Sitting of 5 April 1950

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SUNDERLAND EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Strength
    Mr. George Wardasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of married Regulars, officers and men, serving with the Royal Air Force on 1st January, 1950.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The number of married Regular officers and men serving with the Royal Air Force on 1st January, 1950, was 14,655 and 39,506 respectively.

    Gratuities
    Lieut. Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will amend the existing regulations governing the extended service scheme for aircrew so as to provide that in the case of the death of an airman, whilst serving on the Regular portion of an extended service engagement, a proportionate part of the gratuity which would have been due to him on the normal expiration of his service may be paid to his heirs.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Gratuities are normally payable on completion of the requisite number of years service. This applies to all forms of resettlement gratuity in all three Services. In these
    1162
    circumstances, I regret that I cannot take a unilateral decision in this matter.
    Lieut. Commander Hutchison: Is it not rather hard that the dependants of an airman killed on duty are excluded from receiving any part of this gratuity?
    Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir, I think it is hard, but it has always been the rule that no payment should be made in the event of death before the date of qualification, and that is a rule that I cannot alter unilaterally.
    Lieut. Commander Hutchison: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman look into this further, because this rule only applies to the Air Force, and does not apply to the other Services?
    Mr. Henderson: It applies to soldiers, sailors or airmen killed on duty before the date on which they would otherwise qualify for a gratuity.

    Recruitment
    Mr. G. Wardasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of Regular recruits to the Royal Air Force in each of the years 1927 to 1938, and 1946 to 1949.
    Mr. A. Henderson: As the answer consists of a long list of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The numbers of Regular recruits to the Royal Air Force in the years mentioned were as follow:

    1927

    3,450

    1928

    3,100

    1929

    3,200

    1930

    2,950

    1931

    2,500

    1932

    1,300

    1933

    1,500

    1934

    2,900

    1935

    10,100

    1936

    12,750

    1937

    13,500

    1938

    26,950

    1946

    31,303

    1947

    33,311

    1948

    13,612

    1949

    12,180

    The above figures cover airmen only. In addition, in 1949, 9,630 airwomen entered the Women's Royal Air Force either direct from civil life or by transfer from the Women's Auxiliary Air Force.

    Airfield, Dumfries
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) what steps are being taken to maintain the runways at Tinwold Downs Airfield, Dumfries;
    (2) what are his plans in regard to the future of Tinwold Downs Airfield, Dumfries; and whether he will consult with the local planning authority in Dumfries before coming to a final decision.
    Mr. A. Henderson: No maintenance is being carried out on the runways of this airfield as it is not at present in flying use. It has been allocated for long term flying purposes with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will certainly be consulted again if any change in these plans is proposed.
    Mr. Macpherson: Does that mean that it has been allocated for civil aviation use or for Air Ministry use for long-term flying purposes? Although it is not proposed to maintain the runways, will they at any rate be protected from unnecessary deterioration and damage?
    Mr. Henderson: The long-term use is a matter entirely for the Air Ministry.

    THE NUMBERS OF AIRMEN DECLARED DESERTERS FROM THE ROYAL AIR FORCE IN 1939 AND 1949 WERE AS FOLLOW:

    —

    1939

    1949

    All airmen

    Regular airmen

    National Service airmen

    All airmen

    January

    …

    …

    …

    …

    15

    37

    14

    51

    February

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4

    47

    14

    61

    March

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    49

    17

    66

    April

    …

    …

    …

    …

    6

    37

    13

    50

    May

    …

    …

    …

    …

    7

    43

    19

    62

    June

    …

    …

    …

    …

    6

    32

    14

    46

    July

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4

    35

    13

    48

    August

    …

    …

    …

    …

    14

    31

    16

    47

    September

    …

    …

    …

    …

    6

    69

    14

    83

    October

    …

    …

    …

    …

    6

    34

    6

    40

    November

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    34

    4

    38

    December

    …

    …

    …

    …

    6

    19

    3

    22

    TOTAL

    …

    …

    …

    80

    467

    147

    614

    Overseas Postings (Families)
    Mr. John E. Haireasked the Secretary of State for Air what arrangements are made for the families of airmen posted overseas who are required as a result to vacate married quarters at Royal Air Force stations.
    and has been decided on strategic grounds. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Civil Aviation is joint user with my Department, and they will certainly come into the picture if there is any question of maintaining the runways for use in the future.

    Deserters
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Air what was the number of airmen declared deserters each month in the years 1939 and 1949, showing for 1949 airmen serving on Regular engagements and National Service men separately.
    Mr. A. Henderson: As the answer comprises a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister say whether the rate of desertion is higher among National Service men or Regulars?
    Mr. Henderson: Last year, the number of Regular airmen who deserted was 467 and National Service men, 147.
    Following is the answer:
    Mr. A. Henderson: Families of airmen posted overseas may, when required to vacate married quarters, be accommodated at personnel transit camps until they secure other accommodation or join the husbands at their overseas stations.
    Mr. Haire: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that by the very nature of their mobility these airmen's families sacrifice their claim to local housing? Would he not consider that where such camp arrangements are not possible additional allowance should be given to enable these families to take furnished accommodation, at any rate, temporarily?
    Mr. Henderson: I am glad to be able to say that to date the accommodation available in these personnel transit stations has been adequate to meet all the demands.
    Mr. Haire: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise how disturbing it can be to the education of a young family, through having to move from district to district?
    Mr. Henderson: I am afraid that it is one of the penalties that has, unfortunately, to be accepted by those who belong to our Defence Services.

  CIVIL AIRWAYS (AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if the system of civil airways in which positive air traffic control will be exercised, is now in operation.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): Not yet, Sir. It is hoped that the first of the proposed airways from London to Strumble Head on the Pembroke coast will be opened within the next two months.

  AUSTRIA

    Peace Treaty
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress being made towards the conclusion of a peace treaty with Austria.
    The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): Yes, Sir. After the measure of agreement reached on the Austrian Treaty at the Conference of Foreign Ministers last June considerable progress was made in the Deputies' negotiations during the summer and autumn. Only five articles
    1166
    remain unsettled, but since November the conclusion of the Treaty has been prevented by the refusal of the Soviet representative to discuss one of these articles. A further meeting of the Deputies is to be held on 26th April, and my right hon. Friend will continue his efforts to secure at the earliest possible moment an agreement which will lead to the restoration of the independence of Austria.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what the Government's policy is with regard to the restoration of the stable economy in Austria, on which ultimately her freedom is bound to depend?
    Mr. Younger: That is rather a wider question than the one which is on the Paper, and which relates to the progress made toward the conclusion of a peace treaty.
    Mr. Vane: What was the Article which the Soviet representative refused to discuss?
    Mr. Younger: It is Article 48 (bis), which covers a Soviet claim for services and supplies at the beginning of the occupation.
    Professor Savory: Is the meeting to which the Minister is referring not the 252nd meeting? Is it not a fact that all this time practically no real progress has been made, owing to Soviet obstruction?
    Mr. Younger: I cannot say whether or not it is the 252nd meeting, but it certainly is the case that we have had many meetings and are very disappointed at the progress.

    Arrests and Deportations
    Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that 750 Austrian subjects have been kidnapped and carried off by the Russian authorities in Vienna; and whether he will make a further protest on this subject to the Allied Commission in Vienna and demand the return of these people.
    Mr. Younger: I am aware that since 1945 considerable numbers of Austrian citizens have been arrested by the Soviet authorities in Vienna and in the Soviet zone of occupation. Many have been summarily sentenced and deported to the

    1167
    Soviet Union. The British Member of the Allied Council for Austria has frequently protested against such arrests and deportations, but his representations and those of his United States and French colleagues have been rejected. Further protests will be made as the occasion demands, and I should be glad to consider any information which the hon. Member may have in his possession.
    Professor Savory: Have His Majesty's Government made a protest against the kidnapping of some of the very highest Austrian officials, such as the head of the Ministry of Transport, the head of the Ministry of Reconstruction, and a very high official in the Ministry of the Interior?
    Mr. Younger: I think I ought to have notice of those cases, but I believe that we have protested in all of them.

  SOVIET EMBASSY, LONDON (STAFF)
  Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been received from the Soviet Embassy to the note delivered on behalf of His Majesty's Government on the subject of the disappearance of a large number of Soviet officials from the Soviet Embassy.
  Mr. Younger: The Soviet Embassy have hardly had time to reply to the last inquiry addressed to them on this subject, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that this question will not be lost sight of.
  Mr. Blackburn: Have there not been well-authenticated reports that in cases of this kind officials do, in fact, disappear and become spies? Will my hon. Friend please bring this matter to the notice of the Soviet authorities as it is of great importance and causes many doubts and much disquiet?
  Mr. Younger: I do not wish to comment upon what my hon. Friend says. We are already making inquiries, and we are not going to let this matter lie. We are awaiting a reply.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Are any of these people actually in receipt of diplomatic immunity? If so, is any inquiry made before the immunity is granted to somebody else?
  Mr. Younger: I should like to have notice of that question. I do not think, that I have the exact details here.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Are there any well-authenticated instances of a man who has disappeared in these circumstances becoming a spy?
  Mr. Blackburn: Yes.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the Minister tell the House whether any of the members of the Soviet Embassy who disappeared have actually left this country, or whether they are roaming about at large within this island?

  CORFU CHANNEL INCIDENT (COMPENSATION)
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the machinery by which His Majesty's Government propose to obtain payment from the Albanian Government in respect of damages awarded against Albania by The Hague Court, as a result of the mining of two of His Majesty's ships in the Corfu Channel; and whether a date has, yet been fixed for discussing the payment of these damages.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when, where, and with whom discussions are to take place with a view to obtaining payment of the damages awarded to this country by The Hague Court on the grounds of the mining by Albania of two of His Majesty's ships in the Corfu Channel.
  Mr. Younger: Discussions over the payment of damages in the Corfu case will, I hope, begin in Paris shortly after Easter. They will be conducted by those persons who were the agents of the two Governments in the proceedings before The Hague Court.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance, now that the award of The Hague Court has been made, that there will be no bargaining about the actual lump sum involved?
  Mr. Younger: We have to enter discussions as to how this sum ought to be

  1169
  paid. We stand on our rights that we are entitled to be paid the sum that The Hague Court has awarded to us.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the hon. Gentleman at least give the assurance asked for by my hon. Friend that the amount awarded by the Court will not be departed from?
  Mr. Younger: We shall not depart from our claim that the money awarded shall be paid. What we have to discuss is how the sum shall be paid.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Minister make clear what it is that is to be discussed by these agents? Is it to be the mere manner of payment, the channel of payment, or the kind of currency or instrument that is to be received? What is to be discussed? How far or how nearly are these agents plenipotentiaries?
  Mr. Younger: They have to discuss the payment which has been awarded by the Court. The Albanian Government have, quite wrongly in our view, denied the right of the Court to fix a particular sum, but have expressed willingness to enter discussions about the payment—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."]—while we have to do our best to see that the sum is paid. We are to have our first discussion shortly after Easter in Paris.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Could the hon. Gentleman answer the question a little more fully and tell the House who are the agents acting on behalf of His Majesty's Government and the Albanian Government?
  Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir. The representative of His Majesty's Government is Sir Eric Beckett, who is legal adviser to the Foreign Office. The agent on the Albanian side is Mr. Shyvlla, the Albanian agent in Paris.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman look up the Foreign Office records to see what Lord Palmerston did in 1851 in the case of Don Pacifico—a very similar case?

  ARGENTINE RAILWAYS (BRITISH EMPLOYEES)
  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why British nationals employed on the Argentine Railways are not allowed to send remittances to their dependants in this country, contrary to the agreement
  1170
  reached with the Argentine when the railway was handed over; and what was the average annual value of such remittances prior to their prohibition by the Argentine Government.
  Mr. Younger: The Agreement of Sale concluded on 13th February, 1947, between Sir Montague Eddy, representing the British-owned railways and the Argentine Government, did not guarantee the right to remit allowances overseas to dependants of British railway employees. These and similar remittances are governed by Argentine exchange laws and regulations. This was the case even when the railways were in British ownership. As regards the second part of the Question, the figures required are not separately classified and the average annual value of these allowances cannot be established from the sources of information at my disposal.
  Mr. Galbraith: Does that answer mean that the Minister is satisfied with the present state of affairs? Is it not a fact that Italian and Spanish nationals are being more favourably treated than British nationals in this matter? In view of the hardship which is being caused to dependants of British nationals employed by Argentine Railways will he not do something to try to deal with this matter in isolation from other currency problems affecting the two countries?
  Mr. Younger: It certainly does not mean that we are satisfied with the present position, but it is, unfortunately, the case that we have reason to believe that there has been some discrimination in favour of other nationals. We have made complaints about it and we are trying to deal with the position. In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, whether we can deal with it in isolation, it is rather difficult. There are a good many matters under discussion at the moment, but we shall not lose sight of this one. I doubt whether it can be dealt with in complete isolation.

  BRITISH MISSIONS (PERSONNEL)
  Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs during what period were Major Peter Wright, Major James Klugman, Mrs. Betty Wallace and Mr. Kenneth Svers employed on British missions abroad;

  1171
  and when were their appointments terminated.
  Mr. Younger: Major Peter Wright was employed as Assistant Military Attaché at Belgrade from January, 1945, to October, 1947. Major Norman John Klugman (also known as James Klugman) was sent by His Majesty's Government to Yugoslavia in late 1944 with a military liaison mission. The duties of this mission were taken over by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, to which Major Klugman was transferred in April, 1945, and with which he continued to serve until 1946. Mrs. Betty Wallace is understood also to have served in the U.N.R.R.A. Mission to Yugoslavia; she was at no time employed by His Majesty's Government.
  At the end of 1943, when Yugoslavia was occupied by German forces, Mr. Kenneth Syers was seconded from the R.A.F., in which he held a commission, and undertook a mission to Marshal Tito with the hon. and gallant Member for Lancaster (Mr. F. Maclean). He stayed in Yugoslavia until October, 1944.
  Sir W. Smithers: Can the Minister say what steps, if any, were taken to ensure that the four persons mentioned in the Question were not Communist agents either before or during their service?
  Mr. Younger: I think I can say that His Majesty's Government are satisfied that in none of these cases was anything done which was contrary to the national interest. The hon. Member will have observed that there is only one out of these four cases in which the appointment under His Majesty's Government continued after the end of the war.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Are we to conclude from the last part of the hon. Gentleman's answer that he thinks that persons in the employ, or who had been in the employ, of the Comintern could not do damage to the national interest during the war, and is it not a fact that Mr. Syers, before the appointment of which the Minister of State has just told us, had been in charge of Intelligence at Bari and that at the same time Major Klugman was the person in charge at Cairo, so that through the hands of these two men there came or did not come any information from Yugoslavia?
  Mr. Speaker: That is giving information, not asking a question.
  Sir W. Smithers: If we cannot get an answer to that question, I will ask Question No. 15.

  WESTERN EUROPE (DEFENCE)
  Sir W. Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will invite the Governments of Western Europe to form a Joint Department of Psychological Warfare as an integral part of Western defence.
  Mr. Younger: No, Sir.
  Sir W. Smithers: When will His Majesty's Government wake up to the real menace of Communism at home and abroad, and realise that it is deeds, not words, that we want?

  JAPAN (PEACE TREATY)
  Mr. William Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received the draft for a peace treaty with Japan promised by the United States for the beginning of 1950; and what proposals has the United States Government made to His Majesty's Government on this subject since February, 1950.
  Mr. Younger: I know of no undertaking by the United States Government to communicate to His Majesty's Government the draft of a treaty of peace with Japan, and no such draft has been received. The answer to the second part of the Question is "None, Sir."
  Mr. Teeling: Is it not true that before the Foreign Secretary went to Colombo there was an understanding that something was to come from the United States as to what their plans were for a peace treaty? Are we to be assured that the United States is doing something at present to get on with that?
  Mr. Younger: That proposition is rather different from the Question put on the Order Paper. We are in constant discussion on the diplomatic level with the United States about the preparations

  1173
  for a peace treaty with Japan. I was asked whether we had received a draft of the peace treaty, which was a different question.

  MEXICO (TRADE NEGOTIATIONS)
  Mr. Peter Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the existing exchange difficulties, he will take steps to negotiate a trade and payments agreement with the Mexican Government.
  Mr. Younger: Views are being exchanged with the Mexican Government about the possibility of expanding trade between the two countries. I am not yet in a position to disclose any detailed information.
  Mr. Smithers: Is it not a fact that these negotiations have been going on for at least 18 months, and that we drew back from them at one time because we were afraid of offending the United States? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that in the present circumstances this is a suitable moment to press the negotiations and bring them to a conclusion?
  Mr. Younger: It is a fact that there were negotiations which had to be broken off. As I have said, we are in discussion about this at present. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question a little later I might then be in a position to say something.

  GERMANY (PARA-MILITARY FORMATIONS)
  Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received as to the formation of para-military formations in the Soviet zone of Germany, in particular as to the Freie Deutsche Jugend; and what protest has been made to the Soviet authorities for their breaches of the demilitarisation clauses of the Potsdam Agreement and other agreements.
  Mr. Younger: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) on 13th March. The latest reports on the expansion, equipment and training of para
  1174
  military forces in the Soviet zone of Germany are being carefully considered by the authorities of the Western occupying Powers in Germany, and I am not therefore able to make a further statement at this stage.
  Mr. Blackburn: In view of the very alarming statements made by Mr. McCloy, will my hon. Friend see that at the earliest possible moment we know what is the size of these para-military formations or their estimated size, according to our reports?
  Mr. Younger: This matter is being very carefully investigated. I can assure my hon. Friend that no time will be wasted, but we do not want to make protests unless we feel we can make them in an effective manner.

  LATIN AMERICAN REPUBLICS (BRITISH RESIDENTS)
  Mr. Peter Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of current exchange and other restrictions, he will call for a report upon the financial and other problems of permanent British residents in the Latin American Republics.
  Mr. Younger: No, Sir. If the hon. Member has any particular problems in mind, my right hon. Friend will be pleased to consider them.

  HUNGARY, ROUMANIA AND BULGARIA (PEACE TREATIES)
  Mr. Haireasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he now proposes arising out of the report of the International Court at The Hague on the question of the Human Rights Clauses of the peace treaties with Hungary, Roumania and Bulgaria.
  Mr. Younger: No action is appropriate at present. The Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 22nd October, 1949, referred four questions to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion, of which two have now been answered in the affirmative. The remaining two only fall to be answered if, after a lapse of 30 days from 30th March, the date of the delivery

  1175
  of the first opinion, the Governments of Hungary, Bulgaria and Roumania, have still failed to appoint their members to the various Peace Treaty Commissions. In that event the International -Court of Justice will proceed to give its opinion on the last two points, involving the question whether competent Commissions can be formed without members appointed by the three Governments.
  Mr. Haire: Is my hon. Friend aware of the continued violation of the Human Rights Clauses of these peace treaties and, indeed, of the worsening of the situation in Eastern Europe? Is he aware, for example, of the disappearance of British and other nationals almost daily, and will he do something to expedite this matter?
  Mr. Younger: I think my right hon. Friend has said on many occasions that he is most dissatisfied with the observance of human rights in these countries, but, as I have explained, this matter is at the moment in the hands of the International Court and for 30 days from 30th March at any rate it must be left to them.
  Lord John Hope: Can we have from the Minister of State what he considers to be "a protest in an effective manner," because this Question rather ties up with the other one?

  FAR EASTERN COMMISSION (JAPANESE TAX BILL)
  Mr. Patonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the United Kingdom representative on the Far Eastern Commission was consulted before approval was given by General MacArthur to the introduction by the Japanese Government of the Special Tax Bill, which levies a 55 per cent. tax on the earned incomes of foreigners resident in Japan.
  Mr. Younger: General MacArthur has consulted neither His Majesty's Government nor the Far Eastern Commission about the Japanese Government's new Tax Bill, nor was it incumbent upon him to do so. The functions of the Far Eastern Commission, as laid down in the terms of reference, are to formulate broad policies and not to intervene in the day to day administration of Japan. The full
  1176
  text of the new Bill has not yet been received, and I should prefer to make no statement until I have seen it.
  Mr. Paton: Is it not extraordinary that the Supreme Commander in Japan should take to himself the authority to sanction a Bill which will probably make it completely impossible for foreign companies to continue to operate in that territory?
  Mr. Younger: As I have said, I would prefer not to make a statement before I have seen the Bill. It is not even clear at the moment that the Bill necessarily requires the sanction of the Supreme Commander.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is it not a matter of broad policy, as mentioned by the Minister of State, that a decision should go forward—which should have had the attention of the Commission—which must have the effect, in the end, of thrusting out of Japan nearly every foreign firm?
  Mr. Teeling: It is not true that these recommendations were in the Shute Report and have been published for a long time, and that the actual tax of 55 per cent. is nothing more than what the Japanese and the Americans are being asked to pay? Is it not equally true that "The Times" report and the "Manchester Guardian" report of Saturday are looked upon by authorities as being inaccurate and, possibly, wilfully inaccurate?
  Mr. Younger: I think that supplementary question illustrates the wisdom of waiting until we actually see what the proposal is in detail.

  IRAQ (BRITISH LOAN)
  Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, on the granting of a loan by His Majesty's Government of £3,000,000 recently to Iraq, part of the security for repayment was a charge on royalties for oil; what portion of this oil is expected to come through Haifa; and what steps he is taking in this respect.
  Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir. As far as the second part of the Question is concerned, this depends on the reopening of the Haifa pipeline, and on this I have as yet

  1177
  nothing to add to the answer given on 20th March to the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. De Chair).
  Mr. Janner: Does not my hon. Friend realise that before loans of this kind are made, or before arms are supplied to Iraq, an arrangement should be made whereby at least the taxpayers of this country should benefit by the oil being allowed to come to Haifa? No such arrangement should be made unless and until we are sure it can be carried into effect.
  Mr. Younger: This arrangement was thought, and is thought, to be in the interests of this country, and if we had attempted to lay down the conditions suggested it might not have been possible to enter into it.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that one of the biggest obstacles to the pipeline to Haifa being reopened has been the fact that the Israeli Government will not give an assurance to the Iraqi Government that oil will not be used for war purposes?

  ATOMIC ENERGY (CONTROL)
  Mr. S. Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange to publish as a White Paper the official proposals of the various powers made to the United Nations relating to the international inspection and control of atomic energy and atomic weapons, together with such explanatory comment as has been offered in their support and such other comment as he may think advisable.
  Mr. Younger: No, Sir. The reports of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission containing the proposals made by the various Powers, including a full exposition of His Majesty's Government's views, and the records of the meetings of the Commission, at which the views of members were expressed, are all on sale at His Majesty's Stationery Office.
  In addition, His Majesty's Government, with the Governments of the United States, France, China and Canada issued a statement on 26th October, 1949, on the six-Power consultations. This statement
  1178
  set out the difference of position between the five Powers on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other and explained why the five Powers supported the "majority proposals" and found the Soviet proposals inadequate. The five-Power statement was published as United Nations document, and is obtainable at His Majesty's Stationery Office or the United Nations London Information Centre.
  Mr. Silverman: Does my hon. Friend realise that there are large numbers of responsible people who would like to form their own views upon the originals, and that they have not either the time or the facilities to make the considerable research that would be necessary for them to trace the documents through all the channels to which my hon. Friend refers?
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate that all these original documents and the account of the discussions are voluminous, but, the last document to which I referred—the Five-Power statement—is a reasonably concise statement setting out the rival views and the issues at stake, and I think my hon. Friend will find that a fairly convenient form in which to study them.
  Mr. Blackburn: But is my hon. Friend aware that even those of us who have been studying this matter as much as we can for five years find it exceedingly difficult to discover exactly where the differences exist? May I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider this matter, because, we ought to make our position quite clear to the whole country?
  Mr. Younger: I will certainly consider that, but the last document to which I referred sets out fairly clearly what are the differences.
  Mr. Silverman: But does not my hon. Friend agree that the last document to which he referred—though I have no doubt that it was carefully and objectively prepared—nevertheless puts the different views and proposals from the point of view of one side, and that many people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—would like to see in a readily accessible form the actual proposals and the actual arguments in favour of them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech:"]—on the part, of, those who made them?

  EAST AFRICA (JAPANESE TEXTILES)
  Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the serious Japanese competition existing in East Africa as regards textiles; and what steps he is taking to safeguard British interests in the textile market in that country.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): I am aware of the figures of imports of textiles into East Africa. These show that imports of cotton textiles from Japan in 1949 were less than one-third of those in 1939, while imports from this country were four times as large as those in 1939. Within the total allocation to each Colony of sterling for purchases in Japan, the quantity of textile imports to be licensed is a matter for the Colonial Governments to decide in the light of the territories' requirements. I am going further into this matter with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Japanese imports are steadily increasing? Will he take drastic action now, before it is too late to protect our home industries?
  Mr. Griffiths: I know that imports from Japan are increasing. As I have said, I am in consultation with the President of the Board of Trade about the matter.
  Sir Peter Macdonald: Will the Minister encourage certain British firms who are anxious to start textile industries in East Africa, who have been hampered at every turn by ordinances and regulations? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are given their licences and allowed to get on with the job at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. Griffiths: That is another matter.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA (TOBACCO PRODUCTION)
  Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress there has been in the plans for increasing tobacco production in the railing belt of Northern Rhodesia; and what action he proposes to accelerate this development.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: I have asked the Governor for the details of the progress made since my predecessor wrote to the hon. Member on 27th October, and will write to him as soon as I receive the reply.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the importance to this country of the increase in this crop, will the right hon. Gentleman see that urgent action is taken?
  Mr. Griffiths: Yes, as soon as I receive the reply I will go into the matter fully.
  Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the words "railing belt" mean?

  WEST AFRICA

    Offices, London
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with the establishment of West African offices and showrooms for West African information and products in London.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The Nigerian Government hope to open a Nigerian Office in London in May. Plans are also being made for the opening of a Gold Coast Office, but no date can yet be given. The Sierra Leone and Gambia Governments have not reached any decision in this matter.
    Mr. Sorensen: Would it not be possible to have a more effective display of these goods if all the Colonies in West Africa were to unite for this purpose?
    Mr. Griffiths: That is a matter for them to decide, but there is much to be said for the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

    Illegal Strikes (Sentences)
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet been able to review the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment passed upon Kwame N'Kruma, head of the People's Convention Party in the Gold Coast, as well as sentences passed upon trade union leaders, for inciting illegal strikes; and whether he will take steps to secure that they are treated as political prisoners, with facilities to read books and to write.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: It is for the Governor, in whom the prerogative is vested, to

    1181
    review these cases if he thinks fit: and I am not in a position to intervene. I should, of course, bring to the Governor's notice any representations made to me in the matter. The treatment of prisoners is a matter for decision in accordance with local rules.
    Mr. Brockway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in an earlier reply the Colonial Office said that they would look into the question of a review of these sentences?
    Mr. Griffiths: If my hon. Friend asks me, I will myself look into this matter, but it is a matter to be decided locally.

    Groundnuts (Stocks)
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent he hopes to reduce the stocks of groundnuts lying only partially protected at Kano and other West African storage areas during the year 1950.
    Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far the transport arrears have been overtaken in the groundnut position at Kano, Nigeria.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Practically all the 1948–49 crop has now been moved, and if the railway is able to carry out its present programme the current crop will be cleared before November, when the new crop begins to come in.
    Mr. Fletcher: Does that mean that the railway is now able to bear, without any extra wagons or engines, the crop as it comes forward and that there will be no further congestion?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Edward Davies: Will there be any deterioration of the stocks which are still in hand?
    Mr. Griffiths: My information is that the present rolling stock will be adequate to carry out the programme.

  WEST INDIES

    Federation Proposals
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to make known to the people of the British West Indies the advantages,
    1182
    political and economic, which are likely to accrue to them if the federation proposals are adopted.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The Report of the Standing Closer Association Committee is in itself a comprehensive exposition of the political and economic issues involved in Federation. On the day of its publication I commended it, in a message to the peoples of the West Indies, to their Legislatures for serious examination and discussion. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that message.

    Sugar Estates, Jamaica
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the labour disturbances which have taken place on certain sugar estates in Jamaica.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. There have been several strikes this year. Two have been complicated by rivalry between unions. The Trades Union Congress of Jamaica claims representation of the workers on several estates. But since 1941 the Sugar Manufacturers' Association has had agreements with the Bustamante Industrial Trades Union under which that Union has been accorded sole bargaining rights in the industry. The strike at Caymanas sugar factory was settled after a few days when the Bustamante Industrial Trades Union ordered workers to resume. The strike at Worthy Park, where the management has refused to negotiate with the Trades Union Congress, is still in progress.
    Mr. Gammans: Would my right hon. Friend say whether, as a result of these disturbances, there have been any acts of violence?
    Mr. Griffiths: I think very few and very slight.

  MALAYA

    Sir Harold Briggs (Duties)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement defining the exact duties of Sir Harold Briggs and to what extent he has executive control over the military and police forces in Malaya.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Sir Harold Briggs will be responsible for the preparation of general plans for offensive action and for

    1183
    the allocation of tasks to the various components of the security forces. In consultation with the heads of the police and Fighting Services he will decide priorities between these tasks and the general timing and sequence of their execution.
    With regard to the second part of the Question, General Briggs will not be in direct command of troops or police. In consultation with the Commissioner of Police and the heads of the Fighting Services he will decide the tasks that the forces employed on anti-bandit operations are to carry out, but the Commissioner and the heads of the Fighting Services will, of course, remain responsible for the administration and discipline of their forces and for aspects of their work not directly connected with the anti-bandit campaign. Various matters regarding his duties and responsibility will be decided in Malaya.
    Mr. Gammans: Does that mean that General Briggs has executive responsibility for taking action against the bandits, but not executive control over the police or troops?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is a civil appointment. He has responsibility to the Commissioner. His task will be to co-ordinate the activities of the police and the Fighting Services.
    Mr. Gammans: What does the word "co-ordination" mean exactly in that connection?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Minister tell us what is this gentleman's salary?
    Mr. Griffiths: Not without notice.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give some rather fuller explanation of this important subject during the discussion tomorrow?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

    War Damage (Compensation)
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any persons or firms in Malaya have yet received compensation in respect of war losses from His Majesty's Government; and, if not, when payments will begin.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Interim payment of war damage compensation under the Malayan War Damage Compensation scheme started on 18th March.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the distribution of these funds, nearly £20 million of which are provided by the taxpayer here, the directives as to their use sent out by the Colonial Office will be followed closely by the local agencies responsible for their allocation and distribution?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

    Communist Activities, Singapore
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to deal with the new factor of serious Communist attempts at wreckage on the Island of Singapore.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I am aware that in recent weeks a few grenades have been thrown in the Colony. The Police Force, which has been steadily modernised with the latest weapons and equipment, has succeeded in forestalling any serious outbreaks of terrorism and is alive to the danger of an attempt to spread disorder to Singapore.
    Mr. Fletcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman say—if not now, tomorrow—what steps much greater than those he has mentioned are to be taken to protect the vital interests of the port and other installations on the Island of Singapore itself?
    Mr. Griffiths: My present information is that the steps which have been taken are proving successful.
    Mr. Gammans: Can the Minister say why it is that terrorism, which, hitherto, has not' occurred on the Island of Singapore, has now occurred there?
    Mr. Griffiths: There have been only a few incidents, and I do not think we would serve any good purpose by magnifying them.

    Official Insurance Scheme
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the preparation of the official insurance scheme for Malaya and Singapore, which it would be necessary to bring into action immediately after the declaration of a state of emergency.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I have recently asked the Malayan Governments for a report on the progress of local discussions on this matter, and I will inform the hon. Member as soon as I receive a reply.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difficulty arises from the refusal of local authorities to undertake any such scheme unless it is self-balancing, and that if we are not to see the flow of rubber and tin from Malaya stopped as incidents become worse he will have to guarantee such a scheme in some form or other?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am aware of the urgency of this matter. I am very anxious that it should be completed as soon as possible, as I have indicated to those concerned.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Racial Discrimination
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what legal forms of racial discrimination there are in any of the Colonies.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: In 1947, Colonial Governments were asked to carry out a factual survey of the extent to which legislation in their territories discriminated between different races, more especially between Europeans and non-Europeans. The surveys have now been broadly completed and the results are now being analysed.
    Mr. Brockway: Can my right hon. Friend say how soon these results are likely to be made public?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is hoped that the survey will be completed in June.

    Banned Book
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the book, "Africa—Britain's Third Empire," by George Padmore, has been banned in Uganda and the Gold Coast; and the reasons for this decision.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. The importation of the book was prohibited by the Governors of these Territories, under the powers vested in them by law to take that action where such importation would
    1186
    be contrary to the public interest. The decision is for the Governors.
    Mr. Brockway: Would my right hon. Friend indicate to the Governors that the banning of books in this way is contrary to the British way of life and, indeed, to the Charter of the United Nations?
    Mr. Griffiths: This is a matter for the Governors themselves to decide.
    Mr. Sorensen: But could not the Minister communicate with the Governors pointing out that if this book is dangerous in the Gold Coast it is far more dangerous in Nigeria, where there are many more people than in the Gold Coast? Can we have an assurance that books of this kind, which are critical of the British Empire, will not be banned because of that criticism?
    Mr. John Hay: Does the Minister realise that this book contains a violent attack upon British Colonial administration, and will he accept the congratulations of many of us on his very wise decision?
    Mr. Griffiths: I have just started reading the book myself, and I suspend judgment until I have completely read it.

    Trade Union Leader (Detention)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that Chege Kibachia, a trade union leader, has been detained for re-education in the Rift Valley Province of Kenya since September, 1947; whether his re-education is now considered to be complete; and how soon he will be released from these restrictions.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Chege Kibachia was detained in 1947 because he was conducting himself so as to be dangerous to peace and good order. His case is at present under review by the Government of Kenya.

  BRITISH HONDURAS
  Mr. Peter Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the adverse criticisms of the Colonial Development Corporation made by the Governor of British Honduras in his review of the state of the Colony on

  1187
  20th December, 1949; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to deal with the criticisms there made.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: I am aware that the Governor expressed some disappointment with the progress made. Since then, and following the re-valuation of the British Honduras dollar on 31st December last, the Colonial Development Corporation have announced the resumption of work on their development projects.
  Mr. Smithers: In view of the manifold difficulties of this very loyal Colony, what steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to make sure that there is no ground for future complaint?
  Mr. Griffiths: I hope that the hon. Member heard the announcement this week about the new proposal for guaranteeing sugar supplies from British Honduras.

  SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES (QUESTIONS)
  Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Lord President of the Council if he is aware that the present Government policy whereby Ministers refuse to answer Parliamentary Questions dealing with the day-to-day administration of nationalised industries frequently deprives hon. Members of the opportunity of challenging Ministers on matters of public importance; and if he will consider referring the matter to an all-party committee for examination and report.
  Mr Bossomasked the Lord President of the Council, as there is so much of the taxpayers' money involved in the activities of the various nationalised industries, if he will take steps to change the policy whereby Ministers refuse to answer Questions dealing with matters of importance connected with such activities.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Government are anxious that there shall be all reasonable opportunities for Parliamentary discussion of the socialised industries, but the admission of Questions on day-to-day administration would be inconsistent with the principle that the boards shall be free from detailed Ministerial or Parliamentary supervision of their commercial operations.
  1188
  I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the Ruling which Mr. Speaker gave on 7th June, 1948, when he said that he would be prepared to exercise his discretion to direct the acceptance of Questions asking for a statement to be made on matters about which information had been previously refused, provided that, in his opinion, the matters were of sufficient public importance to justify this concession. The hon. Members may also have under-estimated the opportunities for putting Questions down under the existing rules.
  The matters on which Ministers are answerable to Parliament and on which Questions can be put down in the normal course vary with the different socialised industries and the different socialisation Statutes.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Nationalised.
  Mr. Morrison: I ask the Opposition not to engage in these philosophical arguments. But in each case they cover a wide range and, in addition to matters of general policy, broadly they include the responsibilities of Ministers in connection with—among other matters—the appointment, salaries and conditions of service of board members; programmes of research and development; programmes of education and training; borrowing by the boards; form of accounts and audits; annual reports; pensions schemes and compensation for displacement; the appointment of consumers' councils and other matters connected with their organisation and operation. Under Mr. Speaker's Ruling, Questions may also be put down about matters of "public importance" for answer at the Minister's discretion, even though they deal with points for which he has no specific responsibility.
  No useful purpose would, in my opinion, be served by referring the subject to a committee. I do not follow the statement of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), about so much of the taxpayers' money being involved in the activities of the various nationalised industries.
  Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for example, passenger services on considerable stretches of railway in rural parts of Scotland are being

  1189
  cut; that when I sought to put questions to the Minister on these matters of public importance to thousands of people the Questions were turned down; that that type of problem is not unusual; and that, therefore, there does seem to be, in the national interests, a case for reviewing the present procedure in the House?
  Mr. Morrison: As regards transport, I think the hon. Gentleman is on a weak point. As far as the Transport Commission are concerned, they have dealt, by correspondence—in which, I think, hon. Members perhaps get more satisfaction sometimes than by Questions to Ministers—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let this be considered apart from sheer partisan political prejudice. This is another example of sheer political prejudice where it ought not to arise.
  The Transport Commission have dealt, in letters from Members of Parliament, with no fewer than 3,300 questions and representations which have been put forward. The great majority would, alternatively, have been subject to Parliamentary Questions, on which, I am perfectly sure, hon. Members would not have got as much satisfaction. Moreover, as far as transport is concerned, the House has had an opportunity of no fewer than three Debates in the last four months and a number of shorter Debates on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: When the right hon. Gentleman says "socialised industries "does he mean, "nationalised industries"? If so, is he aware that "nationalised" is the term used in the statutes and not "socialised"? Can he say why he takes such great care to avoid all mention of nationalisation?
  Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, the hon. and learned Gentleman is not well fitted to draw a subtle distinction between "nationalised" and "socialised." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is not an occasion to debate the matter, but I think the term "socialised" is a perfectly legitimate term, and I think it is right that great public monopolies—great public concerns—should be the subject of social answerability as distinct from private monopolies, which answer to the antisocial irresponsibility—
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mr. Stanley: To help those not so well fitted as the right hon. Gentleman to split these ideological straws, would he explain to us on these benches why, in describing one of these great public monopolies, he described it at the beginning of his answer as a socialised industry and, at the end, as a nationalised industry? Had it changed during that period?
  Mr. Morrison: That is a perfect illustration of my tolerance and my broadness of view.
  Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Would the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to inform himself a little more accurately as to what is happening in the transport industry at present? Is he aware that the whole machinery for safeguarding the consumer has completely broken down and that no Question in connection with these diverse problems can get past the Table?
  Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Member would approach these matters in less of the atmosphere of fierceness and partisan prejudice and more in the atmosphere of enlightened political science, he would do much better.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: In view of the difficulties in asking Questions about nationalised industries at Question Time, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that an inquiry is necessary in order to put them on to a uniform basis?
  Mr. Stewart: In view of the unsatisfactory nature and the undemocratic spirit of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again at the earliest possible moment.

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  Mr. Russellasked the Lord President of the Council what quantities of bricks, cement, timber and steel will be used in the construction of the car park and funfair which are being provided in Battersea Park in connection with the Festival of Britain.
  Mr. H. A. Priceasked the Lord President of the Council what quantities of materials, steel, cement, softwoods, and bricks, respectively, which could otherwise have been used for the construction of houses and flats, will be used in the South Bank scheme of the Festival of Britain.
  Mr. H. Morrison: If the Festival is to open successfully on time the entire staff must be allowed to devote all their energies to the task which has been assigned to them with the approval of all parties in this House. I am accordingly not prepared to instruct them to divert their efforts to the compilation of detailed estimates of this character.
  Mr. Russell: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that the Battersea Park part of the Festival of Britain will in no way slow down the housing programme?
  Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while thousands of tons of cement are being poured into the scheme, the housing programme in Lewisham, in which he and I have an interest, is held up owing to a cement famine? Will he see that builders in Lewisham get cement?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not think that is so. In any case, if the official Opposition wish to bring the Festival of Britain to an end—after all, it has big national purposes, with which we have all been associated—I think they ought to say so. In the meantime, I am entitled to the view that, because of the general spirit of the House in the last Parliament and the co-operation we achieved, the people who are running this Festival—which, I think, is of great national importance—ought to be protected against this sharpshooting?
  Mr. Price: Since the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Speaker: We have had a lot of supplementaries on this Question.
  Mr. Marlowe: On a point of Order. Questions Nos. 46 and 47 were answered together, Sir.
  Mr. Speaker: I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon. I did not notice that.
  Mr. Russellasked the Lord President of the Council to what extent it is proposed to hold demonstrations of British sports and games on the South Bank site during the Festival of Britain; what is the size of the ground on which they axe to be held; and how far representative sporting organisations were consulted before the ground was selected.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The Festival Exhibition on the South Bank will deal prim-
  1192
  arily with British achievements in the fields of science, technology and industrial design. There will be no demonstration of British sports and games as such, but British sports equipment will, so far as possible, be shown in action. A lawn, measuring 130 feet by 50 feet, besides the Sports Section, will be used for these demonstrations.
  Mr. Russell: Is it a fact that on this pocket handkerchief sized lawn it is proposed to hold demonstrations of Rugby, Soccer, Cricket and Archery? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a ground of that size is suitable for those sports?
  Mr. Morrison: I have never seen a pocket handkerchief of this size, but we are co-operating with the various sports organisations so that British sports can, play their part on this great national occasion.
  Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to display the transmigration of a Communist into a nationalised Minister?
  Mr. Haire: Will my right hon. Friend see that Chelsea football team, and not Chelsea Borough Council, take part in this Festival?

  ARMED FORCES

    Demobilisation Leave Pay
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Defence whether he will arrange that Regular Service men on discharge receive the whole of their demobilisation leave, pay at once.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): No, Sir. It is not always possible for a man's account to be closed by the day he leaves the Service, especially if he has come from overseas for discharge.
    Dr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the case which prompted this Question is of a demobilised Regular Member of the Royal Air Force, who was given two weeks' demobilisation pay and had to wait more than a month for the rest of that month's pay? Does he not think that that is an injustice to one of our Regular men?
    Mr. Shinwell: I think those details ought to be sent to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Air.

    Service Police (Duties)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the crime wave, he will arrange with the authorities of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force to allow their Service police, especially those who have passed examinations in civil law, to co-operate with the civilian police in their duties.
    Mr. Shinwell: The Service police are always ready to help the civil police to the best of their ability, but their resources of manpower are limited and they are fully engaged on Service duties.
    Sir W. Smithers: May I take it that the answer is "No"? Is it not a fact that the presence of a Socialist Government for five years in this country is the main reason for the demoralisation of our people and the crime wave?

    Women's Services (Deserters)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Defence whether the 200 desertions a month include any women; and what desertions there are from the Women's Services.
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir. The number of deserters from the Women's Royal Army Corps and the Women's Royal Air Force is, for each Service, about one a month.

    Discharged Personnel (Pensions)
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Defence what consideration he is giving to the pension rate of personnel discharged before 1st December, 1945, having regard to the increase in the cost of living since that date.
    Mr. Shinwell: Members of the Forces discharged to pension before 19th December, 1945, were not eligible to benefit under the new code of retired pay and pensions which was introduced on that date. However, those who served during the late war have had their pensions reassessed to or towards the new rates, under a scheme announced in the House on 15th April, 1946. Those who did not serve during the war are eligible to be considered for increases in pension similar to those provided for various other classes of State pensioners under the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1944 and 1947.

    British Ex-Prisoners of War (Resettlement)
    Mr. Alportasked the Minister of Defence whether he has considered the provisions of the Public Law 896 of the United States Congress; and whether he will take steps to institute similar action to compensate ex-prisoners of war who suffered inhuman treatment, in contravention of the Geneva Convention, particularly at the hands of the Japanese.
    Mr. Shinwell: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan).

  BUTTER AND BACON (PRICE INCREASES)
  The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
  57. MR. HURD—To ask the Minister of Food if he is now able to state how the retail prices of food will be affected by removal of the feedingstuffs subsidy and the higher prices to be paid to farmers for milk and meat.
  60. MR. TURTON—To ask the Minister of Food whether he is now able announce the alterations in the prices of food that he proposes to make consequent upon the decision made in the February price review.
  63. MR. IVOR OWEN THOMAS—To ask the Minister of Food if he will now state his arrangements for the retail prices of food arising from the recent farm price review and his general estimates of buying costs.
  72. MR. CHETWYND—To ask the Minister of Food what changes in the price of food he proposes as a result of the recent review; and what will be their effect on the cost-of-living index.
  The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to make a statement in answer to these Questions.
  The Government have now reviewed the position arising from the increase in the prices of certain agricultural products which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture announced on 23rd March. In considering the effect of these changes on retail food prices, the Government have also taken account of the

  1195
  changes in various subsidies announced in recent months, and my Department's estimates of changes in the volume and prices of essential foodstuffs that we shall be buying from outside sources during the next few months. In the light of these many factors it is, of course, necessary for us to make price adjustments from time to time if we are to keep within the ceiling of food subsidies.
  I have accordingly decided to make the following increases in price to meet all these outstanding points, and I hope I shall not have to make any further increases at any rate for some time. Butter will be increased by 4d. a 1b. bringing the price to 1s. 10d. a 1b. compared to the economic price of 2s. 10d. a 1b. That is the subsidy will still amount to 1s. a 1b.
  Bacon will be increased by 2d. a 1b. on the average, but not uniformly over the whole range of qualities. This will give an average price of 2s. 5d. a 1b. for bacon compared to the economic price of 3s. 7d. a 1b. That is to say the subsidy will still be 1s. 2d. a 1b. for bacon. These increases, which are the only increases we propose, will take effect in the case of butter from 23rd April, and in the case of bacon from 21st May. I think I can best make clear the effect of these changes on the individual consumer by pointing out that the cost per ration book will be about 1½d. a week, and that it will involve an increase in the cost-of-living index of just over half a point.
  Mr. Hurd: Can the Minister say how much of the £36 million saved to the taxpayers by abolishing the foodstuffs subsidies is being carried by farmers, and how much is now to be passed on to consumers in one way or another?
  Mr. Webb: I am not sure about the exact amount carried by the farmers, but under this arrangement we are proposing to give, in recoupment of higher prices to farmers, about £12 million in a full year.
  Mr. Turton: Can the Minister say whether the fixed ceiling on food subsidies will remain the same as last year?
  Mr. Webb: I think that the hon. Member had better await the Chancellor's Budget statement.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: Would my right hon. Friend try to arrange for the placing of tickets on all bacon on sale in shops, because most housewives feel that they are being charged maximum prices all the time for what they probably ought to have to pay minimum prices?
  Mr. Webb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are looking into a suggestion that in the case of subsidised foods we should make clear to the consumer how much the subsidy amounts to, and we are trying to work out that proposal.
  Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: My right hon. Friend said in his statement that the facts he gave were related to the ceiling figure which has been decided in relation to subsidies. Can he say what that ceiling figure is, in view of the fact that he seemed to imply that the arrangements which he has just announced have been fixed in relation to such a ceiling?
  Mr. Webb: I am not responsible for the subsidy ceiling, and I would rather leave that point for the Chancellor to answer.
  Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister say whether in relation to the increases in prices which he has announced there will be a proportionate decrease in the food subsidies?
  Mr. Webb: That is part of the question I have just answered.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the Minister say what will be the total increase to purchasers as a result of these price increases? What will be the global increase?
  Mr. Webb: It amounts to 1½d. per ration book, or, in the case of a family of four, 6d. per week.

  EXPLOSION, STEVENSTON
  Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: As it affects my constituency, I desire, by Private Notice, to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any information regarding the explosion last night at the Ardeer Works, Stevenston, Ayrshire, belonging to Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited.
  The Secretary of State For the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I regret to have to tell the House that an explosion

  1197
  occurred in a cartridging house at Ardeer yesterday, resulting in the death of the four girls who were in the building. I have instructed one of His Majesty's inspectors of explosives to investigate the cause of the accident. The inquiry will open tomorrow. The House will join with me in expressing sympathy with the bereaved relatives.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any statement to make on the Business of the House?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business for the first week after the Easter Recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 18TH APRIL.—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
WEDNESDAY, 19TH APRIL, THURSDAY, 20TH APRIL, and FRIDAY, 21ST APRIL.—General Debate on the Budget resolutions and the Economic Survey.
It may be convenient for me to state that the general Debate will be brought to a conclusion on Monday, 24th April.
During the week we shall ask the House to consider the several Motions relating to double taxation which are already on the Paper.
Mr. Churchill: Am I right in supposing that the original proposal of the Government was to use Friday, 21st April, for legislation, but that as the result of discussions through the usual channels they have decided to add Friday to the Budget Debate so as to allow a continuous Debate to proceed up to the evening of Monday, 24th April?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, that is so. Representations were made to us by the Opposition to that effect. We thought that their representations were well-founded and it has been agreed accordingly.
Sir Ian Fraser: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects the Debate to take place on the statement made by the Minister of National Insurance regarding the increases in Public Assistance grants; and if, when that Debate takes place, it could be arranged on a wide enough basis to enable the
1198
effect of the cost of living upon other sections of the community to be debated at the same time?
Mr. Morrison: The Debate arises from the fact that it is necessary, and rightly so, for my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance to move a Motion approving the new regulations, and the House will then have an opportunity to express its views. I doubt whether that will enable us to range over the wide field of other payments of this kind, but that can no doubt be considered.

NORTH ATLANTIC DEFENCE COMMITTEE
The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement to the House on the third meeting of the North Atlantic Defence Committee, which took place at the Hague on 1st April and which I attended as the representative of His Majesty's Government.
The primary purpose of the meeting was to receive from the Military Committee and the Military Production and Supply Board reports on the progress made with planning for the common defence of the North Atlantic area. This work includes the consideration of many problems both in the field of strategy and in those of finance and supply. The Defence Committee had before them plans worked out by the Standing Group and the Military Committee with the help of the regional planning groups.
These plans were drawn up in accordance with the general conception approved by the Defence Committee in Paris in December last; and at The Hague all the Defence Ministers gave to these plans their unanimous approval. The various bodies established under the North Atlantic Treaty—the Military Committee and its Standing Group, the Military Production and Supply Board and the Permanent Working Staff of the Defence Financial and Economic Committee, as well as the regional planning groups—will now set to work to make further progress in the examination of how these plans can be implemented and of the availability of manpower, equipment and finance for putting them into operation.

1199
Since the Defence Committee first met in Washington six months ago, substantial progress has been made. I was much impressed by the resolution of all parties represented at the Conference to press on as rapidly as possible so that all the countries concerned may secure the full benefits which we expect to derive from the close association established under the North Atlantic Treaty, and which is undoubtedly of a character unprecedented in time of peace.
As hon. Members will appreciate there are many difficulties, including questions of finance and supply, still to be dealt with before the idea embodied in the North Atlantic Treaty can be fully realised. It certainly appeared to me that the Defence Ministers fully recognise this, and that the approach made by my colleagues in the Defence Committee is a realistic one. We have no illusions about the task which lies before us, or about the efforts which will be required to give effective force and content to the strategic plans to which we have, in principle, assented. Moreover, we recognise that, in accordance with the several procedures in our different countries, it will be important to give, from time to time, the fullest possible information about the state of the work and the progress being made.
I shall, of course, endeavour to keep the House informed, but hon. Members will recognise that, in the common interest, the countries concerned are bound to observe a high standard of security. I returned from The Hague much encouraged and stimulated by the personal contacts I was able to make with my Defence colleagues, many of whose problems have a marked resemblance to those of the United Kingdom, and I look forward to future meetings with them as opportunity offers and circumstances require.
Mr. Churchill: Is it not lamentable with all this well-turned official verbiage, and with all these meetings of great consequence between the most important people of different parts of the world, that so little real progress should have been made in making a front and a defence in the much more than 12 months which have elapsed since the Atlantic Tact was signed?
Mr. Shinwell: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that in so short a time—he mentioned 12 months—real progress has been made. All the organisation had to be set up to begin with; and that has been achieved. It is not easy to set up an organisation of this kind, which comprises 12 countries, some of them very powerful and some not so powerful and with many varied interests. But that has been achieved. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate—as no one knows more about this than he, because he had the rather bitter experience of what transpired at the beginning of the last war—that it is not easy to build up equipment and manpower, even on the basis of well considered and well thought out plans. Plans have been well considered and well thought out, and we are making substantial progress.
I quite agree that if I say substantial progress is being made it sounds like a platitude. But I hope to dispose of platitudes as soon as it is possible to give to this House and to the country, and to all the countries concerned, fuller information.
Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the very important statement made by my right hon. Friend, which sounds very much like preparations for another war, is it possible for us to have a Debate on this very serious declaration? Will it be possible to raise this issue when we are discussing the Budget?
Mr. Shinwell: The question of a Debate would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I can assure my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members, that the last thought we have is about preparation for war. What we are concerned with is defence and, quite properly, defence in view of the dangers which now present themselves to this very troubled world. We are concerned with the preparation of an adequate deterrent to a potential aggressor.
Brigadier Head: In the light of this conference and of our present Defence commitments, is the Minister satisfied that our present Defence policy is the one best calculated to enable us to carry out this task? Might it not be wise now to have a review of the whole of our present Defence policy, especially with regard to manpower?
Mr. Shinwell: I am satisfied that our Defence policy is the correct one. If I am asked a question whether that Defence policy can be immediately implemented I would direct attention to the many difficulties that present themselves; difficulties of manpower, of the creation of the necessary formations, agreement with other countries, the question of productive capacity, priorities and the like. While the policy is sound, and the plans are prepared they have to be carried through, and that requires very careful consideration.
Mr. Bellenger: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, as a result of these concerted plans at The Hague, he envisages any substantial alteration in the commitments of Great Britain, either in the shape of increased manpower or official commitments?
Mr. Shinwell: That, obviously, does not arise at this stage, but if we enter into an agreement with other countries we, like those countries, must make our contribution, which will be an adequate one to the common cause.
Mr. Macdonald: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he intends to provide time after the Recess to Debate a Motion on the Order Paper in my name and that—
Mr. Speaker: We passed on from Business a long time ago.
Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Minister of Defence say anything about the decision alleged to have been reached at The Hague affecting the position of the Secretary of State for War?
Mr. Shinwell: All I can say to the House is that, in spite of Press appearances to the contrary, there was no discussions about the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. I know of no discussions, and if any suggestion had been made to me, either officially or unofficially, against the integrity and loyalty of my right hon. Friend I would have repudiated it at once.
Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Chairman of the Western Union Defence Committee was present at the discussions?
Mr. Shinwell: The meeting at the Hague was in connection with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and was not concerned primarily with the Western Union Defence Organisation. Therefore, there was no reason why the Chairman of the Western Union Commanders-in-Chiefs Committee should be present.
Mr. A. Edward Davies: Will my right. hon. Friend tell us whether he has seen Press references and American reports, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), about the Secretary of State for War; and, further, will he use his influence in this arrangement to reduce the cost of Defence expenditure to relieve countries, at any rate in this part of the world?
Mr. Shinwell: The Estimates for 1950–51 have been before the House, and have been accepted, and there I must leave it. As regards the other matter, I have already given a quite adequate reply.
Mr. Profumo: In view of the official statement issued after this conference that the United States were to be charged with strategic bombing responsibilities, may I ask whether this country is no longer to attempt to build strategic bombing aeroplanes?
Mr. Shinwell: That does not arise out of the statement I have made, but I arm afraid the hon. Member is assuming too much.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is there any truth in the statement in the Sunday Press that the United States Government is recommending us to spend less on the Navy?
Mr. Shinwell: I have no knowledge of that statement.
Mr. A. R. W. Low: The right hon. Gentleman said that our commitments had not been settled. Surely, he will agree that it is about time some of our commitments under this scheme were settled.
Mr. Shinwell: We have entered into commitments respecting certain plans and the like, but surely the hon. Member would not wish us to enter into every commitment that is likely to arise and; which is now envisaged.
Mr. Harold Davies: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that most of us in this House would like to emphasise the principle of fair shares, with each one of the 12 countries bearing an equal ratio of their national income towards this Defence scheme?
Mr. Shinwell: We are, naturally, working towards that end, but, of course, there are difficulties.

BILL PRESENTED
  COAL MINING (SUBSIDENCE) BILL
  "to provide for the carrying out of repairs and the making of payments in respect of damage affecting certain dwelling-houses and caused by subsidence resulting from the working and getting of coal and other minerals worked with coal, and for the execution of works to prevent or reduce such damage; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Noel-Baker; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. McNeil, Mr. Jay and Mr. Robens read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'Clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'Clock; and at Five o'Clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[The Prime Minister.]
ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)
House, at its rising Tomorrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 18th April.—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1950–51
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

  JOINT CONSULTATION IN INDUSTRY
  3.52 p.m.
  Mr. Fernyhough: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "in the opinion of this House the fullest possible measure of voluntary co-operation between management and workpeople is essential if productivity is to be increased and good industrial relations maintained as the national interest requires, and this House urges the Government to continue its efforts through the national organisations of employers and workers to encourage the practice of joint consultation on matters of common interest to management and workpeople in the factory and workshop and the development of appropriate joint consultative machinery."
  The subject which we are to discuss is one of great interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it is of even greater interest to the millions of men and women in our workshops, factories and other places of employment. During the last hundred years, by trade union agitation and organisation, we have been able to build up a wages structure which has removed the worst features of our industrial system. Where trade union organisation has not been strong, this House, by trade boards and later by wages councils, has done as much as possible to bring the unenlightened employer into line.
  Today, while we have reached the stage where the worker is protected against the avaricious employer, we are moving towards the time when workers in workshops and factories, and empoyees in general, are not satisfied merely to have their wages and conditions discussed. They feel that, in the light of developments in industry, with its greater centralisation, they are becoming mere

  1205
  cogs in the wheel. They want some method of expressing their personalities, their feelings and ideas on matters which vitally affect them. Therefore, this Debate will go far beyond the mere question of wages and conditions. It is concerned with what I would term the functions and the part which the workers are to play in the new set-up in industry.
  We must acknowledge that there is a tendency in modern industry for the gap between those who give the directions and those who put them into operation to become wider and wider. This fact, together with some types of work which employees are called upon to perform—the monotonous types such as tending machines without any chance of conversation or discussion—is apt to make the worker feel that he is losing his personality; that the machines are taking away from him his pride, his craftsmanship and a measure of satisfaction which he had hitherto.
  I hope that many hon. Members opposite will agree with my hon. Friends on this side of the House that something must be done to make the worker feel that he is part and parcel of the establishment where he works and that his views on all matters will be taken into consideration. If this state of affairs is to be brought about, it will demand good and honest motives from both sides. On the workers' side, among the men and women in the factories and the trade union leaders, we shall be faced with the problem of trying to solve a system of representation which will give to everyone, whatever his job, a feeling that his point of view and ideas are being expressed and well represented in any consultation which may take place.
  Hon. Members have often criticised the set-up in the nationalised industries. This House, when it was framing the legislation which led up to the nationalised industries, at least did a good and substantial job in the way in which it laid down the means of joint consultation. There cannot be any doubt that in the nationalised industries the machinery which has been introduced is not only proving satisfactory but is growing in usefulness every day. There is probably no constituency in any part of the country where that is better borne out than in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. That is particularly true
  1206
  in the collieries. Most hon. Members from Durham would acknowledge that the Boldon colliery has a record of struggle, fighting, bitterness and animosity between the sides which probably is not excelled in any part of the coalmining industry.
  Yet today under nationalisation, with mutual respect and trust between what I would term the management and the workers, and because of the facts which are placed before them when they are consulted on every issue, not only is there a happy atmosphere but, more important, that colliery has beaten its production target month after month. It is not merely a question of the atmosphere within the colliery itself. That atmosphere has spread through the village and, instead of their being bitterness and animosity between the various sections of the community as there was in the old days, there is now a much happier atmosphere and a real community spirit which is most desirable.
  The Opposition can do much to develop this spirit which obtains in the collieries in my area. They can do much to foster it in private industry. It must be acknowledge that the total of the national economy which is represented by the socialised industries—perhaps hon. Members opposite would prefer to call them the nationalised industries, although we do not lose any votes in my constituency by talking about nationalization—is 20 per cent., which means that the other 80 per cent. of our national economy is in the hands of private employers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] I share the view point of my hon. Friend. This is where hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite can come in. They themselves, during the General Election, issued this stirring document, "This is the Road," which I summed up during the Election in this way: "Everybody is going to get more, and everybody is going to pay less." I told my constituents that, while that might be good mathematics in Harrow, it was bad arithmetic in Jarrow. We are not discussing the whole of this, and I merely want to refer to that section which is headed "The Workers' Charter," and which advocates
  "the widest possible extension, on a voluntary basis, of joint consultation on subjects other than wages and conditions of work, which are already covered by collective bargaining, and

  1207
  will favour schemes of co-partnership and profit-sharing. The main body of the Charter will not be embodied in legislation, but will be drawn up as a Code of Conduct and submitted to Parliament for debate and adoption. We shall ensure that this Code is strictly applied in all undertakings under Government control. After due notice has been given, only those employers who observe the Code will obtain public contracts."
  Then, of course, our hon. Friends opposite who sit below the Gangway, the Members of the Liberal Party, issued "No Easy Way." [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they?"] Well, there is one representative of the party here. That document said:
  "Liberal Government would set itself to reconcile the interests of workers and employers, whether in State or private trading. Since the Whitley Committee was set up during the first world war, Liberals have striven for joint consultation at all levels of production."
  I believe it was the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who, during his broadcast speech, said that the Conservative Party did not believe in nationalising industry, but in humanising it. If ever there was anything which was a reflection upon the Leader of the Opposition, his party and his friends, it was their declaration that industry needed humanising. Up to 1945, in the main, industry belonged to those who were either Liberals or Conservatives; it was, therefore, their own industry upon which they were casting a reflection. After 100 years of trade union agitation and the struggles of the workers for the right to have a bigger say in the running of industry, it was surely a reflection upon themselves to have to say in 1950 that industry needed humanising.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that this is entirely the subject-matter of his own Amendment, and that he has already himself started on that argument?
  Mr. Fernyhough: I am lost with what the noble Lord has said; it does not strike a chord at all.
  The point at issue surely is that hon. Gentlemen opposite can do a lot—some of them have done something, but they could do much more—to see that the spirit which is indicated in this Amendment becomes really effective and
  1208
  operative throughout industry. Most employers, or, at least, a good number of them, are doing what they can in this respect. They are approaching the problem in a fair, human and sensible manner, but there are still too many who not only refuse to take the workers into consultation at all, but who are still living in the 19th century, and, even in 1950, are bitterly opposed to trade unionism.
  It is amazing that, in the year 1950, there should be the necessity for workers to strike in order to obtain trade union recognition. That happens not only in large units but more so in the case of some of the smaller employers. Because the party opposite really does stand for joint consultation and is publicly committed to the principle, I say that, apart from whatever this House might do, they have the moral responsibility to see that their own friends in industry act in accordance with their party's public professions. If they do that, they will do much to remove some of the bitterness, mistrust and suspicion which has bedevilled the two sides in British industry.
  I do not think that, in a discussion of this kind, we should do other than mention the great record of the present Foreign Secretary in this matter during the years of the war. There is no doubt that he gave it a very great fillip, and I am anxious to find out from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour today how far we have slipped back since the end of the war, how far there has been a hardening on the part of any employers, what are the chances of development in this respect in the reasonably near future, and what the Minister himself is doing to bring what I would term the recalcitrant employers into line with the best on this matter. We say very definitely that there should be no unlimited power in any sphere, that there should be no harsh or dictatorial attitude, but that the approach generally should be one of recognition that men and women are human beings, that they have hearts that beat and blood that flows through their veins, and should be treated as personalities and individuals rather than as so many industrial units.
  Mr. Summers: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the trade unions, may I ask him whether he supports the policy of the Co-operative

  1209
  movement, which inserts conditions into its orders that goods shall be delivered by trade union drivers?
  Mr. Fernyhough: I certainly do endorse it, and I think that in view of the pleadings and panderings of the Opposition to the trade union vote during the General Election, we should now expect them to encourage trade unionism. During the General Election, they claimed that it was they who first brought unions into being, that it was they who built them up, and it would be a tragedy if, having created during the General Election that impression of a marvellous concern for the industrial worker, they should now in any way besmirch that impression by pretending that they are not too friendly towards the idea of the workers being organised in trade unions. As I have already indicated, many employers are co-operating and are doing their best.
  It is the black spots with which we want to deal; with the employer who still looks upon his worker as a hewer of wood and a drawer of water—and, unfortunately, there are still a few of them—the employer who looks upon his worker in the light of, "His not to reason why, his but to work and die." It is that old-fashioned, 19th-century attitude towards the worker which we want to see removed. We say that where it has been removed, where the employer is enlightened and has taken his workers into consideration, and where joint consultation is really active and effective, the employers themselves acknowledge that the wealth of experience and the great knowledge of the workers has added considerably to the efficient running of the particular industrial unit.
  We must all recognise that today it is just as important to get maximum production as it was during the war. Then the enemy we were fighting was the military foe. It was an external enemy, but nevertheless, industry was keyed up, and joint consultation was readily acknowledged because of that external enemy. Today, to a large extent, we are fighting an internal enemy—the fear of poverty. The battle today is the battle for production, and anything which can contribute towards industrial efficiency and can increase our productivity is something which ought to be welcomed by both sides of the House.
  1210
  I think we would all readily acknowledge that industry is a common enterprise. There are the two sides to it, and the more we can move along the line of letting the workers take their proper and fair share in its conduct, the less bitterness, animosity, suspicion, and friction there will be. Over the years, this country has brought about the most advanced political democracy the world has ever seen. Our job now is to bring what I would term "industrial democracy" up to the level of political democracy. Every citizen, irrespective of race, colour, class or creed is given an equal opportunity, as it were, in determining the Government of the country.
  What we want to see is that every man and woman employed throughout the length and breadth of industry is, as far as possible, made to feel that his or her voice is heard. A worker wants to feel that he has some responsibility for the concern in which he is working and some attachment to it. If we can develop that idea and make the workers feel that they are part of the concern, then there cannot be any question as to what the responsibility will be.
  I think this is vitally necessary in order that the men and women who, more and more, in the situation to which technical advance will take us, will do those humdrum unsatisfying and uncongenial jobs, should be able to give expression through a joint industrial council to their thoughts and ideas. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to tell us what progress has been made, and what is going to be done in the future. I also hope that by whatever methods he tries to bring about a greater measure of joint consultation in industry, we shall have in this matter the wholehearted backing and support of hon. Members opposite.
  4.15 p.m.
  Major Vernon: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I am very glad of this opportunity, and wish, first of all, to say how thoroughly I agree with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). If I do not place so much emphasis on the satisfactory features, but rather point to directions in which improvements and further work can be carried out, it must not be thought that I do not appreciate the great advances

  1211
  that have been made. Indeed, I have a clear picture in my mind of the immense advantages ahead of us, of the great harvest which can be reaped if the knowledge which has been achieved so far, and the things which we shall learn as experience matures in the next few months or years, are properly and carefully applied.
  It is because I have seen in certain firms and businesses the remarkable progress which has been made that I take this attitude. It seems to me that we are repeatedly asked to make great efforts to increase production, and that the idea is that if we put in twice as much effort, we get twice as much production. In the case of joint production it is not quite like that; it is more like putting a little oil into a rusty and stiff machine. A small amount of effort, a little skilful organisation, and a comparatively small improvement in the relation between workers and management can sometimes produce immense results.
  My first suggestion to the Minister is that the time has come for a review of the progress made so far. It is quite true that in certain undertakings and places—for instance, in the mines and many other undertakings—great improvements have been made. But there are backward areas. Some firms have set up joint production council committees, but, after a bit, they have dealt with only trivial and insignificant questions, and anything really important has, somehow, got side-tracked, and the whole thing has become stale and unproductive. The reasons for that can be discovered. They are different in every industry, and there is a different pattern of organisation here and there, but, as a general problem, the search for the obstructions in this direction is a thinking job which can only be done through the agency of the Minister himself.
  One of the most important items is finance. Some firms keep their accounts rigidly secret, but the ones which have been successful are those which made a clean breast of their financial situation and gave the utmost information to their employees. The very best of all the concerns that I have come across in this direction is British European Airways. They have a system of accountancy, month by month, department by department, and charts and diagrams are displayed
  1212
  accessible to all employees; each little group is given a picture of its own target for the month, its target for the year, and its place in the whole scheme of things.
  Mr. Osborne: Do they share all the losses also?
  Major Vernon: If the hon. Gentleman would like me to go into that in rather greater detail, I would point out that the losses are decreasing month by month. The reason for those losses are being found out; the special difficulties of any airways organisation resulting from the fluctuation of traffic between winter and summer are being dealt with quite scientifically, and that body is well on the way to being the most efficient airways organisation in the world. That is just by the way, and is one example of where the financial information has been particularly useful.
  I shall give two other examples. One is that of a firm which had a certain surplus to be dealt with at the end of the war. They did not say to the workers, "You are to decide what can be done with this surplus." They said, "We will take into account your wishes in this matter. You can either have slight increases in pay here and there or you can use it for sport and recreation, or you can suggest better canteens and amenities in the factory and better machinery which will lighten your labour and improve the efficiency of the enterprise as a whole." The workers talked about that, and the arguments blew up hot and furious and went on and on. It did a vast amount of good to bring these questions out into the limelight. In the end they decided to divide the surplus between new machinery and amenities in the factory. The management were able to accept that recommendation.
  The other example relates to piecework. Ever since I was an apprentice in an engineering firm piece-work has been a source of trouble. I do not believe there is a satisfactory system in the world. The men always think they are being done down, and the management always think the men are holding back with the idea of getting a higher price. In this instance the management said to one department, "Will you try to work out a satisfactory system of piece-rates among yourselves?" They argued

  1213
  this for six months with the idea of trying to secure some system which would satisfy the highly skilled, the semi-skilled and the unskilled. In the end they came back and said, "We give it up. We do not want a piece-work system. We guarantee to maintain our output if you guarantee to continue the same rate of payment to the whole department." That was just being put into force when I visited the firm. It does a vast amount of good when people know that their wishes are being considered, and they know how extremely difficult it is to devise a piece-work system that can really satisfy everybody.
  Looking at the matter broadly, we should apply our minds to the question of how far joint consultation is going to be applied. There are a certain number of links to the high command in every organisation, according to its size. In the military organisation it runs right through from the private soldier upwards. In a small firm there may be only three links. In a large organisation like the Post Office, there may be seven or eight from the supreme command to the lowest workers. We should make up our minds whether we want joint consultation through the whole of the scale. Right at the top in industry there is joint consultation between two or three grades. At the bottom we have consultation at the workmen's level. There is a sort of gap in the middle. Just as in the Army the soldier has a right of appeal, step by step, to the Army Council, so in industry there should be a continuous sequence of consultation right through on all these levels.
  I am particularly interested in the technical and scientific grades of workers. The members of my trade union, the Association of Scientific Workers, do not occur in large numbers in the same place. One may have a factory with 1,000 workers but with only three or four scientists. Great notice is taken of the trade unionists because they are so numerous. The same applies to the management because they are so powerful, but, because our members are so few they are inclined to be overlooked. They ought not to be overlooked. In joint consultations the management are a bit shy of the scientific workers because they think they know too much. The workers are shy of them because they have a different background. The workers are
  1214
  liable to associate them with the financial management, which is entirely erroneous.
  Another problem is that of promotion. I asked a firm with whom I was acquainted, what had done most to improve feeling between workers and management. A considerable improvement had been taking place over the past few years. They said they thought it was because of the participation of the workers in the mechanism of promotion. When, as an apprentice, I went to the workshop for the first time, I was asked who had introduced me. The custom was for apprentices to need introduction from an important customer, or from someone high up in the firm. When I asked why they wanted to know who had introduced me, they said, "It is not what you know that matters in this concern, it is whom you know." That kind of promotion by favouritism has been quite normal in the private sector of industry, though it is also found in the public sector.
  The most successful managements have been those who have been wise enough to explain the mechanism of promotion to their workers and wise enough to give the workers a say in promotion matters. It is not those above a person who always know his value. Those under him are often in a far better position to judge his worth. It is not easy to apply that knowledge to the scheme of things, but it is something that ought to be borne in mind and considered. These are the principal suggestions I would make and I conclude, as I started, with a word of admiration for the speech of the proposer of this Amendment and by commending the whole subject to the Minister for his most favourable consideration.
  4.28 p.m.
  Mr. McCorquodale: I think we on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, would give a very warm welcome to the Amendment that you have just read out. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) upon having chosen this interesting and important subject when he had the luck of the ballot recently. The wording of the Amendment is so much in line with what we believe, at any rate on this side of the House, that some hon. Members suggested to me that the hon. Gentleman went along to Conservative head office to get it worded properly. In a moment I shall

  1215
  show how much he follows what we in the Conservative Party have been endeavouring to do in educating the country in this matter over the last three years. I should like to welcome, particularly, his very proper use of the word "voluntary," because that is the key to the whole of this position. If I am not being provocative—because I know the Minister feels the same way as the hon. Gentleman does about this—may I suggest the Minister should emphasise to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, when he considers such things as working parties in industry, that they too would work better if they were voluntary. If he does that, he will do a very good service.
  It is nearly three years ago since the party to which I belong produced the political pamphlet entitled "An Industrial Charter." This had a very wide and largely appreciative reception. Indeed, many political observers reckoned that it was this pamphlet which played a large part in the great revival of the Conservative Party, which has been brought to such a pitch that we now see the changed distribution of parties in the House. I myself feel that that is partly true, because I was privileged to fight a by-election at just about that time and I made full use of the "Industrial Charter"; certainly the results of the election were very favourable from my point of view.
  The "Industrial Charter" was adopted by the party almost unanimously, and it is the blue print of our Conservative approach to the problems inherent in modern large scale industry. We Conservatives stand fully by that policy and, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, we have reaffirmed it in more recent publications and notably in our admirable election address. The hon. Member adopted a neat way of slurring over the facts which make so much appeal to the country in this Conservative document, but if he wants a true appreciation of it I would recommend him to read an article in the "Manchester Guardian" which is certainly not a paper connected with us but which has a wide following in the North and which praised this publication as being by far the most realistic and the best of all the party publications issued in the election.
  1216
  I should like to quote one or two short passages from the "Industrial Charter" in support of what the hon. Gentleman has said. On page 28 we say that our policy is to humanise, not nationalise; and that is true. We hope that continual progress will be made. Indeed, the point that the hon. Gentleman made has some substance in it—we also want to improve upon what went on in the old days—but it must be remembered that in the old days most of the shops were small and there was much closer contact between the managers, the shop workers and the bosses. Now we have this large-scale organisation, and a much more formal method of joint consultation is necessary.
  We say in our "Industrial Charter":
  "We believe that industry should provide three general rights to those engaged in it:—security of employment, incentive to do the job well and to get a better one, and status as an individual however big the firm or however mechanised the job may be. These we regard as the essentials of a Workers' Charter."
  The authors went on to write considerably more about joint consultation. In fact, they gave a whole page of this pamphlet to working out joint consultation and its advantages. I should like to read the last few words on that subject:
  "It is a truism that joint consultation will only work if there is the will to make it work. That may be said of any form of co-operation. We see no inherent reason why that will should not be universal. No good employer or satisfactory employee has anything to lose, and both have much to gain, by getting round a table and talking their problems out in a frank and friendly spirit. We recognise that joint consultation must be a plant of free and orderly growth, like so many institutions in this country. But we feel certain that, given time, if this new structure be well built it will produce excellent results."
  I admire the colour in which the Trades Union Congress printed the Report of their Conference at Bridlington in 1949. It is very encouraging that they should choose even a little washed-out blue rather than the red which one might expect. There is a short paragraph in the Report to which I should like to refer. I am sorry they did not expand it a little more, but it is all right as far as it goes. They say that they have been pressing for joint consultation and the

  1217
  Minister of Labour has been endeavouring to stimulate it. They then say:
  "No spectacular results have been received, but there has been a steady development."
  The hon. Gentleman cited the collieries in his constituency as an example of what can be done when joint consultation is working well, and I was very glad to hear it. On page 217 of the Report under the heading "Coal, consultative machinery," one reads that the National Union of Mineworkers in an interim report expressed some anxiety as to the working of joint consultative machinery in the coal industry generally. They went on to say:
  "It is good in some places but very bad in others, and there is a growing sense of frustration and cynicism which is causing deterioration in relations in parts of the coal industry."
  I am glad to know that, in Durham at any rate, it is good. Let us hope that the rest of the coal industry will follow Durham.
  I make that point not to criticise the coal industry but to emphasise that in this matter of joint consultation the same problems arise in the nationalised industries as in the private enterprise industries. Certainly this shows that things are not perfect in the nationalised industries, any more than anybody would claim that things are at present perfect in any other form of industry. I would say in passing that I admired the courage of the hon. Gentleman in using the word "nationalised," in view of what the Lord President of the Council said this afternoon. Up in the North, as I know, they prefer to call things by their right names.
  I should like to consider for a moment some of the reasons for laying emphasis on good industrial relations especially at this time, which can be encouraged by joint consultation. Good relations in industry are desirable at any time. I believe that at present they are, if possible, even more desirable. The hon. Gentleman himself said that high production is as necessary now as it was during the war, and that is true.
  There are other reasons, too. We now have in this country an active, organised, ruthless group of people stimulated by help and encouragement from outside this country, who are pledged to disrupt our industrial production and cause all the trouble they can in industrial matters
  1218
  generally wherever they can operate. Of course, I refer to Communist infiltration. Communists have been able in the past to get into positions where they can exert in industry an influence out of all proportion to their actual numbers. I think that we all in this House will be pleased to note that a considerable number of trade unions are taking active steps to exclude from high positions in their unions those who are engaged in Communist activities.
  But, in my opinion, nothing will counter the subversive doctrines of these Communist agents and the harm that they can do in this country, more successfully than by enabling the ordinary man and woman working in the factory to feel that they are regarded as human beings and as partners in the industry in which they are engaged. Therefore, all the improvements we can make in joint consultative arrangements will be valuable from that point of view as well. We must make the workers realise that even in these vast public monopolies—I use the words of the Lord President himself—owned by the State at the present time, the worker is not a cog in a vast Socialist machine, as so often appears at the present time.
  Another point of interest and, I think, of importance is this. There should be a growing realisation in the country of the importance of joint consultation committees and consultative work generally. This country is improving in its education, and it is only natural that young people will want some machinery by which their opinions, their advice and feelings about the work of the shop in which they are operating can be made known to those in authority.
  At the same time as we are improving education in this country, as a result of the great Act brought forward during the war by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) and of other methods, the breaking down of the old crafts and the development of mass production and large-scale industry are, all the time, tending to force the worker down into being a cog in a vast machine. As jobs become more and more repetitive, so the old skills of the craftsmen tend to disappear. I say, therefore, that in large-scale industry today this modern approach is needed more and more.

  1219
  What is the basic objective of good management? This is a truism—and, indeed, when one discusses this subject one must introduce a good many platitudes, although many of them are none the less true: the basic objective of all good management and all good managers is the establishment of good relations in the shops. However technically skilled he may be, however many diplomas he may have received and however many courses of instruction he may have undergone, no man will make a good manager at any level in industry unless he is able to get on with and to get the best out of the men and women under his control. That is a platitude, but it is true.
  In passing, I would remind the House that it is not always recognised. I well remember that when the vast ordnance factories were being built up and increased at the beginning of the war, skilled scientists, skilled chemists and others with all the degrees in the world and all the goodwill in the world, but with no experience and with little knowledge of man management, found themselves thrust into charge of these vast organisations. The results were what we might have expected. In passing, too, I might say that the average pittance which scientists are usually paid was attached in those cases to those jobs. I hope that position will never be reached again, but I trust that if we ever had to expand industry suddenly we should see that every step was taken to ensure that those placed in charge had an adequate reputation and experience in the art of man management.
  A lot of cranky talk takes place about management and labour and a lot of people spin out great theories about it. Possibly we are apt to do so in this House. I am glad to see that the Minister agrees with me. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will watch very carefully over the people in his own charge at the Ministry of Labour. I was told only last week of a call made on one of the most eminent and successful managers of a factory, who has been in his post for 25 years and has done admirable work. He had to submit to quite a lecture from a young lady from the Ministry of Labour on the art of personnel management. That is all right, but I am not quite sure that her "talk" was really necessary.
  1220
  I do not propose to go into the history of the development of joint consultative arrangements and I do not think the House would wish me to do so, but I think I should say that the Whitley Report of 1917 might claim to be the father of all modern thought on this subject. The great step which came out of their Report was, of course, the establishment of joint industrial councils. I should like to pay my tribute to the Minister of Labour for his work in the trade with which he and I have been associated all our lives. He played a great part personally in the establishment of a joint council in the printing trade, a council on which both of us have sat. During fair weather and foul it has done quite admirable work for all engaged in the industry.
  I believe that the Whitley Councils in the Civil Service were also set up as a result of the Whitley Report, and here there is one question I should like to ask the Minister on a subject which causes me some distress. Having been at the Ministry of Labour in the past I sometimes look at the papers concerned with the Ministry. There is a paper called the "Civil Service Argus," the organ of the Ministry of Labour Staff Association, edited by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, a Member of another place. In the March issue this year this paper in its editorial—and I assume, therefore, under his authority or under his pen—issues a most violent attack upon the operation of the Ministry of Labour Whitley Council. On the outside of the pamphlet it says:
  "Ministry of Labour Whitley at the Crossroads."
  When I was at the Ministry of Labour the utmost care was taken to make this joint industrial committee as perfect as possible. After all, it is the fountain head from which all our inspirations on this sort of thing should spring and it is important that it should be made as perfect as possible. The suggestion that the Whitley machinery at the Ministry of Labour itself is not functioning at all is almost like accusing the Archbishop of Canterbury of heresy. I wonder whether the Minister would like to say something about this.
  From what I know of the Ministry I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord is all wrong in his strictures, but, of course, this is serious. In his article he says:

  1221
  "Recent developments would have shaken the confidence of even a happy staff … The staff of the Ministry of Labour asks not for cake and ha'penny but a square deal. If that cannot be obtained by Whitley Council methods then withdrawal … is the only alternative."
  Surely that would be a most retrograde step. I am a little alarmed about the paper and I hope the noble Lord has not written the article out of spleen, not knowing the facts.
  I should like to welcome, in a word, the initiative shown in sending these working groups to America to study work there. I do not know whether it sprang from the Ministry or from the joint consultative committees of industry. It is an admirable extension of joint consultation. The groups are drawn from both management and labour circles. One group from my own trade has just returned from America and the delegate who went from the firm to which I belong told me all about it yesterday and expressed his great satisfaction in the experience he had had. He gave a most heartening account of the way in which that great country welcomed our people. Indeed, when we go to America we all find the warmest of warm welcomes. It is remarkable how willing they are to show everything they have. Over here we are sometimes rather secretive in our processes and in the way we run our factories, but in America the reverse is true and they are always only too willing to show everything they have.
  I was also glad to note that in this delegate's report, and I believe his colleagues concurred in this point, he says that while they picked up many good ideas and learned much, they have come back feeling that at any rate in our trade and in the ordinary printing shop in the country we certainly do not compare unfavourably, either in workshop practice or in the quality of our product, with that turned out in America. I think that is a very useful and heartening message for him to bring back.
  I assume that all hon. Members advocate, wherever possible, the setting up of joint consultative machinery in the factory or workshop. I assume that because of the cheers from his supporters which greeted the hon. Member opposite and, on our side, because of the doctrine I have outlined. Apart from the general industrial council for the whole trade hon.
  1222
  Members advocate that there should be joint consultative machinery in the individual factory.
  I should like to mention one or two things which we must guard against if we are to make this system a real help to the industrial world. First of all, joint consultative committees must not in any way usurp the functions of trade unions. Secondly, they must not usurp the functions of executive management. Thirdly, they must not be regarded as ends in themselves. I mean, they must not be regarded as a useful sort of ashcan into which to tip grievances and troubles in the hope that there they may be quite forgotten.
  We on this side, as well as hon. Members opposite, as the hon. Gentleman said, attach the greatest importance to the operation of proper trade union activities in this country, and the establishment of joint machinery for negotiation between the trade unions and the employers' organisations of all questions of wages and conditions. That must not be interfered with by any house arrangement or house decision come to with the joint consultative committees. There is a danger of this sort which I know many trade union leaders feel. I think that if this were clearly understood a good deal of the hostility—not hostility, but apathy I ought to say—in some quarters would be removed.
  Our belief and our wish at this time is that we must all do everything to buttress and nothing to weaken trade union responsibility in these difficult times. It is, incidentally, one of the reasons why I am such an opponent of nationalisation, because I believe it to be demonstrable that widespread nationalisation would, if persisted in in this country, kill voluntary trade unionism as we know it. I have spoken on this subject before in the House, and I hope at a later date to elaborate it again. I believe it can be proved demonstratively without possibility of contravention. However, let us pass away from that. These committees must be, therefore, consultative and advisory. They are not bargaining committees in any way. The bargaining must be done by properly constituted trade union and employers' organisations.
  Secondly, the committees must not usurp the function of executive management. They can be of the greatest assistance

  1223
  to managements in making suggestions as to the working of the factories, suggestions as to improving the efficiency of factories, suggestions with regard to increasing the happiness and contentment of the workers, and on matters regarding the welfare and social activities, among other things, of the workers. Thus they can be of the greatest assistance to managements. The responsibility, however, for running the factory is that of the management of the factory.
  The management also can use them—and I believe this is an important function and that they should use them—as media for telling the people in the factory the utmost of what is going on in the factory; about the state of the order book, for instance, the state of the finances of the business—and in this I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) who spoke last and who has just gone out—about such questions as the effects of Government regulations in this country, and of government quotas enforced from abroad, and about the export trade; and in the future, as closer integration in Europe takes place, there may be all sorts of very difficult questions which will need to be explained carefully to the people.
  I believe that these committees can be used to explain these things and give this information; but they cannot successfully run a factory, and, therefore, must be regarded in this way as not executive. Sidney Webb put the position most clearly. He said:
  "The relationship set up between a foreman or manager, who has throughout the working day to give orders to his staff, and the members of that staff who, assembled in general meeting, criticise his action or give him directions with the power of dismissing him if he fails to conform to their desires, has always been found to be an impossible one."
  That is true, and I believe that if that were properly understood many of the fears of rather old fashioned employers would disappear.
  Mr. Mikardo: While I do not dissent from the general view the right hon. Gentleman is expressing, may I ask how he can reconcile this point with the fact that during the war the Ministry of Labour, at the time when, I believe, he was associated with it, gave
  1224
  joint production committees certain restricted executive powers? Does it not follow that this is not as clear-cut as it looks?
  Mr. McCorquodale: I am not entirely disputing what the hon. Gentleman said. There may be cases in which, with the full agreement of the trade unions and the employers—and in this case of the Government—certain specific jobs of a semi-executive nature could be given over to joint committees I remember that the question of absenteeism which probably the hon. Member has in mind was a particularly thorny question which very few people wished to handle. I am not sure it was not rather dumped on the production committees.
  Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: Did not that originate really when the managements were out at golf?
  Mr. McCorquodale: Well, I do not mind that remark very much, but this is a serious subject we are discussing. I said that in the third place the joint consultation should not be regarded as an end in itself. It is only one part of the whole job of man management in industry. There are many other aids to good relations in industry which I do not wish to refer to today—pensions and the like, which all conduce to better conditions in industry and, therefore, to better output.
  I say from my personal experience in this matter in the industry and in the business with which I am connected, that the setting up of these committees is not altogether an easy task, especially in the smaller factories. We in the industry with which I am associated, being a highly trade-unionised one, have very close consultation almost every day between the fathers of the chapels and the managements, and it is felt in some of the factories, in the group with which I am connected, that that arrangement is so close that, really, more formal arrangements are not necessary. In our larger units we have been able to get going more formal monthly or bi-monthly meetings of the joint consultative committees, and where they have been started the managements, and those taking part on the employers' side, find good in them. No one wishes to see them stop; all hope rather than they will go on and extend their activities.

  1225
  In conclusion, I would just say this. I should like to feel that it could go out from this House tonight, when we are discussing a matter which is not controversial in the party political sense—and none the worse for that, especially just before we break up for the Recess—that we believe that certainly in the larger establishments, and possibly in many of the smaller ones as well, both the managements' and the trade union leaders will find that the setting up of more formal consultative machinery is a most valuable and, indeed, an almost indispensable adjunct in the carrying on of the task of good labour management and high production in industry, if industry is to carry out that task. We in this House cannot do it. Even the Minister, with all the best will in the world, cannot do it.
  On the other hand, we in this House can claim that we are constantly in touch, at any rate, with the widest aspects of this problem, wider possibly than those engaged in many industries, and I am sure that we shall be able to send a message that, in the very great difficulties which lie ahead, the more every one in industry at every level is given the facts and taken into consultation and made to feel more of a partner and less of a unit in the factory or workshop in which he works, the better it will be for industry and the better for the whole nation.
  4.59 p.m.
  Mr. John Cooper: In asking for the indulgence of the House for this my maiden speech, I am encouraged by the very generous treatment which I have noted has been meted out so far to other new Members when making theirs. I am further encouraged by the fact that the Debate is on a subject which I feel will create the minimum of controversy. However, if I may indulge in a pleasantry, I would observe that the party on this side of the House has been interested in joint consultation for 30 years, whereas apparently the party opposite has taken a belated interest in it in the last three years—an interest which, if I may say so, during the last election rather embarrassed me as a trade union officer of 20 years' experience.
  It is true, as the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) said, that this subject is one on which there is a large amount of literature; and I think
  1226
  all hon. Members will agree that the bibliography prepared by the research department, now lying in the Library, is one on which the department is to be commended, and which is of great value to Members. But after all that has been written, when I try to draw on the experience of 20 years' active trade union work I am impressed, first of all, by the immensity of the problem and the great variety of types to be found in the structure of British industry. It is, therefore, extremely difficult to particularise on this very important subject. I have tried to examine the problem objectively. Having left the very useful career of trade union official and entered this House for the first time, I am not only looking forward, but have perforce been obliged to look back a little.
  I felt that the best approach I could make to the Debate would be to look at my experience in the trade union world objectively and see what useful contribution I could make. Fundamentally, the question of joint consultation is simply a matter of human relationships; it is to deal with the day-to-day problems at shop level. I should like here to put forward a wider aspect for consideration, and that is not only the desirability of good will prevailing in the workshop on both sides, but the much more fundamental thing, which from time to time will have to be examined, that the time the worker spends in the factory is still the greater part of his life. The effect of the factory on the individual from the point of view of the functioning of democracy is, in my opinion, a social factor which ought to be considered over and above the immediate industrial problem of good relations.
  Joint consultation is a development of what was started after the First World War—the idea of "Whitleyism." Gradually that has grown, and during the last 30 years industry has changed considerably, so that we have reached a point where negotiations have been removed from the domestic sphere of the factory to the district or national level. Even in the past there are examples where joint negotiation took place very happily directly between the trade union officer on behalf of the men and the factory manager. Gradually the trade union officer has been pushed about by a natural development, and today he journeys up to London to do his business

  1227
  rather than going just round the corner in the factory.
  I think that is an inevitable development, but because of that we must encourage bringing home to the worker in the factory the significance of what is taking place somewhere outside, which will ultimately determine his wages and working conditions. There are three tiers at the moment: national, district, and the lower level. Frankly, I think that the lower level is fundamental and more important than the other two, for it is there that we have to bring home quite clearly to the worker his own position. The present tendency is natural, and is one which should be encouraged if possible.
  I should now like to comment on what I feel are the fundamental conditions for the success of joint negotiations at factory level. The first essential is obvious, but it ought to be stated: it is the establishment of confidence on both sides. It is no use talking about doing this on a compulsory basis. Even it compulsion is tried we shall never get joint consultation until the two sides have confidence in each other to start off with. Secondly, and equally important, is the desire on both sides to make joint consultation a success. I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Epsom say, what is most important, that any joint consultation should be consistent with the collective agreements that have already been reached at national or district level. I would stress the great importance of having a complete chain from the local level to the national level, so that those who serve on joint consultative committees are answerable to the bodies to which they should owe some responsibility, because there cannot be three-tier government, as it were, and irresponsibility at the bottom. That is, I think, well understood.
  Now let me comment briefly on what has happened in the past, when there have been both good and bad kinds of consultation. I hope it will not be considered invidious to other industries if I mention one in particular; because it is a small industry where it has worked extremely well, and I refer to it because I believe that if the Minister wants an example of good joint consultation he will find it in this industry—namely,
  1228
  the match industry. In that industry they seem completely to understand the clear functioning of joint negotiation; they have their minutes, which are subsequently submitted to the Joint Industrial Council; and labour relations in that industry compare favourably with those in any other industry. There is no doubt that joint consultation can work, and I have the feeling that if a careful examination were made in industries where it has worked, we might discover ideas which would be useful in application elsewhere.
  I would say to hon. Members opposite that there have been some very bad forms of consultation at factory level, and I advise them to be very chary in promoting too freely the idea of co-partnership, which is a form of consultation at factory level. I hope I shall be forgiven for saying this, but in the past, without a shadow of doubt, there have been attempts to create joint consultation at factory level for the purpose of preventing the workers being free to join trade unions. There is a danger in that, because an essential for good working is good understanding at top levels in industry, and if this idea of joint consultation is to be "sold" there must be good understanding at the top level and at the regional level. When that stage is reached—and most joint consultative bodies have now reached it after many years of "Whitleyism"ߞit is time to foster the same good spirit downwards with a view to encouraging what everybody agrees is an excellent thing for industry.
  I should also like to refer to the paragraph in the T.U.C. Report, 1949, and continue where the right hon. Member for Epsom left off. There it was pointed out that, apart from the socialised industries, national agreements had been reached in 30 industries for the establishment of joint production committees. Joint production committees are, of course, only one form of consultation at workshop level. I understand that the Ministry of Labour has appointed a special officer to encourage nationally the development of consultation where J.I.C.s have already adopted the principle of consultation.
  May I make this final suggestion to the Minister, because I feel that it is vital, not only at national level but also at regional level, that he should see whether

  1229
  it is possible to arrange for officers, who can specially devote their time to this work, to make approaches—and I would put in this restriction—to those industries which have already adopted the principle nationally that joint consultation should operate throughout the industries.
  5.12 p.m.
  Sir Peter Bennett: It is my very great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. J. Cooper) on his maiden speech. I am sure that I carry with me the thoughts of the whole House in congratulating him on having made such an excellent contribution and on having chosen a subject on which he can speak with such authority as he has done in the present Debate. I can assure him that if he sticks to that line and talks about what he knows so firmly, the House will always listen very attentively to what he has to say. That does not always happen to everything which hon. Members on both sides of the House have to say, when they talk about matters of which they are not sure. From personal experience, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this House is very keen to listen to a man who talks about what he knows and does so in no controversial or pre-judiced manner. It is, therefore, a pleasure for me to come into contact with another high-up member of a trade union. I come into contact with a lot of them, and the more I see of them the better we get on together, and the better it is for industry, which, after all, is one team and not two.
  I should like to say how much I appreciate the manner in which the mover of this Amendment put his case, and the very sensible way in which he has worded it, so that we can all agree. The suggestion made to me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was that if I were fortunate enough to catch your eye I should give a little information to the House about the way in which joint production committees can be established and run successfully when they have been established. I should like to do that, and, therefore, I ask the House to pardon me if, in developing that a little later on, it appears to be on a very personal note. I cannot tell the House what I have been doing and what my organisation has been doing without being personal.
  1230
  It is a common error to discuss our problems and difficulties on the basis of existing conditions without full consideration of why they have arisen. We take advantage of the achievements of our forefathers without question, and then we concentrate on grumbling at what they have not done or at what they did badly. So it is with industrial matters. The present position in industry is the result of developments which, in many cases, were rapid and often unexpected. When we think of the development of British industry over the last few centuries, we realise that we were an agricultural country only a hundred years or so ago. We had our cottage industries, followed by the local industries where water power, fuel and materials were availableߞall in a small way—and then there suddenly burst upon the world the Industrial Revolution, and a vast expansion took place.
  Today, in many respects, we are paying the price of the pioneering which was done. On Thursday night my colleagues and I were engaged in trying to put to the Minister of Health the problem of housing in the industrial city of Birmingham. That is one of the things which we have inherited. I have been on a number of deputations abroad, and I have been shown some lovely works set out beautifully with fine roads and avenues of trees, but it is often forgotten that they are copies of what we have done after finding out the mistakes which we had made. We were the pioneers. Some of our factories are very haphazard and messy because they have been chopped and changed about during the development period. Before we regard all that our forefathers did as being bad, we should realise that we have benefited from the good things which they did, and now we have to put right some of the mistakes which they made and which we have inherited.
  In industry, in the early days, we developed from small units where master and man were in daily contact and knew each other. Then came the larger factories with the big amalgamations and the joint stock companies, and the personal touch was lost. We have had advantages from that, and we have taken full advantage of them, but we have also had many disadvantages from the way in which industry has developed; but do not let us

  1231
  suggest as writers sometimes do, that it would be a good thing if we could put the clock back and go back to that era. We never can. We could not maintain the population of these islands if we went back to cottage industries or anything like them. In losing that personal touch, misunderstandings arose, as was natural. The boss could not have it out with the man; he could not tell him what he thought about it on the spot and settle it. They went away and thought about it, and so we got that antagonism which has developed and corrupted our industrial life. According to the British habit we take sides.
  Today we have a number of large organisations, although, of course, we also have a large number of small ones. Do not let us run away with the idea that they are all big organisations, because more than half the industry of this country is still confined to small units. But progressive managements have had to look round, and they have found disagreement developing over the years. Various methods were tried to overcome this. Sometimes they were resisted.
  It is a strange fact, which the hon. Member for Deptford will probably remember, that when some of the committees were started they were resisted, and that was because they were started on wrong lines. There was the fear of undermining the influence of the trade unions. They started to interfere with the trade union organisation. Sometimes that may have been done deliberately, but sometimes, I am sure, it was accidental. People brought up grievances which ought to have been dealt with by the trade unions.
  May I give one example in the early days when we were feeling our way with these committees? We decided that we would pick up some money from the shareholders after the next balance sheet and start a works pension scheme. We got it going and then told the people about it, and they did not like it. They said, "That ought to have come from the trade union." They went to the trade union and were told "Go back and don't be fools; they are offering you something for nothing; you take it and be glad." That only goes to show how easy it is for misunderstandings to arise.
  1232
  Then we had the war and a great movement forward in co-operation because we were in the spirit to co-operate after Dunkirk. I was particularly in touch at that time with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Minister of Aircraft Production, and he pressed very hard, as the Minister of Labour will remember, for joint production committees in the engineering industry. We accepted them in the engineering world in a way we had never done before, and the federations and the unions got together and worked out the agreements on how these joint production committees should be carried on. They cleared out a lot of the naggers, and we have got on very well since.
  Reference has been made to interest dying off, but I would point out that the matter has not been allowed to drift. The Minister of Supply, with whom the world works, realised this, and the Parliamentary Secretary went round the country trying to stir up enthusiasm and get the joint production committees going. I should like to take this opportunity of telling the Parliamentary Secretary how much his work was appreciated. Progress has been made, but it has not been universal. Therefore, I will offer my own experience in the hope that it may help some of those who are doubtful whether these schemes can be made to work and are as valuable as some think them to be.
  I have been in this from the initial stage. I was not connected with any cottage industries, and I had nothing in the backyard. I started in a small factory with nothing but the whitewashed walls. It will be appreciated, therefore, that I know what it is to start in a small way. To begin with I had a man, a boy and a girl, so we did not need any joint consultations; we were consulting all the time. When we increased to 10 and then to 20 we still knew each other, and it all worked very nicely. I worked the number up to 100 or so before the First War broke out. We were then making a product that was very necessary for war purposes, and my present organisation approached me and suggested that I should let them take me over. I jumped at the opportunity to come under their wing, and we built up an organisation of 1,000 employees.
  We still had the same personal contacts, because the men who were doing

  1233
  the expansion were men I knew and they passed it round. We were able to keep it a personal organisation until the end of the war. I was then asked to take over control of the organisation, and we developed with the expansion of the motor industry, eventually having factories in Birmingham and around the city. It was then that we began to feel what has been mentioned today—the fact that the organisation was too impersonal. We found that by the time the policy we had settled had got to the men in the shop it had been mangled to pieces. The men simply said, "That is what the boss says," which is just what we did not want. We wanted the policy to be explained, and we had to work out how we could get over this.
  We tried many experiments. We started arbitration committees, but we found that questions concerning wages and conditions were cropping up which are not allowed to crop up under our agreement. We now have an agreement with the trade unions, and it has proved most valuable. It has to be understood that hours of work and conditions come under the trade unions, and then the work of the shop stewards is not interferred with in any way. We cannot have competition between the joint production committees and the shop stewards, because if that happens there is trouble.
  Another point is that the joint production committees are no substitute for management at any grade on the factory floor. The ranks of management are open to all with the ability to lead and the capacity to take charge, and a large majority of the senior factory officials have risen from the floor of the shop. That must not be interfered with, because there must be no feeling of favouritism. For joint consultation to be effective, it must be accepted and welcomed wholeheartedly by all grades and by the management. There must be no feeling of conflict. The foreman must not feel that his authority is being prejudiced, because if that happens there will be very poor results. Therefore, we bring the foreman into these committees so that he does not feel he is being side-stepped.
  Another important matter is who leads these committees. We have laid it down that in all the factories around the city the factory manager must be in the chair
  1234
  at the meetings of these committees. We have come to the conclusion that the factory manager is the man to take the chair, because he can promote harmony in the ranks, whereas the man below him may not be so acceptable. It makes those who take part in these committees realise it is a worth-while job if the factory manager is taking the chair.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: The whole House is very interested in what my hon. Friend has said about trying to achieve unanimity in these committees. Has he found the shop stewards helpful?
  Sir P. Bennett: I am coming to that. As I was saying, we have aimed at getting wholehearted support, but if that is not supplied from the top, the whole job will fall into discredit. In the engineering world there is an agreement between the federations and the engineering unions, and I wish to pay tribute to the way in which it has been worked out and carried out. Any matter which is the prerogative of the shop stewards is accepted, but hours of work, wages, bonuses, piecework and rates are excluded, which helps us to get on. Success depends on the atmosphere created, but some employers and some workers have been very apathetic when this job has been started. Poor results are guaranteed if there is apathy in a job like this.
  We then have the criticisms. If the attitude is that these committees deal only with minor matters and that there is no need to worry if they are given the canteens, lavatories and rest rooms to look after, there is bound to be failure. If there is failure, then it is the fault of the management. We always blame the manager first. A lot of the problems and difficulties that arise would not have arisen if the management had got down to the job and had seen the thing coming quickly enough. Like other jobs, success depends on good staff work. It means that top-grade staff work is required. In every works there is a reservoir of people anxious to do something more than their daily task. Our whole local government system is built up on that.
  Men are not always suitable and do not always have the qualifications or temperament to take promotion and some do not want to be promoted. One of the difficulties these days is to get people capable of taking responsibility whose

  1235
  energies can be used to great advantage and harnessed in these committees. I was talking quite recently to some of my military friends, and they tell me it is just the same in the Army. There are men not suitable to be made N.C.O.s but who are very good soldiers, and they like a solid core of these men in their battalions and companies. It is exactly the same with us. We can use these men who have a marvellous moral effect in a factory. In addition to day-to-day problems like canteens and such things, there are problems of the best utilisation of tools and similar matters which, if not looked at, will hinder the flow of goods and stop production.
  I am sure the House would like to know some of the matters which we find most valuable in the committees. There is the question of waste, and the saving of time. Since the war we have had a lot of trouble with new labour coming in and getting the men back from the Forces. There is then the question of material and the use of substitute materials, which has caused a lot of trouble. The committees are keen on problems such as these and we overcome waste, which is hurting the national effort. Then there is the reduction of accidents. We make it a personal matter to see that the people obey the rules and regulations. We have a magnificent set of regulations, and we employers are responsible if men break the rules. We take the trouble to see that they are kept by securing the co-operation of these committees. Another place where we get splendid results is in the reduction in the waste of maintenance materials. There was a terrible waste of some of the things which are scarce today.
  Last of all, there is the maintenance of quality. It is a great thing if a committee's help can be enlisted in maintaining quality, because it is the quality of British goods which is going to determine our future—and some shoddy stuff has already gone out. We have all our people working to get the quality back to what it used to be. All these matters represent increased production and the reduction of costs. They are matters which are vital today in the present state of our national affairs. We are going to have a hard fight for the markets of the world, and we have to take every step to get
  1236
  costs down for the fight that is coming. These people help us.
  As to the composition of the committees, it was agreed in our business that they should all be trade union members. Once there is agreement on that, a whole lot of trouble is got over. There must be full representation of the foremen and of the local committees. All sections and departments must feel that they have their representatives and that they have access to the management. We have not made any attempt to have equal numbers on the committees. Some of the people are keen to get equal numbers, but the thing is better as we have it organised and we do not worry about equal numbers. The people are elected by secret ballot, which enables any person to be put on. Some shop stewards are elected, while others are not. The man who is not elected can only grumble at those who did not elect him, but people who fail to secure election do not like to grumble. They have a bit of pride, and they try to impress their fellows that for the next time they are the right sort of persons to put on the committee. It is perfectly free for the workers to elect anybody.
  It is very important that everything discussed at these joint production committees should be made known to the foreman and superintendent. If that is not done, there will be trouble and difficulties. In the different factories we have joint production committees, and then there is a central one for all our works in Birmingham. What we do not do is try to mix the breeds. We do not bring from London people making aeroplane equipment, or those responsible for fuel, or anything else which is foreign. We keep the industries separate, because we believe we are going to get the best results if we give to the local organisations the fullest responsibility. They do not like people coming from London to tell them what to do in Birmingham. If the workers are made to stand on their own legs, better results will follow.
  I am sorry that I have taken up so much of the time of the House, but in conclusion I want to say that if this scheme is treated casually, bad results will ensue. People will get out of it as much as they put in. It is an adjunct to good management and not a substitute for it. If that is borne in mind and the proper

  1237
  approach made, I believe that in time the system will help to break down that wall which exists between labour and management. If we can get our workpeople to understand that we are pushing in the same direction and we are all in the same scrum, then we will have the workers and management pushing together. The day is coming when Marshall Aid will not be there. We shall be dependent on our own efforts, and if we unite as we did during the war years, pull together and use this and any other means, we shall be able to get back our position in the world.
  5.46 p.m.
  Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I do not know whether I should seek the indulgence of the House. I have spoken in this Chamber on a few occasions, but I have had an enforced absence. I am glad to be back, and I am very glad to come back to a Debate which shows such unanimity on both sides of the House. In fact, so much did I agree with the speech of the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) that I could almost see the ghost of the Foreign Secretary sitting opposite me on the Opposition Front Bench.
  I hesitate to take part in this Debate after the very fine practical example of joint consultation which we have been given by the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett). He issued a word of warning which made me distinctly apprehensive. He said that we almost always listened to people who knew their subject and knew what they were talking about. It will be observed that in this Debate so far, the contributions have come from those who know industry either as trade unionists, engineers or employers. As a mere lawyer I must try at once to justify my intervention. I am going to give an example of what lawyers can produce.
  On this matter there is a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House. I should like to associate myself with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) and almost everything that was said by the right hon. Member for Epsom. However, I must tell the House that I feel the emphasis today has been too much on the desirability of joint consultation and not enough on its urgent necessity. I am going to demonstrate that to the House by reference to one industry. While I was absent from this House I
  1238
  presided over the deliberations of the Cotton Manufacturers' Commission, which was set up to examine the organisation of working and the methods of payment in the cotton manufacturing industry. What took up most of my time for two and a half years was to try to find an answer to their problems. I want to limit my remarks purely to the weaving side, which is only a section of manufacture, as hon. Members will know.
  There we were faced with an antiquated wage system which was unfair to the operatives as between one operative and another and was no inducement to enhanced production and increased proficiency. It took us a long time. We examined exhaustively various alternatives that were put before us. In the end we devised an entirely new and scientific system of wages for weaving. It is a revolution which is a credit to the men of Lancashire, the leading figures of the trade unions and the manufacturers who worked on that Commission. It is the first example in the industrial history of this country of a whole industry accepting a scientific settlement. It is the first example in this country of an old-established industry throwing overboard its accumulated agreements of years and starting afresh. It is a magnificent achievement and is a great credit to Lancashire. It was not only accepted unanimously by the Commission over which I presided, but eventually it received the approval of both sides of the industry. It featured in the terms of a trade union agreement between the manufacturers and the weavers' representatives, subject to this, that the new system should be put into effect wherever we could secure local agreement.
  Will the House accept it from me that this new system is essential to securing the increased productivity that we want, to make up for the deficiency of manpower to give better wages and conditions to those who work in the industry and to cheapen the products? I could elaborate on all this but I ask the House to accept it from me. This system is in operation in some mills. Something of the kind was put into operation in one or two mills several years ago, but the pace is too slow. What is the reason?
  It has been discovered by all industrial consultants who have examined the situation in the weaving sheds and have

  1239
  devised a new and scientific system, that it is hopeless to try to put the system into operation unless we get the weaving operatives to go with us all the way. When I was in Holland discussing this topic with the leading industrial consultants in that country, I found that when they were introducing a new system they had started as any of us might do. They tried converting the directors first, then converting the managers and foremen, and then approaching and persuading the workers. Experience taught them that the quickest and best way of getting a new system of wages into operation was to start at the bottom. That is why I stand here to urge that the Minister, the Government, the trade unions and the manufacturers in Lancashire should get on with the job and should set up these committees wherever they can.
  Let me say at once that we cannot force it. We cannot prescribe any particular form for it. It will vary all over Lancashire. It has to be suited not only to the size of the unit but to the kind of work it does. Indeed, it has sometimes to be suited even to the shape of the factory. His Majesty's Government should look upon this matter as urgent and should exert all the persuasion they can upon both sides of the industry. It is not easy. The trade unions are naturally suspicious that their function will be usurped. The managers are naturally suspicious that the functions of management are going to be usurped by these committees, or councils—call them what you will. Therefore it is useful to have the example of people like the hon. Member for Edgbaston who have put these things into practice.
  That is the immediate problem for the cotton industry, but I will go further. The day is coming when we shall have to have a wages policy in this country. We cannot have a wages policy unless we have a sensible way of adjustment between the claims of different industries upon the wage pool in this country, and of adjusting the claims inside an industry of its different categories of workers. That is what they call by the queer expression "job evaluation." I wish that these industrial consultants did not devise such awkward terms.
  It can be done very successfully. There are countries in Europe where it is operating now by agreement among all sides.
  1240
  We can never have it in this country unless we have these committees to agree upon job evaluation. We want them from the long-term point of view of working towards a wages policy. We are able to say: "We are the finest political democracy in the world. Nobody can compare with us." If we can make this change, we shall be able to say that we have created the finest industrial democracy in the world.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. Carr: This is the first occasion on which I have had the honour to address this House and I humbly ask for that tolerance and friendliness which is its tradition on these occasions and which, as a new Member, I have seen finely exampled during the last few weeks.
  I particularly welcome the opportunity of talking to the House for the first time on this subject. It is one of which I have some small experience—only very small when compared with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett)—and one on which I feel most strongly. My only diffidence on the subject is that after the House has heard that speech from my hon. Friend one feels that there is very little left to be said about it. When one wants to know how joint consultation should be developed, one wishes that my hon. Friend could go round the country talking about it to those who have doubts in their minds. One feels that they would be persuaded.
  It is natural that with the present national position we tend to think of the merits of joint consultation in terms of its economic aspect and of the gains we hope to get in production. I agree that that aspect is important, but in the long term I believe that we shall find, if we look at it carefully, that the social aspect is at least as important. It seems to me absolutely vital under present conditions to find a remedy for some of the evils and troubles which have arisen from large-scale production and mechanisation, and loss of satisfaction in work which has come from the decreasing opportunities for the practice of skilled craftsmanship. I know that all this mechanisation will give us greater wealth and leisure, and that there are some who think that these will be sufficient rewards, but I believe most deeply that a man will never find

  1241
  satisfaction in his leisure unless he has first found satisfaction in his work.
  It is towards processes such as joint consultation that we must turn to find a remedy. It cannot be a rapid cure. It is most important to stress that. If we go into it thinking that it will cure all our difficulties at once, there will be disillusionment and disappointment, but I believe that it can be a solvent for our difficulties and problems and that if we apply it with determination and perseverance it can be a big help in providing that social harmony and unity of purpose which is so important in this country at the moment, and will be still more so in the difficult years that lie ahead of us.
  To come back to the economic aspect, I am convinced from my own experience on the floor of a foundry and of a press shop, that whatever mechanisation and line production we may have, the human element is, and will always be, the most important factor for getting high production. Here again, it seems that we must look towards methods such as joint consultation to get that extra little bit of co-operation without which we shall not get the best out of even the most highly automatic plant and machinery. We must not expect it to produce results all at once, for it will take time and practice but, again from personal experience, I know that it will work.
  In the latter years of the war I had the job of taking charge of a new factory run by my company for the Ministry for the production of cast aluminium alloy undercarriage support beams for the Lancaster bomber. We were ready for full-scale production and had worked out all the production schedules. We put up a production bonus scheme, but we met tremendous opposition. I did not know how to get round it. The men said that the targets were ridiculous, that the incentive bonuses were insufficient and that they would never earn their money.
  I went to the management and got permission to put all our cards on the table. Eight of the men—two from each of the four main production sections—came to my office and I put before them all the costings, showing them the price we got for the beams, the element of the metal cost, fuel costs and overheads and all the rest, and persuaded them that the terms of the incentive bonus gave them
  1242
  a fair share of the price that we got for the beams.
  Having started on that, we were able to put our heads together to see how we could reach our target. It was something like 20 beams per shift. From that moment it was as if magic had fallen on the shop. The men came to me with suggestions, such as how they could stagger their furnacemen's shifts so that metal was ready at the beginning of the next shift. In a week or two we were getting beams in the quantities required, the men were getting their money and were satisfied, and we were all enjoying the job.
  We must be clear about the purpose of joint consultation. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have already stressed the important points, that it is not for labour to gain control over management or vice versa, that it is not to weaken the traditional functions of the trade unions—far from it—and that it is not to weaken the right of decision of management. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston refer to foremen. There is some danger if we are not careful that joint consultation may weaken the status and authority of foremen. I believe that the foreman has a very important rôle in production, a rôle which in this country at the moment we sometimes do not recognise fully. When at the end of last year I had an opportunity to go over some American factories, the thing that impressed me almost more than anything else was the status, knowledge and training of their foremen. It compared unfavourably from our point of view with the practice I had seen in some of our factories. I hope we shall watch that aspect very closely.
  There is one purpose—a subsidiary one but an important one—which joint consultation can serve that has not yet been mentioned this afternoon, and that is that it can provide an extremely important training ground and opportunity for promotion for the workers' representatives to the highest levels of management. That can be a very important by-product of joint consultation.
  When it comes to the methods of joint consultation, I must support very strongly what has been stressed on all sides this afternoon, the need for it to be voluntary, the need also for leadership to come from

  1243
  the top level of management and the top level on the trade union side as well, and that the machinery must not on any account be rigid or uniform. It cannot be There must be differences. Each case must be tailored to meet the needs of each factory and each industry. The other thing to which we must give publicity as we try to persuade people to take this up is that, although formal machinery is necessary, the formal machinery of joint consultation is the end and not the beginning. If we think that all we have to do is to elect a joint consultative council and then sit back, we are in for a very sad disappointment, and that sort of council will never get beyond the canteens and the lavatories about which one of my hon. Friends spoke.
  There are one or two other smaller points about the formation of these councils to which I should like to draw attention. I believe that all representatives on the workers' side should be trade union members. I put forward the suggestion with sincerity that the election should be by secret ballot. I also believe that there should be small works constituencies, and the constituency from which a representative is chosen should not, if possible, comprise more than 25 people. I also believe that it is of great value if the consultative council is not equally balanced between the two sides. Let there be more workers' representatives than management representatives. Let there be a power to vote if necessary, but let voting be deprecated. I do not want to see the two sides lined up in equal forces on either side of the table.
  The idea of joint consultation in my mind fits into a long-term political policy and philosophy. We on this side of the House try to pursue a policy which will combine liberty with order in which the burden of responsibility and the risks of opportunity are tempered with a guaranteed degree of security. This is the industrial facet of that policy. We envisage an industrial structure in which the central government interferes to an extent sufficient to implement a full employment policy, and to an extent sufficient to safeguard the consumer and efficient production from dangers such as those of monopolies and restrictive practices, but beyond that limit leaves
  1244
  the field clear to competitive enterprise stimulated and driven by the incentives of success and failure to lead to efficiency and the development of new ventures.
  If in that set-up of competitive industry which I have described we have the rights of workers safeguarded by strong independent trade unions dealing with the collective bargaining of wages and conditions, and if we have that partnership of which joint consultation is the main pillar, we shall be working towards a society in which there is that widespread ownership of managerial and economic power, and that diversity of interest and opportunity which are essential if democracy is to progress in an industrial civilisation.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. Gunter: It is with great pleasure that I conform to the ancient and pleasant tradition of this House by congratulating the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) on his maiden speech. The hon. Member has revealed in that speech a deep and real knowledge of the subject. As the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) said, the House always listens with keen attention to a speaker who knows what he is talking about, so I am quite sure that the House will look forward to listening to the hon. Member for Mitcham on future occasions.
  The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) is to be congratulated on introducing a subject of such importance, and the House has been at its best this afternoon in the discussion on this matter. We have had little of controversy but we have had some excellent contributions. We are all agreed that the health and the temper of British industry is of paramount importance to the nation, especially at present. The future of our people and the part the nation ought to play as a great world Power depends upon the speed with which we can raise our industrial production and how we can increase that production in more effective ways. All our efforts will be of little account unless at the same time as we are revolutionising our industrial system we can bring the happiest possible human relations into our industries.
  There are great changes taking place in the industrial set-up. Great revolutions are being wrought in many industries. We witness them day by day and

  1245
  take little notice of them, but I am convinced that, looking back in 20 years, we shall be amazed at the technical alterations being made now; and for this reason, if for no other, that it is essential that the relationships between employed and employers shall be adjusted continually to meet these radical alterations so that they shall not be the cause of increasing friction. We may have the most perfect plans for reorganisation, we may introduce the maximum amount of machinery to enable us to meet the great tasks that lie before British industry, but if we overlook the importance of industrial relationships, or, indeed, if we evade them because of the difficulties inherent in them, we shall run into serious difficulties.
  We have to do all we can, all of us—I speak of trade unions, managements, Parliament and the Press—to bring about a full appreciation of the common interest we all have in building up British industry so that it may enable this country to stand upon its own feet, independent and proud. The chief aim of joint consultation must be to improve the relationships between management and men, to get all those engaged in factory and workshop, in mines and on railways, to understand the purpose of the great effort that this nation is making, and to obtain a mutual respect and confidence.
  From that understanding and tolerance and kindness of spirit existing between management and men, greater production will flow, and it is that confidence between management and men that we so much require now. It was indeed encouraging to hear the hon. Member for Edgbaston speaking of his own experiences. We could only wish that those had been extended over much wider fields of British industry, but that is not so—
  Mr. Osborne: That is not true.
  Mr. Gunter: I fear that it is true. Later I will speak about the fields where that confidence exists, but it does not exist in other fields and we may as well face the fact. If the hon. Member will allow me to go on with my speech, I was about to say that we do ourselves no good by denigrating the efforts already made. A comparison of the relationships existing in industry today with those of even a few decades ago gives a picture of a remarkable achievement by the British people, an achievement of which we have every reason to be proud. If certain organs of
  1246
  the British Press devoted half their space to telling the story of this great achievement instead of placing their emphasis upon the irritations, frustrations and disputes in industry, our people would have a clearer conception of the great distance we have travelled over the past few years and would welcome, as I am sure the whole House does, this great advance in the field of better relationships. I believe that the majority of employers and employed today desire to establish or to maintain a state of trust and confidence, and they certainly do not want an atmosphere of antagonism and suspicion to blight our efforts.
  Having said that, I must add that it would be silly of us to be complacent. The hon. and learned Member for Islington, North (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) said he had been rather concerned that in the Debate up to the time he spoke, there had been no note of urgency about the necessity for greater development in this sphere. In every field of activity in British industry we need desperately to do all we can to build up mutual confidence between management and men so that our efforts may be the greatest possible.
  It has been suggested in certain quarters that you can have compulsory co-operation. I say, as a trade union Member of Parliament, that it still waffles around the Trades Union Congress when it meets. It may well be, as has been suggested by certain trade union leaders, that by the forcible bringing together of management and men we might, by the very fact of contact, eventually develop a better understanding. But I do not think that we can force management and men to co-operate in the long run. If there be obstinacy on one side or the other, or on both, inevitably there will not be the joint consultation that is desired. We might go through the motions of joint consultation, but there would be absent that attitude of mind, that broad tolerance and willingness to listen to the other side, patiently and intelligently, to try to discover what the other fellow is talking about—in other words, to win confidence; the confidence of managements and of men, whose mutual trust is the keynote of it all.
  The winning of that confidence over large fields of industry must be undertaken by both sides. I do not think that

  1247
  any manifesto of the Conservative Party or of the Labour Party, or any exhortations from any Government Front Bench, will take us very much further in the field of joint consultation. The next great move, or the new sense of urgency, must be brought about by the trade unions and by the employers themselves. It is those two sides who must really get down to extending the field of joint consultation.
  During the past few years there has been a very rapid development in the participation of trade unions in our economic life. At the top level this participation is accepted as a very wise and fruitful thing, but unless it is brought down from the highest levels of Government, of Transport House and all the rest, to factory and workshop level it will in the last resort be of little avail. The necessity for that co-operation and consultation which exists at the highest possible level must now be interpreted in the lower levels of industry and in the trade union organisation.
  The great contribution which the trade unions could make at this time is to reequip themselves for their new functions in our national life. We are trying to operate the trade union machine with the weapons or instruments of 25 years ago. The unions must face up to the fact that if they are to enjoy this participation, which rightly they do enjoy, they must seriously review the way in which they are to perform their tasks in industry. Therefore, I make the suggestion that recognising, as do the trade union leaders, that in the long run better standards of life are dependent upon increased and efficient production, the task now is to interpret that necessity to the workers in the factories; but that is not easy.
  The hon. Member for Edgbaston was speaking of a comparatively new industry, but we all know, on this side of the House at least, that it is not an easy task to allay the haunting fears of the past which still exist in the minds of many workers. It is no good for hon. Members opposite to argue about this and to tell us how illogical is that attitude. Thousands of workers have a profound distrust of any machinery which increases production, because at the back of their minds is the fear that it will result in short-time working and possibly unemployment. However
  1248
  different the circumstances may be today, we may as well face the fact that that fear still exists.
  Another fear which lingers—hon. Members opposite may say that it does not, or should not, but it nevertheless remains—is the memory of bad managements and of vindictiveness. There is a very real fear on the part of thousands of workers that in the past managements were bad and vindictive, and are still as evilmotived even in these days. These fears and suspicions, which retard the development of the machinery of consultation, can best be removed by the unions themselves. It is not much good for the employers to do much about this, and I am pretty sure that it is not much use for the Government to do so. This is fundamentally a task for the trade unions, who ought to spend more time, energy and money upon the education, particularly of the active trade unionist, for which they are responsible. One of the main functions of trade unions today should be the stimulation of output, which in many cases they have accepted. We accept it as part of the function of the unions, but there still exists that suspicion of labour-saving devices and machinery and a reluctance to accept shift work, payment by results, and so forth.
  I suggest that the unions could, and ought to, make a far bigger contribution, in explaining the situation of the nation, in pointing out that these fears which are still held, sometimes justifiably, belong really to a past age. They ought to devote more money to the education of some of their officials, so that they may be equipped for teaching these facts to their members and workpeople. The unions desire, and might well assist in, a greater drive for joint consultation and co-operation by placing far more emphasis upon the dissemination of the facts of the economic situation, so that we might have an educated body of workers who knew exactly what was wanted in joint consultation and who knew the meaning of the effort which they were asked to make.
  I am bound to say, in passing, that one of the weaknesses of the trade union movement is that in comparison with many other industrial nations—I had better be careful here, or I shall be in trouble—hardly a union in this country has a research department worthy of the name.
  Mr. Harry Wallace: Will the hon. Member name a trade union which does not have a research department?
  Mr. Gunter: I said that I should need to be careful. I could name half a dozen or more which do not have a research department worthy of the name—those were my words. We still have a lot to learn in the unions in the development of research departments which can assist in educating our members and enabling them to play their part in joint consultation.
  Another point that we ought to get perfectly clear in our minds is that there is still a lot of confused talk about the meaning of joint consultation. There has been an amazing revival of the old syndicalist idea of direct workers' control in certain sections of labour. In my opinion, it is impossible to envisage any great development in the sphere of joint consultation if we imagine that this old, woolly idea of workers' control can operate. In the last resort management must be allowed to manage and to make decisions and must accept the responsibility. What we seek is that their decisions and policy shall be translated to the workers so that they may understand their objectives and thereby help to ensure that co-operation which can result in much better and higher production. I cannot leave the trade union side without expressing my belief that the majority of trade unionists do not desire to see the establishment of workers' control, as it is sometimes called. What we desire and demand is the maximum of co-operation and consultation, so that we may make our maximum contribution to the national effort.
  I should like to say one other thing from our experience of joint consultation in the nationalised industries. Never before in the history of transport, for instance, did we have the machinery for consultation which we have today. There is sometimes a lot of talk from the other side about a diminution of the old family spirit, but we never saw much of that family spirit except in past years when sacrifices were required from the railwaymen. We have the machinery, but it is not working as successfully as it ought because we still have men on the management side who were brought up in the old atmosphere and who still suffer from
  1250
  suspicions in the same way as some of the workers are suffering. We have on the management side, men who still find it impossible to believe that the workpeople ought to be consulted. What we require is that the top-level spirit and atmosphere of consultation shall filter down.
  I believe that the Railway Executive is quite honest and sincere in its desire to see consultation reach the highest degree of success, but it is at the lower levels that we meet difficulties. It is, therefore incumbent on the Railway Executive or those at the top to ensure that those holding less important posts in the structure shall be brought to understand what is required of them, that consultation shall not be merely a formal process of listening to what workers have to say about this or that, but that it shall be really a matter of the spirit and that they ought to accept the contributions of the workers, give them their full and proper value and use them, when at all possible. We also feel in transport that in the lower regions there is still too small a desire on the part of the management to give the fullest information to the men. One cannot really consult if those representing the workers are in ignorance of half the facts—facts which they can only obtain from the management. There must be that willingness to give and to let the workers really feel they have the fullest information.
  The country has gone a long way and we have much to be proud of. I believe we can write an even more glorious page of history if both sides of industry will recognise the urgency of the task before them, and try now to build up the happiest spirit of co-operation and mutual trust. I am sure we shall see the results in a far greater contribution to the national effort, for in the last resort the purpose of joint consultation and the purpose of all our efforts is to see this nation once more strong, firm and proud in its independence, and this is one of the factors by which that can be achieved.
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. Wade: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) on introducing this subject. He has performed a very valuable service in making this discussion possible. All hon. Members will agree that the contributions that have been made have been valuable and useful. I

  1251
  think it would be fair to say, although this is not an occasion on which speeches of a party political nature are being made, that the party to which I belong have for years been deeply interested in the subject of industrial relations. After all, it was a Liberal who was the chairman of a committee which recommended the setting up of joint industrial councils—I mean the Whitley Councils. I think it unfortunate that more progress was not made in the days after the 1914–18 war in the setting up of joint industrial councils. Some say that it was partly due to lack of adequate powers, but in the main it was due to the prevailing suspicion of both sides which has been only gradually broken down.
  I might perhaps remind the House that between 1930 and 1934 a series of Bills was introduced by Members of the Liberal Party—the National Industrial Councils Bill, the Industrial Councils Bill and the Works Councils Bill. If I might put a little variation into the theme about the bad old days before the war, I would point out that none of those Bills reached a Second Reading because there was not sufficient interest on the part of the Government, or of supporters of the Government, of the day.
  We are concerned with the present and the future rather than the past, and I agree with other hon. Members that there has been a change of outlook and this change of outlook is most important. I quote from a leading article in "The Times" of 20th April, 1947, which refers to some remarks of Mr. W. B. D. Brown of the Glacier Metal Company:
  "The phrase 'joint consultation,'" says Mr. W. B. D. Brown, of the Glacier Metal Company, one of the most successful practitioners of joint consultation, "should convey an attitude of mind rather than a clearly defined process. Its function is ultimately to get rid of the division of factories into 'bosses and the rest' which still colours the background thinking of most people."
  I think there is general agreement that this change of outlook is necessary.
  I wish to make a few remarks on the purpose of joint consultation rather than on machinery. The machinery is most important, but even more important is the purpose. I would agree that roughly there are three kinds. There is consultation over wages and general conditions
  1252
  in which the unions are particularly concerned, although, I am not suggesting that they are not equally concerned with other aspects of joint consultation. Secondly, there are various advisory bodies dealing with the policy of an industry, and thirdly, forms of joint consultation at the factory level, or in the individual firm—works councils and joint production committees. While I appreciate the need for consultation at a high level, I wish to stress the vital importance of consultation at the factory level. The ultimate object of all this consultation is to create a real partnership, and to get that real partnership there must be consultation at the factory level.
  I know there are still some sceptics who do not agree with this idealism. Although they have been absent from the House today, there are still employers who think that a worker is interested only in his pay packet and who regard him as a mere name or number on the pay roll; but they are not the enlightened employers. There are still some trade unionists who are a bit afraid of works councils and joint production committees, but they are not among the more enlightened trade unionists.
  Assuming that joint consultation is desirable, there are certain conditions which must be satisfied. The first is the obvious one of right personal relationships, because human relationships in industry count for so much. If only we could solve this problem of the right relationships in industry, I believe that we could increase productivity from 20 per cent. to 100 per cent. varying in different firms and industries. I believe we could do that in spite of the fact that in many cases our machinery is out-of-date compared with that of the United States. I believe much more could be done with the aid of joint consultation in the way of welfare, because, valuable as welfare schemes are, they are not enough unless they are combined with joint consultation.
  I quote again, this time from the "Financial Times" of 30th January last. In an article written by a managing director, he stated:
  "I am always sceptical of claims that the introduction of this or that change has resulted in a phenomenal increase in productivity, but, during the four post-war years, the productivity of my factory (administrative staff included) has increased by about 28 per cent.

  1253
  above the figure for 1937–38, our best previous year. This increased productivity has not been due to new machinery because we have not yet been able to instal any of any consequence. The one big change to account for the improvement has been the steady intensification of our welfare activities."
  That is the first point, the right human relationships. The second, which has also been mentioned by other speakers, is the need for absolute frankness on the part of management. The danger of giving away secrets is not nearly so great as the harm that comes from being too "close" in dealing with employees. I believe that we get the ideal form of co-partnership, co-operation or whatever one cares to call it, when we have a sharing of ownership, a sharing of profits and a sharing of knowledge and responsibility.
  It is the last aspect which we are discussing today, the sharing of knowledge and responsibility, which is absolutely essential. That does not mean that the work in any kind of industrial concern can be run by workers' committees. There is all the difference between sharing knowledge and control by a committee of workers. I am not for one moment advocating that syndicalist point of view. It might contribute a little light relief if I referred to one of the very earliest known cases of co-partnership. In the days at the beginning of the last century a certain Lord Wallscourt introduced profit-sharing and a form of what we should now call consultative machinery on his farm. It was very unusual to introduce this principle into farming. He made the following comment in 1846, after it had been in operation for some time:
  "I have tried the plan for 17 years, and have found it to answer much beyond my hopes, inasmuch as it completely identifies the workmen with the success of the farm, besides giving me full liberty to travel on the Continent for a year at a time, and upon my return I have always found that the farm had prospered more than when I was present."
  Neither I nor anyone else here is advocating that.
  What I am leading up to is that there are firms in which there are works committees, and which stop at that; the owners are not in favour of joint production committees. My belief, with which the majority of Members here will agree, is that the workers have a valuable contribution to make on the subject of production and efficiency if only their recommendations are taken seriously. I regret
  1254
  the going out of existence of a number of the joint production committees.
  Assuming it to be desirable that the men should make their contribution on these various committees in the matter of production and increased efficiency, three things should follow, and it is on these that I am asking for the opinion of those with greater experience than myself in the working of consultative machinery. One is that if there should be an increase in profits is it not fair that in those circumstances there should be a fair sharing of those increases in profits amongst all concerned, management and men, and not only among capital investors? The second concerns the fact that we come up almost immediately against the problem of restrictive practices, and that increased production and greater efficiency cannot be brought about unless we face the whole problem of restrictive practices in industry. The third point, which is closely bound up with the second concerns the problem of redundancy which may follow as a result of increased productivity.
  Mr. A. Edward Davies: Which restrictive practices has the hon Member in mind, because this charge is often flung about? We should like more precise evidence.
  Mr. Wade: Certainly. One example I had in mind was where new machinery is introduced which can cut down the number of men required from three to one, and where the three men are retained. That is the kind of thing I had in mind. That leads me to my further point that there is this feeling that increased productivity may result in a man's pals being thrown off. That is what I mean by redundancy.
  Mr. Mikardo: Can the hon. Member really quote a single current example of the generalisation which he has just made, namely that where a machine can be introduced to reduce the amount of labour required, workers resist its introduction?
  Mr. Wade: If the hon. Member will give me time, I will check some of the cases that have been given to me.
  In connection with redundancy, the point I am advocating, with which I do not think hon. Members opposite will disagree, is that consultative machinery

  1255
  is valuable in dealing with this subject. I would recommend to anyone who is interested an article in the March issue of "Business," the journal of management in industry. It describes how this problem was successfully faced by joint consultation. There had to be a considerable reduction in the number of employees and the matter was smoothly dealt with by joint consultation.
  My last theme, which is less controversial than the one I have been questioned about, is this aspect of there being two sides in industry. This has not arisen only since we have had large-scale industry. To take Yorkshire as an example, and looking back over a hundred years, the position was that of the master manufacturer working in his own home with one or two assistants. Then came the Industrial Revolution, but even then for a time master and men lived close together round the factory and the mill. There was still the feeling that "This is our show": there was still a kind of consultative machinery. Then as the employer became better off, he went to live outside the town in a large house. It was then that the beginning was seen of two sides in industry, with too much overcrowding of the workers in the towns.
  We are still suffering from that great divide, which was brought about long before we had large-scale industry. Whatever may be our views on the subject upon which I have been questioned, I am sure we all agree that it is of vital importance that we should bring to an end this division into two camps, that we should end the feeling of there being two sides in industry by the creation of a real partnership. Only in that way shall we surmount the difficulties which face industry in the future.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Jack Jones: I welcome the opportunity of taking part in what I consider to be a very healthy and, up to now, very constructive Debate on this highly important problem. I should like to compliment my hon. Friend who opened the Debate on the way he presented the case and I should also like to compliment the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) who followed from the Opposition Front Bench. There are
  1256
  occasions when the House at all events by what is said seems to reach a measure of agreement. But it is not what is said here today in this Debate that really matters. Honeyed words seem all right, but it is the implementation hereafter with which I am vitally concerned. I have read the pamphlet that the Opposition presented today with such gusto and I would suggest that if one-twentieth, or indeed one-fiftieth part of its proposals had been carried out in the last 20 years 4ve should not be having this Debate about joint consultation in industry.
  I am tempted to offer the suggestion that that pamphlet, designed, as it is, for electioneering purposes, tells a rather different story from the one which could be told about industrial relationships of the past. But all that is water which has flowed under the bridge. All that has happened in the past will not help tomorrow, and it is with tomorrow that we are concerned. Industry, today, is insolubly tied up with our economy. So far as I can see our economy is tied up with our policy; therefore it is a good thing that those of us who are expected to create policy, and to implement it, should take part in this Debate.
  Joint consultation? Yes. But at what level? For what purpose? How far shall it go, and by whom? That is the problem. I suppose there are hon. Members present who would say, "You come from an industry that does not have any industrial problems, so what do you know about it? "I would suggest that those in an industry which shows signs of having reached a great measure of agreement are those who have learned something about industrial negotiations, who have succeeded, with the least amount of trouble, in establishing a practical foundation; and who have made sensible and constructive attempts to solve this problem.
  There are all sorts of consultations. There is the consultation with the doctor, when he is the specialist who says what he thinks should be done, and prescribes something with which it is done. Never yet have I gone to a meeting—and I have attended many thousands of them—and been allowed to suggest a formula for what I think would be good for me. I have never been at a meeting round an industrial board, where I was allowed to suggest what should be put into the

  1257
  pay packets of the directors. I have always attended meetings where the directors have had the opportunity and the ability to suggest what would be good for me—right down to the fourth decimal point of a penny per ton for some very valuable steel.
  This Debate is of the greatest importance to productivity, which is the most vital thing of all. I may claim in all humility to have spent a considerable time during the last few years in talking to all sorts of people in all sorts of industries; and I would say that there has been a great measure of progress made within industry. I know that there are hon. Members in this House who believe that we should have Utopia because we have a Socialist Government. But we had a war, when men did not have the time to discuss and go into this great problem. We therefore find ourselves with a post-war problem of great magnitude; not having had the opportunity to attune our minds—this applies particularly to the workers in factories—to our responsibilities. I am often asked: What is the biggest problem of this Government, what is one of its biggest headaches? I reply that it is to get into the hearts and minds, of all men, and not only of managements, a sense of their responsibility to themselves, to their employers and to the nation.
  The vital question is, consultation for what? In the interests of our national recovery? If that is so, the answer is "Yes." But if it is in the interest of increasing dividends, that, of course, is another story. Why should I attend a meeting of a joint consultation body, or productivity committee, a safety first committee, or a works savings committee—I could go through the whole gamut, having attended so many of them? Why should I be there? What for? If it is suggested by the Opposition that there should be joint consultations for and on behalf of our national recovery and national economy, I think we should be 100 per cent. agreed. If however, we are to be told by the older generation of management—and here I would pay tribute to the newer generation of management—"You shall do this as a number of individual"—so that Mr. A. or Mr. B. or somebody else shall benefit—we shall not get very far.
  1258
  In my time I have taken part not only in joint consultations inside my own industry, but I have made it my business to try to find out what things are discussed in joint consultation committees and joint production committees in the various works which I have had the privilege of visiting. There are our own employees in the Royal Ordnance Factories, which is a case in point. I have considerable experience of dealing with a few people who felt that the exploitation of their fellow men and of the country was the right thing to do. If we go to the ordinary British working man and put to him a clear-cut case, in language which he can understand, we shall always get a ready response. If, however, we make the case complex; if we present it in a way he does not understand, using legal jargon and terms which are often heard in this House and which perplex him, we shall get no results.
  It is true that extreme Left wing exploiters of our economy have taken advantage of opportunities for infiltration. But that is not the fault of the management. When speaking of the trade union movement I have always said that a wrong man put into a position of responsibility did not put himself there. He was elected at some time because of the apathy of the very decent fellows. But that phase is passing. I think we have seen the end of it, and are now seeing the realisation by our people of the needs of the country.
  The question is, what shall be discussed at these joint consultations? The cold cup of tea? Yes. The fellow who did not quite do his job. The canteen, the potatoes which were not as hot they ought to have been? Yes. The foreman who was a little arrogant, and did not like the colour of the eyes of the chef who said something to a relative somewhere else? Yes. But when we get to the higher levels; when we want to see what is happening to the company's accounts; when we get to the question of what are the costs of raw materials; what is the effect of devaluation upon the company's order books; what is the effect of a change in currency in a country where the completed orders are to go—when we get to the higher managerial functions very often, too often, we find

  1259
  that the management take the line that, "This is not your business."
  I wish to make a suggestion, and I am not speaking particularly of my own industry. As I have already said, each man in my industry is almost a production unit on his own. He has to get the tonnage. If he does not get the tonnage he gets no "brass"; and if he gets no "brass" he starves, so he has to be almost a production committee himself to ensure that he lives. I believe the time has arrived when we should go much further than having people elected to represent their fellow men and to meet those selected by the managing director to meet them.
  I am an advocate of mass meetings of men in factories, at which the position would be explained to them. I say that any employer who would allow time for his employees to attend such mass meetings, and pay them to attend, would get results that would stagger him—provided that the person who addresses the meeting knew his job and explained the position to the men in language which they could understand. There is a great future to be explored in the direction of mass meetings, with the men being brought together by the management, along with responsible trade union officials, to discuss the whys and wherefors of their position.
  I had the privilege of visiting a factory where there were £7 million worth of orders on the book and tens of thousands of pounds worth of dollar orders were being refused. Yet the men were working a straight 40-hour week. I suggested that something should be done in the way of overtime. All hon. Members know what I said, and I make no apology for having said it. I suggested that some of the orders should be cleared more quickly, and the management said that they did not think that the men would like that. When the men were questioned, they said that the management had not asked them. When the two sides were brought together, within a few days of joint consultation, they found that there was much common ground and the men immediately started Saturday morning work. The products began to flow out more freely, and the firm were able to book orders which earn dollars so vital for the purchase of the food on which we live.
  1260
  The problem is to know the line of demarcation, to know where to start and finish. There is accredited machinery to deal with wages. One of my hon. Friends spoke about trade union officials coming to London. Of course, they come to London nowadays on wage problems which they fail to settle at the local level. That does not mean that there has to be this remote idea of wage control. It is because managements have set the pattern of always coming to London to meet other directors who are working in conjunction with them—or sometimes in opposition—to find what rates are being paid, because they are afraid that there will be unfair competition if they pay a slightly higher rate. The trade union official is following the example set by management.
  At the General Election we found that the Conservative Party polled 12 million votes in support of their policy, advanced in "This is the Road," of a far better standard of existence for the workers than that which we ourselves had put forward. That was electioneering, of course. If we can get the 12 million people who voted for that policy to implement it along with the 13,250,000 who supported the Labour candidates and their policy of keeping con
  ditions from becoming no worse, then this country has not much need to worry. The important question is whether we intend to implement what is said in this House. Does industry, as represented by hon. Members opposite, really mean business at last? I hope that it does.
  There are industries which desperately need to be investigated. I have a little, though not considerable, knowledge of the textile industry. There is an opportunity for the trade unions, of which there are literally hundreds in the one industry, to get together on joint consultation within their own ranks. There are vital problems to be solved. I trust that as a result of this Debate, with what I construe to be the promises which had been made, something will be done.
  I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), a very good personal friend, who has had considerable knowledge of industry. I often wonder why the hon. Gentleman does not sit on this side of the

  1261
  House. His long, wide and varied experience has given him the opportunity to speak with real authority about conditions from the bottom to the top—
  Mr. McCorquodale: That is why he is here.
  Mr. Jones: Not necessarily. It may be because of the company he keeps, rather than from a sincere conviction of what he really thinks he ought to do.
  I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour on his appointment. He has had experience as a convenor of one of our biggest shops in an industry which is of vital importance. I know that the intentions of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary are strictly honourable. If the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite are implemented, nobody will be better pleased than we on this side of the House.
  Never in the history of Britain was it so vitally necessary as it is today that there should be harmony in industry and a maximum effort by all, from the very top to the very bottom, to produce efficiently the highest possible volume of goods of the highest possible quality at the lowest possible cost. Unless we do that, then, despite all we do as politicians about the economics of the situation, the new, approaching attack upon the world's markets by Germany, Japan and other nations will show that any opportunity arising from our own faults will be exploited to the full to our detriment. Goodness knows, the industrial rope has been frayed enough in the past. We can no longer afford to have these divisions. I welcome the opportunity of having been able to make a contribution to this Debate as one who comes from an industry which has a harmony in production which is a pattern for the world.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Orr-Ewing: The whole House has been extremely interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones). He speaks with the advantage of many years' practical experience of the difficulties which are to be met in achieving what we all want to bring about, namely, an extension of joint consultation. I was specially interested in what he said about the policy of the party to which I belong as it was set out at the
  1262
  time of the General Election. I rather gathered that if he were convinced that we on this side of the House are sincere in putting forward that policy and that we would do everything we could to, implement it, he would join with us and support our action. As he ended by saying that this is the most important step that could be taken for the good of industry, no doubt he would go so far as to join us on this side of the House.
  Perhaps that may be a little optimistic, but at least we have found on the Floor of the House a common aim and a great deal of agreement about the steps which should be taken towards that common aim. That, in itself, may be of encouragement to the country and of encouragement, and possibly of example, to industry. The hon. Gentleman made one remark which was a little alarming. It showed how deep still runs the suspicion of which he spoke and of which, I think it is right to say, he showed dislike. It was a suspicion that if both workers and management enter into joint consultation, they will merely plan to add to the profits and dividends of the firm concerned. I hope that he did not mean to imply that that feeling was widespread. I do not believe that it is.
  Mr. Jack Jones: I said that where the workers had the feeling that the joint consultation in which they took part would result in increased profits for individuals, they would not put forward the same effort as they would if they knew that the joint consultation was for and on behalf of the recovery and betterment of Britain.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I see the point. Surely, the answer is that there must be something wrong with the wage structure, or something else, if in fact added efficiency does not get the additional reward which it deserves. I think that side of the matter is outside the normal scope of joint consultation as we are discussing it today. It is far better left in the hands of the recognised authorities, such as the unions and the employers' federations—
  It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by the direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for Taking Private Business), further proceeding stood postponed.

  WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [By Order]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think this Bill will detain the House for very long, although there are one or two points in it to which some of my hon. Friend and I take exception. The Bill gives to Government Corporations powers which are new so far as these bodies are concerned. For example, we do not like Clause 87 (12) and (14), nor Clause 89 (3). These subsections give nationalised industries special immunities; and, if they are allowed in Wolverhampton, there is a danger that this Bill might become a precedent for their doing things which other industries are not allowed to do.
  We are not proposing tonight to ask the House to divide in favour of any instructions to the Committee, but we would like to put on record our views in regard to these Clauses. We see no reason why a nationalised industry which claims to be a model employer should need these powers. It may be that the Committee upstairs may decide to take these powers out of the Bill, and we hope that they will give the most careful examination to these particular Clauses. If the Opposition find that these Clauses remain in the Bill, and if at any time, in our view, the powers given are abused, or if, on further consideration, we so decide, we shall not hesitate to oppose the inclusion of any similar powers in any future local legislation.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wish very briefly to reinforce the hope expressed by my hon. Friend that the Committee dealing with this Bill will look very closely at the privileged position created in it for the British Electricity Authority and the National Coal Board. It is particularly ironical to one coming from Wolverhampton to find that the British Electricity Authority are to be given exemption from this particular oblige-
  1264
  tion; for it so happens that in Wolverhampton one of the greatest, if not the greatest, public nuisances and dangers to health arises from an installation of the British Electricity Authority. It is a cooling tower of that authority which, in most conditions of weather, drenches with a thin rain a considerable area of the borough of Wolverhampton, an area in which the houses, walls and streets are practically never dry.
  Those of us who are interested in this problem were glad to learn some months ago from an announcement of the British Electricity Authority that these difficulties have been successfully combated in Darlington, and I suggest that, until the British Electricity Authority put their own house in order wherever they are operating these installations, they have no right to expect exemption, upon the grounds of being model undertakers, from conditions which are imposed upon private enterprise.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Williams: I want to draw the attention of the House to Clause 66 (1, e), in which the Corporation are given power by notice
  "to prohibit persons from entering upon or causing or permitting horses, cattle or vehicles to enter upon any such grass verge or garden."
  This is really a Committee point, but, as one will not have the chance of bringing it up on the Committee stage, I should like to direct the attention of the House to it. Why the Corporation should wish to prohibit persons or horses from entering upon grass verges, I do not know. It might be reasonable to keep horses off, if the grass verges are mown or fenced off, or bedded with flowers, but in these days, when roads are very dangerous for any equestrian who wants to preserve his life, he likes to get on grass verges, but this, under the provisions of the Bill, the Corporation would have power to prohibit. Formerly, when Bills similar to this were brought before the House, such a Clause usually read:
  "grass verges mown or maintained by the Corporation in an ornamental condition."
  It would be a great improvement to the Bill if this old wording were used in the present case, because this is a matter of general interest, not only to people who ride horses, but also to motorists, who would like to keep the horses on the verges.
  7.7 p.m.
  Sir John Mellor: I should like to add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), and to say that we reserve the right, in the case of any future Private Bills, to object to Clauses by which nationalised industries are given a privileged position. I should like, for myself, to reserve the right on Report stage, should this Bill emerge from the Committee with Clauses 87 and 89 still included in it, to move that they be deleted.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. Snow: While I realise that the Opposition are using a Private Bill as a means for an attack on the nationalised industries, I am rather inclined to agree with what the hon. Gentleman said just now, except in connection with the inclusion of Clause 87 (12), which relates to railways, as I am advised that there are many precedents for it. In fact, under other Private Bills railways were excluded in a specific exemption. In the case of subsection 14, however, the British Electricity Authority are given exemption, and I am rather inclined to agree that this should be included in subsection (6), though I think that most of these points can be left for consideration by the Committee, and I am quite content that the Bill should be considered in detail by them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  SUPPLY
  [9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  SUPPLY

  JOINT CONSULTATION IN INDUSTRY
  Postponed proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," which Amendment was to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "in the opinion of this House the fullest possible measure of voluntary co-operation
  1266
  between management and workpeople is essential if productivity is to be increased and good industrial relations maintained as the national interest requires, and this House urges the Government to continue its efforts through the national organisations of employers, and workers to encourage the practice of joint consultation on matters of common interest to management and workpeople in the factory and workshop and the development of appropriate joint consultative machinery."
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  7.9 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Orr-Ewing: When we interrupted our proceedings to deal with other Business, I was addressing my remarks very largely towards the observations of the hon. Member for Rotherham who unfortunately has been deterred by other Business from remaining in his place, and therefore I must turn to the points raised in one of the most interesting speeches of the whole afternoon, that which we heard from the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Gunter).
  The hon. Gentleman voiced another form of suspicion which can do much to destroy the valuable work of joint consultation—namely, the suspicion that if steps are taken jointly to increase the rate of productivity, the job will come to an end all too quickly and the workers themselves become redundant. The hon. Member suggested—and I do not think he exaggerated the existence of such fears—that these apprehensions were holding back representatives of the workers from, taking a more active part in joint consultative bodies.
  I should have thought that with what one might call the slightest amount of education and help from the unions themselves, such fears could be overcome. I rather agreed with what was said by the hon. Member for Rotherham, and I do not think that anything in the nature of a "pep" talk from an employer is going to remove that fear. I believe it would be much more helpful if, as was suggested, a certain amount of work of an educational character were carried out by the unions themselves in order to dispel that sort of fear. After all, once the committee—whatever name is given to it—is set up, and if it is a practical one, it is exactly issues of this sort which will come before it.

  1267
  For some 25 years, long before the idea became fashionable, I played some part in joint consultative committees in industry. It is exactly those sorts of points and difficulties which can be explained in that way, and the facts put before both sides and laid openly on the table. Very often, indeed, suggestions come from most unexpected quarters and help to deal, for instance, with the very unpleasant business of redundancy or the shifting of people from one shop to another and so on. I believe it is only when such matters are openly discussed in joint consultative committees that those committees really reach their full value.
  The very serious question which was posed of how far a joint consultative committee has the right to go is obviously a problem which we must face. I agree that such committees should go as far as they possibly can in probing into the interests of the firm. How far does that mean? I believe it is of interest to all those engaged in management and the workers to know what for instance is the effect of devaluation in relation to the obtaining of export orders. It is up to managements to disclose in the factory that other firms have possibly quoted better prices, and that an order has been refused or passed over, because it is when we are up against the effect of competition that all sides of a firm put their heads together and say, "We must do something about this and in some way reduce our costs." It is only by bringing people up against practical difficulties of that nature that we shall get a really practical approach to the problems confronting firms, which is so necessary if these joint consultative committees are to be of any value at all.
  It has been said several times already this afternoon that joint consultation really existed at the beginning of the build-up of our industries in this country, and that we are now coming back into the era when no such system existed and, because it was not there, we rather tended to go back. I believe that we can revitalise and re-interest in a human way all those engaged in industry, so that we can go forward as a team.
  There is another reason for great urgency in encouraging these committees and in seeing that they are practical bodies. One sees in the vast field of
  1268
  engineering—which in all its aspects covers a tremendous proportion of the total industry of this country—something very remarkable which has been taking place for the last 10 or 15 years. It is that the skill in the engineering works is being concentrated more and more at the two extreme ends of production. A tremendous amount of skill goes into preproduction methods and into the tool room, but the amount of skill now necessary at the bench and on the machine is nothing like what it used to be. A greater amount of skill is demanded at the end of the production line on assembly, because skill in industry tends to be concentrated more and more at the beginning and at the end.
  The effect of that is going to be very serious unless we keep those who require less skill very strongly in the picture. Once they get the feeling that they do not matter quite so much, and that all the attention is being paid to either one end or the other, we shall be in a very unhealthy position. Therefore, it is important that that aspect should be carefully studied, and that fair representation should be guaranteed to every section of productivity in any works where joint consultation takes place.
  I have only one further remark to make, because so much has already been so admirably said from both sides on the subject. First, I do not believe that on these committees we can think solely and simply of production problems in the mechanical sense. I believe that far more could be done through those committees—in the first instance and not at the end of the story—talking about the finished product. It is an extraordinary thing, but as one goes round the country visiting different firms one finds how very few people ever see the finished product at all. What an awful mistake that is. What an awful mistake it is that where the little piece goes is not pointed out and explained, so that the actual individual responsible for its manufacture finds himself, as it were, in the machine and in his part of it. If that sort of thing is properly dealt with, what a tremendous difference it makes.
  It is to problems of this sort that I think joint consultative bodies should pay a great deal more attention. They should bring the product right back on to the bench in its finished form, and

  1269
  show where that hit of life which a man has put into his work fits into a machine which may be travelling right across the world and earning us valuable dollars, or otherwise helping us to live. The educational value of these committees to both sides of industry is realised more today than ever before. If we regard these committees as very largely educational bodies, whilst at the same time insisting that they must be absolutely practical and not just talking shops, we shall be building up a better, a more human and a more efficient standard in our industries in this country, and shall deserve very well of those who will take their place in the tremendous productive effort of this country, not only in the immediately coming months, but in later years.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. Tomney: It is appropriate that the subject of today's Debate has followed so closely on the subject of yesterday's Debate, because the two, taken together, can provide us with an answer to most of our industrial problems. The industrial might of England was, I believe, built up on the capacity to produce capital equipment, and it is rather paradoxical to find, for instance, that the development areas, which were discussed yesterday, are also in close proximity to those areas which have always manufactured and developed capital goods. I believe that the first call upon the industry of our country will be upon its capacity to recapture its markets in capital goods. By so doing, we shall be able to build up permanent markets wherever we send our goods, and maintain our system of imports and re-exports.
  I wish to deal, briefly, with the position of joint production committees as they affect chiefly the Engineering and Allied Employers' Federation. The whole range of industries covered by the Federation constitutes that portion of industry which will be in direct competition with other industries throughout the world. It is essential that the wheels should run as smoothly as possible in these industries. It is no surprise to me to find that joint production committees, as such, are becoming fewer in these industries. There is a reason for it, which I will explain later.
  I want to deal, first, with the huge impetus given to and the mushroom development of joint production committees
  1270
  during the war years. There was a great drive for munitions, and, in all factories directly connected with munitions and instruments of war, production committees were most effective. Provisions relating to payment of wages and bonuses and the provision of welfare amenities were more elastic, perhaps, in those industries than in the older established light industries and in the engineering industries. The influence of the production committees has seriously declined in these industries since the cessation of hostilities. That decline has been felt throughout the whole range of the engineering industry. The reason for it was that the trade union movement in the engineering industry has always been firmly established and the shop stewards' committees and the joint shop stewards' committees have been something distinct and separate from the joint consultative production committees.
  I believe it was in 1941, when the then Minister of Labour first instituted joint production committees, that the established shop stewards' committees gave them careful consideration. They decided to take part in them chiefly as a means of furthering the war effort. A great amount of good work was done, but eventually we found that they were coming to a full stop at the very time when they were just becoming really efficient and really sharing in the functions of management. At the end of the war those committees were told, in no uncertain terms, that management was the function of management and that they must always work within their terms of reference, which were strictly that they were advisory and consultative committees. That was the position, although all people engaged in industry today are not so engaged solely from the personal point of view but chiefly from the point of view that industry matters not only to the owners but to the workpeople, too. It is our life and our future.
  We therefore sought executive powers in industry for the joint consultative production committees. They were not forthcoming. That is where this process has broken down. The shop stewards' committees contended that they had men of ability within their ranks who were capable of taking executive decisions and carrying those decisions through to the workers to final completion. We split

  1271
  upon the demand for the production of the order books and the account books, the policy on profits and the programme of capital investment. That is where we parted company. I maintain that the difficulties we shall encounter in world trade will be of such a character that, whether we do it now or in the future, we shall have to get together on the basis of the fullest co-operation. We shall have to put the cards really on the table with regard to every aspect of industry, including profits and the distribution of profits.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) is concerned with an industry which, I think, has always had 100 per cent. trade union membership. It has always paid the highest wages but even in his industry there has never been a joint development or consultative council on the lines I visualise. This industry has tremendous potentialities. I refer chiefly to its photogravure side. I believe that on this side we can give a lead and a beating to the Americans, but we have not the same markets as the Americans. It is on those kinds of things that we ought to have a development council, as distinct from the father of the chapel, day-to-day trade union procedure of the factory.
  I want to join issue with the right hon. Gentleman on one point. I believe he mentioned that he was aware of some disruptive elements in industry which, from time to time, caused a certain amount of trouble by their tactics. I can assure him, in association with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), that from that point of view these elements are practically non-existent. The good, solid trade unionists in industry have seen just where these elements were leading them and have decided to dispense with them in no uncertain manner.
  This Debate has followed lines of "sweet reasonableness." We are all concerned with the future of our country. All sides of industry should make a real effort to get down to this problem. We can only do it by extending executive powers to the workers' representatives. If we do that, we shall begin to solve the problems associated with increased productivity and the maintenance of good industrial relations.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Heathcoat Amory: It is most encouraging to find the large amount of common ground disclosed on this most important subject today. I do not think I ever remember a Debate in which so many hon. Members from both sides of the House have sung their little songs in more pleasant harmony. I believe there was never a time when industrial relations in this country were better than they are at present. I believe, too, that progress has been made in this matter of joint consultation, even in the last few years. I know some of the seed has fallen on barren ground, but, on the other hand, some has come up and is really getting its roots in.
  There are today many factors bearing on our economic recovery that are outside our control. Here is one right within our control. The question is whether we are doing everything we can to help things forward. The question of industrial relations is important for two reasons. The first is that if we want the greatest possible efficiency and productivity—and, of course, we do—then we must create conditions in which the human beings engaged in industry will give of their best. Industry, after all, is, in its most important sense, an enormous conglomeration of human beings. Secondly, there is the aspect of the happiness of the individual working in industry. Even with shorter hours and longer holidays we are all destined to spend more of our lives at work than anywhere else. Therefore, it is important to kill the notion that work must be drudgery. That is a defeatist attitude, and I ant sure that if everything we can do is done to increase interest and pride in the job, there is no earthly reason why that notion should persist.
  We all realise the importance of productivity, but I feel that there is a special responsibility on us, as politicians, to say that we really want this scheme to succeed. We all have our own notions. Some of us believe in private enterprise: some of us believe in nationalisation, but we must face facts, and I think that the realistic and practical attitude which has been shown towards this question in this Debate is commendable. I would ask some hon. Members opposite to realise that private enterprise cannot function in an atmosphere of disparagement

  1273
  and doubt, and if it is denied the incentives on which it is based. I want to make it clear that I am throwing no bricks at the Minister of Labour. With great respect, I look on him as an excellent joint consulter, if I may use that phrase. We on this side, when once an industry has been nationalised and where it is clearly impracticable to denationalise it, must concentrate our whole efforts on doing everything we can to ensure that industry works as efficiently and happily as possible.
  There is the old question which, in the past, has so bedevilled the situation, of the division of the proceeds of industry, but I am quite sure that if we concentrate on doing all we can to see that the facts are known and understood that problem is soluble. When people understand the facts they are sensible; in general, one does get sensible solutions when once the facts are understood. I refer to such matters as: how capital is raised, what it is used for, the functions of profits and, perhaps more important, the functions of management. Personally, I believe that profit-sharing is a good way of identifying interests.
  One hon. Member opposite, earlier in the Debate, implied that there was something antagonistic between co-partnership and the trades unions. In any properly designed co-partnership scheme that is most certainly not the case. On this question of management there is a tendency in industry for the growth of management as a sort of third partner, between labour and capital. That, I think, will go much further, and I think it is perhaps hopeful, because management in its intermediate position can look at some of these matters in a rather more objective way than either labour or capital could do. I hope everything will be done to support the newly-established British Institute of Management, because that has a useful contribution to make.
  I want now to refer to my own rather limited experience of joint consultation; it is limited because it has covered only a comparatively few years, but I am a sincere believer in it. I believe it is a most important experiment in industrial democracy and, on the whole, I do not think we need feel in any way disappointed with its results. It is not, of course, a panacea for all troubles. It will not in itself supply the driving force necessary, but it is a valuable lubricant
  1274
  to the whole industrial machine. It is really just a natural reflection of a sensible attitude. The old master-man relationship, which was all right in the last century, does not fit the situation today.
  It is important that everybody in an organisation should be clear that there must always be order givers and order receivers, and the functions of the jobs of each should be clearly understood. Today, when people are given an order they like to be told why the order is given. The truth of that principle was discovered during the war. I think it was Field-Marshal Montgomery who always proceeded on the principle that he would rather run the risk of the enemy knowing of his plans than that his own troops should go into battle without knowing what was in his mind.
  I am reminded of the old sergeant-major story. I have told the story before now, to show the wrong way of giving an order. An old sergeant-major was in charge of a medical inspection, and a man came to have his eyes examined. The sergeant-major said, "Go in the next room and take your clothes off." The man replied, "But I have only come to have my eyes seen to." The sergeant-major shouted, "That does not matter; go in the next room and take your clothes off." So the man went into the other room where he saw a little man sitting on a bench without any clothes on at all. Said the man, "The sergeant-major told me to come in here and take my clothes off, but I am only having my seyes seen to." The little man without any clothes on replied, "You are lucky, mate; I only came to deliver a telegram."
  As far as my own experience goes, I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) said on this matter. First of all, consultation must be voluntary and spontaneous. Secondly, there must be absolute sincerity, and I agree that the initiative lies with the management. The management, in particular, must show that they really believe in this thing and mean to make it work. Then there must be no avoidable secrecy at all. Every bit of information that can be given should be given. Next, great patience is required. Sometimes people say that nothing except details are discussed. I agree that details are discussed, but I do not agree that in a well set up and well

  1275
  run joint consultation scheme only details are considered. Sometimes, too, things which at first sight appear to be details turn out, later, to be very far from details. But details do come into the matter.
  I remember a discussion in a factory, where there had been an epidemic of mice, on whether the factory cat was really beginning to lose its grip. After that question was disposed of the meeting turned to something of great importance. To show that we do deal with things of importance sometimes, I would like to mention that in a factory with which I am connected we called a special meeting of the works committee to meet the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, and a very pleasant meeting it was. Another thing we sometimes hear is "This is only of interest to small numbers, to minorities." Do not let us make the mistake of under-estimating the value of catering for energetic and interested minorities, because they are often very important indeed. This is a thing of slow growth, but I believe it is beginning in many places to get its roots in and to prove of great value.
  My own experience has taught me that joint consultation should be fostered most and first of all, at the lowest level. It is among the small intimate groups in the factories where the technique can best be learned, and from there it can easily be developed upwards. But it is quite difficult to make it go downwards if we start at the top and leave the lowest levels uncatered for. The results can be useful, especially in a two-way flow of information. I can only speak from the management point of view, but I do know that it can be most valuable and that one can learn from it a great deal that one could not learn in any other way.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Ian Orr-Ewing) in what he said about how often people in a factory do not know what is the finished product. In a factory in which I am interested we have tackled that problem by setting up something like a shop window inside the factory and in that window we put, every fortnight, a different product from the factory, describing all the departments which have contributed to it and how it has been made. I think that is one way in which this problem can be tackled.
  1276
  This two-way flow of information can lead to a steady growth of confidence which, in turn, leads to the thing which we want above everything else—a sense of common purpose. Sometimes I wonder whether there is anything in this direction which we can learn from the United States. I have been reading with great interest the reports of the Anglo-American Productivity Council and I think that the work they have been doing has been most useful. I doubt, however, whether there is much we can learn from America on joint consultation. In this country we can feel proud that we have the steadiest, most responsible, and most competent manpower in the world. In America I think they have the most alert manpower in the world, so there is something which we can teach each other.
  This may be too much of a generalisation, but, I think there is one thing we can learn from America: they believe that, generally, a profitable industry is the one which can pay the highest remuneration to those who work in it, can give the most secure employment and, in general, too, can give the best service to the consumer. The person who seeks to earn a profit or to obtain higher wages by improving his skill is not, therefore, a person to be disparaged.
  I believe that if these are the things we go for, then we shall do more than we can do in any other way to overcome our present difficulties. The absolute essentials are, first, responsible, efficient, vigorous and fair-minded management. That is the most important thing of all in industry and, in turn, it depends on following the principle of promotion by merit and by nothing else. Second, we must have the right incentives at all levels. Third, we must have a very high standard of individual responsibility and self-discipline, again at all levels, because without that no business can produce efficient results. Next, we want more productivity-mindedness, and that is a difficult thing to learn; and, last—and here it is that joint consultation can help tremendously—a sense of common purpose.
  If we can have these things everything will fall into shape; if we will forget our old squabbles and, with a sincere will, work together, we shall have the best industrial relations in the world and we then need have no fear for our industrial future, whatever difficulties lie ahead.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. H. Hynd: I find myself in almost complete agreement with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) although, if I have the time, I may deal later with one or two of the points he made. In particular, I want to say that from experience I thoroughly agree with him in his view that the whole idea of industrial relationships is essentially a British product. It is better understood in this country than anywhere else in the world, as far as I know. I have tried to lecture on this subject in other countries, but I have found it most difficult to get them to understand how the two sides of industry can co-operate in some of these matters.
  Indeed, so many expressions of unanimity have been uttered in this Debate today that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) must be a little worried as to whether he was justified in bringing this Amendment before the House, and as to whether he has been wasting our time. For my part I do not think he has been wasting our time because, although the wording of his Amendment might very well be accepted today without a Division and with a great deal of lip service from all parts of the House, I am bound to say that in my experience as a trade union official I am not quite so satisfied about the position as many hon. Members seem to be. There is no doubt at all that in many quarters a facade of these joint consultative committees is being set up which has no real substance behind it. In many cases the functions of the committees have been deliberately limited.
  So far as the spirit behind this work is concerned, I still have painful recollections of a Debate in the last Parliament when a remark was made from the other side of the Chamber to the effect that any employer who took part in the work of a development council would be regarded as a Quisling. When we come to discuss this question we must not ignore the fact that such a spirit still exists. I hope that today's Debate, if it has done nothing else, will have led to a little more agreement on the subject and perhaps to fewer remarks being made of the kind which I have just quoted—remarks which could cause difficulties in the future.
  This technique—one could almost call it a science—of industrial relationship has
  1278
  been growing for a long time—far too long; and the process, as other hon. Members have said, is far too slow. It is 30 years since Mr. Whitley produced his reports giving the country a fairly complete scheme, a three-tiered structure with joint industrial councils at the national level, joint district committees and works committees. In those reports at that time he visualised the fairly rapid adoption of machinery of that kind. He was very optimistic as to its development and in its final report his Committee said:
  "We believe that when joint councils have gained confidence and experience in dealing with the urgent problems of the moment they will find their sphere of usefulness to be much wider than they themselves imagined at their first inception."
  Unfortunately, that prophecy has not been borne out. There was a fairly rapid development during the war, but then there always is a rapid development of desirable things during a war, when people are prepared to waive their prejudices either from motives of patriotism or from motives of fear:
  "When the Devil was sick, the Devil a monk would be
  When the Devil was well, the Devil a monk was he."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) pointed out that at the end of the war there was a very quick run down of the joint production committees which had been so successful during the war.
  I turn now to the state of affairs at the present time. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not bring out an up-to-date edition of the industrial relations handbook. I have already asked for this by a Question in the House. The last edition was in 1944, and we ought to have a more up-to-date edition than that. That book shows that there is very great complexity in the machinery in the different industries. There is nothing against that, because British industry is like that. Every industry is different; its conditions and its history are different and, naturally, the machinery which has developed for the peculiar problems of particular industries varies from industry to industry. I have nothing against that at all, but we ought to have an up-to-date book so we may know exactly what the position is at the moment.
  My experience in this field has been confined to the railway service. There,

  1279
  there has been a change and a change for the better. One hon. Member on the other side of the House mentioned that when an industry is nationalised, things so from bad to worse—
  Sir William Darling: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hynd: —so far as consultative machinery and the trade unions are concerned, and of course, we have die-hards like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, who can still say "Hear, hear." However, it is not really the case at all, because since the railways have been nationalised, although we had negotiating machinery and consultative councils on the railways before nationalisation, an even better scheme has been developed. It is a scheme at the national level, and at the station level; in which not only all the ordinary, normal functions of these committees but matters of management are dealt with, though that is not to say the workers manage the industry.
  Mr. Charles Orr-Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? Will he tell me if he has read the Journal of the National Union of Railwaymen for January? Because there is an article there criticising very strongly the nationalisation picture.
  Mr. Hynd: I have not read the Journal of the National Union of Railwaymen for January. I do not happen to be a member of that union. I am a member of the Railway Clerks Association. We regard ourselves as superior to the N.U.R.
  Mr. Mikardo: Now my hon. Friend has started something.
  Mr. Hynd: However, I do not want to be too controversial on that point.
  Mr. Pannell: Will the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. Orr-Ewing) tell us what union he belongs to?
  Mr. C. Orr-Ewing: Certainly, since the hon. Gentleman asks. I belong to the Association of Scientific Workers, and here is my card.
  Mr. Diamond: For how long?
  Mr. Hynd: After that very gallant recruiting effort by my hon. Friend, let
  1280
  me continue by saying that whatever criticism may have appeared in the N.U.R. Journal, it is quite open to any union or body of workers to criticise the machinery, and I would not for a moment pretend to 'believe or to state that this machinery is perfect. Not at all. I could probably criticise it myself. However, the fact remains that for the first time there is a new development under which the railway unions are represented at the national level on a committee which deals with managerial functions. At the station level the workers are to be taken into consultation, and before a new policy is introduced they will be consulted about it, and if the management cannot see their way to adopt the suggestions of the workers they are given the reason why. That is a big step forward since nationalisation.
  Hon. Members may also be interested, if they care to follow up this matter, if I refer them to the March edition, the current number, of the Ministry of Labour Gazette, where they will see an explanation of the new machinery in the gas industry. There, the scope, so far as I can see, is even wider than it is in the railway industry. It deals not only with the development of the industry, and wages, hours and working conditions, but goes on to deal with health, welfare, efficiency in the operation of the services, the settlement of disputes, inventions, improvements in machinery and methods, new entrants into the industry, apprenticeship and training, statistics and information, the arrangements of lectures and the holding of conferences, and all that sort of thing.
  Squadron-Leader A. E. Cooper: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us whether it also deals with the question of profit sharing in the gas industry?
  Mr. Hynd: No, it does not. That is a different matter altogether.
  Squadron-Leader Cooper: No.
  Mr. Hynd: It does not, because it is not related to it, that is all. I dare say the question of profit sharing could be discussed under one of those headings such as methods of working in the industry, or wages and conditions; but I am not prepared to give an interpretation of that at the moment. It is quite possible, but I am not concerned with it, because I do not think it is related to

  1281
  the argument I am using. My point is that in the nationalised industries, far from their having been deterioration in this matter, there has been a very distinct improvement, to the advantage of the workers, and possibly to the advantage of the industries.
  The chief difficulty in this question is, Where do we draw the line? Various speakers have skated round this point. How can the workers be taken into consultation and how far must managements manage? Now, a final answer to that question has still to be found. It is a big problem; it is occupying the minds of the trade unions and, I hope, of the employers' organisations at this moment, because the answer has got to be found to that question before long. It may only come by means of trial and error, Probably it will. We usually do get the answers to these questions by methods of that kind in this country. However, I hope a suitable answer will be found before very long because until it is found we cannot get the ideal form of consultative machinery that, I think, we all want.
  If there is any fault at all in the machinery in the nationalised industries at present it is, as, I think, another hon. Member indicated, in the fact that there are too many of the managerial people who have been taken over from the former regime who have still got the old ideas and who have not yet learned how to act as managers of publicly owned industries. They still tend, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) mentioned, to occupy the middle places—not at the top, but in the middle; and there we have people who still tend to treat the committees with suspicion and to use them to the minimum extent instead of to the maximum. That has to be broken down, and I believe that it is being broken down.
  Lest it should be thought that I am too prejudiced in regard to the nationalised industries I should like to pay a tribute to a scheme that I came across in private industry. That was in Vauxhall Motors at Luton, where they have an excellent scheme of joint consultation which I think ought to be a model to many other employers in this country.
  With regard to the scope of the machinery. Several hon. Members have already talked about making the com-
  1282
  mittees really responsible—not just using them for all the awkward questions or minor matters of welfare. If they are given real responsibility I think that in most cases they will rise to the occasion.
  Mr. Osborne: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by "real responsibility," if they are not to take over the functions of management?
  Mr. Hynd: Yes. I meant much more important things than canteen questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let me give an example from practical experience in London Transport. There they draw out lines of promotion—things of that kind, giving them a large amount of responsibility. That is just the first example coming to my mind. No doubt many other and better examples could be quoted. We pat ourselves on the back about the development of this machinery, but I think there is another side to the medal.
  Despite the fact that it is 30 years since Whitley brought out his report and it is 20 years since the T.U.C. urged closer consultation, which they followed up with the Turner-Mond talks in 1928, even today we have in certain sections of industry die-hard employers who will just not face up to this matter. I am going to give an example, which was the subject of a Question to the Minister of Labour the other day about a bank, the Banque Belge pour I'Etranger where they have 70 per cent. of the staff—
  Sir W. Darling: What is the total number employed? Less than 100?
  Mr. Hynd: Not at all. The hon. Member is wrong in his facts.
  Mr. Diamond: As usual.
  Mr. Hynd: As usual. I have not got the figure with me, but speaking from memory I think it is something like 160. Anyway, the fact is that they have some 70 per cent. of the staff in membership, and yet the bank is refusing point-blank to give them anything like trade union recognition. What this bank is doing is what so many employers have been doing—and this is what we in the trade union movement complain about bitterly—is setting up what we call a "house committee"—by-passing the trade union movement and getting people inside the office or the factory to mobilise under the wing of the boss. Now that is not proper

  1283
  trade union recognition; it is not bona fide consultation, and it is quite wrong of hon. Members opposite to support that kind of thing, if they do. It is no good paying tribute to the disciplined and well-balanced trade unions on the one hand, and undermining their position by this kind of thing on the other. That is both wrong and dangerous.
  I thoroughly agreed with the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) when he drew attention to the phrase "voluntary co-operation" in the Amendment. Although I have mentioned the example of this bank, it does not mean that I am asking the Minister to impose anything compulsorily, because that would be futile. However, there is no doubt that the Minister can use a great deal of influence, and public opinion can be brought to bear against employers of that kind, to ensure that they back up the more enlightened employers and give the trade union recognition to which their staff are entitled.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) when he suggests that one of the essentials for such a committee is that the factory manager must always be in the chair. I suggest that it would be better for the chair to be occupied alternately by a representative of the management and a representative of the workers, as is done in certain industries. I believe that in that way much smoother working can be effected, and there would be much better relations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Gunter) made some remarks with which to my regret, I find myself in considerable disagreement. I am sorry he is not here when I say this, but he went out of his way to lecture the trade unions, and said they ought to educate their officials more in this matter; that they ought to polish up their machinery and deal with the whole subject in a much more efficient way. That is all very well so far as it goes, but the implication is that the stumbling block is always the trade union, which is certainly not the case. I believe that in nearly every case where those difficulties arise it is the workers who are putting on the pressure and the management who are putting up the opposition. If there is to be education of trade union officials, then I respectfully suggest that there is at least as much justification for education of
  1284
  managerial representatives in the science of industrial relations. In saying "at least as much justification," I am putting it as mildly as I can. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster said, that this is all the more necessary because there will be further developments in the science of industrial relations. There is a great future for it, and a great deal of study will have to be given to it if we are to achieve the proper results.
  In my opinion, the key to the whole matter, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), is the question: What is the purpose of setting up such a committee? That is the question to which we ought to apply ourselves. I would say that on the part of the management the purpose is to have better relationships with the workers, more efficiency, and to avoid trouble at the source. On the part of the workers, the reason for being on such committees is to have a greater say in their industry, to help in its efficiency, to see that they get a proper return for their labour, and also to avoid industrial disputes. Workers do not want industrial disputes; they try to avoid them as far as possible, and this is one of the best ways of doing so. But there is a further purpose. In the past the worker has too often been regarded as a number on the books. Too often have we seen the notice at the factory gate "No hands wanted" or "Hands wanted" as the case may be—although the latter much less frequently. The word "hands" embodies a conception of the workers which has been a great irritant in industrial relationships. If we get the joint consultation that we desire we can get away from that conception altogether and make the worker feel that he is a self-respecting human being.
  It has also been discovered, by both sides I believe, that when there is proper consultation it is of real benefit to them. The enlightened employer has found that it has paid him to go to a lot of trouble to get the right kind of consultation. Many employers have found that the workers who do the job do know something about it; that they have brains as well as hands; and the employer has benefited accordingly. On the other side the workers have discovered that the employer has some justification when he talks about financial difficulties, supply

  1285
  difficulties, or bottlenecks of various kinds. Accordingly, both sides have benefited. It will be a good investment for my right hon. Friend if he spends more on the development of joint consultative machinery. It will be an investment which will pay handsome dividends in the form of fewer industrial disputes. Industrial disputes are very expensive to the nation's economy, and it will be beneficial economically to spend a little more money on developing industrial relationships, thereby avoiding a tremendous amount of industrial trouble.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Orr-Ewing: I should like to follow up the remarks of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), who had to take a foreign bank as an example of the employer he had in mind.
  Mr. H. Hynd: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? Although the bank has a foreign name, it is British-controlled.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would say further that it has a very small number of employees. I would support my hon. Friend when he says the number is under 100.
  Mr. Mikardo: That does not put it right.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I understand that although it has the name of a Belgian bank, it is the British branch of that Belgian bank. I apologise if I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman.
  I shall not keep the House long, and I want to draw attention quite briefly to three matters. We have had from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) a reference—with which I am sure hon. Members on both sides will agree—to the relative smoothness of production which has occurred since 1945. We are now coming to the end of that period. It has been relatively easy to have pleasant conditions and understanding between management and men in the conditions which have existed in the postwar period, but there are three valid reasons why those conditions are now coming to an end.
  First, we have the impact of the buyers' market and the free winds of competition which will blow as a result. Secondly, we have the need to substitute materials, probably from non-dollar sources, as we
  1286
  try to close the dollar gap. Thirdly, I have no doubt that we shall see an extension of the principle under the Atlantic Pact whereby different Powers accept responsibilities for different portions of the defence programme. We have already seen a case in this country where contracts were cancelled and the Americans undertook to supply B29s.
  We are coming to a period between now and 1952—and I am sure that there can be no difference of opinion on this matter—when we may have interruptions in the smoothness of production. Surely, that is the exact period when the troublemakers—I refer, in particular, to the Communist Party—will seize on the difficulties of industrial firms to make trouble. I suggest that if we do not bring in joint consultation as rapidly as possible before this state of affairs develops, there will be really serious trouble and the productivity which we are all anxious to see increased more and more will fall right away as the result of Communist efforts. The sooner we get our joint production councils going in the most efficient manner, the safer will be the future and the smoother will be the production which we all desire.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. Joseph Hale: The tone of the House seems to be that there is a great feeling of agreement on this matter of joint consultation. It is not deliberately that I strike a note which is not actually in keeping with the tone of the Debate up to the moment. I believe that we are in great danger of overstressing the case of joint industrial consultation in this sense, that while it is a method of settling difficulties within industry and has served a very useful purpose up to now, we would be wise to understand that every employer who has introduced this method into his works does not necessarily subscribe voluntarily to the view that joint consultation is the best way of running his industry. It is rather that many employers bow to the weight of opinion. I think that those people are the people who are dangerous to the continuance of this method.
  I come from an engineering industry where, during the war years at any rate, joint consultation did work to the benefit of both sides of the industry. Since the war, I have entered another field of the

  1287
  engineering industry, and I think that very often the employer is only prepared to discuss matters which are of trivial importance to the workers, matters which very often are an insult to the intelligence of educated men within the industry.
  Let us realise that in these days the major part of the adult workers in an engineering establishment are educated almost up to the same level as the manager. Very often the manager has been drawn from the ranks, not because of superior technical knowledge but because he has a personality which enables him to run the men in a way which causes the least antagonism. I have found, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) said, that often when we get round the table in joint consultation, the only matter that the management are prepared to discuss is whether the tea is sweet enough or whether some other trivial matter of that character is pleasing the rank and file in the workshop.
  Surely we have reached a stage in our industrial development when we can go far beyond that in this matter of joint consultation. I agree with many hon. Members opposite that it would be dangerous if we abused the powers of the trade unions by these joint committees. I am one of the people who do not wish to usurp the functions of the management side. I have always believed in the rate for the job, and if the manager gets paid for it, he is going to do his job. That does not mean that I am not prepared, and that people like myself in industry are not prepared, to co-operate with the management to the joint benefit of the industry and of the country as a whole.
  The firm which I recently worked for had developed this consultation to something of a fine art. I have seen in that factory great changes since the management began to yield a little to the pressure put upon them from the workers' side. As has been said in this Debate, suspicion often exists on both sides when this matter of joint consultation is first introduced into industry. The manager feels that these fellows are going to run the place for him, and the workers feel that they are going to be used for the more unsavoury functions of management. There is little doubt that, if taken into the confidence of the managers, the
  1288
  workers are prepared to make sacrifices so that their industry may survive in these difficult times.
  It may be, and it most probably is, the fact that industry in this country will have to face far greater competition in the days to come than it is experiencing at the moment. The workers realise that their future is bound up with a particular industry just as is that of the employers. I feel that together they can make real strides in putting their respective industries in a position to compete when the heat is turned on in the competitive field. But what are the rewards going to be? It is quite true that, however much we may have been educated and however much we may have learned from industry, there is in the best of us something of the materialist. We are all prepared in times of crisis to give service to our country but that does not, or should not, blind us to the fact that most people on both sides of industry desire, and are determined to have, material reward for their services. Joint consultation can go a long way towards solving that problem, too.
  I recollect sitting in a joint industrial council where the workers in a particular industry complained—and this is not a rare complaint in these days—about the huge, profits being made out of their industry. They determined that these profits were being made largely at the expense of the people employed in that industry. What actually happened was that they had gone to a shop and seen on sale one of the commodities their factory produced. By adding two and two together, they found that that commodity cost only 1s. 1½d. to manufacture; in fact, it turned out later that the management sold to the distribution side of the industry for 1s. 1½d., and the workers got themselves into a great state of agitation because they were asked to pay 9s. in the shop for the same product which had left their hands at so reasonable a price.
  I think that in matters such as that, there is a large field in which, by consulting round the table, management and workers can find out what is in each other's minds. I am convinced that as soon as they find out what is in other's minds, neither side will not take on the rather threatening attitude which they sometimes appear to adopt. The hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) belongs to a branch of industry which,

  1289
  judging from what he said this afternoon, has made strides in this direction of joint consultation. Perhaps he falls into the same error as many of us by thinking that just because he behaves in a particular fashion towards his industry, so does everyone else. That, of course, is not true.
  Joint consultation can be brought into no greater discredit than by being operated by people who do not really believe in it. The Minister would do well to consider, even if it means expenditure, what steps he can take to further this method of settling differences within industry. I am not being ungrateful when I say that the possibilities of this method have not yet been reached. Although this is something that was introduced some 30 years ago, it is still in its infancy. If the employer's side of industry adopt the same attitude as Members opposite have shown today towards this question, and the workers take the same view as has been expressed from this side of the House, I feel sure that we shall go a long way towards running industry in a model way.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Drayson: I have been particularly struck by the tone of this Debate. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the question of profits in industry at the present time. I agree that a great deal of education of trade union officials and their members is required on this matter. As I have said before in this House, it is the job and responsibility of all trade union officials to be able to understand a company's balance-sheet, so that they can go through it with the management and ask for any elucidation on points that puzzle them. It has been suggested that some of these matters are secret, but the bulk of industry is run at present by public companies which publish their balance-sheets annually, either as a balance-sheet or in the financial journals. It is only a small section of industry that is operated by private concerns.
  Mr. Diamond: Has the hon. Member ever taken the trouble to see how much information is published in these public company balance-sheets, particularly in regard to the trading accounts in which the workers are interested, or will he accept it from me that in most cases the amount of information is nil?
  Mr. Drayson: I would not agree with that at all. It is clearly laid down under the Companies Act what information shall be given, and as a result of the Cohen Report, far greater information is being given now that in years gone by. It is only on the details on the trading side, which might be of use to competitors, that managements exercise discretion in the amount of information they are able to give to their employees. By all means let questions be asked if the matter is being considered under joint consultation, but in the interests of individual firms there must be items which cannot be disclosed by the management who are responsible. After all, if a company is not doing very well it might be very useful information for a competitor to have.
  Few people realise that the largest shareholder and participant in any business is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who takes not only 9s. in the pound, but an additional 2s. as Profits Tax and a further amount by way of a distributed profits tax if the company pays a dividend. It must be borne in mind, in going through the earnings of a company, that reserves have to be built up for a rainy day and that a large amount is necessary for re-equipment. Trade unionists have a tremendous responsibility in this respect.
  Anyone who is engaged in industry and employs a few hundred people, cannot help feeling that he has a great responsibility, apart from the responsibility to the shareholders who have financed the industry, towards those who are working in the industry. The managements feel they have a responsibility to see that the industry is kept on a profitable basis, and that the livelihood of the workers is secured. The trade unionist has an even greater responsibility. Whereas management may be responsible for a few hundred workers, the officials of the trade unions are responsible for the wellbeing of literally millions of people engaged in industry. Therefore, trade union officials should not only understand production problems, but also the financial matters with which companies are concerned.
  Wages have been repeatedly referred to in this Debate. I should like to say how distressing it is to see unions putting forward claims for increased wages which

  1291
  they say will come out of profits, when they know perfectly well that the profits are not there. They can perfectly well ascertain what are the profits of a particular industry.
  Mr. Diamond: How?
  Mr. Drayson: A little research will reveal the figures If the figures are not available, any intelligent person can probably fill in the gaps. One of the functions of accountants and financial experts is to assess these matters; by a little intelligent deduction they can arrive at a reasonable estimate of what is going on. Let us take the claim which is being put forward in the ship-building industry at present. I imagine that there are 600,000 people employed in the industry. They are asking for an increase of £1 a week, making a total increase of £30 million a year. It is possible that the profits of the shipbuilding industry, after allowing for replacements, depreciation and taxation, are between £3 million to £5 million.
  Mr. Mulley: Does the hon. Member realise that taxation is only on realised profits, and that if greater wages are paid, the profits will not be liable to so much taxation—since the profits will be smaller?
  Mr. Drayson: I hope the hon. Member will put that point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope he will ask him what he proposes to do to maintain his revenue if the profits of industry disappear. It will mean that he cannot rely on producing millions of pounds to keep the Social Services and the other benefits going.
  The point I want to emphasise is that I wish that the unions would accept responsibility for going thoroughly into this matter, for understanding what they are talking about, for deciding what is a reasonable profit and what is an excessive profit. Nobody on this side of the House is in favour of excessive profits. Let us at least decide what is a reasonable figure and see what can be achieved, and not present claims which place too great a strain on industry so that it cannot either build up the reserves which it needs for difficult times or re-equip itself to compete with more up-to-date countries like America.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Mulley: At this late hour I will not follow the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) in his revelations in accountancy, desirable though such a course may be. I support the Amendment because I have had the privilege of seeing joint consultation in practice and of attending works committees in a considerable number of firms and in various industries. There is, clearly, today a great divergence in both the practice and achievement of firms, not only in different industries, but between different firms within the same industry. While we can talk tonight only in general terms and not go into the details of individual firms, I should like to point out that there is no type or model of joint consultation which is suitable for all types and sizes of firm.
  In this connection I am reminded of the experience of an American trade unionist in Japan, immediately after the war. The Japanese established trade unions on Western models and soon there were a great number of strikes. One day a Japanese employer came to the trade union adviser and said, "I cannot tolerate the situation any longer. My men constantly shout rude names at me"—a great indignity to a Japanese employer—"as I walk down the street." He said, "They are on strike, but I do not mind that. They get their wages every week and I have provided a room for the strike committee, but now they are even complaining of the free food I send them every day to their canteen." Clearly, there is a difficulty if one tries to superimpose on social and economic conditions a structure which is not suitable. We must be careful, therefore, about saying that there is a particular pattern of joint consultation which will serve all purposes.
  Before coming to the discussion of general principles we should know quite clearly what are the objectives of joint consultation. One can only give a personal opinion about this matter. I believe in joint consultation, on the short-term basis, at any rate, for two reasons: first, because it will, I believe, enhance the status of the worker, and secondly, because it can lead to increased production and industrial efficiency, which we need so desperately today.
  In this Debate the difference underlying the unanimity which we have seen from

  1293
  both sides of the House is that we on this side believe that we must first enhance the status of the worker and give him a participation in the decisions that govern his working life, as a result of which increased productivity will follow. Hon. Members opposite are stressing the scientific management attitude, which is putting the matter the other way round.
  Mr. McCorquodale: I do not believe that the hon. Member wishes to misrepresent what has been said from this side. I was actually the first to refer to the status of the worker, quoting from the Industrial Charter.
  Mr. Mulley: I was not referring to the right hon. Gentleman particularly, but the terms "man management" and "smoothness of industrial relations" have been constantly used from the benches opposite and I am sure he will not take responsibility for everything said on that side of the House.
  We need mass production today, but that mass production must mean a decline in craftsmanship and the pride and interest in work which went with it. We have a technical solution, but not yet a human solution to this problem. Many workers are today no more than the cogs in the machines they operate. I think it a distressing fact that men and women who, in private life, are responsible citizens and who, outside the factory, enjoy full political rights and, maybe, have great responsibilities, at work, where they spend a great portion of their lives, are no more than a mere clock number. While full employment has done much to enhance the self-esteem of the worker, and he no longer fears the sack and its dire economic consequences as he used to, joint consultation can go further in raising the status of workers in industry.
  I also believe that it can solve, or contribute to the solution of, the new problems in industrial relations that are inevitable under full employment. It may be said that many workers do not want responsibility and that they are quite content with the monotony of mass production. While I will not dispute that, there is in every factory and working group some people who have something to contribute. Those people will become the natural leaders of that group and
  1294
  joint consultation can not only utilise their contribution but enable them to change the attitude of the workers in the group, who may not themselves be so interested in industrial democracy.
  What is the effect of joint consultation on production? I believe that the mere opportunity to participate in, or at any rate to understand the reasons for, decisions in the factory will of itself bring increased output. In the famous Hawthorne experiment, the simple fact that the girls who were in the experiment were the centre of interest and the centre of importance in the factory was sufficient to increase output, despite a deliberate worsening of the environmental conditions in which they worked. The atmosphere or climate of work is an important factor in increased productivity. Statistically, it is difficult to prove, because one cannot separate the factor of joint consultation from the many other factors involved in the total situation, but it has been given to me by managers of firms where there is very good joint consultation that over the years increases of 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. in output have been built up by joint consultation.
  From personal observation I have noted that in one or two factories where joint consultation is particularly good the workers work until the end of the working day, whereas in many cases effective work ends 10 or 15 minutes before the end of the working day. I have also noted that in some factories where joint consultation is a success the works director is in the factory at seven o'clock in the morning and not, as is often the case, at nine or 10 o'clock. Frequently, there is improvement in labour turnover figures in factories where joint consultation is successful and, by suggestion schemes, the whole creative ability of the organisation is harnessed to production. In some cases very striking results have been achieved. What I think is equally important is that the opportunity of participation given to workers enables them to understand managerial methods and fits them for positions of greater responsibility.
  One can sum up the effect of joint consultation on production by a simple example. A gang of men was sent to dig holes in the ground. When they

  1295
  reached a certain depth someone came along, had a look and told them to fill the hole again and dig somewhere else. As the afternoon went on their rate of digging became slower and slower, and one man, bolder than the rest, asked what the object of the exercise was. He was told, "We are looking for some buried treasure in this piece of waste land." With that knowledge their output went up considerably. That is an extreme example, but I am sure that there are thousands of people working in industry today who do not know what contribution they are making to the finished product of the factory, and many who do not even know what the finished product is.
  I am sorry I have spoken for so long upon one aspect, and in turning to general principles I will be brief. I believe that to set up a committee alone is to do nothing. It is no use having a committee unless it is backed by the good will and the desire of both sides to make it work. While the committee system is necessary in large works the fact of having a joint production committee or a works committee does not mean that there is joint consultation. If joint consultation is being started let there be joint consultation about the method of joint consultation there is to be. I would emphasise that. If a committee is imposed by national agreement, or by the employers or even by the trade unions, it will not necessarily succeed.
  Among the conditions for success I would suggest, first, that before there is joint consultation between management and men there must be an effective system of consultation within the ranks of management itself. There must be the same channel of communication between the top of the management structure and the junior executive as is desired between management and workers. As other hon. Members have said, particular attention needs to be paid to the foreman, who is in a particularly difficult situation in industry today. He is too often between the upper grindstone of higher authority and the lower grindstone of enforcing discipline. I feel sure that to get an effective organisation there must be some way of fitting the foreman into the picture so that he does not learn of management decisions from members of the joint consultation committee who are probably
  1296
  people working under him on the floor of the shop.
  Second, I would stress the necessity, if there is to be joint consultation, of bringing all workers in the organisation into the system—clerks administrative workers, scientific workers. Everyone who is in the organisation should be represented somewhere in the set-up. Third, and I think that this is perhaps the key point, no topic should be barred. That includes accounts and profits, and what is more important than the mere availability of the accounts is that questions on the accounts and profits should not only be put but answered.
  I recall a managing director, who had great success in this field, saying that the very first question put to him was, "What is your salary?" He knew perfectly well that the success or failure of the system depended on a straight and truthful answer; and I believe that no topic should be barred in the discussions at joint consultation committees.
  Fourth, I believe that the agenda must be interesting and varied. It is the responsibility of the management to provide that agenda. The representatives of the workers cannot put down items involving a change of company policy, or the introduction of new machinery, because they do not know about that until it happens. It is up to the management to put down items ahead of the actual contemplated date of change, so that discussion can take place in advance. I am sure that absenteeism and complaints about cold tea—two points from the two sides which are inevitably on the agenda of unsuccessful committees—is in itself responsible for the lack of interest and the breakdown of those committees. Very often there are committees dealing very successfully with the problem of redundancy and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), quoted an example from the March edition of "Business." I think hon. Members will be interested to know that the firm in question was the firm for which the late Mr. Cobb was responsible. In mourning his tragic death we may also hope that that experiment will continue as a monument to his work and interest in this subject.
  Fifth, I would like to see, a general rule, the managing director, the "boss" in the eyes of the ordinary worker,

  1297
  present at meetings of the committee. I do not think it matters whether he is in the chair or not, but there must be someone present who can, if necessary, make speedy decisions and give a rapid answer. Sixth, as hon. Members have said, there must be no attempt to substitute joint consultation for trade unionism. I consider that the reason why the Whitley committees in the past did not succeed was very largely because in many cases they were used by employers as a substitute for trade unionism, by company unions and similar devices. As a final general principle I would suggest that there must be an adequate method of information or reporting back, so that every worker in the factory, if he wishes, can find out what goes on in the factory committees which comprise joint consultation. I believe that for successful working there must be a great education both of management and of men.
  I would support my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Gunter) in his plea to trade unions to spend more money on education and research. Probably the Minister could help in this direction. He provides an excellent advisory service to those firms interested in setting up joint consultation, but I wonder if he would consider the possibility of providing a simple course on the objects of joint consultation, on the same lines as his excellent course on Training Within Industry. I know that would be appreciated by many people who are working in this field. I think, also, that there should be more courses in the technical colleges which would enable workers to learn the rudiments of industrial administration, and, what is equally or perhaps more important, courses which would enable the management to learn the rudiments of industrial relations and trade union structure.
  Pioneer work in this direction has been done by the Industrial Administration Department of the Birmingham Technical College, and elsewhere, and I hope that employers, trade unions and the Minister will encourage the provision of these courses. A lot could be done to improve the publicity of successful joint consultation systems, to arrange exchange visits between firms for a pooling of ideas and to collate information; and I think the Minister could help in this direction. The Human Factors Panel of the Lord President's Committee on Industrial
  1298
  Productivity has been working for some time in this field, and I understand that soon it will be making its report. I hope that that kind of work will continue.
  I believe that, given honest endeavour on both sides, joint consultation can achieve increased social status and increased productivity. It does pay. Managers have told me that, financially, they could not afford to be without joint consultation now they have got the system to work. For the workers it has meant more remuneration and, what is more important, a new interest and stature in their work. But it brings new responsibilities, both to management and to the trade union movement. These must be faced. It must be recognised that it is limited in purpose and, inevitably, slow in development. It is not, and it cannot be, a panacea for all industrial ills. It must take time to break down the frustration and suspicion which has grown up in industry over a great number of years. We cannot expect spectacular results in a short time. Indeed, unless there is patience and a desire to learn on both sides, especially on the part of management, we shall make no progress in this matter at all.
  8.52 p.m.
  Mr. Gammans: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) was making his maiden speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If he had been, I was about to congratulate him on having the good fortune to deal with a subject which, obviously, he has studied deeply; but, all the same, I will congratulate him on talking a lot of good sense. I know that he talked a lot of good sense, because I agreed with a lot of what he said. We on this side of the House are very glad indeed that this subject has been raised, and we are very pleased to hear what a great wealth of support there is for the principle of co-partnership from the benches opposite.
  Mr. Diamond: Nobody has said so.
  Mr. Gammans: It often seems to us on this side of the House that hon. Gentlemen opposite are shooting at targets that no longer exist with smoothbore blunderbusses firing wet ammunition. But today we have had a great degree of unanimity, certainly on the problem that faces industry. I want to

  1299
  introduce a controversial note, not in any bitter carping sense, because I think it is desirable that we should not only realise where we agree but also where we disagree.
  I think we all agree on what is the problem that faces industry today. It was well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr), in a very agreeable maiden speech, when he said that what we were trying to do was to adjust the relationship between employer and employed in an age where, for good or for evil, large-scale production is now the rule rather than the exception. It is no good carping about that. For motor cars, textiles and shipbuilding, the large-scale unit of production has come to stay. It has raised our standard of living; but what a price we have had to pay for it. The price we have had to pay is the loss, very largely, of craftsmanship and the loss of human interest in creative work. I suppose it is true to say that, for many millions of our people, life in the full sense only starts when the factory gates shut.
  The problem which faces all of us is how we are to humanise this civilisation. Here we come to a point of controversy. The Socialist Party have believed, I think sincerely, that one could humanise this civilisation by nationalization—or must I now call it socialisation? They really believed that men would find a new sense of social purpose in working for the State, and that service to the community would transcend in their minds any thought of gain. Nationalisation has been based on the fallacy that men will work hard without thought of reward, or fear of what happens to them if they do not, and also on the fallacy that the State has a soul which can appeal to a man's conscience.
  We on this side of the House contend that nationalisation has failed, and, certainly, I think many hon. Members opposite, if they will not go as far as that, will at least agree that it has not lived up to expectations. We say that it has failed in what is, after all, the most vulnerable point from the aspect of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that is in human and labour relations. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) waxed very eloquent about the effect of nationalisation on the railways, but one of my hon. Friends reminded him of what was written in the
  1300
  "Railway Review" for January. I myself have discovered what was written in that magazine last October, when we were told this:
  "Never was there a time when discontent was so rampant as it is today on the railways. Never was there a time when lack of interest was so rife. The first and most important thing that is wrong is the gradual development of a soulless dehumanising and individuality-killing atmosphere that prevails all over the railway system in these days."
  I do not think that anything we have said from this side of the House was ever as bad as that. I remember also what an hon. Member said about the effect of nationalisation on the workers in his constituency. If we want any further proof, we need only take note of the large number of unofficial strikes in the nationalised industries in the last two years.
  Our contention is that the experiment into which hon. Gentlemen opposite entered with regard to labour relations when they put all their money on nationalisation has certainly not lived up to expectations. In this great experiment, the Socialists have acquired two curious allies—the trade unions and the co-operative societies. The reason why they are such curious allies is because nothing is more certain than that, if there were a completely Socialist State, both trade unionism and the co-operative movement would disappear. There would be no place for either of them in a completely Socialist State, and for that reason it is curious that the Socialist Party should have acquired these two allies. In many countries of the world, and in America, for example, trade unionism has not gone Socialist or even political. The American trade unions will not touch nationalisation with a barge pole.
  It is our contention that a split between Socialism, on the one hand, and the trade unions and co-operatives societies, on the other, is absolutely inevitable. It certainly will not come from the trade unionists in this House. I admit that they have a vested interest in Socialism and in Socialist patronage. It will not come from here, but it will come from below in the movement. Indeed, I found in the recent General Election that nothing caused more anger at a meeting than to remind listeners that 11 trade union secretaries had got jobs in nationalised industries at salaries of £3,000 a year or more. I was not arguing whether they

  1301
  were worth it or not—possibly they were—but I was saying that these men had abandoned the trade union movement that had put them into the picture. I am absolutely convinced that that split must come sooner or later.
  On the other hand, our contention is that there is an alternative to nationalisation in labour relations and co-partnership. We claim that private enterprise can outbid the nationalised industries any day of the week, not only in service to the community, which it certainly can, but in labour relations. That is why I was glad that my hon. Friend who opened the Debate from this side of the House mentioned the Workers' Charter. I know it is the fashion of hon. Members opposite to deride the Workers' Charter of the Conservative Party, and I do not, in one sense, blame them, because it is good politics to sneer at what one fears in the programme of one's opponents.
  Mr. Pannell: Will the hon. Gentleman please tell us whether the Leader of the Opposition has been converted to that view?
  Mr. Gammans: I do not know whether I need waste any time answering a silly question like that, but if the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to follow the course of Conservative politics during the last three years, he will realise that the Workers' Charter and the Industrial Charter have been accepted by the Conservative Party at more than one annual conference.
  The point that I wish to put to hon. Members opposite and to the country generally is that we mean business over the Workers' Charter. That is a warning, not merely to hon. Members opposite, who quite rightly fear it, but is equally a warning to employers throughout the country. The bad employer, like the bad landlord, has every reason to fear a Conservative Government. In some ways, he has much more reason to fear a Conservative Government than a Socialist one, because a Socialist Government, by feather-bedding and quotas, have kept in being a number of inefficient businessmen who ought to have gone to the bankruptcy courts long ago.
  What do we on this side of the House mean by co-partnership? One thing we mean, which has not been mentioned very
  1302
  much in this Debate, is the question of breaking down the balance sheet. In one business with which I am concerned, that is something upon which I have always insisted. I was glad to see that in the case of Rugby Cement, which published its balance sheet two days ago they showed that the dividend paid to ordinary shareholders worked out at only 5½d. in every 20s. of turnover or one-third of a penny on every bag of cement. Tate and Lyle—who are so much liked by hon. Members opposite—showed that their profit was only 1/28th of a penny per pound of sugar.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Do not those figures regarding Tate and Lyle also reveal that for every pound paid in wages, 3s. 4d. was paid to the shareholders?
  Mr. Gammans: I am not certain, but I do not think so.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): In any event, I doubt whether there is any relevance to the Motion in either of those two contentions, and I hope the horn Gentleman will not pursue them.
  Mr. Gammans: The point I am making is that, to our mind, the central factor of co-partnership is the breaking down of the balance sheet. I should like to give one example of a balance sheet last year which I happen to know about personally. It was shown, after all deductions had been made for raw materials and services, that on every 20s. which had gone to the human beings, as it were, as opposed to things, 19s. 3d. had gone in wages, one penny had gone to the directors, twopence to the shareholders, and the other sixpence to reserve.
  That breaking down of the balance sheet, we contend, is essential if we are to get a proper sense of co-partnership. But it is not only that; it is the joint production councils which we on this side favour as much as do hon. Members opposite. They should not, in any sense, be bogus joint production councils, but organisations which make men realise that there are not really two sides to the table, but only one. To quote another personal example, I know of a case where a firm was offered an order at a cut price. They knew the competition was very severe, and they put it to the joint production council, "Shall we take that order or not? It means 5 per cent. extra production

  1303
  from you. Will you give it, or will you turn it down?" When it was put like that, the men, of course, said "yes," and they fulfilled their promise both in the letter and the spirit.
  But that is not the only side of joint consultation which we favour. We believe that there should be longer contracts of service for men who have worked for a firm for some considerable time. I think that the man who has worked for a firm for, say, 10 years should be put on at least a three months' contract of service. The man who has worked for 20 years ought to be put on at least a six months' contract of service. We agree there ought to be a legal contract of service for any man who is taken on by that firm. Needless to say we support superannuation schemes, profit-sharing schemes and things like helping people to build their own houses or to acquire them. Those are the sort of things which, in our contention, are necessary for a real co-partnership. It is our belief, and hon. Gentlemen opposite are quite entitled to hold the opposite view, that in those directions we can outbid nationalisation every day of the week.
  I am quite convinced that the split over nationalisation will come—and to a very large extent it has come already—between skilled and unskilled labour. It is quite obvious that at the last election many millions of trade unionists voted for us. I certainly would not have got in unless many thousands had voted for me. That reveals a direct divergence in conception between our parties. We both believe there should be a welfare floor below which no man should fall by reason of sickness, old age or unemployment. We should like to see a slightly firmer floor than the present one which, in spite of American underpinning, tends to sag and to sink.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me, but he brings in a great number of quite irrelevant matters amongst some matters which are relevant.
  Mr. Gammans: The Amendment is with regard to voluntary co-operation in industry and I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will agree that I might develop what is, in our opinion, the difference between our conceptions of co-operation.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I may agree with the hon. Gentleman there, but he goes far beyond that. I cannot conceive how the matter of American aid can possibly affect an internal question of this sort. In any case, the hon. Gentleman has not related his remarks to the Amendment before the House.
  Mr. Gammans: I said I would be controversial. I hope I am not giving the impression that I am controversial as to the end we have in view. I hope this Debate has revealed a very wide measure of agreement that the only hope for British industry to play its part, and for this country to maintain and improve its standard of living, is that there should be the greatest possible co-operation in industry. I hope it has also revealed that although there may be differences between us as to how that co-operation should be achieved, we all agree it is essential.
  Mr. Follick: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, there is a point I should like to raise. He said that trade unionists in America were entirely against nationalised undertakings.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that question arises.
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It has become conventional for the hon. Member who speaks at this stage of a Debate of this character to preface his observations with a remark that it has been a valuable Debate. I often think that remark is frequently made because the hon. Member concerned cannot think of anything else with which to preface his observations. I am only deterred from opening in that way by that reflection.
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour—and I should like to pay tribute to his devoted and continued presence on the Bench opposite, where he has fulfilled the rÔle of Casabianca without, perhaps, all the disadvantages but with all the devotion to duty of that character—will agree that this has been a very remarkable Debate in that hon. Members, as a whole, have succeeded in sustaining a discussion of deep interest without, except occasionally, becoming unduly controversial. It has been a Debate remarkable for the number of speeches made from both sides

  1305
  of the House by hon. Members with practical experience of industry at all levels.
  It has been a remarkable Debate for two first-class maiden speeches. Those who heard my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr), I think, were immensely impressed—whether they agreed with his views or not is not material—both by his patent sincerity and his obvious grasp of certain of the practical necessities of our industrial life. I hope I may be allowed also to pay tribute to another maiden speaker, the hon Member for Deptford (Mr. J. Cooper), since I have the distinction of being his Parliamentary representative. It is a rare experience for an hon. Member to be able to pay such a tribute to a constituent. I might perhaps remark in parenthesis that I well remember the location of the hon. Gentleman's house in my constituency, since by a curious chance it was the only house in that particular road which during the recent General Election did not display one of my window bills.
  We have had contributions from both sides, with Members speaking from their practical experience. I know that all hon. Members listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) because they know that he speaks with such immense authority on this subject. If I may be allowed to do so, I would recommend to those hon. Members who were not able to be present during his speech this afternoon the possibility of reading it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There were many speeches, from my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) and Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Ian Orr-Ewing), and from hon. Members on the other side, too, who addressed themselves practically to this practical problem.
  The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), who initiated this Debate, will, I think, agree that he shares with me the quality of not being always strictly non-controversial. I was, therefore, all the more pleased, as one also at least temporarily well behaved, to find how much I agreed not only with the tone of his speech but with the draft of his Amendment. Indeed, I hope I will not do irreparable harm to his chances of the political advancement to which I know he is entitled if I say that the draft of his Amendment bears a resemblance verging upon plagiarism to the Industrial Charter.
  1306
  Only, if I may say so, the slight grammatical superiority of the document over the Amendment offers to the hon. Member a reasonable possibility of establishing a defence if an action were brought against him by Lord Woolton.
  I would seriously ask hon. Members—and this perhaps is the most significant thing about this Debate—to note the close connection in sense and content between the words of the Amendment which the hon. Member put down and the words of the Industrial Charter. The Industrial Charter says:
  "We wish to see a wider extension of the joint production committees which received a fresh impetus during the war. Too many have been allowed to fall into disuse at a time when they should have been extended and should be giving rise to a new form of consultation at higher levels and on wider topics. Joint consultative committees of this type are basic to our conception of economic democracy."
  We therefore started this Debate, as we are finishing it, on the basis that between the two main parties of this House there is substantial agreement upon the procedure to be followed, with differences perhaps only of emphasis on different aspects of the proposal.
  I should like to draw attention to the great importance of the comments upon that which were made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), who I regret to see is not now in his place, but who, as we know, when he was at the Ministry of Supply, played such a distinguished part in encouraging this movement. The hon. Gentleman said—I think I am paraphrasing him rightly—"It is all very well to put these things into policies; what about their implementation?" That, of course, is the crux of the matter. The hon. Member for Jarrow rightly has indicated that these proposals must be put forward for voluntary application. Therefore, no political party can compel, or could wisely attempt to compel, their institution. All that a political party can do and, indeed, all that a Government can do, to encourage their formation, is to create the intellectual climate, the climate of opinion, in which their establishment flourishes.
  It is not really fair, therefore, to criticise either the proposals of the party to which I belong, or, indeed, the policy of His Majesty's Government on the ground that this process has not gone

  1307
  on as rapidly as all of us would desire. It is of the essence of these organisations that they grow gradually, that they grow by establishing a tradition—and tradition cannot be established, as an American university recently sought to establish one, by posting a notice that it was a tradition of the university that undergraduates did not walk upon the grass of the quadrangle, with an additional note that the tradition would come into effect at nine o'clock on Monday morning.
  Traditions have to grow naturally and the great help a Government can give—and of course the Government are in a much stronger position to do it than is an Opposition—is, first of all, by making it clear that it is Government policy and, secondly, by giving it every encouragement in the sphere where Government action can act most directly, that is, in the industries directly or indirectly under the Government. I hope that when the Minister replies, as he will in a few moments, he will tell us what action he now proposes to take to accelerate this process in that sphere of our economic life in which, in the nature of things, the Government have a greater say than in the private sphere of industry.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham was a little less than fair, I thought, to British industry as a whole. Of course, British industry varies from one extreme to another. Another hon. Member, I think it was the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), brought up the case of a bank with a foreign name. Whether it has an English ownership I really do not know, but of course it is perfectly easy to find examples of employers conducting themselves somewhat perversely on the subject of the recognition of unions. Indeed, if one were seeking for an example in that direction, it would not be necessary to look further than the Government Front Bench.
  But, equally, there are industries in which joint consultation has been carried very far, and I should like to remind the House of the way in which it is conducted in a company which will, I think, be known to a good many hon. Members—the Birmingham Small Arms Company. Their joint production consultative and advisory committee discusses such subjects as the following—and I ask hon.
  1308
  Members to note them: maximum utilisation of existing machinery, improvements in methods of production, efficient use of the maximum number of production hours, elimination of defective work and waste, efficient use of material supplies and efficient use of safety precautions and devices. That is merely one example and it is perfectly possible to find other firms equally progressive. While the picture is, therefore, not as good as we should like to see it, it is perhaps not quite as bad as some hon. Members apparently have felt.
  Before we part from this subject, we should clear our minds as to what it is that this joint consultation is to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston said, it is not a substitute for efficient management; it is a very useful adjunct to it, but it is dangerous in any organisation to blur the edges of responsibility. It is dangerous to give management an excuse for failure. It is dangerous to take away from those who manage a concern absolute responsibility for the success or failure of that concern, and I am glad to see that the Government themselves followed the principle I have indicated when they arranged the administration of the industries which have been nationalised. They have made it perfectly clear that responsibility for the administration of those industries rests squarely on the shoulders of the boards concerned, and that is rightly so.
  Equally, it is dangerous—and here I agree with an hon. Member opposite—when consultation strays over the boundary into the sphere of negotiations on wages and conditions. Anything is dangerous which interferes with the smooth working of our system of negotiations between organisations of workers and employers on the subject of wages and conditions. The smooth working of that system is vital to modern industry. It is dangerous to do anything that interferes with that smooth working, and it is necessary to watch in case, in their zeal, consultative committees, production committees, do stray over that boundary, because if they do there is a danger of friction which all of us would regret.
  The immense value, it seems to me, of this process is that it brings, as it is so difficult to bring in modern industry, management and men—at any rate, some of the men—face to face. It is terribly

  1309
  easy to hate and dislike people we do not know, people of whom one merely sees the signature at the bottom of a document. It is terribly difficult, Sir, really to hate people whom you are seeing regularly. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite must not flatter themselves on the regularity of their attendance.
  However, I think that the example of this House is in point of fact, a very good one on the point I am trying to make. I think that a great many hon. Members opposite, when they were first elected Members of this House, came here feeling that any Conservative Member of this House must inevitably be a being of immense wealth—I sometimes wish, in that connection, that they were right—and a person completely destitute of any ordinary, decent human feeling. I am certain that some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House came here in the belief that every Socialist Member was a Bolshevik run mad.
  I think that most of us—I see there are exceptions: very recent exceptions—on the whole have come—and it is one of the immense values of this House—not to agree with each other, but to respect each other; and I believe that what this House does for hon. Members on both sides, zealous and sincere politicians of widely differing views though we all are, can be done for what the right hon. Gentleman calls, though I regret the phrase, the "two sides of industry." If we are meeting people regularly round the table, it does become very much easier to understand that they are human beings trying to do their best, and not the embodiment of Satanic forces. Therefore, I would myself put first this possibility of personal contact which joint consultation brings about.
  However, I do deplore the phrase that I myself inadvertently used a moment ago, "the two sides of industry." I must say that the Minister is, perhaps, an even more regular offender. It is surely essential—and here again these committees can so much help to this end—to realise that there are not two sides in industry; but that they are but two aspects of the same organisaion; and that both sides depend for their future upon the success of that industry. It is indeed, I think, the fact that it is the worker in industry who suffers the worse if that industry
  1310
  fails. His interests, therefore, are more perhaps even than his employer's bound up with the success of that industry, because the employer may well have investments in other industry while the worker has very often invested his particular skill in that particular trade.
  The more these committees can make it clear that there is no essential antagonism between the workers and the managements, between the workers and the employers, and that, on the contrary, they are engaged in different aspects of the identical job, the more will these committees conduce to the success of industry and to all those engaged in it, and, what is more important, conduce to the economic survival of our nation.
  Let us say quite frankly that there is much to regret in our country's past. I do not believe that any hon. Member of this House can honestly look back on the past of his side of industry without viewing certain incidents on his own side with regret. But I do beg of hon. Members opposite not to dwell too much upon the feuds or fears of the past. The wise man does not allow his attitude to be dominated by them; the wise man surely uses them merely as warnings for the future. If these committees, by their extension and their development, can do something to prevent the antagonism which, to our sorrow and to our loss, has grown up in our industrial system—though it is less today than it was—if these committees can do something to reduce that, they will be justified, and justified scores of times over. I hope they will not be used as a means simply of perpetuating these old feuds, but that they will be used far more as a means of focussing the loyalty and the co-operation of everybody in industry to their common task.
  This has been an unusual, and I believe it may well be an historic, Debate because the House has engaged itself, not in a controversy as to the imposition by legislation of restrictions upon the citizen, but rather by way of debate and discussion has sought to develop public opinion in a direction favourable to the interests of the nation as a whole. A great deal of emphasis has been put upon the increased efficiency which joint consultation brings. I do not propose to add anything on that, except to say this—and I was reminded of it by words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton.

  1311
  When that great leader of men Lord Montgomery was seeking to build up the morale of the Eighth Army, he spent an infinity of time upon telling his troops, not only about their own job but about the campaign as a whole. He did not do that out of a well-meaning desire to interest them. He did it because he knew that soldiers will put a little extra into the attack on the hill in front of them if they know they are attacking that hill, not because their commanders cannot thick of anything else to order them to do but because it is part of a movement whose purpose is to pin down the enemy on the hill while an armoured column swings round its left flank.
  That technique of Lord Montgomery, whose success is now written across the face of the world, has a lesson for us in industry. I believe that we get so much more efficient work from people—as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) said in his very interesting speech—if they know the purpose of their work, and if they know how it fits into the whole pattern of their industry, and how their industry fits into the whole pattern of the nation.
  But I put much more weight on the other aspect of the matter—the social aspect. It is the tragedy of our industrial age that so many people can find so little satisfaction in work of a repetitive and specialist nature; that they inevitably regard their working hours as hours to be got through somehow, with the compensation of artificial entertainments outside working hours. We want to get back to the spirit in which people can find a satisfaction in work, because I believe that a man who does not get pleasure and satisfaction out of his work is having only half the value in life to which he is entitled. I believe that by enabling people to realise the importance of their work, to realise the truth of the slogan which the Lord President when he was Minister of Home Security in 1940, plastered all over London—" It All Depends on Me"—and to realise that the individual job at the individual bench matters, and matters enormously, we can do more to build up the self-respect and the sense of responsibility of the citizen than by any comparable means.
  I venture this prophecy: that this Debate is not only a helpful thing, but is
  1312
  a Debate which in the future people may look back upon as an historic event, because we have seen the two great parties in the State getting together to urge this wholesome and hopeful development upon our people, to urge upon industry as a whole to forget the feuds and follies of the past, and to realise that there is no problem which cannot be solved by reasonable people in reasonable discussion. I believe that we have the chance. Let us, in words that the poet Tennyson very nearly used, ring in the age of common sense.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am proud to have the opportunity of making the winding-up speech tonight at this meeting of the nation's supreme joint industrial council, for that is what it has now become. Before dealing with some of the points that have been raised, and, I hope, making clear the action of the Government through the Ministry of Labour on this subject, I think it is right that I should refer to the two excellent maiden speeches of the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. J. Cooper) and the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr). They were particularly interesting because they were both speaking of exactly the same kind of experience approached from a different angle. They gave the House useful information and made a valuable contribution to the Debate.
  I should like, first, to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). When the hon. Gentleman gets up, some of us have to duck because we do not always know what is coming. Tonight, we were wondering what line he would take. I most sincerely compliment him on the speech which he has made, which was a most valuable contribution. It was his speech which prompted me to refer to the House tonight as the nation's supreme joint industrial council. Much that he said will be of great value to the Minister of Labour in his task of cultivating and advocating the extension of these joint councils in industry. This Debate will be regarded as a Parliamentary decision that the House of Commons desire that this should be done. I know that there is a certain section of industry which will do their best to decry everything which has been said tonight and to

  1313
  try to use this joint council machinery for their own purposes, but the unanimity which has been shown will, I think, help us to overcome that.
  The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames referred to the plagiarism of the Amendment compared with the Industrial Charter. Perhaps the same can be said in connection with the Whitley Council reports which come to us from time to time, so we have apparently gone to the same sources. He said that no Government could do more than encourage the formation of these councils. That is what we propose to do and are doing. I will tell the House about that in a moment. We cannot do more than encourage; any attempt at compulsion would fail at the beginning.
  One other point which he mentioned—and I think his words were valuable—was in reference to the value of meeting around the table. Workmen may know the manager only by name or through seeing him walk through their place of work, and they may think of him in harsh terms, but when they sit opposite to him, a mutual respect often grows. Contact brings understanding and then respect. We see that in this House. We understand and respect though we may not often reach agreement. I am a happy man tonight to be able to wind up a Debate in which there has been so much agreement.
  The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) went a little outside the spirit of the Amendment, and tried to bring a little liveliness into the Debate. He did not succeed, so I do not think we need bother any more about his speech. I was interested in the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale), and not merely because he, like myself, is a printer. Printers are a bit clannish; we all go to the same chapel together, even if we do not go on Sundays. He used several phrases in his speech that will be useful. Anyone who knows anything about workshop life knows that a happy shop will do better than one without happiness. We want these good relations.
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that people spoke of the art of man management. Man management is not an art—it is all very arty-crafty for those who write treatises about it—but just
  1314
  plain common sense. Another thing he said was that these councils should be given the facts, which reminds me of the slogan used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) during the war:
  "Give us the tools and we will finish the job."
  If there is any trouble, then give the committee the facts and they will find a way out.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to a booklet that had come into his possession with the title "Ministry of Labour Whitley at the Crossroads." I am sorry that this has been brought up. It may seem as if there is a real difference of opinion, but by referring to the "Federation News," which is a publication of the Federation of the Ministry of Labour staff, I hope I shall be able to remove from his mind—I know that the Ministry is still very dear to him—any suggestion that there is any misunderstanding or ill-feeling in the matter. The vice-chairman and leader of the staff side of the Whitley Council, stated, on 17th January:
  "It is impossible to cast away a machine that has served the staff well through 10 historic years without paying tribute to the unsparing work of the members of both sides. … One achievement was speed. There had been a change in outlook manifested in a keenness to make progress quickly, often by informal discussion in small committees. This extension of informal working has brought in its train an increase in friendly relationships.‖It would work well because the Whitley spirit was present."
  Although there may have been one or two arguments, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take the assurance from me that we have not fallen down on industrial relations in the Ministry.
  Mr. McCorquodale: I am very pleased to hear it.
  Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) made a very valuable contribution to the Debate. Anyone who reads this Debate will be able to obtain some very valuable information from the speeches that have been made. He said that there must be no feeling of complaint, and that the first job of a production committee was to remove any complaints, for example, deciding whether the tea was too hot or too cold and whether the lavatory or washing facilities were adequate. There

  1315
  used to be an old saying that an empty house is better than a bad tenant. It is best to get rid of the complaints first before discussing the future.
  Several Members have stressed the fact that if we are to establish valuable joint production committees it must be done with the full recognition of the trade unions. By that means we shall brush away most of the difficulties. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) also gave us the benefit of his experience. He referred to the fact that I paid a visit to his factory. I had a talk with the workpeople there, and I was most impressed. I found, as I do elsewhere, a really personal interest in joint consultation, bringing about a spirit of which everyone could be proud. He said that if we carry on like we are doing we shall have the best industrial relations in the world. I do not know much about grammar, but I would delete the words "we shall have" and substitute the words "we have," because I am sure no country in the world has as good a relationship as that which exists in this country.
  Perhaps I may now traverse rather briefly some history so that we may bring the matter into proper perspective, although many of the things I am about to say have already been said by hon. Members who have spoken. We must go back, not so far back as the Whitley Committee, which set the pace or set the target, but to December, 1940, when my predecessor in office, who is now the Foreign Secretary, said:
  "It is my considered view that, in order to avoid conditions which cause discontent, there should be established in all industrial establishments standing joint arrangements for regular discussion between managements and properly elected representatives of the work-people on matters in which they are mutually interested."
  That set the pace in war-time and the new machinery began to be built, first in the coal mines and then in shipbuilding. In 1942 came the agreement, to which the hon. Member for Edgbaston referred, on joint consultative machinery in the engineering industries. The building and civil engineering industries followed, and gradually there was established what we like to call this "modern technique of management."
  The war ended, and the great war-time impulse of preservation, which urged on the construction of these committees,
  1316
  began to die away. Some of them had not existed long enough to get their roots firmly fixed in industry, and as we got away from the war so they began to fall away. Many of them, however, remained. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames referred to B.S.A. and their constitution. Many of the committees which have remained were not in such a flourishing condition in the early days after the war, but they have come into full force and gained impetus and value by the slight slowing up which some of them had at that time. We built them up again, and we may find now that it is necessary to start rebuilding.
  One question that has frequently been referred to is whether we should build from the top or from the bottom. We are trying to do both. We want to get the plans through at the top and then to start working at the bottom. The way we are proceeding is this: We have a National Joint Advisory Council, which meets at the Ministry of Labour under my chairmanship. It consists of 17 representatives of the British Employers' Confederation and 17 of the Trades Union Congress. To that Council, which, during the war, rendered tremendous service, we go for advice on all matters which affect industry; and very valuable is their advice. We asked for their sponsorship of a campaign to encourage joint works committees. They were not in a hurry to come to a decision—they never give a snap decision. The request was submitted, debated, adjourned, brought forward again and finally adopted by them as a recommendation that they would welcome suitable machinery being established for the regular interchange of views provided, first:
  "that such machinery would be purely voluntary and advisory in character."
  As it happens, that has been stressed by every Member who has spoken here tonight. I have not heard anyone argue that we should attempt to have any compulsion.
  The second condition was that the committees
  "would not deal with questions relating to terms and conditions of employment which are normally dealt with through the ordinary machinery of joint negotiations."
  Once again they anticipated this House, because everybody who has touched upon

  1317
  this subject tonight has said the same thing. The third condition was that
  "it would be left to each industry through its ordinary negotiating arrangements to adjust the form of machinery best suited to its own particular circumstances, and to decide in particular whether such machinery could best be established at the factory level, or cover a wider area."
  Those proposals were adopted. They where sent out to the various organisations concerned, and we then conducted an inquiry.
  We put upon one of our headquarters officials the special duty of handling this matter, contacting industry and following the matter up. National organisations were approached and were told that our services at headquarters would be available to them. We asked that the national organisations should give attention to the recommendations of the National Joint Advisory Council. At the same time, jointly with the regional boards for industry, we were convening meetings in the different areas to stimulate interest in the subject. Hon. Members who have asked tonight that we should take on more active work in the regions may rest assured that that work is already in progress and has been for some time.
  Having got national agreements, to some of which I will refer, we secured copies and sent them out to our industrial relations officers so that if a firm should want to establish a joint works committee and wanted information they could get it from our employment exchanges or regional officers, who would tell them what was the system adopted in their industry. It is not the job of the Ministry to advocate a particular kind of constitution, but to urge that a constitution should be adopted and, if they ask for it, to provide them with the one for their industry. If there is not one for their industry we have a specimen form of constitution which we supply to them.
  We have organised 42 conferences on joint consultation and most of them are attended by representatives from firms which have joint committees in operation. They are able from their own experience to advise others of the kind of work they should undertake. Of the 54 industries we have approached on this matter 51 have taken steps to set up joint machinery, or have had such machinery already in being. Some adopt a constitution which has to be followed fairly rigidly by their local areas, while others
  1318
  say they have no objection to a joint council being formed and to the adoption of machinery which is thought most suitable in the local interests.
  I wish to refer, briefly, to the value of works councils in operation. I have noticed that in some councils I have attended the members of the works committee are called councillors and if they are referred to on the notice board, or in the works, they are always described as "Councillor Mr.—" or "Councillor Miss—." That is only a little thing, but it is important. We are proud to put the initials M.P. after our names and they like to advertise themselves as councillors I had intended to dilate on the kind of things that work councils can do, but they have been referred to so much, especially by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who, as I have said, quoted the example of B.S.A.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many other factories were pioneering works committees, stewards' committees, and so on, long before B.S.A.?
  Mr. Isaacs: I am aware of that, but I drew attention to it because the kind of thing to which the hon. Member referred in the constitution of B.S.A. has been adopted in the constitutions of most joint committees.
  I wish to show the kind of spirit we find. This time last year I was in the West of England on a visit to the china clay industry and a manager came to me saying, "I have had the dickens of a time"—that was not the word he used, but it was something like it. He said "We have taken an order for 3,000 tons of china clay for despatch to America in so many days. We have everything ready to load on the ship but they have sent a cable asking us to make the order 5,000 tons. It is a very difficult job." I asked, "What are you doing about it?" and he said, "I have a works committee; I have left it to them." It was a simple matter; he felt that as there was a works committee they would get him out of his difficulties.
  I had experience of a similar case at a famous ship-repairing firm on the south coast of England. When I mention the fact that they were building a forepart on to the back half of a ship—they had only had half sent to them—some hon.

  1319
  Members may recognise the firm. The management told me that it seemed as though they would lose the contract because the time they had quoted for completing the job was beaten by the dates quoted by foreign competitors. The firm called their works committee together and explained the problem to them. The men agreed that somehow or other they would do the job in the required time. I learned afterwards that they did so. I mention those cases to show that if there is understanding, a good spirit, a real belief in the firm and a real belief on the part of the firm in its workmen, many of these difficulties can be overcome.
  I have been asked tonight about some of the industries with which the Government themselves are associated. I had intended to mention several of the nationalised industries, but my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) referred fully to the gas industry, so I need not mention that. I should like to tell the House what is being done now by British Railways. In issue No. 2 of their "Transport News" they say:
  "Through consultation management and staff can discuss together the future of our industry."
  In another paragraph it is stated:
  "The Executive has undertaken whenever possible to give advance notice of its future plans to the staff concerned, so that there can be free and frank discussion about them."
  In another part of the same paper, Mr. John Benstead, the Deputy-Chairman, writes:
  "First, what sort of consideration is going to be given to the views of the men on the job? Will the management take into account the wealth of practical experience that often lies behind those views? My reply is that the management of British Transport are pledged to a real exchange of views wherever that is possible."
  These statements are published and issued to the industry, and as some of my hon. Friends have said, there is now growing up in the British transport industry a better sense of joint understanding than has ever previously existed.
  One hon. Member made reference to the fact that we often see plenty of Press publicity about discord and misunderstanding, but not much publicity about harmony and the good things that are happening. I have been mixed up with the newspapers of this country for a long
  1320
  time, and I should like to say what I have said in some of the conferences I have had with them. So far as good understanding in factories is concerned, if British newspapers were to preach what they practice there would be a great deal better understanding in this country. I say that because of the understanding, the relationship, the esprit de corps, the feeling that the paper must come out, which runs right through British newspapers. Take the example of the men who get the newspaper out, however late the news comes in. They know that the papers will catch the trains and other transport because there is a good spirit in their offices. If they would only preach, in their newspapers, the kind of good relationships which exist in their offices, we could achieve a good deal more understanding than is done by drawing attention to discord and misunderstanding.
  I have been asked about publishing a new industrial relations handbook. We will give consideration to that. I have here Supplement No. 3, dealing with joint consultation in industry. It sets out all the new agreements made and the new regulations adopted by the various industries in relation to joint council work up to December. It contains a few words of exhortation at the beginning, but, in the main, it contains a list of organisations, industries, etc., which have adopted these schemes. As an illustration of its usefulness, I can tell the House that we sold 4,500 copies in the six weeks after its issue. It is now completely out of stock and has to be reprinted. In giving an undertaking to consider the publication of an up to date document, I would ask that this be allowed to wait for a few months until we can get the position settled in the other one or two outstanding industries.
  I want to call attention to one point which, in my view, may have had a retarding effect on progress in this matter. The House will doubtless have noticed that when most people talk about joint consultation in industry, the implication invariably is that joint consultation is something between top management and the rank and file operatives instead of being a recognised managerial technique permeating throughout the organisation and embracing all levels of personnel; The directors taking their immediate subordinates into consultation and those

  1321
  subordinates acting similarly until the whole supervisory line, down to the foreman, is brought effectively into the picture.
  In my opinion, the test of a genuine belief in joint consultation is the degree of its universality in an organisation, and not just the existence of a joint committee with the manual workers only. It cannot occasion surprise that junior members of managements and foremen, all who form part of the production team, technicians, draughtsmen, etc., should be brought in, and other sections of a staff look cynically on a committee where higher management bring the rank and file into the picture to the careless exclusion of intermediate management and other classes. In our view a joint works committee should be a joint works committee and include representatives of everybody employed in the firm, and not merely certain sections of them.
  Having given this undertaking so far as the Amendment is concerned, and having accepted completely the idea of the hon. Member who moved it and having had valuable information and guidance from hon. Members in all parts of the House in carrying on this work, I trust that with that assurance my hon. Friend will be content to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: While conceding the importance of the printing industry, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he has anything to say about joint consultation in the cotton industry in Lancashire?
  Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, but not at this stage. We shall not put up this matter for discussion in the House. We shall deal with the cotton industry in the ordinary way.
  Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the statements by the Minister, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. Chetwynd: I am sure we have had a most instructive Debate and that the House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Femyhough) for taking such a leading part in this subject. I hope that the views enunciated by the Minister in his final speech will be noted throughout the country and throughout industry as a whole, not only in the trade union movement and by many of those people who have pioneered these efforts for joint consultation, but throughout all the ranks of management as well.
  If only some of these lessons put forward are taken into account, I am sure that the productive efforts in the country will enable us to overcome our economic difficulties much more easily. From my own experience in an industrial area, I can say that where joint consultation machinery has been put into practice there is a much happier atmosphere prevailing in the factories; and production as a whole shows a great increase, which is something we would all desire. I am sure that this Debate and the subject chosen by my hon. Friend on this Supply Day has achieved a very useful purpose. If all the things which have been ventilated in the House today can be noted widely in the Press and in the technical journals, we shall have achieved a very useful purpose for industry.
  In the North-East, which my hon. Friend knows so well, we have a record of industrial harmony. It is true to say that on Tees-side there has been no major industrial upheaval of any kind. This shows plainly that management and men have been working together throughout the war years—
  It being Ten o'Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  HOUSING, SLOUGH
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I wish to take advantage of this Adjournment to draw the attention of the House to the housing situation in the borough of Slough. I do this in no parochial spirit. I do not make any claim for Slough which would be unfair to other towns or to the countryside. I appreciate the difficulty of the Government in procuring the raw materials and the labour for housing, and in using them effectively. I recognise that it is necessary to allocate capital, material and labour so that they are balanced in the national economy to meet requirements, to maintain full employment and to fill the dollar gap.
  Nevertheless, I say that there are circumstances in the borough of Slough which justify me in drawing the special attention of the House to them. I begin by filling in the background of the situation. There must be many hon. Members who can remember, as they travelled on the Great Western line in the days immediately after the First World War, the mile of dumps of broken and battered vehicles from the British Army which were then deposited there. That dump was transformed immediately after the First World War into the first modern trading estate in the country.
  As a consequence, there was a phenomenal increase in the population of Slough. What had been little more than a village or a small country town became almost overnight a large industrial centre. The population in 1921 was 16,000; by 1939 it had grown to 55,000, and today it is 68,000. At the beginning of that great advance in its population, there was not the foresight to envisage the housing which would be required to accommodate the new population. The trading estate attracted to it, in the late 20's and the early 30's, hundreds of workers from the depressed areas in South Wales, Northern Ireland, Lancashire, the North-East Coast and Scotland.
  The authorities in the town at that period, not foreseeing the great advance
  1324
  in the population and the need for more houses, did not then plan the necessary sewerage which could accommodate the greater housing. It was not until the years immediately after the last war that plans of that kind were prepared. The result of that situation is that, unless something most exceptional is done, in the month of June this year housing will come to an absolute stop in Slough. There will not be a single house erected in that borough from the month of June and for nine months afterwards, and that in a town where large numbers of the population are already living in railway coaches and in Army hutments, where overcrowding of five and more persons per room is frequent, and where, indeed, one in five and perhaps one in four of the families in the town have their names on the waiting list for houses. It is because of that appallingly unique situation in the borough of Slough, where, despite these extraordinary needs, housing may completely stop in the month of June for nine months, that I am now making a particular appeal to the Minister of Health.
  I have discussed this matter at considerable length with the town clerk of the borough, the borough surveyor and the borough engineer, and we have considered many plans by which this situation may be saved so that housing may go on. We have discussed whether it would be possible temporarily to apply the cesspool system or the septic tank system so that houses may be built, and, when the sewerage plan is developed, to attach these cesspools and septic tanks to it; but I am informed that there is danger of pollution of the River Thames, which is near, and, in the case of the septic tanks, that the relief to the sewerage system would be inadequate.
  There is one further suggestion which is in my mind and which I want to put to the Minister of Health. It is that it might be possible, even though the sewerage system is inadequate to meet the new houses which are built, still to build those new houses and so avoid a gap in time, and, having built them, at a later stage to link them with the sewerage system when it is constructed. The argument against that course is that squatters may adopt these houses before that time, or that they would deteriorate in that period.

  1325
  It is my view that, if the people of Slough were informed of the difficulties of the situation, if a town's meeting were held and the position made clear, and if the co-operation of the people was called for in order to protect the houses that were erected so that when the sewerage system is there it might be linked with houses that people could occupy, there would be such co-operation from the people of Slough that the invasion of squatters or the deterioration of the houses would not occur. The houses would all be in a limited space, and would seem to me to be able to receive the necessary police supervision to prevent anything of an untoward character happening to these houses.
  There is one complication of the position in Slough to which I must draw the Minister's attention. The London County Council are planning a large housing estate within the borders of the town to accommodate 17,500 people, and if that large housing estate is commenced while there is an absence of this sewerage system, or while it is still inadequate, it will mean that the terribly overcrowded population now in Slough will have to postpone still further their hopes of obtaining houses.
  The sewerage plan which is now being carried through could, by the year 1953, accommodate a population of 100,000. At that point we will be able to take all the population which the London County Council wish to bring into the area. Before that period, we will be able to increase the population for whom houses can he provided, but I want to draw the attention of the Ministry to that particular difficulty in the meantime. I would also point out to the Minister that there will be very great difficulty if housing ends in June, or is seriously slowed up, in maintaining the necessary availability of labour. Labour for housing has now to be brought from other towns—there is no local labour available—and, if that becomes dispersed by the ending of the housing system, when the opportunity to build houses recurs the position is going to be extremely difficult.
  Therefore, I want to make a number of specific requests to the Ministry of Health. The first is that the Ministry should recognise this exceptional and desperate condition in Slough, and should
  1326
  offer all possible help in this extraordinary difficulty. I want to say at once that I find that local officials in Slough are highly appreciative of the way in which the Ministry of Health have co-operated in this matter, but I am going to suggest at this particular stage that the Ministry should make a still further gesture, and should indicate to the Town Council of Slough their recognition of the exceptional need and offer their consultation and help along any channel through which that help can pass.
  Secondly, I want to ask that, in relation to the proposed London County Council housing estate, the Ministry of Health should keep a very watchful eye on the situation. In December, 1948, there was a public inquiry under the joint auspices of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and on 14th July, 1949, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning wrote:
  "Nor does it appear that the phasing of the L.C.C.'s proposals need involve any risk of prejudice to the proper development of Slough since the carrying out of the scheme would be dependent upon the provision of adequate sewerage facilities."
  I am quite sure that the L.C.C. will appreciate the position I have described, but I ask the Ministry to keep a watchful eye on that situation, and, if necessary, to act in order to prevent any worsening of the position by the development of new houses from outside.
  The third point which I wish to put to the Ministry is that they should extend the fullest priorities of materials to enable the new sewerage system to be completed within the shortest possible period. Again, I pay my tribute to the Ministry. The local officials say that those priorities have been constantly given. There are difficulties, however; there is the immediate difficulty of the supply of cement, which is holding up the development of the sewerage scheme, and in future months there will be the difficulty of the cast-iron pipes necessary for the drainage system. I am asking the Ministry of Health to anticipate that position and not merely to allocate on paper, but to be ready to secure for the town the supply of cast-iron piping necessary for that drainage system as soon as the immediate crisis of the absence of proper sewerage is met.

  1327
  I do not ask necessarily for a reply tonight, but my next request to the Ministry is that they should consider sympathetically the proposal I have made that, even if the sewerage is not there at present, house building shall not stop. The absolute stopping of housing in Slough will have a disastrous psychological effect. If housing can go on, and can be linked to the sewerage as soon as it is available, the people will feel that the best has been made of the situation. In view of the extraordinary difficulties in Slough that I have described, I ask the Minister to accept the course of being prepared to allocate houses upon those lines, if the Ministry are convinced that arrangements can be made in Slough to prevent those houses deteriorating or to prevent their being occupied by invaders who are not entitled to them.
  My next request to the Ministry is that, as soon as the situation eases and the sewerage scheme develops, the Ministry will be willing to allocate houses to Slough on a larger scale, in order to compensate for the absence of house building, or the diminished house building, during the next few months. I ask the Ministry that, in allowing Slough a larger allocation, they will also look into the problem of providing the materials and encouraging the labour so that the larger programme can be fulfilled long before 1953 by when, it was hoped, the sewerage system may be completed. It should be possible to increase the housing programme considerably as provision of sewerage becomes more adequate. I ask the Ministry to make sure that the materials are available for such larger programme and to encourage the availability of labour.
  There is one further point to complete the picture. There is just one hope that the situation may be saved in June. Our civil engineer, who is carrying out the new sewerage scheme, is attempting to apply a very bold method by which it is hoped that 20 acres may be freed for the deposit of sewage. With professional caution he will not be able to say for one month whether that experiment will be successful. Should it be successful, we shall be able to proceed with 60 or 70 houses, but even those 60 or 70 will be a great limitation upon the ordinary allocation, and that relief to the situation
  1328
  will not in any way decrease the general appeal I have made.
  I recognise that my final point is not only a matter for my hon. Friend's Ministry but one on which he must consult with others. I ask the Minister if the time has not come for the Government to consider whether there should not be an increased allocation of capital investment in materials and labour for house building within the general national economy. I understand the claims of the export drive and the claims of capital investment in industrial development, but I want to put to the Government very seriously indeed that an ill-housed people cannot be expected to maintain the production drive which is at present proceeding.
  In Slough our vast industrial establishments, particularly in the trading estate, are working to capacity to fill the ships today, just as they used to produce the tools to finish the job during the war. But I say to the Government: if this is to go on, the sense of frustration from the present housing overcrowding and ill-equipment must be removed. Our people in Slough remember the frustration of the depressed areas from which they come. Now a new sense of despair is weighing them down, and as I read the letters which come from my constituents I share that sense of despair. I will read one letter to the Minister. It is from a woman in my constituency:
  "We have been on the Slough Council's housing list since January, 1941, and we were married in September, 1939, and have never had a home of our own. All we have now is two small upstairs rooms with cooking facilities downstairs. I am expecting my second child next month and my eldest child is nearly three. I am wondering where I am going to put the baby to sleep during that time as we have no room for another cot in our bedroom; in fact my daughter is ready for a bed but that is utterly out of the question. I cannot even contemplate buying a pram as I shall have nowhere to keep it and I tremble to think of the arguments my landlord and I will be having when the infant cries at night. We aren't really asking for the moon, are we, after nearly eleven years spent in other people's houses?"
  If war were declared tomorrow, nothing would stand in the way of supplying the needs of the Armed Forces. I am asking the Minister to allow nothing to stand in the way in the war against ill-housing at the present time.
  10.23 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) for the constructive way in which he has raised the question of the very real and urgent housing needs of his own constituency. We sincerely appreciate the difficulties in his area, which he has clearly outlined to the House tonight. I think it is true to say that by the time the last sewerage scheme was completed in Slough, early in 1938, it was already inadequate owing to the vast development of industry in that area and the great surge of population that came in from outside, particularly from the old distressed areas of this country. In addition, of course, during the war years there was another quite unexpected rapid industrial development in Slough which added still further to the difficulties.
  Since the war the local authority and the Ministry of Health have done their utmost to press forward with this new sewerage scheme upon which housing development as a whole undoubtedly depends. As my hon. Friend has rightly said, we have done our utmost to help in the phasing of the delivery of materials and to help, with the Ministry of Labour, in providing labour for this vital work. I would say at once to my hon. Friend that I am most anxious to review even now the delivery promises that have been given on this particular project, because we understand how vital it is. While I certainly cannot give any promise or pledge at this moment, we will certainly see, even after all the efforts which we have put into it, if anything more can be done to speed up still further the delivery of the vital plant and materials upon which so much depends. Apart from that, if the local authority will get into touch with us about any of the other difficulties which my hon. Friend mentioned, either about lack of labour or about cement—or, of course, on the problem of cast-iron piping—we shall certainly take the matter up and help, as we have already helped in previous cases.
  My hon. Friend raised the question of L.C.C. building in the area. I can assure him that we are in very close touch with the L.C.C. on this matter and I can give him the quite firm guarantee that developments there will not in any way endanger the sewerage position and that, in fact,
  1330
  the work will be so phased as to avoid any further difficulties for Slough. The hon. Member also put forward certain proposals about the use of septic tanks. I will look into any proposals which the local authority put forward, but I am afraid I cannot offer very much hope in this direction. From an outside view of the matter it seems to me, from what knowledge we have of the Slough area, that it would probably mean just as much pumping and use, in the same way, of the already inadequate existing sewerage system, and that would not get us very much further forward.
  My hon. Friend further suggested that we should give approval to the building of houses without sewerage facilities in order to avoid any dismissal of workers, because that is one of the great problems in that area, and I quite understand the point he made. Again, however, I cannot be very hopeful on this point. Where we have, unfortunately, had to build houses without proper facilities either of water or sewerage, our experience has been that when attempts were made to avoid their being occupied before the full facilities were provided the results have not been at all encouraging. Any proposals which the local authority care to put forward will, however, be examined by us.
  I was also asked whether we could give particularly sympathetic consideration to larger allocations in the future. We will, of course, certainly look at the position of Slough, remembering the difficulties which they are facing now and the inevitable inadequacies in the amount of house building they are able to do at present. In thinking of future allocations, as soon as the sewerage problem has been overcome, we shall certainly do our best to provide larger allocations to help Slough to make up for the period of time which they have had to lose.
  The last point which my hon. Friend made was on the allocation of capital resources. As he rightly pointed out, this is a very much wider problem, which to some extent was discussed in the House recently. It is not a matter which we can easily discuss on an Adjournment, particularly when there are only one-and-a-half minutes left. I would only say that the Government would be very glad to be able to devote a larger proportion of our capital resources to this most urgent

  1331
  problem. It is not because of any lack of knowledge of the suffering and the difficulties which are involved in the housing situation today that allocations have been made in a way which is known over the country as a whole, but we have to face demands from other sources for widely different needs in this country—industrial and other needs. We have to make the fairest allocation we can of the resources which are available. Should those resources increase, we shall be only too delighted to increase the amount of house building which can take place in the country.
  1332
  I hope my hon. Friend will not feel that this has been a wholly disappointing answer. I repeat to him that I shall be very glad to look into the position of priorities for materials for this sewerage scheme and shall do my best to see that delivery is as rapid as possible.
  Mr. Brockway: I appreciate my hon. Friend's answer.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.

UGANDA
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Cotton-Seed Oil
  Cotton-Seed Oil
TANGANYIKA
  District Councils
  District Councils
  Provincial Councils
  Provincial Councils
  Task Cards
  Task Cards
CAMEROONS
  Trusteeship Council's Comments
  Trusteeship Council's Comments
  Development Corporation (Board)
  Development Corporation (Board)
  SARAWAK (MR. BROOKE)
  SARAWAK (MR. BROOKE)
MALAYA
  Anti-Bandit Campaign
  Anti-Bandit Campaign
  Government Policy (Publicity)
  Government Policy (Publicity)
  HONG KONG (CONSTITUTIONAL ADVANCE)
  HONG KONG (CONSTITUTIONAL ADVANCE)
NYASALAND
  Famine (Relief Campaign)
  Famine (Relief Campaign)
  Workers, South Africa
  Workers, South Africa
  COLOURED PEOPLE, LONDON (ACCOMMODATION)
  COLOURED PEOPLE, LONDON (ACCOMMODATION)
  TRUST TERRITORIES (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT)
  TRUST TERRITORIES (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT)
  NIGERIA (ELECTRICITY DEVELOPMENT)
  NIGERIA (ELECTRICITY DEVELOPMENT)
  GOLD COAST (TOGOLAND)
  GOLD COAST (TOGOLAND)
  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  ARMED FORCES (CIGARETTES AND TOBACCO)
  ARMED FORCES (CIGARETTES AND TOBACCO)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Points Rationing
  Points Rationing
  Argentine Meat (Negotiations)
  Argentine Meat (Negotiations)
  Milk Distribution
  Milk Distribution
  Ministry's Milk Division
  Ministry's Milk Division
  Meat (Sale)
  Meat (Sale)
  British Columbia Apples (Gift)
  British Columbia Apples (Gift)
  Ministry's Scientific Division
  Ministry's Scientific Division
  Colonial Coffee (Contracts)
  Colonial Coffee (Contracts)
  Apple Imports
  Apple Imports
  Street Traders (Model By-Laws)
  Street Traders (Model By-Laws)
  Flour (Extraction Rate)
  Flour (Extraction Rate)
ROYAL NAVY
  Rosyth Dockyard (Staff)
  Rosyth Dockyard (Staff)
  Deserters
  Deserters
  Detention Barracks
  Detention Barracks
  Dartmouth Entry
  Dartmouth Entry
  SHIP REPAIRING, MERSEYSIDE
  SHIP REPAIRING, MERSEYSIDE
POST OFFICE
  Festival of Britain (Stamps)
  Festival of Britain (Stamps)
  Special Stamps
  Special Stamps
  Letter Deliveries
  Letter Deliveries
  Mail, Malta
  Mail, Malta
  Gift Parcels (Pilfering)
  Gift Parcels (Pilfering)
  Destroyed Offices (Rebuilding)
  Destroyed Offices (Rebuilding)
  Airmail Letters
  Airmail Letters
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Calls (London-Southampton)
  Calls (London-Southampton)
  Lines (Installation)
  Lines (Installation)
  Shared Lines
  Shared Lines
  Applications
  Applications
  Hand-Microphone Instruments
  Hand-Microphone Instruments
TELEVISION
  Interference, Northampton
  Interference, Northampton
  Transmitters and Studios
  Transmitters and Studios
  WIRELESS RECEPTION, YORKSHIRE
  WIRELESS RECEPTION, YORKSHIRE
  PETROL (CONSUMPTION)
  PETROL (CONSUMPTION)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Indirect Taxation
  Indirect Taxation
  Government Departments (Women Cleaners)
  Government Departments (Women Cleaners)
  KIDGEM COPSE (PROPOSED ACQUISITION)
  KIDGEM COPSE (PROPOSED ACQUISITION)
  JUVENILE ACCIDENT STATISTICS
  JUVENILE ACCIDENT STATISTICS
SHIPPING
  Wreck, Dunbeath Harbour
  Wreck, Dunbeath Harbour
  Repairs
  Repairs
  OPERATIONS, MALAYA (COST)
  OPERATIONS, MALAYA (COST)
AGRICULTURE
  Hill Farming Schemes (Cottages)
  Hill Farming Schemes (Cottages)
  Marginal Land (Survey)
  Marginal Land (Survey)
SCOTLAND
  Fruit Research Station, Clyde Valley
  Fruit Research Station, Clyde Valley
  Harbour, Stroma
  Harbour, Stroma
  GUN SITE, PRIMROSE HILL
  GUN SITE, PRIMROSE HILL
  FORESTRY COMMISSION (COSTINGS)
  FORESTRY COMMISSION (COSTINGS)
Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Beveridge—Took the Oath.
GERMAN POTASH SYNDICATE LOAN BILL [H.L.] WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL [H.L.] TEES CONSERVANCY BILL [H.L.] ST. JOHN'S CHAPEL BEVERLEY BILL [H.L.] GUN BARREL PROOF BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE FUCHS CASE
2.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I wish to correct a point of fact arising out of a speech which I made last week on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, I then said that there was no truth in certain statements which had been made in the Press about the Fuchs case. The fact is that in a notebook belonging to a man who was one of those examined by the Canadian Royal Commission there did appear, amongst a long list of other names, the name of Klaus Fuchs. This notebook, together with all other relevant material, was promptly made available to us by the Canadian authorities. Subsequent events have, of course, attached a significance to that name which it did not then bear. As I was, when I made my speech, imperfectly informed on this particular, I thought I owed it to your Lordships and to the Press to make this correction.

HIGH COURT AND COUNTY COURT JUDGES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for increasing the number of puisne judges of the High Court and the number of judges of county courts; and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill, be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the number of crimes known to the police and classified as robbery with violence in the Metropolitan Police District in each of the years 1940 to 1949, in which the criminals concerned had provided themselves with implements of the, character of "coshes."]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the crime reports in the Metropolitan police district from which this information could be extracted have been destroyed for the years prior to 1944. As regards offences of robbery and assault with intent to rob known to the police since then, a search of the crime reports shows that the numbers of cases in which coshes or other blunt instruments were used were as follows: 1944, 28; 1945, 41; 1946, 43; 1947, 47; 1948, 45; 1949, 33.
VSCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, while thanking the Lord Chancellor very much for the trouble he has taken to obtain that information, may I put two questions arising out of his reply? I phrased my Question to refer to the classification of "robbery with violence," while appreciating that, of course, coshes might equally be found in connection with other crimes of violence committed for the purpose of stealing property—for instance, shopbreaking, housebreaking and so forth. I do not know whether it is possible for my noble and learned friend to tell the House whether the figures he has given refer strictly to robbery with violence (which, of course, was my Question), or whether they have any reference to analogous crimes of violence. Secondly, I would ask this: Can my noble and learned friend tell us whether consideration is being given to amending the law so that a man found in possession of an implement of this kind will be liable to be punished, as he is if

819
he is found in possession of housebreaking tools? I appreciate the difficulty, for of course it is easier to define housebreaking tools. I think a good many people would be relieved to hear that this matter was under consideration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With regard to the second part of the question, I can tell the noble and learned Viscount that at the present time that matter is being considered by the Home Secretary with a great deal of sympathy. He is trying to evolve something on the lines suggested. The difficulty, as the noble and learned Viscount said, is one of definition. If that difficulty can be overcome we may be able to do something on the lines suggested. At any rate, as I say, the matter is now being considered. With regard to the first part of the noble and learned Viscount's question, of course it is possible that a man convicted of an offence which does not involve any violence at all might have in his possession some instrument which would be useful if he did get into a "spot of bother." I have therefore taken the trouble to ascertain where I might get the information for which the noble and learned Viscount asks, but unfortunately I cannot get it. There are no figures available, and any information given would be nothing more than an impression on the part of the police. The figures I have given relate exclusively to either robbery, or assault with intent to rob. I regret to say that I cannot give the noble and learned Viscount the further information for which he asks.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I thank the noble and learned Viscount very much.

MAXIMUM PRICE FOR MEALS
2.43 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can now relax the 5s. limit for hotels and catering establishments.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Food is
820
now reviewing the Order under which the charge for meals in catering establishments is limited to 5s. and will make an announcement as soon as possible.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for his answer, may I ask whether it will be borne in mind that the present system of surcharges and the like is quite unintelligible to the average person in this country, let alone a foreigner; and whether it will also be borne in mind that we are to hold the Festival of Britain next year, and that all our hotels and catering establishments should be 100 per cent. satisfactory if we are to create the impression in the world that we desire to create? That being so, will the Minister of Food remember sympathetically the request that is put forward, that this Order should be done away with as having outlived its usefulness in present conditions?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I can only say in reply to the noble Earl that I know that my right honourable friend has all the relevant matters fully under consideration. I have actually seen mentioned elsewhere, though not perhaps in precisely the same terms, the two points which are now mentioned by the noble Earl in your Lordships' House. I feel confident that my right honourable friend has this particular question, along with other relevant questions, under consideration.

PLIGHT OF OLD PEOPLE
2.46 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the alteration brought about by recent social changes in the situation of old or infirm persons and of persons living alone; to ask what measures they propose to deal with the difficulties which have arisen; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention this afternoon has, I think, at least in its present form, arisen only during the past ten years. I am about to suggest to your Lordships that the measures for coping with the necessities of solitude and old age under the recent Acts and the reorganisation of the social services are either defective or ineffective. I shall begin by illustrating one side of the subject by a few examples which have come

821
to my notice during the past six years but, with your Lordships' permission, I shall not mention the names of any localities, because it is in fact part of my case that other localities can show examples similar to those which I shall quote.
I have tried to enlist the services of a press cutting agency, in order to give your Lordships a more comprehensive view than my own personal observations can give, but the work was refused—I presume because it entailed such laborious work in searching the files of purely local newspapers. I will give your Lordships some examples of old persons dying, either of sickness or starvation or both, in complete abandonment and neglect. A few years ago, not very far from my house, an old man was found who had been dead four days. He was living alone, and when he fell sick he was unable to rise and obtain food or attend to himself. Even had he received attention, of course, it is possible that he might have died—though that is not certain—but even if that had been so, in his last hours he would have received the ordinary attentions that are accorded to dying humanity.
Again, not very long ago in the North, an old lady was found who had been dead for nearly eight weeks in her house. Your Lordships must remember that these old people are apt not to call for assistance until they become too ill to do so, and then it is a question of whether disease or starvation terminates the affair first. In another town in the North I came across a case of an old man, blind, who was found dead. At the inquest the doctor said that had he been called in there might have been a possibility of hospital treatment. The coroner asked him: "Who would be responsible for a man such as this under the new scheme?" The answer was: "Nobody, so far as I can see. It is a terrible situation." I have heard of two other cases, one in the South, the other in the North. I have also come across another case, which through a piece of good fortune, did not occur, which I shall quote to your Lordships later on as illustrating a point which I wish to emphasise. It seems to me that, if one man without any serious effort can come across so many cases in six years, Parliament has a right, and I think a duty, to ask whether this is merely a "fluke" or what is the seriousness of the
822
situation it has a right to be fully informed of the matter and also to consider what improvements in the present system are called for to cope with the evil.
I have several letters on the subject and, with your Lordships' permission, I will read to you part of one of them which is useful as it will serve to illustrate nearly everything that I propose to say.
"I think there is a serious gap between the social welfare services are the hospital services.
…I have made no serious inquiry into this problem. Therefore, I cannot give you any accurate information as to the numbers…I have had several cases brought to me for help of persons infirm and, in some cases, bedfast, for whom there was no room in the hospital"—
this is the hospital side of it—
"…and who could net be removed to the social welfare hostel, and had no one except probably the next-door neighbour to look after them. Formerly, cases of this kind would have been reported to the public assistance officer, who would have made arrangements for their admission in the public assistance institution. Under the present scheme, the medical department of the public institutions has been taken over by the Hospital Beard, which keep the beds for hospital patients, whilst the hostels under the auspices of the Social Welfare Committee can accommodate only those aged persons who are physically fit.
Perhaps one concrete instance will put the matter clearly. An old lady of eighty, who was too ill and infirm to move from her bed, lived alone in an almshouse. Her only help was the next-door neighbour, a person over seventy years of age. The old lady of eighty was locked n the house about 8 p.m. each night, and stayed there alone without anyone to give her a drink or make, her clean and comfortable until the next morning, when about 8.30 a.m. the neighbour called again. The doctor made repeated application for admittance to hospital for a period of some weeks, but was not successful in getting the old lady removed. I appealed to the health offices and managed to get a 'home help' to give some assistance to her.
I have spoken of this problem to the chairman of the social welfare. committee who admits there are cases of this kind, but says that it is the responsibility of the Hospital Board to allocate the beat for persons who are bedfast, and the pressure for surgical and maternity cases is so great that there is no room for those who are infirm or suffering from long-term sickness."
My Lords, almost every point in that letter will be illustrated in what I am about to say. In a recent circular of over one thousand words, the Ministry admits, not exactly the evil but the public concern about the problem. The remainder of the leaflet is devoted to praises of the present system—it is rather in the nature of a "puff," I am afraid—with the

823
further suggestion, the only concrete suggestion in the leaflet, that more voluntary aid should be enlisted, and that voluntary committees should be formed. I was very glad to see that, because I am told that since 1948 voluntary workers have been steadily edged out of the welfare services, and I hope that this leaflet indicates some change of attitude on the part of the Ministry with regard to voluntary workers.
In what I am about to say now, I am particularly anxious not to give the impression that I do not value the work of voluntary committees and voluntary workers. They have a place—I think a very important place—in the new system. But I have one rather strong objection to handing over all real executive responsibility to any committee, because with committees I always feel that if anything goes wrong no one is personally to blame and everyone, even the most public-spirited, has an interest in not having too much publicity over what has happened. In fact, so far as I can see to-day, all the forces tend to make for concealment, which is a bad thing.
In the case in which I quoted to your Lordships an extract from the inquest, I happened to be staying in the town concerned, and was talking to members of the town council. I did not know of this case at the time, although it had just occurred. But I talked to them about this question of the old people, and I was told very positively that they had taken excellent measures to meet the dangers, that they had a committee which regularly visited every case in the town and that no such thing could possibly occur. Supposing I had known of this case and had said "What about this?" The reaction of my friends on the council would have been that this case was exceptional; that the committee must not be judged by a single hole in the net; that that net could be easily repaired and that only harm could come from wide publicity. The last thing that even the local Press will wish to do will be to make too much of a failure on the part of the most public-spirited people in the town. Nor can one really blame the people who are honestly doing their best.
I remind your Lordships that in the "bad old days," things were different. Had any of the cases which I have
824
mentioned occurred before 1940 the relieving officer might well have had to face a charge of manslaughter; he would certainly have been pilloried in the Press. Our national passion for keeping our neighbours' consciences would have had full play, and there would certainly have been a strong searchlight of publicity turned upon the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Kershaw (I am sure he will not mind my referring to it), has expressed to me privately doubts about the manslaughter aspect, but I have my reference—namely, Rex v. Curtis, a case of manslaughter heard in 1885. I have not read the case, but I am told that it had a tremendous effect on the profession of relieving officers. They always tell me with some pride that they did their work, and if they did not they would be punished for their failure. I do not think there have been many such cases before 1940, and I do not want your Lordships to think that I am asking for a return of the old system. I am very anxious, however, that the good points of that system should not be done away with, or that, if they have been done away with we should regain them.
I have told your Lordships about a case of that kind that did not occur. It concerned the relative of a friend of mine, a person well known to many of your Lordships. The relative was an invalid lady who had deliberately cut herself off from her family, possibly on account of the effects of her illness. She lived in one part of London while my friend lived in another. The relieving officer in my friend's neighbourhood took the opportunity of seeing my friend and asked him for particulars about his relative. The reason was obvious. The relieving officer in the district where the old lady lived, had seen her moving in the street. He inquired about her and who she was, and ascertained that she was living alone, and he noted that one day she might become his responsibility. He set himself to work to find out who was looking after her, and he asked his confrere to obtain particulars. That is a very good illustration of the way these things used to work. As a matter of fact, quite recently, the lady became ill and was confined to her room. Through the kindness of her neighbour, her family were informed and she was looked after in her last moments. But if nobody had known about her, if she

825
had had no family, or if her relatives had not looked after her, she might have become number six on my list, because those whose duty it was to deal with the case had not the necessary information.
Before giving your Lordships a detailed idea of what I would like to see done, I think I should make some remarks about the general situation of the elderly, apart from those who are living in solitude. We must always bear in mind that this is not a question of wealth or poverty. In fact, the people who are in receipt of public assistance are probably better off in many respects than those who are well-to-do. It is estimated that to-day there are in the country about 7,500,000 people over sixty years of age. Though people do not become really old until a few years after sixty have elapsed, that is the nearest figure that I can give your Lordships; I have no figures for the higher ages. Many of these people—in fact, the great proportion—are living with their relatives, and when they fall sick they are sent to hospital. Quite often when they are ready to leave hospital, their relatives refuse to take them back, and that creates a very great difficulty.
Your Lordships will remember that in law it is now no longer the duty of children to maintain their parents. It was probably in deference to opinions held by noble Lords opposite that that duty was removed. While the duty remained in law, I think it was recognised by the people as just, and it was carried out with a fair amount of affection and a sense of duty; but to-day the duty no longer exists, and the looking after of our elder relatives is felt to be irksome. It is a very irksome duty and the acid of irksomeness rather eats away affection, so that one gets many cases of people refusing to take back old people who have been sent to hospital for any reason. As a result these old people cannot leave hospital, and they occupy valuable beds which are really required by others.
In this connection I have been told by people who ought to know (I do not know if it is true) that there are sufficient hospital beds available for all the work that hospitals ought properly to be called upon to do, including caring for the old when they are sick, hut there are not sufficient to furnish beds for old
826
people who go to hospital for quite temporary reasons and then have to remain there permanently. I should like at this point to say to your Lordships that the system which has grown up is bad for the old people, just it is bad for the hospitals. So far as I have been able to find out, and from my experience, old people are much better out of bed. It is the one way of preventing their becoming bedridden. If they once take to their beds for any period of time, they may never get up again. Anyway, they are much healthier whet they are moving about.
Now I have some suggestions to make to your Lordships for coping with the evil, and I think they can all be adopted, according to the circumstances. I suggest, in the first place, that wherever possible old people ought to be maintained in their own homes. For this purpose we want a very much larger "home help" service. I have heard the "home help" service criticised and I have also heard it highly praised, but I think that the trouble with it is that in winter and where there is a big demand unsuitable people are employed in the work and there is insufficient supervision. It is a kind of work where there ought to be a certain degree of regular supervision. But where it is possible to get home help for old people, that is a very useful way.of dealing with the problem.
Another point is connection with those who are living with relatives. I suggest that local authorities should be empowered to pay the relatives two or three guineas a week for the keep of the old people. I suggest that for this reason. Those relatives have no duty to look after those old people and therefore there is no need for them to do so. They have therefore a right to receive a consideration. It costs seven, perhaps eight, guineas a week to keep an old person in hospital. It would be much cheaper to the public and very much better for the old people and for everybody if they could be kept with their relatives. It would save the public purse, and I cannot see that there would be anything wrong in it. My third suggestion, which I think is already being put into practice to some extent and which is very important, is that adequate homes should be provided. By adequate homes I mean homes suitable for different kinds of people, people of different habits and different tastes. They should be

827
places to which people could be induced to retire voluntarily. It is much better to get this work done voluntarily than by compulsion. If that were done we should have to see that arrangements were made for different kinds of homes for able-bodied old people and for those who are frail. In this way these old people would enjoy a brighter and more varied life, and hospital beds would be freed for those who really needed them.
Apart from the "home help" service these suggestions have hardly touched on the needs of the people with whom I began—namely, the old people who are living in solitude. I know that the local authority has power to remove these people to homes, but I wonder whether the Government really contemplate an extensive use of this power. I very much hope not. What happens to their property? Who is responsible for the lovely enamelled snuff-box or some picture—those things which still make the pleasure of old people through their connection with happier times? It is not an answer to say that the county council are insured against any losses of that kind. I am thinking of the old people who will go back to their properties one day. I believe that that is a very important matter. This power of compulsory removal is, I feel, a very considerable abridgment of the liberty which we have always been accustomed to enjoy. I am certain that no Tory Government would ever have ventured to take to themselves so drastic a power. However, in spite of these powers there seems to me to be no organisation to give us what we need in this matter. The first thing we need is early information of cases which are likely to give trouble (that is the most important thing); and the second is the duty of regularly visiting these cases when they are known.
If I had to organise this matter myself I would make the welfare of these people the concern chiefly of the borough. These cases really do not concern the county; they are all town cases. I would make the local welfare officer responsible, and I would give him a district which was small enough to enable him to know it thoroughly and to become accustomed to the people whom he met in it on his daily rounds. Then I would make him just as responsible as was the relieving officer.
828
He would thus have the same inducement to form the necessary connections and liaisons, and to ferret out these cases. For all those reasons the area under his supervision would have to be small. Without something of that kind I do not see how we can avoid these very lamentable cases.
One of the things about which I would like some information—and this is why I am moving for Papers—is: What is the real extent of the evil? How many of these cases have occurred during the past ten years? I think that we ought to know. If we are going to put this burden on the welfare officers I suggest that they ought to be given certain powers. They ought to be given the power of requiring a hospital to furnish a bed if necessary. In the old days they used to have the power to ask a hospital to provide a bed for a patient, and if the hospital could not make a bed available it had to find a hospital in the area which could. To-day that power is not there, and we get cases like the one which I have no doubt your Lordships saw reported in the papers the other day: an old lady was sent to a hospital with a broken femur, and because the hospital had no room for her she was given a couple of tablets and sent back home. She died. As we know, a broken femur is not, as a rule, a fatal injury.
The second need is that of visiting. That is a thing which I think might usefully and suitably be undertaken by voluntary associations. In this connection I would like to ask for the assistance of the churches in providing for more visiting. They nearly always know their old people. I believe that in this respect the Women's Voluntary Services have done wonderful work. But whatever arrangements of that kind are made, there is one thing that we certainly should have and that is insistence on any visitor to an old person sending a written report of the visit—possibly on a regular form—to the local welfare officer for his information. It would be absurd to impose on voluntary societies the responsibility for the discovery of these cases; that must be the duty of the welfare officer. But if we adopted my suggestion I think we should be in a fair way to coping with the evil. I am sure there would be no difficulty in finding plenty of voluntary visitors. Even in these days there are

829
some people left with sufficient leisure, sufficient good-heartedness, and sufficient of what I shall call natural Toryism to welcome an opportunity of personally assisting their neighbours. I beg to move for Papers.
3.11 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I rise, perhaps not altogether inappropriately, after Lord Saltoun's sudden appeal to the Church. I should like to take the opportunity of expressing my own thanks to him for the plain and practical way he introduced his subject. Of course, it is a matter about which one can expend a great deal of sentiment, but practical effectiveness would probably be in inverse ratio to the amount of sentimentality expressed. I should like to follow his excellent example I do not suppose that it is possible to deal with matters of this kind without making sure that there is an evil to be remedied, arid I noticed that the noble Lord spent some time in trying to establish a case. His case could be established only by enumerating a number of actual instances, and I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I add very briefly to those instances which the noble Lord has already given.
I have in my hand a report sent in by one of our church workers, who strongly emphasises precisely the state of things suggested by the noble Lord. Here are some remarks made.
"It is almost impossible to get an old person into hospital. Only recently an old man was left entirely in the care of his mentally deficient daughter. For days he was left unwashed, the doctor just remarking, 'No use.' Another case was that of a bedridden man sent home, and his wife, an invalid, had to get out of the one bed in order to let him occupy it. Afterwards she was found lying on an old sofa, and after a fuss we managed to get the pensions people to buy a bedstead, which they did, but no mattress. We managed to get a mattress from the Church Army and now they both have a bed. A daughter who is at work nearly all day long is doing her best for them in between times."
The story continues:
"The secretary of my Women's Fellowship has her father-in-law ill, and the doctor has told her that he is too old to go into hospital. Certainly he is ninety-two but they cannot lift him, and have a very bad time. So I could go on. and I am sure many others could. The fate of aged sick people now is really pathetic."
I mention those instances merely to reinforce the case already set out by the
830
noble Lord who has just sat down. I appreciate greatly what he said about the possibility of calling in to a greater extent the aid of the voluntary societies. I think it would ill become anyone speaking on a matter of this kind not to say how grateful we are to the law for all that it has done in recent years. Actually, the position in regard to old people is decidedly better than it was a few years ago. I am not in the least grumbling against the law, or asking for any remedy in law; I am asking merely, as the noble Lord himself did, that the law should be more adequately applied. I think it is true that there are a number of instances in every part of the country where some such improvement in administration is obviously required.
Let me again follow the noble Lord's example in suggesting some practical steps that could be taken. In the first place, we ought to do something about ensuring the possibility of admitting into hospital old people who are sick. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, will talk about this matter from the medical point of view. I imagine that one of the great difficulties is not the lack of beds (probably there are enough beds), but the lack of nurses. That is a serious situation with which we are all concerned. All I can say from the Church's point of view is that we are prepared to do everything we can to support any move made by the Government in order to increase the recruitment of nurses. In my own diocese, and in the neighbouring diocese of Southwark, the Church is undertaking a kind of campaign to try to induce more young women to recognise the possibility of a vocation in nursing. When we can secure an adequate supply of curses I have no doubt that we shall be able to offer old people admission to hospital.
That, of course, only deals with the minor part of a great problem. What we need is to think of the old people as a whole, and particularly of those who would be greatly benefited by being enabled to maintain their own independence of life. What is necessary is some care about their housing. It is an undoubted fact that at the present time many old people are in much graver difficulties than they need be because they are not satisfactorily housed. It ought to

831
be possible to ensure that local authorities, in every housing estate they establish and in every block of flats they build, arrange a certain number of houses and flats which can be used by old people. If small flats of two rooms were provided—sometimes even of one—on the ground floor, where the people would not have to mount a number of stairs, it would be possible for old people to find comfortable residences for themselves. That is a matter about which the voluntary societies cannot give a great deal of help, although we have voluntary societies which do excellent housing work. There is another way in which we can do work of real value to the country and to the old people, and that is in the establishment of what are called residential homes. In such homes old people can be properly looked after and given adequate care and a certain amount of nursing, until they become too ill to be left in that kind of residence and have to be taken to hospital. I am sure it would be a cheap way of dealing with this great problem if voluntary societies could be helped to build and maintain such residential homes.
One other point which it is important to stress is the need for fighting a real war against the solitariness and isolation that are the bane of the declining years of many old people. We ought to do all we can to bring them into the society of their fellows. One of the most moving experiences I have had is when I recently went down to the East End to look at a club. The club was a joint concern, run by the local authority and the church. I went into a vast room where there were quantities of whist tables with parties, sometimes of men and sometimes of women, sitting round them. There was not an empty table or an empty chair in the whole vast building. Some of the people were playing dominoes, some were playing cards, and some were knitting; and all of them seemed to be extremely cheerful. There was a babel of happy conversation which showed that the atmosphere was of the best possible kind. That afternoon I realised how much could be done by joint action. I feel, therefore, that in this problem there is great scope for co-operation between local authorities, the Government and the voluntary societies, and I hope the
832
voluntary societies will be given every possible opportunity of doing all they can in the matter.
3.20 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am sure one of the first things your Lordships would like me to do is to give our general thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for having brought up this important question this afternoon. The last time on which your Lordships had an opportunity to talk about the plight of old people in this country was in 1947, when I myself put down a Motion which was spoken to by several noble Lords. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said about the trouble we have experienced through the break-up of the Poor Law and the abolition of the valuable office of the relieving officer. I expect some relieving officers were not very good, but many of them were really friendly with the people who came under their care. There was a certain value in the care of the old people being their personal responsibility, rather than that the aged should be taken care of by a committee, no matter how excellent the people composing the committee may be.
One of the subjects about which I should like to speak is my own particular interest in this work, which is purely on the medical side. One of the difficulties, which has been mentioned both by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and by the right reverend Prelate, is the difficulty of getting people into hospital when they are sick. One learns from one's paper and finds from experience the great difficulty of getting admission for people who have turned the age of sixty or sixty-five, no matter what is wrong with them. It is not that these persons will not get better, but the fact that they tend to be in their bed for a very long time, when there are large numbers of younger people who are waiting for hospital treatment and care. Some authorities prefer to take in more people rather than admit those who are going to remain for a long time. But I feel there is a change of mind coming, certainly in the medical profession, because it has been found that one can rehabilitate people, of no matter what age, to an extent where they can be discharged from the expensive beds in hospital, where they are taking up the time of skilled medical and nursing staff, and be

833
put into some kind of home where they can still be taken care of—that is, if they cannot go to their own homes. A certain number can go to their own homes, but in the case of many of these people who live by themselves, or with their families in very cramped conditions, it is practically impossible for their families to take care of them when they are not fit.
One of the strange things about London (it was mentioned in a report by the Nuffield Trustees, who met under the chairmanship of Mr. Rowntree in 1946 or 1947) is the large number of single or widowed people who live by themselves. The report covered two boroughs in London, one of which I know fairly well. There it was found that of single and widowed people over sixty-five years of age 45 per cent. lived by themselves. That seems an absolutely staggering figure, but that is what Mr. Rowntree found from a very careful survey. In other towns and country districts the figure was about 10 per cent. So there is this enormous number of people in London living by themselves, and by some pure chance—I suppose it is an economic one, under which one pays less rent for a room on the top floor than for a room on the ground floor—a large number of them do live on top floors. That means that when they have been sick with some fairly crippling disease they probably cannot go back home again, because they cannot cope with the stairs, the shopping, the cooking and the general housework.
Some of them can be helped by the local authorities, who can send helps and nurses, but there comes a time when something more than that is required. That is where the real difficulty arises now. What we need in this country is a series of homes such as those the right reverend Prelate mentioned, where people who are not particularly in need of nursing can go for care and attention—the kind of accommodation envisaged under Part III of the National Assistance Act, where the local authority can make provision for people who, by reason of age and infirmity, can no longer take care of themselves. That can be done by the local authority, and a great deal can be done by voluntary bodies, too. Mention has been made of the good work done by the W.V.S. They have a series of residential clubs in the country, and also a series of what they call nursing homes.
834
People who are quite well are admitted to the clubs, but when they become frail and feeble they are not cast on the world but are transferred fro in the residential club to the W.V.S. nursing home. Therefore, there are two ways of doing this work: either through the local authorities or through voluntary bodies.
When your Lordships were discussing the Second Reading of the National Health Services Bill, I raised the question of the care of the chronic sick. I received a warm and encouraging reply from the Government that attention would be given under the National Health Service to see that more people were employed to take care of people in the chronic-sick wards. Most of those in chronic sick wards are people who have turned sixty or sixty-five years of age. I am pleased to see from some figures published recently (they appear in the report of the Minister of Health, published about a week ago) that there are now thirty-six people of consultant or specialist grade, and nineteen or twenty people of the registrar or junior grade, employed in looking after people in chronic sick wards. That is not very great progress, it is true, but it represents a larger number than were employed when the Bill was being debated by your Lordships; I think the number was then two, but it may have been three.
One does not wish to rush this service along too quickly, because one wants to get it done really well and on a solid basis, and not to get people employed who do not know much about the subject. Therefore, one should see an improvement in the treatment of patients in these chronic sick wards in the next five or ten years. I trust that the service will be on a big scale by then. That will mean pari passu that it will be essential for places to be established to which people who have been rehabilitated can go. That is where the importance of these homes arises. I feel that these homes should be provided as quickly as possible, because by that means we shall he able to get patients discharged from their expensive hospital beds into some place just as comfortable and more like their own home, where they can be looked after until possibly they may go back to their own places, or, if not, until they die.
A great deal of work of that sort has been done in the county borough of

835
Rochdale, in Lancashire, where they have established a large number of homes under Part III of the National Assistance Act. By doing that, they have managed to transfer from the wards of the Rochdale Infirmary the patients who were there for purely social reasons, so that the wards are now free for the treatment of sick people and not the non-sick and destitute who were formerly filling them. I am sure the example of Rochdale should be widely copied. It is possible that it is already being copied, and I do not want to be unfair to other county boroughs who are doing this work, but that is just one case I came across comparatively recently. Another body who have realised the need are the King's Fund Homes in London, who, as your Lordships know, have a large sum of money with which to contribute to hospitals things they do not normally have. Their work has been changed since the National Health Service Act, but they have set aside the sum of £250,000 in order to provide homes for people of this sort.
As I have said, the need for admission to hospital is very great. There is a fairly large charity with which I have connection which runs a series of houses in Kensington where people can take a single room and move in with their furniture. They are taken care of and are given a certain amount of help and attention. These houses are in two blocks. One block has no particular trouble in getting people admitted into a certain chronic sick hospital, but I was particularly distressed the other day to find that the other block has very great difficulty indeed. We made some inquiries about the difficulty, and were told that only one bed had become vacant in the wards of this chronic sick hospital in the course of the past year. Whether that meant that a patient had died or was discharged, I do not know. That shows the great need I mentioned a short time ago for people who can treat, remedy and rehabilitate these people and for the local authorities to provide the necessary homes. By carrying out that work, I think we shall go a long way to solving the problem of the infirm and sick person.
I will not touch upon the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, with regard to the method of tracking
836
down people who are likely to be in trouble. I think the employment of some kind of welfare officer of the type he mentioned would probably be the most satisfactory method of doing that. This is too big a burden to put upon a voluntary body. They have to report somewhere, and there has to be some person responsible to take the decision as to what shall be done. One does not like to see people forcibly removed from their homes, but there is provision for that in the National Assistance Act. If action on the lines I have just put before your Lordships were to be taken, I am sure there would not be need for any drastic action about hospital beds. There would be enough, or very nearly enough, to go round, and we should have done a great deal towards improving the lot of the old people.
3.33 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I rise to support what has been said, and I do not wish to weary your Lordships by saying it over again. It seems to me that the particular difficulties to which reference has been made cannot be fully resolved unless we look at the whole subject in its true perspective. The problem of old age is not merely a problem of infirmity or penury. It confronts each one of us, and a great deal of unhappiness in life is caused by people stumbling unawares into old age without being prepared for it in mind. That happens at all levels of society. Granted the ubiquity of the problem, those of us who have enjoyed leisure, security and health, some culture and wide interests, are better placed to meet the emergency than those who are straitened by poverty or ill-health.
One of the most important social changes in recent times is the fact that the problem of old age is no longer primarily a problem of poverty, though of course poverty is still a contributory factor. It is still most desirable that everybody should save if he can for that day, and not put his whole trust on pensions and State assistance. We have also to face the fact that the proportion between young and old in the population is going to change considerably in the next thirty years. At the present time those who are of pensionable age are about 13.5 per cent. of the population. It is reckoned that in thirty years that figure will have risen to 18.8 per cent

837
According to the Report of the Commission on Population, the cost of maintenance at the present rate is £238,000,000 per annum. In 1978 the cost will be just over £500,000,000. Therefore the economic burden on the working population of thirty years hence will be enormous. It therefore seems that, for economic reasons alone, the State would be well advised to keep as ma-ay men and women of pensionable age in employment or partial employment for as long as possible. It seems to me that that subject requires more careful consideration than it has yet received, either by local authorities or, if I may say so, by trade unions. The time has come when we want to try and work out a labour policy for those over sixty-five years of age.
This afternoon we are looking at this problem not from the State or economic point of view, but from the point of view of human welfare. From that standpoint it is a great blessing if elderly people can continue in useful employment, or if they have the resources to occupy their days well. We all know of people, at all levels of society, who, when they have ceased their normal job, have fallen into days of retirement. Life loses its interest, and often health quickly deteriorates. When we think of the skilled or the semiskilled workers in the country, I suggest that it is extraordinarily important that those people should feel, when they come to pensionable age, that they are still wanted members of the community. Society has not fully discharged its responsibility towards them by providing a more or less adequate pension. I repeat that a lot more thought needs to be given to ways of keeping such people conscious and active members of a community. That, I would suggest, is the only really satisfactory solution of the sometimes quite terrible onset of loneliness. The other day an old man said to a doctor of my acquaintance: "After sixty, work is the best medicine, doctor."
Next to work, housing, as has been suggested, is extremely important. In the city where I live, a fairly thorough survey has recently been made of this problem, and the report is to be published shortly. Of 60,000 pensionable folk only 3.7 per Cent. are in public institutions, and only 3.5 per cent. in homes or hostels provided by trusts or charities or by the local authority. There is obviously urgent
838
need to increase that provision, especially, as has already been suggested, for the very old. As vitality shrinks they not only become more solitary but often they lapse into squalor. We have also to take note of the changing pattern of society —smaller families, and smaller houses and flats. All this must make it more difficult in the future for the younger generation to house those who are getting old. In any event, I doubt whether it is the best of all arrangements for young and old to be on top of one another.
There is great need of accommodation suitable for old people; and along with it, as has been suggested, there should be a far more generous provision of home helps, some nursing care, and also more facilities for communal life. But as soon as one has said that, one wants to add something to counterbalance it: elderly folk naturally and properly want to go on living in the community where they are known. A hygienic house in a new housing estate miles away, where no one really cares about or knows them, may be all very well, but it is a very poor exchange in terms of happiness. There is in our country as a whole a fine tradition of families caring for their old folk, but unfortunately to-clay so many of the houses in our industrial slums are ill-designed and ill-equipped for infirm folk—though the same slums do at least provide community. Let us then by all means provide more clubs for old people; but the best club, probably, is neighbourliness—the neighbourliness of a little back street where they have been living for thirty or forty years.
So I would endorse, out of my limited experience, all that has been said this afternoon. I would urge that more effort should be made to make even rather bad houses less unsuitable, bearing in mind that in the long run community matters more than mere comfort. I feel that the noble Lord who introduced this debate was right in saying that the old-time relieving officer was often an invaluable friend. His weekly visits were of great comfort, but he has not been replaced. While more supplies have been laid on, the human touch has often been lacking. As things are, the routine visits of the welfare officers occur far more rarely than the visits which the relieving officers used to make. I think our practical concern should be: How can the human touch

839
which was exercised by the best relieving officers be preserved? I should like to endorse the suggestion made that here is an obvious outlet for voluntary service and Christian neighbourliness, untainted by dole-giving. Provided that it is supervised and co-ordinated with the work of the trained State or local authority welfare officers, such work can be done by ordinary, reasonable, kindly members of the community gifted with common sense. I agree with my brother Prelate that here is a work that should have the full support of the Churches; and it should be done in co-operation with both the local authorities and the Government departments.
There is one other matter to which I should like to make reference. There are scattered up and down this country numerous parochial charities and gifts which have long since ceased to serve any useful purpose. It would surely be a good thing if these very considerable charities could be pooled in the several localities for the purpose of providing a valuable supplementary fund out of which amenity schemes for old people could be financed—home helps, more clubs, repairs to wireless sets and so forth, and some kind of shopping service for those who are too old to shop for themselves. Be that as it may, I would end these few remarks on a subject with very wide ramifications by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for raising this matter, and by reminding your Lordships that the aged, to whatever social group they belong, cannot be treated en masse; they have to be considered one by one. Just because they have lived a long time in this world they become more individual, possibly, than youth, and therefore their care should be the concern of the whole community and of every good neighbour. And it is a care in which the State, the local authorities, the Church, voluntary organisations and all well-disposed individuals should co-operate.
3.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, like noble Lords before me, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord who has moved this Motion, because he has introduced a subject that is of very great importance. It is naturally a very wide one, and I rise to speak on an aspect which has not been mentioned
840
before—I refer to the old people who are gentlefolk, who are so often forgotten. Many voluntary charitable associations are doing a great deal of work on their behalf. I speak to your Lordships as chairman of one of these societies a society that does its best to assist and to look after one section of these old gentlefolk, but I sincerely hope that any remarks I make will not be taken merely from that angle, because many of the difficulties that have been mentioned this afternoon apply to all sections. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, mentioned in the course of his speech that this is a new problem. I would emphasise that point; it is a new problem that has developed very seriously during the last few years. At the risk of repetition, I hope to illustrate how difficult that problem has become. One of the greatest difficulties that voluntary societies have to-day, as has already been said, is to find out about these old people. We are anxious to know of them, but a great many of them do not like to come forward and say that they are badly off. We therefore have to ferret them out.
Another great problem which has already been mentioned is that of hospital accommodation. Though previously such accommodation may not have been as good as it might have been, it was at least nearly always available for the old and the infirm. Nowadays, in the State hospitals, it is almost impossible to find that accommodation. The result is that these old people have to depend more and more on the voluntary charitable societies. Frequently, though the homes that they run may be moderate in cost, the expense is beyond the means of these old people. Therefore, very often they have to be supplemented in one form or another—for example, under the National Assistance Board regulations. But in such a case, of course, these homes are and have to be subject to a certain amount of control by the local authority.
Much has been said about hospital treatment for the sick. I do not want to repeat what has been said, but I should like to emphasise it with one illustration. It is the case of an old lady of seventy-six, suffering from pneumonia, who was admitted to a State hospital at the end of November. She was discharged at the beginning of January, and was transferred to the sick bay of a convalescent

841
home run by a charitable society. Three weeks later her condition became so unsatisfactory that she had to be put back into an independent hospital, where she remained for a further three weeks. After that, it was felt that she must again have another three weeks' convalescence before being allowed to return home. Altogether, it was nine weeks from the time she left the State hospital, going from one home or hospital to another, until she was able to return home, all because of the difficulty of accommodation in the original State hospital.
Then, in connection with the convalescent homes, we find it impossible to get an old person into a State convalescent home except direct from a State hospital. In the past, the only requirement in order to obtain a place in many of the convalescent homes where such accommodation was free, or where perhaps there was only a small charge to pay, was a doctor's certificate. To-day, an old person who has not been able to obtain hospital treatment and who has stayed at home cannot obtain convalescence without payment, which payment he or she may not be able to afford; and so they have to fall back either on relatives who are not well off or on one of the voluntary charitable Societies.
Generally speaking, we have found that the officers of the National Assistance Board have been doing what they can to interpret with sympathy and understanding the regulations which they are bound to observe, but it would seem that until there are more homes suited to the needs of old people, some relaxation of the regulations may be necessary if further hardships are to be avoided. Until local authorities can meet their obligations under the National Assistance Act, I would suggest to His Majesty's Government that every encouragement should be given to all voluntary charitable societies in order to help them meet the present demands and so that they may be assured of financial assistance for those for whom accommodation is supplied. I would add one further final suggestion—that is, that Assistance Board officers should do all they can to help those old people in voluntary homes.
3.55 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, perhaps it is only right that in spite of the cloud that hangs over us from yesterday's debate and which is to be renewed
842
later this afternoon, we should give some thought to this serious social problem. The emphasis this afternoon has been laid on the old. I do not know why such a young and vigorous House as this should concentrate all its attention on the old. We should not have any particular bias, and the terms of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, include "persons living alone."
LORD SALTOUN: Hear, hear.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: We are not concerned only with the old. Some of my most pathetic and sometimes tragic experiences have been in finding young people quite alone—very often unfortunately, by their own choice—in the trend of feeling which seized young people in a previous decade when they wanted to get away from the ties of home and have a little flatlet. There they were all alone, sometimes desperately sick; some sympathetic neighbour had summoned the doctor; the doctor had called for consultation, and the situation was found to be desperate. This problem arises not only with the old people, low the old are perhaps more isolated. The youngsters can seek assistance from friends, and are more active, while the old people are not always so sick as they imagine. Many of them who go into homes for incurables would be found to be quite capable of rehabilitation if an enterprising medical staff were appointed. That is one of the tragedies of the homes, particularly if they are labeled "Homes for incurables." The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, made a gross surgical error in referring to a fracture of the femur in an old person as a comparatively trivial injury. In a large proportion of cases it is the final event, so I warn those of your Lordships whose bones are getting a little calcified to be careful of any edge of the carpet you may meet on the way out from this Chamber, in case you sustain a fracture at the neck of the femur. If you are so unfortunate, I hope you will leek expert assistance quickly, because it is not by any means a minor injury.
The general impression is that the problem of old people has become much greater in recent years, hut that is only an impression. The Motion moved by the noble Lord is therefore fully justified, because we want to be fully informed on this matter, whether it is an increasing or a decreasing problem. I do not want

843
to spend time repeating what has been said before, but what has always struck me in my experience is that the most successful experiment in the effort to solve this problem was that which was devised by William Whiteley and which I have seen in action. He established homes in the country for aged people, and put into that colony a nursing service. That is perhaps the kindest thing that can be done for old people who are more or less infirm, or at least who are alone—to arrange accommodation so that although they have their own homes, nursing assistance is available, either within a little colony or in a block of flatlets in the heart of a city. And those flatlets need not be confined only to the aged a proportion of them could be occupied by young people.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London referred to me personally as likely to offer either some additional problems or some possible solutions. Apart from the ideas which I have suggested, I do not know that I have anything material to contribute. I should like to correct the impression that the Government should be blamed because somebody is not taken to hospital at once. To get an old patient or a chronic sick case into hospital has been a problem for the last century—in my own personal experience, for the last half century. It has always been a problem, and in the great general hospitals you could see the fright of the resident staff if they saw a case of fractured femur in a bed, because they did not know how they were going to get rid of the patient and they were not going to be able to do anything for him except wait. There is a different approach to the subject to-day. Naturally, the hospital staffs did not want a bed which might be occupied by a series of patients whose lives might be saved, to be blocked by a chronic case which might sojourn there for months. This is not a new problem, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, realises full well. Nor did I gather from his remarks that he was trying to attach blame to the Government because there was no immediate solution.
There is one final word I should like to direct to the right reverend Prelates—namely, that the real solution, apart from cases which are too heavy a burden and
844
cannot be supported in the homes of the younger generation to-day, is to help the younger generation to keep their old folk in their homes. If the last days of these people are to be happy, they are going to he happy not by their being put into a community with a number of other old people they are going to be happy because they are mixing with the younger generation—and happier still if "generation" is in the plural. The happiest old people are the grandparents.
4.4 p.m.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, it is typical of the breadth of argument in matters that are debated in this House, that for an interval between considering armaments and the engines of destruction we should devote ourselves to a subject which is essentially humanitarian and one of peace. We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for raising this subject, and I think I detect general agreement that neither he nor other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate are criticising the present scheme of things, but rather are anxious that any weaknesses in the scheme, such as it is, should be discovered and any defects removed.
The noble Lord refers in his Motion to "recent social changes." I take it that by that he means the introduction of the new National Health Service and the National Assistance scheme which came into operation on July 5, 1948. I should be disposed to use rather a stronger term in connection with these matters than to speak of them as "social changes." I would claim that there has in fact been a revolution in our method of dealing with our aged and infirm people, and with people who need assistance in one way or another—in fact, anyone who hats fallen by the wayside in his daily life. I feel strengthened in that claim by the remark of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London that the position to-day is infinitely better than it was prior to the introduction of these Acts which are the subject of the noble Lord's Motion.
I start from that standpoint—namely, that we are all agreed that the services provided for our aged and infirm people are, in the words of the right reverend Prelate, infinitely better than they were formerly. But one should not say that

845
in the evolution of the new scheme there may not appear defects, some of which have been 'pointed out this afternoon. It has to be remembered that formerly—the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and other noble Lords have referred to this point—practically all the assistance needed by the aged or the infirm was given through the relieving officer and the board of guardians. It is suggested that the present division of responsibility has been created by the new Acts; the National Health Service Act in respect of incapacity and sick people, old as well as young, and the National Assistance Act in respect of those people who for one cause or another can have their necessities met by money grants. There are also the local authorities who are now responsible for domiciliary help. Anyone who, by reason of infirmity or handicap of a nature not usually regarded as illness, can be taken care of by the local authority, who by Statute must provide homes or otherwise see that those people are taken care of by relatives and friends.
I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun (though perhaps I misunderstand him) seems to be in favour of the return of the old Poor Law system of dealing with aged and infirm people. I believe he is quite mistaken in thinking that only the fear of a charge of manslaughter caused the relieving officer to do his duty. I prefer to say that the relieving officers probably did their duty, as most people do, from sense of wanting to do their job well, and in a spirit of humanity which should pervade anyone who has to deal with this type of person. Since the noble Lord quoted a particular case, I think I ought to tell the House that the case to which he refers is the only one that was ever taken under the old Poor Law, and that was in 1885.
LORD SALTOUN: Yes, I said that.
LORD KERSHAW: The Poor Law officer in that case was acquitted, and it is the only case that was ever taken under that Act. There is no other occasion on which a relieving officer has been prosecuted. I make quite definitely the claim that good or had—and there may have been both kinds of relieving officers in the past—they have never ordered their method of dealing with these cases by fear of consequences of the nature mentioned by the noble Lord, any more than
846
the present officers under the National Assistance Board would be influenced by fear of consequences of that kind. At the present moment, as I have said, the State is responsible for the provision of hospital treatment and medical treatment generally through the National Health Service, while the National Assistance Board are responsible for money relief and the local authorities are responsible for any domiciliary help that may be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has spoken of old people dying under conditions of complete helplessness and abandonment. I suggest to the noble Lord that in whatever system we have, short of a system of snooping to which neither he nor I would agree, such cases of elderly people dying lonely must occur. I know that the noble Lord is, under the impression that the relieving officers had a special capacity for detecting these cases in their normal course of walking about the streets, but I think it is only fair to say that several of the cases which he quoted to illustrate his point occurred before July 5, 1948. Therefore even under that system the cases were not detected in time to prevent these unfortunate deaths.
LORD SALTOUN: I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord but if I may venture to do so I would like to point out that I dated my remarks from the time when old people were taken away from the responsibility of the relieving officers in 1940. After 1940 relieving officers had nothing to do with the old people. That is why I took that date, because it is relevant.
LORD KERSHAW: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. It remains equally true, I think, that it would be impossible to avoid cases of this kind, whatever the system. It has to be remembered that in the main the people with whom we are concerred can be divided into two classes—I mean that only in the sense in which we are discussing this matter. One class manage somehow or other to maintain themselves on the old-age pension. It may be that they are helped by their relatives and friends; that is to say, they live with their relatives and friends: they probably do in the main. The proportion of lonely people in that particular class can never be very

847
high. The other class whom we are considering to-day are the old-age pensioners and elderly people who for one reason or another do come within the purview of the National Assistance Board. When that happens it is fairly certain that the national assistance officer, the welfare officer, and other people concerned with the granting of additional help, will be in sufficient touch with these people. I know that the noble Lord has said that with the aid of a form they can get one of these officers to visit them. But I would point out that the form with which they are supplied in order to get the help of an outside person is a form unlike most forms which emanate from Whitehall, because it requires no filling up whatever. It already has on it the number of the person and requires only to be put in the pillar box for one of the officers of the Assistance Board to visit.
I would like to assure the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, that it is not quite correct to say that voluntary homes cannot be assisted through the public funds. If he will go into the matter he will find that even without the control which he suggested accompanies help of that kind, there are ways and means of helping the people whom he has in mind. Though I am not complacent about the cases which have come to light, I think we may fairly claim that under the present system which entitles everyone to free medical service it is less likely that anyone can suffer in silence or alone. Anyone who happens to know of a person who is ill can now send for the doctor and be assured that he himself will not be called upon to pay the cost. For that reason, if for no other, it seems fairly clear that the possibility of persons dying alone has been reduced. I do not say that it has been eliminated completely.
We have to admit at once that there are a number of old people who ought to be in some kind of institution. We know that there is a shortage of hospital accommodation for everyone, but I think it right to inform your Lordships that the total number of beds for chronic sick cases available in the National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales at the end of last year was about 57,000. Of those, five or six thousand were unoccupied because of lack of nurses. That is a difficulty which is gradually being overcome. It will appear
848
from such statistics as are available that the number of beds unoccupied because of the shortage of staff roughly corresponds to the number of known cases of elderly people who would be all the better for hospital treatment. It will be within the knowledge of many noble Lords who have spoken (it is clear that my noble friends Lord Amulree and Lord Buckinghamshire themselves take a constant part in the administration of our hospital services) that there have been moves made—
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? My particular interest is not a hospital but a voluntary charitable society.
LORD KERSHAW: Perhaps the noble Lord will remedy that defect in his public duties as soon as possible. At any rate, it will be known that, having regard to this known shortage of beds, there is a system now in force whereby all the beds in an area can be pooled to find out where, within that area, there happens to be an odd bed or two vacant. That has helped in relieving the pressure we are concerned about at the present moment.
I am sure the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London will be pleased to know that housing authorities are encouraged in every possible way to make special provision in their housing schemes for old people by the provision of small bungalows and flatlets. But, as has been said by many speakers, the solution of this problem does not lie in any one direction. From my own knowledge, I know of homes for old people—homes not too large and not too small —that have been provided by local authorities. I know of the efforts that are being made to bring together old people in the over-sixty years of age class. I am myself No. 1 and my wife is No. 2 of one of these "over-sixty" clubs which have been most effective in dealing with the loneliness which troubles old people. Speaking personally rather than officially, I think the idea of segregating aged people in homes has to be considered with extreme caution. There could easily be great sadness in such institutions when one after another of these old folk pass on, leaving behind a feeling of real loss among those who formerly had been associated with them. I believe that that

849
phase of the problem will require greater attention than it has had hitherto.
Let me say, on behalf of my right honourable friend, that we appreciate to the full the services rendered by organisations such as the W.V.S., and by the churches. Without their help it would be almost impossible to do anything effective in this direction. But, having said that, I think the complete answer—and I say that advisedly—to the whole debate this afternoon, is to be seen in Circular No. 11/50 of January 23, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I had not seen this circular before. After many years in public work of one sort or another, I. cannot remember there emanating from a Government Department a document that was so humane and so full of the spirit of brotherhood. If noble Lords will forgive me, I will quote one paragraph, because I believe it will indicate to them better than I can in my own words the spirit which is actuating the Ministry of Health in regard to the problem we have been discussing to-day. It states:
"The experience gained since the Act came into force by county and county borough councils in dealing with applicants for admission to the residential establishments and in other ways has shown an urgent need for further services of the more personal kind which are not covered by existing statutory provisions and which, indeed, can probably best be provided by voluntary workers actuated by a spirit of good neighbourliness. These services include the regular visiting of the old people in their homes, in helping them with the shopping, in obtaining magazines and books, in letter writing for them, in helping them to mend their clothes and generally in solving minor domestic difficulties."
Who would have expected that kind of thing to come from Whitehall twenty years ago?
I submit that it may fairly be stated, without claiming that the present system is perfect and without being complacent about it, that the possibility of old folks suffering in loneliness will be considerably diminished by the Health Services now available to everyone, and by the general interest which is now displayed in the subject of the welfare of the old people. I assure the House that my right honourable friend will give the most sympathetic attention to all the suggestions that have been made, and every effort that is practicable and possible is being taken and will continue to be taken to smooth the path of those who are lonely and in need of help or friendship.
26 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lords who supported me in this Motion, not excepting the noble Lord who has rejected the Motion. As I am not going to press for Papers and move your Lordships to a Division, there are one or two corrections I wish to make before the matter goes to the Minister. I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, for putting him under a false impression. I did not intend to say that a fracture of the femur was trivial, but to say that it is not necessarily mortal. I am sorry, but I thought I had said so. The noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, says the position of old people is better now than it used to be I hope that my naturally pugnacious manner did not lead him to think I was attacking the Government. There is not much use having a better system unless it is really brought to the people.
The noble Lord said I wanted the old system back and that he would be very sorry to see the return of the old relieving officer who did his duty through fear. I do not want the old system back, but I do want an official with responsibility for these matters in a small area which he can get to know. More than one relieving officer has spoken to me with pride about his position, as if to say, "I am a man who has executive duties and if I do not do those duties I am going to suffer for it." Would the noble Lord rather put that burden on an official to do his duty, even though it be through fear, or that these people should suffer the deaths that I have described to your Lordships? I honestly think he is mistaken in saying that these cases occurred frequently before 1940. It was the pride of the old relieving officer that they did not occur. The only case mentioned to me, and it was mentioned in the noble Lord's presence, goes to prove what I say, rather than the other way. In regard to what was said about the form for a visit by the Assistance Board, I would point out that when a man is sick and really needs a visit he cannot go out and post a form. The point I made about the form is rather different. I said that no member of a voluntary society should be able to visit anybody who ought to be under the care of a welfare officer, without having a form on which to report the visit and

851
the facts which had been found out. That was always done in the associations for whom I visited. In regard to the leaflet, perhaps we understood it in different ways. I have never seen a leaflet which said so little in so many words. It does not really tackle the point: that we need an official who is definitely responsible for these old people. The noble Lord should study the figure of 45 per cent. given by my noble friend, Lord Amulree, which I think is much nearer the truth. With those few remarks and corrections, I thank your Lordships for your attention, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR
4.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD VISCOUNT TRENCHARD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to say what progress has been made in consultation with the American Government on the subject of a Joint History of the Second World War, as was agreed to by this House on March 10, 1948; and to move for Papers. The noble and gallant Viscount said: My Lords, over two years ago I put down a Motion that the views of the Government of the United States should be sought on the question whether arrangements should be made for the compilation of a Joint Anglo-American History of the Second World War. That Motion was received in all parts of the House with great sympathy, if I may say so. It was supported by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party and on all sides of the House, and it was accepted by the Government with sympathy. Since then several unofficial histories have been written, and two volumes of the Official History of the American Air War have been published. Yet in this country I have not seen any official history—or it may be that it has not been brought to my notice. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, in replying to my Motion in March, 1948, said:
"I accept this Motion readily and without hesitation. We will consult the Government of the United States about this matter."
852
He went on to say:
"…it will be of the greatest value to the continuance of good relations between our two countries."
That was the sole purpose of the Motion.
It may also be within your Lordships' recollection that I pointed out what damage had been done to the relations between the two countries by those bad old histories of the War of Independence, which are still on the shelves of all schools and universities. I went on to express my opinion that you cannot re-write those old histories of over two hundred years ago, but that if a joint history of the efforts of the two nations standing shoulder to shoulder in the last great war could be written now, it would have a wonderful effect on the relations between the two nations. That history would go on to the shelves of schools and universities. I suggested the appointment of two leading historians, one American and one British. They would choose their respective staffs and work together under a committee composed of well-known people, with a man of great reputation as chairman, and perhaps four or five representatives of the leading universities in both countries. If they were the sponsors of this new history I feel (in the words I used then) that this book would in time supplant the old distorted histories of the War of Independence.
I know that there are difficulties, but as I said two years ago if the two Governments set up this committee to let them choose the historians, and gave them something in the neighbourhood of £200,000 for the initial cost, the difficulties could be overcome. On the point of finance, I know that that is a large sum, but a great part of it would be recovered in the sale of the histories over the years. In the debate two years ago the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, in speaking of the urgency of the matter, said:
"If it is to be of any value at all, a joint history of the war as conducted from both sides of the Atlantic must be available at an early date, before too many books of an irresponsible or a too patriotic character have been published."
I feel that two years has been a long time. It is five years since the war ended, but on the information I get from America if this work can be put in hand now it will still achieve the purpose I anticipated. I would ask the Lord Chancellor what steps the Government have

853
taken in the last two years in regard to approaching the American Government. I ask further that a White Paper should be published showing how far the project has progressed at the present time. I beg to move for Papers.
4.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, a little more than two years ago I accepted on behalf of the Government a Motion asking that the views of the United States Government should be sought on the question whether arrangements should he made for the compilation of a Joint Anglo-American History of the Second World War. I confessed then that the idea seemed very suitable to me. Like the noble Viscount, I spoke not as a skilled or expert historian, but I felt it was desirable that we should have a joint history before partial accounts were written from the various points of view of the respective nations. I feel that the noble Viscount went a little far in saying that history once written cannot be re-written or overtaken. Speaking for myself, Mr. Winston Churchill's book on Marlborough caused me to revise drastically the opinion I had formed from reading Macaulay. But you must have a great art in writing in order to overtake things of this sort.
What we did following the noble Lord's Motion was to consult the American Government. They were consulted through our Embassy in Washington, with the State Department—they were lengthy and elaborate consultations—and subsequently we were fortunate enough to have in London the Chief of the Division of Historical Policy Research of the State Department, and members of the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office took advantage of his presence to discuss with him the project which the noble and gallant Viscount has at heart. I may add—though I am not authorised to speak for this last body—that we have also consulted, as the noble Viscount would anticipate., the eminent historians of this country I do not want to mention their names, but I will gladly give them to the noble Viscount: indeed, I should like him to consult with one or more of them in order that he may realise what is involved from the technical point of view, and what are the difficulties. So far as the United States Government and His Majesty's Government are concerned, I
854
am authorised to say that they both concur in the observations I am now going to make. As on this occasion I am speaking for two Governments, and not one, I must adhere rather closely to what I am authorised to say. Sympathy, yes—everybody likes the idea. But both Governments quite firmly take the view that they have embarked on their own official histories, and that they must before they do anything else finish those official histories.
Indeed, neither in the, United States nor in this country is there any prospect of finding historians of sufficient ability and authority who would be available to undertake this work. I am sure the noble Viscount would agree that it is no good having this work done unless it is done by absolutely first-rate people. As I have said, both Governments are committed to the completion of their own official histories. That work is making tremendous demands on the available supply of trained historians, for this is a time when the universities have heavy requirements for teaching, and are finding difficulties in recruiting their staff. Indeed, in our own case we are experiencing great difficulties in finding historians here to undertake the work on the various volumes of our own official military histories—there are still vacancies to be filled. The State Department authorise me to say that they are suffering from precisely the same difficulties. I do not know what size staff would be required, but if you think of the field to be covered there is obviously an immense amount of work to be done.
The close association achieved in the general strategic direction of the war at the highest levels—for instance, between the Prime Minister and the President personally—and through the combined Chiefs of Staffs, is a great story in itself. But it is nothing like the whole story, because collaboration at the centre was continued and reflected in the High Commands and between the Forces themselves engaged in operations. Quite outside the military field there were immense achievements in the spheres of finance, economics, supplies, shipping, lease-lend and the rest. A history which was to cover all these subjects adequately and authoritatively and, at the same time, to cover them within a reasonable compass —for it is a cardinal feature of the noble

855
Viscount's scheme that it should be a readable work and not merely a book of reference for the experts—would require historical abilities of the highest order, as well as expert assistance on a considerable scale. The real art in all these things—in paintings certainly, and I think in writing history—is to know what to leave out. To know what to leave out presupposes a great knowledge of the subject and also a high degree of skill.
I come now to the question of cost. I do not put this as a major matter. Last time we were discussing this subject the noble Viscount gave an estimate of £400,000, which would be borne, of course, in equal shares between the two countries. No one can say whether that is excessive or the reverse. For the moment I accept it for argument. I say frankly that here we should find very great difficulties in providing the necessary sum. At the present time we are spending £95,000 a year on our Official History, and it seems probable that there may be, and, indeed, I think there has been, some slight Parliamentary murmurs about that. I gather that the State Department might have corresponding trouble in Congress if they were to ask for a further sum of money in respect of this Joint History. The consolation I can give to the noble Viscount is that both Governments view the idea with sympathy, but do not regard it as practicable until after the official histories are completed. Of course, as your Lordships know, after the First World War the official histories—well, I doubt if they have been completed yet, after something like thirty years. I hope there will not be that length of time in the case of this war. Two of the civil histories, but none of the military histories, have been completed here, but I suppose it is true to say that a certain separation of time does make it easier for an historian to see things objectively. I quite agree that the disadvantage is that in that interval of time you may have other reports and other books written and it may prove difficult to overtake their errors.
The noble Viscount wants the book to be unofficial, and I agree with him. There is much to be said for that, but in practice both Governments feel this: How can this history be unofficial? If the two Governments are to finance it, they must
856
inevitably have some say in the selection of the historians, and if it is to be authoritative it must be based on full access to official records. This, of course, could not be granted without reserving the Government's right of scrutiny of the volumes before publication. On that basis, I think it is unlikely that the history would be regarded either by the public here or by the public in the United States as an entirely unofficial publication. But if it is not so regarded, has not the whole point of it largely been defeated?
Now there is another question which I must bring before your Lordships, and that is the question of the right of access to official documents, which is a formidable difficulty. It is quite obvious that no historian of repute on either side would be prepared to undertake this work unless he could have access to the full range of documents on which it was based. Now that means that the British historian would need to have full access to all American records at whatever level, and that the American historian would claim the same right here. It is very doubtful whether either Government would be prepared or willing to modify to this extent their existing regulations governing access to official documents. I am not saying that that attitude would always prevail. Obviously, it would be much easier to allow access to documents after a passage of time than shortly after the documents came into being. But I am pointing out that consideration to the noble Viscount as being the line which both Governments take.
I do not think that, for the time being, I can give a more helpful reply. I would point out that books are being written dealing with various aspects of Anglo-American collaboration during the war, and those books are widely read. I mean such records as those of Mr. Churchill, of General Eisenhower and of the noble and gallant Viscount, Field-Marshal Montgomery. They are all records of men who played predominant rôles in this great story of war-time cooperation between their countries and who are therefore in the best position to bear vivid and eloquent witness to its character and results. I have no doubt that each year important works are published in both countries which throw further light on this subject. Knowing

857
what I do of official histories and knowing what I do of those formidable histories—I hope nobody will take me to task over this—the Cambridge Modern History is not the sort of book which one takes as a bedside book—at least I never do. I do with Macaulay, and I do with Trevelyan. I think these official histories will really serve in this way: they will serve as the source from which the historians of the future will get their information, and those historians will digest that information and present it to us in readable arid attractive form. In that way, I think, the official histories will play a great part.
For the reasons I have given—the reason of cost; the difficulty with regard to access to documents; the inability at present to get historians of the right quality arid repute—we do not think that at the present time the noble Viscount's project is a feasible one. But in order that the noble Viscount may not go away with the impression that this is just a departmental excuse for doing nothing, I should very much like to bring him in touch with some of the historians (whose names I will give him) in order that he may see, not merely from the departmental point of view but from the practical point of view, that there are great and weighty difficulties in the way which at present neither Government can see their way to overcome. I hope the noble Viscount will at least be satisfied that we have taken the trouble to get into touch with the American authorities to find out their reactions. Of course, it is quite obvious and quite certain that without the most full collaboration of both Governments, any such project at the present time is out of the question.
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, before I withdraw my Motion, which was supported on all sides two years ago, I would like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for the long statement he has made, and for the care with which he has gone into the matter. The noble and learned Viscount used the word "official" five or six times. I will not weary your Lordships by repeating the points that I made in my speech, but I must emphasise that what I am suggesting is that the four great universities of America and four of our own Universities should cooperate and take the work from the
858
Government. The process of their getting secret records from both Governments was fully explained in the previous debate. I will reserve to myself the right to raise this matter at a later stage. After all, there are a considerable number of historians who are writing. Mr. Churchill is not an idle man, and yet he seems to have found time to write a very great deal. And there are others who have also found time for much writing. I have read many helpful and informative histories of the joint effort of America and ourselves. General Eisenhower and General Arnold, amongst other American generals, have found time to write, and I do not see why it should be thought impossible over here. I am sure it would be much better if this work were done not by the Government but by bodies drawn from the respective universities. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NEWFOUNDLAND (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
4.53 p.m.
Read.3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MIDWIVES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

DEFENCE
4.54 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday by Viscount Bridgeman, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the Statement on Defence, 1950 (Cmd. 7895).
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, the purpose of my intervening in this debate is to deal with matters concerning the Royal Navy which were raised by noble Lords yesterday. It is the intention, with the permission of Your Lordships, that my noble friend Lord Alexander will deal in his concluding speech with the major points raised during the debate. I would like to join in

859
the congratulations which were extended to my noble Friend on his admirable speech yesterday. I fully share the views expressed by him, for whatever might be said of the excess of planning by the organisations under Western Union and the Atlantic Treaty, the facts are that the twelve nations are bound together for the security of their countries against any aggressor, and as an earnest of intention one of the powerful signatories to the Pact has already voted large sums of money for equipment, some of which has already been delivered to Treaty countries. This is an action almost unparalleled in peace time.
In the course of the debate yesterday reference was made by some noble Lords to the need of additional expenditure on research and equipment. It will be seen in paragraph 6 of the Statement on Defence that provision is being made for an additional expenditure on research and equipment of no less a sum than £35,000,000 in excess of that which was provided last year. Indeed, the net sum provided in the Estimates for the purposes mentioned amounts to almost £250,000,000. That in itself is a very large figure.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, sought an assurance that the old principles of sea power and what they mean to a country placed in our situation remain, and that control of the sea routes is still as fundamental to large-scale strategy as ever it was. I have no hesitation in assuring the noble Lord that this is so, and that while new weapons, new methods of attack and defence, may require new means of exercising sea control, none the less the principles of sea power to this country, with its Commonwealth and Empire scattered over the world, remain true. The noble Lord was afraid that we were being put under some pressure from outside to reduce the strength of our naval forces. I can assure him and your Lordships that we are under no such pressure and that His Majesty's Government form their own evaluation of naval and military requirements. The strength of the Fleet has been shown in my Memorandum Explanatory of the Navy Estimates, and I would remind the noble Lord that while naturally he attaches most importance to the Active Fleet he must not overlook the enormous value of the Reserve Fleet. From the figures given in my Memorandum he will see that we are maintaining on the Reserve
860
large numbers of vessels which in need will emerge to build up the striking power of the Fleet. Nor must he overlook the Forces and strength of the Commonwealth countries, whose Naval Forces are steadily increasing.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, complained of the inadequacy of the information in the Defence White Paper on the subject of naval aviation and anti-submarine defence. I do not wish to elaborate on these points at this stage, as your Lordships will shortly be having a debate on the subject of the Navy Estimates, but I would remind Lord Teynham that the Defence White Paper does not attempt to cover details of all the three Services which can more appropriately be dealt with in the White Papers relating to the individual Services themselves.
The importance of research and development to counter-measures against attacks by submarines with high underwater speeds, long-endurance and deep-diving capacity is referred to in my Memorandum, and the highest priority is being given to protection against submarines, both by surface craft and from the air. All told the Admiralty will be spending approximately £11,000,000 on research and development during the current financial year. At the same time increased expenditure of about £7,000,000 will be incurred for material and contract work. This is inevitable as our rundown of war-time stocks continues.
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, in a most interesting speech, asked about standardisation. I can assure him that so far as the Navy is concerned we are collaborating closely with the Americans in the adoption of common methods and equipment, especially in the all-important field of submarine warfare, where the two Staffs are developing a common doctrine and tactics. Similarly, we have made considerable progress under the Brussels Treaty, and agreements already arrived at provide for standardised methods of communication while common tactics are being developed through the exercises being carried out by the combined fleets of Western Union nations. The Royal Navy's rôle in this field is of especial importance, in that we provide the main link between America and Western Europe in naval standardisation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, played lightly with the reference in

861
paragraph 7 of the Statement on Defence when he stated that the inter-Service review of the future development of the Forces made it clear that there were no grounds for any substantial change in the relative rôles of the three Services, or any drastic curtailment of the strength of any one of them. The Paper referred to the present rôle and the strength of the Forces in the present world situation. Those who were responsible for that statement were fully aware of the many changes which have taken place, including the scrapping of many old battleships some time ago and the placing of the modern battleships in Reserve—not scrapping, as was suggested by the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount's main attack was on the Government policy relating to the retention of carriers and naval aviation generally. He said that he did not desire to revive old controversies: but what else was he doing?—for this is a very old controversy, and no one knows more about it than does the noble Viscount himself. The value of the Naval Air Service—its inauguration was in 1911, and at that time it was a young and growing Service—was proved from the very beginning of the First World War. By the end of that war, there had grown a feeling that all air work should be concentrated in one Ministry. That led to the passing of the Act in 1917 setting up the Air Ministry in 1918.
What a controversy the setting up of that Ministry caused! No one was a greater protagonist than the noble Viscount himself. Indeed, there was committee after committee, conference after conference, between two strong protagonists—the noble Viscount and the late Lord (Admiral, as he was at that time) Keyes. The result of this long controversy—I do not desire to say any more about it—was that the then First Lord of the Admiralty, the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence put up an unchallengeable case to the Cabinet at that time, strongly recommending that the administration of the Fleet Air Arm should be transferred from the Air Ministry to the Admiralty. The noble Viscount was one of the few who did not accept that position. Indeed, from his speech yesterday it is clear that he
862
refuses to accept it even to-day, with all its advantages.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Viscount is inviting me to interrupt. Later, I will try to explain my view of it. What I understand the noble Viscount is saying now is that there has teen no alteration sufficient to justify this being examined again. I can quite understand his saying that.
VISCOUNT HALL: That is what I said—that nothing has occurred since that date to lead His Majesty's Government to a consideration of a reversal of their policy as regards the control of naval aviation.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Then there is a difference between us.
VISCOUNT HALL: But yesterday the noble Viscount went even further. He not only suggested a restoration of the responsibility for naval aviation to the Air Ministry, or a consideration of that plan; he suggested that there was no longer any need for such a thing as naval aviation—that in fact all flying tasks over the sea could be carried out by land-based aircraft, and that the aircraft carriers were no longer required. I must say that the noble Viscount's views are not shared by any naval authority and, so far as we know, they are not seriously shared by any Royal Air Force officer of high repute. Indeed, it is rather interesting to note that in all the debates on Defence the noble Viscount is the most persistent in raising this matter. There is scarcely a debate on Defence without not merely a reference but a very strong statement from the noble Viscount in relation to this matter—which, of course, he is quite justified in making. But he must not claim that there is a very large body of opinion in this country which shares his views.
I think that I should quote fully a statement made by Mr. Churchill in another place during the debate on Defence when (and I take it that he was speaking for the Opposition) he stated quite categorically that:
"In the Navy the war in the air and the war on the sea have become so closely interwoven as to be indistinguishable and inseparable. It is obvious and imperative that the Navy should manage its own air service. Nevertheless, in the sea war of the future it is the air which will decide the fate and

863
fortunes of ships of war. Therefore, the aircraft carrier with proper naval protection must increasingly replace the battleships of former times. But what kind of aircraft carrier, and how many of the large or small types? To decide this you must look at the actual problem which lies before us. The combat of gunfire between lines of battle is utterly extinct."
There is an indication in that statement that Mr. Churchill himself has not changed his mind from the memorandum which he drew up when this was a matter of high controversy in. 1937.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, as that has been read, may I clarify this point? I do not think that anyone contends—though I am not sure about the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard—that aircraft which are necessarily carried on ships and which cannot operate from anywhere else should be other than under the control of the Admiralty. I take it that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, is not now asserting what was turned down repeatedly—and I do not think it has been argued for ten or fifteen years now—that shore-based aircraft are much less vulnerable than aircraft carried on a carrier, and that such shore-based aircraft should be operated only by the Royal Air Force.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: May I interrupt once again? I think the noble Viscount said that he does not know of a single senior officer of the Air Force—here or in America—agreeing with what I said.
VISCOUNT HALL: I confined my statement to the Royal Air Force.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: May I say that I think there are a great number of senior officers, both here and in America, who subscribe absolutely to what I said yesterday.
VISCOUNT HALL: Well, we hear very little about them. With regard to the point which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, I would say that for certain purposes land based aircraft are, of course, very suitable; but that is not so easy a matter as he mentioned. Indeed, conditions during the war were not quite that easy, because there had to be a good deal of naval supervision, even in relation to Coastal Command. But I do not want to go into that controversy this afternoon.
864
May I now refer to a paper which has recently been written by a former German admiral who served throughout almost the whole of the war? He has written a very long paper dealing with this particular point. I am not going to attempt to quote very much from it, but, summing it up, he makes it clear that throughout the war at sea the British Naval Air Arm played a decisive part. Indeed, the paper is full of examples of the failure of German and Italian naval operations due to the lack of aircraft, and he refers strongly to the decisive part played in naval warfare by the use of British aircraft carriers. He shows that this was true not only of the failure of the German and Italian surface fleets, but also of the decisive defeat of the German U-boat campaign in 1943.
Let us consider for a moment the rôles for which naval aviation exists. The noble Viscount complained that the Defence White Paper said that there were no grounds for any substantial change in the relative rôles of the three Services, or for any drastic curtailment of the strength of any of them. That is perfectly true. The importance of the battleship has decreased with the coming of air power and the increasing menace of the submarine; and it is the fact that there are very few battleships in existence in the world other than those possessed by the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The methods the Services adopt to carry out their rôles do not remain static. The noble Viscount was, I think, confusing the rôles with the means of carrying out those rôles. To-day the function of naval aviation—as was its function in the last war—is the anti-submarine protection of convoys and fleets; the fighter protection of convoys and fleets against long-range reconnaissance aircraft working with submarines; the fighter protection of convoys and fleets in an area where heavy enemy attack must be expected; and strikes against enemy targets at sea or on land.
The noble Viscount said that the air problem could not be divided. Whilst that may be true, it is surely also true that the solution to the air problem can and must be shared by the Navy and the Air Force. Can anyone suggest that shore-based aircraft could in the last war have given protection to the Russian convoys or sufficient cover to the landings in the South of France, and at Salerno; or

865
could they have made possible the successful campaigns in the Pacific? Does he think that the protection of the Fleet and of convoys could ever be effectively maintained by aircraft which at any moment may be hundreds of miles away from the Fleet or the convoy which they are required to defend? No land-based aircraft could be constantly on call to meet such demands, nor could land-based aircraft afford that protection which must be given to any ships at sea against the shadowing aircraft, whether on long-range reconnaissance or working directly with submarines within the area covered by our surface craft. Indeed, the noble Viscount really surprised me when he asked whether it was right to have an absence of open strife between the Services in peace time. Surely inter-Service strife is something to be deplored at any time. The lessons of the last war have taught us the value of co-operation, and we can hope to carry out our respective rôles only if there is understanding and agreement on all sides on what we are required to do.
Certainly amalgamation of various functions might lead to economy, but the noble Viscount must know that he is not suggesting anything new. He knows that the basic flying training of all naval aviators is done by the Royal Air Force, and the possibility of further amalgamation has been examined. Amalgamation has already been carried out in certain spheres to the maximum extent possible. The Royal Navy is in close day-to-day touch with the Royal Air Force. Particularly is this so in the case of the antisubmarine school at Londonderry, where the two Services operate a combined training scheme which could only be carried out successfully where there is complete agreement on the different rôles of these two Services. The Admiralty has not challenged the acceptance by the Royal Air Force of the responsibility for carrying out the protection of coastal shipping with land-based aircraft; but I would say that in my opinion there is far more of a case for the Admiralty taking over Coastal Command than there is for the Royal Air Force to take over the whole function of naval aviation and to attempt to carry out with land-based planes the rôles assigned to the Naval Air Service.
There is ample opportunity for members of the Royal Air Force—Marshals
866
of the Royal Air Force, or whatever their standing—to make their representations in relation to this matter. One of the members of the body which made the statement in the Defence White Paper about which the noble Viscount complained is an eminent and indeed a very gallant member of the Royal Air Force. He was a party to those words. The noble Viscount knows, also, that a distinguished member of the Royal Air Force is one of the Chiefs of Staff, and if there is a desire for the changes which are so often suggested by the noble Viscount I am sure many distinguished airmen would make their representations in the right place. The policy of His Majesty's Government is similar to that of the Commonwealth countries who possess growing air strength, and it is similar to the policy of the United States of America. In all the circumstances, His Majesty's Government could not agree to the suggestions which were made by the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? The noble Viscount who has spoken has made three-quarters of his speech an attack upon me. I do not think the ideas I put forward yesterday were unfair. I have a large correspondence from all over the world, and I still find that a large number of people want this matter considered again. That is all I asked for yesterday.
5.21 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, this debate on the Statement on Defence has been so broad-based on general problems of strategy and, indeed, of foreign policy, that I must ask your Lordships' forbearance when I ask you to consider a matter of detail. I feel justified in doing so because the opportunity is here, and because I am disappointed that that part of the Statement on Defence which deals with man-power contains no mention of the officers. I agree that there is mention of the resettlement of officers, but we have first to get the officers and to employ them during their active years before any question of resettlement arises. It is in regard to medical officers that I am particularly concerned and very fully informed. There is no question at all that the supply of medical officers, to an army especially and probably to any fighting unit, in order

867
to provide an efficient medical service, is of the greatest importance for the health of the troops. I think I shall have the support of every serving soldier, from the highest to the lowest, when I add that the medical officer has also a very big influence on the morale of the force.
I raised this question as long ago as December, 1948, and I pointed out the shortage and the lack of quality in the supply of medical officers to the Forces, particularly the Army. I agreed then that it was necessary to have a higher age for the call-up of medical and dental officers than for any other recruits under the National Service scheme. But at the same time I warned that even by raising the age to thirty there might still be a shortage. I advised integration, particularly with the National Health Service, and I feel justified in asking now what has happened, in view of the promise given by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, as First Lord of the Admiralty, when he said that all these representations would be brought to the notice of the Service Departments and the Government. The position is now worse, and I think your Lordships should be informed that it will grow steadily worse through the next two years; and that in 1952 the shortage of medical officers for the Army alone will be about 500.
That is very largely due to the fact that it is estimated that about 800 of the men who will leave the medical schools as qualified medical men in 1952 will have already done their military service and will be ex-Service men. There will be no improvement in the situation until 1954. The shortage of specialists is really alarming. It should alarm all parents, it should alarm particularly your Lordships who have a general responsibility, and it should alarm the Government, who have a special responsibility. Young men, the flower of the youth of our country, are being sent to distant garrisons, and members of my profession in responsible positions are certainly not satisfied—nor is the Director-General of the Army Medical Service—that there is an adequate supply of specialists to care for them. The R.A.M.C. cannot from its Regular officers undertake to provide the requisite number of specialists, who nowadays have to have very prolonged training and wide experience. In some
868
of the specialties the Service cannot provide any.
I think it will be obvious to your Lordships that in the very nature of things a young general duty officer in the R.A.M.C. who aspires to be a specialist in surgery in that Corps cannot secure adequate experience to be a surgical specialist simply from what he meets with during his service in the Corps. At the present moment, the R.A.M.C. requires 114 specialists for the half year that we are now in. Of those 114, twenty-four are surgeons. The number available to fill that requirement of 114 is twelve. It is obvious that we are reaching the danger point. The position is not a temporary one. There is going to be a permanent shortage. The Regular R.A.M.C., even with its full establishment of Regular officers, could not provide the specialists in peace time; there would be a shortage of 280. With the short-term commissions which are granted for a period of years, and including a proportion of specialists, the shortage would still be 142; and with the call-up of young men of some experience in the specialities the shortage again is 122. It is no solution to bring in civilian specialists and give them higher pay and have officers of the same rank receiving different remuneration in the Corps. That has been done, and it is a frightful and frightening expedient. It is unsatisfactory, it is unfair, it is expensive and it does not provide a permanent solution. Some of the remedies which have been suggested are palliative—for instance, an adequate supply of transport. Your Lordships will appreciate that a surgeon in an area who is confined for lack of transport, has a limited opportunity of service, whereas if he has adequate transport he can cover a much larger number of cases. Another suggestion—again this is only a palliative, but it would ease the situation—is that the Services should accept a lower physical standard for specialists, particularly those who are not serving under war conditions.
The fundamental point is dealt with in paragraph 23 of the Statement on Defence, which says:
"a high level of recruitment cannot be expected unless Service conditions compete in attractiveness with those of civilian life."

869
That is the only way in which a proper solution can be found. The first requirement is that the pay of the Regular officers should be advanced. Some Regular officers serving now are anxious to retire. There is a ban on retirement. Do your Lordships think that that will lead to a contented Service? In fact, there is a considerable discontent, The Regular and short-term establishments can be increased, but that is no solution. The only way to get a specialist service for the Army under the present National Service Act is by obtaining civilians. There is a suggestion that the civilian age for recruitment should be raised to 45 years. It would be a serious matter if the specialist section of the population should have legislation levelled against them that might interfere with their careers up to the age of 45.
In December, 1948, I made a suggestion—which I still think is the right suggestion—that there should be some integration with the National Health Service. Those who hold whole-lime posts in the National Health Service should be appointed with a definite obligation that they will from time to time accept secondment to the Forces. They should be able to return to the civilian service without loss of seniority and promotion. In my view, secondment is the solution. The integration of the Forces' medical services with the National Health Service and with the Colonial medical services would do much to enhance the reputation of the Commonwealth and Empire. I submit to your Lordships that the matter is one of extreme urgency. I know that these matters have been considered in Department after Department, in the Defence Department and in committee after committee, and if the hold-up has been at the Treasury, it is time that pressure was brought upon the Treasury to permit of a solution being obtained.
5.31 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I should like to address myself to the subject upon which the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, has just spoken. I did not know he was going to raise this point and I have not equipped myself with notes, but it is a matter with which, as chairman of the responsible committee, the Medical Priority Committee, I have some acquaintance, as has my noble friend who is vice-chairman of the same
870
committee. It is true that the situation in respect to recruitment to the Service is very grave as regards both general duty officers and specialists. The fact that during the next two years so many men who would normally be called up for eighteen months' duty not be available for call-up, because they have exhausted their military service obligations before they become qualified, is a temporary matter. It does not make the situation at the moment any less serious. The situation with regard to specialists is serious, but I think it is only fair to say, because perhaps the House would like some reassurance on this point, that during an extensive tour which I made of the Forces' medical services in 1946 and 1947, it was clear that while there were difficulties in regard to the medical services, as indeed there were in regard to other services, there were no objectionable features about medical treatment; and, indeed, medical and surgical treatment was being carried out very well. During my tour I visited all the commands in which British troops overseas were engaged, with the exception of Japan, which from the standpoint of our influence was a very minor command at that time, as to a large extent the Americans dominated the scene.
In my view there is no doubt that the only solution finally is to regard the National Health Service, as the mother and father of all the medical services, in the Colonies, in the Services and anywhere else where numbers of medical officers are employed—for instance in the Overseas Food Corporation and the Anglo-Iranian Company. There are a number of different pockets of medical personnel all over the world—although perhaps the Colonial Service should not be described as a "pocket"; if it is, it is a large and capacious one. Unless all those medical officers are integrated in some way, as has already been suggested by my noble friend, then there will always be a difficulty. It seems to me, and I think my noble friend will probably agree, that we cannot make up the differences in the service in one part of the world and another merely by extra pay and extra amenities and facilities. We want some kind of general basis of security of life, and the solution seems to me to be the bold one that it should be regarded as part of the duty of those taking service in the National Health

871
Service that part of their time should be given to one or other of the Fighting Forces. It would not matter at what age that service was given, and the time could be adjusted according to the medical officer's own work and the needs of the Service concerned.
Something on these lines, something striking, something new, will have to be done. At the present moment we are only at the beginning of the development of the National Health Service. It is not at all certain at the moment whether the hospitals in this country are not employing more people than they require. For instance, about eighty-two medical officers are registrars at one large hospital in London. That is possibly at least four times too many. Probably my noble friend would think it a good many more too many. Many things require to be done in the National Health Service, but I think that if the matter is tackled on these lines we shall find a solution. As this matter has been brought to public notice in this debate, perhaps it may serve a useful purpose if we make up our minds that the whole question of the medical services should be looked at from a national point of view, and all doctors regarded as being in one pool to serve the national interest, whatever it may be and in whatever part of the world it may be.
5.38 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, it is late and I do not propose to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. I shall endeavour to be brief and I hope to the point. I wish to refer in particular to Malaya. I have only just returned from Malaya, leaving Singapore on March 23, so I have fairly recently returned to this country. Your Lordships are well aware that the position in Malaya is bad; that is common knowledge. Out there it is generally agreed that the position is worse than it has been for the last six months. I think everyone will agree on that point and that most people will also agree that the position is worse than it has ever been since the trouble started. For example, the capital of Malaya, as the House is aware, is Kuala Lumpur. Yet it may not be within your Lordships' knowledge that it is unsafe to go any distance, even a few miles, outside the confines of Kuala Lumpur city. I recently
872
took off from the airfield at Kuala Lumpur beyond which, but quite close, there are some low hills, I should say about a mile from the High Commissioner's house; yet these hills cannot be safely entered.
Kuala Lumpur is linked with Singapore by a railway and by road. Neither are safe. Nobody, if he can possibly help it, will travel by road to Kuala Lumpur. If he does, it is at his peril. Nobody, if he can help it, will travel by train from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur, because it is also definitely unsafe. While I was there only a fortnight ago a railway station was burnt on this line—it is the only single line—seven miles from Johore Baru. Johore Baru is the capital of the State of Johore, which is just across the narrow Johore strait. Incidents occur all the time. Every day the local Press has its tale of people shot up, attacks of various kinds, and other unpleasant happenings. I do not want to overpaint the picture, but I repeat that the situation is very bad.
Hitherto we have talked about these people as bandits. But one asks oneself whether their character has not changed, and whether it is not now more a matter of organised guerrilla warfare. I believe myself that it is. We know that they are fully organised. One section of them is organised in uniform, with battalions, companies and all the rest of it; they are ably directed, and served by a large body of others, not in uniform, throughout the country—many of them terrorised, some of them in sympathy. At any rate, they are well served. There can be no question that their Intelligence service is extremely good—personally I suspect that their Intelligence service is better than ours. I was out there six months ago—as, indeed, other members of your Lordships' House may have been—and I came back at that time feeling greatly reassured. The general impression then was that the situation was in hand, or would shortly be in hand; that these bandits were being broken up into bands, which were being driven in and rounded up; that there was a great shortage of munitions and general supplies, especially medical supplies, and that it was only a matter of time before we had the situation in hand. At that time I think the generally accepted figure was that there were between 2,000 and 3,000 of these

873
people still in the field—I do not guarantee the figures, but that is what one gathered.
The other day when I was there my visit happened to synchronise with the middle of the so-called "anti-bandit month," which your Lordships have seen advertised in the papers. I believe there has been a great rally of the loyal local population, and, amongst other things, while I was there there was published an up-to-date list of the "bag" against these bandits: it was about 3,000. I could not help thinking back to the statement made earlier that there were between 2,000 and 3,000 in the field last June. Further, inquiries now seem to establish that there are still several thousand in the field. If there were 2,000 to 3,000 in the field six months ago, and 3,000 have been put "in the bag" since, and still there are in the field 2,000 to 3,000, or perhaps even more, obviously there is something wrong with the arithmetic. Surely the explanation must be—as I believe to be true—that they are drawing on recruits locally. They are no doubt going in for a policy of deliberate terrorisation, in order to draw recruits to them, some willingly and some enforced. We were told yesterday in this House that all recommendations made by the local authorities had been adopted and, I gathered, approved. To come back then, to what I said before, if the position is, as I believe it to be, worse than it ever has been, surely there is something wrong: either the recommendations approved were not adequate, or in their approval they were watered down a little. Anyhow, the effect has not been striking.
So far I have perhaps given the impression of criticising rather too much. You may well say: What is the remedy? It is obviously not easy. For I am certain that the fault does not lie with our gallant troops, to whom this House has so often paid a well deserved tribute; nor does it lie with the loyal elements of the community, who have stuck it out in a most gallant way; least of all does it lie with the planters and their wives, who in order to earn dollars to help us bridge the gap, stay deep in the jungle at the risk of being shot up, day and night, at any minute. Therefore, one is driven back to asking oneself: Is it not a question of faulty system? And, if so, what?
I certainly would not wish to dogmatise or say anything embarrassing to anybody,
874
but the system out there is very odd. There is, if I may say so, a plethora of high authority. Surely, when you are faced with an abnormal situation such as this, you may have to do something abnormal to meet it, and not have a series of high authorities of all sorts and kinds and not one solitary unified control. Therefore, what one asks onself is whether there ought not to be one individual "Supremo"—I use the word which we used at the end of the war when we had a "Supremo." I know that may be a rather startling suggestion to make—there may be constitutional and all sorts of other difficulties. But if it is a basic fact that the retention of Malaya is absolutely vital to our position in the Far East and to the whole of our world policy, then I feel we may have to take unusually stringent and drastic action. We may have to appoint one person with the fullest authority and powers, and with the assurance that he will be backed from home without question, to cope with what is undoubtedly a particularly critical state of affairs.
In fairness, in talking about the system, I think one must admit that it is a peculiar one. There is the Commissioner General, who I believe has no executive authority over the various Governors within that area. That is not only Malaya, but the whole area of the British territories in South-East Asia. There are four independent King's representatives—four Governors—all of whom have not only the right but the duty to correspond direct with the Colonial Office.. Not only that, but the Commissioner-General himself is under two masters, if I may put it in that way—that is to say, he is under both the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office. We all know that dual control is not always the best method of dealing with things, even in normal times, let alone when faced with a critical situation such as we have now. Therefore, I come back to what may be the totally impractical suggestion of a "Supremo" in command of the whole area, with full powers and full backing, whether he wants troops or more police or whatever he wants. Here I should like to pay a tribute to the police, because I think I left them out before. They have done a wonderful job of work.
I have said enough for the moment about Malaya, but as I am speaking I will just mention the general question of

875
South-East Asia. I visited not only Malaya but also Indonesia and the Philippines, and so I have had a bird's-eye view of the situation as it is now. Your Lordships will not be surprised if I describe the situation as extremely grim. With China going Communist it has been infinitely complicated. That applies to every area throughout the whole region. There is one area, however, where perhaps there is a little ray of sunlight, and that is Indonesia. It is true that it comes a little late, and it would have been far better if it happened two years ago, but the Dutch and the Indonesians have finally composed their differences and an independent Indonesian Government are now in operation. They have been in operation only a very few months, and obviously there are difficulties to be overcome, but so far as I could judge they are making good. It is rather refreshing to find at least one area in that great region of South-East Asia where things are looking a little better.
French Indo-China I say nothing about, and Burma I say nothing about, but it is obvious that throughout the whole area this question of China has had a radical effect. There is not the slightest doubt that it has invigorated these gentlemen whom I call "guerrillas," and has added to their morale. What is more, it has added to their morale in the eyes of the local population in Malaya, which is very important. Naturally, the inhabitant of Malaya who lives there, and whose children and grandchildren are going to live there, keeps an eye on the main chance. A great many of them are determined to back the right horse. They watch the horse coming down the course—and some of them are past masters at doing that—and anything which comes along which strengthens the hand or adds to the morale of these so-called bandits acts conversely against us. Therefore, when I read in the Singapore papers a statement that the recognition of China by us had had no effect whatever on the increase or strength of this bandit business, I was amazed, because it was so patently untrue. Furthermore, the prospect of having Chinese Communist consuls throughout the British territories in the area fills people with alarm—and frankly I am not surprised. Anyway, that is the picture as I see it.
876
For the last couple of years I have said nothing about Malaya because I thought it was more becoming not to do so. But there comes a time when things reach such a pitch that one feels one would be failing in one's duty as a member of this House not to tell the House frankly if one feels that things really are serious, and that serious measures should be taken to put things straight. We have to hold Malaya—there can be no shadow of question about that. If we have to hold Malaya, we must be prepared to go a very long way to do so, even if it may be along rather abnormal lines.
5.55 p.m.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, your Lordships' House will have listened with great attention to the grave words which have been uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn. He speaks with great authority, and with an authority born of knowledge and experience. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will take due note of the warning which he has uttered to-night, and that the complacency—I can call it nothing else—which I detected in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, in this matter of Malaya last night, will now be removed, and that we shall see the problem deeply and properly studied. It is clear that after this long period of struggle if the situation is deteriorating, as the noble Lord has told us, something must be wrong, and certainly somebody must be to blame. We do not expect His Majesty's Government to come here in a white sheet, but we do expect them to come here with a mind receptive to suggestions and open to criticisms when they are so pertinently offered in such a statesmanlike manner. I think my noble friend Lord Mancroft had every justification for the remarks which he uttered last night. He has a most signal reinforcement in the speech which has just fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, and I hope that the 'Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will re-read every word and repeat it to his colleagues in the Cabinet.
We have had a long and interesting discussion upon a topic which I think we all recognise is of absolutely fundamental importance. When I was contemplating what I should say to your Lordships to-night, I re-read the White

877
Papers which have been issued annually since 1946. They are not exactly stirring literature, but I think they repay re-perusal. In a sense they, are a mirror of events in the international field and in the military field in the last four years—sometimes we might be tempted to say a distorting mirror, but at any rate a mirror. We see that the expectations of the Government—and not only of the Government—that the world was settling down, figured prominently in the earlier White Papers. There were great hopes for U.N.O., and there was a natural preoccupation with the problems of demobilisation and with the disposal of warlike stores. There were hesitations about formulating a policy for what was called "the eventual shape of the Armed Forces," and there was implicit in the White Paper of 1947 or 1948 the assumption that the rôle of the post-war National Service men would be to form a trained Reserve in the event of war, while the permanent obligations of the Army would be fulfilled by Regular recruitment.
In the 1946 White Paper as my noble friend Lord Bridgeman has already stated, although Greece was mentioned, there was apparently no real perception of the significance of that episode. We see cropping up in the later White Papers, and g becoming ever more frequent, mention of unforeseen commitments and unlooked-for occurrences. Long-term planning about the shape of the post-war Service is rudely pushed to one side, while solutions for immediate crises have to be improvised, and resources which ought to have been devoted to training and re-equipment become absorbed in such enterprises as the Berlin airlift and in dealing, or trying to deal, with the troubles in Malaya and the Far East. Meanwhile, there is no treaty with Austria and our troops remain there; we have our commitments in Germany; and we see implicit in these annual Statements how far our resources have been stretched and how constantly arid how progressively long-term planning has had to give way to the march of events.
Then, in 1.949, the Government avowed their grievous disappointment with the failure, or apparent failure, of the United Nations Organisation to settle the differences in the world. We see coming into view a policy for regional security Pacts. I must confess that I have a preference
878
for the older terminology, "a system of Alliances", but perhaps that is a little démodé, Anyhow, we see it becoming overt, and now it figures even more prominently in the recently published White Paper. Indeed, there is no chance relationship between the disappointment of the Government's hopes for the united efforts of the nations to settle their differences, and their recurrent inability to implement the plans which they wanted to draw up for what has been termed a "balanced system of defence." And why is this? It is because Great Britain, in common with Europe and the whole Western world, has been constantly reacting to Russian initiative. The Kremlin has given us no respite. It suits the Russian book to see us use National Service men so uneconomically as we have had to do to reinforce our troops in Malaya.
These situations have not just arisen; they are part of a grand design; and, so far, Europe has been saved not by policy but by the atomic bomb. Russia, on the other hand, has made in the circumstances what we must admit is from her point of view the best use of those years. She has consolidated her position in Eastern Europe: Communism under Russian influence has overrun China and, meanwhile, national divisions have been fomented by Communists elsewhere who are no less effective, though perhaps less overt. We have just heard Lord Killearn tell us how great is the jeopardy of the whole situation in the Far East. Truly there is no reason for gloom in Moscow, but I assert that here there are the greatest reasons for disquiet. If you see a man going up a moving staircase which is in reverse, you may admire his efforts to reach the top but you measure his progress by the distance he covers up or down. We have been on a moving staircase in reverse—and our progress, relatively, has been downwards.
We ought to ask ourselves three questions. First: how long have we got? Secondly: what are our resources? Thirdly: are we making the best use of both our time and our resources? Russia knows pretty well our resources, and she is not going to give us the time we think we need; she will undoubtedly continue, as she has done in the last five years, to attempt to forestall us by fomenting trouble and stirring up unrest in the

879
various parts of the world that are least convenient to us and most convenient to her. I confess that like Lord Bridgeman I was deeply shocked at the Prime Minister's reply to a recent debate in another place. He said that the Colombo Conference was not primarily a Defence Conference: it was concerned with foreign affairs. My Lords, defence, foreign policy, and economic policy are a tripod. If one leg is short or deficient, the tripod will fall over. I was even more profoundly disturbed when the Prime Minister said in the same speech, speaking of Commonwealth co-operation in defence, that one cannot force the pace. In Heaven's name, if the Prime Minister of Great Britain cannot force the pace, who can? It is not we that make the pace: it is being made for us.
Therefore, I do ask the noble Viscount once again to take most careful note of the questions which were asked him yesterday by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. We on these Benches fully recognise the achievements in bringing about Western Union and the North Atlantic Treaty. We fully recognise the importance of the aid which the United States has given to the nations of Western Europe to supplement their arms and equipment. We must recognise that in the past we have not always been ready enough to fight a war—even though we have managed to achieve victory. And so I ask once again: Is Western Union ready now to prevent war? I ask also: Are the plans off the drawing board, and is there an effective joint policy? I ask: How soon will those plans reach the stage where planning ends and action begins?
I make no apology for re-presenting those questions to the noble Viscount. I think they are proper questions to be raised in Parliament, and if they are not fully answered disquiet will grow, not only here but in Europe, and reviving confidence in the future of Western Europe will end. And if it ends the task of integration will grow not easier but far more difficult. I was pleased to see the noble and gallant Viscount, Field-Marshal Montgomery, listening to our deliberations to-day. The whole House is fully aware of the magnitude of the task which faces him, and he also, I think, recognises the magnitude of his 880
difficulties. But, as the noble and gallant Viscount well knows, on our success in meeting and solving these problems the whole future of this country, of Western Europe, and of the world will depend.
I offer two reflections. The first is that history and geography alike have cast on this country the rôle of leadership in these affairs. But His Majesty's Government must be equal to the task. The second reflection is that the best is often the enemy of the good: an imperfect plan acted upon is better than a perfect one laid by in a pigeon-hole and put on one side by the march of events. This is particularly relevant to the problem of Germany. As Lord Bridgeman said yesterday, planning staffs must have a clear direction upon this subject. I am sure it is an illusion to believe that there is time for us to observe Germany's behaviour and then decide. We shall not be given the time for such a leisurely procedure. Plans must be put into effect very soon, and they must be based on a firm decision now, that if Germany is to be left out then the military consequences must be faced, especially in the realm of military geography. It is fatal to base plans and obtain agreement upon a hollow formula which begs a question such as this. Even if we are successful, and even if at best we can put off another long and bloody struggle, the prospect which faces us is not a particularly pleasant one. We ought to realise that.
I can see no alternative to a long period of watching the frontier, and prolonged vigilance is the most wearying of all military preparations. The ability to maintain constant and effective vigilance depends upon a good morale; in fact, the outcome of this great struggle (for struggle it is) ultimately depends upon this factor. We are faced with the opposition of two rival philosophies. The Communists are constantly making a parade of theirs, and we must not underestimate their power. I think that we in Western Europe are in danger of forgetting the philosophy upon which our way of life—what we call the free way of life—is based. There is that philosophy and there are assumptions underlying the ancient civilisation of Europe, even if sometimes we forget them. I believe that the central assumption is the belief in the transcendental value of the individual human being. This has often

881
been attacked but has never been abandoned. I submit that there is no compromise possible between philosophies so completely opposed.
In Europe the resolute opponents of Communism cannot understand an attitude which sees nothing wrong in the aims of Communism and objects only to its methods. If the defence of Europe is to be a reality, we must depend on those who are firmly opposed to all totalitarianism and are armed not only physically but spiritually to oppose it. I hope His Majesty's Government recognise this fact, that they will so act as to encourage their natural allies in the fight for freedom and that they will encourage them morally as well as materially. In this field, as in the whole sphere of defence, the gravest of responsibilities rests upon the Government. I hope and pray that they may be worthy of it.
6.14 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the debate on the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman has ranged widely. It has given the Government many serious questions to answer, in particular the questions which were raised in two powerful speeches which must have disturbed your Lordships on all sides of the House, by the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Killearn, on the Malayan situation. We shall await specific answers to the questions which were raised by those two noble Lords. I should like, if I may, first to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, on his appearance here at the Government Front Bench. I am sure that I express the wish of all noble Lords on this side of the House that his work in the Government in the high office that he holds may be both successful and congenial.
It seemed to me that the noble Viscount put forward his case as a happy man in a very contented state of mind, satisfied, as he felt he had a right to be, with the achievements of his Government and taking a legitimate pride in the contribution he had been able to make in past years at the Ministry of Defence. But I thought also I detected some slight resentment and some expression of a feeling of unfairness at the Opposition's boldness in query and in criticism. In respect of that particular aspect, the noble Viscount used what appeared to me some
882
what strange tactics as a means of expressing that resentment. He made certain statements in the form of, one might say, a counter-attack that I think we on this side of the House cannot allow to pass unchallenged or uncommented upon.
I must quote the noble Viscount's words in the debate yesterday. You will find in Column 757 of the OFFICIAL REPORT that he said this:
"I should like to feel … that Conservatives had always been as zealous in the past in their preparations for possible military contingencies as the Government to which I have the honour to belong have been in the last four years."
The noble Viscount then repeated what, if I may say so without offence, I would describe as another piece of complacency. It appears in the middle of Column 759, where he commented upon the Government in 1938 "not recognising the danger." The noble Viscount really must not presume that we all have such short memories on these matters as he himself appears to have. Let me remind the noble Viscount of two or three facts. When the National Government in July, 1934, decided to increase the Royal Air Force by forty-one squadrons—an increase which in fact laid the foundation for the fighter force which won the Battle of Britain—the Labour Opposition moved and supported a vote of censure in another place. That vote of censure or this measure of re-armament was moved by the present Prime Minster who declared—I quote his words—that re-armament was
"not calculated to add to the security of the nation,"
but was
"certain to encourage a revival of dangerous and wasteful competition in preparation for war."
Continuing this reminder to the noble Viscount of some of the pre-war years, I would point out that in July, 1935, over two years after Herr Hitler had commenced re-arming Germany, my noble friend Lord Swinton, who was then in another place Secretary of State for Air, introduced a Supplementary Air Estimate. The Labour spokesman, en behalf of the Labour Party, dealt with that Estimate in these words:
"We are moving a reduction to show by vote as well as speech that we are determined to take exception at a time like this to the squandering of so much money upon the enlargement of the Air Service in this matter, quite needlessly as we think … We object to this country being committed to the air race that is going on."

883
I must take the noble Viscount just a little further. As late as March, 1938, after five years of Nazism, when the National Government then in power asked for approval of further provision to extend the Armed Forces, the Labour Party condemned the provision of what they called "immense armaments," and the noble Viscount himself marched into the Lobby in disapproval of the proposals in the White Paper on Rearmament. Finally, four months before the war broke out, in April, 1939, when the National Government announced its intention to introduce a system of compulsory military training, the Labour Party voted against it. Amongst those who voted against it was the noble Viscount himself. Let me remind him that in those days the difficulties of the Government in office were much greater than have been the difficulties of the Government to which the noble Viscount belongs, because in those days the Government did not have the loyal support of the Opposition in matters of national interest such as this Government has enjoyed since 1946.
My Lords, our criticism is, not as the noble Viscount seemed to say yesterday, a criticism of what has not been done. I think the Government are fully entitled to the greatest credit for the work they have done in regard to pacts or alliances. Our criticism is that we are told we must be content with Government declarations; we must be content with what we are allowed to see; we must be content, as it were, to gaze at the shop window, at the same time being forbidden to enter inside to see what really exists upon the shelves, on the counters and in the cupboards. The noble Lord, Lord Killearn, used the phrase "a plethora of plans." If a plethora of plans and planning staffs can ensure security and home defence, then I must at once acknowledge that we have absolutely nothing to fear. But our criticism is that assurances on Staff plans do not replace the need for this country to have instantly ready defensive and offensive forces, made up of men and materials in sufficient numbers and of the finest quality, and also throughout the whole of the free world adequate bases from which those forces can operate. No noble Lord supporting the Government can say that this House has been told in positive terms that the nation possesses those safeguards.
884
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, yesterday stressed—and I think quite rightly—the great contributions which Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada have made to defence. Of course, these are the outward signs of the determination of the Commonwealth brotherhood to stand four-square in defence of men's liberties against attack, from whatever quarter of the globe. We are faced with the possibility of a new sort of war. It war comes it is not going to be a war of country against country, where Staffs can prepare plans; where the field of battle can, as it were, be surveyed, like the Low Countries before the last war; where Staffs can plan out almost where battles will take place. Today we are facing a world crusade of an ideological creed which wishes to control the world—a creed which to us is evil and wrong. This crusade is backed up by great and growing armed forces. Here let me interpose the hope that the noble Viscount in his reply will deal very positively indeed—either denying them entirely or saying that there is substance in them—with the figures which were given yesterday by my noble friend Lord Swinton from Commander Asher Lee's book on Russian air strength, from which he quoted a production of 40,000 to 50,000 aircraft a year, and a first-line strength of 15,000 aircraft.
I submit that we cannot allow this debate to conclude without some sort of reassurance on that matter. Either that that report is entirely erroneous, according to the Government's information, or that there is substance in it. If this crusade, backed by these great and growing armed forces, which is at present engaged on the cold war of political penetration and the threat of force, turns into a hot war of guns and bombs, then the eruption may have a main field of activity. It will, nevertheless, be an eruption to a lesser or greater extent all over the world, for adherents to this creed of evil, which would kill freedom as we know it, will strike both visibly and invisibly, wherever they exist. So it is against this need for instant readiness that we ask the Government to give us a reassurance in public—or, if they feel that they cannot do it in public, then in private—that we have the necessary force ready at any hour it may be called upon.
I gather that the Government do not look favourably upon a secret session.

885
Indeed, the question of a secret session was criticised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Wilson, yesterday. The noble Field-Marshal has attained a position of great military eminence, but perhaps has not had so long in political life as the noble Viscount and myself and other noble Lords on this side, and we think one of the advantages of a secret session is that it enables members to put critical questions to the authorities without those questions becoming public knowledge, and Ministers can justify their actions, or otherwise, without giving away secrets. The value of a secret session is not the secret information which the Government could give to the House; it is the opportunity that is given for free criticism of Government action, and an opportunity for the Government to reply.
Against this need for instant readiness of our Forces, we listened yesterday to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, justifying certain expenditures by admitting that for the last four and a half years we had, to use his own term, been "living on our own fat" as regards stores and supplies, and that now we have to replace those supplies and stores, and (I quote his words again), "even conventional stores." I think those are very grave words, because they arouse in my heart and probably in the hearts of other noble Lords feelings of misgiving that there are to-day shortages in essential stores in the Services which should gradually have been replaced over the last four years. We should not have allowed stores to be exhausted, which was the impression the noble Lord gave to me in his speech yesterday. No doubt he will be able to clear up that point.
My noble friend Lord Swinton yesterday pointed out that now Russia has the atom bomb we more than ever need not only adequate offence but a fighter force and radar matched, exercised and ready. It seemed to me that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, answered in advance that need with a truism which I have heard from Ministers before, "Better go for quality than quantity." That is all right up to a limited point only. I ask myself, as regards the first line of the Royal Air Force: where is that quality over the next three or four years? Let me take three main characteristic aircraft. First, fighters. We have Vampire and Meteor jet fighters. They are adequate
886
at present, but according to all the technical information available they are inferior to the latest American fighter, and, if reports are correct, the new Russian jet fighters are their equal and, in some respects, their superior. One asks, in reference to the essential quality which is to discount any shortages in quantity, what is coming along, and when is it coming?
Take bombers. We have no jet bombers at all in our Royal Air Force squadrons. Russia is reported to have them. Bomber Command to-day has Lincoln heavy long-range bombers which are virtually obsolete aircraft. Now Bomber Command is getting the American B.29, which is already a semi-obsolete aircraft. I ask the Government: Where are our new long-range jet bombers? It is true, of course, that we have the Canberra, a first-class aircraft, a jet bomber; but it is not in service with the units yet. We do not know when the Canberras will be in the squadrons, and in any case they are only light or medium bombers and cannot supply the need for a long-range bomber of superior power for our long-range bomber force. The United States have already flying several long-range jet bombers and we may well say: Where is the quality over the next two or three years which is going to make up for the lack in quantity in our squadrons?
I turn to Coastal Command. I would say that Coastal Command is, as it were, in the doldrums to-day. The anti-U-boat squadrons have an aircraft which, as the noble Lord knows, is called the Shackle-ton. If I may say so without being rude, this machine looks rather like an outmoded Christmas tree, with everything hanging around it; and the pilots dislike it intensely. There is no new flying boat under development. What were known as the "Strike Squadrons" against shipping during the war are non-existent to-day in Coastal Command. I certainly think that the need which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned yesterday for a quick striking force from the air against U-boats, is not met by the present state of Coastal Command. Again I ask myself, as regards Coastal Command: Where, now and over the next two or three years, is the quality which is to make up for the lack of quantity?
I turn for a moment to civil aviation, because there we have a much brighter tale; there we have quality. We have

887
two aircraft, the Cornet and the Viscount, which are superior to anything else in the world. They are made by private enterprise. I ask myself: Where is the military counterpart of that technical ascendancy which we have in civil aviation? I wonder whether the noble Viscount will consider this—I do not expect him to answer—that a good many years ago Lord Rothermere, with great patriotism and at his own expense, developed an aircraft called the "Spirit of Britain." When he felt that officialdom was being resistant to new technical developments, he gave an order to Bristol's who built that aircraft, and from that "Spirit of Britain" was developed the Blenheim Bomber. That plane, I grant, was almost obsolete at the beginning of the war, but nevertheless it was a great technical advance and did much towards making our Royal Air Force operationally sound before the war. Can we not do something like that with the Comet, and so try to take advantage in the military field of the technical advances that we have achieved in civil aviation?
My conclusion is this. We cannot shelter behind a statement that we are going to have quality to-morrow. If we are not to have great quantities, at any rate we should be assured that we have the quality to-day. I do not believe that we have it, and I cannot see any prospect of that quality coming in our first-line units to any great extent for the next two to three years. We need the assurance now from the Government that the defence picture is better in reality than the Government's silence, combined with such information as we are allowed to have, so regretfully leads us to fear to be the case.
6.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I first of all say that I am very grateful to the House for the general tenor of the debate, and I am sorry if, as I gather from the speech of Lord Balfour of Inchrye who has just spoken, some of the things I said yesterday seemed to indicate that I wanted to make Party points in the course of the debate. No doubt from time to time there are occasions when we must necessarily make Party points, but from the point of view of the Government, I
888
am quite certain that so far as possible we should always desire that in matters relating either to the general defence of the country or to the welfare and efficiency of the Services at least a measure of agreement should be obtained amongst the various Parties in the State, and co-operation in general in reaching the objectives.
Having said that, I would perhaps make only one very short reply about the series of political incidents that were quoted by the noble Lord who has just sat down. Of course, the short answer is that in the period from 1931 to 1939 (during the early part of which a great number of my colleagues now in the other place, including myself, were not in the other place) it was the constantly-expressed view of the Opposition that far too little attention was being paid to the basis of collective security, and that there was a tendency, when rearmament was brought before the House for approval, for it to be discussed usually upon the basis that it needed to be quite unilateral in its idea and construction, and it was not sufficiently related to collective security. Of course, it was always the practice of the Opposition, as it still is, to move reasoned Amendments to whatever Vote might be before that particular assembly, and to vote upon the reasoned Amendments without necessarily being against all the provisions before them.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Should I be right in interpreting the noble Viscount's attitude during that period as being that he was prepared to vote for other people arming to defend him, but consistently voted against our arming ourselves?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: No, certainly not. If we are going to debate this matter on Party lines, I am prepared to do it. As the noble Viscount has done me the honour of referring to my attitude on another occasion, I say at once that I took the line in another place in 1938 that the direction of policy at that time was such that we were heading for war, and that when war came we should be found alone. At that time I quoted in another place the fact that in two hundred years this country had not won a major war without Allies, and powerful Allies. I said that the policy then being followed would lead at the start of the war to our Allies being non-existent for some time,

889
and I remember, when what I had said eventuated, calling the attention of certain people to my statement in 1940. If I may do so without raising undue heat, I should like to ask the noble Viscount to read again the speech of his leader, Mr. Churchill, on October 5, 1938, after the Munich incident. There he will see where his leader placed the blame, who had the power, who had the responsibility, and also the criticism which Mr. Churchill made of the policy followed.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I can answer that with the full authority of my leader, Mr. Churchill. Generally, we did not do enough, but no help of any sort or kind was given by the Opposition and the last people who had any right to criticise were the noble Viscount and his friends.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: That certainly could not be applied with truth to myself. I could if necessary quote many passages from Hansard to prove my case on that.
Having given perhaps too much time to the political points raised, by the noble Lord, let me deal with the main questions which have been raised during the course of the debate. I had to leave over from yesterday the questions of manpower and recruitment for the Regular Forces raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. It would be fruitless for anyone to suggest that this does not raise a problem which is very difficult of solution. The fact is that there was no Regular recruitment to the Royal Air Force and the Army in the years of the war. That, with the prolongation of the service of many Regulars during the war, and therefore the magnitude of the rundown in the Regular Forces of long-service men, from 1945 onwards, left a large gap to be filled. The actual amount of recruitment obtained during those years was not altogether unsatisfactory in comparison with the years following the First World War up to 1922 and 1923. In fact we obtained 298,000 Regular recruits for the three Services up to the end of December, 1949, which is about 50,000 more than were obtained in the somewhat similar period after the first war.
Then, however, the number of recruits that were being estimated for by the Government of the day did not exceed 340,000. We have a much larger
890
objecttive in the number of troops which we consider it necessary to keep in the three Services for the security of the country and to contribute to the collective defence into which we have entered. The present position is that we have in the Services about 420,000 to 425,000 Regulars, which is rather more than the total number of Regulars the Services on the outbreak of war in 1939. But the position is not so satisfactory as it appears on the surface, because in the course of recruitment in the last three or four years we have had a number of short-service recruitments, some of which are likely to fall out soon, and something must be done to try to repair that situation.
The question can be approached in a number of different ways. I feel sure the Service authorities are not leaving out of account any suggestions that have been made, but I should like to examine one or two of them to see whether their adoption would lead to the solution we all desire to obtain; to have in our Forces at least the minimum number of Regulars required to keep the Forces as a whole efficient and ready to undertake the tasks which are allotted to them.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Experienced Regulars?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Certainly I do not think we can rule out the question of bounties. I will say no more about that matter except that it is under consideration. But I would say that the suggestion that substantial increases in pay will deal with the situation in the light of the circumstances we face is exceedingly doubtful. May I say, with respect to the authorities who have approached the matter from this angle, that I do not think we have been helped very much by some of the criticism in the Press, and in other places, with regard to the provision which has already been made in pay and allowances since the war? The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, justifiably asked how we looked at the position in relation to the statement of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who said that there had been a 23 per cent. advance in general wage rates. I have had a look at the increases that have taken place in the Services. It is quite impossible in a short speech to go through the whole of the schedules of the pay codes but let me

891
take three examples—no doubt I shall be charged with selecting the best examples, but noble Lords can compare them with others. First of all take a corporal, Class A, tradesman; his gross emoluments have improved since the middle of 1945 by 28 per cent.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Married or unmarried?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I thought the fairest way was to deal with the smallest family, of a man with a wife and one child. Then let me take a warrant officer, Class 2. His gross emoluments have improved since 1945 by 40 per cent. If I may take a rank equivalent to that of a captain in the Army, the improvement in his gross emoluments is 50 per cent. I know that I shall be told in the case of the officer and of the warrant officer, Class 2, that taxation now enters into the question, and that the position is different from what it was before the war. But in taking gross emoluments and seeing how they compare with conditions outside the Services, we must remember that Service personnel are not the only people who are paying taxation. There must be a comparison of like with like. We have taken into consideration the general question, and I am not suggesting that I am ruling out any kind of approach by way of bounty, pay or amelioration of conditions. But I feel that the best kind of solution will probably come from improvement of amenities, conditions, married quarters and the like, rather than by the increase of pay which is possible within the limits of the military budget we have adopted.
When I look at the question of married quarters, again I think that what has been done in regard to housing in the last four and a half years is hardly recognised. It is true that the Army, because of the enormous pressure upon them in their great demobilisation campaign, were somewhat late in entering into the provision of permanent new married quarters. They are doing well now. But it is also true that for many of our troops, and especially married troops, not only in this country but in other parts like B.A O.R. and Austria, we have taken at the public expense a large amount of furnished accommodation. At the present
892
moment more than 44,000 of our Service personnel are actually accommodated, either in married quarters or in quarters which have been specially hired and arranged for them. May I remind your Lordships of something which I am sure is already known to you, but which needs to be put on record? It is felt strongly that, if we are to meet this kind of expense, we are entitled to be able to spread it upon a loan basis, in the same way as the civilian housing aid is spread over. That is the principle we have adopted, and this will enable us in the current financial year to start between 6,000 and 7,000 new married quarters for the alleviation of this particular problem of the Services.
I would not have your Lordships think for a moment that this problem is one which brings any feeling of complacency to the Government. We feel very strongly indeed the need for having the minimum number required of Regular Forces. There is nobody in the Party to which I belong who would wish to see National Service purely as something that must necessarily happen. If we could supply the whole of our defence needs at the present time by Regular Forces, no one would be happier than we. If you look at the technical requirements in the Royal Air Force, and in certain new aspects of mechanisation in the Army and new developments in the Navy, you will see that the same trouble arises. National Service for a comparatively short period of eighteen months, and the like, does not give the same result as would be obtained from the experienced Regular in those functions. We are doing our best to tackle the problem in the face of the great difficulty of doing it during a time of full employment—a time of full employment so essential to us for recovering our economic stability in the world. I believe it is essential to us, in present circumstances, as a first line of defence, that we should recover our economic stability in the world.
I pass to the next point about which I have made up my mind to say a few words and which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley to-day, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, yesterday. They asked whether all the planning and the organisation, and so on, in connection with the Brussels and North Atlantic Pacts have come off the drawing board. Are we

893
beginning to show real progress? I should have thought I said enough yesterday to make it clear that they certainly have come off the drawing board; and the communiqué which appeared in the Press at the week-end, leading to the final approval of the strategic plans for the whole area of the North Atlantic Treaty—about which I think more is being officially stated this afternoon in the other place by my right honourable friend tie Minister of Defence—shows the progress which has been made m planning. In the meantime, we have never been idle. It was this country to whom the noble Lord said the others ought to be able to look for leadership, and they have not failed in looking to us for that leadership. It is from this country that the inspiration came to rehabilitate the French Navy—to give them help, lend them an aircraft carrier, supply them with jet planes and arrange for them to get the licence to produce jet planes on the British pattern—a point of standardisation, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, yesterday. That has led to the real birth of the new movement for collective security which is going on in Western Europe. The leadership in that matter has come from this country, arid has now blossomed out into the military aid from Washington, through the Military Aid Act, in the form of the arms which are now beginning to flow in to support the general efforts which have already been made by the countries of Western Europe.
We must not forget, either, that when the situation began to deteriorate, especially in 1948, we instituted an emergency programme of production in this country, and our production has been, from a military point of view, getting better ever since that was done. Before the final consideration in Washington of the Military Aid Bill, which subsequently became an Act, we entered into an agreement that we would put extra expenditure, manpower and material into military production, in common with our allies in Western Europe, as a set-off against the help the United States of America have given to us. That is the best kind of answer can give to your Lordships' House as to whether or not we are "off the drawing board" in the matter of planning. I beg noble Lords to look at the facts. While it is perfectly certain that they are right—and I should like
894
to be right with them—in saying that there is an enormous amount still to do before we get the kind of complete readiness to deal with what might become a major attack, we want to call, not only upon our own people, but upon those in alliance with us, to see that no time is lost in putting our strength collectively into achieving the highest standard of efficiency.
The next point to which I want to refer is the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and mentioned by other noble Lords, in regard to the Colonial Forces. May I say at once to the noble Viscount that I agree most heartily with him in what he said about the quality of the services rendered by the Colonial troops in tie course of the last war, and especially those from East and West Africa to which he referred. The noble Viscount is asking at the present time that we should consider going in for a large expansion of the use of Colonial man-power for military purposes, outside the actual military forces required for internal Colonial security. That, of course, raises a number of issues. I would say at once that I should welcome—if the financial and other conditions could be made—the opportunity of having such expanded Colonial forces. But, with all the other necessities which are pressing upon us in the military budget that we have, perforce, to present to Parliament in present world circumstances, it is extremely doubtful whether we could get an expansion of the size the noble Viscount seems to indicate. Moreover, it must be remembered that the extent to which you can use such troops in this, what I may call, present peace time—the world is at peace and not at peace in many ways—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We were speaking largely about Malaya.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: If the noble Viscount will wait, I will come to it. In peace time there are limits to the ways in which they can be used. I am quite sure it would not be suggested that they could be used in Europe.
Questions were raised yesterday with regard to Malaya and Hong Kong. In the case of Malaya, we have the use of very efficient Gurkhas, and we have also the growing efficiency of the

895
Malayan-trained troops. I saw some of them last year when I was in the East, and I must say that I agreed with the reports given to me that they seemed to have improved constantly under British training and direction, and that the other troops there are doing very fine service indeed. From that point of view we do not anticipate any difficulty. I assure the noble Viscount that in the course of the conferences and joint consultations with the Colonial authorities which we have had in the past twelve months, two things have been borne in mind. The first is that the standard and quality, and the organisation and planning of the present Colonial troops as they stand shows a very great improvement indeed, about which I am glad to be able to speak, because that is the view of all the military officers I have consulted. Secondly, the question of being able to expand beyond that basis of security forces is constantly under consideration, and if there were an opportunity to provide the extra facilities for that, without interfering with a vital service which, in the opinion of our Service advisers, it is essential to retain, then we should certainly not leave the matter out.
In view of what has been said, I think I should say a word or two about what the noble Viscount said concerning the book of Mr. Asher Lee on the state of Russian preparedness. May I say at once—I speak from memory about the discussions I have had—that the figures which were quoted by the noble Viscount from that book might be described as less inaccurate than many previous estimates have been. But I would not go so far as to say that they are accurate. The field covered by the book is naturally very wide. All such matters as are covered in it are constantly under study by our Intelligence. I should say that whilst the figures would not be as inaccurate as some previous estimates, they are not in our view accurate, and I should say that our advisers disagree with some of the assessments which are made in that book. Beyond that, I say quite frankly, I would not go in open session.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There seems to be a mania about security. Surely we should not be giving information to the
896
Russians which they do not already possess if the noble Viscount was a little more informative and said in what respects he thinks Mr. Lee's published figures are wrong.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: That would be just the kind of security matter which, in the course of a war—and I knew the noble Viscount very well and appreciated all the work he did during the war—the noble Viscount would not want to give, as to what his assessment was of a potential foe. I am quite sure that if he were dealing with the security side of this matter he would take exactly the same stand to-day as the professional advisers of the Government are taking, and upon whose advice we are acting.
I turn to the question which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, today, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his speech yesterday. I am rather astonished to think that some noble Lords feel that my attitude with regard to Malaya could in any way be thought to be complacent. I described the situation as very serious indeed. What I said was perfectly true, and that is, that His Majesty's Government have not withheld any part of the help which has been asked for at any time by the authorities in Malaya, Service or civil, and that we are determined that we will do everything it our power to bring the unsatisfactory position there to an end. I thought I was right last night in not holding out hope that that could happen suddenly. I see that my words have been somewhat differently reported in the Press. Perhaps the word was not clearly heard at the time, but I am quite prepared for my words as they appear in Hansard to be taken as they are and accepted on that basis. There was certainly no complacency about that.
The fundamental point which remains is the one which was raised by a number of noble Lords—I think by the noble Lords, Lord Winster and Lord Killearn—as to the need for having some central authority in this matter in Malaya. Well, I should have thought that I made it fairly plain in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, yesterday. In fact, when I read about the appointment of General Briggs by His Majesty's Government and the powers which are accorded

897
to him, one noble Lord rather queried whether I had not been describing powers which might be too much to give him. With the experience which General Briggs certainly has in this kind of guerrilla warfare—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, it is indeed guerrilla warfare—I have a great deal of confidence that that appointment will bring a marked improvement in the arrangements made to deal with the exceedingly difficult situation. I can assure noble Lords that we shall do our utmost to bring that matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, one or two points about the general organisation, and whether it would function successfully in relation to Western Union and the North Atlantic Treaty. I read my noble friend's speech again this morning, and I did feel, if I may say so with respect, that if one took a view on the situation as he described it, without any determination to move on from where we are, one would almost say: "Well, what is the good of anything? Why try to get the nations together to resist possible aggression? Because it means the setting up of all this machinery and you cannot get all the things you want at once." I am quite sure that that was not the note which was uppermost in my noble friend's mind, and I am quite sure that he wants to see collective security obtained by this process. All I would do is to repeat that I am greatly encouraged by the situation, as a result of what has been done, compared with the situation as I found it at the end of 1946. No one could have sat through the discussions at the Paris. Peace Conference for dealing with ex-enemy peace treaties, as I did for many months, without being quite sure that something had to be done to arrest the drift that was going on at that time in the face of the infiltration of this other gospel against us.
I think that I have fully answered in my previous remarks as much as the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, desired yesterday should be answered in regard to the matter we were discussing just now. But it would be discourteous if I did not make a special reference to what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said yesterday about the possibility of a secret session.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is the noble Viscount going to say anything in reply
898
to the specific questions I put to him about the Air Force? They were very specific indeed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Yes, I will try to say something about that matter. But with regard to the proposal for a secret session, I have naturally thought over the position, and I have had to remember that if such a proposal were adopted, it would have to be with the approval of the whole of the Government, and certainly of the Prime Minister. The statement which the Prime Minister made in reply to the Question on 16th March, when the matter was raised by the Leader of the noble Viscount's Party, was, I think, expressing the view not only of the Prime Minister but of the other members of the Government; and I am therefore unable to add to the statement made by the Prime Minister in regard to that matter.
As regards the general position of the Air Force, I shall try to deal with as many points as possible. I understand that when we are dealing with the equipment of the Air Force we must consider, at any rate in peace time, quality first. But there is a time, as we all know, when quantity as well as quality must be considered. We are dealing now with a position in which we have been Producing very large numbers of planes in the last four years; and very large numbers in total have been supplied to our Allies. Certainly that is so in the case of fighter aircraft. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said about our fighters, I could not accept, without a great deal more evidence, that there are any superior fighters in the world, at the moment, to the Vampire and the Meteor. And with the increased performance of the latest type of Vampire—the Venom—still further progress is shown. But I am also sure that both Lord Balfour and Lord Swinton will be glad to know that the research development which is so important has come along very well indeed; and we have reason to believe that we shall continue to have great progress in the performance of the Vampire, the Meteor and the Venom.
As regards the bomber, it is true, as the noble Lord has said that from many points of view Lincolns are obsolete; but that they would be incapable of any good service I do not accept. Certainly in the case of the production of a new heavy

899
4-jet bomber, it is vital that when we get it it shall be the best, and that it will not need a constant series of changes and amendments before being brought into service. I am not going to mention any country in particular, but I hope the development work which is going on with regard to the British 4-jet bomber will not be subject to the alterations and so forth which seem almost inevitable in some of the aircraft which have been produced elsewhere. I am hopeful that we shall have the same success with the development of the 4-jet bomber as we have undoubtedly had in the case of the machine which the noble Lord rightly praised, the Canberra. I agree with what was said about the efficiency of our development work on the civil aviation side, and especially about the Comet. What the noble Lord said about this is worth looking at, and I know that the Secretary of State for Air and the Air Council will study the question, and, if the matter is not already under consideration, will see whether something of the kind suggested cannot be done.
With regard to Coastal Command, it is true that a great number of planes which had been in current use in Coastal Command in the last year or two have been on the out-of-date side. The noble Lord was a little scornful of the Shackleton, but I dare say some of the pilots of a few years back would have been only too glad to be given the Shackleton. There has been an improvement; but I hope that it will be possible for Coastal Command to be given some kind of progressive improvement in aircraft equipment.
My anxiety is to try to satisfy noble Lords on all the points they raise. They will, of course, not necessarily accept what I say, but I want them to feel that I have not neglected their points. There is one other question which was raised by the noble Viscount and that was concerned with air bases, not merely in our own country but in various places throughout the world. I can assure the noble Viscount, from my own contacts in the last three-and-a-half years, that this matter has never been outside our thoughts and our anxieties. It sometimes seems impossible to obtain even far less than what we should regard as essential. Sometimes we have to put things into a category between "desirable" and
900
"essential," but we are certainly doing our best to get the air bases we require. It would be inadvisable for me to say too much about where the bases would be, and under what conditions, and so on. We have to make a distinction between a landing strip and a whole aerodrome.
I must apologise for having kept your Lordships so long already. I feel that my safeguard in not having covered the whole of the points raised is this. As I said to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who has since spoken to me privately, there will be debates initiated in this House in the near future, especially by noble Lords opposite, on the individual Services. I understand that notice has already been given for debates on the Army and the Navy. Before then, I am certain that the First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Hall, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, or myself will be careful to study any other points which have been raised in the course of this debate. I am sure we shall be happy to try to deal with them in the course of debates upon individual Services.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In view of the full disclosures which the American Air Administration have made of their programme and progress, may I ask the noble Viscount, who has given a very detailed reply to-day, whether he has intentionally omitted to say anything about the first-line strength of the Air Force?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am afraid I must plead guilty to the noble Viscount that I do not wish to refer any more to that point, or to produce figures upon it. The circumstances are so different here. The geographical position of, and the immediate threat to this country are not as they are in the case of the United States, On the best professional advice we have to adopt certain lines of security for ourselves. As I said before, the experience we have gained, both during and since the Second World War, proves that very often the information we gave to Parliament in those pre-war days was successfully used against us by the enemy. I am sorry I cannot go beyond that. May I say that we take the attitude that, serious as is the situation, powerful as is the potential enemy, as the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, reminded us, and concerted as the pushing

901
of his philosophy may be, we do not hold the view at the present time that war is inevitable?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Neither do I.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I am glad to hear that, because. during the course of the noble Lord's speech, taking it literally line by line as he was addressing the House, I felt that he had a conviction that there could be no compromise, that there was absolutely no other way out but war. I am very glad to hear that that was not the intention of his speech.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I was very careful to say that it was not my view. I said I thought the time was short. I laid the greatest possible emphasis on the word "time." I should very much like to hear the noble Viscount place a similar emphasis.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I did say that we do not regard war as inevitable.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Nor do we.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Nor do we consider that our growing strength and progress, and the further developments in planning under the North Atlantic Treaty, can fail to have their effect upon other nations of the world in which that same ideology and its pressure have to be met. All those things have to be taken in their ultimate influence. But the House can depend upon this: that through the United Nations Organisation, through our pacts already entered into, through our determination to use to the utmost the resources that we have available in our present situation, we shall put forward our best endeavours to preserve that very way of life referred to by the noble Lord, of which there are no firmer supporters in the world than those who form the present Government and those who supported the fight against totalitarianism throughout the last war.
7.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friends on these Benches would like me to express our thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, for the full way in which he
902
has replied to this debate. There are one or two points he has not mentioned, such as the medical situation and also Civil Defence, hut I have no doubt that His Majesty's Government will consider what has been said in this House this afternoon and, if necessary, we can revert to those points at another time. We are all glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, has been in charge of this debate on behalf of the Government. As he himself said yesterday, he has a long and happy record of association with the Service Departments. In fact, I think that association began in 1929 when he succeeded my father at the Admiralty. We are glad to think that he is still in charge of these matters in your Lordships' House to-day.
I should also like to say how grateful I am to those of my noble friends who have supported my Motion. I feel that, long as the debate has been, your Lordships will all agree that it has been fully worth while. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, said yesterday that some of the words we spoke were moderate or mild, but I think he will have realised by now that moderate words weigh more heavily in this House than perhaps they do in another place. He must not mistake moderation of language for lack of purpose. I should like to associate myself with one remark that he made in his speech yesterday, his tribute to the work of the Staff Officers who are associated on these plans. From these Benches, we heartily echo that tribute. Our criticisms were not directed to tae Staff Officers. Indeed, we realise that the harder the political scene the greater the efforts required of them.
But if, on the main question this afternoon—the question of Western Union and Germany—we are asked to say whether the noble Viscount opposite has satisfied us, the answer to that must be a definite "No." He suggested that if we looked at the official announcement we should be satisfied that plans were coming off the drawing-board. I am sorry to say that that is just what I am not satisfied about. If we were asked whether we should conclude from the noble Viscount's words that real forces which could fight an enemy are there—the forces of all the different nations in Western Union which could be integrated and could take the field under the command of the various Allied commanders, including the noble

903
and gallant Field-Marshal, Lord Montgomery, whom we were so pleased to see here this afternoon—then my answer is that I for one conclude no such thing from the evidence that has up to now been put before me, including the evidence that has been put forward this afternoon. Therefore, we shall have to watch the whole of this question and continue watching it with the gravest concern.
It is exactly because this matter is so difficult that this debate was staged. We wanted to draw attention to the gravity of the situation, and we wanted, as I think we have done, to assure His Majesty's Government of our anxiety and our intention to help in every possible way. That is why we did not say more than we did. That was why we never suggested that this question of Germany was not a very difficult one. That is why I agree very much with what the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, said in his speech yesterday, that this question had got to proceed by proven stages. But what we are anxious about is that those proven stages should start at once, because we are not convinced that they have begun. I shall say no more about the question of manpower. As the noble Viscount said, we shall have an opportunity to debate this question during the debate on the Army Estimates after the Recess. I think the noble Viscount will agree that this question of man-power is largely an Army question and therefore appropriate to be dealt with on those lines.
I should like to thank the noble Viscount for what he has said about the anxiety of the Government and of himself to examine this problem. We have here another dilemma. Just as we have a dilemma in the need for Western defence on the one hand, and on the other the German problem, so we have the dilemma of man-power—on the one hand, the need to find the necessary man-power and, on the other, the economic and financial difficulties. But those dilemmas have got to be resolved. They will not be resolved merely by repeating how sharp are the horns of the dilemma at the present time. So, my Lords, we shall come back to this matter again. We close this debate still
904
with a real feeling of anxiety that all is not well in the defence of Western Europe. We feel a real anxiety that our partners in this defence of Western Europe, the Western European nations, should feel that we, like they, are in it. I do not feel that to divide the House to-night would add anything to the weight of the words which have been spoken in this debate in the last two days. Therefore, I think we should leave the matter here for the present. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WAKEFIELD EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
  THE "PELEUS" TRIAL
  THE "PELEUS" TRIAL
  PRIVATE BUILDING IN SCOTLAND
  PRIVATE BUILDING IN SCOTLAND