operation between the Departments concerned.
  Mr. Bramall: Is it not a fact that by far the greatest of these demands by Government Departments is for Service training, the need for which the Opposition are continually pressing?
  Mr. Fraser: If there has to be this inroad into agricultural land, will the Prime Minister consider whether use could be made of the 16 million acres of marginal land still undeveloped in this country?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, every effort is made to see that the best agricultural land is not taken. It is not always possible to avoid taking some, however, and I am afraid that very often the land that is suggested as being suitable is in remote areas and cannot be useful.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: Would the Prime Minister circulate this information in the OFFICIAL REPORT, so that it may be available to all hon. Members rather than to one hon. Member alone?
  The Prime Minister: The information was contained in the answer to a question. If the hon. Member will refer to the answer which was given to the hon. Member for Eddisbury on 12th April, he will see the information.

  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Lord President of the Council whether he will give an assurance that the appointment of the Central Office of Information as an advertising agency of the various Government Departments will not be allowed to dominate the actions of the public relations departments of the Ministries throughout Whitehall; and that there will be a genuine endeavour to make greater use of commercial firms to advise and assist in connection with all matters of advertising and propaganda.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As I told the hon. Member on 12th February, 1948, the Central Office of Information is the central Government agency for the commissioning, management and presentation of display and Press advertising and poster advertising, but the Government Departments on whose behalf it acts are responsible for the content and policy of the advertisements. As regards the second part of the Question, the Central Office employs commercial advertising agencies for all its Press and poster advertising, and thus already makes full use of their advice and assistance.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that ever since that date the Central Office of Information have never ceased to offend by wasting and squandering public money, and is it not high time that the use of this service for Government propaganda should cease in an endeavour to get rid of this tied house? Let us be quite frank about it.
  Mr. Morrison: It would be a welcome change if a supplementary question from the hon. Member was related to his original Question on the Order Paper.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only have many hon. Gentlemen opposite been a failure but that the Central Office of Information is the greatest failure his party have ever had?
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement of the Government's policy as regards the Central Office of Information and their activities connected with Press propaganda, television and broadcasting.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I have nothing to add to the Prime Minister's reply to the similar question by the hon. Member on 27th January, 1948. The hon. Member will find a full description of the activities of the Central Office of Information in its Annual Report for 1947–48 (Cmd. 7567), from which he will see that these do not include television or broadcasting—or Press propaganda, unless by that he means the conduct of Press advertising for Government Departments.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer, too, was a long time ago, and that since then there has been no improvement? Let us stop all this nonsense and waste of money.

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  Mr. Jannerasked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware of the danger that the present restrictions on materials available for the construction of buildings connected with the Festival of Britain may result in this exhibition being unworthy of the country with little benefit to its trade and prosperity; and whether, in view of the new economic circumstances, consideration can be given to the whole matter with a view to ensuring that the exhibition will provide a worthy successor to the Great Exhibition of 1851.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The Government have given the fullest consideration to the importance of making the Festival of Britain a worthy successor of the Great Exhibition of 1851, and are satisfied that notwithstanding current restrictions this will be achieved.
  Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that this is an extremely important exhibition, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is dissatisfaction at the restrictions that are being imposed regarding materials, and will he reconsider the matter in order to meet these criticisms?
  Mr. Morrison: I was not aware of that. I thought that on the whole we were not being treated too badly by the authorities in these matters. As I informed the House on an earlier occasion, we are preparing plans for the South Bank. I have promised the House an opportunity of seeing those plans, in which case my hon. Friend will no doubt be interested to look at them; and I hope he will find that the situation is somewhat better than he apprehends.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the ways of making this exhibition a worthy repeat of the one last century is to arrange for an extension of the exhibition in the grounds of Chiswick House, and that this would not involve a very great expenditure of material?
  Mr. Henry Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman recall whether 1851 was in a period of Tory or Liberal misrule?
  Mr. Morrison: I have not the least idea—it was either one or the other.

  SPAIN (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)
  Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action His Majesty's Government propose to take following the recent decision of the General Assembly of the United Nations with regard to the full resumption of diplomatic relations with the Spanish Government.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): None, Sir.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: While congratulating my hon. Friend on the very successful outcome of his personal negotiations in Geneva, may I ask whether he is aware that, while the result of the vote in New York has caused some satisfaction to Spanish democrats and to democrats in other parts of Europe, the attitude of the British Government in abstaining has not caused them any satisfaction?
  Mr. Mayhew: While thanking my hon. Friend for the first part of his supplementary question, may I say that I do not think there is anything I can add, regarding our abstention, to the very full
  878
  statement made by my right hon. Friend on 11th May.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Is there any prospect of the Government toppling off the fence on either one side or the other?
  Mr. Morleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a statement as to why the representatives of Great Britain remained neutral on the question of the recognition of the Spanish Government when the matter recently came before the General Assembly of the United Nations organisation.
  Mr. Mayhew: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a similar Question asked on 11th May by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin).
  Mr. Morley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Question asked by the hon. Member for Mile End related to the action of our representatives on the Political Committee of U.N.O. and that my Question relates to the action of our representatives at the General Assembly of U.N.O.? Is he aware that a de jure recognition of the present Government of Spain would be very repugnant to most of those who support His Majesty's Government in this country? Does he really think that it is consistent with the dignity of a great nation like ourselves that our representatives should remain neutral on so important a matter and—
  Mr. Speaker: This is not a question, it is a speech.
  Mr. Mayhew: I am, of course, aware of the feeling of my hon. Friends on the subject of returning the Ambassador to Spain contrary to the United Nations resolution. They are feelings entirely shared by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. H. Strauss: Has the hon. Gentleman observed that prominent Liberals have rebuked the Government for abstaining from voting, and is not this a case of Satan rebuking sin?
  Mr. Mayhew: We cannot determine our policy by what Liberals think, however prominent.
  Mr. Benn Levy: Can my hon. Friend say whether the moral leadership of this country in Europe can best be secured by an attitude of dashing neutrality?
  Major Beamish: Would it not be better even if the Government allowed themselves to be advised by prominent Liberals rather than by the Philippines and Chile, for example?

  CZECHOSLOVAKIA

    Arms Supplies, Israel
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Czechoslovak Government, in contravention of the United Nations resolution placing an embargo on the sending of arms to Israel or the Arab countries, has permitted regular supplies of arms to be sent to Israel: and if he will have this matter raised in the United Nations with the object of instituting a full international investigation.
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend is aware that during the latter part of the year 1948 the Czechoslovak Government permitted considerable quantities of arms to be sent to Israel in contravention of the United Nations resolutions of 29th May and 15th July. Matters of dispute between the parties, such as this, are, however, probably best left at this stage to the United Nations Conciliation Commission, who have all the facts at their disposal.
    Major Beamish: What, if anything, are the United Nations Conciliation Commission doing about this matter? Is it not a shocking state of affairs when a member of the United Nations can flout a resolution of the United Nations in this way without being arraigned for it and without there being any investigation?
    Mr. Mayhew: I do not think it would be helpful to go into all that now. The war has ceased and the Conciliation Commission should not be obstructed in their work of trying to bring the parties together.

    Commercial Debts
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to ensure the fulfilment by the Czechoslovak Government of Article 5 (b) of the Anglo-
    880
    Czechoslovakian Agreement dated 1st November, 1945, Command Paper No. 6695.
    Mr. Mayhew: Representations have been made to the Czechoslovak Government in this matter, both on behalf of individual British claimants and as regards the application of Czech property taxes to commercial debts. In this latter sphere the representations have had some success.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As this agreement is concluded and the article to which I have referred the hon. Gentleman is one which guarantees that all our debts shall be honoured in full, can the Minister say what action he has taken to prevent subsequent Czech nationalisation laws interfering with the agreement concluded by His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Mayhew: We are continuing representations on this point, but on the last subject I should need notice.

  GERHARDT EISLER (ARREST)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what protest he has received from the Polish Government concerning the boarding of the Polish vessel s.s. "Batory" by British police officers accompanied by American officials in order to arrest Mr. Gerhardt Eisler, and carrying out the arrest against the wish of the captain of the vessel, and under protest by the Polish Consulate representative; and what reply he has made to the Polish Government's protest.
  Mr. Mayhew: The Polish Ambassador called on my right hon. Friend on 16th May and made an oral protest stating that, in the view of the Polish Government, the action taken was contrary to international law and practice. On the same day His Majesty's Ambassador at Warsaw was handed a Note making a very similar protest. A summary of this Note was published the next day. These representations are being examined by His Majesty's Government and a reply is under consideration.
  Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister give an indication whether the reply is likely to be a confirmation of the Polish Government's attitude in the matter, and whether

  881
  the Government think it was a breach of international law which was committed last week?
  Mr. Mayhew: No; I can say at once that the action of the British authorities in arresting Mr. Eisler was not contrary to international law.
  At the end of Questions—
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I should like to correct a misunderstanding that has arisen from the words which I used in replying to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) on 19th May. The hon. Member then asked me whether the arrangements under which two representatives from the Polish Embassy were present at Southampton at the time when Gerhardt Eisler was arrested had been made before or after the application for the warrant and his arrest; and in reply I stated that the Polish Embassy were informed so that if they wished to be represented they could be there.
  The facts are that the police attempted to establish contact with the Polish Consul in Southampton on the morning of 14th May, but it was found that there is no consul in Southampton. My reply to the supplementary question was based on my knowledge that the Polish authorities in London were not ignorant of the situation, since the Vice-Consul in London and the head of the Polish Shipping Mission both appeared in Southampton on Saturday morning, boarded the ship together with the police and informed the police repeatedly that they had instructions from the Polish Embassy not to allow Mr. Eisler to leave the ship. I wish, however, to express my regret if I have unintentionally misled the House.
  Mr. Piratin: Can the Home Secretary say, in the first place, when he had the information on the matter, and what time, therefore, there was for the information to be conveyed to the Polish Embassy; and in the second place, in view of the fact that there was no consul in Southampton—and therefore the police had no one to contact—can he say why they did not get in touch with the Embassy in London?
  Mr. Ede: I could not say, without notice, when my attention was first drawn to this. It was some time before the day on which the arrest took place.
  882
  My instructions to the police were that they were to contact the Polish Consul in Southampton. When they arrived there they found there was no Polish Consul in Southampton; but by that time two representatives of the Polish Embassy in London were in fact in Southampton, and in consultation with the police.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not unusual for a personal explanation to be followed by supplementary questions, as if it were an ordinary Question?
  Mr. Speaker: It was not exactly a personal explanation. I thought it was an explanation of facts which had been wrongly put before the House.
  Mr. Benn Levy: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House who intimated to the Polish Embassy that an arrest was pending, and whether that intimation was given before or after the magistrate had issued his warrant?
  Mr. Ede: I do not know who told the Polish Embassy that an arrest was pending, but in fact when the Metropolitan Police officers arrived in Southampton they found these Polish representatives there, and, as I have said, they entered into conversation with them.
  Mr. Nicholson: Further to my point of Order. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is really a dangerous precedent. The Home Secretary has made a personal explanation, or explanations, on certain detailed points, and these supplementary questions are straying from them.
  Mr. Speaker: These are rather important details of the facts. They are not personal matters at all.
  Mr. Osborne: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why his friends did not take the same interest in the 10 British sailors arrested by the Polish authorities in similar circumstances?
  Mr. S. Silverman: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the correction he has made, and ask him whether it is not perfectly clear that in the arrangements which were made for the taking of this foreigner off a Polish ship, no communication was officially made to the Polish Embassy at all, either by him or on behalf of the Government?
  Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I do not think it would be fair to go as far as that, because the Polish Vice-Consul in London was in Southampton in communication with the police. In fact, during the conversation that took place he was in wireless communication with the Polish Embassy in London.
  Mr. Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I was not asking him about any information which the Polish Embassy might have got elsewhere, but whether it is not perfectly clear that His Majesty's Government, in taking this action, did not themselves draw the attention of the Polish Embassy at all to what they proposed to do, or communicate with them in any way?
  Mr. Ede: I think that is true. As I said last Thursday, I accept responsibility for this matter. I had hoped that there was a Polish Consul in Southampton with whom contact could be made.

  ANGLO-BURMANS (BRITISH CITIZENSHIP)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the dissatisfaction among Burma-born British subjects who are unable to obtain British passports because of the lack of documentary proof of their status; and if, in view of the fact that many official documents were lost during the Japanese occupation and of the inadequacy of the system of registration of births in Burma in the past, he will modify the present regulations.
  Mr. Mayhew: So far as the difficulties to which the hon. Member alludes arise from the destruction of records in Burma, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Godfrey Nicholson) on 8th November last. My right hon. Friend is, however, looking into the whole matter.
  Mr. Gammans: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that a very much more sensible and lenient interpretation will be given to the status of British subjects than has been given in the past? Is it not ridiculous that we should be allowing foreigners to obtain British nationality in this country and at the same time preventing or hindering British nationals from retaining their nationality when they come from Burma?
  Mr. Mayhew: No, I cannot indicate a change of policy, but I am looking into the matter.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the answer he gave me was some months ago and that this matter should not be allowed to drift on? Can he give some urgent consideration to it?

  GERMANY (FACTORIES DISMANTLING)
  Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to cause the dismantling of the six Fischer-Tropsch synthetic oil plants in Western Germany to be discontinued.
  Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.
  Mr. Blackburn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the dismantling of factories like this, which do not directly produce arms, has been condemned by all sides of the House and has never found a single supporter in any quarter of the House? Does he not think it time that it came to an end?
  Mr. Warbey: Before my hon. Friend replies to that question, will he give an assurance that he will not approve of this constant attempt to nibble away necessary security measures in Germany?
  Mr. Mayhew: I will only say that we have at last reached final agreement on an inter-governmental basis five weeks ago. We want to clear up the whole situation on that basis and not to re-open all these questions.
  Mr. Blackburn: Is not the security interest served by a more or less permanent occupation of Germany and, if that is so, surely it is to all our interests to see that normal German industry is put on its feet at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. Mayhew: We have always had this problem of security on the one hand and normal industrial development on the other. We have reached finality and it is too late to re-open all this big question.
  Mr. John Hyndasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended, despite the recommendations of the Humphrey Committee, to dismantle the wire plant of the Klõckner Werke A. G. Dusseldorf; and whether he

  885
  can give an assurance that full consideration has been given to the social and economic consequences this would entail.
  Mr. Mayhew: This plant is to be dismantled in accordance with the recent agreement with the United States and French Governments. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."
  Mr. Hynd: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the plant that has already been dismantled in this particular works is apparently not of interest to any particular claimant country, and is likely to be entirely wasted; and how does this assist in the reconstruction of Europe?
  Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. We certainly expect a bid for this plant.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Is this action being taken on grounds of demilitarisation or reparations, and will the hon. Gentleman agree that further demilitarisation is unnecessary and that further exaction of reparations is inexpedient?
  Mr. Mayhew: Reparations arise out of the necessary security measures which we take.
  Mr. J. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any bid has been made by any Inter-Allied Reparations Agency country for the plant of Klöckner Werke A. G. Dusseldorf already dismantled; and if he will prevent the dismantling of the remaining portion pending some assurance that this plant will be usefully employed elsewhere in the interests of the European economy.
  Mr. Mayhew: No bids for this plant have yet been made because the date for submission of bids has not yet been reached. There is, however, no reason to believe that bids will not be made in due course. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative, since to delay dismantling further would not be in the interests of the European economy.
  Mr. Hynd: Is not the Under-Secretary aware that, like many other plants which have been dismantled over the past five years, this plant is lying about unclaimed, is not likely to be claimed and will therefore be completely wasted? How can he say that that is a contribution to the European economy?
  Mr. Mayhew: I am aware that plants have been dismantled without bids being
  886
  made for them. That is, as the answer to a later Question will show, because allocation was held up while a review was being made of plants to be retained in Germany.
  Mr. J. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that large quantities of non-warlike plant dismantled in Germany for reparations purposes remains unclaimed by any of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency Powers; and whether he will prevent further dismantling of such plants until it is clear that they will be utilised productively elsewhere in the interests of the European economy.
  Mr. Mayhew: Substantial quantities of reparations equipment have not yet been bid for; the allocation of reparations was long delayed while a review was conducted to ensure the deletion from the reparations lists of all plants which might better serve the purposes of European recovery if left in Germany than if removed and re-erected elsewhere. This has now been completed and allocations are proceeding in accordance with the recent agreement with the United States and French Governments. It would not be in the interests of the European economy to delay until the process of allocation is complete the dismantling of those plants which remain on the list. My right hon. Friend could therefore not agree to hold up dismantling even if he were free to do so.
  Mr. Hynd: As some four years have gone by since the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency was established in Brussels, is it not clear that if no bids have yet been made for these plants which are still undismantled there is unlikely to be any bid? Is there any purpose whatever in dismantling them unless it is a method of demilitarisation?
  Mr. Mayhew: I do not agree. I think that the absence of bids does not mean that bids will not be forthcoming now that, as I have shown, allocations have begun again.

  INTERNED BRITISH SUBJECTS, EGYPT
  Mr. Mikardoasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the Egyptian Government in respect of British

  887
  nationals who are being held in prisons and internment camps without charge or trial.
  Mr. Mayhew: The position is as stated in the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made to my hon. Friend the Member for East Willesden (Mr. Orbach) on 31st January, except that one further internee has since been released.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: How many British nationals are now so detained in Egypt?
  Mr. Mayhew: Seven, Sir.

  TRIPOLITANIA
  Mr. Bramallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps were taken to ascertain the wishes of the local population before the agreement was reached with the Italian Government on the proposal to restore Italian rule in Tripolitania in two years' time.
  Mr. Mayhew: The proposal which was submitted to the General Assembly by the Political Committee was for the independence of Libya in ten years' time unless the Assembly decided otherwise, and for an Italian trusteeship of Tripolitania from the end of 1951 to 1959. Both the Political Committee and the General Assembly had before them the evidence of the Four Power Commission which visited the territory in 1948, and every facility was given by the British Administration to Tripolitanians who wished to state their views before the United Nations. In this connection my hon. Friend will no doubt recall that the Delegation of the so-called National Council for the Liberation of Libya was heard by the Political Committee on 12th May.
  Mr. Bramall: May we take it that now that the people of this area have shown in an unmistakable manner what they think of this proposal, His Majesty's Government will not support it in future?
  Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend is aware of the fate of the proposal.
  Mr. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will not in future put forward any proposals which conflict fundamentally with
  888
  the wishes of the indigenous people of Tripolitania?
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to Tripolitania.
  Mr. Mayhew: The decision of the United Nations General Assembly to postpone discussion of the disposal of the former Italian Colonies until September leaves His Majesty's Government charged with the continued administration of Tripolitania under the terms of Article 23 of the Italian Peace Treaty. His Majesty's Government are considering what action they can take to promote the interests and welfare of the inhabitants, but I have nothing to add at this stage.
  Mr. Driberg: In view of that decision, will His Majesty's Government, while awaiting the autumn, be reconsidering a policy which must look to the Arabs as if we were letting them down?
  Mr. Mayhew: We are certainly considering anew, in the new situation, what we should attempt in Tripolitania.
  Mr. Eden: While doing that, will the hon. Gentleman again consider the proposal which I made some months ago, which might have avoided some of this trouble—that is, to give a trusteeship to the Western Union collectively?
  Mr. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Tripolitania has been administered merely on a care-and-maintenance basis for over six years, and that economic stagnation will be very prolonged indeed unless something is done fairly soon to re-equip the territory from a capital point of view? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that all these delays are having very serious results, and that something should be done to overcome these economic difficulties?
  Mr. Mayhew: We are most certainly aware of that, and indeed that explains our great efforts to reach some sort of practical arrangement at the United Nations.

  ALBANIA (CORFU CASE)
  Mr. Pickthornasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects the International Court of Justice

  889
  to announce the assessment of the amount of compensation due from Albania to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Mayhew: Under the order of the Court issued at the same time as its judgment in the Corfu case, the Court ordered the delivery of three further written pleadings on the question of the amount of damages, the last pleading to be delivered by Albania on 25th August. While my right hon. Friend can naturally not predict the exact moment at which the Court will deliver its decision on the amount of damages, he is advised that this decision will probably be given, even allowing for the Court's summer vacation, soon after the close of the written pleadings.
  Mr. John Paton: How much does my hon. Friend expect to realise of any amount which is assessed?
  Mr. Mayhew: That remains to be seen.

  ROYAL NAVY

    H.M.S. "Amethyst"
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will now make a further report on the condition and whereabouts of the crew of H.M.S. "Amethyst."
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): The officers and men on board H.M.S. "Amethyst" are still safe and have been able to communicate with their relatives. The ship remains at her anchorage above Rose Island.
    Colonel Hutchison: What steps have been taken to recover this crew? Are they being molested in any way?
    Mr. Dugdale: No, they are not being molested. As for any steps being taken for their recovery, I should prefer not to make any statement at present.
    Captain Marsden: Is not the crew referred to only pant of the crew? What has happened to the remainder of the crew who were landed or got ashore earlier?
    Mr. Dugdale: A large number of them, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, have gone to Hong Kong; they are wounded.
    Commander Noble: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the last physical contact was made with the "Amethyst"?
    Mr. Dugdale: I do not know exactly what that question means.
    Commander Noble: When was the "Amethyst" last in contact with His Majesty's representative?
    Mr. Dugdale: She is constantly in contact by wireless.

    Naval Constructors (Salaries)
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomasasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will publish the Report of the Eastham Committee on the conditions and terms of remuneration for the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors; and if he will make a statement giving the proposed new conditions and terms of remuneration which are to be offered to the Corps.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): The report of the Eastham Committee is a confidential document intended only for the advice of the Board of Admiralty. As my noble Friend has indicated in another place, it is hoped to make an announcement in the near future on the revised salaries of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Civil Lord aware that the findings in the Eastham Committee's Report are now nearly three years' old, and that this delay on the part of the Government in forming a judgment on those findings is not only delaying recruiting but resulting in highly qualified men now actually leaving the Corp?
    Mr. Edwards: I cannot quite accept the suggestion that this matter is delaying recruiting. On the last occasion I made a statement, I was able to show that there were more people in the Corps than there were three years ago. At the same time, we are getting on with our consideration of this very difficult problem as quickly as we can.

  WAR MEDALS AND STARS
  Captain John Crowderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what complaints he has received of the poor quality of the medals issued in respect of the last war, and particularly the Burma Star and the 1939–45 Star; and what metal is used for these stars.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): Some 13 million medals and stars have been delivered and the great bulk of these issued; so far, complaints have been received from two individuals. The answer to the second part of the Question is an alloy of copper (92 per cent.) and zinc (8 per cent.).
  Captain Crowder: Can the Economic Secretary say how the Burma Star compares in quality with the Mons Star of 1914? Is he aware that the British Legion have made several complaints about the poor quality of these stars and that some are sent out in such a jagged and unfinished state that recipients have cut their fingers when opening the box on receiving their medal?
  Mr. Jay: Judged from the volume of complaints I should think that it compares favourably. There was a much larger volume of complaints after the First World War.

  BUDGET (BOOKLET)
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the assurances given that the Economic Information Unit and the Central Office of Information would not be used to publish politically biased information, and in view of the biased nature of the publication entitled, "The Budget and your Pocket," he will issue instructions to have it withdrawn.
  Mr. Jay: No, Sir. The utmost care was taken by all concerned to ensure that this booklet gave the necessary popular information about Budget questions without political bias, and I can find in it no evidence of bias whatever.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As this pamphlet contains no mention of any criticism made of the Budget on either side of the House, and as it further goes on in one paragraph to justify its existence by saying that Socialist finance has provided good roads and good police, can the Economic Secretary say what its purport is if it is not intended merely to be Apologia pro Crippsia sua?
  Mr. Jay: This pamphlet does not contain criticism of anybody, either of the
  892
  Government or the Opposition. It contains facts and figures, and that is its purpose.
  Mr. Osborne: Is the Economic Secretary aware that the only correct statement in the whole booklet is in page 3, where it is stated that conditions in England today are not in fact as good as they were in 1938?

  ALDERMAN, DERBYSHIRE (ELECTION)
  Mr. Molsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the election of a new alderman of the Derbyshire County Council; whether, as councillors who have already been elected aldermen are not entitled to vote at a subsequent election for an alderman, he proposes to take action under Section 50 of the Representation of the People Act, 1948.
  Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend has no information about this election, but if the suggestion is that it was irregular, the proper way to question it is by an election petition.
  Mr. Molson: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Socialist majority elected so many Socialist aldermen, that they were deprived of their majority for the time being on the council, and that in order to fill the only vacancy all those who had already been elected aldermen voted, having carefully abstained from accepting office until they had carried out this gerrymandering at the election?
  Mr. Younger: If those really are the facts it is open to any elector to take the necessary proceedings by way of petition.

BILL PRESENTED
AUXILIARY AND RESERVE FORCES BILL,
"to amend the law relating to the territorial army, the royal auxiliary air force, the naval and marine reserves, the army reserve and the air force reserve; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Alexander; supported by Mr. Shinwell, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Dug-dale; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1949–50.
  Motion made, and Question proposed:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £112,991,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950, for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office, including telegraphs and telephones and a grant in aid." [£54,000,000 has been voted on account.]—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

  TELEPHONE CHARGES
  3.38 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: May I raise a point of Order with you, Major Milner, before I start; and that is to express the hope that you will find it possible to allow a rather wide Debate on this Vote, not so much on the Post Office side—because this is not a regular Past Office Supply Day—but on the general financial side, as we are proposing to discuss the increased charge announced by the Chancellor in the Budget statement. Therefore, there are certain reactions with regard to the national finances as opposed to the administrative business of the Post Office.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I rather think the problem is solved in the direction that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would wish. The House will remember that we were intending to proceed by Bill so far as the rentals were concerned. We have examined the matter further, and we find that it will be preferable, for various reasons, to proceed with it administratively, because contracts are involved. Therefore, the Bill will not be proceeded with, and so far as that aspect of the matter is concerned the consideration for ruling this matter out from the Debate on the ground that legislation is pending will no longer apply.
  Captain Crookshank: That was not the point I was making at all. I happened to be aware of that fact and what I wanted
  894
  to point out was that we desired to discuss the general effect of these charges on the general financial situation; indeed I warned the Treasury that that was our intent. I hope therefore that it will be possible to roam over a larger area than if the matter were a Post Office one.
  The Chairman: In reply to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I would point out that this is an Opposition day and I understood that their wish was to discuss the question of telephone charges and rentals. It is true that the whole of the Post Office Vote is down and hon. Members would be strictly in Order in raising other matters. I hope the Debate will be restricted to the matter of telephone rentals and charges, and I must reserve the discretion of the Chair with regard to any substantial widening of the Debate although perhaps the Chair would not be too pernickety.
  Captain Crookshank: We shall do our best. Before I start I should like to make it clear—
  Mr. Scollan: May we have a point cleared up by the Leader of the House?
  The Chairman: There really is no point of Order arising out of this. There had been some doubt as to the procedure by which the telephone charges and rentals were to be brought into force—whether it was by legislation or not—and that point has been disposed of.
  Mr. Scollan: These increases are to be absorbed in the Measure we are dealing with today?
  The Chairman: We are not dealing with any Measure today.
  Captain Crookshank: I should like to make it clear why we have put down this Vote for discussion today. It is because this is the only opportunity that the House or a Committee of this House has got for taking a specific vote on the issue of the increased telephone and postal charges announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To that extent, therefore this is not a Post Office Debate at all. It is incidental that these charges are on the Post Office services, but this Debate has nothing to do with the Post Office. It is really a Debate on part of our national finances for the year for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took responsibility in his Budget Statement.

  895
  I must say that I am rather distressed not to see any of the Treasury Ministers present, because I specifically asked that one at least should be in attendance. Indeed, this is their business and not that of the Postmaster-General. I hope that I am not in any way derogating from the position of the Postmaster-General, but I am perfectly certain that an increase of the charges of the nature proposed in the Budget is something completely contrary to the normal policy of the Post Office.
  I can say that with all the more authority having been four years at the Treasury and two and a half years at the Post Office. Therefore, I have some considerable background information of Post Office views in matters of this kind which I do not suppose have been completely revolutionised under the present administration. I do not promise it to the right hon. Gentleman here and now, but it may very well be that during the remaining Supply Days we might want a general Debate on the Post Office, though that is not in issue today. I do not propose to discuss, for example, salaries, wages and all the other problems which one would discuss on such a Debate.
  I want to limit myself to a discussion why these very heavy increases are to be made. I take as my text, which one ought to start with, words in column 2102 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 6th April. They are from the Budget statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, having described various other changes, such as those on light wines, matches and football pools, then went on to say:
  "I"—
  That is the operative word—
  "I have also come to the conclusion that there should be an increase in the charges for the telephone service."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "I, the Chancellor, have come to the conclusion." Then he said:
  "The Committee is aware of the great pressure there has been, and is, upon this service."
  Then he added:
  "The Postmaster-General has agreed to assist me by making an increase in charges."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2102.]
  That may mean much or little. In fact, the Postmaster-General must agree to assist because the charges can only be made by the Postmaster-General's order
  896
  under the authority of his warrant. It is for that reason that we must discuss this matter in this rather cumbersome, technical, Parliamentary form today. The changes in the telephone charges did not appear as a Resolution on Budget Day. Even if they had done, under the new procedure we could not have amended or discussed them. The orders which the Postmaster-General lays are not Statutory Instruments. We cannot discuss them either. In fact, the only way in which we can get at the Government at all on this problem is to put down the Vote of the unfortunate Postmaster-General and ask for decision upon that. Anyone will realise that in doing so we are not tilting at the Postmaster-General at all. It is merely that he is the instrument by which this particular financial action has to be taken. Says the Chancellor:
  "I have … come to the conclusion."
  He has to rely on the assistance of the Postmaster-General to make the increases because that is the only way in which they can be made.
  The increases are very great. There has been much discussion about other parts of the Budget, but this is the only occasion on which we can discuss this part. The changes, which represent an increase in a full year on the telephone charges of £8,100,000, are not nugatory. On top of that there are changes which I will refer to later in postal charges amounting to £600,000, making a grand total of £8,700,000, though in point of fact in this year, owing to the various delays which are administratively impossible to avoid, the extra receipts will only be £3 million. That is a very big increase upon what is a national service.
  I suppose that it has always been a matter of argument how far one could, or could not, call the Post Office a nationalised industry or a nationalised service. In point of fact, unlike some of the more recently nationalised industries, the Post Office has recently been showing an operational surplus of considerable magnitude. We are fortunate enough to have got back to a period of commercial accounts which give one some idea of the best estimates and details which can be made up for so complicated a matter. We can get a very good idea of how things have been going. Of course, they are a

  897
  year late, but I do not suppose that the trend has altered very much in the case of income from telephones since the conclusion of the year 1947–48. If they have, no doubt we shall be told, but I must assume something for the purpose of my argument. Therefore, I base my remarks upon the 1947–48 figures in the commercial accounts.
  There one finds on page 29 that the operating profit for telephones alone was £19 million. A figure is worked out on the capital invested in the business, and the final result shows a telephone account surplus for 1947–48 of £10,500,000. Some may object because I have merely picked out telephones from the general accounts of the Post Office. Some may say that we must consider the Post Office as a whole. They may say, "We know quite well that the telephones have done well; we know equally well that the telegraphs have, as usual, lost." I do not use the words "as usual" in a derogatory sense. It is inevitable in the nature of the service. If that argument is to be taken, let us look at the complete general account which is on page 17. That gives the operating profit for the whole of the postal services as £28,250,000. Removing the interest charges, the notional charges, and so on, the whole Post Office surplus for the year was £19,500,000.
  One can either argue from the basis of a £10,500,000 surplus for telephones alone or a £19,500,000 surplus for the whole postal service. These are very big figures. Surely, in the case of services such as are rendered by the Post Office, the indication is that they would lead to some reduction in charges to the people—to the consumers—unless the Postmaster-General or the Government foresaw something dreadful. It is only through this House that the consumers case can be put in regard to Post Office matters. There is here no series of consumers' councils, not that they prove very effective in other cases which have arisen during the lifetime of this Parliament; but there is nothing of that sort so far as Post Office matters are concerned.
  When one sees an overall surplus of £19,500,000, and a surplus on telephones of £10,500,000, I think anyone is entitled to say to the Post Office that, somehow or other, they should reduce their charges. They may have decided to reduce telephone charges or postal charges. They
  898
  may have done a whole lot of things, but what they, or rather the Government, ought not to do is to come along and say, "That is all right; we are now going to increase the charges still further, because I"—that is, the Chancellor—"have decided that we must get another £8,700,000 from the Post Office in the full year."
  It strikes me as very strange, when I remember what the Chancellor was saying only last Wednesday night in the most extraordinary speech he has given us so far. Whether it was the Dr. Jekyll or the Mr. Hyde who was speaking I do not know, but when speaking that night he expressed a great number of extraordinary views. One of the things he did say was this:
  "It is quite a false conception to consider that it is necessary to make a profit out of any industry, except under a capitalist system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1949: Vol. 465, c. 572.]
  I suppose that that is a reply to the criticism of the great losses which have been accumulating in the nationalised industries. If it is not necessary to make a profit in these nationalised industries, I ask the Chancellor why it is necessary to add to the charges in an industry which, as I have shown from the commercial accounts for the last year for which figures are available, has an actual surplus of £19,500,000. It seems to me to be a most extraordinary line to take, because I imagine that this must be considered as forcing a still higher profit out of the service of the Post Office.
  It is quite true that this has been done before. It was done indeed in 1940, when I was Financial Secretary to Lord Simon, but it was quite clearly laid down at that time that it was done for war purposes alone, and it was not only this item that was picked out, but there was a general increase in charges practically over the whole field of Post Office affairs. If anybody cares to look up the reference, as I have done, they will find that the then Chancellor was saying:
  "It should be made quite clear that these increases are forced upon us solely as a means of supplementing wartime revenues."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1940; Vol 360, c. 73.]
  That is a different picture, and I may add that there is a further reason, which is not a confidential reason, because it is in fact referred to in the Comptroller

  899
  and Auditor-General's statement on last year. It is that a number of the charges were definitely made in order to deter unnecessary private use in war-time. Everybody can remember that, because of the great pressure on the telephones at that time. It was desirable as far as possible that mere chit-chat conversations should be cut down, and that was one of the ways envisaged in both wars—to raise charges in order to counter-balance the cheap and free postages which were available for the troops. It was for that reason that it was decided to raise the ordinary postage rates for letters and in order to try to reduce their volume.
  But that was quite a different position to this position today, and I may add that the scale of the thing was entirely different too, because what Lord Simon was dealing with was an increase of the surcharge to 15 per cent., while here we are talking about a 50 per cent. surcharge. If the Government bring forward the idea that they are doing it because it has been done before, that will not carry very much conviction with the ordinary users of the telephone and postal services. It will not do merely to say that it happened in 1940, because, as I remember perfectly well, it was done then specifically for the reason that it was war-time, to act as a deterrent and to increase wartime revenue. As a matter of fact, the proposal went through with comparatively little criticism.
  On this occasion, however, I must point out a rather curious statement made by the Chancellor in his Budget statement, and I am not going to try to remember all the Chancellor said in that speech. He did say:
  "The Committee is aware of the great pressure there has been and is, upon this service."
  That is, the telephone service. Then the Chancellor referred to the Postmaster-General having agreed to assist him in increasing the charges, and he added the words:
  "which may also help to reduce the pressure of demand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2102.]
  I hope we shall be told on which horse the Government are really riding this time. Are they trying to make some gesture which is going to deter people from using
  900
  the telephones or from applying for telephones, or are they merely after the money?
  If it is the Postmaster-General's desire that people should not use the telephone or apply for new telephones, it seems to me to be a very odd way of going about it. Like most other things, it is a question of the law of supply and demand. It is quite true that the increase in telephones—I take the official figures—in 1947–48 was 330,000, which is a very big figure on the achievement of which, in the difficulties in which we live, I congratulate the Post Office but, at the end of the war there were still outstanding 440,612 applications, to which one is entitled to add the additional number of applications coming from those people who were temporarily using shared telephones. In that way, one might get a figure of anything like 500,000 applications outstanding. That is very inconvenient for the Minister and his Department, and it is very inconvenient for Members of Parliament, because they are constantly being asked whether they can do anything with the Government to get telephones for their constituents.
  Is it the policy of the Minister that this pent-up demand is out of the reach of his Department, because if so it seems to me to be a most extraordinary policy for a nationalised State industry. I should have thought he would want to spread his good service as far as he could, and of course by spreading it to increase the general turnover. We know quite well that the demand for telephones has gone up. There is nothing very mysterious about it, because it is one of the modern conveniences which an increasingly large number of people find it necessary to have, and the demand is developing in a number of industries, such as agriculture. It is also due to the changing way in which business is done, the decreasing use of local markets and the increasing demand by messages and orders from a distance, and all that kind of thing, quite apart from the telephone habit which must have been engendered in hundreds and thousands of people through their military service, where everything was done on the telephone. Therefore, these people had the idea that if they could afford it they would have a telephone in their own homes when they returned.

  901
  The policy of the Minister ought to be to try, as far as possible, to meet that demand and not place a deterrent on the use of the telephone. Let him overcome his difficulties, and not clamp down enormously increased charges on this service. Again, I am sorry that there is no Minister from the Treasury present, because it seems to me that the Chancellor has suddenly realised the figures of the commercial accounts—probably he had not thought of them before, because they were published a little while ago—and thinks that here is another golden goose. But these golden geese are not laying all the eggs that had been hoped for, and it may be that this is a very bad mistake.
  I wish to say a word or two on the other changes because they are of importance—the increase in the postal charges to the value of some £600,000 in the full year. Of course, that is a very much smaller affair than this big increase in the telephone charges. The Chancellor announced them as two minor adjustments; one was an increase in the registration charges for letters and parcels by a penny, and, the other, an increase in the charge for printed papers for overseas destination of a halfpenny for the first weight step. What does that mean? On the first adjustment, that concerning registered letters and parcels, I should like to say that I know what a difficulty the tremendous increase in the registration of letters and parcels has been in recent years. I may say, in parenthesis, that I am extremely obliged to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—one of the three Ministers concerned, and who has just come into the Chamber—for coming along, but I am sorry he has missed the best things I have to say; best, because they were the first, and I do not propose to repeat them all now. I do not know whether he has come by registered parcel post this afternoon, whether he got lost on the way, or whether no one could be found to give a receipt for him. For long there has been increasing difficulty about the volume of registered post. I know that. It may be that this is meant to check it to some extent. If that is so, I should not think that it was enough; I should have thought it just a tiresome addition.
  With regard to the second increased charge, that on overseas destination
  902
  papers, I should have thought that a very foolish way of making money. It is a very nugatory sum to start with, and I should have thought it ought to be our endeavour as a nation to try to send overseas as many of our printed papers as we could, because, whatever they refer to technically, maybe it is something which is of use to us if the right things are written on the printed papers. I doubt whether that small increase will necessarily have much effect in reducing the volume of the registered letter and parcel services. I would hazard the guess that to make two such little increases must be, administratively, extraordinarily inconvenient, because it means that every person at every counter in this country has to bear in mind two changes. The people who work at the counters have to work hard in order to keep the enormous amount of facts and figures at their finger tips, and, unless one is going to make something useful out of it, it seems to me unnecessary. But I suppose it is the desire of the Chancellor to get some more money.
  I ask the Government to say definitely whether the object of all these three changes—I have purposely not dealt with the details of the telephone ones—is to reduce the user. Are these really deterrent charges as they were at the time of the increases in 1940? Of course, if they are, we shall have an argument to make about that, but if that is not in mind, if it is merely a desire—Oh, the right hon. Gentleman has gone again; it is very difficult to address an argument to the Treasury when one does not know where it is at a given moment, but I assume that it will return. I repeat that if the argument is that this is a deterrent in order to reduce the user, we shall know how to face that one. If, on the other hand, it is to get more revenue, as I imagine it must be from the words of the Chancellor.
  "I have also come to the conclusion that there should be an increase …"
  then I, and I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends, protest most vigorously against it. The modern doctrine is that taxation ought to be raised by increased charges for basic services. No one can deny that the telephone today is a basic and essential service to commerce, to industry, to the professions, and, indeed, to great masses of private individuals who are still allowed and

  903
  entitled to deal with their own private affairs by themselves. Let them pay their way, certainly; let us not take any action, as in the case of coal and those other nationalised industries, which is going to mean a charge on the taxpayer because those nationalised industries cannot pay their way. I am not suggesting anything of that sort, but I am suggesting that in that account (the amount which it has long been decided should remain in Post Office hands for their own development, having been dealt with) roughly speaking outgoings and income should be somewhere near equal.
  If there are any losses, that is another matter, but we are not dealing with losses; at least, the Chancellor did not justify his proposals on the grounds that there was going to be a great loss of Post Office revenue and that, therefore, it was necessary, here and now, to increase it in order to face that difficulty. But when there is a surplus, and one of such a magnitude as I have indicated, then I affirm that it ought to go in relief of charges, or, if there is a bad time coming, let us do what prudent industries do and put it to reserve for use when the bad time comes, but do not let us increase charges now for purely fiscal reasons. I suppose the Chancellor cannot help himself for the reason that he has got this enormous total tax revenue of £3,632 million. That is what he wants, so he thinks he has to clutch at the Post Office to get some £8 million out of that huge sum.
  We have said over and over again that that figure ought to be cut down. We say that expenses must be cut rather than new burdens added. It is no accident that the second part of today's Debate will be devoted to the expenses of the C.O.I., the information services, because I think it will be quite clear to anybody who attends to what is said then that the £3 million, which is all that is expected this year from these high charges, could well be saved on the bill which is to be presented later this afternoon. If the Government were to cut down to the extent of £3 million or £4 million on the fantastic expenditure of the Central Office of Information, then these increases would not be necessary and we would not be putting this extra burden on industry, on finance, on the professional man, on the doctor, and on the private citizen;
  904
  there would be more than enough in that Estimate in which to make cuts sufficient to prevent these increases for which, as I see the picture, I cannot blame the Postmaster-General. We have to reduce his Vote on this—or try to—because that is the only way in which we can make our protest. Because it is the Government's foolish policy to hamper this vital service, we deliberately move to reduce the Vote, and so we point the moral; the tale need not be further adorned.
  I beg to move, "That Subhead A, Salaries, etc., be reduced by £100."
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: I find myself in some embarrassment in catching your eye, Major Milner, because I am in agreement with a great deal of what has been said by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). At the same time, as we have before us the accounts of a nationalised industry which has succeeded in making a substantial profit during the year, I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might have had the grace to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on the result. So often have we had from the other side attacks upon the nationalised industries because of their failure to make a profit, or on the supposition that they will not make a profit, that when the occasion for congratulation arises I think it might be forthcoming.
  I share the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's view when I tell the Postmaster-General that anything I may say in criticism of the policy which the Government propose in connection with the raising of the telephone charges is no criticism of him or of his administration of the Post Office which he has so ably handled and which has brought about such successful results. However, I do attack the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to seek the consent of the Postmaster-General to raise the telephone charges, because I think it is wrong in principle.
  It is wrong in principle on two grounds. If the purpose of raising these charges is, as was intimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although not definitely stated by him as being the sole reason, to prevent the further expansion or to slow down the further extension of the telephone service, then the principle

  905
  is certainly wrong, because here is a tax being imposed to restrict consumer use, and that, surely, is wrong in principle. If that is not the reason, and if the purpose is simply to bring in revenue to the Treasury, then the principle is wrong because it is one of milking a nationalised industry to swell revenue at the expense of the consumer. I am thoroughly opposed to that principle, and fortunately it is one which by the legislation concerning other nationalised industries is prevented from occurring.
  As to the first principle, surely it is a retrograde step. Here we have had a reasonable expansion in the telephone service since the war. The extension, as far as local calls are concerned, is something in the neighbourhood of 30 per cent. compared with pre-war, which, in view of the expansion of production in this country, does not seem to be an outstanding development or one which requires having a brake applied. Even with this expansion, I think I am correct in saying that this country is still a long way behind many other countries in the development of telephone use. That is certainly the case when we compare this country with the Scandinavian countries and the United States of America.
  There are other ways of putting the telephone service at the disposal of those who at the moment are unable to obtain the telephone. The Postmaster-General, quite rightly, is endeavouring to popularise the sharing of the telephone service. That could be expanded to a considerable extent. As far as I am aware, in this country at the moment, sharing the telephone involves two subscribers using one telephone. As the Postmaster-General is well aware, in the United States there are often five, six or seven people sharing the same telephone line. I should have thought that we could extend the telephone service considerably on that basis, particularly in the rural areas.
  I should add that from the capital investment point of view, surely there must be other services which could have been tackled before the normal development of the telephone service was attacked. I think it is a mistaken approach by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems that he has a mistaken idea that this is a luxury and not a necessity, that this is something which can be cut down without affecting the industry of the country or
  906
  the welfare of the community as a whole. Today the telephone is a necessity and not a luxury. It may be more of a nuisance, particularly to Members of Parliament, than a pleasure, but it is a nuisance which we have to tolerate.
  There is a danger that once these charges are increased they will never come down. All our experience of taxation is that once taxation is increased for the purpose of bringing in revenue, or even to prevent consumer use, it is never reduced. We have had that experience with the Purchase Tax which, in the first place, was imposed not as a revenue producing tax but to prevent the consumption of consumer goods. We have had the experience with the Road Fund for which hon. Members opposite were responsible, and we have had other experiences with the Post Office. During the war the postage was increased, and even before the war postal charges were increased, but I have never known them to be reduced. Therefore, I fear that this increase in telephone charges, for whatever reason, will become a permanent increase and the present users of the telephone can have very little hope of a reduction in the charges in their lifetime.
  Surely, from the financial point of view this increase is not necessary. As the right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough pointed out, the profits of the Post Office last year were extremely good. They were in the neighbourhood of £19 million, the telephone service itself bringing in a surplus of some £10 million. I would add that in some respects the Post Office can be accused of profiteering.
  I should like an explanation from my right hon. Friend on this point; I see in the commercial accounts of the Post Office that in accordance with arrangements the Post Office deduct 6 per cent. from the wireless licence revenue for the expense of issuing wireless licences and other work which the Post Office carry on in connection with the B.B.C. In the accounts £670,000-odd is credited to the Post Office, but of this sum more than half, £362,000, is included as expenses of local post offices to cover the issue and renewal of wireless licences. Taking into account that there are some 11 million wireless licences and that their issue costs £363,000, on my calculation it means that to issue and to renew each wireless licence the Post Office are charging 7¾d. In other

  907
  words, they claim that it costs almost 8d. to issue a wireless hence. I cannot believe that it costs the Post Office that amount to issue a reminder and to renew a wireless licence or to issue a new one. Either the Post Office are overcharging the B.B.C. or they are inefficient in carrying out this service. I hope the Postmaster-General will correct me if I am wrong, but so far as I am able to work it out from these accounts, that is the correct figure, although I hope that I am wrong in my mathematics.
  It seems to me that the B.B.C. and the Post Office have both become victims of raids on their finances by the Treasury. As I said earlier, that is not possible with other nationalised industries, but it seems to me that we might warn the other nationalised industries that it would be better for them not to make a profit because, once they do make a profit, it looks as though the Treasury will be after their revenue. It will be far better for them, before making profits, to reduce their charges and to give the benefit to the consumers in order to prevent the Treasury from milking them of the profits.
  I want to tell my right hon. Friend that, personally, I shall find it very difficult to justify this increase in my constituency, Enfield. I say that because Enfield happens to have one of the worst telephone services in the country. That is because it still has a manual exchange. As far back as October, 1946, I ask my right hon. Friend's predecessor when work would be started on the conversion of the Enfield Telephone Exchange from manual operation to automatic operation and I was then informed that the work would start in 1948. In March of this year I again asked when the work would be undertaken and I was informed that work was already proceeding, so far as enlarging the building was concerned, but that it was impossible for my right hon. Friend to state when the conversion to the automatic system would take place and that the present building operations would not be completed until the end of next year. Can he tell me when the conversion will be completed?
  Recently I received a letter from one of my constituents, a local parson, who wrote to me as a result of the increase
  908
  in the telephone charges. He wrote as follows
  "We have lived here 18 years. When we came from Hampstead we were surprised to find that Enfield was still on the old system of the telephone. We were told that the automatic system was about to be introduced. Yet after so many years we appear no nearer to this improvement. Instead, we still have long delays, ear-splitting noises while 'they are trying to connect you,' and then often you take a long time to get the exchange to understand that you cannot wait. Now the already heavy charges are to be increased. Should not those who suffer such inconveniences be differentiated from those who enjoy the automatic system? Charge those who are on the automatic the increased amount if you must; which contention is by no means granted, seeing the great profits the Post Office makes."
  That is a letter which reached me during the weekend and it is typical of others which I have received from my constituents on this matter.
  I feel that until we have succeeded in completing the conversion of the local telephone exchanges from manual to automatic—and there are not a great number left unconverted—it is unfortunate to raise the charges as is now proposed. Certainly I feel that the Postmaster-General has no right to charge anybody in Enfield more for the use of the telephone. It has been suggested that it will be a deterrent to the installation of more telephones and, so far as that is concerned, I can assure my right hon. Friend that, in view of the poor service there, due to no fault of the operators but to the old-fashioned equipment, nobody in Enfield dreams of installing a telephone unless he has to have one installed for business or other reasons. It is no pleasure to use the telephone in Enfield. Of course, it is an absolute necessity for a great number of people, and that is why there is a long waiting list.
  I ask my right hon. Friend, are there not other ways of reducing the use of the telephone, if that is the purpose of raising the telephone charges? Could he not bring about some diminution of the use of local calls, if the postal services themselves were improved and cheapened? I welcome the improvements which have taken place in the working conditions in the Post Office since the present Government came into power and I welcome the steps that have been taken to make many long-needed improvements in many directions, but at the same time I deplore the deterioration in certain of

  909
  the postal services which have probably been made necessary because of the shortage of manpower or the desire not to increase the numbers employed by the Post Office.
  I think if there were better collections and delivery services it would be possible for many people to make use of the postal services rather than to resort to the telephone. They could be encouraged to do so. Let me put this example to the Postmaster-General, and again I refer to my own constituency of Enfield, which has a population of over 100,000. Industrially and commercially it is part of Greater London and the urban district extends as far as Enfield. For the purpose of the telephone, Enfield is in the London postal district. For the purpose of the postal services, however—and by that I mean mail deliveries and collections—Enfield is outside the London postal district. The result is that in Enfield there are only two deliveries a day, by comparison with the three deliveries a day in the rest of London. It seems to me that if the London postal district were extended to Enfield it would be possible for persons to be sure that correspondence sent in a morning would at least be delivered the same day. At the moment it is not possible to write any correspondence in Enfield or outside Enfield which will be delivered the same day; it is not delivered until the following day. In other words, although Enfield is less than 15 miles from Charing Cross the postal service in effect is a 24-hour service—or at best an overnight service—instead of a service providing for delivery the same day.
  As my right hon. Friend knows, he has received representations on this matter from the local Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Enfield Ratepayers' Associations. I ask him to reconsider this question of improving the postal services in these areas; it would benefit both business and the community as a whole and might also bring about the desired result of reducing the use of the local telephone services, if, in fact, that is the purpose he has in mind.
  I apologise for raising these points in this critical vein this afternoon. If these charges are necessary obviously we shall accept them but I do not feel that the Chancellor has yet sufficiently succeeded in explaining to us the reason for these increases. I hope that when my right
  910
  hon. Friend replies to this Debate he will be able to explain clearly to us the purpose of these increases and that he will be able to convince us of the necessity for them. For the moment, I must say that I do not feel they are necessary. I regret this retrogressive action—for that is what I consider it—which it has been found necessary to take. It is unfortunate that a Government which all the time is attacking restrictive policies and endorsing expansionist policies should, on this occasion, itself embark on a restrictionist policy.
  4.28 p.m.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: I agree with practically the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) and I am quite sure that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will also agree with him. He will not be alone in finding it difficult to justify in his Division this additional impost upon the taxpayer. Every hon. Member will find it difficult. I think even the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find it a little difficult to go to his Division and support these increased charges.
  The form of this Debate is very curious. There we see the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, sitting on that bench, quite satisfied with the profits of the Post Office. After all, he has made £10 million. He does not want to add to the charges; he will find it as difficult to explain as the hon. Member for Enfield, who sits behind him, and he does not want to go to the country in an attempt to justify the addition of £3 million. He already has £10½ million profits. More than that, he knows perfectly well that there is plenty of work for that money to do; he knows there are plenty of applications from rural areas, which are badly in need of a telephone, clamouring for telephones. Every division is alike. The right hon. Gentleman has many applications from my own division. He is quite ready and willing to listen but he cannot supply the telephones. Could not some part of that profit be devoted to supplying telephones in the rural areas?
  The hon. Member for Enfield claims that we have an expansionist Government. I do not agree with him that they are, and certainly this is a case of restriction. The Minister of Agriculture wants every assistance given to agriculture, and

  911
  I have no doubt that the Postmaster-General himself is willing to assist but the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts on this £3 million more as a handicap to the rural areas—for it is the rural areas that will feel this handicap first. It is not only agriculture that will feel it, but the medical services in the rural areas. They will feel this additional impost on telephones, and it will affect them far more than the medical services in the towns.
  It would be interesting to know on what principle the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposes this additional burden. What is the principle of this taxation? Does he wish to get more money? As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) pointed out, we are to have before us another Vote later on tonight, involving a huge sum of money which is being literally wasted, out of which far more than £3 million could be saved, without any additional burden on a much needed service. What kind of service does the Chancellor think he is rendering the country? I agree with the hon. Member for Enfield that if we support the Vote, it will be difficult to justify our action to our constituents.
  4.32 p.m.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: I too am puzzled by this proposed additional charge. I am particularly disturbed about its general effect on the whole of industry. All additional and increased costs of this sort, and they are numerous, will have a disastrous effect in the long run on the export trade. Everybody connected with business knows that it is becoming increasingly difficult, at an alarmingly fast rate, to obtain export business, and statements by Members of the Government show that they know it, too. Although this is a small increase of charge, nevertheless, it is one more of the numerous increases in costs that have to be met, and manufacturers are finding all these increased costs ever more difficult to meet. If the Government expect manufacturers in the British Isles to obtain essential export markets, which we vitally need, they should do their utmost to see that increased charges of this type are not imposed on industry as a whole. Such an increased charge has a very serious effect indeed.
  912
  Apart from that, however, the telephone service is a necessity in modern conditions. The Government have a monopoly of the provision of this service, and they are taking advantage of their monopoly in a way not foreseen years ago, and they are able to do so because they have no competitors. This proposed increased charge will put up the cost of living, precisely because the telephone service is a necessity. At the same time, by increasing costs to manufacturers, the Government are making difficulties themselves in achieving what they say must be achieved—increased production at lower costs. I feel, as others do, that the Post Office, instead of considering putting up charges, should consider reducing charges. It is realised by hon. Members in this Committee that it is necessary that even under nationalisation there should be a margin of profit. We, on this side of the Committee, do not disagree with that. However, the Post Office, so far as the margin of profit is concerned, is today in a very sound position.
  One cannot understand at all how anybody in present conditions can possibly justify such an increased charge. What is the purpose behind it? Is anybody going to gain by it? The increased revenue will be some £8 million, which represents only about 0.25 per cent. of taxation and expenditure in a year. That revenue could be obtained by a reduction in general expenditure in other services. If we were to put the comb through much of our general expenditure, we could easily save £8 million in no time. There is no gain to the country of any kind in putting up the telephone charges to obtain a revenue of a mere £8 million. There are many expenditures that should be reduced; there is one that we shall be discussing later on tonight, and there are others. So it is difficult to understand how the Post Office can justify all the upheaval that is to be caused to manufacturers and others by putting up the telephone charges, which will only make things more difficult yet for the trading community of the country. To a business of a normal size this extra charge will amount to another £500 a year on expenditure. That is a tremendous amount.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): It can be met out of profits.
  Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman can hardly say it comes out of profits. The Socialists all the time say that increased charges can be set against profits, but no Government with any commonsense can fail to see that unless we get the prices down we cannot increase our export trade, and that prices will not come down if basic costs continue to go up. Manufacturers are selling their goods abroad at under cost today to try to obtain markets abroad and to keep them. Cannot the Government realise that somebody has to pay these costs they suggest imposing, and that it is not a question of profits? How can the Government justify this profiteering on their part by increasing their profits? They are proposing to double the profits the Post Office has made on this service. If private enterprise, upon which this country flourishes today, makes a profit the Government think charges can go up, but with their own nationalised undertakings they are prepared to make more and more profits. I cannot see how anybody can justify this increase of charge.
  However, apart from all that, one of the excuses given for this increase is that it will restrict use of the telephone. Are we in a modern world today or are we not? Are the Government suggesting that in their monopoly business of the telephone service they propose to stop people using the telephone? Is it practicable for people not to use the telephone? Are not all Members of this Committee cluttered up with complaints from people who want the telephone and cannot get it? We all know that people want the telephone because they need the telephone. The telephone service is a part of ordinary everyday life. People want the telephone for private and personal life and they want it for business. The Post Office, however, want to restrict the use of the telephone.
  Mr. Hobson: Does the hon. Member realise that one in three of the telephones which have been placed in the homes and businesses of Great Britain has been provided since the end of the war?
  Mr. Harris: I am the first to congratulate the Post Office on what has been achieved, but in saying that the Government justify the proposed increased charge because it will restrict the use of the telephone, I am repeating only what
  914
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, and his excuse.
  The Government propose to put up the charges to cut down applications for the telephone. How can it be justified? If the suggestion is to put up costs in order to reduce the number of applicants for telephones, that is a rather peculiar twist of thought. I feel that there can be no justification for that when the Government have a flourishing business in the monopoly of the Post Office service today. By increasing these charges they are making a handsome profit out of the public, and they are not giving any better service in return. One excuse that could be given for these increased charges would be a better telephone service—
  Mr. Hobson: A reduction of time in answering telephone calls and an improvement in trunk services have been going on continuously since the end of the war.
  Mr. Harris: One is not denying that certain improvements have taken place, but there is not a Member of the Government, I suggest, who has not suffered from time wasted in trying to put through telephone calls. Time is vital to trade, and this service of the Post Office could be much improved and much time saved. I say that the only justification for the increased charges would be a better service, and the Government cannot give a better service.
  Mr. Daines: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I put through a call to this House from the Inland Revenue Department, I was actually answered before I had dialled the final number?
  Mr. Harris: The answer to that is that the Government were probably anxious to obtain the taxation provided by the hon. Member and were only too anxious to take his message. I defy the Government to oppose the suggestion that the only justification for increasing the telephone charges to the people of this country and to the manufacturers of the country would be to give them a better telephone service and save time now wasted. I realise that the Government have a difficult job to defend these increased charges, which, I am sure, the Postmaster-General himself does not really believe should be imposed upon

  915
  the people. It is a ridiculous mistake. Why, therefore, do the Government not put the mistake right?
  4.43 p.m.
  Mr. Viant: I think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Crookshank), who opened this Debate, is to be congratulated. We are all labouring this afternoon under a great handicap because we have had no reasons advanced for these increased charges. The opener of the Debate, as he was entitled to do, has hazarded a few guesses why the increase has to be brought into operation. I intervene because I shall be pestered by constituents, and more especially by the chamber of commerce, about these increased charges. I happen to be situated in a constituency where one exchange is obsolete. That does occur in various parts of London. On the other hand, we have an exchange which is entirely up-to-date. I can well imagine that those who are on the old exchange will be protesting vigorously about these increased charges. Even had we an improved service throughout London, I should very much doubt the justification for these charges.
  Unfortunately, since I have been in the House, I have noticed frequent increases in charges placed upon the Post Office by Chancellors of the Exchequer. Far too many Chancellors have treated the postal system of this country and the Post Office as being something like a much cow. They have been prepared to look upon the Post Office as a means of raising revenue. I would prefer it to be looked upon more as a service to the community. I have not the least doubt that protests will be raised. I well remember when I was sitting on the Front Bench partly responsible for the Department, entreaties being made from all sides of the House for a policy to be adopted by the Department to educate the general public on the advantages that would accrue from the installation of the telephone. A considerable amount of education has been done by the Department in that respect. At the moment the general public are somewhat telephone conscious. Now they will be made doubly conscious in the sense that they are going to be compelled to pay an additional charge for that service.
  At the same time, the Government have been entreating each and all, and
  916
  especially business people, to speed up in every way possible their business methods. When I was in the postal Department, we were using as one of the arguments for the installation of the telephone the speeding up of business as a means of effecting economies. We all know that the advantages of the telephone far outweigh the disadvantages. I deplore the Government's policy in increasing the charge of the telephone service. Furthermore, I deplore the fact that the Postmaster-General has to accept responsibility.
  Unfortunately, successive Ministers at the Post Office in turn have become painfully aware of the fact that they can in no sense of the word determine policy. Policy in the main is determined by the Treasury. That is not helpful to any concern which is nationalised or which is accepted as a national service. It is true that the Post Office has more freedom today as the result of the findings of the Bridgeman Committee but, nevertheless, the Department is to a certain extent ham-strung. This is well brought out today by the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not the Postmaster-General to increase charges.
  I speak as one who was in the Department and who smarted on many occasions because I had to carry out a policy with which I was not entirely in agreement, and which I did not feel was in accordance with the desires or the interests of the general public. I think that this decision is a bad one, and I make no apology for saying so. Every inducement should be given to people to instal the telephone. I appreciate the difficulties from the point of view of material and labour today, but they are temporary, and the more conscious we can make our business people of the value of the telephone service, the better it will be for the country in general.
  I hope that it is not too late for this to be reconsidered, and I make an appeal that it should be reconsidered. I shall listen with considerable interest to the reasons advanced in justification of this increase. I think that the disadvantages from this increased charge will outweigh the financial advantage the Chancellor assumes he will obtain. We have not as yet, in any sense of the word, reached the limit of the demand for the telephone; there are great possibilities to be

  917
  expected from the installation of this service. We were aiming at its installation in four out of every six households. We wanted to copy what has been done in America and in some of the Scandinavian countries, but this increased charge will be a deterrent. Once the labour and materials difficulties are overcome, the possibilities are good, because we have already made the general public telephone conscious, and the demand is going up in leaps and bounds.
  4.52 p.m.
  Lieut-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I doubt whether there is one hon. Member who, given a free vote, would vote in favour of this increased telephone charge. It is an unjustifiable imposition. The charges are already extremely high, and we know that they were made so high only because of war conditions. If there was one thing which appeared absolutely clear to almost everybody, it was that one of the first concessions made by the Government would be a reduction in the charge for the telephone service. Instead, the Government have increased the charge. Far more than the sum the Chancellor will get out of this, could be obtained, as no doubt will be shown in a later Debate today, more easily and effectively by reducing the expenses of another service.
  I speak tonight because I am continually being asked by my constituents to get them put on to the telephone. Unfortunately, I have consistently failed in doing so. Not very long ago I, as I suppose did every hon. Member, received from the Postmaster-General an interesting brochure explaining very clearly why he was unable to compete with the demand made upon him for telephones. In that brochure there was nothing to suggest that the best way of effecting his purpose would be to increase the charge. I never heard a more absurd proposal than the one now being made by the Chancellor, and his defence of it has certainly not been very effective so far. In the interests of the whole community—businessmen, private persons, professional men, and more especially the doctors—I trust that this charge will not be increased.
  I know from painful experience what an enormous expense the telephone is nowadays, and I have no wish to see that
  918
  expense nearly doubled, as it would be by this proposed charge. I am certain that it is not in the interests of the country to make this increase at the present time, and I trust that hon. Members, on the Government side at least, will succeed in inducing the Chancellor to withdraw this proposal.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Wallace: I should like to begin by adding my congratulations to the Postmaster-General for the development which has taken place in the Post Office since the war, not excluding the development there has been on the telephone side. At the same time, I must also express my sympathy with him that he should have to come to the Committee and advocate a policy of this kind. I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), that it is unsatisfactory to discuss this policy question under these conditions, because we cannot demand from the Postmaster-General an explanation or a justification for this increase, feeling that he is solely responsible for this policy.
  I, like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, am very glad that the commercial accounts have appeared. I cannot say that I regard them as satisfactory; I do not think they are as complete as they might be; I still regret the absence of the Postmaster-General's annual report, and I still hope we shall get it. I mentioned those two items because I want the House of Commons to have a day set aside for the full discussion of the report and the accounts of the Post Office, so that we have an opportunity of expressing our opinion on general policy.
  Captain Crookshank: And of all nationalised industries.
  Mr. Wallace: I want it for all. I think this House of Commons has a duty to the consumer, and we on these benches would not hesitate to accept our responsibility to the consumer, even under the nationalised industries. I accept nationalisation because I think that in the end it gives and will give the consumer a better service. At least, that is one of my tests for it.
  While I congratulate the Postmaster-General, I am sure he will pay tribute to the staff for the part they have played in maintaining and developing the ser-

  919
  vices since the war, under very great difficulties. During the week-end one of my constituents said to me: "Is it beer or telephones?" I found some difficulty in answering. Let the Government be quite clear that there is great dissatisfaction with the Purchase Tax and with this proposal to increase the telephone charge. This is not a question of the profits of big business. There are 13 million householders in this country, and I hold the view that there ought to be a telephone in each household. I want each busy mother to have a telephone; she needs it. I am hoping to see a great extension of this service; I am sure my right hon. Friend shares my aspiration, and I shall be glad to hear from him today that this proposal will not restrict his plans for a wide development and extension of Post Office services. On the other hand, I must admit that if the desire is to extend the telephone service, then the imposition of this increase is a queer way of encouraging that extension.
  I say that this increase for the telephone service is not justified. Perhaps I shall be told that it is. I will deal with that later. If the increase is made solely in order to increase the revenue of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is using this service as an instrument for fiscal policy, then I dislike it and am opposed to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear that agreement from hon. Members opposite. This is not the occasion upon which to go back into the past, but I must observe that that is a view the party opposite has not always held. If the Opposition have been converted by the opinions expressed on this side, then I am glad. I hope the process of conversion will be rapid so that by 1950 they will be quite clear where they stand when we go to the electorate.
  I want to be clear on this. Will this help expansion of the service, or is it designed not only to reduce the number of applicants but to make people give up the telephone who are already enjoying it. Make no mistake, this will press very hard upon many ex-Service men who have opened up new businesses since the way. Their margin is very small; it is no use talking of big profits in this connection because they do not exist. This increased charge may mean giving up the telephone, and giving up the telephone means loss of business for some of
  920
  these men. My right hon. Friend knows that what I say is correct, because I have submitted cases to him, and he and the administration have been helpful.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made many speeches in the last 12 months, and I do not think I misrepresent him when I say that he has asked industry to reduce profits and prices and the workers not to press general wage demands. At the same time he has appealed for an increased output. An extension of the telephone service today for many small businesses would help in increasing the output of the country. This is a curious way it seems to me of encouraging people outside to adopt the policy advocated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on general economic considerations. The Chancellor puts up his prices and asks other people to reduce theirs. He asks labour not to press their demand but he presses his. We really ought to have a clear statement. Is there to be a reversal of policy, or what is the consideration? I take the view that this money could have been found in other ways.
  I would remind my right hon. Friend that he told the Post Office workers he regretted he had to reject their wage demands because of the wage policy of the Government as set out in the White Paper. Those demands went to arbitration and we are waiting the results. Is this increase in charges in contemplation of an adverse verdict? The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are real grievances in the service, and Members opposite who have been associated with the Post Office know that I speak the truth. The long incremental scales are a cause of discontent. To the young men and women who are being asked to give fully qualified service for much below the maximum, all this is meaningless. These young men cannot keep a home on such low rates.
  I could have suggested where some of the Post Office surplus might have been usefully used to provide an incentive and encouragement, and to promote that good will and understanding we want to see in the industry. There are other services which the country wishes to see improved. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend has them under consideration, and I expect they have given him a headache or two. This surplus might have been used in many ways

  921
  to improve the service and overcome the difficulties which might arise with irksome attendances and so forth.
  I shall continue to press for the Postmaster-General to have full freedom of control in his Department. I shall not be satisfied until he produces his accounts and report to this House and the House does not have to depend upon the Opposition for a discussion on the Post Office. Members opposite will not misunderstand me when I say that, because we cannot have a Debate unless the Opposition ask for a day's Debate on the Estimates. I regard that as completely unsatisfactory, and I do not think the country will like it either as a satisfactory method for discussing a nationalised industry.
  We have to face the position that circumstances have changed and that we have been the instrument in changing them. I do not think the Chancellor would come along and say that for his purposes there must be an increase in the price of gas, coal, transport or electricity. That would not be advisable, and I do not think it is advisable on this question. I want my right hon. Friend to have more freedom, and until the House has an opportunity to discuss the reports and accounts for each nationalised industry, I for one shall not be satisfied. I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies he will tell us the precise reason for this increase, and will relate it to the general policy of the Government now being advocated in regard to profits, prices, wages and output. As far as my constituents are concerned, this increase is very unpopular. The only explanation is that it is a measure to increase the revenue of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which will be as unpopular as other elements of the Budget.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: The hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. H. Wallace) has said that if this proposal is put forward as a method to promote the demand for telephones it is a very odd way of proceeding. I do not think there is any Member who would differ from him in that statement. But we have from the lips of no less a person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer the exact reason why this proposal has been put forward. I shall read only three sentences of the Chancellor's speech. Far from it being an odd way
  922
  of achieving a greater supply of telephones, it is expressly designed to stop the pressure of demand. These are the Chancellor's words:
  "I have also come to the conclusion that there should be an increase in the charges for the telephone service. The Committee is aware of the great pressure there has been, and is, upon this service. The Postmaster-General has agreed"—
  I do not suppose he could help it—
  "to assist me by making an increase in charges, which may also help to reduce the pressure of demand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2102.]
  That is the precise and express reason why these charges are being increased; in order to be a deterrent tax on the supply and use of the telephone.
  I wonder what Members opposite would have said if a Government of any other Party had proposed a great increase in a tax on communications. It is obvious that they would have condemned it. A tax on communications for the reasons that have been given on both sides is a bad tax. Not only is this a monstrous tax for the reasons that have been given, but there are one or two matters which I want to bring to the notice of the Committee which, in my view, make it worse. The telephone constitutes one of the earliest examples of nationalisation and the obtaining of a Government monopoly. I hope, in fact, I know, that the country will observe what happens with such a monopoly.
  The policy of the Government is first to make the telephone a necessity and then to tax it as a luxury. In regard to making it a necessity, some of my hon. Friends and I were worried about developments in the Summer of 1946, and we put certain Questions to the then Postmaster-General or Assistant Postmaster-General. I will mention one of the Questions which I myself put in a moment, but the reason why I put this Question was that I was alarmed by some of the very strange letters appearing in the Press from the acting General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers, who expressed the view that there should not be any late collections.
  The Question I put to the Assistant Postmaster-General at that time, who was the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke), will interest the Committee as a whole. I asked:

  923
  "whether he will give an assurance that the hours of collection and delivery of letters will be determined solely by the convenience of the public."
  The answer—and it is only fair that I should quote it in full—was:
  "My noble Friend's policy is, with due regard to the wider interests of the community, to strike a fair balance between the convenience of the public and the interests of the postal staff."
  In a supplementary question I asked:
  "Is there not a very obvious distinction between the question of hours and wages, on which the union is very properly consulted, and the question of what facilities should or should not be given to the public, on which the public and the Government alone are concerned?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1946; Vol. 425, c. 1361.]
  One of the things which has made the telephone a far greater necessity than ever before is the distressing absence of late collections and early deliveries. I remember very well, when I was living in the Temple, that I could post a letter up to 12.15 a.m. which would be delivered early the following morning in any part of London. That ability to post letters late was of the greatest use to industry and commerce. Let me mention another thing, the question of early deliveries in the morning. That service, likewise, is not nearly as good as it was. As a result, the telephone has been made much more of a necessity than it ever was before. Now, just at the moment when it is being made an absolute necessity by the policy of the Post Office, it is taxed as the greatest luxury. How can that possibly be justified by any principle of taxation?
  I am glad that objections to this tax have been raised from both sides of the Committee, and I hope and believe that the country will draw the lesson of what happens when a Government secures a monopoly and has immense power to raise prices, against which there is no remedy whatever, and then pursues a policy, which cannot be disputed, of making a thing a necessity and then taxing it as a luxury.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Roberts: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) on the speech he has just made because it brings out, once again, some of the fundamental dangers which are inherent in a
  924
  monopoly. We have heard a series of interesting interventions from Members on both sides of the Committee, and I think I am right in saying that every Member has asked the Government to reconsider their policy on this matter. I, too, want the Government to think again.
  We have heard that there is a surplus of £10½ million, and that the Government should reduce their charges. I want to put forward an alternative suggestion, and that is that the Post Office should provide better service for this extra money. If we are to vote this extra money the Postmaster-General should tell us that he will see that when he gets it he will use some of it to provide better service for people already on the telephone or awaiting a telephone. I think the right hon. Gentleman would be entitled to say that he intends to keep this matter within the control of his own Department, to say, "If I get this money I will undertake to provide better service."
  I wish to give some instances of complaints about the telephone service which I had from Sheffield, and to assure the right hon. Gentleman that none of his letters to me—and I have a considerable number—gives a really satisfactory answer. My hon. Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Frederic Harris) emphasised the need for industry to have an efficient and cheap telephone service of which people can take advantage at night. If the Postmaster-General thinks that business stops at five o'clock, and that people do not do any business at their own homes, he is wrong. For instance, it is vitally necessary for the manager of a cutlery firm in Sheffield to have a telephone in his own house. He works not only in his office, but also at home, after office hours. Indeed, many people are working seven days a week to further the cutlery export drive. The argument to me has been, "There is a telephone in the business, and there is no need for a telephone at home." That is entirely wrong—
  Mr. Hobson: We have not said that it is wrong to have a telephone in the house, but merely that it was impossible to provide one because there was not sufficient equipment available.
  Mr. Roberts: I do not wish to go through every letter I have received from

  925
  the hon. Gentleman's Department. I am coming to the arguments about materials and labour in a few moments. There is priority for business purposes, and I say that it is equally important for a business man to have a telephone not only in his office, but also in his house. It was to that argument that I was particularly referring.
  I wish to come now to the complacency of the Assistant Postmaster-General. The only words spoken so far in this Debate have been by the Assistant Postmaster-General, and some of the interventions which he made earlier suggest that he is viewing this matter with a certain amount of complacency. In some of the letters I have written to him I have pointed out the considerable delay that has arisen after the application for the installation of a telephone. There is the case of a man who applied for a telephone, first in March, 1941, while another wanted one installed on his business premises in January, 1940. Another with numerous associations applied in 1939, another with engineering connections in agricultural matters applied in 1940, and the manager of a cutlery firm has been waiting since 1943.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General told us that one in three applications had been met since the war. It seems to me that there is a very serious time lag if people are still waiting for the installation of a telephone from as long ago as 1940 or 1943. My request to the Postmaster-General is to use some of this money to give us a better service, and I would suggest that that can be done, particularly in Sheffield where there is a great deal of discontent with increased labour. That labour, in point of fact, is available for this type of work, particularly signals, line laying and installation. The Post Office Committee, with which the Chamber of Commerce are actively associated, protested to the Postmaster-General when the labour force was cut down nearly two years ago. So far as I can see there is no reason why that labour should not be put back, at any rate in the Sheffield area, to deal with these applications. There is a certain amount of material available, but what is missing at the moment is the labour to deal with that material. In certain areas there is switchboard space available but
  926
  the difficulty is labour. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us about the difficulty of labour, but that is a difficulty with labour on its present quota.
  Mr. Hobson: The hon. Gentleman is segregating the different letters. If there has been a shortage of labour, that has been stated, but in most cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his correspondence the shortage has been that of equipment and particularly of cable.
  Mr. Roberts: I am referring to the shortage of labour. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a large number of cases where there is a shortage of labour but not of materials, which I understand are available in addition to switchboard space. What I am suggesting is that in the Sheffield area the labour quota should be restored to what it was two years ago before it was cut down, and in that event a great deal of this work could be done. There is no reason why the Postmaster-General should not allow that quota level to be restored. I am not saying anything about arguments in favour of increasing it, but only of restoring it to the figure it was two years ago. He will have a very difficult task overcoming discontent if he puts up the charges in the Sheffield area and still keeps the low labour quota. I hope we shall have an answer on this matter when the right hon. Gentleman replies.
  There is a great deal of discontent, as has been said in all parts of the Committee. The service is not nearly as good as the Assistant Postmaster-General seems to think, although one would not blame the present staff who are operating it. I think they are doing a remarkably fine job, particularly in the Sheffield area, where they have always been most courteous. The whole of the restriction comes from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who will not provide the labour and materials which are necessary to carry out some of this essential work.
  With regard to materials—a point to which I wish to give some attention—we all realise that the Ministry of Supply enters into the matter, and it is difficult in a Debate of this character to reconcile the claims of exports, on the one hand, with the demands for home consumption, on the other. I would point out, however, that one of the serious bottlenecks—

  927
  if I may use an awkward expression—is being overcome, and supply is becoming easier. The prices of lead and copper have both gone down considerably in the last six months.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Only on the world market.
  Mr. Roberts: That brings in the iniquities of bulk purchase, and I will content myself with saying now that these materials are becoming available to those who are planning sufficiently far ahead. It is disgraceful that at the moment we should have such a restricted service from the centre apart from any increase in charges. I seriously ask the Postmaster-General to give full attention to the remark of the Assistant Postmaster-General in the Debate this afternoon,—"If you want better service let it come out of the profits." The Postmaster-General should give a better service out of the profits which he has already. In passing may I say, that remark was about the only sensible one made by the Assistant Postmaster-General this afternoon.
  I shall wind up by saying we have heard very little from the Government Benches to defend this increase in Government charges. We have had no reply to the excellent speech made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains borough (Captain Crookshank). It would have been easier in this Debate if we had had a reply earlier so that, instead of asking all these questions, we could have by our arguments nailed the fallacies which the right hon. Gentleman no doubt will put forward. We have to wait, and, like all the others who have spoken this afternoon and who are not satisfied with the position, I shall go into the Lobby against the Government unless very good reasons are given in explanation of the present unsatisfactory position.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Smith: I want to reply to one point made by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) that this was an example of what inevitably happens under nationalisation. If any service justified nationalisation surely it has been the telephone service. It appears to have escaped the recollection of the hon. and learned Member that the
  928
  telephone service of this country was nationalised, not by a Labour Government, but by one who shared the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Why was it necessary for that Government, which was hostile to public ownership, to nationalise the telephone service? It was inevitably driven to take that course because of the overcharging and the sacrificing of the interests of the business community by the private company which was in control or the service at one time. There was widespread dissatisfaction with the old National Telephone Company, and despite the Government's hostility to public ownership, that step had to be taken. The telephone service in Britain today is a considerable monument to the efficiency of public ownership.
  It has perhaps been overlooked that the Government telephone service does not enjoy a complete monopoly in this country. I am proud to be a member of an authority that has its own telephone service, and that service was initiated by the business people and commercial leaders of the City of Hull in hostility not to any Government service, but to the old private National Telephone Company. The introduction of the public service met with the approval of all sections of the community long before there was a Labour majority in this House or in the country. That authority was continued, by arrangement with the Government of the day from time to time, as an independent unit, operating in its own area.
  There have been similar local services in Southampton and, I believe, Glasgow. The Hull service is in the happy position of having ploughed back its margins and its profits. It has developed the service out of revenue and is therefore in a very strong financial position. I submit that there is an unanswerable case for the Minister. The locally-owned telephone service in Hull is in precisely the same position as the service run by the Minister at this time. The Hull service has been developed by the use of its resources and reserves, and it has avoided an increase in tariffs. Today, confronted with increasing costs on every hand, the Hull service is compelled to give attention to increasing its tariff. If a prosperous and go-ahead local authority which has strengthened its telephone service by the use of its margins for capital development

  929
  finds that it must increase its tariff, surely we ought not to complain if the Government service finds itself in a similar position. There is an unanswerable case, because of increases on every hand, why that should be done.
  Mr. H. Strauss: I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. S. Smith) for giving way to me. The case that he is now putting, as I understand it, is that increased charges would be justified on account of increased costs, but that is not the case which was put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The case put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that the charges were to be increased to reduce the pressure of demand. That is a totally different matter, as I am sure the hon. Member would agree.
  Mr. Smith: It has been recorded in HANSARD in a spech from the Postmaster-General that increasing costs would involve additional charges. I would take my stand with my colleagues here, if this were an impost for a revenue purpose, a general excise purpose, instead of for the telephone service. When one has in mind the generally increased charges of materials and components in every direction, one cannot avoid the acceptance of the case that an increased charge is justified. I submit to the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities that where a local authority has found itself in that position, having used its reserves for expansion and finding that it must now ask for additional revenue because of additional costs, that is a good example, and that the Minister finds that he must follow that example.
  How many things today have not increased charges attached to them? There are one or two directions where there is no increased charge, in particular, controlled rents. I am assailed almost daily by those who are interested in the increasing of rents because of increased costs. If there is a warrant for an increase in that direction, why not in the direction of the telephone service? Certainly the City of Hull have found it essential to move in that direction.
  5.34 p.m.
  Sir William Darling: We are having a very interesting discussion. I should like to follow the suggestion which was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the
  930
  Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). How is it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells the business community, who are in his opinion engaged in the making of large profits, that they must reduce their profits to give the public better value, yet when he has an enterprise under his own direction, the Post Office, it is not supposed to reduce its profits to give the public better value but to increase its charges? It seems a little difficult to understand. I am one of those clumsy people who heavily follow the instructions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am seriously contemplating cutting my profits and giving the public better value, but I am greatly discouraged when the Postmaster-General puts his thumb to his nose and spreads his fingers out. That is an unparliamentary gesture, but it is the position which I understand he takes up this afternoon. I feel disconcerted.
  The argument is that telephones cannot be extended to the public and to the business community at their desire, for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is shortage of materials and another is shortage of labour. I am able to say that there are more than 50,000 persons unemployed in Scotland. Perhaps the Minister will direct his attention in that direction. There are no functions of the Post Office, except those of Postmaster-General and Assistant Postmaster-General, that could not be discharged by ordinary men. There are scores and scores of thousands of men who in the Army learned to lay a telephone line, learned to work a switchboard, and to put a line from pole to pole or from roof to roof. They can fit the necessary wires to houses or factories. There is no shortage of labour. The labour there could easily be instructed and taught this art if the Postmaster-General were willing.
  Instead of this, we in the City of Edinburgh are being offered what are called party lines. They are very disagreeable to the parties. Good neighbours who hitherto got along in peace, harmony and felicity, are now listening to each other's gossip and chat on the Postmaster-General's party lines, and that does not add to the harmony and good nature which would otherwise prevail. Has the Minister considered looking at the enterprise described by his hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. S. Smith)? The hon. Member spoke very

  931
  modestly about the small but well-organised monopoly in that area, which produces a higher standard of efficiency than does the right hon. Gentleman with his nation-wide monopoly. Will not the Minister look at the possibilities of decentralisation? Is there not something to be learned even from the tepid commendations of the hon. Member?
  Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Member familiar with the rural areas of Hull?
  Sir W. Darling: No, I am not. I must direct the hon. Gentleman to his hon. Friend who made the speech and who is fully informed on that matter. The hon. Member for South-West Hull said sufficient to raise doubts in the minds of the Minister as to whether the efficiency of the Post Office telephone service is as high as it might be.
  I have no doubt that the Minister is also in close contact with the Bell service of the United States, who have to cope with infinitely more difficult circumstances but are expanding their service and increasing their efficiency over an immense continent. That service is being made available at decreasing prices. I will check my figures with any hon. Member who care to do so, but I think I am right in saying that the private enterprise Bell Telephone Service is unique in the world. It is supplying a telephone service to millions of people at a lower rate than is the State monopoly which is saddled upon us.
  The Postmaster-General is one of those men who attempt to do too much. Speaking as a shopkeeper I must say that I think the Postmaser-General tries to do too much in the shops which he conducts in this service. The Post Office has a different type of shop from any other shop. The public are barred off from the staff by wire grilles. There is a grid in front of every assistant and the customer is prevented in a very remarkable way from getting into close contact with the servants of the right hon. Gentleman. There is the Zoo, but there are no other shops built on this remarkable principle. This ought to be looked at very closely. We have had no advance in the design of Post Offices since the late Sir Kingsley Wood who made a very very remarkable démarche in the improvement of Post Office design. Since then little has been
  932
  done to improve the style and character of these important businesses.
  No wonder! The Postmaster-General lays upon himself amazing responsibilities. He will do anything. He is the whipping boy of His Majesty's Government. Whatever they want him to do, he will do it. It is the Postmaster-General who, in his greed for gain—it can be no other reason—runs about in every Post Office collecting the money for dog licences. I have always thought it absurd that it should be the Postmaster-General, who does nothing to deal with mad dogs—the police do that—and nothing to deal with dirty dogs—the local cleaning department does that—who should do this. Is there any justification for his issuing dog licences? For years I have tried to get dog licences issued by local authorities or the police, but the Postmaster-General takes the money from the city of Edinburgh to St. Martin le Grand and no doubt banks it there for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is extending the departmentalisation of his business and he should consider divesting himself of some parts of his business which are not necessary for the purpose of the Department and which are anti-social in their effect.
  Why should the Postmaster-General issue B.B.C. licences? Is there any reason why when I go to draw my old-age pension or to buy some stamps I should be held up by people buying licences for dogs or broadcasting? The efficiency of the Post Office is impaired by the Postmaster-General taking upon himself burdensome tasks which he has not the necessary skill to discharge. Why should not the B.B.C. licence be sold with the broadcasting machine and paid for at the time of purchase as with Purchase Tax? Why should the Postmaster-General have the trouble of writing to me about the renewal of the licence? Why should not the man who sold me the broadcasting machine come to me a year later and say, "I have come for your licence and I want to sell you a new machine"?
  Mr. Orbach: Suppose one did not want to buy a new machine?
  Sir W. Darling: He would collect it much more cheaply and efficiently. The present position has arisen because the Postmaster-General is a busybody and because he persists in attending to what is not his own business.

  933
  For many years Edinburgh has been the capital city of Scotland and we have had there a Controller of Post Offices, a modest enough title. His Majesty's Government do not approve of the eminence of that great capital city and the Controller has been removed and now, like Carlisle, Derby or Banff, we have a Head Postmaster. We think this is hardly in keeping with the national dignity and we suggest that the Postmaster-General should look into the matter of the proper title. We do not want a Controller for Scotland but a Controller for the city of Edinburgh. "Head Postmaster" is not a sufficiently high dignity to be associated with the city.
  The estimates refer to life insurance business. For many years under many Governments the Post Office stumbled and fumbled and tried to conduct life insurance. It is not generally known that the Post Office entirely failed in doing that. I believe that it is no longer doing it. That is one form of State trading which has been abandoned. The life insurance fund is still in existence because there are claims against it. I should like to know the cost of running this closed fund, in what the money still due to policy holders is being invested and what staff is concerned.
  Savings comes in the same category. In a clumsy lumbering way the State has tried to organise the savings of the people. Although there is a branch in every village with facilities for saving and withdrawing, it has done it extremely badly. Proof of that can be found in the saving banks of the country. Without the facilities which the Post Office has, the great savings movement goes on at no cost to the ratepayer and no cost to the taxpayer. The Postmaster-General and his predecessors have engaged in a piece of busybodyism in trying to organise the savings of the people and they have done it very badly. I believe that there are more cases of fraud in connection with Post Office Savings accounts than with any other banking transactions in the country. With his elaborate detecting system with official stamps and initials, the Postmaster-General tries to prevent this but is not very successful. I should like to know to what extent the common funds have suffered through the many frauds.
  This is not a business which the Postmaster-General is wise to follow. I would
  934
  recommend the Postmaster-General or anyone else who takes on his office to examine very closely what should be his function in the State. It is to collect and deliver letters and to establish communications by telephone, and anything which detracts from those occupations will confuse and militate against the efficiency of the Department. Will the Postmaster-General consider reducing his activities to those which the public requires of him?
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) said, the collection and delivery of letters has now become a farce. The risk as to whether one's letter will be delivered is almost the same as when making an investment in some of the gambling pools. Letters posted in Edinburgh sometimes take three days to reach London. The posting of letters in pillar boxes is one of the most chancy and adventurous transactions today.
  Mr. Orbach: Is that the excuse which the hon. Member gives his constituents for not replying to them?
  Sir W. Darling: The moveable label is usually obscure or chipped, and one drops the communication into the letter box with a prayer hoping against hope that it will be delivered, and often it is not. The delivery and collection of letters is not a difficult task and it ought to be done efficiently. In this House some time ago one of my hon. Friends was bold enough to say that the removal of the Post Office from its present management to private hands would add enormously to its profits and efficiency.
  This adventure of State shopkeeping in selling stamps, dog licences and B.B.C. licences, transmitting telegraphs and managing telephones is not a well-managed business although it shows a surplus. That surplus ought to be put back into the business to increase efficiency. I am gravely disappointed, for from time to time I have said that where there is a positive monopoly the State should manage it. Here is a positive monopoly, but owing to the diversity of the talents and the inclination of mind of the Postmasters-General, what should be a clear-cut well-managed public service is just an increasing and expanding muddle with inefficiency at the rim and discouragement at the centre.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. John E. Haire: The Committee will be delighted that the nationalised Edinburgh express got in ahead of time today so that we could have from the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) his usual midnight frolics at teatime. When we mentioned "disagreeable parties" I detected a casual glance at his hon. Friends beside him, but nobody can say that he is disagreeable in himself and we have all enjoyed his speech. It will not have passed without notice that 10 of the 11 speeches we have heard have been opposed to this increase in telephone charges. Before I put my cards on the table I want to say that there has been a certain measure of congratulation to my right hon. Friend for what has been achieved though hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to have praised with faint demurs. On this side of the Committee we recognise that a remarkable achievement has been made. In an intervention my hon. Friend pointed out that one in every three telephones in service has been supplied since the end of the war.
  It is only fair to recognise that considerable progress has been made in the Post Office during the term of the present Government. We certainly have a long way to go before we can catch up on the excellent service given in United States of America which I have set as my target for this country, but I do not agree with the hon. Member for South Edinburgh that the service there is cheaper. If the hon. Gentleman investigates the telephone charges he will find that they are considerably in excess of ours, and that is particularly so in the case of long distance calls and telegrams. I feel that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General must be aware of that, and he must have set a high target for the improvement of our service. In his term of office he must have been thinking, "To what extent do I wish the telephone service in this country to expand?" Has he had that long-term programme, and is he now a disappointed man? Has it been curtailed? I know that in our telephone service, particularly in the rural areas, there is a great deal still to be achieved.
  I am an unhappy man at the imposition of this new tax, because I believe it is a tax which will curtail the development of our telephone service. I agree with most
  936
  hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon that it will curtail the business use of telephones and that it will curtail the private user of the telephone. If my right hon. Friend can say that he does not think it will curtail the use of the telephone, that it will not cut down on the long-term programme which he must have planned, then I might be encouraged to think again.
  I want particularly to refer, because only one hon. Member so far has done so, to the rural areas. Many hon. Members who are familiar with our rural areas will be aware that the population there has increased since the war because many city dwellers evacuated themselves to the rural areas and have remained there. In many cases they are being denied the use of a telephone with which they were familiar before the war. I sincerely hope that those who have been waiting, in some cases in my constituency for two or three years, will soon be connected, if they have not been put off by this increase in charges.
  At the same time, I would hand out a meed of praise to my right hon. Friend that the service which I have received from him and his officials in my own constituency has been excellent. In those cases where I was able to show that there was a priority, or a good reason for the installation of the telephone, or that there was a long delay, when it came to the notice of my right hon. Friend I am happy to say that in nearly every case it received the attention with which I was pleased. At the same time he has made progress in the installation of kiosks in our rural areas. That is an improvement upon which I would congratulate him, but I should like him to go further and, now that there has been an imposition of an increased charge on telephone users in the country, perhaps he will find it possible to increase the number of kiosks available?
  I would add a word on a slightly different note about the efficiency of our rural exchanges. I am not satisfied that as yet they are nearly as efficient as they might be. In my own local village we have a long way to go before we can achieve the efficiency of the urban automatic exchange or of our London service. Not that I am in a position to give that full marks on my own London exchange. We have frequent wrong numbers. To

  937
  give one illustration, it often happens that the Flaxman Exchange gets tied up with the Frobisher Exchange, so that I find myself frequently apologising to somebody, or being apologised to, for having the wrong exchange. Could I ask my right hon. Friend to give his urgent attention to that point? There is a further point which my right hon. Friend might note. In the new towns there will be many people who will be moved out of the cities and will find that they may have to wait for telephone service for a considerable time. What will he do in the case of subscribers who, in some cases, may find themselves moved somewhat involuntarily to a new town area? Are they to have to wait for a long time?
  I agree so much with hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that this extra charge is retrogressive. I had hoped that we might reach the stage soon when every new house built had included among its fitted furniture a telephone. Indeed. I hope that the time is not far distant when we may achieve that because, as one of my hon. Friends said, every working woman, indeed every home, deserves a telephone. A telephone is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity. So can my right hon. Friend set this as one of his targets. Does he think that this extra charge is the way to achieve it? If, in fact, he finds himself with the Treasury revolver at his head, might I make a suggestion? Would he agree to cast his mind over this problem again to see whether it would not be possible to introduce differential rates as between the rural areas and the urban areas? He himself said that the telephone service is much more desired in rural areas, so might there be differential rentals which would give the rural areas a slight advantage?
  I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies tonight, he will have some concession to announce to the Committee because it must be clear to him and to the front bench now that there is a good deal of opposition to this increase.
  5.57 p.m.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: As this Debate has proceeded it has become apparent that the only support which the right hon. Gentleman has received has come from the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. S. Smith) who, I see, is
  938
  just leaving the Chamber, and whose division is in a city which, it appears, is the least affected by the charges we are now discussing, of any in the country. There is no doubt at all that the increase of charges is operating as a tax. It may seem to the Chancellor a good idea to squeeze out revenue wherever he can, so long as the pips do not squeak loud enough for them to grow into an election cry, but when any increase of this kind is suggested, we naturally have to ask two questions. First, is it sound policy in itself? Secondly, is it timely; does it fit in with the general policy that is being pursued? As services become more and more widely used they should certainly become cheaper, but here we have what has rightly been called a retrogressive step because the service is now actually to be made more expensive
  I shall try to anticipate some of the arguments that may be put up, because we must be quite clear what arguments we shall not accept from the right hon. Gentleman; the more so as he has chosen to reserve his speech until the end of the Debate instead of putting up his arguments, like ninepins, to be knocked down. Just as electricity charges are increased in the winter months in order to discourage use, so it might be said, telephone charges should also be raised to discourage the use of the telephone because of the alleged overloading of the service. Thus the Postmaster-General might go and ask leave of the Cabinet to raise his charges so as to discourage people from applying for the telephone. That certainly would be a retrogressive step but, because of the shortages of material and labour, it would at least be understandable.
  But if that is so, surely the right thing to do would be not to penalise existing users, but to put an additional charge upon new installations. I am not arguing in favour of that; I am merely trying to present what is the logical attitude to adopt. If we are to regard shortage of labour and materials as temporary, the additional charge would be temporary and of a "once for all" character. That is done in certain countries, including, I am told, in Sweden. Alternatively, the Postmaster-General might ask the Cabinet for leave to increase charges in order to reduce the load on existing exchanges. To do that he might try to reduce either the number or the duration of calls. I once knew

  939
  a lady who, on getting into her bath at 8.15 each morning, invariably followed a routine of plugging in her portable telephone in the bathroom and ringing up her friends and relations more or less at random.
  Mr. Drayson: Was the hon. Gentleman included amongst them?
  Mr. Macpherson: Yes, sometimes; but I do not suppose that kind of thing happens very often now, for people do not telephone except for a definite purpose.
  If the right hon. Gentleman sought to increase charges with a view to reducing either the number or duration of calls, it would be logical, surely, to increase the costs where the increase in load has been heaviest. The commercial accounts of the Post Office show that the increase in calls has been heaviest in trunk traffic, which is now 100 per cent. higher than it was before the war. But trunk calls—again, I am not arguing this but am merely putting forward what seems the logical course—are not being increased at all. It has been recently observed in the House, and has been the subject of Questions, that once people pick up a telephone they use it for far too long. Therefore, any increase which is sought should be one which would make people pay for the length of time of their calls, especially in public call boxes. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that at present he lacks the technical machinery with which to do that. Is he taking any steps to provide that technical machinery?
  It appears that it is not the right hon. Gentleman who has approached the Cabinet or anybody else to obtain an increase in charges; it was the Chancellor who had this big idea. As has been quoted already, the Chancellor said in his Budget statement:
  "The Postmaster-General has agreed to assist me.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2102.]
  I must make it clear to the Committee, therefore, that it is not open to the Postmaster-General to argue that he is putting forward these charges because he wishes to reduce the load on the telephone—on his administrative machinery, lines, exchanges and so forth; this is purely a budgetary measure put forward
  940
  by the Chancellor in order to get £8 million more revenue.
  Is that sound policy? Is it right that a public service—a public monopoly at that—should be exploited to obtain revenue for the State? Ought not the public service to be supplied as cheaply as possible in the public interest? The Minister of Health has lately been telling us that housing has become a service—a social service, I think he called it. He does not make a profit out of it; on the contrary, he gives a big subsidy. Telephones, on the other hand, make a very substantial profit; in 1947–48 it was £19 million, and there is the surplus of £10½ million to which hon. Members have referred. The right hon. Gentleman may say, "But in 1948–49 we do not anticipate that the profits will be as big, and the Chancellor exacts that we shall pay him so much each year."
  If that is what the right hon. Gentleman is to say, it is very difficult to reconcile such a policy with the principles on which a public service should be run. As other hon. Members have said, a case could be much more easily made out for a reduction of charges in view of the substantial profits now being made. The right hon. Gentleman might be able to argue that such a course would not be timely in view of the shortage of material and labour. But is the present the right time to increase the charges? Any increase must mean not only increasing the costs of commerce and industry but of agriculture also.
  An unfortunate habit has lately emanated from the Government Front Bench of reaching agreement on certain points—for example, on guaranteed prices in agriculture—on the basis of ascertained cost, and then increasing the costs arbitrarily on Government initiative. That is already happening in water supplies; I do not speak for England, but that is what is to happen in Scotland. We now see that the same thing is happening with the telephone service, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Frederic Harris) has pointed out, it is no small matter, but one involving additional expenditure of hundreds of pounds to some users.
  I should like the Postmaster-General to answer this question. Are telephone charges taken into account in calculating the cost of living, or does the Chancellor

  941
  look around and say, "I wonder what is not taken into account in calculating the cost of living"; then, when he finds it, he say, "Ah! We will put that up." Is that what he says, pretending that there has been no increase whatever in the cost of living? There can be no question of the extra charges mopping up any surplus spending power. No such claim could possibly be made. This is an obvious increase in charges at a time when everybody recognises that on the whole prices have tended to turn in the opposite direction.
  It was the hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. H. Wallace), who remarked that the increased charges seem to be designed to make people give up the telephone. I doubt whether that was the intention; but that it will have that effect is quite clear and ought to have been clear to our planners. In consequence of the almost universal attitude which the Committee has shown, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us he is prepared to withdraw the agreement which he gave the Chancellor to these advances in cost and that he is now prepared to tell the Chancellor to go and find his £8 million elsewhere.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I am very sorry indeed for the Postmaster-General. He has had a very rough ride today, and any remarks I offer him are of the mixture of sympathy and congratulation. I sympathise with him for being put in an utterly false position by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no conceivable defence of these charges except that they will yield roughly £8½ million to the Revenue. I do not think that the head of a Department, especially a Department with such an honourable history and tradition as the Post Office, should allow himself to be put into such a false position. I offer the right hon. Gentleman my sincere sympathy.
  At the same time, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon providing the Opposition with one of the best minor pieces of propaganda that could have been devised. There is a lot to be said for private enterprise and, where necessities are involved, for monopolies, which cannot be said for a State monopoly. In private enterprise, if materials or services are in short supply and it is natural that prices should rise, competition is intro
  942
  duced and as a result the required service is provided. It is quite natural that in the case of a necessity a good argument can be made for a monopoly in that the State can afford, or does afford, to provide the required service in areas which do not show an immediate return by reason of the nature of the particular public need and services involved. To combine the worst of both those theories in one act, has been reserved for the Postmaster-General and he deserves our congratulations and, to some extent, our thanks.
  I rose because of the profound dissatisfaction amongst my constituents at the way in which the few telephones there are are allocated. Quite rightly, priority is given to offices of party organisations, but no priority is given to party agents in their own homes. That partly nullifies the concession given to the offices, as a party agent conducts a lot of his business from his own house. The same applies to many other forms of business in which priority is given. I could also give concrete examples of minor civil servants of a Department in London living in the same street, sometimes next door, for whom priority has been obtained. I ask the right hon. Gentleman very seriously to overhaul the system of priorities and recognise that not only are the Government—which does not matter very much—but the whole service, of which he should be proud to be in charge, falling very much in public estimation because of the present application of priorities. Again, I offer my sympathy, and my advice to him would be not to stand it any more from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: With the sympathy which the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) has offered to the Postmaster-General, I associate myself to the full; with the congratulations and the reasons for them I have no concern. There seemed to me to be two flaws in an otherwise excellent Budget. One was the penny off beer, which I do not think will result in the consumption of an extra half pint, at the sacrifice of £18 million, and the other was this tax on telephones, the iniquity of which seems to be emphasised by its juxtoposition with the tax on beer. What appears to

  943
  me even worse is the reason, or rather, the excuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward for levying it. I hope it was his excuse and not the Postmaster-General's. The excuse was that it would relieve the pressure of demand. That can mean nothing more than that fewer people would go on the telephone because fewer would be able to afford it. What is that but rationing by price, instead of rationing by need, against which hon. Members opposite have protested rightly again and again?
  It is not the people who need the telephone urgently for the conduct of their business but those who are able to purchase it at the enhanced price who will get the telephone more easily. I sympathise greatly with the Postmaster-General because obviously this step was not taken on his initiative. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) was a little beside the point because he was putting a logical case to the Postmaster-General and the Postmaster-General cannot argue on the basis of logic at all, but has to make the best case he can for what is imposed on him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I want to emphasise the hardship which this will cause in individual cases, and to appeal more particularly for my constituents who represent perhaps rather wider and different classes from those which the hon. Member for Farnham mentioned. Consider the position of the small country clergyman. He must have a telephone to maintain his position in the parish. He must be constantly using it, yet who of all persons in the community can afford the increased telephone charge less than this almost always underpaid country clergyman? Doctors have to use the telephone constantly and they find it a heavy charge on them. Dentists are in the same position and teachers, particularly teachers in schools and universities—not so much those at such universities as Oxford and Cambridge, as those in the "Red Brick" or newer universities, who need the telephone because they are scattered over a wider area and are not in close touch with their colleagues and headquarters. They will feel the increased impost very much. They will be told by the Chancellor, "You will not be able to have a telephone, not because you do not need it—we recognise you need it—but because you will not be
  944
  able to afford it." That appears one of the most unsocial actions of any Minister. It is imposed on the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not worthy of the Chancellor.
  If there is to be this increased charge, I urge that it should not be levied on private subscribers. It is easy to draw a distinction between private subscribers and others because some time ago we were told that free telephone directories could not be given to private subscribers but only to businesses and offices. I suggest that the class of persons who did not get the free directories should be freed from the new tax. It would not make a tremendous difference—I imagine it would not be 50 per cent. of the increased cost—but, as the whole 100 per cent. is iniquitous, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the possibility of freeing private subscribers from this unjustifiable tax on the telephone rental.
  6.17 p.m.
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: This has been a most curious form of Debate, first because, as the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) said, we are discussing a most illogical action. The next curious feature is that there has been no reply from any of the arch conspirators whose action we have been criticising, although we have had the benefit of the occasional presence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We have to wait until the end of the Debate to hear a reply to our criticisms and then we have no further chance of discussing the matter. I keenly suspect that this is because there is no reply and that the Debate has been run in this way for that reason.
  What has been significant to me is the fact that not a single voice has been raised on the other side of the Committee in support of the Government. Occasionally there has been a little lip service to the hard time the right hon. Gentleman has had and to what has been done, but the main burden of the speeches has been criticism of what we also are seeking to criticise. I hope that the criticism which has been levelled by the hon. Members for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant), Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies), Walthamstow, East (Mr. H. Wallace) and Wycombe (Mr. Haire) will not end in their joining the ranks of the purged. The procession of

  945
  pseudo penitents is already impressive, but one who seems seriously in danger is the hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. S. Smith). He seems to have vitiated two of the doctrines of the party. First he eulogised private enterprise and the system of telephones in Hull, which must have greatly incensed the Lord President of the Council and then he gave a diametrically different reason for the increase from that given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I conceive that he will be in very great danger.
  A series of objections have been outlined in considerable detail by hon. Members on this side of the Committee. The first thing to which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends object is the system of using Government trading Departments for feeding money into the Treasury. The Government have recognised that that is a vicious principle because in one nationalisation Measure after another that principle is expressly excluded, and it is laid down that taking one year with another ends must be made to meet. Yet we have this reactionary example of the Post Office, which made a profit of £10½ million last year, now being called upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise its charges by another £8 million. We now have three forms of taxation—direct, indirect and now subterranean or most indirect taxation.
  One hon. Member after another has asked what is the real reason. What was the procedure which took place? Can it have been that the Postmaster-General dialled "O" and heard the silvery voice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying "Can I help you? Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking." Or, as is much more likely, I imagine, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer dialled "O" and the Postmaster-General replied "Postmaster-General speaking. Can I help you?" Because it is the Postmaster-General who is being called upon to come to the assistance of the Chancellor. All this other talk about the demand for services and for instruments is, in my view, camouflage for using the Post Office in order to feed money into the Treasury.
  Freedom of speech is a doctrine and theory to which the Party genuflect but every now and then, when it is inconvenient to them, they kick it out of the way. Thus we have, in the Committee
  946
  stage of one Bill after another, curtailment of speech. So far as freedom of speech by telephone is concerned here is another attempt to cut it down; it is to be discouraged by charges which are already grossly extravagant being raised still further.
  It would not be so bad if the system and the service which is in existence, at any rate in the city which I know well and have the honour to represent—Glasgow—were better. Even then, the existing charges are inordinately high, and there should be no question of further increases. I have a telephone instrument which is as temperamental as a prima donna, or perhaps one should now say as temperamental as a telephone. One can dial "O" or any number one requires, and it is a complete toss up whether one gets whatever number one has been intending to dial. In the paraphrase of the old song about the bran pie:
  "You may get 'Inquiries,'
  You may get stuck.
  You may get your connection,
  You never know your luck."
  That happens time and time again in Glasgow, and Glasgow is by no means unique in that respect.
  So I cannot join in the testimonials about what has been done by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. I can see nowhere in what has so far transpired any hint of an improved service, and an improved service is desperately needed. Yet, while the shortage of telephones exists, and while enormous numbers of people are queuing up for telephone installations, and while the Assistant Postmaster-General says there is a shortage of cables and instruments, what do we find? In 1947 telephone plant to the value of £140,000 was exported; in 1948 such plant to the value of £340,000 was exported. Perhaps these are not terrific figures, and I appreciate the Government's difficulty in discriminating between one form of export and another.
  But the telephone is a necessity in commercial life today, and by the same token, or to the same amount that telephone facilities are cut down, so we cut down the possibility of competing in the export market. We require all the many facilities that go to make up successful competition. If this export of telephone equipment is really the reason why we have 400,000 applicants, or whatever the

  947
  number is, waiting to have telephones installed, the Postmaster-General and the Government are doing a disservice to the country by exporting this equipment for the very small return which these figures must represent in the great national accounts.
  Telephones are absolutely necessary in modern commercial life; it would be as reasonable to try to cut out the telephone from commerce today as to tell businesses to drop the use of typewriters and go back to writing letters by hand. Not only are telephones essential, but so is an efficient and quick service. How often have hon. Members had the experience of waiting, of getting a wrong number, of being cut off during their call? Has any hon. Member ever had the experience of being cut off during a call, and of being told by the operator "Sorry, I cut you off"? It is always the person at the other end who does the cutting off. There should be no cutting off in a properly conducted telephone service, efficiently manned and run.
  We have heard a little today about the Scandinavian telephone systems. I would like to ask the Postmaster-General whether any close study has been made of the system in operation in Sweden, which seems to be cheaper, more flexible and more popular than ours. In large areas in that country, each on average comprising 1,750 square kilometres, or about 25 by 25 miles, there is no extra charge at all for making a call. Subscribers' stations per thousand of the population which have been installed since the beginning of the war in Stockholm proper represent a rise from 382 per thousand of the population in January, 1939, to 528 per thousand of the population. Those are extraordinary figures.
  Mr. Hobson: The hon. and gallant Member is forgetting that Sweden has not been involved in two world wars. She was neutral.
  Colonel Hutchison: World wars or not, the contrast between the figures for Sweden and this country is so striking that that cannot be the whole explanation. One could give further figures for the other towns and the country. Taking the average figures of telephones per thousand of the population, in Sweden at the present time they are 194.3 as against
  948
  what I understand is our 93; they are just double.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will the hon. and gallant Member tell us what Government has been responsible for that wonderful situation in Sweden?
  Colonel Hutchison: I must leave the hon. Member to fight that out with the Assistant Postmaster-General who invoked war as being the cause. Now the hon. Member is trying to insinuate that it was the Socialist Government of Sweden that was responsible. At all events, can our Socialist Government not do as well? In Sweden, for example, where there is a population of 8 million, the number of calls in 1947–48 was 1,870 million. In Great Britain, with a population of 50 million, calls in 1946–47 numbered 2,897 million. Thus for a very much smaller population the number of calls was about half the number made in our country. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should closely examine the system in operation there of areas of free calls. Whether it is due to the Socialist Government or to the non-interference of the war, something has been produced with which the Swedish population is at least much more satisfied that we appear to be in this country, judging by the speeches we have heard.
  The telephone and telephone apparatus are, for ordinary members of the public, more than a convenience, and for the commercial world they are an absolute necessity. It must be realised that to the extent that telephones are denied to industry or to the extent that the telephone system is inefficient, so industry will be hurt and yet another small burden to be carried on its back will be added. We cannot, therefore, accept these charges because they are a vicious form of taxation. They are another straw—admittedly only a straw—for the back of industry; but it must be remembered that the burden which broke the back of the camel was made up of hundreds of straws and it was the last one which finally broke it. We cannot accept the theory of checking the demand made by industry for an essential service and essential equipment by means of taxation of this kind, and so we must press this question to a Division.
  6.30 p.m.
  Sir Stanley Reed: I listened with great respect to the speech of the

  949
  hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) which I think was one of the most closely reasoned speeches I have ever heard in this House. I hope I do not misinterpret him if I say that one of the great points in that speech was that in a public service which was a national monopoly the prices charged went up, but they very rarely went down. With that doctrine I am in complete agreement. We who hold quite different views on the subject of public monopolies can welcome the most conclusive and devastating condemnation of them ever heard in this House of Commons.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Member will excuse me, but I should like to get the record straight. My argument was that where charges are put up for revenue purposes, for taxation purposes, they are never taken off, because they are producing money for the Treasury.
  Sir S. Reed: That is precisely my point. All these postal charges have been put up for taxation purposes or administrative convenience. Why are we paying 2½d. for a 1d. stamp? Because that charge was introduced by taxation. Why are we paying 2d. for a ½d. postcard? Because we are paying to a monopoly. Why are we paying 1s. for a 6d. telegram? For precisely the same reason, the reason which the hon. Member has stated with his clear and emphatic logic. Very much we have suffered, and we shall continue to suffer, because as surely as night follows the day there is not the slightest possibility of these and other illegitimate charges coming down, because it is a national monopoly.
  Why are these telephone charges going up? The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) said they were illogical. No, they are inexorable. With the fantastic scale of expenditure forced on this country by hon. Members on the other side of the Committee—and a few misguided souls on this side—we have reached that stage of taxation when the Chancellor of the Exchequer must claw revenue from wherever he may get it. With this prodigal expenditure today and the tenuous surplus shown in the Budget Statement—which will entirely disappear at the least whiff of adverse current—he dare not avoid any possible source of raising revenue. He has gone to the Post Office because it is a monopoly, because every charge they levy must be
  950
  paid. There can be no law of diminishing returns here, because this is a service which no one can do without. The gravamen of this charge is not that the Chancellor has put up these charges, but that this House has consented to a colossal expenditure which makes them inevitable. There will be no relief from this and other charges from national enterprises and in other forms until the national expenditure is reduced.
  The hon. Member for Enfield said he would be very much put to it to defend this charge in his division. I will make an offer to him, and I warn him to be careful because he may resile from the idea of invoking Satan to rebuke sin; but I will come down to his division at any time he may desire and justify these charges up to the hilt because they are forced upon us. The scale of expenditure is now such that no source of revenue can possibly be neglected or avoided. That is the position which we have to face today. It is beating the air to talk of improvements here and there until we have so reduced the scale of national expenditure that we can press on the Chancellor the wisdom and justice of greatly reducing these and other charges which rest on the community.
  We cannot have our cake and eat it. We cannot have this expenditure for which this House of Commons is responsible—that side in particular and this side in part, let us take our share of the responsibility—without those charges going on indefinitely. They are bound up with the colossal administrative burden which we have accepted, or which has been foisted upon us.
  6.36 p.m.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): In quite a number of speeches made today, including the last one, there have been criticisms of the high expenditure in this country at the present time. That is more to do with the Chancellor of the Exchequer than with me—
  Captain Crookshank: We asked him to come.
  Mr. Paling: —and I do not propose to take part in that side of the question. I shall try to confine myself to my own Department.
  Before I come to the question of telephone charges, I wish to answer a few questions put to me about postal matters.

  951
  Hon. Members have referred to late collections and early deliveries. This matter has cropped up in the House on a good many occasions at Question Time, and I have referred to it before on Supply Days. It is true that the number of collections and deliveries are less now than before the war. That is due mainly to the problem of manpower. Whether we shall ever get back to the early deliveries as they were pre-war I do not know. There are two sides to that question. We could have deliveries so early that the people themselves would think it a nuisance, particularly if they had to get out of bed very early in the morning to take charge of a postal packet which cannot be put through the letter box.
  It is however a fact that deliveries are slightly later, but the main grouse is that there is no late post. To illustrate what I mean, take the example of a man in London, or some great city, who is at work until perhaps 5 o'clock, 5.30, or 6 o'clock. He comes home and has a meal and finds letters waiting for him which he would like to answer, and the last post probably leaves at 6 o'clock. He would like something done about that. It is true that at the head post office he can post up until 8 o'clock; but in some cases the head post office is quite a distance away, and he does not like having to do that. I frankly admit that that state of affairs exists. I should like to alter it and give some of these extra services, but it is entirely a question of manpower.
  Colonel Hutchison: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee any figures to show what is the manpower now, as compared with before the war? It is the pre-war services which people are so anxious to get re-established.
  Mr. Paling: No. I could not give that particular figure without notice.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: Was not that point satisfied in part before the war by the provision in most of the large towns of letter boxes on the late buses?
  Mr. Paling: Yes, I believe that was done to some extent; and the matter has been raised on a few occasions in this House to see whether something could be done in that way, but I doubt whether small improvements of that kind would deal with the main problem—
  Mr. H. Strauss: Do I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he expressly disagrees with the view publicly expressed in 1946 by the acting General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers that a late collection was undesirable?
  Mr. Paling: I am sure that hon. Gentlemen would not expect me to enter into that controversy.
  Mr. P. Roberts: Why not?
  Captain Crookshank: Is it desirable or not?
  Mr. Paling: The hon. Member for Eccleshall (Mr. P. Roberts) also raised a point about the position in Sheffield. He said that the trouble there was labour, and that labour could be got. I do not know whether that is so. One of our troubles is that of labour and another is that of materials both in telephone exchange equipment and in cables.
  Mr. Roberts: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to give orders enabling the man in charge of the Sheffield area to recruit labour, if he can get it, in order to help with this matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman allow some local powers to be delegated to the area so that we can see what they can do?
  Mr. Paling: It is more than a question of labour. It is equally often a question of shortage of materials. In any event, we could not deal with this business in patches.
  Mr. Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to look into the difficulties at Sheffield for a start? Let us make a start somewhere and then we can go on to other places. Will he decentralise responsibility for getting labour to the people who have to do the job?
  Mr. Paling: I am always willing to look into any problem which hon. Members put to me.
  The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) made one of his usual lively speeches. I think he said that efficiency is impaired because in the Post Offices we try to do too many jobs. I think he referred to the Postmaster-General as a "busy-body." It is true that we are doing a tremendous number of jobs at present. The work at the counters has increased out of all proportion. It is indeed very heavy. But if we took away

  953
  from the Post Office and put somewhere else the issuing of dog licences, I doubt whether the majority of the hon. Gentleman's constituents would thank him for having made the suggestion. I do not think that there is any place in the Kingdom to which the population goes so willingly as they go to the Post Office. They think that the Post Office is the right place for this kind of service and they go there.
  Sir W. Darling: Do I understand that in the right hon. Gentleman's view the public have a passion to buy their dog licences from the Post Office rather than from the police?
  Mr. Paling: It is my view that the public would rather go to the Post Office than to many other places I could mention.
  The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) complained about the way in which the allocation of telephones is made. I think he said that in some cases party agents suffered because they could not always get a phone in their homes as well as a phone in their offices. Whenever anyone makes an application for a phone, if they have one in their office and want another at home, that fact must be taken into consideration.
  I do not think that anybody could have given more attention to the question of allocation than we did when the number of applicants became so large. We had a huge waiting list and we had to do something about it. We went into the matter most carefully and we gave it a lot of consideration. I think that probably we have worked out the fairest possible method. It is inevitable that the fellow who does not get a phone is a little dissatisfied, but in view of the fact that we have about 500,000 on the waiting list someone is bound to be dissatisfied. On the other hand, most people who know anything about the principles of the system of allocation that we have laid down agree that it is about as fair a method as could be devised.
  The junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) discussed the suggestion that we should not increase charges to private subscribers. The residential subscriber has the opportunity of 200 free calls a year. He has the advantage over the businessman who must pay for all calls. If we were to liberate the
  954
  private subscriber from the extra charge, that would put the businessman at a bigger disadvantage than he is at present by virtue of the fact that he receives no free calls. If I tried to follow the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, I doubt whether I should be met with general acclamation by hon. Members or by businessmen.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: In the case of the businessman this is part of his general expenses and he can pass the amount on, but the private subscriber cannot.
  Mr. Paling: Yes—and I heard an argument recently that any increase resulted in higher charges for other things, but I do not want to enter into a discussion about that.
  The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) referred to the fact that there was a manual exchange in his neigh-bourhood and that people wished that it could be made automatic. The development of automatic exchanges was stopped by the war. But for the war, manual exchanges might have been abolished. The hon. Member also mentioned the question of 7½d. on the issue of wireless receiving licences. This figure includes not only all costs at the counter but also the cost of keeping a register of live licences so that a postcard reminder may be sent to every licence holder. Often a second reminder has to be sent. The figure also includes additional costs where a licence holder renews his licence in another area and entries have to be made in the appropriate register.
  The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) also raised a point about the printed paper rate and asked why a change had been made. The main reason is that there was an anomaly. The first step of the foreign rate was ½d. for two ounces which was less than the inland rate. The figures were adjusted to make them equal. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman asked a question about the registered post and he also gave the answer. It is true that the volume of registered letters has increased enormously since the war. We do not want it to increase any further. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman realises what has happened in the Post Office and he stated the answer to his own question very well indeed.
  On the general telephone situation, I was asked whether or not this is a fiscal

  955
  matter. Naturally, I do not want to enter too much into a discussion about that. The Post Office has always been used for this purpose. Since I first came to this House, a long number of years ago, I must have heard this matter raised on at least a score of occasions. There have been many occasions when hon. Members have debated whether or not the Post Office should be used in this way. Since I went to the Post Office, I have had about two years' experience. I have some ideas on the subject, but it is not for me to express them in this Debate. The fact is that the Post Office has been used in this way. In 1934, I think it was, the Bridgman Committee was set up, and as a result of their recommendations about £10,750,000 was paid annually by the Post Office to the Exchequer. That was in time of peace. Conditions are very different today. Although there may be some controversy about this issue, it is not a new one. I do not think hon. Members opposite ought to be unduly surprised from that point of view.
  Another point raised was that the surcharge on rentals is to be increased to 33⅓ per cent. A surcharge of 15 per cent. was imposed in 1940, and that goes up to 33⅓ per cent. It represents an extra charge now of only about 18 per cent. of the basic rental, that is, adding it to the 15 per cent., and taking all the war-time and post-war increases of rentals together, 33⅓ per cent. If we contrast that with the increases in charges made in private industry, it will compare very favourably. Prices in private enterprise industry—and I am not entering into the merits of private enterprise here—have in the main been increased much more than that; it is a very low figure compared with prices that could be quoted from private industry. With regard to the charges for calls, admittedly they are higher. They were increased by 15d. for local calls, and are now to be 1.5d. Where it was 1d. before the war, the charge is now 1½d., and that represents on pre-war charges an increase of 50 per cent. I claim again that it is not too big when compared with charges in private industry, and most of the prices which have to be paid at present.
  Now let me come to the other point. It is stated that we have got an annual profit, and that the last published figure
  956
  is one of £10,500,000, and it is argued that, because of this, we ought not to increase these charges. The figure is quite right, but, in the accounts for the year just ended at the beginning of April, that £10,500,000 profit will be down to about £6 million. For the year which we have just started, from the beginning of April to April, 1950, the profits will probably be down to about £3 million. In the past, when the Post Office saw its profits going down like that, they did not wait until they had actually suffered a loss, but took time by the forelock in order to do something about it. It is true that we are showing a £10,500,000 profit in this year 1947–48, but it is equally true that the profits are going down, and that, at the end of the present financial year, are more likely to be £3 million rather than £10 million.
  Mr. P. Roberts: Would the Minister allow me? Where is this responsibility coming from? Is it the Postmaster-General himself, who is taking time by the forelock in order to do away with a possible loss, or is it the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is wanting to collect taxation? He must make that point clear.
  Mr. Paling: I have said that the fiscal question had always been a matter of controversy in this House. Some of the increase is fiscal, and there is no doubt about that. I am trying to prove that, in addition, there is some case for an increase in telephone charges and rentals on the merits of the Post Office itself.
  Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me? He must come down on one side or the other. He is trying to justify the increased profit on the basis of action by a business man who sees his profits declining. Is that the case, or is the case that it is needed for taxation? If the Minister says that it is a mixture of both, then how much is one and how much the other?
  Mr. Paling: The hon. Gentleman says that I must come down on one side of the fence or the other. Presumably, he wants me to come down on his side. I am concerned in giving my answer in my own way according to how I wish it to be given, and the fact is that these profits are declining in the way which I have indicated.

  957
  Regarding the question of outstanding applications for telephones, it was suggested that these charges might make people hesitate and might have some effect upon them. I do not know whether they will or not. All I can say is that they have not had much effect yet. One or two people have withdrawn their names, but they are a very small number indeed, and the arrears remain at a very high figure.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise when talking about reducing the pressure of demand that he is proved to be completely wrong, because it has not reduced the pressure?
  Mr. Paling: No, I think it is too early to say yet whether the charges to be imposed will have that effect or not, I do not know, but up to the moment, they have not had that effect.
  The next point is on the question of the extension and development of the telephone service, and in this connection the question of kiosks was raised. We are doing a tremendous lot in the Post Office in this direction by providing more kiosks throughout the country, and we have this year got a programme bigger than that of any previous year. The people of the country take the view that the kiosk should be installed in every hamlet throughout the country in order to provide an emergency service for the people there.
  When I looked into this matter a few months ago, I did not regard the position as satisfactory. Then, it was largely a question of payment, and those places which wanted a kiosk were asked to pay £4 per year for five years. That system worked out with some measure of success, but, from my angle, it was not a fair measure of deciding whether a kiosk should be placed in a particular place or not. So we have abolished that system and what we are doing now is quite different. At present, we are asking the rural councils to decide this matter for their own area, so that each county will be allocated a certain number of kiosks, and the rural councils will have to say which places should have them first.
  I come to the question of farmers' lines. We have done a pretty good job in this matter, in addition to trying to meet the terrific demand for increased
  958
  telephones by the population of the country generally. This demand has probably increased more amongst the farmers than anywhere else. Before the war, when our salesmen used to go round the country trying to sell telephones and asking the farmers to have them—and we had to do it in those days, as opposed to the things we have to do today—some of them used to look at the telephone as a new-fangled instrument, and we were not always successful. Since the war, the attitude of the farmers has completely changed, and they are now exceedingly anxious to get telephones. In view of the contribution which they are making to the food production of the country, we are most anxious that they should have them and we are using labour and materials to instal farmers' telephones which, if it were used in the urban districts, would provide many more telephones.
  My last point on this matter, and it has been raised several times in the Debate, concerns the question whether we ought to haxe extended our exports as much as we have done. Complaint has been made that, while we have not enough materials to supply the needs of the people of this country we have been exporting more materials than we ought to have done, and that we should have used them for supplying the home demand first. That is a matter for debate, but we all know that the export business of this country has been exceedingly important since the war, and, to the extent that we have been able to help the export drive in the telephone business, we may have done the best service for the country, even though many people are still wanting telephones at home.
  My last point is this, and this refers to the question of the rentals, that is the increase in the contract charge for the use of the telephone. So far as this is concerned, it has been decided that, contrary to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech, it would, on the whole, be better to deal with this matter by administrative action rather than by legislation, as the latter course might not be appreciated by subscribers and might lead to some misunderstandings. This means that an individual notice will be required to be sent in each case, and it will not be possible to make the new charge effective before 1st January next at the earliest. This would

  959
  reduce the contribution to this year's revenue from the £1 million estimated to about £400,000.
  The sending out and serving of the notices would be a very considerable administrative undertaking, and would require the taking on of very considerable extra staff for some months. In view of this and the reduced yield, my right hon. and learned Friend is looking into the matter again to see whether it will be possible to obviate this change in the contractual relationship at the present time.
  Captain Crookshank: Does that mean that you are withdrawing it?
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: In view of the complete inadequacy of the reply, my right hon. and hon. Friends must press this matter to a Division. It was perfectly clear beforehand that we wished this Debate to range, not as some subsequent Debate may, over the detail of Post Office administration, but over the really important question raised by the Budget speech as to whether this increased charge, which will bear heavily on certain sections of the population, was necessitated by fiscal requirements or by the business requirements of the Post Office. We have had no definite answer to that at all. The Financial Secretary
  to the Treasury has come in as a sort of belated watchdog to see that in no way should the Postmaster-General place the responsibility where it lies. If I may say so without offence, because, indeed, it is a compliment, so naive and open in his appearance is the Postmaster-General that even when he was refusing to tell us what the answer was, the answer was obvious to all of us.
  We believe that the service rendered by the Post Office, not only to business people to whom after all, it is an integral part of the cost of production, but to professional people and to the vast majority of residential subscribers, is a service which ought not lightly to be increased merely to provide a small additional sum of revenue. As for the partial effort of the right hon. Gentleman to explain this away as something which any prudent businessman will do, I hope the Financial Secretary will call to the Chancellor's attention what the Postmaster-General thinks a prudent businessman ought to do, that is, as soon as the abnormal profits which he has been earning during the war begin to fall, raise the price to all consumers in order that whatever happens profits may be maintained.
  Question put, "That Subhead A, Salaries, etc., be reduced by £100."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 196.

  Division No. 145.]

  AYES

  [7.5 p.m.

  Baldwin, A. E.

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

  Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Gage, C.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Birch, Nigel

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Maitland, Comdr J. W.

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

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Boothby, R.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Bowen, R.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Bower, N.

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Boyd-Carpenter., J. A.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

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

  Nicholson, G.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W.

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

  Noble, Comdr A. H. P.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Osborne, C.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

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

  Hope, Lord J.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Carson, E.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Challen, C.

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

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

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

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

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Renton, D.

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Kendall, W. D.

  Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

  De la Bère, R.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

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

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Drayson, G. B.

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

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Drewe, C.

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Eccles, D. M.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Savory, prof. D. L.

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Fraser, M. C. P. (Stone)

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Mackeson, Brig, H. R.

  Stoddart-Scott. Col. M.

  Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

  Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

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

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Touche, G. C.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Studholme, H. G.

  Turton, R. H.

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

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Major Conant and

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Mr. Wingfield Digby.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

  NOES

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Albu, A. H.

  Hale, Leslie

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

  Pearson, A.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Popplewell, E.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Harrison, J.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

  Pursey, Comdr. H.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Ranger, J.

  Balfour, A.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Reeves, J.

  Barton, C.

  Holman, P.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Battley, J. R.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Robens, A.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Benson, G.

  Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Berry, H.

  Hoy, J.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Binns, J.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Royle, C.

  Blenkinsop, A.

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

  Scollan, T.

  Boardman, H.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.

  Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

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

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

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Janner, B.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

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

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Jenkins, R. H.

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

  Callaghan, James

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

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

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Snow, J. W.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Keenan, W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Kinley, J.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Collindridge, F.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Collins, V. J.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

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

  Leslie, J. R.

  Stokes, R. R.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Swingler, S.

  Daggar, G.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Daines, P.

  Longden, F.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  McAdam, W.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

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

  McGhee, H. G.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Mack, J. D.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Deer, G.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

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

  Viant, S. P.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Walkden, E.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Walker, G. H.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Messer, F.

  Weitzman, D.

  Dye, S.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin'gh, E.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

  Mitchison, G. R.

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

  Ewart, R.

  Moody, A. S.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Morley, R.

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

  Fernyhough, E.

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

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Follick, M.

  Moyle, A.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Foot, M. M.

  Murray, J. D.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Naylor, T. E.

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

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Gibbins, J.

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

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Noel-Batter, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

  Woods, G. S.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Wyatt, W.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Orbach, M.

  Yates, V. F.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Paget, R. T.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Grey, C. F.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Parker, J.

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Parkin, B. T.

  Mr. Hannan.

  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services relating to the Central Office of Information and the Economic Information Unit for the year ending on the 31st March, 1950, namely:

  Civil Estimates 1949–50

  £

  Class VII, Vote 10, Central Office of Information

  10

  Class I, Vote 4, Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  10

  Total

  £20"

  —[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. Brendan Bracken: After the shock to the system of the Lord President of the Council, I feel I must be very careful about my criticisms tonight. It is not often that he has such a poor majority in the House, so I shall have to do my very best not to upset the right hon. Gentleman's temper. Let me begin by telling him that I think he will agree with me that it would be altogether inappropriate to bring party spinosities into this Debate. Controversy is inevitable; in all matters of publicity controversy must reign, as the Lord President knows.
  We must try tonight to consider the merits or the defects of a technical service. I have heard with a good deal of irritation charges against some persons in high places in the Central Office of Information. I have been told that they who have long been members of the Socialist Party must, therefore, be Socialist propagandists. I cannot give any credit to such charges. I am sure that the C.O.I. staff contains many who sympathise with the Socialist Party, the Liberal Party and the Tory Party, but I also know that they are faithful public servants and would not betray the trust put in them.
  Mr. Wyatt: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman tell the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)?
  Mr. Bracken: Tell him what?
  Mr. Wyatt: What the right hon. Gentleman has just said.
  Mr. Bracken: That seems to be rather an irrelevant interruption. I speak tonight with some familiarity on this particular topic, because all through the war I was told that both the B.B.C. and the Ministry of Information were staffed either by Tories, Socialists and at one time Communists, but I want to make it quite clear, knowing a few of the officers concerned, that I do not believe that the public servants in the C.O.I. have any party allegiance today. Their allegiance is to the State.
  As I have already said, this Debate must inevitably cut across party lines. Some of my hon. Friends, and indeed one or two of my right hon. Friends, think that the C.O.I. serves or can serve a useful purpose. Some Members of other parties disagree. Perhaps I ought to explain at the outset that I do not believe that any Ministry of Information or a Government information bureau serves any good purpose in peace time. I should be very inconsistent if I were to do so. I was one of the very few Members of Parliament—I think there were only four or five—who strongly opposed Mr. Chamberlain's decision to set up a Ministry of Information in peace time. In looking back on it, I wish my opposition had been successful.
  When I took some responsibility for the Ministry of Information in 1941 I obtained the then Prime Minister's assent to my stating publicly that the Ministry would end with the war. That statement cheered up the public when things were going very badly for Britain. I do not believe in Government organisations handling news, printing magazines avid running news services or being big film producers in peace time.
  Mr. Follick: "Noose" is what they hang a man with.
  Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member really ought to toy about with his revolving toothbrush. He contributes very little to our debates. I must now repeat what I said. I do not believe in Governments running news services or being big film producers in peace time. Nor am I impressed by the argument that if a Government bureau—and I think that is the best way of describing the Central Office of Information—sticks to the dissemination of facts it will do no harm and may do good. The late Dr. Goebbels' most effective propaganda did

  965
  not consist in spreading frigid and calculated lies. He arranged his facts to suit his argument.
  I am not in any way comparing the virtuous C.O.I. with Dr. Goebbels' organisation, but I do assert that Government-distributed news, Government newspapers or magazines are tainted by their origin. These are only my fallible personal opinions and I daresay some members of my party may disagree with me, so I shall try to examine the affairs of the C.O.I. as impartially as I can. I am not very optimistic, Mr. Butcher, that I shall earn any sort of tribute for impartiality.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from the main point, does he really mean to say that this very important pronouncement of his during the war, that the Ministry of Information would be brought to an end at the end of the war—and I am not discussing the merits—was settled personally between him and the then Prime Minister, and that no Cabinet Committee had a word in the matter at all?
  Mr. Bracken: First of all, the right hon. Gentleman was not so important in the Cabinet of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) as he is in the present Cabinet. He was not a Member of the War Cabinet at that time. If he had been I think he would have known that, in point of fact, the War Cabinet were as delighted as were the public by the news that the Ministry of Information was coming to an end. We must not become involved in Cabinet secrets, however.
  Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman started this and I only want to know whether this very important pronouncement was made solely on the personal authority of himself and the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Bracken: My personal authority was very small then, as always, but the Prime Minister was perfectly in his rights to give that assurance. I stated it many times in this House and the right hon. Gentleman, the Lord President, did not resign from the Government when the peccant Minister of Information made that statement; he stayed silent, for once. Do not let us go into Cabinet secrets, however.
  Mr. Morrison: Dictatorship.
  Mr. Bracken: The word "dictatorship" comes very ill from the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman, the great black spot deliverer to Prime Ministers.
  The first question which I have to ask tonight is, are we justified in expending the enormous sums on publicity at the present time that we are asked to spend in this White Paper? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is constantly lecturing employers and trade unions on the necessity for cutting spending, and yet the Government are spending more than £16 million a year on publicity. This gross extravagance is a positive encouragement to those who serve the nationalised industries to press their wage claims and it is also a tonic to inflation.
  My next question is: Is the C.O.I. really necessary? Having read its report with the greatest care and having tried to follow its operations, I cannot see any justification for maintaining this enormously over-staffed office. In addition to this staff, the Government maintain an army of public relations officers and publicity men at home and abroad. Here I am not taking into account the immense number of public relations officers in the new nationalised industries. I maintain that there is no justification for all the money and the manpower thus expended.
  I have been looking through some of the magazines issued by the Central Office of Information and I can only describe them as pathetic. What is the sense of asking our overburdened taxpayers to finance the publication or the distribution of magazines in the French Union, in Belgium, in Switzerland, in Holland, in Italy and in Flanders? Why should we publish papers in China and Indonesia? What is the sense of sending magazines financed by our taxpayers to India and Pakistan? Or to many other parts of the world?
  I know very well the difficulties of producing a newspaper and I hope I shall not hurt the feelings of anyone connected with the C.O.I. if I say that, on the whole, their magazines have an amateurish quality. I do not blame them for that because, of course, the principal responsibility rests upon those who set up this Central Office of Information and not on its devoted staff. Some

  967
  body ought to tell the planners responsible for setting up the C.O.I. that magazine production is not only one of the most complex and costly of all businesses, but, indeed, is one of the most risky. In my comparatively short lifetime I have seen seven major magazines, at one time enjoying great prosperity, disappear without a trace.
  I must say that the production of magazines is not a business for amateurs. I am not suggesting for a moment that there are no persons with a considerable knowledge of magazine production in the Central Office of Information, but I say that, taking it all in all, their magazines are marked by amateurism. In a sense I do not think it would be an insult to say that they are a sort of glossy parish magazine—indeed, a series of glossy magazines. When they are circulated in countries where there are papers like the "Illustrated London News" or "Country Life," or "Life" or the "Saturday Evening Post," or the many Continental magazines most attractively printed and produced, the only conclusion the reader can reach, if he makes a comparison between the C.O.I. publication and those magazines, is that the British official magazines are pretty poor stuff.
  Again, I must ask a question of the Lord President of the Council: what is the sense of the Central Office of Information broadcasting or telegraphing daily news services to various parts of the world? It was necessary in wartime, when communications were greatly strained. Why is it necessary today? The B.B.C. is one of the most trusted news givers on earth. The English news agencies are both enterprising and reliable. Furthermore, there are large numbers of highly-accomplished Dominion and foreign correspondents in London. As these gentlemen are independent witnesses, the news they give of Britain is acceptable to their readers everywhere and, with a few insignificant exceptions, they give a very fair report of happenings here.
  In the darkest days of the war our best friends in journalism abroad were, of course, the American newspaper correspondents. The Dominion newspaper correspondents, of course, were with us from the beginning. I say it is an insult to the great corps of foreign corre-
  968
  spondents in London for the Government to attempt in a blundering amateurish way to emulate their efforts or compete with their efforts. Of course, the news sent by correspondents accredited by great newspapers in the United States and other parts of the world to Britain is far more acceptable than any news derived from Governmental sources.
  I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any slant in the news distributed or broadcast by Government agencies; I merely say that it is unnecessary and I must tell the Lord President that even if the Angel Gabriel were in charge of a Government information service, most of the editors would suspect it of propaganda. The Central Office of Information defends its news and features services on the ground that—and I quote from a sentence in its last report—
  "They are provided by journalists for journalists."
  But the journalists who work for the Central Office of Information are paid by the Government, and I say that any news issued from this country that is paid for by the Government does not have any effect on the opinion that foreigners hold of Britain. I think the Government should have nothing whatever to do with the distribution of news.
  I am afraid also that it must be said of much of the Central Office of Informations film production, that it can be described only as poor stuff. I have taken the opinion of some theatre owners who are badgered to show those films, and, on the whole, they say they are well-meaning but crude films. I am sorry to interrupt the Lord President's conversation. I hope I am not disturbing him.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman ought not to be so touchy. I am checking up some of his statements.
  Mr. Bracken: Well passed.
  Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman will hear about it.
  Mr. Bracken: I have received many letters giving a highly critical account of the quality of many of the lecturers employed by the Central Office of Information. I also have received complaints about the fatuity of some of its divisions. I am not going to say much about lecturers, because during the war I suffered considerable anguish through the indiscretions of lecturers who were

  969
  operating either abroad or at home. Finally, the Ministry of Information came to the conclusion that it would loose no more lecturers on the United States of America. But I do hope that the Lord President will look into this matter of briefing lecturers, and that he will also remember that in times like these, and after a long war, and after people have put up with a long series of lectures, there is not much popularity nowadays for lectures given by persons acrcedited by the Central Office of Information.
  I have received many criticisms of the operations of the Central Office of Information. I shall not burden the House by reading them all, but I must make one exception in favour of a copy of a letter I received today from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan)—who has most appropriately arrived this second. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley is head of the great publishing house of Macmillan. This letter I am about to read may seem to many people to be almost incredible. Certainly, if one had to compile an anthology of futility this letter would occupy a prominent place. Here it is:
  "Central Office of Information,
  Block 2, Montague Mansions.
  Crawford Street,
  W.1.
  Dear Mr. Allen,
  Polish rights—"
  I do not mention the name of the firm.
  "The above named publishers are interested in the Polish language rights in 'Gulliver's Travels' by J. Swift. If the rights are still available, could you please let me have a reading copy and your terms for this firm?"
  Mr. H. Morrison: Who signed it?
  Mr. Bracken: I think that, in all the circumstances, we should not mention the civil servant's name, but I shall give it to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I want to see if it is Anglo-Saxon.
  Mr. Bracken: I shall give the name to the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think it is fair to mention the civil servant's name publicly in connection with this indiscretion or folly. This letter, if you please, came from the Copyright Section of the Central Office of Information. It is evidence of the great sense of honesty of my right hon. Friend that
  970
  he did not immediately respond to the lavish invitation offered to him by the Central Office of Information. Indeed, he might have added that the film rights were also available.
  Mr. Follick: It has been filmed before.
  Mr. Bracken: Swift took great pains to conceal the authorship of "Gulliver's Travels," and was greatly delighted by the story of the sailor who said that he knew Captain Gulliver well, but he lived at Wapping and not at Rotherhithe. More than 200 years have passed since the secret of this authorship was pierced. That fact should be taken into account by the Central Office of Information. As hon. Members know, this book was a literary earthquake in the eighteenth century. Voltaire, who was then an exile in England, made it popular reading all over the Continent.
  I should have thought that no educated person in the world—save the copyright officers in the Central Office of Information—was unaware that Swift has been dead for two centuries. Oddly enough, Swift, in 1731, anticipating the way posterity might treat him, wrote a poem on his death. I think it is rather fun to read it.
  "Some county squire to Lintot goes"—
  I must explain that Lintot was an inferior Macmillan—
  "Enquires for Swift in verse and prose.
  Says Lintot, 'I have heard the name:
  He died a year ago,' the same …
  His way of writing now is past."
  Lintot was a strange publisher, but not so strange as some of the denizens of the Copyright Department of the Central Office of Information.
  While I think that letter is funny, I am not suggesting that the Central Office of Information lacks many men and women of great ability and devotion to duty; but I do say that they are being set an impossible task by the Government. This office is a crazy contraption for which none of the officers of the Central Office of Information appears to have any responsibility. It was set up by planners. Let me make one more quotation from Swift which perfectly fits the planners:
  "They have the misfortune to be perpetually mistaken."
  These planners knew little or nothing about the production of newspapers,

  971
  magazines, or any other publicity affair. They, in fact, have muddled up the functions of the Ministry of Education with amateurish magazine production and perspiring, pointless propaganda. They have nauseated the public with endless repetitions upon every subject.
  The control of the C.O.I. is worthy of its planners. I read a speech last year by the Lord President which gave us a rather long picture of this wondrous organisation. Apparently, it is ruled by a Ministerial Committee with the Lord President in the Chair. What a silly idea to set up a Committee of busy Ministers to control a publicity organisation. I think there are something like seven or eight Ministers apparently responsible under the Lord President's chairmanship for exercising authority over the unfortunate Central Office of Information. I have a great respect for the Lord President's administrative abilities. Let me remind him that he is also the active, not to say bustling, chief-of-staff of the Socialist Party. His right hon. Friend the Minister of Health had the impudence to describe him as a Tammany boss. Who am I to better that description? I think that it is altogether wrong that a gentleman so despised should in fact be the ministerial head of the Central Office of Information.
  I have one serious complaint to make about the Lord President's approach to his task as Chairman of the Ministerial Committee that rules the Central Office of Information. Last year the right hon. Gentleman perpetrated an outrage. He came down to this House, and, in outlining the purposes of the Central Office of Information, he said that the national morale would have been in a dangerous state unless the Central Office of Information had not been there to warn the people of the economic facts of life. Nothing could be more arrogant or foolish. Such words have not been said in this House since the days of Cromwell.
  Mr. H. Morrison: He never said them any way.
  Mr. Bracken: If he did, he would have said them in better English. I say that it is an insult to the British people to say that their morale is so shaky that it needs the succour of the presence of the Lord President and the Central Office of
  972
  Information. I hope that we shall not hear language like this ever expressed in the House again.
  The Central Office of Information might serve a useful purpose as a distributor of Departmental statements and as the controller of Government advertising. Think how much paper, binding and printing facilities that would have been invaluable for the production of educational books would be saved, if the Central Office of Information were turned into a unit attached to the Stationery Office which is a well-organised common service for Government Departments. As the Lord President has been busy with his confidential man-of-affairs, let me say to him once again that the shortage of educational books in this country is a hampering, indeed, almost a tragic blow to many primary schools, secondary schools and even to the universities. I assert that if the paper used for these magazines and the many kinds of propaganda put out by the C.O.I. were diverted to educational purposes a great service would be rendered to Britain. Furthermore—and I attach some importance to this, my last point—if my suggestion were adopted and the C.O.I. became a unit of the Stationery Office the talents of very many able civil servants who now serve the C.O.I. could be put to better purpose. To sum up, the present sprawling organisation of the Central Office of Information is a costly absurdity, and I hope that the Government will get rid of it as soon as possible.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Wyatt: The speech to which we have just listened bears a remarkable similarity to the speech delivered last year by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan).
  Mr. Bracken: I did not think that it was so good.
  Mr. Wyatt: Unfortunately it was not so good because the right hon. Member for Bromley had quite a number of jokes in his speech, whereas the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken had only one joke which he rather laboured, and which, in any case, he got from the right hon. Member for Bromley; otherwise it was a very good joke and we enjoyed it.
  Mr. Bracken: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a joke that the Government should pay the salary of a civil ser-

  973
  vant to write to a publishing house to ask about the possibility of producing the work of an author who died 200 years ago, I do not call that a joke; I call it a scandal. Let me, furthermore, tell the hon. Gentleman that a joke in his mouth is certainly no laughing matter.
  Mr. Wyatt: I am sorry that the only merit that I detected in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was apparently not supposed to be there in any case. Apparently, he told us the story not because it was amusing but because he thought he had unearthed some public scandal because some very minor civil servant in a section of one of the Departments of State had made a mistake.
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: As I am somewhat responsible for this, I want to make it quite clear, first, that for many generations publishers have been quite able themselves to sell their translation rights of those books still in copyright, and if they had not been able to do so a very large number of efficient literary agents exists who could perfectly well handle this business. I regard it as folly that a section of this office, under the control of the Lord President of the Council, should be set up to deal with translation rights which could be ably dealt with by publishers or literary agents; and if it is set up, without the courtesy of informing the publishers that it has been set up, it should at least carry out its duties efficiently.
  Mr. Wyatt: Last year it was clear that the Debate which we had on C.O.I. was meant to be the initiator of a comic series with the right hon. Member for Bromley as the chief performer. This time it is going to be a double act as we have advantage of having two chief performers at once on this occasion. Not only that, but the right hon. Member for Bromley is quite wrong in what he has told the House, I, in a minor and humble way, have a connection with copyright myself. I happen to edit a book periodical which comes out once a year and many times during the year following the publication of that book, I get letters from the copyright section of C.O.I. saying that there have been inquiries from such and such a country in Europe or elsewhere to reprint the work of a particular author in the periodical. The copyright section performs a useful service.
  974
  The difficulty in discussing the Central Office of Information in this House is that the Opposition will not and cannot bring themselves to take the matter seriously. They wish to display their sometimes quite funny music-hall tricks and double acts, but they do not want a serious discussion on information. They want to poke fun at a few civil servants who cannot come here and answer back.
  Mr. H. Macmillan: Who asked for the name?
  Mr. Wyatt: It is not my job to ask for the name. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley will have plenty of opportunity to speak later on in the Debate, and I am now going to get on with my subject matter. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) said that we were going to have a quiet objective discussion on the subject of information. It is going very nicely so far. Let us turn to his main criticism, which was that the Central Office of Information—and I hope that I am right—is totally unnecessary because it performs services which are already performed by someone else or do not need to be performed at all. If I am wrong as to what he said, I shall gladly give way to him so that we can get the matter quite right. As the right hon. Gentleman does not intervene I gather that I am not wrong.
  The real test that I think must be applied to the Central Office of Information, which costs £4,000,000 a year, is: What are the results that we get from that expenditure? We can divide them, broadly, into two categories: The results achieved at home and overseas. Most people would agree that today the country is far better informed on economic matters than it was before the war, that there is a far greater sense of what is at stake, of the issues involved, and what is required from each person than there ever was in the days when we did not have an office of information at all.
  Mr. Bracken: The municipal elections showed that.
  Mr. Wyatt: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not complain if he gets a few by-products from it?
  Mr. Driberg: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the results were due to misinformation.
  Mr. Wyatt: It has been very remarkable to see how well our needs have been understood, including the need for increased production. Also we can see some really fine achievements from a number of specific campaigns run by the Central Office of Information. Consider, for instance, the campaign to get recruits into the cotton industry. In 1946 there were only 23,000 new entrants into the cotton industry; in 1947 only 26,000; but in 1948 there were 47,000, and it is not a coincidence that in April, 1948, the Central Office of Information began a campaign to attract people to work in the cotton industry, when there was at once an increase in the number of people coming forward to work in that industry.
  Mr. Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wyatt: I really think I have been interrupted quite sufficiently by the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
  Much the same thing applies to the campaign begun a little later in the year to attract people into the woollen industry. There again, the number of recruits into that industry was almost doubled as a result of the Central Office of Information press and poster campaign.
  Leaving the economic field, let us consider the campaign which has now been run for nearly eight years to make people aware of the need to immunise their children against diphtheria—a very important matter. In 1940 and 1941 about 45,000 new cases of diphtheria were notified each year. At the end of eight years' campaigning by the Central Office of Information and its predecessor, the Ministry of Information, the number of new notified cases each year has dropped to 8,000. If that is not a remarkable achievement in the field of publicity and advertising I really do not know what is. That campaign alone, by reducing the number of notified new cases of diphtheria has saved the taxpayer £2 million a year—because that is the saving in hospital treatment by the reduction of those notified cases every year. So even on that one campaign alone, which at the moment costs £35,000 a year in press and poster advertising, £2 million a year is saved for the State, and 2,500 nurses are released for other work. Now, that is
  976
  nearly half the cost of the Central Office of Information at home. To my mind, that in itself would justify the existence of the C.O.I., if it did not do anything else.
  But it does many other things. Recently, there was a great shortage of teachers in the schools, as every hon. Member knows. There was an emergency, and it was necessary to recruit new teachers as quickly as possible. From June to September, 1948, the Central Office of Information ran a Press and poster campaign to encourage people to undergo emergency teachers' training courses. Before that campaign began, there were roughly 100 applications a week from people to undertake emergency training teachers' courses. After the campaign applications rose to 600 a week—six times as many. And as a result of the Press and poster campaign launched by the Central Office of Information they got all the teachers required. I notice that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth is not laughing any more. I suppose he thinks that was quite useful.
  Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman seems to have got his facts wrong. What happened was that the Government encouraged 10,000 young men to be trained as teachers; they then discovered that they wanted women teachers and not men teachers. Of all the muddles I have seen in my lifetime, the muddle the Ministry of Education made on that occasion was the worst, and if the hon. Gentleman is a temporary supporter of the Government he should recognise that fact.
  Mr. Wyatt: It is very difficult to distinguish between abuse, facetiousness and argument in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. The fact I was talking about—which he has not denied, so his interruption, as usual, is quite irrelevant—was that before a campaign was started to encourage people to undergo emergency training to become teachers there were 100 applications a week, and after the campaign had been started there were 600 applications a week. That is all I am discussing. I am not trying, in this Debate on the C.O.I. initiated by the Opposition, to discuss the work of the Ministry of Education.
  Those are but a few examples of the work done at home by the Central Office of Information, which in themselves show

  977
  that this body is performing a very valuable public service well justifying the amount of money spent. Indeed, they are doing it very cheaply. But there are other campaigns, such as encouraging recruits into the agricultural industry, and getting temporary workers on the land during harvesting, road safety campaigns, and many others about which hon. Members know.
  There is one point of substance, and only one, in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman which needs to be answered, and that is whether this job should not be done by somebody else. It is quite true that the Ministry of Education could do the advertising for emergency teachers, that the Ministry of Health could do the advertising for diptheria immunisation, and that all the other Departments could do their own advertising. But in this matter the Government have followed the best example offered to us by private enterprise. In a vast concern like, say, Shell Mex, the publicity for all its various branches is not conducted by each Department as it wants to sell a particular product. The expert advice is centralised, so that when a particular commodity has to be sold, or when a new product comes on the market, the department goes to that central advice bureau where the expert knowledge is and gets the best advice to enable them to do the job; they get the thing done professionally, instead of doing it in an amateur, inefficient and expensive way.
  That is precisely what the C.O.I. does. It offers an expert advisory service to the Departments of State; when they require something of the kind I have just been describing, a department of the C.O.I. can do it in the most efficient and cheapest way. If the C.O.I. did not exist, its work would have to be done by all the various Departments of State. And not only that, but it would cost much more than £4 million, because it would be expensive and inefficient to add all those various branches of the C.O.I. on to the Departments of State.
  We now begin to come to the real hub of the right hon. Gentleman's argument—an argument which, as can be seen from the asinine jeers of his hon. Friends sitting behind him, is very dear to the Tory heart. They do not want the people to have any information at all; they never have done; certainly no accurate
  978
  information. Now, what does the right hon. Gentleman tell us? He says: "Why have a Central Office of Information? There are many other agencies which produce news and facts." Of course there are. There is all the Tory Press, which will produce as much misinformation as you like. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends say: "For goodness sake don't let us have anything accurate going out because we may get rumbled; the people may realise what is efficient and what is not, what is desirable and what is not. We want to try to put the blanket of obscurantism over the whole country." Does the right hon. Gentleman want to interrupt now?
  Mr. Bracken: No, but I have been challenged. I have been told that we want to issue a lot of mis-information. May I remind the hon. Member of a statement made by one of his own leaders, the Minister of State, in New York, that the British Press is one of the most accurate if not the most accurate in the world? Does he dissent from that statement?
  Mr. Wyatt: It is not saying much that it is one of the most accurate in the world, nor is it so voluntary spirited that it will carry through all sorts of schemes which only the Government can do. Presumably, the right hon. Gentleman does not want any campaigns on diphtheria immunisation or road safety; but wants the country to drift along in an aimless sort of way, particularly on the economic front, so that we can have an economic crisis when perhaps the Tories will get back, which is the only way they will get back. And so we come back to this point, that the real truth of the matter is that the Conservative Party do not want any information at all. It is not the C.O.I. they object to, but the fact that people are now being told things for the first time in history and really learning what the world is all about. So much for the home front side of the matter.
  I should like now to deal with the extraordinary contention that it is undesirable for British sponsored magazines to be published in France and, presumably, the Far East and China, that it is a great pity to do this at all and that in any case they are all so amateur that no one buys them because their commercial rivals are so much better. If that

  979
  is so, how is it that every month during 1948 the average number of magazines printed by the C.O.I. has been 1,700,000?
  Mr. Bracken: How many were given away?
  Mr. Wyatt: The great majority of them were sold, although some may have been given away.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the hon. Member says that they are sold, will he kindly say where they are sold and how much currency has been received for them? Will he also say where this is to be found in the Estimates now under discussion?
  Mr. Wyatt: It is not my responsibility to dig up all the facts in this Debate for the hon. and gallant Member. I am quite prepared to give some of the facts, but I cannot, quite obviously, give all the details out of my head. I can tell the hon. and gallant Member, however, that the magazine "Buick" in Germany sells 200,000 a month—
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: What magazine?
  Mr. Wyatt: "Buick." Obviously the hon. and gallant Member has never heard of it and therefore has made no investigations into the C.O.I., as it is one of their principal magazines. Why do Members opposite come down to the House to debate the C.O.I. if they have not made investigations in the first place? The same applies with many other magazines produced by C.O.I. which are both bought and very popular. There is no need to discontinue such magazines so long as they can be sold and can put forward the attitude of mind of this country.
  The right hon. Gentleman then goes on to complain about the news services. "Oh dear me, why are we sending out news from this country? There are plenty of journalists reporting back to their countries," says the right hon. Gentleman. He should not display his ignorance quite so much. If he went abroad to places like the Far East, he would find that large numbers of papers are published which cannot afford to pay agencies for the use of their feature articles. They are only too glad to take articles free from the British Press
  980
  Attaché, which reflect this country in quite a good light. Many of these papers have a wide circulation, even running into hundreds of thousands in the vernacular and therefore bring before the people who read them the facts, figures and information concerning this country which otherwise would not be told.
  These people would not know where we stand on the major issues of the day without these news services. If these news services were of no value, surely the Embassies would have reported back that no one was using them and would we please discontinue them. This is not the case; they are asking for them more and more because of their great value. [Interruption.] I can see that we have now returned to the facetious Conservative attitude towards information. Apparently it is all very funny and a big joke if some good service is being done for the country.
  I thought about a year ago that we really did need a more vigorous policy in our information services. I felt that what we really wanted was a Minister of Information and not merely the Lord President of the Council exercising a sort of supervisory eye on things. I do not often repent when I disagree with the Lord President but in this case I do to a certain extent. I think that his view has worked out rather better than mine. The system as far as home affairs are concerned has settled down quite well. Its deficiencies of a year ago were due very largely to the fact that it was a new system and the Departments had not got used to the best way to work it. On the other hand, I cannot say anything very different from what I said last year about the overseas services. About 40 per cent. of the staff of the C.O.I. is occupied with the overseas services, and over £1 million of the budget of the C.O.I. is spent on these services.
  The trouble is that the people who implement information activities overseas are employed by the Foreign Office and are Foreign Office officials. It is part of the new doctrine of the Foreign Office that every person who is in the diplomatic service should be trained in all aspects of overseas work, which includes working as a Press or information officer for a period of time. Being an information officer is not the sort of thing one can get the hang of or learn about in

  981
  a short period of time. It is a very professional job.
  I believe there is a great danger, unless the people employed overseas to disseminate our information are members of the staff of the C.O.I., that the work will become very much more amateur and will justify some of the strictures of Members opposite. It is a great pity that the Foreign Office maintain this rather rigid attitude towards the staff. It is very difficult for those people who produce the stuff in the C.O.I. over here to have so many amateurs telling them what they ought to do. I am referring particularly to the Foreign Office.
  I was talking recently to the editor of one of the magazines produced by the C.O.I.—I shall not give its name—who told me that he was liable to be approached by 19 different people to include matters in his magazine or to be asked why he had included such and such a matter. These were people who did not understand the technical side of the job, and it took him a great deal of time to get his magazine tidied up and straightened out after a lot of rather useless interference from the Foreign Office. If only he could deal with one co-ordinating organisation or one person he would be better off. He had the technical knowledge to produce a professional job selling a large number of copies every month, despite the right hon. Gentleman's observations, and did so, but too close an interference from the Foreign Office made it difficult.
  I feel that the Government should look into the question of the Foreign Office being so closely linked up not only with policy but with the actual dissemination of information. No one suggests that the Foreign Office should not have the major say about what is put out overseas, but they should not have any say about the technical side of it, because there are others who can do it so much better.
  I believe that the Committee should express itself as being well satisfied with the work of the C.O.I. during the past year. It is a great misfortune for this particular Department that it always comes in for "smart Alec" jokes and cheap "cracks" of the kind which we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth. There are very few people on the other
  982
  side of the Committee who bother seriously to consider what it does. Instead, they prefer to make superficial jokes. This is all very wounding to the devoted civil servants who do a serious job over the year, and who are not solely concerned with three hours' amusement once a year in May. It is regrettable that the Opposition should take this line, because the C.O.I. have done a first-class job both at home and overseas.
  I hope my right hon. Friend will deal with some of the charges which are continuously made by hon. Members opposite about political bias. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Bournemouth to say that he does not believe there is any political bias, but some of his hon. Friends behind him apparently do not believe it. For instance, the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) raised today the question of political bias in a Budget pamphlet. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is always doing it, and so are others. It is most disgraceful continually to accuse officials of political bias when they cannot reply, and when it is not even true anyway. On the Budget pamphlet, when I first opened it I thought the bias was against the Labour Party because the first statement in it was that the £ was worth only half what it was before the war, that a basket of shopping which used to cost £1 would now cost £2. I do not believe that is true; for instance, many rationed goods are very little higher in price than they were before the war.
  But I did not raise any question of political bias; I did not say that there was a Tory in the C.O.I. who was spreading this information. I took it that someone had taken a slightly different point of view from mine. It is no use the Opposition pretending that someone in the C.O.I. is acting with political bias when all they are really trying to do is to convince the country that there should be no information at all, and that we should all live in a land of darkness in which they hope they may be able one day to smuggle themselves back into power.
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. David Renton: The complacency of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) ill-becomes an hon. Member speaking in Committee of

  983
  Supply, when it is his duty to scrutinise public accounts with a view to seeing that public money is being properly spent. We have been told in the annual report of the C.O.I. that the Office has two main purposes—first, to co-ordinate the work of the Information Services of various Government Departments; and, second, to use the official jargon,
  "to secure a wider and clearer apprehension of the national economic task, and the purposive direction of the national energies towards its completion."
  When we come to look in detail at the various tasks which the C.O.I. has taken upon itself, either on its own initiative or on behalf of various Departments, we find that the purposes for which it exists are being filled in a rather nebulous way. I suggest to the Lord President that he should not listen to the complacent advice given him by the hon. Member for Aston, but should scrutinise carefully the report, and the Estimates which followed it, with a view to seeing where economies can be made. I would like to suggest some economies which can be made, and to point out some of the things which were done and which certainly were not necessary. In the first place, I suggest that the purpose of the C.O.I. is not merely to publish things which may be rather interesting or amusing. On page 17 of the report, there is a list of films which have been completed and which make up 25 per cent. of the net expenditure of the Office, quite apart from the Stationery Office.
  Under the heading "National Life and Progress" there is a film, made by the Economic Information Unit, called "Pop goes the Weasel." The subject of it is how revenue from direct taxation is spent. It would be most interesting to know how a film about the way in which our enormous direct taxation is spent will help economic recovery. It sounds like an attempt to pardon the unpardonable. I have not seen the film, but—
  Mr. H. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman making his rather sweeping criticisms solely on the grounds of the title of the film?
  Mr. Renton: Presumably the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the title is accurate. I have not been spending, or perhaps wasting, my time in seeing a lot of these films, but if their titles
  984
  are accurate my comments are perfectly fair. The right hon. Gentleman will see that further down the page there is a list of films with an asterisk against them, which denotes that they were made primarily for showing overseas. What use is it to this country that overseas audiences should see films on farming in South-East England, or the job of a country policeman in Scotland? Obviously, these films are unnecessary, and money should not have been spent on them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Hon. Members opposite should show a sense of proportion. Money is vitally needed for health services, and it may not be forthcoming unless we can make economies in other directions.
  On page 18 we see, under the heading "National Progress," a film called "All eyes on Britain," a survey of recent British achievements. A film on this subject was not sent overseas, but I ask what is the use of making a film of our own achievements for home consumption? What is the use of patting ourselves on the back with the aid of the C.O.I.? Then there was an unusual and rather longer film, a two and a half reel film, entitled "The Health Services." I assume, from that title, that the film extolled the virtues of our National Health Service. We have learned from experience that our people do not require any encouragement in the use of that Service. Indeed, we know that they may have to be slightly discouraged.
  When we turn to page 19 we find, under the heading "The Life of the Commonwealth," that there have been four excellent films about the Colonies. I have no doubt they are most interesting and admirable, and they may have a highly educational value, but they are sponsored not by the Central Office of Information but by the Colonial Office. Further, they are for showing at home. Is it really necessary that films should be produced in this country, in addition to the many excellent documentary films produced by private distributors, showing what life is like in the Colonies. Under the heading of "Instructional Films," which are not for general distribution but apparently for particular bodies, there is a film about the surface dressing of roads by tar and one entitled "Precise measurement for Engineers." Our roads have been pretty good roads for a good many years.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: They are lousy.
  Mr. Renton: To dress the roads with tar is something which is well understood, and I should have thought it was quite an abuse of the principle of having a Central Office of Information, if we must have one, that it should produce films of that kind.
  To my mind, the most extraordinary thing is a film sponsored by the Ministry of Food entitled "How to make Pickles." I suppose a film on that subject should be sponsored by the Government because they would know better than anyone perhaps how to make pickles. We have to ask ourselves whether it is part of the welfare of the State that we should spend public money teaching people how to run their homes. On page 20 there is another film, the title of which is "Good Taste in Furnishing a Home." Good taste varies. There is no absolute standard, and I hope that this film does not try to establish one. We have to ask ourselves, bearing in mind the state of our finances and the development of our society, is it necessary? And the answer to this question, as to all the others, is obviously that it is not necessary, and a lot of public money could be saved if these films were not produced.
  I should like to make a few remarks on the pamphlet about the Economic Survey. This also was not necessary. It is a most interesting little pamphlet, and I have learned a certain amount from it. It was obviously very expensive to produce: it is highly illustrated; and there are lots of good diagrams and cartoons by eminent cartoonists. One of the cartoons shows a gentleman walking a tight rope, another an official followed by a bull and a third, an egg divided into four different parts. The assumption underlying this pamphlet is that the ungodly can be made better people if they are made to read the Bible and the Prayer Book. Perhaps that can be done if they buy the Bible and the Prayer Book.
  People are being asked to pay 6d. for this little book, but how many of the people who will buy it are people needing to be cured by the lessons which this book prescribes? If they are serious students, the Economic Survey itself should suffice, but for the generality of mankind, whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer is continually exhorting to greater efforts, I
  986
  should have thought the reports of his own speeches over the B.B.C. and in the newspapers on both sides would have sufficed. I might add that we on this side of the House follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer in exhorting supporters of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. Scollan: I gather the arguments produced by the hon. Gentleman against the Central Office of Information suggest the idea that the booklet, from which he quoted, purports to ask the people to read the Bible, and I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the Economic Survey will be far more fitted to the occasion than the Bible. Is that correct?
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's question reveals such a remarkable confusion of thought that I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain the earlier parts of my speech to him behind the Speaker's Chair. I will willingly do so.
  Mr. Scollan: Save me from that. I have had it already.
  Mr. Renton: When one looks at the possible purposes of this little Economic Survey one wonders whether it will persuade our people to further efforts. There are other ways of doing that, such as arranging direct or indirect taxation reliefs so that there are material incentives. It may be that the purpose of it partly is to prove that what hon. Gentlemen in the Party opposite were saying for 30 years before they came into power has now somewhat to be amended. The main lesson of this is one which has already been declared on posters all over the country—that we must work or want. Everything that is said in this booklet leads to one simple conception—it will be found in each chapter. Surely this expensively published book is unnecessary. If the Government have made a loss it is lamentable from the point of view of the taxpayer; if the Government have made a profit, that is a very nice result for a speculative venture, but was it necessary to speculate?
  In conclusion, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how exactly is the work of the Central Office of Information co-ordinated with that of the public relations officers of the various Departments? It is obvious from the activities of these

  987
  public relations officers that they, too, cost a very great deal each in their little Department. Liaison itself is often a costly item of administration, and, having this Central Office of Information and the public relations officers, liaison between them obviously must be necessary. I suggest that on balance it would be better to do without the Central Office of Information, and the right hon. Gentleman will be better without his liaison.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Driberg: The speeches in this Debate so far have been quite clearly demarcated. There was the strictly factual speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) and the strictly frivolous speeches that we have had from hon. Members opposite. The first of them—
  Mr. Renton: On a point of Order. The hon. Member's idea of what is frivolous and my own idea may vary very considerably, but as he has accused me of making a frivolous speech I must say that had I made a frivolous speech you, Mr. Butcher, would presumably have ruled me out of Order. It is therefore an improper suggestion on the part of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) to describe my speech as frivolous.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Butcher): The hon. Member is responsible for any statements that he may make.
  Mr. Driberg: In the course of my few years in Parliament I have never tried to interrupt someone else on a bogus point of Order. I quite realise that some hon. Members opposite have to fall back upon that sort of thing, especially if they do not know the meanings of simple English words like "frivolous." The speech of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) was not irrelevant, but the word "frivolous" does not mean irrelevant. It means that the speech was simply not up to the level of the subject. I shall proceed in due course, if I am not interrupted by too many bogus points of Order, to say precisely why, and in what respects, that speech fell short of the gravitas that we are trying to attain.
  First we had the familiar caperings of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), which are
  988
  always extremely enjoyable, and his jokes about the true "Tale of the Tub" and the misunderstanding about Jonathan Swift. I would just venture to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that that is a very old kind of joke. That is the kind of mistake that civil servants have been making for many years, even before there was a Central Office of Information. I well remember some few years ago, when that excellent light entertainment "The Beggar's Opera" was produced in the Lyric Theatre, Hammersmith, by the late Sir Nigel Playfair, in the days, I think, of Tory misrule, that the Inland Revenue tried very hard to get into touch with Mr. John Gay.
  I was, incidentally, rather surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's effrontery, if I may use that word, in quoting that tribute by the Minister of State to the British Press, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's own grossly exaggerated, as I thought, and quite irresponsible recent attack on the British Press generally and on its accuracy. I personally take a much higher view of the British Press than did the right hon. Gentleman last week on the occasion to which I am referring. [Interruption.] Did the right hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt me? No? Very well; then I will turn to the other hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Huntingdon sounded, I am perfectly prepared to grant, more serious than did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth. Moreover, he made the perfectly proper initial approach—the duty that hon. Members have of examining expenditure, and so on and so forth; but then—and this is where I suggest, quite seriously, that I was using the word "frivolous" properly—the hon. Member went through the details of some of the films that have been made. The Lord President of the Council interrupted him, and the hon. Gentleman had to admit that he had not bothered to see the films whose production he was criticising: he had merely picked on a title that sounded rather facetious and could be made a joke of in this Committee. Then he went on to criticise other films. One film he criticised was concerned, I think he said, with direct taxation and what it is used for—the hon. Member may by all means interrupt.
  Mr. Renton: I am not sure whether the criticism of the hon. Member for

  989
  Maldon of my remarks is directed to my use of the title or of the subject. I was complaining, obviously, not about the title but about the subject, referred to on page 17. I cannot see what the point was of showing to adult audiences how Government revenue from direct taxation was spent.
  Mr. Driberg: I can assure the hon. Member that there is a very direct use for such a film, in this country at any rate. I had a letter a couple of weeks ago from a farmer in my constituency conveying to me a very old complaint, that many of his farm-workers, and other people in the neighbourhood who were now paying Income Tax, grumbled about it, regarded it as something just taken away from them by the Government and did not understand what it was used for and how it helped towards the national economy. He suggested that much more could and should be done in the way of simple illustrated advertisements or booklets like the popular guide to the Budget—and, he might have added, by way of films such as this, which could be shown in all parts of the country—to help people to understand exactly what happens to the direct and indirect taxes which all of us have to pay. It seems to me that it is an important indirect incentive to greater production if that can really be understood. We all know—hon. Members opposite as well as hon. Members on this side of the House have repeatedly told Chancellors in recent years—that no single item is such a drag on production as the Income Tax payable on overtime. That has to some extent been put right now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said "to some extent." I still think there is ample rom, and if hon. Members opposite disagree with that statement, there is all the more need still for the educational work which can be done by films such as that which the hon. Member was attacking.
  The hon. Member went on to attack a film about the Health Service which is available for showing overseas. Has he not heard of the tremendous interest which there is now in the United States in our National Health Service?
  Mr. Renton: This film is not to be shown overseas, and I did not say that it was, either.
  Mr. Driberg: I am sorry if the hon. Member did not say so and if I am mis-
  990
  quoting him, but presumably, if it is made, it could be shown overseas. I do not see that that is really a very important distinction. Presumably the expenditure which the hon. Member was criticising was the expenditure incurred in making the film at all. I repeat my question to him: Does he not know about the tremendous interest which there is in our National Health Service in the United States? President Truman himself is trying to initiate some such service, though perhaps not on precisely the same lines. We know from people who have been lecturing in America recently, and from American visitors and journalists here, that there is no single aspect of life in this country in which the Americans are so keenly interested as the way in which the Health Service is working. Although I grant the hon. Member the debating-point that, no doubt this film (which I have not seen either) does not show the snags and the difficulties in the experimental stages of the Health Service, nevertheless surely it is fair that there should be a film showing the broad structure of the service, how it is paid for out of general taxation, and what its objects are.
  Mr. Renton: But is the film necessary? That is the point we have to consider.
  Mr. Driberg: I should have said that it was strictly necessary if true and accurate information is necessary at all. I should have thought that this was one very important aspect of life about which information, both domestically and internationally, was of the greatest possible value.
  The subject of information about the Health Service brings me to another point which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), the question of alleged political bias in Government information, which so often worries hon. Members opposite. One pamphlet which was produced some months ago for distribution in America and elsewhere overseas has had a wide circulation. It has been translated into many languages. It is a pamphlet about the National Health Service and about our social security schemes in general. So far from there being any political bias in this pamphlet, so far from the people who prepared it trying to take any credit for the Labour Government, as they might well have done, they lean over backwards

  991
  to do the opposite thing and to be much more fair than they need have been to the party opposite. They state specifically in this pamphlet that the various social security services including the National Health Service, were all more or less agreed policies and agreed Measures, in the shaping of which all the political parties have played their part—which, of course, we who observed the Opposition voting solidly against the National Health Service Act know to be something of an exaggeration.
  The most serious point, with which I want to conclude is this. I do not mind so much about the domestic side of it, although I think my hon. Friend the Member for Aston made a good case for those specialised campaigns and for the economy obviously effected by organising their publicity through a centralised office. Overseas, however, I am sure that there was never so great a need as there is now for genuine, comprehensive and accurate information about life in this country, about the way we run things, and about our outlook generally.
  We are engaged in a great experiment in this country. I know that hon. Members opposite are critical of it when they are here, just as I know that, with a few exceptions, they are fair enough when they are abroad to pay tribute to what is being done by this people, under the leadership of this Government, towards recovery. It is not propaganda material for an unwilling market that we are producing; on the contrary, I understand that all the magazines produced by the European Section of the Central Office of Information, or almost all of them, are sold, and not given away, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth suggested in an interruption. They are sold and they are appreciated by those who buy them.
  Anybody who has been around the world, to the Western hemisphere or to Eastern Europe, and has been into British Institutes or British Libraries, as I have been in the last few years—in Mexico City, in Belgrade and in many other capital cities—and has seen in each place literally thousands of students, young men and women, thronging those libraries daily to read the publications they can see there—some of them newspapers, as the right hon. Gentleman said,
  992
  but also the publications of the Central Office of Information and the various official data available—anybody who has seen that, will realise how true it is that there is a real, effective, continuing demand for what is supplied by this Office.
  I believe that, although we should indeed see that the money is spent economically and used to the best purpose, in the main the Central Office of Information is doing a first-rate job and that it is an essential instrument in the recovery of the nation.
  8.44 p.m.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: We have had two speeches from hon. Members opposite. The last one was slightly pathetic—
  Mr. Scollan: The next one will be worse.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The former was argumentative. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) based his case on abusing what we had said, or what he alleged we had said, and then went on, with one of these newspaper article effects, into the number of towns he had visited in which British propaganda had been useful to him. But, quite honestly, there is only one thing which we are asked to try to decide tonight, and that is, what is the office and purpose for which Government propaganda should be liable, and does it effect its job? I am almost prepared to accept that, even if I disagreed with everything the Central Office of Informtaion put out, even if I thought it all biased, I would tolerate it, if it did what it set out to do. But if it neither achieved what the hon. Member for Maldon described as the great experiment—how the information is being sent everywhere, the usual claptrap—
  Mr. Driberg: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the nation is going rapidly downhill?
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Certainly. If the hon. Gentleman wished for confirmation of that, he had only to listen to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said during the last few days. That should be sufficient confirmation even for him, although I admit that it is always a pleasure to know whether the fellow travellers have bought their tickets or not.
  Mr. Driberg: Too infantile to interrupt.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: To go back to the argument with which I started, what is the Central Office of Information supposed to do? Is it supposed to represent the Government, and, if so, on what basis should it accept that the Government are right? I admit that those are difficult questions because, if the Central Office of Information is to do anything at all, it has, presumably, to represent what the Government say. But if it is to do that, then it must be quite certain that what it represents is more or less in accord with the wishes of the country. That seems to me to be a very simple case. If it puts out something which is not representing the wishes of the country, or, alternatively, something which is purely biased, then it does wrong, and I think that we should look at what the Government have achieved in that direction.
  If one took that case, it would be very difficult to defend the actions of the Central Office of Information. Why, for example, has the pamphlet "Labour Believes in Britain" been circulated in America under the auspices of the Foreign Office? That seems to me the most extraordinary thing to happen. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Is it really reasonable for a Government agency in America to circulate the political doctrine of a political party? I am further assured that in this case the distributing agency, that is, the British Council, have let it be known throughout America that they will supply in bulk as many copies as are required.
  Mr. Driberg: The same as the Industrial Charter.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It seems a most extraordinary thing for the Government, through the agency they command as the controllers of this country, to disseminate their own political propaganda. This is no case of "The Budget and Your Pocket," to which I will refer in a moment, but of something, which is to be put to the country next year or when the General Election takes place, being put out deliberately.
  Mr. Wyatt: I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for allowing me to break through this wall of obtuseness. Does he also object when the Tory Industrial Charter is put out by the same means?
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Not at all. If the Industrial Charter—I think that is what the hon. Member was referring to—was put out by the official agency of the Government, was supplied in limitless numbers according to the requirements of the customers, as is happening in the case of "Labour Believes in Britain," I should never have had any complaint. The case of "Labour Believes in Britain" is quite different. These documents are supplied and are pumped out by the Government through their agency in America. I have not seen or heard of a single case of Tory propaganda being made available through the British Information Service; if any hon. Member opposite cares to contradict me I shall be interested to hear—
  Mr. Driberg Mr. Driberg rose—
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: No, I cannot give way again.
  Mr. Driberg: The hon. and gallant Member has challenged this side of the Committee. Perhaps I may reply to him. When I was last in New York I saw large, quantities of the Industrial Charter in the British Information Service office, available for distribution in exactly the same way as this document to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring. What is more, the British Information Services in America would certainly distribute the whole general policy of the Conservative Party—if there were one.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has in the least answered the point that I was trying to make. [Laughter.] If hon. Members opposite are satisfied, then that is all right.
  Now I will come to the document entitled "The Budget and your Pocket"—another document which has been produced at our expense and which, no doubt, pleases hon. Members opposite. It is a document which puts forward the pure Crippsian doctrine, but it does nothing in any of its pages to try to meet the very many criticisms of the Budget that have been made during the many Budget Debates which we have had. In this document there is a strip cartoon. I cannot admit that it is as good as some of

  995
  those appearing in either the "Daily Herald" or the "Daily Express." When one comes to the bottom of it, it merely leaves a feeling of hopelessness. It is entitled "Story without an ending." What is the good of that to a country like ours, faced with our present day problems—to publish a pamphlet at our expense entitled "Story without an ending"? I shall not make any of the obvious cracks that are possible.
  Then this document goes on to say on page 3:
  "Why are we no better off?"
  That is a nice thing to put out at our expense. It goes on to say that one of the reasons is that during this period, while production has been increasing we have got to
  "provide the extra exports needed to pay for imports."
  That is a simple statement, but it makes no suggestion of how many of our exports are being wasted; neither does it say that we are not securing those goods or the money required to purchase elsewhere in return for everything that we are sending abroad at present. There is not one mention of it.
  On page 4 of this document we find these words:
  "So we must do with rather less subsidy per lb. on some foods"—
  and then it states:
  "meat, cheese, butter and margarine."
  I put it to hon. Members opposite that if there are four foods that really count, those are the four. Those are the four key foods in the diet of this country. To put out a statement which merely glosses it over, is purely ridiculous and merely destroys the whole point of the arguments that have been put—
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman prefer the document to say "on all foods," when that would be incorrect?
  Colonel Crosthwaite - Eyre: No, Certainly not. Surely the right hon. Gentleman has argued with me often enough to know that when I say something I mean it. The pamphlet says, "some foods"; would it not have been more honest to say "all the staple foods"? That would have been some-
  996
  thing which would have made sense. Here again, however, the Government are not prepared to face up to an issue of that nature.
  In conclusion, I shall give one further example from this pamphlet, and it is on page 13. This is a further example of what the Central Office of Information think it is fair to put out on behalf of the whole country. There is some talk about taxation and what may happen as a result of taking from some and giving to others, and about the bottom of the page it says this means we have such good things
  "as a good Police Force and good roads."
  I ask hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to recognise that that is a very poor statement with which to sum up arguments when they are dealing with many criticisms made not only from this side of the House but also from hon. Members opposite. If we are to allow our Central Office of Information to put out such statements, for which we all pay, and for which presumably we are all responsible, and which will consist of such inaccuracies and such mistakes, indeed I can only hope that this office will be wound up at the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. Driberg: Talk about "pathetic" speeches!
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Keeling: As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) who opened this Debate, the question whether we are to retain or abolish the Central Office of Information cuts to some extent across Party lines. We saw that in the Debate a year ago. I am not one of those, if there are any such, who think it unnecessary to have Government information services. It is certainly no part of Conservative policy to keep the people in darkness, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt). The record of the Conservative Party in introducing Education Bills during the last 100 years proves that that suggestion is ridiculous. I personally accept also the necessity for a Central Office of Information for limited purposes, whether as an adjunct of the Stationery Office, as my right hon. Friend suggested, or not. I would define those purposes as being to co-ordinate and to carry out technical services.

  997
  I want, however, to make several important provisos to that which will reduce any difference of opinion between my right hon. Friend and myself to somewhat small proportions. The first proviso I make is this: that no amount of publicity or propaganda can make up for the lack of a courageous policy. It is no good spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on recruiting propaganda if the conditions of service in the fighting Services are not made attractive.
  The second proviso is that the scale and the size of the Central Office of Information must not be excessive, and it must not extend its activities into fields where they really are unnecessary. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the White Paper which was issued only a day or two ago shows that the total Government expenditure on publicity in one form or another is no less than £16 million. I do not think that includes overheads; it certainly does not include the publicity expenditure of the nationalised industries. If we add those we shall probably get a total of nearly £20 million. I suggest that there is a grave danger that when the news and comments provided by the Press and the radio, to say nothing of schools, professional organisations and political parties, are supplemented by Government posters, advertisements, exhibitions, films, and factory lectures, then the enormous sums spent will merely give the public indigestion. The Government have recognised this themselves. The Lord President a year ago said:
  "We have to keep an eye on this expenditure to see that it does not run away with itself, but I think it is right, and I shall not complain if the House carefully scrutinises and examines the expenditure to see that we are not wasteful."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May. 1948; Vol. 450, c. 2317.]
  The Government have now appointed, not before it is time, a committee of inquiry into this expenditure. I hope that it will apply the test which was laid down by the hon. Member for Aston, "What result do we get for it all?"
  My right hon. Friend gave some examples of expenditure which he thought was excessive. I should like to give two or three more. We are spending £750,000 on films, and very little money is earned by them. We have no less than 150 vans touring the country showing
  998
  films free, and some of them seem to me to have very little sense. I saw a film the other day called "What a Life," on which £9,000 of the taxpayers' money was spent with no return whatever. The scene opens in a public house, where everybody decides that things are very bad indeed. Two of the people are so depressed that they decide to kill themselves. They get into a boat, row out, shake hands, and dive into the sea. Then they find that there are only three feet of water, and so they go back to the "pub."
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Plenty of water there.
  Mr. Keeling: When somebody was asked what was the purpose of this film, his reply was that it was intended to show that things were not as bad as they seemed. I rather think that the Lord President himself saw that film, and I should like to ask him whether he thinks that film was worth £9,000 of the taxpayers' money.
  We spend £100,000 on what is called a social survey, but what is commonly known as "snooping." The figures in the annual report of the C.O.I. show that the cost was £1 per person snooped. Not per snooper: £1 per person snooped. I will read what the report says:
  "In the course of the year's work, surveys were made for ten Departments, for which it was necessary to interview about 36 different samples of the population from time to time. About 80,000 people helped with these inquiries in some way or another. … The total cost of those surveys was £83,245."
  The cost therefore worked out at over £1 per person snooped. Since then the expenditure has gone up to £100,000, but we are not told whether the cost per person snooped is the same or not.
  The next proviso which I want to make to the continuation of C.O.I. is this: There seems grave reason to doubt whether some of the Government publicity is effective. I saw a statement in the Press, which has not been denied, that in the opinion of C.O.I. itself only 18 per cent. of the population understand the why and the wherefore of the economic situation. Two years ago, the Government brought out a popular edition of the Economic Survey of 1947. They called this "Battle for Output." The wording was the same, but it had a pictorial cover and a number of diagrams to help the reader to understand it. The

  999
  Prime Minister gave it a good send-off when he said, "It is in simple language and I am sure the public will read and understand it." But the organisation called, "Mass Observation" put this statement of the Prime Minister to the test, and the results which they found were very different. I quote a few sentences from what their report says:
  "We selected a few words in the White Paper and we asked people what they understood them to mean. We had intended to ask equal proportions of men and women, but it was soon clear that few women would stay the course. Many could not understand the words at all. 'My husband knows about them things; I leave it all to him.' So we concentrated on the all-knowing male."
  They go on to say:
  "'Flexible' scored highest for successful interpretation. It is a word commonly used in industry. When we came to 'formulate' it was given the following meanings: 'Speed up'; 'get together'; 'first get going'; 'Does it mean make a circle?'"
  When they asked what the word "conception" was understood to mean, they got these answers—"The Government's personal view"; "Getting people into action"; "Is it the end?"; and, finally, "A fellow of my standing does not understand these words." The report goes on to deal not with words but with sentences.
  Mr. Driberg: I think that the hon. Gentleman said that he was dealing with production in 1947? If that is in Order—which I hope it is—may I point out to him that it was the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) and myself, and one or two other hon. Members, who pressed precisely these Mass Observation criticisms on the Government, with the result that this year's reports on production are much better and simpler?
  Mr. Mitchison: On a point of Order. How often are we to have discussions on what is happening not on this Vote but in 1947?
  The Chairman: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. Keeling: I shall not spend much longer on this, but it is part of my chain of argument, as hon. Members will see in a moment. The report says:
  "Semi-paralysis was caused by the sentence: 'The objectives of this Paper embody the Government's determination to put first things first.'
  1000
  A craftsman aged 31 said: 'It probably means the Government wants to run all industries instead of being run privately.'
  A craftsman aged 35 said: 'It means the production of machines for making machines taking first priority.'
  A labourer aged 27 said: 'It is saying that they're going to fetch things up to a standard or living what we were used to before the war.'
  A labourer aged 30 said: 'Sort of conscription.'"
  I will give only one more sentence from this popular edition of the White Paper:
  "A democratic Government must therefore conduct its economic planning in a manner which preserves the maximum possible freedom of choice to the individual citizen."
  The report says that typical interpretations of this sentence were:
  "I should imagine the Government wants the working-class people to get every benefit that's going."
  Another one was:
  "Government should be all out for the working-classes."
  or:
  "It's to get the choice of people, to get to know whether they are doing right or wrong."
  And finally:
  "Can't make head or tail of it."
  The conclusion of this report was that the White Paper as written was incapable or correctly influencing most of the population to any significant degree. The Government, as the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has pointed out, took notice of this Mass Observation report, and they commissioned Sir Ernest Gowers to write a book on plain English for the guidance of officials. I want, if the Committee will bear with me, to make some very short quotations from what he said. He said:
  "The basic fault is a tendency to say what one has to say in as complicated a way as possible."
  He gave to that tendency the name "pudder." He got the word, I think, from Ivor Brown. He then wrote:
  "Why do so many writers prefer pudder to simplicity? It seems to be a morbid condition contracted in early manhood. Children show no signs of it. Here, for example, is the response of a child of ten"—
  and he guarantees the genuineness of this—
  "to an invitation to write an essay on the cow.
  'The cow is a mammal.… At the back it has a tail on which hangs a brush. With

  1001
  this it sends the flies away so that they do not fall into the milk. The head is for the purpose of growing horns and so that the mouth can be somewhere. The horns are to butt with, and the mouth is to moo with.'"
  Mr. Mitchison: On a point of Order. Which Vote are we on, Agriculture or Information?
  Mr. Keeling: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman is following my argument. The essay of this child goes on:
  "Under the cow hangs the milk. It is arranged for milking. When people milk, the milk comes and there is never an end to the supply. How the cow does it I have not yet realised, but it makes more and more. … The man cow is called an ox. It is not a mammal."
  From all that Sir Ernest Gowers draws this conclusion:
  "The writer had something to say and said it as clearly as he could. … But why do we write, when we are ten, 'so that the mouth can be somewhere' and … when we are 30, in order to ensure that the mouth may be appropriately positioned environmentally'?"
  I freely admit—and now I come to the hon. Member for Maldon—that there has been an improvement. I have noticed a very distinct improvement in this pamphlet, "Productivity Pays," which might be described as the 1949 edition of "The Battle For Output." But the greater simplicity of this pamphlet is largely cancelled out by the title on the cover—"Productivity." In the words of the junior Burgess the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert), "Golly, what a word." How many people understand it? On the second page it is said:
  "It is not quite the same as production."
  But as most people understand the words "greater production," and I am perfectly certain very few people indeed understand the meaning of the word "productivity," why on earth could not the C.O.I. use as the title the words "Greater Production," if they could not think of any more arresting phrase? I have one other criticism of these Government pamphlets, and that is that they are much too long. I am quite sure that very few people read them through, and I am sorry to see that "Target" has increased its size from four pages to eight.
  My last and much the most important proviso about the continuance of C.O.I. is on the question of bias, to which the hon. Member for Maldon referred. The
  1002
  Lord President of the Council said he was very anxious that these information services should be impartial, and he also said that if Members found any C.O.I. films engaging in propaganda for the Government he would look into it. I would interject here it seems reasonable that the Socialist Party, with its resources swollen since the repeal of the Trades Disputes Act, should pay for its own propaganda. I accept the Lord President's assurance and go further. I will say that while a year ago there were a good many complaints that C.O.I. was being used to further party ends, there has been some improvement.
  There is, however, still cause for complaint. The Home Affairs Survey for 26th April, which refers to the meat shortage, says:
  "Present hardships are being borne as an insurance for future prosperity."
  It would surely be more true and not more tendentious to say that present hardships are resented and brought about by the Government's mismanagement.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Is the hon. Member seriously advocating that kind of partisan political propaganda at the taxpayers' expense?
  Mr. Keeling: Not at all. Quite the contrary. But I am asserting that the statement "Present hardships" in the matter of meat "are being borne as an insurance for future prosperity" is something less than the truth. If the Lord President does not like that quotation, let me give him one from the issue of 10th May, which says:
  "The case of public ownership of the gas industry rests on three propositions."
  I need not quote the three propositions. The point is that the survey is entirely silent about the case against public ownership. As my right hon. Friend said, the C.O.I. staff owe allegiance only to the State. But whichever party is in power, there always will be a tendency to use publicity machinery for party propaganda, and we must firmly resist that because it is the first step to dictatorship.
  How shall we avoid it? Believing in the Lord President's sincerity, I put forward two alternative methods: The first way is to avoid Government propaganda altogether about issues which are the subject of controversy between the parties. If the vast mass of propaganda

  1003
  suggests, as it does—although it does not state—that the Government have been successful in struggling against difficulties which they did not create there is at once aroused a suspicion of party bias, because many of us think that the Government have aggravated those difficulties by their extravagance and by diverting national effort into reckless and wanton schemes of nationalisation. There is a C.O.I. poster—I do not know whether it is still up—which says "Mining is a good job—under nationalisation." Would the Labour Party like the C.O.I., under a Conservative Government, to put up a poster saying, "Steel is a good job—under private enterprise"? I say that these controversial issues ought to be avoided, and left to Ministers in the House, on the platform and on the air—and the Lord President, for one, certainly does that sort of thing very well.
  But supposing that the Government do not accept that suggestion, that they do not think it is practicable, I make this alternative suggestion: Before they put out anything dealing with controversial issues, why not give all the political parties a day or two in which to take exception to anything which they think shows party bias? Of course, there would be disputes, but in the case of a dispute the Government can take responsibility. They will have to make the decision, and the matter could be raised on the Floor of the House if that was thought desirable. If the Government do not adopt one of these alternatives they will continue to lay themselves open to the charge of using taxpayers' money to further party causes.
  Mr. Driberg: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the C.O.I. poster about nationalisation, to which he has objected, was shown only after the Parliamentary Debates had concluded and the matter was thus accepted public policy, and after various leading Conservative spokesmen had indicated that they would not attempt to denationalise the mines if the Conservative Party were returned to power?
  Mr. Keeling: I do not think that that makes the slightest difference, nor does it detract from my statement. It does not alter my contention that such posters should not be used for what is still a matter of Party controversy. I want to
  1004
  leave the Lord President plenty of time, so I sum up what I have said in these words—Government publicity is too expansive and too expensive; it is not always effective; and sometimes it is open to a charge of party bias.
  9.25 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am very glad that the Opposition this year decided once more to have a Debate on the Central Office of Information and the Economic Information Unit. It is right that that should be so and that the House should keep a critical eye on all of these services. Indeed, I am very sorry it did not prove practicable to have a whole day on the subject, and another time I should like that to be the case, because I think it is worth while. It is the case that all politicians disagree about matters of publicity. Nobody knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), because he and I have heard many discussions in very high quarters about the effectiveness of certain publicity methods.
  The truth is that nearly all politicians have views about it, and often they are strong views which they have no hesitation in expressing. They often disagree on the subject, and consequently any public official, or for that matter any party official, who has anything to do with publicity, is bound to be on a stony road and he will get pushed about as he goes along. I say that in no sense of complaint or umbrage. It is a free country, and everyone is entitled to have his own views on this complex and difficult business of publicity and the effort to give people information that will help them to come to a proper and right conclusion.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) has quarrelled about the word "productivity." I would have thought the general run of our people would know what that word meant. I quite agree that if the officials of the Social Survey went around they might find some curious answers when people are asked what the word "productivity" means. It is a good word and has been used by such authorities as Coleridge and Lecky, the historian, who actually wrote "This is the first character of all life—productivity." While Lecky wrote that, J. H. Green and Coleridge

  1005
  used the terms. When I was a Socialist youth there were many working-class youths who used to read Lecky. I never read him myself, but I have met a lot of people who thought it worth while to read him.
  Mr. Bracken: He was a very good Tory M.P.
  Mr. Morrison: That is a good reason why he should be read just as good Socialist writers like myself should also be read. I would be the last person to advise anyone to refuse to read a book because it was written by a Tory M.P., although I would warn them it was not, of necessity, a conclusive recommendation.
  The right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), in opening the Debate, said that he was not seeking to be controversial in the party sense of the term. He succeeded in being a little controversial later on, whether in the party sense or not I would not like to say. I was glad that he specifically said that he wished to make no criticisms or charges of impropriety against officers of the Central Office of Information. There was an unfortunate incident in a Sunday paper some time ago that had better not have happened, and probably will not happen again. I am glad of that. It suited his book, because he promptly proceeded to knock the results of the Central Office of Information about, and those of the Economic Information Unit, and to blame them on to some politicians whom he called planners.
  The right hon. Gentleman has an aversion to planners. He does not like planners. I would expect that of him. He is not a Conservative. He is certainly not a Socialist or a Liberal. He is an anti-planner. He, like his friend, Lord Beaverbrook, represents the capitalist version of the philosophy of anarchy. He is against anything in the way of order, plan, system or co-ordination. They are all foreign to his mind. As a matter of fact, that is illustrated by the fact that when he was Minister of Information, instead of bucking up his staff and making the Department feel pleased, he went about boasting that the M.O.I. was about the worst thing that had ever happened. The right hon. Gentleman went about spreading alarm and despondency throughout that Department, and it has taken us a long time to get over it
  1006
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not believe that the Ministry of Information or any Government information bureau served any useful purpose in peace time. As a matter of fact, we are running the Central Office of Information much more economically than he ran the Ministry of Information, and with less manpower. That point does raise the essence of the argument. There have been some other hon. Members, including the Liberal National Member who spoke, who have taken the view that the whole Government information service of any kind ought to be terminated and abolished. I would point out that the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) spoke last year and did not take that view. He had his criticisms, it is true, but he held the view that in principle the service was legitimate and right, and that it might be the duty of a Government to disseminate information about certain matters of fact and of difficulty.
  Mr. H. Macmillan: Would the right hon. Gentleman perhaps quote what I said?
  Mr. Morrison: I have not the quotation by me but I do not think that I am misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Macmillan: It is a misrepresentation, but what I said, if I remember aright—[Laughter.] I am going to quote it from memory.
  Mr. Morrison: Yes; that is what I did.
  Mr. Macmillan: If the right hon. Member was preparing to wind up the Debate and to refer to what I said last year, he might have provided himself with the quotation. What I said was that I thought it was proper for a Government to disseminate information on factual matters such as social services, the rights and liberties which were made available under those services, and new possibilities made available to the citizen. That is a wholly different matter from disseminating matter of a propaganda character.
  Mr. Morrison: I shall try very hard not to refer to the right hon. Member again, as I may lose a material part of my time.
  Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman will have to, on Jonathan Swift.
  Mr. Morrison: There is not a great deal between us on what the right hon.

  1007
  Gentleman says he said and what I said he said; certainly nothing to quarrel about. I take the view that in the modern complexities of Government—and the right hon. Gentleman has just taken it—within a certain sphere it is not only the right but it is the duty of the Government to convey information. I believe that it is the right and the duty of the Government not only to do it in respect of the social services but to do it in respect of economic education. I say with absolute earnestness and sincerity that if serious economic education into the economic facts of life and the difficulties through which the country has passed during the transition had not been undertaken by the Economic Information Unit and the Central Office of Information, I believe that the welfare of our country would have been gravely damaged as a consequence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am entitled to my opinion, and that is my belief.
  Mr. Bracken: We would never have rounded the corner, perhaps?
  Mr. Morrison: There have been the complex economic situation, the balance of payments, the dollar shortage, imports and exports, and the need for production. It is no good assuming that the country was educated in a first-class manner at the beginning to understand these things, and if the country had not understood them the conduct of the average citizen would have been materially different from what it has been. We have got through to a great extent precisely because of the good conduct of the citizen.—[An HON. MEMBER: "They should vote Tory."] I am on a perfectly serious point. Why does the hon. Member want to drag it down into the political sphere in that way?
  I may be right or wrong, but I am arguing earnestly on actual experience and in the light of what the Social Survey reveals. The Social Survey is a serious attempt to keep the Government informed as to what people's thoughts are and how their minds are moving in respect of current matters on which the co-operation of the people is vital. It is all very well to say that it is a pound a snoop, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) said. A pound a snoop is cheaper than private enterprise in this sphere, with one exception which uses
  1008
  voluntary people. As a whole it is materially cheaper than private enterprise, and it is not a pound a snoop because in addition to the interviews a lot of other things have to be done and paid for [Interruption.] I hope we are not going to have one of those finishes. I want to be serious about this. I may be right or wrong, but I want to be serious.
  The Social Survey revealed an alarming lack of knowledge earlier on about the matters to which I referred. There is nothing surprising about that. I am not sure what percentage of hon. Members could have got through an examination about some of the economic complexities upon which they are now well informed. I do not say that in any partisan spirit. Indeed, heaven knows how many very prominent people would have come through. It was vital to educate the nation about the facts of these matters in order that the nation should consciously co-operate to the end we have in view. This process of economic education has paid the nation handsomely. That is my belief. If it had not been for this we might have had more industrial disputes, we might have had less industrial effort and we might have had less co-operation to common economic ends than we have had.
  It is not only I who say this, but two distinguished Americans say it too. Remember, these would not be biased because, as anybody who knows the United States and the attitude of Congress would agree. They are profoundly suspicious, even more than the right hon. Member for Bournemouth—
  Mr. Bracken Mr. Bracken indicated dissent.
  Mr. Morrison: —profoundly antagonistic and suspicious in principle of all Government information activities. This is what was said by Mr. Finletter in some evidence he gave before the Senate committee:
  "The Treasury itself, under Sir Stafford Cripps, is carrying on a vigorous campaign and a very effective campaign of information to the British people not only about the Marshall Plan but about the whole economy of Britain. Britain is plastered with posters pointing out the economic facts of life. There are exhibits in the subways. There are movies, and very good movies, too, showing what the problems are, some of them in Walt Disney form, and so forth. Extremely interesting.
  This is being brought to the people to the maximum extent possible."

  1009
  He went on to say, being asked by Senator Wiley this question:
  "You mean the facts delineated in your charts are given to the people in unvarnished language and not in the shape of propaganda?"
  "MR. FINLETTER: Yes, sir, I have no hesitation in saying that these facts are being given unvarnished and not in any attempt—as far as I can make out—no real political attempt to tell anything except the brutal facts. I think the attitude is that this is a peacetime battle of Britain and that the only way to get the people of Britain to win is to let them know what it is all about.
  They publish a White Paper, for example, and they popularise it and put out a pamphlet to explain in pictures and whatnot, what the White Paper has said."
  Not only has Mr. Finletter said that, but a still higher authority in the work of E.R.P., namely, Mr. Hoffman, the administrator in charge of the European Aid Administration, has said this in a public declaration:
  "I thought I knew something about informational activities. I want to say that having spent the morning with the Economic Information Unit, having learned something of their plans to try and impress all the people of Great Britain with the importance of productivity, I think, to a certain extent, we in America are amateurs. In other words, when it comes to resourcefulness and ingenuity, I take off my hat to … his organisation."
  They are not gentlemen calculated to be biased in favour of this sort of thing, and I earnestly believe that they are right.
  In testing the financial cost, I would ask the Committee to keep the following simple fact in mind, which I think is mathematically correct. Every increase in national productivity of 1 per cent. means £120 million in value added to the gross national output. The cost of the entire economic information campaign equals about 1d. in every £ of this sum. I do not claim that the economic information campaign is entirely responsible for the added national output, because the goodwill of our citizens in any case is valuable in that direction. However, I say that the economic information campaign which I started and which has been continued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a material contribution to the improved national output by workpeople, managements and employers. I want to assert with absolute confidence that the nation has made a handsome profit out of it in the commercial sense, and the indirect benefit
  1010
  from the social stability which it has helped us to enjoy is almost measureless in advantage to our country and its wellbeing.
  So much for that, which, if I may say so with great respect, I think meets the point. I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has quite got the set-up of the organisation, but, in any case, it is best to make it clear. The Central Office of Information does not spend £16 million. That figure—it is slightly diminished in the present Estimates, I am glad to say—is the overall cost of the information services—C.O.I., Overseas Service, British Council, B.B.C. subventions for certain overseas affairs, and for all the Departments, including the Foreign Office, the Dominions Office and the Colonial Office. [An HON. MEMBER: "The P.R.O's."?] The P.R.O.'s are within the £16 million. It is a big sum. I would not say it is terrible because, taking it by and large, I think it pays us. It is certainly the duty of the Government to keep a close eye on this expenditure, and, above all, it is the duty of the House of Commons to keep an eye upon it, and upon all other expenditure too. Believe me, it is a welcome change to find the House of Commons urging a decrease in expenditure now and again instead of, as it more often does, urging substantial increases in public expenditure.
  Therefore, the C.O.I. does not directly spend the bulk of this sum; it is the instrument of the spending Departments. It does, so to speak, for the spending Departments collectively something which it can do better in that co-operative way than they could do separately for themselves. That is the reason for it. The right hon. Gentleman said abolish it or make it a branch of the Stationery Office. But, in that case, why does he not want to abolish the Stationery Office? It is analogous. The Stationery Office is a common service instrument of Government and the reason why it exists is in order that Government printing may be done collectively and more economically and profitably than if each State Department did its own.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is it not a fact that the Stationery Office produces facts?
  Mr. Morrison: No, it produces print, including much of the print of the Central Office of Information. Why the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to waste my time by that foolish interruption, I do not know. I hope the Committee will excuse my getting cross, but I have not much time. The Stationery Office produces print, and it produces print because it can do it more economically and profitably than if every Government Department made its own printing arrangements or had its own printing press.
  Therefore, this thing is in the same line of business. It is perfectly true that it is a wider business, but, if the Central Office of Information were abolished, it would mean that the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Labour, the Foreign Office, and all the rest of the Government Departments would each be making films and would each be producing magazines, and the cost would be infinitely more than if the C.O.I. did it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I do not know what the policy of the Conservative Party is, but if their policy is that they want no Government information or information services whatever, if the Conservative Party line is that the Government should give no information, then, of course, we can save all this money, but I warn the Committee that we would lose some other money and other advantages as a consequence. But that has not been declared by the Conservative Party so far to be their policy, and, indeed, it is inconsistent with what was said in the—
  Mr. H. Macmillan: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Morrison: No, I have no time. The right hon. Gentleman interrupted me at great length before, and I am not going to risk it again.
  Mr. Macmillan: What proportion of the printing does the Stationery Office do?
  Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman should not be so ill-mannered.
  Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman has not told the truth.
  Mr. Morrison: If it is the policy of the Opposition that all Government information services should be abolished, what becomes of the argument which was heard
  1012
  at the time of the fuel crisis and at other times? Was not the scream in every Conservative newspaper "Tell the people more, let the people know"?
  Mr. Macmillan: Let them know in this House.
  Mr. Morrison: How are we to let the people know if there are no Government information services? It is no good hon. Members opposite getting cross, because those were the demands. Then when we do it and take steps to inform the people, we are immediately denounced for having done it.
  Mr. Bracken: The right hon. Gentleman really must remember that his colleague the Minister of Fuel and Power at the time said that there was no fuel crisis coming.
  Mr. Morrison: I courteously gave way to the right hon. Gentleman, and, if I may say so, he has made an utterly irrelevant observation. The point that I was making was that there was a clamour among Conservative Members of Parliament and Conservative newspapers—I am not complaining about it, because I think they were right—to "tell the people; keep the people informed; give them the facts."
  Mr. Macmillan: Through the House of Commons.
  Mr. Morrison: Then when we spend money in doing so we are immediately charged with wasting public money and we are told that it ought to be stopped.
  A point was raised by the right hon. Gentleman about an officer of the Central Office of Information who, as far as I can see, has slipped up about the copyright in Jonathan Swift. If I may say so, I think it is a "fair cop." I put my hands up, unless some later information comes whereupon I can be more defiant, but for the moment I retreat from the fray altogether upon that point. British Book Exports is a really valuable institution. It operates only in countries where normal commercial trade is impossible because of currency difficulties. Except for technical books no British copyright can be sold in Poland through commercial channels because of these exchange difficulties. The organisation of British Book Exports makes it possible to do business with Poland by various means of using

  1013
  currency appropriately. The British publishers know all about British book exports; when I say "British publishers" I mean the active men in the business. As a matter of fact, there is an advisory committee on which publishers sit, including an officer of the Publishers Association, and they all co-operate.
  I am advised that if it had not been for British Book Exports, there would have been no British books sold and no copyright sold in part or in all of the period since the war in some of the most important countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The value of British books sold through the British Book Exports arrangement in 1947–48 in these countries was £70,000, and the copyrights sold were 250. That is not a bad piece of business for the community, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this counts far more than a little mistake that was made by the officer to whom reference has been made. I have got this information from the people who understand these things, and I think the Committee ought to know.
  Mr. H. Macmillan: How much did Jonathan Swift bring in?
  Mr. Morrison: Complaint was made about the Budget pamphlet. I have always taken the view that in matters of national taxation and expenditure it is a good thing that the people should know the facts and should understand how the money is raised, what it is spent on, and so on. I am bound to say that I do not think, myself, that the popular pamphlet on the Budget is biased. I think it is exceedingly impartial; but if there are points to which attention is drawn I will certainly have investigation made. I do not think it is biased but I do think it is profoundly important that people should know how the Budget is made up, what they do with their money and above all it is important that they know they have to find the money for the public services which they may seek.
  It has been charged tonight that the pamphlet is biased, and the charge was also made at Question time earlier in the day. Here is a nice compliment from the "South Wales Echo": That is a Conservative evening paper, I believe, in South Wales—the evening edition of the "Western Mail"—and this is what it says:
  1014
  "Be he Socialist, Conservative or Liberal, he must admit that the information given in this official publication is without political Party bias and is a credit to our impartial Civil Service whose economic unit has compiled it."
  Indeed, the "Sunday Dispatch," a Sunday paper coming from a stable well known to hon. Members, says that:
  "Our Socialist Government has just issued a pamphlet at 3d. a copy which at last tells its supporters the economic facts of life."
  If that is so, what are the Opposition grumbling about? Why these allegations of Socialist bias?
  I think the Government have come through this business with flying colours. Indeed, the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) have satisfactorily met many of the points that were made by hon. Members opposite—met them most successfully and conclusively, I thought. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) was worried about certain films. As a matter of fact, the Film Department is doing very well and I think the showing of films overseas of the British way of life if a good thing. I am bound to say I was very much surprised that he should object to a film which fairly and carefully explained the British Colonial Empire to British citizens at home. I do not know what Lord Beaverbrook will say about him when he hears this criticism. Surely it is desirable that the British people at home shall be familiar with Colonial problems in the British Commonwealth. I think it was exceedingly narrow-minded of the hon. Member for Huntingdon and Little Englandism on his part that he should object to this procedure.
  I am bound to say that I am not too sure about the film "What a Life." I saw it and I concede at once to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) that I do not think it was one of our best. I must point out that it was not a product of the Crown Film Unit; it was a product of private enterprise for which C.O.I. paid £9,000, although that is not much these days; if you ask J. Arthur Rank he will say it is small beer. On the whole the Crown Film Unit has done a first-class job and its films are most valuable. I thank the Committee for having this Debate and, if I may say so, I hope we shall have one again next year.
  Mr. Bracken: I beg to move, "That Item Class VII, Vote 10, Central Office of Information, be reduced by £5."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 206.

  Division No. 146.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Pickthorn, K.

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

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

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Bottom, A. C.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Renton, D.

  Bowen, R.

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

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Bower, N.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Hope, Lord J.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

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

  Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W.

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Smithers, Sir W.

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

  Keeling, E. H.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Byers, Frank

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Carton, E.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

  Chaften, C.

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

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

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

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Touche, G. C.

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

  Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Turton, R. H.

  Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Drewe, C.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

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

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Molson, A. H. E.

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

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

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

  Williams, Gerald (Tunbridge)

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

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gage, C.

  Nicholson, G.

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

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Nield, B. (Chester)

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

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Mr. Studholme and

  Grimston, R. V.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Mr. Wingfield Digby.

  NOES

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Guy, W. H.

  Albu, A. H.

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

  Hairs, John E. (Wycombe)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Hale, Leslie

  Alpass, J. H.

  Cove, W. G.

  Halt Rt. Hon. Glenvil

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Daggar, G.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Dairies, P.

  Hannan, W. (Haryhill)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Harrison, J.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

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

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

  Baird, J.

  Deer, G.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Balfour, A.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Diamond, J.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Barton, C.

  Donovan, T.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Battley, J. R.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Holman P.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Benson, G.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Berry, H.

  Dye, S.

  Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)

  Beswick, F.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Hoy, J.

  Bang, G. H. C.

  Edelman, M.

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

  Binns, J.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Ewart, R.

  Hushes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)

  Boardman, H.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.

  Fernyhough, E.

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

  Bramall, E. A.

  Foot, M. M.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Janner, B.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Gibbins, J.

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

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Jenkins, R. H.

  Burke, W. A.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

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

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Keenan, W.

  Champion, A. J.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Kingdom, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Grey, C. F.

  Kinley, J.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Collick, P.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Collindridge, F.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Lipton, Ll.-Col M.

  Peart, T. F.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Longden, F.

  Popplewell, E.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  McAdam, W.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Mack, J. D.

  Pursey, Comdr. H.

  Thurlle, Ernest

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Ranger, J.

  Tolley, L.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Robens, A.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Viant, S. P.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, H.)

  Walker, G. H.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Royle, C.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Sargood, R.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Scollan, T.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin'gh, E.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Shacldeton, E. A. A.

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

  Morley, R.

  Sharp, Granville

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

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

  Shawcross, C. N. (Withies)

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

  Murray, J. D.

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

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

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

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Willis, E.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Orbach, M.

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

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

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

  Woods, G. S.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wyatt, W.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Parker, J.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Stokes, R. R.

  Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.

  Pearson, A.

  Swingler, S.

  Original Question again proposed,
  It being after Ten o'Clock and objection being taken to further proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  OPENCAST MINING
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
  10.9 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Brown: I make no apology for raising the matter of the operations of opencast coal because I have endeavoured in every conceivable way, by writing letters and personal interviews with the Minister of Fuel and Power and the opencast mining branch of that Department, bring a degree of contentment, if not satisfaction, to the constituents of my division; but having failed to get what I thought was reasonable and fair, I decided to put a Question on the Order Paper to elicit some information and to make certain recommendations. On 17th February of this year I asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the following Question:
  "if he will consider the advisability of setting up a departmental committee of his Department and that of the Ministry of Agriculture
  1018
  and Fisheries to give consideration to the complete and satisfactory restoration of the land, after the operations of the Opencast Mining Branch of his Department, with the objective in view of bringing a degree of contentment to those whose land has been requisitioned for opencast mining."
  The Minister replied:
  "Restoration of agricultural land is carried out under the supervision of the county agricultural executive committees, and sites are not released from requisition until the committees are satisfied that the restoration has been properly carried out. In the circumstances, there appears to be no reason to set up another committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 1312.]
  I say, with all respect to the Minister and his Department, that the machinery he indicated in that reply has fallen down completely. I followed that reply by asking supplementary questions to which I did not receive a satisfactory answer, and I am therefore raising this matter tonight.
  It is apparent from the Questions to which no satisfactory answers have been given, following which hon. Members have raised the matter on Adjournment Debates, that opencast coalmining in this country has caused and is still causing a great deal of anxiety and trouble wherever it is carried on. I know it is in my division. Unfortunately, or fortunately, for me, there are in my division seven urban authorities, in five of which opencast mining is taking place, so the House will appreciate the difficulty with which I am confronted.

  1019
  The Opencast Mining Branch is making great inroads into farming land; in many cases it is taking very valuable agricultural land, and causing untold anxiety, distress and inconvenience to those who live in close proximity to the opencast mining sites. My experience over the past few months has been that the existing machinery, which was indicated in that reply of the Minister's on 17th February, is unsuitable for dealing with the problem in all its aspects, and it has failed to fill the bill in bringing about that degree of contentment which is so essential to every right thinking person in this country. The present administrative machine fails to face up to the many and varied problems which have been caused by opencast mining operations.
  I claim that I am to a very large degree a realist; I wish to face up to the real issue, and I must admit at once that the production of coal is an essential factor in the restoration of the economic life of this country. Having made that admission, I must say that there is no reason on earth why the greatest possible care should not be exercised by the two Government Departments, or by the departmental committee which I have recommended, in the winning of opencast coal. My experience, which covers a period of about four years, in dealing with this question has been—and again I say this with all respect—that there is complete disregard of everything connected with the land upon which opencast mining operations take place.
  They disregard woodlands, amenities and land drainage, and they fail adequately to compensate for the requisitioning of sites. The people who unfortunately reside on the sites or close by have to experience untold anxiety, worry and inconvenience, which in my judgment ought not to be. As Britishers we ought to be able, by consultation together, to help those who are unfortunately placed, whether they are farmers or artisans. Someone at the regional level or the national level should heed the crying need for fair play and justice to be meted out to these people.
  Let us take the question of compensation paid by the Government Departments for requisitioning sites. There are four kinds of compensation. There is the compensation for crops being grown when the land is requisitioned, and com-
  1020
  pensation for damage done to land, which is payable only when it is derequisitioned. I could amplify that by saying that there has been some land lying dormant in my constituency, from which opencast coal has been extracted, since 1946. Thirdly, there is rental compensation which is calculated on the rent payable for the land, subject to the maximum of 160 per cent. on 1939 values. Fourthly, there is compensation for complying with Government directions.
  This code of compensation has great defects. It is fixed by the compensation Act of 1939 and bears no relation to the present-day circumstances of the farming fraternity. It does not take into consideration or make provision for the loss of the farmer's livelihood during the period of requisitioning. Such loss is quite considerable, particularly where the larger part of the farm, or all of it, is under requisition for three, four, or even five years.
  Let me sustain that argument by citing four cases in my constituency without mentioning the farmers by name. We have Orrits farm of approximately 60 acres, of which all but six have been requisitioned. The farmer has been displaced after more than 50 years hard and strenuous labour. After bringing his farm almost up to the acme of perfection he is now turned off his farm by the opencast mining branch, and what is he told? He is told, "We take your farm from you. What we will do is to find you a job on the opencast working." Never in my experience, whether it be under a Labour or Tory Government, have I witnessed anything like it.
  Windy Arbour farm of 160 statute acres has had 70 requisitioned, with another 20 to be requisitioned. Maddox Farm, with an acreage of 109, has been requisitioned, and at present the whole of that farm is either requisitioned or under the threat of requisitioning. Lower Billinge Lane farm has an acreage of 61, of which 50 have been requisitioned. Then there is Harvey House Farm, which has 52 acres and has 46 of them under requisition. In another part of my constituency there is a farm in North Ashton, where 20 acres were requisitioned. Work was finished about three years ago, and the site was restored. Since then nothing has been done by any Department, and the field is lying dormant.

  1021
  It is sheer idiocy on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture to plead for more food production when this sort of thing is going on under the aegis of another branch of the Government. From a national point of view, what are the inroads which opencast mining are making into our limited agricultural land? Up to the end of February this year 41,113 acres of agricultural land had been requisitioned for opencast mining, out of a total of approximately 24,000,000 acres under cultivation in England and Wales. In addition, 5,000 acres of non-agricultural land, including 2,000 acres of woodland, have been requisitioned. In Scotland, there is a similar story to tell, but it does not end there.
  If the policy of the Ministry continues along present lines by 1951 over 100,000 acres of agricultural land will have been taken from the agricultural community. This is a very serious matter for the agricultural industry. Unfortunately, the requisitioning of such land is not spread evenly over the country. It is concentrated in a few areas. If there were opencast operations in every constituency represented in this House there would be a first-class row. It is very important the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the Ministry of Agriculture should take note of what is being said.
  As the existing machinery has failed to give satisfaction, I suggest that a Departmental Committee should be appointed to consider the following matters: First, payment of adequate compensation to farmers for loss of crops, the damage done by prospecting and for the utilisation of land not specifically taken over for opencast work. Not only is land taken under which there is the coal, but a large acreage is required as a site for the top soil and subsoil which has to be removed to get at the coal. It is important that compensation should be paid for that. No. 2 is the restoration of land. I know from the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates published this year that paragraphs 8 and 9 emphasise that question which I am emphasising now, although I put my Question down before that report was published.
  No. 3 is the drainage of the land which is so essential to its proper and satisfactory restoration; (4) there should be stricter supervision by the resident engineer to see that his contractors carry
  1022
  out the contracts entered into; (5) there is fencing which is very important; and (6) there is the water supply. I went to see a little village in my constituency, which had a very pathetic experience some two years ago, when opencast operations fractured the main. That little village, comprising 800 to 1,000 miners, was without a water supply for eight weeks and nobody would accept the responsibility. There are representatives of the Opencast Mining Branch here with whom I pleaded, begged and prayed to do something in order to restore the water supply which was badly needed. It took a long time to get them to move because they were doing what in Lancashire is known as "passing the buck."
  No. (7) is the licensing of land and its reinstatement, and No. 8, financial assistance over and above the compensation paid to help the farmer adequately to provide shippon shelter for the herd of cattle which he is forced to provide when he has not the grazing land upon which to feed his cattle. I have taken steps to find out from the Ministry of Agriculture what is being done in this connection. The Minister tells me that he has pleaded for something to be done, but all his pleadings have fallen on deaf ears. Therefore, I say if the opencast mining operations are to go forward the responsibility rests upon the Minister of Fuel and Power to see that proper measures are taken to help the farming fraternity in order that they may get the degree of contentment they need for satisfaction.
  I notice in the Report of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, which was also published since I put the Question down, have this to say on the subject:
  "The Council for the Preservation of Rural England continues to be much concerned at the encroachment on land of high agriculture and amenity value by opencast operations. What has been said of ironstone workings from an amenity aspect is equally applicable to this destructive process. The damage in rural districts, in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Shropshire is increasing and is extending into Worcestershire."
  There we see a body of men who are not politically minded expressing opinions on what is taking place in this country.
  In five minutes I want to give an answer to a letter sent to the Ministry of Fuel and Power on 6th May and to which I only got a reply by special messenger today. This is what my hon.

  1023
  Friend said in connection with the complaints which I have made about this matter:
  "The dust risk is now mainly from the access road since the large tip near the houses is complete. With recent rains there is now no sign of dust."
  That is what my hon. Friend says in the month of May. I do not know what his Department has been thinking about, because rainfall for this month has been the least since the year 1881. In 1948 the rainfall in May was 1.22 inches; in May, 1949 up to last night it was 1.05 inches. Yet my hon. Friend says that the dust has been laid because of the excess rain.
  He goes on to tell me that they are laying water pipes. Again might I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that in that district last week notices were issued to all the inhabitants asking them to economise in water, because the water supply today is 22 feet less than it was this time last year. I beg him to ask his Department and his officials not to send out letters to hon. Members such as the letter I received today, but to take a little notice of those people who know something about the situation prevailing in their constituencies. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to come to my constituency on the 21st March. He made certain promises. What is irritating me is that despite all the courtesy and the plausibility of his Department, the many promises which were made on the 21st March have not been fulfilled. It is about time the Parliamentary Secretary gingered up his Department to see that people affected by these operations are able to enjoy at least the ordinary comforts of life. I beg him to consider the appointment of a departmental committee.
  10.31 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I am sorry to have to intervene at this stage, but obviously if I were not to do so it would be impossible to say anything about this important matter of opencast mining. Before I go on to deal with the main issues I want to take to task the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Tom Brown) in relation to the letter which I have sent to him today. I sent that letter by hand so that he should
  1024
  have it before this Adjournment Debate and would not accuse me of allowing this Debate to come along before he received the letter. He made some play about the statement regarding the rain and the dust. I must put this right. The problem with which we had to contend, and which on all opencast sites is the same, is the amount of dust which arises by reason of the working. If it is not close to houses it does not constitute a big nuisance problem; but if it is near to houses it is a big nuisance problem.
  I went to this site and met the hon. Member, members of the council, residents and everyone who had something to say about the matter, and I spent some considerable time there. As a result, a good many matters were decided which should mitigate the nuisance to a great extent. What I said about rain in my letter was that with the recent rains there was no sign of dust. That had nothing to do with the rainfall. It was merely an indication that if we could dampen the spoilheap and access roads, that will keep down the dust. It was merely an indication of the effect which water had. We are endeavouring to fix water pipes so that we can at least simulate rain every day to keep down the dust.
  It was not fair of the hon. Member to suggest that I was comparing the rainfall this year with the rainfall of last year, or that I was even relying upon rain to keep down the dust. The letter made it clear that because of the recent rain there was no sign of dust. It was merely referring to the rain of the other day. Then I say that contractors are fixing water pipes along the road for use in future dry spells. I think that was reasonable, and I am sorry that the hon. Member should take that attitude and deliberately misinterpret and misquote the letter which I sent to him out of sheer courtesy before this Debate tonight.
  What the hon. Member has said is what every hon. Member could say with some truth; namely, that in the main opencast mining is a nuisance to everyone associated with it—it is a nuisance to the farmer, it is a nuisance to the residents near the disturbance—and, generally speaking, no one welcomes it, There is no question, I think, that we would not bother to extract coal in this way and cause so much inconvenience to everyone concerned if it were not for

  1025
  the urgent need for coal. It is the urgency of the problem which demands it. There is no question at all that if one were to take the value of the crops on the land which is disturbed and the value of the coal, the coal wins every time.
  It is interesting to note that in these last three years—and this shows the value of opencast coal—there has been produced by opencast methods 30.7 million tons of coal. The exports in the same period of three years are just 31 million tons of coal. So, in point of fact, the amount of opencast coal roughly balances with the amount of exports. I do not suggest that all the opencast coal was sent abroad, but what I do say is that it supplemented deep-mined coal here and enabled us to send that amount abroad. If we had taken no coal by opencast methods, we should have had none to send abroad in this period; and, undesirable as it may be to the resident and the farmer, we cannot do without opencast coal at this stage, and the Government do not propose to do so.
  Mr. Brown Mr. Brown rose—
  Mr. Robens: No, I cannot give way; the hon. Gentleman took twenty minutes of a half-hour's adjournment Debate, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks I am going to give way again, he is on the wrong wicket. We must go on with this opencast working. We shall move up from something like 13 million tons this year to perhaps 15 millions next year, and then "tail off" from 1951. We want to get rid of opencast mining, which is a
  1026
  nuisance to farmers. What the hon. Member complained about was very proper and I accept what he has said.
  Mr. Brown: Thank goodness I have done something right.
  Mr. Robens: I never suggested I complained about the points he raises. I know about the dust nuisance and the problems caused by the blastings and the explosions and so on and things which annoy people. I am well aware that the farming community does not feel it is getting a fair deal. Attention was drawn to these points by my hon. Friend and I am certain, although there is not time for them to speak, that at least one hon. Member opposite wanted to speak about compensation. We take possession of land under Defence Regulation 51 and compensation is paid wider Section 2 of the Compensation Defence Act, 1939. I think it is Section 2 (i) (a) which refers to rentals; there is compensation for loss of crops growing when our opencast people go on to a site and the residual value of cultivations done before, for example seeding and manuring; and for disturbance, which is concerned with the moving of cattle to other grazing areas.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-one Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

FOOD SUPPLIES
  Meat (Cutting and Weighing)
  Meat (Cutting and Weighing)
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  French Pork
  French Pork
  Refined Sugar (Allocations)
  Refined Sugar (Allocations)
  Poultry and Rabbits, Plymouth
  Poultry and Rabbits, Plymouth
  Burma Rice
  Burma Rice
TRANSPORT
  Rail Accident, Stockport (Report)
  Rail Accident, Stockport (Report)
  Railway Engines (Fuel)
  Railway Engines (Fuel)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Factory, Feltham
  Factory, Feltham
  Building Industry (Report)
  Building Industry (Report)
  BACKWARD TERRITORIES (CONSULTATIONS)
  BACKWARD TERRITORIES (CONSULTATIONS)
  PASSPORTS (APPLICATION FORMS)
  PASSPORTS (APPLICATION FORMS)
  SKYWAYS LIMITED (WORKERS' REPRESENTATIONS)
  SKYWAYS LIMITED (WORKERS' REPRESENTATIONS)
  LANCASHIRE COAL STRIKE (LOST PRODUCTION)
  LANCASHIRE COAL STRIKE (LOST PRODUCTION)
AGRICULTURE
  Rationed Feedingstuffs
  Rationed Feedingstuffs
  Magazine "Ploughshare"
  Magazine "Ploughshare"
  Horse Carcases (Export)
  Horse Carcases (Export)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Six Marshes Area, Lindsey
  Six Marshes Area, Lindsey
  Survey, North Staffordshire (Report)
  Survey, North Staffordshire (Report)
  FACTORY, GOMERSAL (USE)
  FACTORY, GOMERSAL (USE)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Military Equipment (Trials)
  Military Equipment (Trials)
  Surplus Machine Tools (Disposal)
  Surplus Machine Tools (Disposal)
  Ordnance Factory, Maltby
  Ordnance Factory, Maltby
  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  Tropical Testing Establishment, Nigeria
  Tropical Testing Establishment, Nigeria
  FAMILY SETTLEMENT, DOMINIONS
  FAMILY SETTLEMENT, DOMINIONS
  STEEL ALLOCATION
  STEEL ALLOCATION
  MOTOR CARS (GOVERNMENT USE)
  MOTOR CARS (GOVERNMENT USE)
  WATER SUPPLY, SUFFOLK VILLAGES
  WATER SUPPLY, SUFFOLK VILLAGES
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  IRELAND BILL
  3.6 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be read a second time, I have it in command to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the contents of this Bill, is prepared to place his Prerogatives and Interests, so far as concern the matters dealt with by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament.
  My Lords, I have before now been taken to task for saying that I was not altogether happy about a Bill that I was introducing. I am certainly not happy that I have to introduce this Bill; but I believe that this Bill, or something very like it, is an absolute necessity in view of what has happened—for which we are not responsible. Quite frankly, I regard it as a somewhat melancholy fact that the last link—albeit a slender link—which bound together the people of this country and the people of Southern Ireland was severed by the repeal of the External Relations Act. I find no consolation in the theory, which some people say ought to be consoling, that I ought to rejoice that a new nation has been born, because I deny entirely that member States of the British Commonwealth are not nations in the full sense of the word. Canada is just as much a nation as her great neighbour, the United States of America. She is a nation bound to us by ties of sentiment, by a common history, by common ideals, by a common tradition and by allegiance to the King.
  I regret profoundly the reasons why another great parent race, the Irish, have thought it necessary to separate themselves from us; because, as I see the problems of the world, confronted as we are with the danger of gross materialism,
  908
  if ever there was a time when the Irish, in concert and in collaboration with us, could have made an immense contribution to that situation, that time is surely now. But what have they done? When I was in Ireland last summer (I deliberately went there, for I thought it would be wise that I should get to know and get on terms of personal friendship with Mr. Costello and Mr. MacBride), I thought the barometer was "Set fair." I realised the wealth of kindness with which I was received, and although I left Ireland just at the beginning of the month of September I had no conception, and no indication whatever, that this Act was about to be repealed by the Irish. I have no complaint about that; it was not my right to be told. But in fact I was not told; and, as I have informed your Lordships before, the first I knew about this project was when I read in the newspapers Mr. Costello's speech in Canada—and that applies also to my colleagues.
  I was deeply sorry that I had not had some chance of making representations on this matter before it became a fait accompli. If I had, I should have made some representations; and perhaps if they had been made, the discussions afterwards would have had a far greater hope of success, for it is perfectly obvious that whatever else may result from this Bill, it must exacerbate the situation as between Northern Ireland and Eire. But although it was in itself no small thing that the other links had gone, the Oath of Allegiance to the Governor-General and the Privy Council was still there; and the External Relations Act was still there and served in some measure to bind us together. When the decision to repeal that Act was announced, it was our endeavour, so far as we could, to minimise the risk of possible damage. Accordingly, on October 17, we had certain discussions at Chequers. Although it is true that at those discussions the Irish representative raised the question of Northern Ireland, we made it quite plain that we were not there to discuss that matter at all, and that we regarded it as completely outside the scope and ambit of the discussions we were having. Your Lordships may care to follow the dates which I am about to give. That discussion, as I have said, was on October 17. The Prime Minister's statement in another place—which, if I may, I will read to your Lordships—was

  909
  made on October 28. The statement was as follows:
  "The view of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has always been that no change should be made in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without Northern Ireland's free agreement."
  That statement, as I say, was made on October 28.
  Then I went to Paris, on November 13—that is to say, rather more than a fortnight after the Prime Minister had made that statement. In our Paris discussions the question of Northern Ireland was not again mentioned, since we considered that that was outside the ambit of the discussion. No sort of complaint was made in regard to the nature and content of the Prime Minister's statement on October 28. It is certainly a fact that at that Paris meeting we agreed together, so far as we could, to discuss with each other the question of "foreign or not foreign" and the related matters. We hoped that Mr. Costello's statement in the Dail would indicate that, even if the External Relations Act were repealed, he would yet be prepared to extend favourable treatment to citizens of this country. And we, in our turn, made it plain that we were prepared to submit to Parliament proposals for extending favourable treatment to citizens of the Irish Republic which was then to be born. Those understandings were never extended to cover the position of Northern Ireland which at the earliest moment had been ruled completely out of the discussions.
  I mention that because I have seen in a newspaper this morning a suggestion that by some agreement that we had made we were in some way precluded front making what arrangements we liked in regard to the matter of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that Mr. MacBride would think that I had deliberately broken any agreement to which I was a party—and all the more because it was not a written agreement. I can assure your Lordships that my understanding of the situation was that the position of Northern Ireland was completely outside our discussions, our understanding and everything we did. There it is. On the one hand, I see that Mr. Dillon has said that we are a Party of honest men beguiled and misled by the Tory siren so that we have cast our ship upon the rocks; and, on the other hand, that we are not quite so honest and that we have been guilty of some breach
  910
  of undertaking. I must not be surprised at divergent views in Ireland, but even in this country there have been divergent views. In another place Sir David Maxwell Fyfe made several speeches of, I thought, a very high order. In particular, he called attention to the fact that there was no other country in the world which, at a critical moment in its history, would have had the faith and courage to take so difficult a course as we took—namely, to extend to Irish citizens the full benefits of British nationality. In this House on April 5, the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, whom I am glad to see here, took a very different view. He said:
  "His Majesty's Government, in their mad rush to disintegrate the British Empire, have proved, as much by their lack of foresight as by then lack of caution, that no one could attribute to them the capacity for caring what was going to happen."
  Your Lordships can choose which attitude you like. Personally, I prefer the view of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe.
  That brings me to the Bill now before your Lordships. I may say at once that I am not going to set before your Lordships anything which will make an already difficult situation one wit more difficult than it is to-day. I conceive that I can perform my duty, unite shortly and without any heat or feeling, if I begin briefly to explain this Bill. There will, of course, be a Committee stage when many difficult points—for difficult points there must be—will no doubt be discussed between us. Clause 1 of the Bill, in subsection (1), recognises what is the fact. I imagine that no one will raise any criticism there. Of course, we rejoice in the fact that the member States of our Commonwealth have complete freedom. If any one of those member States decides that she desires to go out of the Commonwealth, then beyond all argument she has a perfect right so to do. Ireland did so decide, and this subsection merely recognises the fact that she has gone.
  The second subsection of this clause deals with the position of Northern Ireland. I have already told your Lordships that this was ruled out of our discussions at Chequers. Subsection (2) proceeds on the basis—and is there anyone who would deny it?—that force is no remedy. I do not attempt to conceal the fact that all my life I have been in

  911
  favour of Home Rule. I was brought up to believe that Mr. Gladstone was a most virtuous man who was defeated by the wiles of the Opposition—and I still think so. In a very humble way, I supported Mr. Asquith's endeavours, and his Bill. But it is idle to think that we can eliminate history since that time. There was the trouble time in Ireland; there were the negotiations for which Mr. Lloyd George was responsible; there was the appointment of the Boundary Commission; and finally, there was the 1925 Agreement, ratified by the Houses of Parliament here and ratified in Eire. If ever there was an Agreement solemnly reached and ratified, it was that Agreement. By it, the boundaries of Northern Ireland were recognised and defined. The proposition which this clause enshrines is nothing other than this: that that having been done, it is unthinkable that without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland those boundaries can be altered and the bargain then made upset.
  A controversy may be raised as to whether we ought to have used the word "people," which rather suggests some kind of referendum, or whether we should use the word "Parliament." We are working on the assumption that Parliament represents the people. Let us suppose that the Parliament of Northern Ireland passed a law that no one might exercise the franchise unless he were prepared to make a declaration against the doctrine of Transubstantiation. If such a situation ever did arise (and it is purely hypothetical) the Parliament of this country would obviously have to deal with that situation as being something quite new. No Parliament, of course, can ever bind its successor, but I hope that Parliament will accept the doctrine that the solution to this Irish problem, wherever it may be and wherever it may be found, is not in the realm of force.
  The third subsection of the first clause calls the new State, the Republic of Ireland. I realise that there may be criticism of the phrase "Republic of Ireland," because it might appear to extend to the whole of Ireland, just as by parallel reasoning there might be criticism of the phrase "Northern Ireland," inasmuch as it might be thought that it extended to the whole of Northern Ireland, whereas,
  912
  of course, the most northerly part of Ireland, County Donegal, is not in Northern Ireland at all. One thing we should not aim at in this Bill (and, if I may say so, in many other matters relating to Ireland), is logic, and this being a very delicately balanced matter, I would suggest to your Lordships that it is far better to accept the name by which Mr. Costello and his Party have called Southern Ireland, and by which it will be known by other countries.
  Then we come to Clause 2, where we assert very boldly that the Republic of Ireland is not to be a foreign country. The researches of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe show there is nothing new even in this. I confess that I thought there was, but he showed that France, Spain and the two Sicilies in the year 1761 passed Acts of Parliament declaring that as between themselves they were not to be foreign countries. Of course, it is for us and for our municipal law to decide exactly what concessions and privileges we will grant to the nationals of any other country, although international law may come in and say that we are wrong in granting these concessions or privileges by virtue of the fact that we have made treaties. What international law will decide on this matter I am not going to lay down positively, but if and when it ever comes to be determined, I think it will be a relevant factor that we have this common association and that the Parliaments of both countries have recognised this or something very like it.
  We come now to Clause 3, which was inserted to meet a difficulty which had been expressed in the newspapers by a very dear friend of mine, Serjeant Sullivan, and which has been voiced in this House by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. I will confess to your Lordships that I did not think the point that was thus raised was a valid point. I felt little doubt but that the British Nationality Act continued to apply, notwithstanding the alteration in the status of Southern Ireland. But I always remember Cromwell's advice to the House of Commons—and even I have been mistaken sometimes! Therefore, in view of the fact that this doubt was raised, I thought it only right that it should be cleared up by this clause, which I hope does have that effect. Of course, my Lords, there are all sorts of most intricate questions arising, some of which

  913
  will undoubtedly have to be settled in our law courts—and they may take a long time to settle. But as a broad matter of principle, I venture to hope that we have succeeded in so drafting this clause as to remove the doubts and fears which the noble and learned Viscount expressed. That certainly was our object.
  Clause 4, in effect, gives us a breathing space down to the end of 1949: laws passed throughout this year will extend to Ireland, but thereafter if we want the law so to extend we must say so specifically. Clause 5 deals with an exception to the general rule, because an Irishman coming over here would be entitled to be registered if he were resident here (whatever that difficult word may mean), whereas in Northern Ireland, in view of the fact that there is a land border there, we thought it right to insert some minimum qualification; and we put in three months. My Lords, those are the objects of this Bill. I would say only this: that in spite of all the tearing and wearying words that have been used, I do hope that the two sets of Irishmen will show the statesmanship and the good will to live happily together. I would like to see some embryonic beginning, possibly in some functional way, where they are working something together. I should hate to think that at this time there was any religious bitterness left. There should be complete tolerance. We are perhaps an illogical people but I believe we have the great gifts of tolerance and of compromise. I earnestly hope that similar gifts will be given to those who are responsible for the negotiations on both sides of the Channel. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  3.28 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in saying what I have to say on this Bill this afternoon it may seem as if I am throwing a note of discord into the chorus of general approval with which the official spokesmen of the various Parties in another place have greeted this measure. I can assure your Lordships that that is not my object. The last thing I wish to do—and here I am entirely at one with the noble and learned Lord Chancellor—is to embitter relations between England and Ireland. Nor do I
  914
  question in any way the right of the Eire Government to leave the Commonwealth if they wish. After all, that is the essence of Dominion status, which Eire has hitherto enjoyed. Moreover, I would say to the Government that I do not complain at all that they should have found it necessary to introduce a measure to clarify the position resulting from Eire's departure from the British Commonwealth of Nations.
  I quite accept what was said on this particular score by the Lord Chancellor. Evidently something had to be done. The present anarchic situation could not be allowed to continue. May I say, in passing, how glad I was to hear the noble and learned Viscount's statement regarding the Irish charge of a breach of faith which was made in the papers today? I think his statement will tend to clear the air. My Loris, I say again that I fully appreciate that some legislation is necessary, but what causes anxiety to a good many of us is the nature of the settlement proposed in this Bill. We fear that for practical purposes, whatever may be the legal position, this twilight arrangement (if I may so describe it), under which Ireland is neither quite in nor quite out of the Commonwealth, is fraught with future dangers and difficulties, is likely to increase rather than reduce friction between the two countries, and is not in the interests of the Commonwealth itself.
  In introducing this Bill the Lord Chancellor put the best face on it that he possibly could. He recommended it in his most persuasive terms as the best solution for what he admitted was an extremely awkward situation. I could not help being sorry for him in what was obviously a most ungrateful task that had been imposed upon him. About a year ago, or perhaps a little more, we had a completely different solution of the Anglo-Irish problem recommended to us in the British Nationality Bill. We were told—at least so I understood it—that that plan, the British Nationality Bill plan, had been agreed with the rest of the Commonwealth; and not only with them hut, in particular, with the representatives of Eire herself. It was to end the age-long conflict between Britain and Ireland upon a basis that would keep the ring of the Commonwealth intact, and Ireland within that ring. That was

  915
  recommended to us as one of the main merits of that particular measure.
  We on this side of the House, as your Lordships will remember, did not like the clauses in the British Nationality Bill which dealt with Ireland. We believed that they would be unsatisfactory and impermanent and we tried to have them omitted. But eventually, in deference to appeals by noble Lords opposite, backed by the weight of a great majority in another place, we gave way; and the British Nationality Bill, with the Irish clauses, became law. But, as the Lord Chancellor himself has said to-day, hardly was the ink dry on the paper of that measure when the Irish Government, apparently without any prior consultation with His Majesty's Government, and indeed entirely contrary to the expectation of His Majesty's Government, decided to leave the Commonwealth. By that action, the whole basis of the clauses which dealt with Ireland was cut away, and new legislation has now had to be devised to meet the new situation. That legislation, as we know, is incorporated in the present Bill, which has been recommended by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor with the same persuasive eloquence as he devoted last year to the British Nationality Bill.
  I cannot say that many of us are enthusiastic about this new measure. We all honour the efforts of the Government to find a way out of the present imbroglio that is calculated to reduce friction between the two countries. I fully recognise that that is the whole purpose of this measure. I am sure that they have done what they think best, in what is admittedly a very difficult situation, to achieve that result. Indeed, I think many of us will feel that this Bill enshrines an extremely generous offer on the part of the United Kingdom. It confers no very remarkable advantages on us and it provides immense advantages for Ireland. It enables Irish people in matters of trade to enjoy all the advantages available to members of the Commonwealth. As I understand it, their citizens who happen to be resident in this country are to be treated in all respects as if Ireland were still a member of the family. They can come freely to this country; they can vote to elect members of our own domestic Parliament; they can sit in that Parliament; they can even
  916
  become members, as far as I know, of the Privy Council. No such offer was ever previously made in the history of the world, I believe, by one independent nation to another.
  But, at the same time, innumerable questions jump to one's mind in considering this proposed arrangement. I do not know whether other noble Lords feel the same as I do. I personally feel very unhappy that men and women who are not British nationals should vote at all in British elections. But, in any case, I would like to ask this question: Will Irish nationals who are resident in Britain be able to use their status as British voters to press claims not in the interests of Britain but of Ireland? To put it even more clearly, will candidates at British elections, be bombarded by electors, who are not British nationals at all, for pledges of support on the subject of the abolition of partition as the price for their votes? There are already signs that this may be the case. A few days ago, I received—and perhaps other noble Lords have also received copies—a document signed by the President of the Paddington Branch of the Anti-Partition of Ireland League, asking my support for an amendment weakening the pledge to Ulster. In that document there are paragraphs which are not only deplorable in themselves but which constitute a really intolerable intrusion in our own domestic affairs.
  The writer asks, "Why is this amendment" (that was the amendment which he proposed) "indispensable?" He then gives a number of reasons. I will quote two of them, in order that your Lordships may see the sort of thing which is already beginning. The first reason, the writer says, is:
  "Because the Nationalist Catholic populace—which is one-third of the total population—is during quiet times effectively muzzled, shackled and oppressed and during times of public excitement is treated by the Orange mob and other Government agents in mufti with as abominable and as barbarous cruelty, involving arson, bloodshed and death, as ever were the Jews in Hitler's Germany."
  Your Lordships can form your own impressions of such an effusion as that, without further comment from me. But it is clearly intended to inflame opinion here against the Loyalists in Ulster. The second quotation is, in its way, even more sinister. I am giving what he alleges

  917
  is an additional reason why the amendment should be supported:
  "Because the Parliament of the United Kingdom to-day—the first Parliament ever to be dominated by the British Labour Party—would be insane to permit itself to be doped and bamboozled into serving Tory-Orange intrigues which came to full strength in 1912–14 in planning an armed revolt against His Majesty's Government in order to defeat—not so much the Irish Nationalists—as the Labour and democratic forces which had coalesced with them and with the Liberals to curb the forces of reaction and to promote a humanitarian social policy. Will British Labour kiss the rod that whipped it?"
  Well, my Lords, I do not want to go into the past too far or to revive the ashes of old controversies, but I do say this: the paragraphs which I have quoted are clearly a definite attempt to influence a Party vote in our own domestic politics. Is that the kind of thing to which we are to be subjected in the years to come? Is Ireland to be dragged back into the forum of British politics, from which she has, happily, been absent for some considerable time, by men who, in fact if not in name, are actually aliens and not subjects of the King? I would ask His Majesty's Government whether there are any means that can be taken under the proposed arrangement, to deal with such intrusions in our internal affairs in the interests of another country. I hope there is some step which can be taken to prevent that type of propaganda; otherwise, clearly, it can lead only to a steady increase in bitterness between the two countries, which all of us are most anxious to avoid. I would also like to ask what will be the position of British nationals who are resident in Ireland under this new plan for common citizenship, which is, in effect, what we are offering the Irish? Is there to be absolute reciprocity? Are British nationals in Ireland to have the same rights and privileges which we give to Irish nationals in Britain? Will they also be able to vote for the Irish Parliament? Will they also be able to enter the Irish Civil Service, and so on?
  Have the Government any assurance of any kind about this from the Irish Government? The Lord Chancellor did not tell us in his speech. Perhaps he will say in his reply. He may argue that this point is somewhat unrealistic and may say that it is improbable that many Englishmen will wish to enjoy any such rights. But if that argument is used, it
  918
  only goes to prove how much more the Irish are gaining by this arrangement than we are. Moreover, this question of reciprocity may have wider implications and a wider importance than we at present realise. However much we may contend that this case of Ireland is sui generis, resulting from certain very special circumstances, it is not impossible—and we must not hide it from ourselves—that it may be claimed as a precedent by others in this nationalistic age. Therefore, it is important, if we are embarking on an era of common citizenship between independent States, that such citizenship should be really common in all respects.
  There are many other questions I should like to ask. There is the question of the position over passports, which understand raises most difficult issues, and there are other questions of a similar character. But those are likely to be raised by other noble Lords; therefore, I will not say anything more about them this afternoon. But I should like to give warning that unless there is a definite and satisfactory answer from the Government on these points, we may have to put down Amendments on Committee stage. We are not anxious to introduce controversial matters over this Bill, but at the same time there are certain matters which need clearing up. We should prefer to clear them up with the co-operation of the Government, but, if we cannot get that co-operation, we may have to put down Amendments ourselves. I am not going into any further details. I will only repeat the words I have used already with regard to these proposals: that I do not believe any such generous offer has ever been made in the history of the world by one independent country to another, and I feel that the only justification for such an offer as we have made is if His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the Irish Government are willing to co-operate in the same spirit, if that Government are ready to bury the hatchet of the past and make concessions to our point of view in the same way as we are genuinely ready to make concessions to theirs, and if this is really meant by them as the beginning of a new era ill Anglo-Irish relations.
  But I am afraid it is evident from the recent debates in the Dail that that is not at present their attitude at all. I wish it were, but I do not think it is. They seem

  919
  to ignore all the advantages which accrue to them from this settlement and they concentrate on the one concession which is not made to them—that is, the abolition of partition and the abandonment of Ulster. In such circumstances, I am bound to say—and although I am expressing here only a personal view, I think it may be shared by some other noble Lords—that I should have thought the right course for His Majesty's Government would be to say, in a perfectly friendly manner, "If you do not want our offer, you need not have it. If you are determined to become foreigners; very well, become foreigners, in the fullest sense of the term." I say this irrespective of any of the precedents for the present situation that may have been quoted by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, or anyone else. We should say to Ireland: "We shall be very ready to negotiate a treaty with you on terms mutually satisfactory to both parties, but you will not retain the advantages of membership of a family which you seem determined to repudiate."
  That is the course that I feel would have been the right one for His Majesty's Government to adopt. It would have got over the main difficulties inherent in this settlement. No problem would have been raised over the most favoured nation clauses in our commercial treaties with other nations. There would have been no question of the Irish attempting to use influence in our domestic politics to secure results favourable to their country. If the Irish in Britain wished to vote in British elections, if they wished to join the British Civil Service or if they wished to play other parts in our national public life, they would have to make a declaration affirming their loyalty to this country. I am told, though I do not know if it is true, that it is the view of the Home Office that it is impossible to find out who are Irish and who are not. I do not believe this for a moment. We had no difficulty in finding out who was British and who was not during the war, and I think it could equally easily be done now. It is merely a matter of machinery. That, I am sure, taking into account the present frame of mind of the Irish Government, would have been the right course for this country to adopt. I gravely fear
  920
  that the arrangement proposed in the present Bill will not be regarded by the Irish as generosity, but will be regarded merely as weakness, and will pave the way for further demands. Instead of reducing friction between the two countries, which is its main object, it will tend only to increase it. But unfortunately—so some of us feel—the Government have not seen fit to take the course I suggested. They have preferred to go on as if nothing had happened, as if Ireland had not left the Commonwealth, in the hope of getting their return at a later date.
  My Lords, I now come to the last lap of my speech. The question before those of us who feel as I do is: What should we on this side of the House do about this Bill in these circumstances? I hope I have not concealed from your Lordships my dislike of it. I wish most sincerely that it had never been brought in. But, after careful and indeed rather painful thought, I have been driven to the conclusion that this is not one of those occasions—whatever one's personal feelings—in which I should be justified in advising your Lordships to throw it out, even if you should think it right to do so. In deciding our action in circumstances such as these, it seems to me we have to consider rather more than our own personal feelings. Where it is clear that the British people, whose servants, under His Majesty the King, we are, are seriously exercised in their minds on any question, we believe it to be our function to afford the British people time to make their views felt. But I must say frankly that this does not appear to me to be a subject on which the British people are strongly moved one way or another. I see no indication that they require time for further thought. They seem prepared to accept the situation, even though they do not view it with any great enthusiasm. I am afraid it would be reckless action on our part, and indeed wrong, in such circumstances, if we were to negative the policy of the Government which is at the present time in charge of our national affairs. I have spoken very frankly, to tell your Lordships the way in which my own mind works.
  Moreover, it is only right to say that, however much some of us may dislike the general policy implied in this Bill, there are certain provisions in it which

  921
  we can all cordially approve. First, there are the provisions which safeguard completely the position of Ulster. These provisions make it clear that there can be no coercion of the loyal Ulster majority by a temporary influx from the South. To us on this side of the House—and, indeed, I believe, to noble Lords on all sides of the House—that is a vital consideration. We owe an inestimable debt to Ulster. It implies no reflection on the many brave men and women who came from Southern Ireland to fight in the war to say that it was the staunch support which Ulster gave to the cause of freedom in the last war, by keeping open the Northern ports, which went far to preserve a free world from defeat. We cannot and will not let them down now. At present, it is abundantly clear that the overwhelming proportion of Ulstermen do not wish to amalgamate or federate with Southern Ireland. No one knows what the future will bring. It may be that at some later date they will change their view. But while they hold to their present opinion we in this country must and will support them. That cannot be said too unequivocally, and it is made quite clear—and this is to the great credit of His Majesty's Government—in the present Bill.
  Secondly, it is laid down with equal clarity that if Irishmen resident in the United Kingdom are to enjoy the rights and privileges of British citizens they must be prepared to fight for them in war and undergo the necessary training in peace time in the same way as other British citizens. I think that, too, is evidently right. We can therefore say quite fairly—and this, as I have already made bold to remark, is to the great credit of His Majesty's Government—that, whatever our view as to their general policy, they have satisfied us on two matters which have been causing us great concern. Personally, I could not possibly vote for this Bill; I feel far too strongly on the general policy involved. I imagine that there will not be a Division. For the reasons I have explained, I think that there should not be a Division. If, however a Division is challenged from any quarter, I propose to abstain, and I should advise all other noble Lords who do not feel able to support the measure to take a similar course.
  3.52 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, this Bill has two purposes. One is to deal with certain practical consequences of the Act passed by the Irish Parliament for the separation of Eire from the Commonwealth, and the establishment of an independent Republic, so as to prevent, so far as possible, inconvenience and injury to the citizens of each of these countries resident in the territory of the other. The second purpose is to make a declaration with regard to the future constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The first of these two is the more important, for the second introduces nothing new, but merely safeguards the status quo. Nevertheless, it is the second which has aroused the greatest attention and has given rise to the keenest controversy. I propose to address your Lordships, I hope briefly, upon both of these issues.
  I cannot agree with the noble Marquess who has just spoken that this Bill is of no advantage to us in dealing with Irish citizens in this country. On the contrary, I think the presence of these Irish men and women is a great strengthening of our economy; it adds to our man-power and woman-power. Many of them are skilled persons who render valuable service to this country. The question of the strength of our military position and service in the British Army also arises. And it is to the advantage of this country that no unnecessary obstacles should be placed in the way of travel and trade between the two islands, and of the comfort and well-being of the citizens engaged in trade and production in the two countries.
  When the noble Marquess asks whether we can expect that the Irish Parliament will give reciprocal advantages to our own nationals resident there, I would remind him that a proposal of such an interchange of rights came first from the Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Costello, when he introduced the External Relations Bill (afterwards an Act), out of which arises the whole of these complications. When we discussed this matter in this House on December 15 last, I quoted the actual words used by Mr. Costello, and I will do so again now. In that portion of his speech he was addressing himself not only to his own nationals but to the peoples of Britain and the Commonwealth. Addressing himself to them, he said:
  "After the passage of this Bill we"—

  923
  that is the Irish—
  "will continue, provided they so desire, the exchange of citizenship rights and privilges."
  He went on to say:
  "Ireland does not now, and does not intend to regard her citizens as foreigners, or their countries as foreign countries."
  So Mr. Costello has already given the undertaking which to-day the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, says he would desire.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount has made two points. With regard to the first, I never said that there were no advantages to us. I said there were no very remarkable advantages. In a later part of my speech, I indicated another method by which those advantages might have been secured to this country. With regard to the second point the noble Viscount made, as to whether there was to be reciprocity, all I desire to ask the Lord Chancellor (and I hope he will be able to answer me to-day) is whether the Government have had conversations with the Irish Government on this question and what sort of assurances they have been given. We have in the past had the example, I am sorry to say, of public statements by the Irish Government which at a later date have proved to be slightly illusory.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: With regard to the first point, it is not a nice balance of less or more. What I would ask your Lordships to agree is that this country does obtain large and substantial advantages by the provisions made in the first clause of this Bill. With regard to the second point, the Irish Government have clearly recognised the principle that these concessions should be mutual. Whether the Government have obtained a precise assurance on that matter is, of course, a question for the Lord Chancellor to answer, and not for me.
  The general provisions of this Bill, therefore, seem to raise the question, given the state of affairs created by the action of the Irish Parliament, for which we are in no way responsible: Is this Bill desirable or not? To my mind, it is obvious common sense to say that it is desirable. Then the question arises whether these objects can be legally achieved. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has on more than
  924
  one occasion addressed himself to the legal aspect, and no doubt he may do so again today. Unquestionably a very strong case can be made to show that this Bill is full of what may be called legal anomalies; certainly it is illogical. It may be said that what it sets out is bad law. But good law may sometimes be bad statesmanship.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I have never discussed this Bill at all.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The ideas embodied in this Bill were discussed fully in December last. If I remember rightly, the noble and learned Viscount has also made statements, in public or in writing, with regard to it.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: It is not a matter of great importance, but it is just as well to be accurate. For what it may be worth—and I do not think it is worth very much—I expressed a view as to the true effect, not of this Bill but of the British Nationality Act which was passed last July.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am speaking now in particular of the noble and learned Viscount's speech on December 15 last. Then we were discussing the matters which are involved in this legislation. The noble and learned Viscount has said more than once that legislation of this character purports to effect changes in the law which may be applied by our own courts for our own purposes but which will not be binding internationally; and that, consequently, by passing legislation of the character of this Bill we are landing ourselves in the possibility of great international difficulties over the most-favoured-nation clause and other matters relating to international affairs. To all of that I think one can answer that the law must adapt itself to policy. It has always been the custom in this country to make up our constitutional and legal principles as we go along. We first adopt certain practices, and then discover afterwards the principles to which they belong. Then, later, we apply those principles to further developments of practice. As one of our historians has said:
  "All our great constitutional precedents are the parents of principle, rather than its offspring."
  So it may be in this case. We do things, and then we make the law to fit them. Then the law establishes principles, and those principles are applied in other cases.

  925
  Whether such legislation will in fact give rise to international difficulties with regard to the most-favoured-nation clause is not certain—I do not know that it is even probable. But if it is, we shall have to face that difficulty when it arises; and it may be that special trade negotiations will become necessary when we give preference to different countries which are no longer in the fullest sense part of the British Commonwealth. We may have to confront the other countries with the new position that we ourselves have created, and since the whole of the Commonwealth is involved in this issue—not only the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and not only Eire, but also all the great Dominions and India—there would be a great mass of bargaining power on these questions of trade relations which might make it difficult for other countries to insist upon the abandonment of Imperial Preference if this country desired that that system should continue.
  All the Dominions agreed to this legislation. This Bill has been passed on Second Reading in the House of Commons by a majority of 317 to 12, and on the Third Reading, with no Division, with the support of the three Parties in that House. I have no doubt that your Lordships will be ready to pass it on this occasion. As to the title which has been taken by the State hitherto known as Eire, there is no doubt that to call that State the Republic of Ireland when, as a matter of fact, a considerable part of Ireland is not at present a portion of that Republic, is strictly a misnomer, and that the title "Irish Republic" would be a more accurate description. But as has been said on behalf of the Government, it is, I think, the invariable international custom to allow States to take the names which they themselves choose, and it is so in the ordinary life of the community. I remember seeing a reproduction of an advertisement in The Times of some date in the middle of the nineteenth century, in which a certain Mr. Bugge thought it advisable to change his name and gave notice that, in future, he would call himself Norfolk-Howard. That change of title and name was generally accepted, and it is so in all such cases. With regard to the names of nations, the United States of America is itself, as a title, a misnomer, because that country does
  926
  not consist of the United States of America. There are many States in Central and South America which do not form part of it. Yet no one brings up such pedantic points as that, and the name that the country chooses is naturally accepted by the whole of the world.
  To turn to the second purpose of this Bill, which has aroused such great resentment in Eire, Clause 1 (2) asserts, in terms which will be familiar to your Lordships, that Northern Ireland shall remain as it is until the Parliament of Northern Ireland decides otherwise. For my own part, I have taken part in all the controversies on the Irish question ever since the days of the Parliament of 1892 to 1895 and Mr. Gladstone's second Home Rule was not a member of that Parliament—right on until 1914, when the Irish Home Rule Bill was the crucial issue before the country; and the Bill of 1912 had on its back my own name, with that of other members of that Cabinet. During all that time the Liberal Party, which was a Home Rule Party, strove to establish a united Ireland. We supported the Irish Nationalists, for whom the doctrine "Ireland one and indivisible" was an essential principle. We did so during the whole of that period from 1886, when Mr. Gladstone introduced his first Home Rule Bill, until 1914, when we came reluctantly to the conclusion that to make no compromise on the question of Ulster would be to create an Irish State which would be ungovernable. Then, with the assent of the Irish Nationalist Party, led by Mr. Redmond, we accepted the doctrine that there must be a separate Parliament in Northern Ireland.
  On that, in 1914, the Buckingham Palace Conference was called, and very nearly came to an agreement, the principle of a separate Parliament having been accepted by the British Liberal Party, by the Ulster Unionists and by the Irish Nationalists. I must admit that the situation in that regard does not seem to be any different now, in 1949, from what it was in 1914. If steps were taken now to establish a United Ireland, including the whole of that island, the consequences would be the same as they were likely to be in 1914.
  In all these matters I think that our policy must be governed by the broad principles laid down in what I regard as

  927
  one of the most important and significant documents of our age—namely, the Atlantic Charter. The Atlantic Charter, which was signed by President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill, as Prime Minister of this country, laid down a number of objectives for national and international policy. The Third Article, your Lordships will remember, runs as follows:
  "They"—
  that is, the two countries, Britain and the United States—
  "respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live."
  Then the question frequently arises: What is a people? Are the Indians a people? Are those who proclaimed themselves separate, the State of Pakistan, a people? Are the Palestinians a people? Or are the Jews one people, and the Arabs another? Similarly, the question arises: Are the Irish a people, or have the inhabitants of the Northern Ireland counties separate national characteristics?
  Unquestionably, the division of Ireland into two causes great inconvenience—and worse than inconvenience in many matters. It prevents the proper development of the economic resources of the whole country, and causes difficulties with transport, customs barriers, the cost of two Parliaments and continual political friction. Those are undoubtedly great evils. But similarly, the separation between Great Britain and Ireland, and the establishment of Eire as a separate country, also creates similar and very serious injury. Nevertheless, it is now recognised in this country that between the people of Great Britain and the people of the greater part of Ireland there are real national differences—historical memories, religion, language, culture in general, patriotism.
  In all these matters the people of the twenty-six counties of Ireland declared themselves different from the people of Great Britain. But it is impossible to deny that there are very similar differences between the people of the six counties—or the majority of them—and the people of the twenty-six counties. History, religion, language, industrial interest to a great extent, and patriotism, are real dividing lines between the inhabitants of the six counties and those of the twenty-six, counties. And if it is said
  928
  that Ireland, after all, is a natural geographical unit, it may be said that the British Islands are a natural geographical unit. Still more India, that great Peninsula, is obviously a natural geographical unit, whereas the division between India and Pakistan is highly artificial and complex. Palestine is a natural geographical unit; Scandinavia is similarly a natural geographical unit and, indeed was united for several centuries, or at all events for a long period, until other considerations caused its present division. Therefore, the natural geographical area is not and cannot be the final consideration.
  However it may be, the fact remains that the majority of the people in the six counties feel that they are different from those in the twenty-six counties and that history, religion, language and patriotism do bind them together and do separate them from the rest. The fact is that they have thought so, and if we laid down the principle that it is the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live, I do not see how we can bring pressure to bear upon those people to surrender their views and amalgamate themselves with the people of the rest of Ireland. Then it is said: "Ah, well, but the Parliament of Northern Ireland is not truly representative of the feelings of that population. The constituencies have been gerrymandered; boundaries have been wrongly drawn; there has been pressure from the employers; and if you are to get the opinion of the people you ought to get it by the specific means of a vote on that issue and not leave it to the Northern Ireland Parliament as provided in this Bill."
  Let me say on that, my Lords, that British Liberals have never accepted the method of the referendum as a desirable part of the working of democracy. When a vote is taken on one issue, other issues must always, or nearly always, arise: the form of the question arises, the answer may depend on the way in which the question is put. Furthermore, no question can embody all the various conditions that might or might not have applied. Moreover, the referendum or plebiscite greatly weakens the whole basis of a representative system. For all these reasons, we have always preferred—and I think most democracies throughout the world have preferred,

  929
  though some other countries take a different view—to regard the elected Legislature as expressing the opinion of the people. I do not think it is denied as a fact that about two to one of the population of Northern Ireland are at present against amalgamation with the South of Ireland. Although there is a large Nationalist minority there is this two to one majority against amalgamation.
  Again, this issue between Southern and Northern Ireland recalls a certain similarity in the course of the old Home Rule controversy, to which I have already referred. During all these years, in Parliament after Parliament, out of a hundred Members Ireland as a whole returned to the Parliament of Westminster about eighty in favour of Home Rule. The Liberal Party said, "We must accept that as the voice of the people," whereas the Conservative opponents said: "No, you cannot accept that; it is the result of the pressure of priests and agitators, and of the violent methods of the Land League, so that these members do not represent the true opinion of the Irish people"—even though that opinion had been expressed at the polls by a majority of four to one. Much the same arguments are being used to-day in the Dáil to persuade the Irish people that a two to one majority in the northern counties is manufactured, artificial, and unrepresentative. These seem to me to be very specious arguments, and it is impossible for this Parliament to base its action upon them. If union is desirable—and I think it is in itself a thing to be desired—the only way in which it can be achieved is to persuade the population of the six counties to amalgamate with the twenty-six counties.
  But now conies a new factor. The twenty-six counties have taken themselves outside the Commonwealth. Hitherto they have been able to say to the people of the six counties "Come in and join us; you will be outside the Westminster Parliament, but you will be part of the British Commonwealth; you will be in the same position as Australians or Canadians." But that position is now altered. The twenty-six counties have decided of their own free will to leave the Commonwealth, altogether regardless of the opinion of Great Britain and regardless of the opinion of the six
  930
  counties. But the six counties are not to have that free choice. Southern Ireland says to them, in effect, "You are to come in with us, and the moment you come in you will be swept out of the British Commonwealth altogether." It seems to me, looking at the matter from the outside, that if the purpose of Eire was to secure the reunion of Ireland, and if it is true that her leaders regard that as a matter of the highest importance they have taken the one way most calculated to defeat their own purpose.
  How has that come about? I think it is entirely due to the issues of domestic politics in Eire, and to the internal situation as between Parties in the twenty-six counties. Indeed, Mr. Costello made that perfectly clear when he frankly said that that was the reason that induced him to introduce legislation for the repeal of the External Relations Act. The Irish people are intensely political. Wherever they are, whether in Ireland or in the United State, or in Australia, they are passionate politicians. Perhaps I may detain your Lordships for a moment to mention a personal illustration of that. In the old days, before the establishment of Eire as a country with a Parliament of its own, a friend of mine, a lending Nationalist, Mr. White, told me he had lately been to a by-election in a constituency where the two Parties were very nearly balanced, where a majority of four, fine, six, or perhaps sometimes ten, votes would turn the election one way or the other. Every person born there was, from the time of his birth either a Catholic and Nationalist, or a Protestant and Unionist. Mr. White told me that while he was at breakfast on polling day, an enthusiastic Nationalist burst into the room and said: "There's grand news this morning." "Oh, what is that?," he asked. The visitor said: "A Unionist died at six o'clock this morning." "Well, that is not the way to talk. God rest his soul!" "That's all very well. Mr. White; but if he'd lived till eight he'd have voted."
  That intensity of Irish politics still prevails. It is, ho Never, necessary to make it clear that this Bill, which recognises the independent Republic of Ireland under that name, does not alter the present status of Northern Ireland. We on these Benches regret the form in

  931
  which that is done in the Bill. We think it would have been much better if the Bill had been drafted in some such terms as these: "Nothing in this Act shall affect the status and Constitution of Northern Ireland." I suggest that such a clause would have had exactly the same legal effect as the clause now in the Bill, but it would not have aroused the intense resentment which has been caused by the language which now appears in the Bill. Until this Bill was introduced with that clause in it, a much friendlier atmosphere existed between this country and Eire than had prevailed for a long time past, and there was a degree of mutual confidence that had not been achieved for some years. The Irish people feel now, at the close of the negotiations, that instead of a shake of the hand on parting they have been given a slap in the face.
  Therefore, though I agree with its substance, I regret that the clause should have been worded as it has been. However, I hope that is only temporary. This Parliament, this nation, this Commonwealth, will, I believe, not weary in the desire and in the effort to promote a spirit of conciliation and reconciliation between all the parties concerned, in the hope that perhaps in the next generation, and maybe in forms not now foreseen, there will be brought about a reunion of all Ireland, North and South together, with the restoration of a union such as we have known hitherto of the whole Commonwealth, North and South, East and West.
  4.22 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not go back so far as the noble Viscount who has just addressed your Lordships in this matter, but I am one of the few members of the Parliamentary Labour Party who went through the Irish troubles after the First World War; I believe my noble friends Lord Addison and Lord Stansgate are the only other members of that Party in this House, with a couple of Members at the most in another place, who also went through those stirring times. Therefore, I think it right that I should give it as my opinion that the Bill that we are now discussing, which of course I support in principle, is not the end of the question. We are not by any means rid of the Irish problem, and
  932
  I am afraid we shall not be rid of it for a good many years. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was a little too optimistic in suggesting that the events of last October, the sudden declaration in Canada by Mr. Costello of the intention to assume sovereign independence, were only the results of manœuvrings or tactics between different political Parties in Ireland. If that were the case, the problem would be much simpler to deal with; but I am afraid that it is not the case, and we shall not be rid of this problem for many years to come.
  We are in the midst of great events and changes affecting the British Commonwealth, of which this Irish event is only one. It seems to me a great pity that, through no fault at all of His Majesty's Government, the order of the schedule of these events has developed as it has. I refer now particularly to the recent Agreement between the Commonwealth Governments with regard to the new designation, set-up or formation of the constitutional position of the Monarchy in relation to the rest of the Commonwealth. We all know that that was primarily devised with great skill and patience, and I believe it was, on the whole, to the advantage of all concerned, in that it enabled the Republic of India (the Indians having committed themselves to a republican form of government) to remain a member of the British Commonwealth. If that event had happened before last October, before it was decided by the Government of Eire to amend the External Relations Act, the whole course of history as between Southern Ireland and the rest of the Commonwealth might have been different.
  A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of a conversation with Mr. de Valera, and we discussed this very point. He told me (and this is no secret, because he made the same statement publicly a little later) that a proposal very similar to that to which I referred—the arrangement by which the King is recognised as the Head of the Commonwealth, and the Republic of India and any other republican form of government in the Dominions can adhere to the Commonwealth—had been made by him in the negotiations of 1921, with the approval of many of his colleagues in those negotiations; that if that proposal had then been adopted the

  933
  whole history of the question would have been quite different, and that it would not have been necessary now to sever the last link.
  That being the case, I am inclined to agree, though perhaps for different reasons, with the Leader of the Conservative Party in your Lordships' House when he said that there should have been more negotiations. I still believe, for I am forced to this conclusion, that the last word on this matter has not been said, and that it might have been possible to endeavour to negotiate a different settlement under which Southern Ireland could remain a part of the Commonwealth upon much the same terms as the Republic of India, and as part of that arrangement—with, of course, other safeguards and guarantees—that the six counties of North-Eastern Ireland might have come in under a Federal Parliament of all Ireland. That would not be anything in the nature of an ignoble or underhand bargain. I believe that it would have been a great act of statesmanship if that result could have been brought about by mutual agreement and consent between the three parties primarily concerned—namely, Great Britain, representing the senior Dominion of the Commonwealth, the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of Southern Ireland. I am by no means convinced in my own mind that something of the sort may not have to be done in the future in order to avoid a continuation of this friction, trouble and ill-feeling that has undoubtedly been caused by the declaration in this Bill which we are discussing, as laid down in Clause 1, subsection (2).
  That brings me to what I hope will not appear to be a criticism. If I may, I would like to address myself for one moment, particularly to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and say this: I do not really understand, although I have read every word of the debate in another place, why it was necessary—there may be a very good explanation but it has not been given yet either by the Lord President of the Council or by the Home Secretary, or by anyone else—to include sub-section (2) of Clause 1 at all. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, thought that the wording was unfortunate and that the subsection should have consisted only of
  934
  the first two lines. I would suggest that unless there is a very good reason, of which Parliament has not yet been informed, it might have been possible to introduce the Bill, the rest of which deals with the results of the events which we are discussing, without printing subsection (2) of Clause 1. I do not think it is necessary.
  From We statement made by the Prime Minister and quoted by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, in his opening speech, we have reaffirmed the legal and constitutional position of Northern Ireland, and it aroused no particular feeling at that time, so far as I am aware; nor did it cause annoyance or excitement in Southern Ireland. It may not have been foreseen that in this Bill, which really deals with other matters, the embodiment of subsection (2) of Clause 1 would occasion a great deal of excitement and reproaches, of which I am sure we have not heard the last. It is no use waving this aside, as I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, attempted to do, by saying that it is a matter of Party tactics in Southern Ireland. It goes much deeper than that. The Irish, like the Jews, are a very scattered people; and like the Scots, they are dispersed all over the world. In many countries they hold positions of influence and importance, and everywhere—in the United Stales, the Dominions and so on—they get very angry and excited about this question of partition. As we were dealing with other matters, as they had to be dealt with, unless there are other reasons I think it is a pity that this second part of Clause 1 was embodied in the Bill. However, there may be a very good reason and I shall listen with the greatest of interest when the Lord Chancellor comes to deal with it.
  The only other observation that I have to make is this. I spoke just now of the feeling of indignation that has been aroused among Irishmen because of the apparent clamping down for ever and ever—though it is not so at all, of course—of the partition of their country. Like Lord Samuel, I venture to hope that this is a matter which time will ease and modify. I suppose that modern nationalism is the most violent force in the world to-day. It can be a cause of great self-sacrifice, heroism and devotion; it can also be a cause of much ill,

  935
  damage and suffering. But it is comparatively recently—in the last century and a half, or perhaps back to the French Revolution — that modern nationalism as we know it has come about in such strength. In the same way it may wane; it may modify itself. The way I see this extreme nationalism, which is so evident in so many parts of the world, modifying and becoming more reasonable and rational is through the growth of the idea of the world community—world government.
  We must come to some form of world government. Everybody knows it, and nobody argues against it. That must come eventually. It is necessitated by the development of modern civilisation, with all its mechanism and potential power for destruction. We have got to come to some form of world government. Whether it will be before—as we all very much hope—or after a third catastrophic world war, it is impossible to say. But in the growth of that feeling I hope to see (and I think we can all agree on this) a gradual diminution and softening of nationalist jealousy, suspicion and ill-feeling. If that happens in Ireland with the new generations, we may after all see the two parts coming together naturally, without pressure, and without the use of force, which everyone would deplore.
  After all, what are the arguments that are used to-day in the four counties out of the six where there is the main Unionist majority? They are, that there is a lower standard of social services in Southern Ireland; that the education is not so good, and that sort of thing. I do not think I misrepresent the position. Apart from the ordinary usual patriotic appeals there is always that argument against the lack of efficient trade unions and the lower standard of social services. All that can be safeguarded, all that can be taken care of as regards the four north-eastern counties to which I refer, leaving out, for a moment, Tyrone and Fermanagh. They can surely have a measure of autonomy for their social services and even for their education. I am looking ahead a little. I have lived with this problem for thirty years in Parliament; I have seen great changes, and I look for great changes in the years ahead of us. I can only hope, as I am sure all lovers of their country in Ireland hope, that time will modify the present
  936
  differences, and that there will be a natural coming together in a country which can contribute so much in the future as it has in the past, to the culture and civilisation of the world.
  4.36 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I feel obliged to intervene from this Bench because if there were to be a vote on the Second Reading of this Bill I should certainly vote in favour of it. I, too, had a long and close association with the Irish problem in another place, and my own feelings on the subject survive with all their freshness. I agree with my noble friend, Lord Salisbury, that His Majesty's Government are wise in proposing a measure which endeavours to clear up some of the doubts and difficulties which have arisen from the coming into existence on Easter Monday last of the independent sovereign Republic of Ireland. It was inevitable that they should do so, especially because of the terms of the British Nationality Act which we passed last summer.
  I want to say at once that, though I have expressed the opinion that the creation and recognition of that Republic seemed to me in law to make its citizens foreigners, and that the existing Statute did nothing to alter that result, I certainly do not desire that that result should remain uncorrected. Whatever Southern Ireland has done—and I join others in regretting very much that they have thought it right to take this step, which it was for them to choose—our domestic, social and commercial relations with the people there are very close. We owe so much to Irish genius, courage, charm and culture that, as an Englishman who over long years has felt deep sympathy with the Irish Nationalist cause, and as one who treasures Irish associations, I should not desire to see this iron curtain maintained intact.
  I agree with my noble friend, Lord Samuel, that if we look at it from our point of view only, we should lose here a great deal that is valuable. Many people who, under the present law of Eire may be counted citizens of Eire, are, I believe, members of our Civil Service, and many of them discharge most important duties in different parts of the country. Some, I believe, are members of one or other of the Houses of Parliament. Some are J.P.s, K.C.s or Privy

  937
  Counsellors. Therefore, whatever our feelings may be, I think we should recognise that this was a case for adjustment. How the adjustment should be brought about, how the mitigation should be secured, was a very difficult question, and I speak quite sincerely when I say that, for my part, I sympathise very much with the Lord Chancellor and others who have been prominently concerned because they have had to face most intractable problems. That was a very difficult matter, and it was quite different from the sentiment which is at the bottom of my judgment—namely, that it was inevitable that there should be an amending Bill to mitigate what would otherwise be the outcome. Therefore, so far as that mitigation is concerned, I have not the slightest doubt that the effort is right; and as this Bill seeks to carry it through I should certainly vote for its Second Reading, while reserving the right to consider whether the framing of the Bill is the best that can be done.
  I feel it necessary to say that because I, like the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, am an old campaigner in this Irish cause; and with that part of the noble Viscount's speech I find myself largely in agreement. It cannot be disputed that, as things stand at this moment, some doubts and difficulties do arise and that they still remain to be met. And it is not at all surprising that that should be so, because it is perfectly true, as your Lordships were reminded by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that the British Nationality Act of last year was commended to us by the Leader of the House and by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack as an agreed plan to preserve the Commonwealth intact, arrived at as the result of most careful examination by representatives from all parts of the Commonwealth. I recall—and I have just refreshed my memory upon this point—that we were told, no doubt quite accurately, that included in that discussion were five representatives of Eire. So there is no doubt about it that, whatever may be the correct legal interpretation of this or that—and I can assure the House that I have never regarded, that as the most important factor—our expectations have been a good deal disappointed. There can be not the slightest
  938
  doubt that when we passed the British Nationality Act we never contemplated, and we know the Government never contemplated, what was going to happen so soon afterwards. We accept—and no one does so more readily than I—the assurance that the Government never suspected that what happened was going to happen. I am quite sure that they did not. It must have been for the Lord Chancellor a rather anxious and not altogether happy time, and now we have to adjust the situation in the light of what has happened since. I therefore shall not go over that old ground.
  My noble friend Lord Samuel—I have just referred to the general body of his speech, saying how much I find myself in agreement with him—:made a reference to my previous comments, which, perhaps, were not quite properly understood. I forgive him readily for the misunderstanding. He misunderstood, I think, the purpose of some observations I had made and a letter I had written which had reference not to this Bill, but to the previous position under the British Nationality Act. It seemed to me that when we passed that Act "a citizen of Eire" meant "a citizen of the Dominion of Eire," for that was the only kind of person that either Parliament or the Government were thinking about. But, whatever may be the right view about that matter, there is no doubt that under this Bill it is to be enacted that the phrase is to be understood as covering a citizen of the Republic of Ireland.
  I am not going to occupy a moment of time in discussing whether that is properly done by declaring that that is the meaning of the phrase, or whether it would be, perhaps, more appropriate frankly to acknowledge that vie are making an amendment in the law of last year. It does not matter. I think I am putting the point perfectly fairly, and I hope the Lord Chancellor will agree when I say that there has been a difference of opinion about it. There very often is a difference of opinion about Irish affairs. Father Healey was once asked by a devoted young lady if he could explain the difference between "cherubim" and "seraphim." That learned and witty Irish priest replied by saying: "My dear young lady, there used to be a difference between thim, but now they have made ut up." The Lord Chancellor will, I hope, agree with me when I say that if there was a differ

  939
  ence between us, we, at least, have "made ut up." At first, he stoutly maintained the view that what I thought right was all wrong. He was entirely justified in asserting it if he thought it was so. He contented himself, if I remember aright, with the simple proposition that "Eire" is "Eire." Since then, Crown lawyers seem to have entertained doubts. I notice that the Lord President, during the Second Reading debate in the House of Commons, said:
  "It must be remembered that at the moment legally the Republic of Ireland is a foreign State, and Irish folk in this country are foreigners."
  It was upon that statement that the Division was then taken. A few days later the Attorney-General, the Lord President's colleague, sought to correct him, and I have noted his words. He said:
  "Our view is based entirely on the terms of the British Nationality Act, 1948. We may be wrong about it.… I am quite content to believe that my noble friend the Lord Chancellor and I may be wrong.…"
  I must say that was very good of the Attorney-General! All Lord Chancellors suffer from that possibility. The Attorney-General continued:
  "It is because we have realised that we may be wrong and that the matter is one which may be in doubt that we have felt it urgently necessary to remove the doubt."
  Later the Attorney-General said:
  "We seek to remove doubts by the declaratory provision."
  I am content to leave it at that. I should regard it as a waste of time, a beating of the air, to go on at this time of day discussing which of the two interpretations is correct. But I must say, as a parting shot, that I am a little surprised to find a phrase in Clause 3 which I have never in my life before seen in an Act of Parliament. It seems almost as if Parliament were invited to legislate, if I may put it in the simplest terms:
  "Jowitt is right; Simon is wrong."
  I notice that, by page 3, line 11, what we are asked to enact is this: that it should be declared that
  "references to citizens of Eire include, on their true construction, references to citizens of the Republic of Ireland."
  I have never before seen anything like that in an Act of Parliament. But it does not matter. If it is thought worth while
  940
  to make it a matter of legislative enactment that the previous opinion which I expressed on the true construction of a previous Act is wrong, be it so. Let it be the subject of a very unusual statutory phrase. All that does not matter in the least. What does matter is that we should appreciate that we are engaged in making a most important constitutional decision: we are deciding the question of what is the effect when an area which was previously under the allegiance of the Crown is recognised as becoming an independent Republic.
  That is a question which it is worth spending a minute in considering. I do not think the Crown lawyers have examined it. It was carefully considered after the American Colonists fought their war of Independence, and we in this country recognised that there was then established an independent sovereign Republic of the United States. It was all discussed in detail in the English courts at that time. Merely for the purposes of record, may I observe that the decision is given in Doe v. Acklam, in the second volume of Barnewall and Cresswell, page 779, by Chief Justice Abbott. The law of England, as it stood at that time and until 1870, was that if a man was to own land in England, he had to be a British subject; only British subjects could own land in England. When the Republic of the United States was recognised as having been established as a separate State, the question arose whether a man who was previously a British subject, because he lived in one of the American Colonies, could own land in England after this recognition. Chief Justice Abbott decided that that was impossible.
  In the same way, if we look at the well-known collection of constitutional decisions written by Forsyth, Cases and Opinions on Constitutional Law, we find a decision which has never been challenged: that if an American, born in New York before the United States separated from this country—and therefore, to start with, undoubtedly a British subject—afterwards went to Canada and was elected a member of the Canadian Legislature, he could not be a member of the Canadian Legislature because he had become a foreigner and was no longer a British subject.
  All those who have had occasion to examine or meditate on this branch of

  941
  constitutional law know those propositions perfectly well. That is the true constitutional doctrine. When a portion of territory under allegiance ceases to be under allegiance, those who previously belonged to that territory as British subjects cease to be British subjects. Of course, it also works the other way. Where new territories are added to the allegiance, then persons who were previously foreigners in those territories become British subjects. That happened, for example, after the Seven Years' War, when France and her Allies were defeated, and the result was a Treaty which transferred to British allegiance various territories which were previously French. The question arose whether these people after that transfer were still Frenchmen. It was decided that the very fact they were now under the allegiance of the Crown had turned them from being Frenchmen into British subjects. There is no doubt about this, although it is of no practical importance in the matter which we are now considering—namely, to legislate (and I dare say quite rightly) to modify that doctrine.
  I apologise if I spend time on this point, but there should be no misapprehension on a matter which is of real constitutional importance and which might possibly have some bearing in other cases hereafter. What is important, in my humble submission, is that we ought not to pass this Bill without realising that we are creating, so far as I know for the first time in our law, a new kind of State—a State which is neither a foreign State nor a State under the Crown. I think I am right in saying that down to this moment nothing of the sort has been regarded as conceivable, though of course Parliament in its wisdom may create this intermediate position. I am not saying that it is not right to do it, but that we should not do it without realising the fact that we are creating something new.
  Your Lordships may remember the poem in which Kipling gives Tommy Atkins' comment on the precise status of a Royal Marine as "soldier and sailor too." That is what we are doing here. For the first time we are saying, "Let us enact in this particular case, for good reasons, that there shall be a State called the Republic of Ireland (which is the name the State goes by; and I think we are right to adopt the name it goes by) which shall be neither a foreign State nor
  942
  a State under the Crown in any sense at all." I do not think that has ever happened before, and I entirely agree with the noble Lord who spoke last that it may be a very significant and fruitful fact. It may lead to other developments, which we cannot now foresee, but which none the less will not be to the disadvantage but to the benefit of the world. But let us recognise that it is an entirely novel conception.
  Of course, nothing was effected by the statement made by the Prime Minister on October 28 that the Government did not regard the creation of the Republic of Ireland as having this or that effect, because it does net depend on the declarations of any Government. I am sure that nobody supposed it did. Therefore, if we make this modification—and on the whole I thin it right that we should—it has to be made by Parliament. I venture to say these things because seems to me a pity that in the rush and hurry of our lives we should not realise that we are taking part in a very important operation at a very important moment in the history of these communities, whose interest we have so much at heart. I think it would be well to insist, as I recollect Mr. Churchill insisted from the beginning, that this ought not to bye regarded as a precedent. The Irish case is a special case from every point of view. Our association with that beautiful country, not always a happy one, alas! is still so Close, so ancient and so constant, that the case for doing something special about it is overwhelming. But I beg that the particular operation in which we are now engaged should not be regarded as an automatic precedent for other cases which differ fundamentally from the case of Anglo-Irish relations.
  While all that is so, we must attend to the practical sides of this matter. There are one or two practical questions which ought to be dealt with at least in outline, before we finish this Second Reading debate. They are not theoretical or constitutional questions, but practical ones; and I have taken the liberty of communicating with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor about them. First, there is the question of passports. Nothing is more practical than this. A man travelling from this country wants to know where he can get a passport. I have been at some little trouble to try and find out the position in

  943
  this respect. Here is the question: Is a citizen of the Republic of Eire, entitled as such to a British passport? Can he go to the office here in London and say: "I am a citizen of the Republic of Eire. Therefore give me a passport which assures me of the benevolent protection of Mr. Bevin and the diplomatic service"?
  Nobody will doubt that that is a practical question. It is also a very important one, the answer to which I should have thought we ought to know before this Second Reading debate closed. I happen to know that the view of the Passport Office is: "No. If you come here and say, 'I am a citizen of the Republic of Eire', that is in itself no reason why we should give you a passport." That may be so. But I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would look for a moment in this connection at a section in the British Nationality Act, 1948, which he knows quite well and which he has had occasion to explain to us more than once. It is Section 3, subsection (2), of that Act, which says:
  "Subject to the provisions of this section, any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom and Colonies or in any protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory at the date of the commencement of this Act, whether by virtue of a rule of law or of an Act of Parliament or any other enactment or instrument whatsoever, and any law which by virtue of any Act of Parliament passed before that date comes into force in any such place…shall, until provision to the contrary is made by the authority having power to alter that law, continue to have effect in relation to citizens of Eire who are not British subjects in like manner as it has effect in relation to British subjects.'
  Nobody will dispute that our law is that if you are a British subject you are entitled to a British passport. As we provided last year that the law is to have operation
  "in relation to citizens of Eire who are not British subjects in like manner as it has effect in relation to British subjects."
  I again put my question: Can a citizen of Eire, because he is a citizen of Eire, obtain a British passport? I am sure the last thing Mr. Costello would desire is that his own citizens should move about the world under the protection of the British: he has his own system of consuls, ambassadors, and all the rest of it. But I ask the question: What is the right view of this matter? I venture to think that before we pass this Bill the answer to that question should be made clear.
  944
  The view which is taken in the Passport Office is that if you are a citizen of Eire and want a British passport you must first avail yourself of Section 2 of the British Nationality Act. I have always thought that a rather mysterious section—it is the one which provides that:
  "Any citizen of Eire who immediately before the commencement of this Act was also a British subject shall not by reason of anything contained in section one of this Act be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject if at any time he gives notice in writing to the Secretary of State"—
  that means the Home Secretary—
  "claiming to remain a British subject on"
  various grounds there listed. But in some cases that is no help at all. Take the case of a man horn forty years ago, say in Dublin. None of us controls the place where he is born—indeed, it may well be that when we were born our mother was in a place which was not her domicile or place of residence. But take the case of a man who forty years ago was born in Dublin, and who, either from the start or afterwards, became domiciled elsewhere—say, in Northern Ireland. If such a man applies at the Passport Office to-day for a passport, can he obtain one? My information—it is as recent as this morning—is that he is refused a passport and he is refused on the grounds that he is a citizen of Eire. But the man about whom I have spoken is a man who has never at any moment of his life regarded himself as a citizen of Eire. He is domiciled in Northern Ireland—or, for that matter, anywhere else in the world. Yet it is said: "The law of Eire decides that you are a citizen of Eire and as you are a citizen of Eire, you cannot have a British passport." To my knowledge this has actually happened within the last few days.
  As your Lordships see, that is due to the fact, which we so easily overlook, that in the British Nationality Act, 1948, we fundamentally altered the whole basis of British nationality. Down to last year the test was quite simple. It was: Where were you born? If you were born on British territory you are a British subject. But that has all been repealed, and at present, as the Lord Chancellor so clearly explained to us, in order to be a British subject you have to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, a citizen of Australia, a citizen of Canada, a citizen of New Zealand, a citizen of

  945
  India or Pakistan, and so forth. If you are one of those, you are a British subject; and if you are not one of those, then you are not a British subject. It does not include, and deliberately does not include, a citizen of Eire. Therefore, it follows plainly, so far as Section 1 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, is concerned, that a man who is a citizen of Eire is not entitled to say: "Give me a passport. I am a British subject." I speak with all proper respect and deference to those who have been attending to this matter, when I ask whether they really thought this out, because as yet I have not seen any indication that it has been thought out at all. The inquiries that I have recently made certainly do not suggest it. It seems to me a wholly practical point, and one, therefore, which I would respectfully press. Again I would ask: Who is entitled to a British passport? Is it the case that a citizen of Eire is or is not entitled to one?
  In this Bill we are going to provide—I dare say rightly—that, whether as a British citizen or as a citizen of Eire, corresponding rights should be enjoyed. I know how to find out who a British citizen is; but how am I to find out who is or is not a citizen of Eire? That has to be decided by the law of Eire; and the law of Eire may vary from time to time. Therefore it appears to me, with great respect, that more consideration should be given to this part of the Bill than has been given to it at present. I would not refer to it on Second Reading if it were a trumpery point which could be set right in a word or two. According to my understanding, it is a very practical point indeed. As my noble friend Lord Samuel said just now, it is the practical consequences of this business which must be considered.
  I will mention one other matter—the Parliamentary franchise. I suppose most of us—certainly those who have been in the House of Commons—may claim to be more or less expert on this subject. Let us consider where we are. Hitherto, in order to be entitled to be put on the register and have a Parliamentary vote for the House of Commons, you had to be not only resident here but a British subject. If the registration officer or the election agent challenged that, you had to prove it. Usually it was not difficult, because you produced either your birth certificate or your naturalisation papers,
  946
  and that was that. But now we are to provide that a man is to be entered on the Parliamentary register if he is a British subject, or if he is a citizen of Eire. I see the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, opposite, and he knows the subject well. I would like to know how people will test that question. It obviously has to be tested by Eire law, and Eire law may change from time to time. From this point of view it is foreign law. I find some difficulty in understanding how this is to be done.
  Within the last few days some of your Lordships may have had my experience: I received a buff-coloured official form from the registration officer in the part of London in which I live asking me—indeed, demanding under a penalty—to inform him within four days of the names of persons over twenty-one years of age, who are either British subjects or citizens of Eire living on the premises which I occupy—or, to be quite accurate, what people of those descriptions will be there on June 10 next. That appears to be an exercise of prophecy not within everybody's capacity. No doubt it means, "Do the best you can." I can state with fair accuracy the names of people on the premises I Occupy who are British citizens, but how can I find out whether, let us say, the maidservant in my premises is a citizen or citizeness of Eire? These are extremely practical points, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will agree that there are occasions when it is very important to test the register and see whether people who are on it ought to be on it or not. At the present moment, I do not understand how this is to be worked out. With great respect to the Lord Chancellor, it does not seem to me to be something which can be threshed out in the courts. Surely we ought to know how one is expected to find out whether this register is properly composed. I apologise for mentioning those two points. I do not do so because these are legalistic points—I do not care two hoots about the language of the Statute—but what does interest me is to understand how those questions are to be answered.
  Let me conclude by saying that I hope I have said nothing which, in the language of the Lord Chancellor, could be said to exacerbate the situation. From my long experience of Irish politics, and of our relations with that country, I know

  947
  too much ever to dream of doing anything of the kind. I am quite sure that we should all speak in a way which will not embitter those relations. I am sure that all of us want this Bill to be a Bill which will improve those relations—and nobody more wholeheartedly than I. In spite of some ancient history, which includes events in which one of two countries may have been wrong—and I am not excluding my own—I think it is a great misfortune that we should, at this time of day, have to spend our time in this adjustment. But it is necessary, and all one can hope is that if we do it in the right spirit, as I am sure we all wish to, the result may be good. I think I have ventured to observe in this House before that, in the political relations between England and Ireland, there are two great misfortunes. One is that the Irish memory is too long, and the other that the English memory is too short. If only, between us, we could now arrive at an adjustment which is practical and welcome on both sides on every clause of this Bill, then I should feel that this effort which the Government are making is one which could be commended without any sort of reservation. As it is, I share in a real degree the distress expressed by the Lord Chancellor in his opening sentence, and I join with all who hope that by the time this Bill receives the Royal Assent it may be an instrument of conciliation and reconciliation between two noble nations, each of which has contributed so much, and can contribute so much, to the progress of the world.
  5.17 p.m.
  LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, in December I last addressed your Lordships as an Irishman and welcomed the steps which His Majesty's Government were taking to deal with the unforeseen situation which arose. On Easter Monday, Ireland, or Eire, as it is known here, became the Republic of Ireland, and it is strange that on that Tuesday, after the gracious Message had been received from the King, relations were never better. Then on Wednesday, April 4, the papers in Ireland carried the text of the Bill which we are now discussing; and with one accord they jumped on Clause 1 (2). What I am saying I say with care, because very wild and rash words have been expounded on both sides of the border on this question. But there was
  948
  no doubt of the genuine surprise and indignation in Ireland. You may say the Irish were generously treated, and that it was ungenerous of them to react in such a way. But if we can just trace back the history of this legislation, to which the noble Viscount on the Woolsack drew attention, after the Chequers talk it was agreed that the question of partition was not under discussion and would not be discussed. It had been left out on purpose, because the six counties forming the North of Ireland, and the twenty-six counties which are now the Irish Republic, were divided by a border which was imposed by Statutes and Treaties, culminating with that of 1925. It was an understood thing, as the Prime Minister said on October 28, that there would be no change in the status without the North of Ireland's free agreement. Then on January 6 the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland came over here for talks, and there was an inference in a Press statement issued the next day that possibly the amending law required to meet the Government's decision on the reactions to the Republic of Ireland Act would include a clause about Northern Ireland.
  Now the facts, as I have them, are that a démarche was immediately made to His Majesty's Government drawing attention to this, because after the Paris talks—I think this was in The Times to-day—a gentlemen's agreement was arrived at that any subsequent legislation necessary, either here in Westminster or in Dublin, would be made after joint consultation. Further, I have seen it said that not even were statements to be issued to the Press without consultation. I believe that Irish draftsmen and lawyers came over in January and discussed this Bill. No mention was made at that time of the probable inclusion of this paragraph about the division of Ireland. No reply was received to the démarche made on January 7—not even an acknowledgment—and it was presumed that no such clause was to be put into the Bill.
  The first intimation that the people of Ireland had was on the Tuesday morning, when they read of it in their newspapers. Their reactions may have been right or wrong, but in my view they were quite natural because they immediately took it that this clause underlined the partition of Ireland. Most of us are agreed that there can be no coercion of the six Northern Counties. Many of us believe

  949
  in a united Ireland; and whilst there can be no coercion it must be remembered that certain changes may have occurred since the 1925 Treaty, and that that Treaty may need revision. If it is wrong for the Government of the Republic of Ireland to coerce the Northern Ireland Government, so surely it is wrong for the Northern Ireland Government to coerce the local majority in Tyrone and Fermanagh, who have voted for a return to the Republic of Ireland. The six counties of Northern Ireland are an arbitrary division. The reason that there are not the nine counties of Ulster is, of course, that the balance of power would have been very different.
  I feel that by this clause partition has been introduced into this discussion and that it would not otherwise have been introduced. Secondly, I feel that its introduction is possibly an effort to perpetuate partition. That is the position as it is seen in Ireland. The partition question is terribly serious. The reactions were fairly universal. The Press—even that section of it which had been critical of Mr. Costello—changed round, and criticised the action of His Majesty's Government. The Irish Times said:
  "We are convinced, however, that Mr. Attlee was badly advised. The guarantee that is contained in the Ireland Bill was legally superfluous."
  I think it is most unfortunate that this clause was introduced; and that having been introduced, it was presented in such a way that neither by plebiscite nor election can the two Nationalist counties of Northern Ireland opt out if they so desire. One has to be very careful what one says, because immediately something is said all sorts of wild remarks are apt to be made; efforts have already been made to inflame both sides. The politicians of Southern Ireland know what it is to go through civil war. It is only twenty-five years since they had that experience, and there is nothing that they want less. I feel, therefore, that there is no danger of that.
  We have recently had an invasion of reporters in Dublin. I asked one of them why they had not come over before to study the Irish question, and why they had come only after the news of the inclusion of this clause in this Bill. They said: "We did not take any notice of Ireland until we heard that the policemen in Downing Street were armed." That
  950
  is the sort of thing we must be very careful about. I do not know whether the policemen in Downing Street were armed or not. The report of that, however, led at once to the wildest Press campaign. One wise reporter to whom I spoke said he had not sent a story to his paper for three days, because there had been nothing to write. He was repeatedly rung up by his news editor and asked to send a story, but he refused. Others did not refuse; I have seen the most tendentious reports, including one that hostilities had almost opened on the border—which I discovered had been written by an English reporter from a public house in Belfast.
  The position is too serious for that, my Lords. We wish to live in peace with our neighbours. But there is a problem—a big problem—that possibly can be solved only from outside. But, as the subject of partition has been introduced, I must point out that it was introduced in 1920 by Westminster. If Ireland had not been divided then the position to-day might have been very different. I speak as a Southern Irish Catholic, and I firmly believe that the North would have had considerable control in the South. I believe, too, that had the division been ended Ireland would still be an integral part of the British Commonwealth. But the position is not like that.
  Partition is rather like a door which was closed rather arbitrarily at a difficult time in 1920. It swung a bit, and was closed firmly in 1925. Throughout the time that Ireland was in the Commonwealth, efforts were made from the South to try to open that door; but there was always a foot against the door and a voice saying: "Not an inch." Then came the time after the war, when the door was still closed. Some people may think that Mr. Costello, by deciding to opt out of the Commonwealth, may have turned the key in that door. I do not believe that, because I think that the "Not an inch" reaction has kept it shut. I feel now that the Government have thrown away the key. A locksmith will have to be found to make another in an attempt to get the doors opened, so that we may have a united Ireland co-operating fully as an independent nation with our nearest neighbour, which is England. If that door is left locked, if

  951
  no locksmith is found, I am afraid that we are in for a long and possibly difficult time, a time of political hammerings at that door in an attempt to break it down, panel by panel. I sincerely hope that nobody will attempt to blast the lock off too rapidly—that would be fatal. But there is still time to find some form of compromise between the six counties and the twenty-six counties which form the Republic of Ireland.
  There are great difficulties, which will need great statesmanship to solve. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that if this clause had to be included it might have been worded differently. It will certainly appear to the twenty-six counties as being provocative. It might have been better as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, if it had been left out altogether. I do not like bringing up this subject. Coming from the political excitement in Ireland, it is very soothing to hear the quiet way in which your Lordships approach this matter, but this clause raises a serious question, and it is one that, as I am an Irishman, I felt I had to raise.
  5.30 p.m.
  LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord who has just spoken that, as one who in his younger days—that is, from 1893—was actively associated with the Home Rule movement, I sympathise with his speech but, as an Englishman, I want to make the point that there is an English case, and that case is pretty strong. I should not have intervened in this debate had I not read the speech made by Mr. MacBride during the week-end. I will not read to your Lordships the whole of that speech; I will read only part. With relation to the conference at Chequers, which has been categorically remarked upon by the Lord Chancellor, he said:
  "There was agreement even concerning the terms of any statements which may be made on the subject in either Parliament. Yet the first intimation that the Bill was about to be introduced was received in Dublin twenty-four hours before its introduction in the House of Commons. Even if there had been no understanding, it still appears to the Irish Government that the unilateral and unnecessary action of the British Government in relation to the Ireland Bill was not in conformity with a policy of friendship and co-operation."
  When I read that speech, I asked myself whether or not I was awake, because if
  952
  any unilateral action has been taken, it has been taken by Mr. MacBride and also, of course, in a lesser degree, by Mr. Costello.
  After reading most of the speeches on the Second Reading in another place, it was brought home to me by the speeches made in opposition to the Bill by the Member for West Belfast, the junior Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone, the Member for Rochdale and the Member for Manchester, Platting, that Clause 1 was absolutely necessary and that it should be stated in black and white again, so that there should be no misunderstanding by anybody who can read. I wish to say that I support His Majesty's Government in having had the courage to introduce that clause as it stands to-day. From some of the speeches made in Ireland which I have read, I have somehow felt that there was a sinister movement afoot to make previous agreements "scraps of paper." When we were threatened with more noise that action would be taken abroad—and I wondered if Tammany Hall was going into full blast and operation against us, to interefere in domestic issues in this country—I felt it was absolutely necessary that this clause should be put into the Bill. I hope it will be implemented.
  I share with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, regret that there may be a possibility of this intrusion into our domestic politics becoming a live issue. I occupied a very subordinate post in the Liberal Party in those far off days. I was simply what they called a "ward secretary." It was most distasteful to me when my opposite number, the secretary of the Conservative Party there, and I went cap in hand for the same purpose, to see who could promise most in order to get the Irish vote. I hope there is not going to be any trafficking in the Irish vote on this occasion. I hope so for the sake of the Irish in this country, because as Mr. McGovern stated—and I agree with his statesmanlike speech—this Bill is generous to a degree to our Irish friends and comrades who at the present time live in the United Kingdom, working with us and enjoying without question the privileges which we enjoy. I wonder what would have happened if we had acted in a similar spirit towards the Irish who live in Liverpool, Glasgow and other parts as the Irish have to us. I

  953
  am hoping that there will be an equal generosity of spirit from the other side of the water.
  Referring to the debate which took place in another place on "referendum versus Parliament," I must say I prefer the way that we do things. If eight citizens here sign a nomination form for a candidate, that candidate can stand and be elected or defeated. That appears to me to be democracy, and the finest type of democracy one can find anywhere. Therefore I disagree with the criticism. I disagree gently with the noble Lord who preceded me, but I disagree more forcibly with some of my own friends in another place who want the old vicious idea of a referendum—because that is what they meant—to be revived. I am glad that the Lord President of the Council gave them the proper answer in forthright English fashion.
  I close with this thought: that we, as Englishmen, have nothing to be ashamed of in our treatment of our Irish friends during the last twenty years. We were prepared to try to help bring about a reconciliation—which is, I agree, the ideal—a coming together of the North and the South. I remember visiting one of our prisons. It was a public holiday and therefore the men were not working, and there was a cricket match. The prison governor said, "The man who is bowling is a member of the Irish Republican Army. He has a twenty years' sentence. It is a matter of honour that he will not try to escape, so we have put him in this prison without bars, and he is enjoying the cricket match." I am glad of the generosity of the Home Secretary. Some odd things have been said about the Home Secretary. There were twenty-three Irishmen in another convict prison and His Majesty has exercised his clemency and released them. As your Lordships may know, there are convicts—or "prisoners," shall I call them?—now in a prison in the North of Ireland. As an act of faith, I would like the Parliament of Northern Ireland to use their clemency on behalf of those men, if they will give a solemn promise not to create disorder or cause disturbances. I wanted this opportunity of saying, without equivocation, that I support His Majesty's Government in all that they have done, and that, as an Englishman, I cannot and will not apologise
  954
  for what we have done. We may be soft in our generosity but I revel in being soft; I revel in the fact that we are generous, and I hope that our generosity will be recognised across the water and that conciliation and reconciliation will before long prevail.
  5.40 p.m.
  LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I will detain your Lordships for only a few minutes. There are certain matters which have recently been brought to my attention which I should like to lay before your Lordships. As your Lordships know, Mr. de Valera was Prime Minister of Eire for some fourteen or fifteen years, and during all that time he never found it necessary or desirable to create an Irish Republic. Then comes Mr. Costello who, out of the blue, during a visit to Canada, and without any previous warning of any kind, except in a directly contrary sense, steals a march (allegedly for personal reasons) on Mr. de Valera and creates a Republic of Ireland. A friend of mine has been a citizen of Eire for many years, and has just communicated with me in these terms:
  "The English are really a lot of mugwumps. Don't you realise that all this pother is merely a personal duel between Mr. Costello and Mr. de Valera? The creation of an Irish Republic was neither demanded nor desired by the people of Eire. By this clever personal move on the part of Mr. Costello, Mr. de Valera was forced into giving his support and influence to Mr. Costello. The whole thing was a purely personal move to make Mr. de Valera toe the line to Mr. Costello."
  That is what my correspondent says, and the more one examines recent events the more one is inclined to think that there is something in that suggestion. As I said, for fourteen or fifteen years Mr. de Valera saw the great difficulties which would arise should Ireland become an independent Republic, and I am bound to say that it seems, as my friend suggested, rather in the nature of a sham storm in a personal teacup.
  My Lords, bearing in mind what I have just indicated, by way of qualification to my general support for this Bill, there are one or two criticisms which occur to me about the form of the Bill, which is, of course, a necessary corollary to the establishment of a Republic of Ireland. First, as to the name. The Lord Chancellor has dealt with that to-day, and in all humility, I venture to differ from him. I know it has been said that it is customary, when

  955
  dealing with a matter between two States, to accept the terminology suggested by one of the contracting parties as suitable for reference in the Treaty. But suppose some such words as "and the waters surrounding Ireland" had been used in a description of the new Republic. Is it suggested that we should be bound so to describe it in a British Statute? I venture to say that we should not dream of doing such a thing; and it is an idle excuse, I submit, that a purposely misleading description should be inserted in a British Statute which, by its insertion, is accepting a falsehood. The present Prime Minister of the Republic, Mr. Costello, within a week of giving a most solemn pledge that Eire would remain inside the British Commonwealth, announced—for personal reasons as I submit—that Ireland would become an independent Republic. Surely that is bordering on sharp practice, and something which should not be "whitewashed" and perpetuated in the wording of a British Statute.
  To say, as has been said by Mr. Costello's supporters in Dublin, that a Bill of this sort is quite unnecessary, is an affront to all reason and common sense. The Irish Free State have created for, themselves a Republic, and it is essential that we should lay down, in words that cannot be misunderstood, that Ulster, comprising the six counties, remains part of Great Britain and the British Empire. My noble friend Lord Killanin said that these words are unnecessary. What is the objection to putting them in if they are unnecessary? It is either a fact or it is not. If it is a fact why should there be objection to it? I submit that the war very likely could not have been won without the courage and assistance of the people of Ulster, and they are entitled to have put in any words which, even if they are unnecessary (although I do not think that is the case) make them feel more secure. This country owes them so much, and if they feel they are more secure by having them in the Bill I think they are entitled to have them in. The Statute, with certain amendments such as I have indicated, has been made essential by Mr. Costello's action in the creation of an Irish Republic, notwithstanding his definite pre-election pledge that Eire would remain inside the British Commonwealth.
  5.49 p.m.
  LORD DARWEN: My Lords, I belong to a religious Society which has members in both Northern and Southern Ireland, and which I think it is true to say has a long history of friendship with both sides and a long record of work for reconciliation and co-operation between both sides. I want to say just a word or two as a member of that Society. I regard this Bill as a good Bill, completing a great work of justice. But it would be another Irish tragedy if the justice and generosity of this Bill were unrecognised by the people of the new Republic of Ireland, because of their intense opposition to one provision in the Bill. I, at any rate, feel that the passage of this Bill marks a great historic event, not only to Ireland and to Britain, but as an example to the world of the working of democratic principles in this difficult problem of the demand for self-government by a part of a larger State. The separation is not of our seeking; the people of this country regret it, both for sentimental reasons and for very substantial reasons. But we recognise with gratitude that the Irish people have made a great contribution to our national life, to the Commonwealth and to the Empire; that they have contributed a great deal in religion, in science and art, and in our daily work; and I think that what has been called the generosity of this Bill is really a mark of the gratitude of the British people for this Irish contribution and of the desire that that contribution may continue.
  But the separation represents a very real loss to this country in many ways, a loss even in security, which has often been held in the past to be sufficient reason to refuse such separation as this. It is only just that this should be said, and that the people of the Republic of Ireland should realise that we have accorded this freedom to them because we believed it was right to do so, in spite of the fact that it was very much against our own interests to do so. They have demanded the separation, and their demand has been freely granted. Moreover, as I see it, the people of the new Republic have been accorded all the advantages of citizenship and of membership of the Commonwealth without many of the responsibilities. That is why I feel that this is so great an act of generosity by a great Power towards one of its constituent parts. I believe, as I

  957
  said before, that it will go down to history as a classic example of the democratic method of dealing with a part of a great State which demands freedom.
  I would say just a word or two about subsection (2) of Clause 1, which has aroused so much opposition. I think I may claim to be an impartial friend of both sides, and to me it seems that this subsection is an affirmation of the right of Northern Ireland to the same freedom of choice that has been accorded to Southern Ireland. I do not agree with Lord Killanin that it tends to perpetuate partition. I regret that partition of Ireland; I hope to see, even in my lifetime, its unification. But that can come only with the consent of both parties. I respect the deep feeling that underlies the opposition to this subsection, but I would beg my friends in the Republic to consider whether it is not true that the very democratic principles upon which freedom has been accorded to them demand that the same freedom to decide their own destiny should be granted to the people of Northern Ireland—that they too should be free to choose; that they too should be allowed the right of self-determination. If your Lordships will forgive me for this allusion, there is a parable of Our Lord's that seems to me to bear inescapably on this issue. It is sometimes called "the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant." This is not a case of great debt forgiven, but of a great act of justice, and Our Lord's words seem to me to apply with equal force:
  "Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow-servant, even as I had pity on thee?"
  5.55 p.m.
  LORD MACDERMOTT: My Lords, as one born and still domiciled in that part of Ireland which is called Northern Ireland, I would like to say a word or two in support of one of the matters which has been referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon. One of the objects of the present Bill is to clarify the situation of Eire citizens under the British Nationality Act of last year. There is one matter which this Bill does not touch, and the omission causes a great deal of confusion and anxiety amongst a class who I think all will agree ought not to be subject to any dubiety or anxiety about the matter. It arises in this way. Many persons who have always resided in the United Kingdom, and have always been
  958
  British subjects, who have never owed allegiance to the Government of the Irish Free State, or to its successor the Government of Eire, or its present successor the Irish Republic, now find themselves in the position that here is doubt expressed officially as to whether they can be British subjects unless they make application as citizens of Eire under Section 2 of last year's Act. It is not much comfort to these people, who value their citizenship of the United Kingdom, and their status as British subjects, to tell them that the only relief they can get is by describing themselves as citizens of Eire.
  To give one example, which may make the matter clearer than references to the mere technicalities of the situation, a gentleman I know, was born in Dublin long before the establishment of the Irish Free State in December, 1922, and he went to Northern Ireland in 1921. He has for many years now been resident in London. He is told that he is an Eire citizen, and that he cannot have a British passport. He has never lived anywhere but in the United Kingdom, except during his service in the Armed Forces, for he lived in Dublin it was part of the United Kingdom. He has never borne any allegiance except to His Majesty the King. Why should he now be regarded as a citizen of Eire? There are many instances of that kind. A particular friend of my own finds himself in much the same plight, though he went to what is now Northern Ireland as a child of tender years, many years before the Government of Ireland Act was passed. I venture to think it can never have been the intention of Parliament to make people in that class citizens of Eire, and in that way to make it impossible for them to be ranked as British subjects, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, unless they make application as citizens of Eire.
  I mention this now because I think that when it is considered, and when its importance is borne in mind, it is a Second Reading point rather than a Third Reading point. I mention it, also, in the hope that His Majesty's Government will give close consideration to this matter, which I think perhaps has not been considered so fully as it ought to have been, so that when the Bill again comes before the House some effort may be made to do justice by a class who I think it is nobody's intention should be, if I may so put it,

  959
  left out in the cold in this way. The matter is causing a good deal of anxiety, and as I said at the commencement of my remarks, I think that the class concerned is a class which should be spared any worry or uncertainty of that kind. When all is said and done, one of the most sacred things is a man's allegiance and his citizenship. It would indeed be strange if the status of this class could be altered, as it were by a side wind, the results of which no person recognised at the time.
  I do not propose to go into the controversies of Irish politics. It would be wrong that I should do so, rising from the cross-Bench and having regard to my judicial duties to this House. But there is one thing that I should like to say before I sit down. A great deal of heat and controversy has been raised over something which many people thought could not raise heat and controversy. I believe that it would be helpful to bear in mind that in 1925 the three countries concerned succeeded in meeting round the table and settling what had then been a matter of great controversy—the land boundary. I would venture to remind the House of that agreement, which seems strangely to have been lost sight of in the speeches of the last few months. May I read first of all subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920:
  "For the purposes of this Act, Northern Ireland shall consist of the parliamentary counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry, and Tyrone, and the parliamentary boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry."
  Then, as your Lordships know, the Act of 1920 was not worked in Southern Ireland and eventually there emerged the Irish Free State. That needed further provision for the settlement of the boundary.
  On December 3, 1925, an Agreement was signed on behalf of the British Government by Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Joynson-Hicks, Lord Birkenhead and Mr. Amery and on behalf of the Government of the Irish Free State by Mr. MacCosgeir and the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, and on behalf of the Government of Northern Ireland by Sir James Craig, as he then was. That Agreement recited, among other things:
  "And whereas the progress of events and the improved relations now subsisting between
  960
  the British Government, the Government of the Irish Free State, and the Government of Northern Ireland, and their respective peoples, make it desirable to amend and supplement the said Articles of Agreement, so as to avoid any causes of friction which might mar or retard the further growth of friendly relations between the said governments and peoples;
  And whereas the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State being united in amity in this undertaking with the Government of Northern Ireland and being resolved mutually to aid one another in a spirit of neighbourly comradeship, hereby agree as follows:
  The first paragraph is all I need read now:
  "The powers conferred by the proviso to Article 12 of the said Articles of Agreement on the Commission"—
  referring to the Boundary Commission—
  "therein mentioned are hereby revoked and the extent of Northern Ireland for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and of the said Articles of Agreement, shall be such as was fixed by subsection (2) of section one of that Act."
  That is the subsection which I have already read. That Agreement was ratified by the Parliaments of all three countries concerned, and it is a document which must be borne in mind in these days. It is a document which, so far as I know, has never been abrogated by any of the parties. For that reason it forms the necessary legal background against which present events must be considered. It is for that reason I venture to think that it is worth bringing to your Lordships' attention. It makes clear what agreement exists and how Eire is affected by it.
  That brings me to my last point, which is admittedly a small one, though it has its importance. As has already been pointed out to-day, the expression "Republic of Ireland" is misleading. Geographically, it is wrong. I appreciate the Government's view about this, and I am not suggesting that the title should be abandoned if its retention would in any way help to produce amity; but I suggest that there might be an alternative given—namely, "Irish Republic." I think there is a comity between members of the same family that does not exist between families and outsiders, and I think it would be unfortunate that the Government of Northern Ireland, when they had reason to speak officially to their next-door neighbour, should have to use a form of address which is entirely inconsistent with their constitutional position and views. It

  961
  is a small matter, but I think nothing would be lost and a great deal gained if, in the Bill now under consideration, the Government would allow an alternative to be used in the form I have mentioned.
  6.7 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we have had a most interesting and instructive debate and I will reply as briefly as I can to certain points which have been raised. I confess I was rather sorry at the tone of the speech of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. I could not help contrasting it with the tone of the speeches which Mr. Eden and Sir David Maxwell Fyfe made in another place. I think that the noble Marquess, for whose opinions members of this House, on whatever side they may be, have a very great regard, ploughs a lonely furrow. I do not believe he speaks for his own Party on this matter. I believe, if I may say so with the greatest respect, that the authentic voice of his Party was the voice of Mr. Eden and Sir David Maxwell Fyfe. This matter has a long history, in which the noble Marquess and his forbears have been deeply concerned, and I realise that it is difficult for him to see this matter from the same angle as that from which we see it. He is frankly hesitant, almost reluctant and, I think, doubtful and perhaps distrustful. I admit that we have taken here a step which involves a great act of faith. I admit it is a novelty. I admit it is almost, if not quite, without precedent. All the same, I believe that this is a ease where we have been completely right in taking this act of faith. We have cast our bread upon the waters and I believe that in the fullness of time good may result, and we may get credit for our action.
  The noble Marquess asked why an Irishman over here should vote and whether we were sure that British subjects in Eire would have the same right. Our bargain—that is too strong a word—our understanding was that. British citizens in Eire should have comparable rights; not identical rights, but comparable ones. Frankly, I do not anticipate that British subjects in Eire will have the right to vote. I do not know, but I am not going to lead the House to suppose it is certain, or indeed probable, that they will. All the same, there are great and solid advantages in letting citizens of Eire vote
  962
  here. First, it would be exceedingly difficult, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, pointed out, to distinguish between the voter who is the Eire citizen and the voter who is the British subject.
  At the present moment, from the point of voting, that does not matter. Therefore, we have not to go into elaborate calculations to find out whether a particular man is a citizen of Eire or whether he is a British subject, because in either case he is entitled to vote. It is different when we come to the question of passports, which I will discuss in a moment. I would say this to the noble Marquess. The first constituency for which I sat was Hartlepools, which is a great port. The next seat I had was for Preston, where there is a large Irish population. More recently it has been near Manchester, where there is also a large Irish population. When I say "Irish," I mean of Irish origin; they were probably born in England and lived all their lives in England, but were still Eire protected citizens. I can assure the noble Marquess that all this business about anti-partition and the rest will be forthcoming in full measure and overflowing, not only from Eire citizens but from those who are British subjects but who have Irish associations. You will not get rid of their influence by the simple process of saying that Irish citizens are not to vote.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount? I see a difference between a man who is a British subject expressing his view, for instance, in an election, and someone who is not a British subject at all, but a subject of another country vitally affected by the decision, expressing his view.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can assure the noble Marquess that the pamphlet will be just as violent and the terms of the pamphlet will be just as strong, whether the writer is or is not technically a citizen of Eire.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, called attention to the fact that we get great advantages from the Irish being here. I would point out to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that if we were going to treat the Irish as aliens we would have greatly to extend our machinery for

  963
  control by the Home Office during the times of the year, which are not infrequent, when large numbers of Irish come over for some particular object like potato picking, for which as many as 50,000 may come at a time. If you are going to say that these people are foreigners and are subject to control, then we shall have to maintain an enormous staff of Home Office people to try and cope with the situation. We get immense advantages from the Irish being over here. I should be sorry indeed, and I think we should be doing ourselves harm, if we discouraged them from coming by putting all sorts of technical difficulties in their way, which, incidentally, would mean a great deal of expense and trouble for us.
  The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked why we included Clause 1 (2) in the Bill. It was because, as a result of the repeal of the External Relations Act and the setting up of the independent Republic of Ireland, great apprehension and concern was being felt, rightly or wrongly, in Northern Ireland. I am bound to say that I think it was not unnatural that it should be felt. We thought it right, therefore, to make it plain by Act of Parliament that the position which had been arrived at as long ago as 1920, and re-stated again in 1925 (I referred to the 1925 Treaty and Act in the speech I made) should once more be re-stated to show that that position is not abrogated. The fact that the Irish Free State was one of the parties to that Treaty is no reason for saying that the Treaty is at all modified.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. This is the first clear explanation we have had on this important point. Do I understand that it was at the request of the Government of Northern Ireland that this clause was put in?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: chose my words very carefully. I said that it had come to our knowledge that there was great apprehension and concern about the subject in Northern Ireland. That is why we thought it right to make this matter plain. After all, it is no good going on with a series of misunderstandings. What is the trouble really about? If we are right, is it not much better to say so and come out in the
  964
  open with it? The noble Lord, Lord Killanin—whom I was very glad to see here in his seat, and I am sorry I had to go out for a few moments during his speech—talked about coercion. I agree with the noble Lord as strongly as I can that all coercion, wherever applied, is wrong. It is wrong if it is applied by the Northern Ireland Government against Eire citizens or the Catholic Irish there. It is just as bad if it is applied by the Southern Irish against the people from the Northern counties there. It is always wrong. But I am not sure that I draw quite the same conclusion as the noble Lord. If coercion is wrong, then will he not give the citizens of Northern Ireland, those who live there, the same freedom that he asks for himself—namely, the freedom to decide on their future and their own form of government? That is all we want.
  The noble Lords, Lord Broughshane and Lord MacDermott, referred to the phrase "Republic of Ireland." I mentioned in my speech that other people might have referred to the phrase "Northern Ireland." The most northerly point is Donegal, after all. If this were a Bill which did not contain the clause we have been discussing, I could understand that they might have some apprehensions and misgivings. But as that phrase "Republic of Ireland" is enshrined in a Bill which contains, on the face of it, the clearest protection to Northern Ireland, I really cannot think that it is a point which should concern them. We shall be in a very difficult position if we adopt a name which is different from the name adopted by all our Dominions, and different from the name adopted by all other countries. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will not press that point.
  There is one other thing I would like to say. We may have been right or we may have been wrong in the line we took, but, as I told your Lordships before—and there is no harm in saying it again—the line we took was the line that every one of the Dominions wanted us to take and pressed us to take. If we had taken any other line than that which we took, about not making them foreigners, and the rest of it, we should have been acting in the teeth of advice we received from Canada, Australia and New Zealand, three Dominions which have vast masses of Irish people, and we should have found ourselves taking a line

  965
  different from the line which I have no doubt they in their case will take.
  I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, that separation is a misfortune, but I am also convinced, with the noble Lord, that if separation is to end it can end only with the free consent of both sides. That leads me to say just a word or two about passports. I was very grateful for Lord Simon's criticism; as always, he put his point very clearly. But it is the fact that we have given a not inconsiderable amount of thought to this problem beforehand. We take the view that Section 3 (2) of the British Nationality Act does not apply to this matter at all, because the grant of a passport is a prerogative act and does not depend on any Act of Parliament. There is no Act of Parliament which says that we are under an obligation to grant a passport; it is purely a prerogative act. That being so, I have considered, and those who have helped me in this matter have always considered, from the time of the British Nationality Act down to this date, that Section 3 (2), which preserves all kinds of enactments, does not touch this matter at all. In our view—I state it frankly; we can argue it hereafter if necessary—Section 3 (2) of the British Nationality Act does not entitle a citizen of Eire, as such, to receive a British passport. I say "as such," because there may easily be a person who is a citizen of Eire and also a British subject; he may combine in himself the two rôles. Of course, if he does, then by virtue of his being a British subject he is entitled to a passport, and he does not lose that because he is also a citizen of Eire.
  LORD STRABOLGI: He will have two passports.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I have not quite followed that. The noble and learned Viscount has just said that of course a man can be a citizen of Eire and a British subject at the same time. Nobody will doubt that that was so two years ago, but the Act of last year has finally abolished, has it not, the test which was always the test of being a British subject—namely, that you should be born on British soil—and has substituted for it the definition in Section 1 of the Act of last year, that to be a British subject you must be a citizen of places named, of which Eire is not one. Is not that an exhaustive definition? I
  966
  thought that the object of Section 2 was to provide a small loophole, so that if a man comes forward and says: "I am a citizen of Eire. I existed on January 1, and I should like to make an application to the Home Secretary," then—but only then—does the law say he can preserve his position as a British subject.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The view which I hold, after considerable study and advice, in this. In many cases you may be both a citizen of Eire and a British subject. One of the common ways, of course, is by registration—you can acquire your citizenship by registration. If the noble and learned Viscount will go through the Eire Nationality Act, he will find that there are three and a half pages in which are set out the various ways in which people can become Eire citizens; how they acquire citizenship and the rest of it. I think I can easily convince the noble Viscount (although I will not stop to do it now) that there are not infrequent cases where you may at one and the same time be a citizen of Eire and a British subject.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I thought that what was meant was that you could be an Eire citizen and a British subject without taking some special action. Of course, the noble Viscount will tell me what is right on a future occasion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The commonest illustration is by making the declaration under Section 2 (1). Then, of course, beyond all argument you are at one and the same time a British subject and an Eire citizen.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I mentioned that.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then we are all agreed. Here is a case where you may at one and the same time be a British subject and an Eire citizen, and there are many other illustrations. All I am saying is that, if that is possible, the fact that you are an Eire citizen does not deprive you of the rights which you receive in your other capacity as a British subject.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Surely the question is this. Suppose a man is an Eire citizen and not a British subject, can he become a British subject by virtue of the prerogative?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That was my first proposition. In our view you cannot, by virtue of the prerogative, grant a passport to anybody except a British subject. But so long as a man is a British subject, then even though he is an Eire citizen as well he does not lose his rights, and a fortiori if he is a British subject he does not lose his rights. What happens as a matter of practice when a person born in one of the twenty-six counties applies for a passport? The Passport Office authorities have to make up their minds before they exercise the prerogative that he is a British subject—never mind whether he is also an Eire citizen. If there is a doubt, the simple way out of the difficulty is to advise him to make a claim under Section 2 (1) of the British Nationality Act. That involves him in saying: "I, an Eire citizen." After all, it is not a disgrace to be an Eire citizen—we are not responsible for the place in which we are born. If the man is born in Dublin it is no hardship, although perhaps I do not feel these things as strongly as other people. That is one way out of it.
  But there are people who, for perfectly good reasons, think to themselves: "Well I will not make this claim." What does the Passport Office do then? In practice, what they do is this: they advise him to get an opinion from the authorities as to whether he is an Eire citizen. In practice, if the Eire authorities say: "He is not an Eire citizen," then the British authorities would grant him a passport, on the principle that he must be one or the other, and that if he is not an Eire citizen he must be British. The difficulty arises only in the case of those people who, for reasons good, bad or indifferent, are unwilling to make a declaration under Section 2 (1) of the Act. However you may deal with this matter, the exact line of the dichotomy between an Irish subject and a British citizen is not an easy one to draw. The British authorities must look at the matter as best they can. Of course, they have advice available to them and they will decide in accordance with their view. It does not follow that persons domiciled in Eire are regarded as citizens of Eire; it does not follow, of course, that a person not domiciled there at that date is not a citizen of Eire.
  I am afraid this is not a very easy matter, but I have explained it as simply as I can—if the laughter means that I
  968
  have explained it badly, may I repeat it? Under the prerogative you can grant a British passport only to a British subject. Therefore, you have to try to satisfy yourself that the particular applicant for a British passport is a British subject. One way of solving a doubt, if doubt there be, is to ask him to make a declaration under Section 2 (1). For quite good reasons he may be unwilling to make that declaration. Very well. If he is unwilling, you have to adjudicate as best you can on the facts available, to ascertain whether the man is or is not a British subject. I quite agree that whatever regulations and rules are made, it will not in the nature of things always be easy to ascertain whether he is or is not a British subject. There must be some fine points, and it will be difficult to decide upon which side of the line they fall. That we can never avoid, whatever regulations there are. I hope that is plain. It is not in the least funny, but it is as clear as I can make it.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: May I just ask the noble and learned Viscount this simple question? I appreciate how difficult it is, but I should like to know whether it is his view that in any circumstances the man who, by the law of Eire, is a citizen of Eire cannot at the same time be a British subject, unless he takes some action, either by registration or by application to the Home Secretary, to secure that position.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is right. He has to take some action, but it need not be registration, of course, under Section 2 (1) of the Act. So much for passports. With regard to voters, the position is quite different because, as I said, owing to the fact that we are allowing Eire citizens the right to vote over here, there is no need to put any particular person in one camp or the other. Be he a British subject or an Eire citizen, in either case he is allowed to vote: and in practice no difficulty whatever has arisen with regard to it. I can imagine that there is a difficult question which might have to be decided in the courts. In practice, a person may not know the nationality of the girl who is working in his house. But by reason of the fact that we allow Eire citizens to vote, we get out of the difficulty which

  969
  might arise. We can, of course, discuss this on the Committee stage, and if I can make it any clearer then I will try to do so.
  We can consider whether any Amendments are necessary; I confess I hope that they will not be. But apart from those points, which must give rise to difficulty, believe that the adoption of this conception of Ireland not being foreign, but yet not being subject to the King, is the only course we can take to try to soften those asperities which have broken out so acutely at the present time, and to give both sets of Irishmen the chance to work out their own salvation. And on these lines, and these lines alone, can salvation be found.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BOARD ORDER CONFIRMATION (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL
  6.31 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
  The Schedule:
  Accounts and audit
  33.—(1) The accounts of the Board shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection and transcription without payment by any member of a constituent council or the county council, or by any officer of any such council authorised by that council for that purpose and shall be subject to audit by a district auditor.
  EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in paragraph 33 (1) to leave out "and shall be subject to audit by a district auditor" and insert:

  "(a) The accounts of the Board shall be audited annually;

  (b) The Board shall by a resolution passed not later than two months after the appointed day (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the initial resolution") adopt either the system of district audit or the system of professional audit;

  (c) The provisions of Part X of the Local Government Act, 1933 (other than those of sections 237 and 238) shall mutatis mutandis and with all necessary modifications extend and apply to the Board as if the Board were the council of a borough:

  Provided that—

  (i) neither the requirement as to a two-thirds majority prescribed by paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of section 239 of the said Act of 1933 nor the provisions of paragraph (b)
  970
  of the said subsection shall apply to the initial resolution; and

  (ii)paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of the said section 239 shall have effect as if the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland were one of the bodies specified in the said paragraph and as if at the end of that paragraph there were inserted "or any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised by the Board of Trade for the purposes of the provisions of section 161 of the Companies Act, 1948, relating to the qualification for appointment as auditor of a company other than an exempt private company."

  ( ) It shall be lawful for the Board subject to the consent of the Minister at any time and from time to time after they have passed the initial resolution by means of a subsequent resolution passed and confirmed in accordance with subsection (4) of the said section 239 to adopt the other of the two systems which are referred to in the said section 239."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to detain you by repeating the arguments and points that were put fully to your Lordships last Thursday, but perhaps I may briefly restate the case The Water Board favour having their accounts checked and audited by a professional auditor. The Minister of Health, on the other hand, is in favour of the district auditor, because according to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, he feels that that represents progress. The Joint Committee of both Houses considered the matter carefully and came to the conclusion, after taking all evidence, that the Water Board should be permitted io make their own choice between the two systems. This was not an unreasonable compromise with which I think the House may feel inclined to express its agreement.
  No evidence of a trend towards district auditors was adduced, in spite of the fact that Lord Shepherd said it was very much in evidence. Nor were we informed why, if such a trend were taking place, it should be considered particularly progressive. But the course of the debate showed clearly that it is not in fact taking place. Most local authorities, such as county and district councils, have no choice. Therefore, their use of the district auditor can by no stretch of imagination be considered to represent an expression of opinion either way. The only councils that are able to choose are those of the boroughs and county boroughs; and in all these a very considerable majority have decided in favour of a professional auditor.
  I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I have been unable to reach agremeent on this matter, as I hoped at one time that we should do, by the Report stage. Certain alternatives put forward by me were fully discussed, but did not command the approval of the Minister of Health. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for his courtesy in the matter of meeting me, and for doing personally everything that he could to arrive at a settlement. I only hope that on further consideration the Minister of Health may still feel that the compromise put forward by the Joint Committee is not only reasonable but right. After all, it is not asking much to suggest that a great body such as this Water Board, composed, I think, of representatives of no fewer than sixteen local authorities, should be allowed to make this simple choice for themselves.
  Even more important than the merits of this question is the question of the correct procedure of Parliament—by this I mean the desirability, from the point of view of both Parliament itself and all possible petitioners, that the recommendations of Committees of one House or both Houses shall not be lightly put aside. If this machinery is to command the respect that it must command, if members of both Houses are to give up their time, and if local authorities and other petitioners are to go to the immense trouble and expense necessary to ensure full and detailed consideration of their case, they must all know from the start that decisions of the Committee will be reversed only if, to use the words of Mr. Greenwood,
  "National policy is involved or is likely to be imperilled or embarrassed."
  In view of the facts that have emerged from our discussions, no one could possibly contend that in this case national policy had been shown to be involved, let alone imperilled or embarrassed. For this reason, as well as on the merits of the particular case before your Lordships, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 24, leave out ("and shall be subject to audit by a district auditor") and insert the said new words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
  6.37 p.m.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I apologise for addressing you at this late hour, but as I was the second representative of your Lordships' House on the Committee, I should like to make two or three brief points. Your Lordships may remember that the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, was unfortunately not able to carry out his duties on the Committee because of illness, and therefore it fell to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and myself, to represent this House. The first point I wish to make is that we were very conscious indeed of the responsibility of being on this Committee, which was the first of its kind to sit under the Special Procedure. It had a great responsibility, the responsibility of being, as it were, pioneers. Although there was a certain amount of discussion we had one thing in common and that was the middle name of Agag, for we trod very carefully indeed. Secondly, the particular point concerning the audit arose at the very end of the proceedings. We paid particular attention to this matter, and we were alert and very much aware of the feeling about it. And when the Committee gave their decision I could discern no disappointment and no expression of surprise in any quarter of the Committee room. Thirdly, it seems to me that this Special Procedure can be compared to a form of arbitration. The Minister had, quite properly, noted objections to his Order, and had handed it over to the Committee for arbitration. But when we had arbitrated he said, in effect, "But I didn't mean you to arbitrate against me." I think that if your Lordships were to read through the very great amount of evidence, amounting on this point to 44 columns, you would indeed feel strongly inclined to support this Amendment.
  6.40 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I much appreciate the very kind remarks which the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has made about myself. They are all the more welcome because I and my colleagues on these Benches look upon ourselves not only as Ministers of the Crown but as servants of your Lordships' House; and we are always very willing to co-operate in reaching settlements where settlements are possible. I cannot complain about the attitude of the noble Earl, who has been friendliness itself in the negotiations; and it is not the fault of

  973
  either of us that we have been unable to reach agreement. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I would remind your Lordships that this Committee tabled a number of Amendments. All the Amendments except two were accepted, so we are discussing the action not of a Minister who "washed out" all the efforts of the Committee, but of a Minister who agreed to the major part of the Amendments proposed. Therefore, the question to be decided is whether the Minister was justified, not in taking action but in the kind of action he did take, because undoubtedly under the law the Minister has the power to take action in recommending Parliament to change the proposals of a Joint Committee.
  May I ask the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, to note a small error in his opening remarks? The Minister and the Committee were not requested by the Water Board for liberty to employ professional auditors. No such request has been made by the Water Board, either to the Committee or to the Minister. This matter came to the attention of the Committee from one of the national associations of accountants. I mention that, not because I want to score a point but because it shows that the Minister has not turned down any request made in this matter from any of the bodies that will be affected. I ask the House to believe in the good intentions of the Minister. I believe that he has been absolutely straightforward in the decisions that he has reached. He is completely in line with all the great Governments of the past eighty years, and in that respect can be said to be carrying out public policy.
  May I remind the House that the district audit was first put into operation by the Parliament of 1875 under the Premiership of Disraeli? It was next extended in the Parliament of 1888, in the establishment of the county councils, under the Premiership of the third Marquess of Salisbury, the grandfather of the Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House. The Minister is in line with the Parliament of 1894, which gave us the urban district councils and the rural district councils, under the Premiership of Gladstone. He is also in line with the Parliaments of 1899 and 1902, when the metropolitan borough councils were established and the Metropolitan Water Board was set up, under the Premiership of Mr.
  974
  Balfour, who afterwards became a distinguished member of your Lordships' House. It may be said that this line of development is of the distant past, but it can easily be brought up to date. My noble Leader who is sitting on my left was in 1930 responsible for another extension of local government—namely, the establishment of the drainage boards. These drainage boards were provided with the district audit for accounts. Since the last war, this Government, under the Premiership of Mr. Attlee, has introduced into this House a Bill providing the same sort of principle for water boards. All the water boards are subject to the district audit and this continues a progressive public policy. Therefore, whilst the action of this Committee was in their view justified, it was completely opposite to what had become settled public policy.
  I wish to say only one word further, because I want to establish the claim that I make that there is a trend towards the district audit. For instance, the noble Earl has indicated that the county boroughs and the boroughs have had the option of choosing either the district auditor or the professional auditor. He has suggested that this is an indication that there are considerable doubts about the efficacy of the district auditorship and a preference for the professional auditorship. I do not know whether the noble Earl is aware of it, but it is true to say that the municipal boroughs in England and Wales, year by year are coming more and more within the ambit of the district audit. A great number of the larger accounts are subject to that auditorship to-day. Here are a few examples.
  EARL DE LA WARR: By their Option?
  LORD SHEPHERD: No, they come within the district auditorship laid down because of the grants that are paid by the Government towards these particular functions. That is the reason for it. For example, there is education, police, the health services, rating and valuation, housing, the Children Act, the Rate Fund, and others. So, whilst it is still true to say that the county boroughs are to be considered as bodies apart, the municipal boroughs, of which there are a large number, are falling within the ambit of the district audit, and therefore the district auditing of the accounts covers a much wider area than the professional auditing. We agree that this subject is one

  975
  worthy of discussion. We believe that at some time a discussion must be held on a proper plane and perhaps a decision reached. But we respectfully suggest to noble Lords opposite that, in the case of a particular Order contained in this Bill, confined as it is to a small area in space, even though a substantial number of authorities come within it, it is neither the time nor the place for a decision on a complete reversal of policy to be taken. In view of that we hope that your Lordships will not press the Amendment upon this House, but will allow the Bill to go through unamended in this respect.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL
  6.48 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  6.49 p.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, before we adjourn, I have an announcement to make. It will be necessary to ask your Lordships to sit after dinner to-morrow, as a very large number of noble Lords have indicated their desire to take part in the Second Reading debate on the Iron and Steel Bill which will, we hope, be concluded on Wednesday. A dinner adjournment will be taken to-morrow between 7.30 p.m. and 8.45 p.m. It is hoped that it will not be necessary to sit after dinner on Wednesday also in order to conclude the debate.

  STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Act to the
  RURAL DISTRICT OF WYCOMBE:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  JAMAICAN AIR-MAIL CHARGES
  JAMAICAN AIR-MAIL CHARGES
  SCOTTISH TRUNK ROADS
  SCOTTISH TRUNK ROADS