Sitting of 27 June 1950

Preamble
The House met at half past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  DOVER HARBOUR [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee.
  Resolved:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Dover Harbour Board to construct new works and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to enable the Admiralty and the Minister of Transport to reimburse to the Dover Harbour Board all or part of the expenses reasonably incurred by the said Board in the exercise by the said Board of powers in relation to certain vessels sunk, stranded or abandoned in Dover Harbour."—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Widows' Sons
    Dr. Barnett Strossasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider such alteration in registration for National Service which will exempt the only son of a widow.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): No, Sir. The classes of persons not liable to be called up for service are specified in the National Service Act, 1948, and I have no power to add to them.
    Dr. Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this type of provision does exist in many other countries and that the numbers must necessarily be very few? Would he not consider the matter again
    2068
    and see whether he could give this type of exemption?
    Mr. Isaacs: I can only say that this matter was discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill, in May, 1947, and was rejected by the Committee.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in certain remote areas of the Highlands, where there are very few communications, such a son is of great value to the widow? Will he look sympathetically into any cases brought to his notice?
    Mr. Isaacs: Certainly, and I would be glad to draw attention, in any such cases, to the fact that there is provision for assistance where hardship has been caused.

    Building Trade Apprentices
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Minister of Labour whether, in order to prevent the loss to the building trade of trained men, he will make arrangements for building trade apprentices to have the opportunity of doing their National Service in the Service and in that branch of that Service wherein they are most likely to keep contact with the work for which they are trained.
    Mr. Isaacs: General arrangements on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend already exist, but the number of building trade workers at present required in the Forces for work in their trade capacity is so limited that many of the men becoming available for call-up must be otherwise employed. I do not, however, accept the suggestion that such men would necessarily be lost to the building industry.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is it not possible for my right hon. Friend to arrange for a transfer from one service to another if it is found that a man can thereby be kept more closely in contact with work for which he is trained?
    Mr. Isaacs: Even if that were possible, we could not restrict it to the building trade. We should find ourselves pressed by demands for all kinds of tradesmen to be shifted from one Service to another.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that as we are assured that housing is priority number one in Scotland, this would greatly help to solve our problems?

  EMPLOYMENT

    Disabled Persons, Stoke-on-Trent
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour how many men and women are registered as disabled in Stoke-on-Trent; and of these how many are so disabled and unemployed as a result of pneumoconiosis.
    Mr. Isaacs: Nine thousand and forty-seven persons (8,300 men and 747 women) were registered as disabled at the four employment exchanges in the Stoke-on-Trent area on 17th April, 1950; and of these 276 men and two women were registered as disabled by pneumoconiosis, including silicosis. Of those disabled by pneumoconiosis, the number unemployed was 30. They were all men, and 23 of them were coalminers.
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour how many men and women are employed in Stoke-on-Trent in Remploy factories, giving the numbers in each case, and the type of disablement the workers suffer from.
    Mr. Isaacs: One hundred and seventy-one men and 11 women are employed in Remploy factories in the Stoke-on-Trent area. I am sending my hon. Friend the further particulars for which he asks.
    Dr. Stross: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether he is aware that in the Stoke-on-Trent area the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis is higher than in most places in the country? Would he look with sympathy on the proposition that we require a sheltered industry for those who suffer from this disease?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, such sheltered industry is provided in one or two other places in the country, and I should be glad to look into any cases my hon. Friend sends to me.

    Elderly Persons
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to facilitate the employment of persons over 60 years of age.
    Mr. Isaacs: I have already raised this matter with the representative bodies in industry, who have promised to do all that they can to ensure that the Government's
    2070
    policy of making the fullest possible use of older persons is known and that there is co-operation in carrying it out. The local offices of the Ministry have been instructed to take every opportunity of persuading employers to consider older men on their merits. I hope that by this means a change in outlook on the part of individual employers will be brought about.
    Sir H. Williams: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why the Foreign Office are automatically sacking people as soon as they reach the age of 65?
    Mr. Isaacs: It would have been much more reasonable if the hon. Gentleman had put that question down, instead of a general Question like this, and then I would have tried to answer it.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the Minister not aware that his own Department is one of the worst sinners in turning off very large numbers of men of 55 and over?
    Mr. Isaacs: We are by no means sinners in this respect, since we are carrying out the desires of the House in reducing our staff when there is no longer any need for their services. We have to take all factors into consideration. When there are to be discharges we discharge those in the older groups, when they are pensionable, in preference to others.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the Minister aware that his Department are filling a number of jobs in certain towns with young new entrants, whereas some of the older people could quite reasonably well continue to perform them?
    Mr. Isaacs: It is the same in this business as in any other business. One has to provide for apprenticeship for future employment.
    Mr. Hudson: Why does the right hon. Gentleman expect a higher standard from private industry than he sets in his own Department?
    Mr. Isaacs: I resent that; we do not expect a higher standard. We are doing our best to get outside industries to do as well as we are doing in the Government.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what progress has been made in this matter since it was

    2071
    debated last November, particularly in the case of those employing men over 40 years of age?
    Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. and gallant Member will put that question down I will try to give him full information.

    Tin Miners, Cornwall
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Labour how many underground workers were employed in Cornish tin mines during each of the last five years.
    Mr. Isaacs: At July, 1948, the latest date for which figures are available, the estimated total number of employees in the tin-mining industry in Cornwall was 820. This figure includes all persons employed by tin-mining firms, and separate figures of underground workers are not available. Precisely comparable figures cannot be given for earlier years but such figures as are available show that there was a slight drop between 1946 and 1948.
    Mr. Hayman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether his Department is able, to satisfy the demand for underground workers in the tin mines and, if not, whether he thinks higher wages would be a sufficient inducement to attract young men into the industry?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am sure that higher wages would be an inducement to attract people anywhere, but I have no knowledge of any complaint from the area that they are unable to obtain labour.

    Wales
    Mr. William Elwyn Jonesasked the Minister of Labour what was the number of persons registered as unemployed in the employment exchanges at Pen-maenmawr, Conway and Llandudno at the latest available date.
    Mr. Isaacs: At 12th June, the numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of the Penmaenmawr, Conway and Llandudno employment exchanges were 76, 53 and 81 respectively.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: On a point of order. In view of the large number of Questions on the Order Paper today, Sir, may I ask could not such Questions as this be put down for written and not oral answer? After all, they are purely statistical.
    Mr. Speaker: I am bound to leave that to the judgment of the individual
    2072
    Member. If there are any points other than a local point, he is justified in asking for an oral answer, but, on a purely local question asking for figures, it would save a lot of time if the Question could be put down for non-oral answer.

    Hull and Bridlington
    Mr. Woodasked the Minister of Labour how many people were unemployed in the boroughs of Hull and Bridlington on 30th April, 1950; what proportion these figures were of the respective insured populations; and how they compare with the unemployment figure throughout the country on that date.
    Mr. Isaacs: Figures are not available for 30th April, but at 15th May the numbers registered as unemployed at the Hull and Bridlington employment exchanges were 4,965 and 362, respectively, representing about 4 per cent. of the insured population in each case. The corresponding percentage for Great Britain was 1½.

    Vocational Training
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Minister of Labour why vocational training under the Disabled Persons Scheme is refused to those over 40 years of age.
    Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There is no upper age limit for vocational training under the Disabled Persons Training Scheme and disabled persons over 40 years of age are accepted for training provided that they are otherwise suitable for training in a trade in which there are vacancies.
    Sir H. Williams: Does that apply to persons over 60?
    Mr. Watkinson: If I send the Minister particulars of a case in which a man of 41 has been refused training, will he give it sympathetic consideration?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, and I shall be very disappointed if I find that it was for any reason other than that which I set out in my answer.

    Friendly Society, Glasgow (Staff)
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Minister of Labour if he has considered the communication received from the Guild of Insurance Officials regarding the dismissal

    2073
    of members of the staff of the City of Glasgow Friendly Society; and what answer he has made to it.
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir; and I am considering what action I can usefully take in the matter.
    Mr. Carmichael: Would my right hon. Friend, because of his very kind disposition, make special representation in view of the fact that some members of this management committee are on many Government boards and one was a responsible member of the Cabinet during the war?

    Fishermen, Cornwall
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to arrest the decline in the number of young men engaged in Cornish sea fisheries and to stimulate recruitment.
    Mr. Isaacs: I have no power to prevent young men leaving the Cornish sea fisheries. With regard to recruitment, my local offices will give all possible assistance to owners of fishing boats who notify vacancies.
    Mr. Gerald Howard: Can the Minister give publicity to help recruitment in this matter, as I have suggested to him?
    Mr. Isaacs: I doubt whether it is necessary at the moment because in Cornwall, at the June count, there were 99 unemployed fishermen, 25 at Looe, 36 at St. Austell and 27 at St. Ives. There is, therefore, unemployment among fishermen there at the moment.
    Mr. Hayman: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that unemployment in the inshore fishing industry can vary almost from day to day? What may have happened on one day last week may not apply this week. Might I further remind my right hon. Friend that in the last census only 53 out of 862 men were under 25 years of age?
    Mr. Isaacs: I have no information on that point but, directing my answer to the Question, I said that we would give all possible assistance in notifying vacancies. There are, however, unemployed men there awaiting work.

  SCOTLAND

    Physiotherapists
    Lieut. - Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now say when the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the qualifications required by physiotherapists employed under the National Health Service will be completed; and whether it is intended to publish this report.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): The report of the committee should be available within the next few months. I will consider the question of publication when the report has been received.

    Fluorine Fumes (Factories)
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an order similar to No. 364, 1950, which only applies to England so that the harmful discharge of fluorine fumes will be prohibited or corrected from factories in Scotland.
    Mr. McNeil: I cannot make a comparable Order to the one referred to, but I am considering whether further legislation upon this subject is necessary.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the people of Fort William, and the trees and cattle there, are being sufficiently protected against the fumes of the British Aluminium Company?
    Mr. McNeil: I am quite satisfied that the best public health requirements have been met in relation to housing and the emission of these fumes. I should, therefore, presume that the cattle are reasonably all right.
    Major McCallum: Does the Minister realise that only last week the fumes emitted by this factory were still sufficient to cause withering and damage to trees and plants, so presumably they are still injurious to human beings?
    Mr. McNeil: I do not pretend that this situation has not worried me, but I must point out that the public health requirements have been met in relation to housing. That, I think, must be my primary concern.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman issue a similar Order?
    Mr. McNeil: Because the appropriate Act does not permit me to do so.

    Teachers' Salaries
    Lieut. - Commander Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make any statement in regard to an increase in the salaries of teachers.
    Mr. McNeil: The present salaries regulations are due to expire on 31st March, 1951. Negotiations in the National Joint Council as to the scales to be recommended to me for new regulations are not yet concluded. In these circumstances I cannot make any statement about an increase in teachers' salaries.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman think he will be able to make a statement during the Debate which is to take place on Scottish Education Estimates?
    Mr. McNeil: I do not know that a date has been fixed for the Debate on education. It is unlikely that I shall be in possession of the report from the committee within the next few weeks.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: Is the Minister aware that many married Scottish school-masters are quite unable properly to maintain themselves and their families at present? Does he not realise that he is lowering the status of the profession by not dealing with this as a matter of the greatest urgency?
    Mr. McNeil: I am sure that the hon. Member is also aware that until I receive the recommendations of the National Joint Council, it would be verging on the improper for me to comment on the scales at all.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the great concern of all hon. Members should be for the lower paid teachers but, more particularly, for the lower paid miners—those receiving less than £5 a week?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Perhaps it may clear the right hon. Gentleman's mind for this report if I say that he should appreciate that unless he does something to improve the conditions
    2076
    and salaries of teachers our whole educational system is in imminent danger of collapse.
    Mr. McNeil: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member's opinions are very weighty, but I repeat that I prefer to await the recommendations of the National Joint Council.

    Cement Supplies
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that local authorities are likely to be unable to secure completion of their housing contracts because of insufficient supplies of cement; and what steps he is taking to remedy this.
    Mr. McNeil: I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply given on 19th June by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while cement is in short supply at 78s. a ton in Glasgow it can be got comparatively easily at £7 14s. 9d. a ton? Will he inquire why firms selling at this price can still get licences to import?
    Mr. McNeil: I think, with great respect, that my hon. Friend's statement is not quite accurate. I have been inquiring most closely into this subject.
    Mr. W. G. Bennett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Glasgow Corporations are loading some more cement from Germany this week, and that because of that, and only because of that, they are able to carry on their building?
    Mr. McNeil: I am aware that they are importing this cement, and I am glad they are doing so, but it is quite wrong to say that it is only with that cement that they are proceeding with their building. That is not so. It is a supplementary load, for which we are all very grateful.
    Mr. J. J. Robertson: Can my right hon. Friend say what is being done for the immediate needs of Berwickshire?
    Mr. McNeil: Yes, I am very glad to say that the Minister of Works, in collaboration with me, is arranging that cement should be shipped direct from London to Berwick.
    Mr. Niall Macpherson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that weekly

    2077
    supplies are in excess of the amount estimated by the Ministry of Works? If there is any shortage at all it is the Government's fault.
    Mr. McNeil: I cannot follow that question. I am unaware that any housing scheme has been stopped for lack of cement. Therefore, our cement budgeting cannot have been too wide of the mark.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have the name of a very large firm in Glasgow which could only get cement in the city at the figure I have given? I shall give him the name of that firm privately after Questions.
    Mr. McNeil: I shall be delighted at this co-operation, but my recollection of the assertion of my hon. Friend is that he said that cement was easily obtainable at that figure. That is not so.

    Water Supplies
    Mr. J. J. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the first phase of the Berwickshire County Water Scheme is likely to be completed; when it is proposed to start the remaining phases; and if, in view of the urgent need for an adequate domestic water supply in the area, he will now agree to the whole scheme being proceeded with immediately.
    Mr. McNeil: It is hoped that the first phase of the Berwickshire watch water scheme will be completed by mid-1952, and that thereafter work on the Earnscleugh water scheme and the second phase of the watch water scheme will proceed concurrently,
    Mr. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this delay is seriously holding up the agricultural and industrial development of that area; and cannot further speedy action be taken to complete the whole scheme quickly?
    Mr. McNeil: I understand my hon. Friend's preoccupation, but I should remind him that the authorisation for Berwickshire already represents 6 per cent. of the total water and drainage schemes for all Scotland.
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest figures of the number of new houses approved but not begun owing to lack of water, for agricultural workers and general needs respectively, since 1945, in
    2078
    the county of Berwick, including the burghs.
    Mr. McNeil: No houses for which tenders have been approved are at present being held up for lack of water.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what Highland schemes of water supply have received grants of 85 per cent.
    Mr. McNeil: As the list of schemes is necessarily lengthy I propose, with permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that so far as the seven crofter counties are concerned, the longer the list is the better?
    Following is the information:

    RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE ACT, 1944

    HIGHLAND COUNTIES

    Schemes on which grant is payable at 85 per cent.

    County

    Name of Scheme

    Argyll

    Campbeltown, Stewarton, Drumlemble, Machrihanish (part)

    Ellenabeich

    Inellan—Buthkollidar

    Balvicar

    Lochaline

    Muasdale (part)

    Kilmichael Glassary

    Cairndow

    Portnahaven and Port Wemyss

    Carradale

    Caithness

    Loch Calder Regional

    Stroma

    Daliburgh (South Uist)

    Inverness

    Balivanich

    Boat of Garten

    Nethybridge

    Calcabock

    Orkney

    Kirbister

    Hoy

    Boardhouse

    Burn of Woodwick

    Ross and Cromarty

    Eye Peninsula (Lewis)

    Four Lewis Groups

    Easter Ross

    Gairloch

    Nostie

    Ullapool

    Ardgay

    Sutherland

    Helmsdale

    Loth and Portgower

    MeIness

    Loch Clash Pier

    Zetland

    Whalsay

    Dunrossness and Gulberwick

    Unst

    Burra

    Housing
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is likely

    2079
    that housebuilding will be resumed at Earlston, Berwickshire, to house the 200 families at present requiring accommodation in that area.
    Mr. McNeil: Further housing at Earlston depends on the progress of the Earnscleugh water scheme which, under present circumstances, is expected to begin in 1952.
    Mr. Snaddenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if compensation is to be paid to tenants of Cruden houses in respect of inconvenience caused and damage to furniture resulting from the fire-proofing of these houses.
    Mr. McNeil: I cannot usefully add anything to the reply given on 23rd May to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson).
    Mr. Snadden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at any rate in my constituency, people had a complete invasion of workmen lasting over a week? When furniture is damaged is it not the responsibility of his Department to make some compensatory payment?
    Mr. McNeil: My Department made the most careful investigations and issued a circular giving the scheme of work which, I think, ought to have prevented any unlooked for damage. It may not be the responsibility of the Department; it may be the responsibility of a contractor.

    Villages (Removal)
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in regard to the removal of villages in Scotland which his local planning officers may consider advisable; and whether the views of the residents in such villages will be taken into account before any action is taken or publicity given to his intentions.
    Mr. McNeil: This is primarily a subject for the county councils concerned, and I should naturally be greatly influenced by their views, although, of course, I must also consider the views of any residents who might be affected by a proposal.
    Sir T. Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable distress was caused to the people of Monkton in Ayrshire the other day by a premature report of its removal? Will he say something now to relieve that anxiety?
    Mr. McNeil: Happily, I am not at all concerned with such publications, premature or otherwise. I must repeat that this is a subject primarily for the county councils, but I think my views are quite well known—that I am not desirous of liquidating lively and distinct communities like villages.

    Crofter Counties (Electricity Supplies)
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much power from the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's schemes has been used for industry in the seven crofter counties.
    Mr. McNeil: The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board at present supply industrial consumers in the seven crofter counties at the rate of 12 million units annually.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the seven crofter counties should have the first call on the power from hydroelectric schemes for industry?
    Mr. McNeil: I am quite aware of the statutory provisions in regard to those counties, but I should emphasise that no industrial undertaking is held up or operating short of power.

    Hand and Power Woven Tweeds
    Mr. J. MacLeodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the scheme for distinguishing between hand-woven and power-woven tweed submitted to him by the Highland and Islands Advisory Panel.
    Mr. McNeil: I am re-examining this, question, but I cannot pretend that I am optimistic about the outcome.
    Mr. MacLeod: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Treasury admitted in the last Parliament that it was just through lack of distinction between them that they refused to reduce the Purchase Tax—the lack of distinction in the difference between hand-woven and power-woven tweed? Is he aware that unless that distinction is possible, as suggested by this report, the industry, which is vital to the small producers in the Highlands, will be virtually killed?
    Mr. McNeil: I know the doubts and the fears, and the hon. Gentleman knows better than most people that this is a complex subject upon which no one view has been representative.
    Mr. Maclay: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if a decision is not reached, and soon, this industry will probably disappear altogether? It is a matter of the gravest urgency.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that apparently it has been found possible to distinguish between utility and non-utility tweeds though made on the same loom and of the same materials? Could not some distinction be made?
    Mr. McNeil: I do not think the distinction is nearly so easy.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is it not the case that for many years an orb mark has been approved and recognised by the Board of Trade, which distinguishes handwoven Harris tweed from any other? Why has not that been found acceptable to the Treasury as well as to the Board of Trade?

    Doctors
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Medical Practices' Committee have now supplied him with lists of those areas which are most in need of additional doctors.
    Mr. McNeil: Lists were appended to a report of the Scottish Medical Practices Committee when it was published in the medical Press last January. The Comittee have the position under review and I expect to receive a further report in the autumn.
    Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend consider approaching the Committee in order to add to these lists those areas which are over-doctored and those which are not adequately doctored?
    Mr. McNeil: I think that would mean listing every area in Scotland, and that that would be an unnecessary work. The areas where we have any over-doctoring, or have more than sufficient numbers of doctors, are already well known, and I do not think that we could add to our information on the subject by following my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made towards reducing the maximum number of patients on a doctor's list, from 4,000 to 3,800.
    Mr. McNeil: While the number of doctors with excessive lists is being steadily reduced I do not think I should yet be justified in lowering the prescribed maximum number of patients.

    Camp, Ross-shire
    Mr. J. MacLeodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to improve the bad conditions at the camp at Muir of Ord, in Ross-shire, which is at present occupied by squatters.
    Mr. McNeil: I have called for an up-to-date report on the conditions at this camp, and I will later write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. MacLeod: While thanking the-right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if he is aware that there are far too many of these ex-war camps in a most derelict condition throughout the country, and: that the matter ought to be treated very seriously?

    Highlands and Islands (Development)
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now say when the White Paper on Highlands and Islands development is to be published.
    Mr. McNeil: I hope that this White Paper will be in the Vote Office on Friday.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

    Specialists
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Pensions when it is proposed to apply the scales of remuneration authorised by the Minister of Health to specialists employed in Ministry of Pensions hospitals.
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): The question of the remuneration of specialists in the Ministry of Pensions hospitals is being remitted to and independent committee set up in accordance with the recommendations of the

    2083
    Chorley Report, which will review the pay and grading of all medical officers in the Civil Service.
    Sir I. Fraser: In considering this matter will the Minister bear in mind that many of these specialists, who are doing comparable work, are now being paid less than half what is paid to similar grades in the National Health Service; and that it is so bad that the "British Medical Journal" refuses to advertise for these grades?
    Mr. Marquand: I am well aware of the situation; that will all be in front of this committee.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects the committee to report As my hon. Friend has said, there is a serious drain on the Service owing to the difference in the conditions between the two Ministries.
    Mr. Marquand: I am not aware of any serious drain. The committee is just commencing its deliberations, and it would really be for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to answer questions about the date of the report.

    War-Disabled Men (Motor Cars)
    Mr. Snowasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the increased duty on petrol, he is now able to say by how much he intends to increase the annual allowance paid to war pensioners to whom he has supplied motor cars.
    Mr. Marquand: I have decided to increase to £50 per annum the allowance towards maintenance and running expenses paid to those war pensioners to whom I have supplied motor cars. The increased allowance will take effect from 18th April, 1950.
    Mr. Snow: While accepting this evidence that at any rate a Labour Government keeps faith with the disability pensioner, may I ask my right hon. Friend how many of these grants are in payment, and whether the number is likely to increase?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, there are approximately 1,400 in payment at the present time. The number will go on
    2084
    increasing, as I shall explain in answer to the next Question on the Order Paper.
    Sir I. Fraser: Was it not shown in the Debate in the House the other day, when the Chancellor offered this concession, that these people will be at a loss of £10 each, not £5?
    Mr. Marquand: People's circumstances vary very greatly, and it is impossible to give a general figure of that kind.
    Sir H. Williams: How much will be left out of the £3 million balance on the amount raised on the Petrol Duty after the right hon. Gentleman has given this allowance?
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Pensions what steps he takes to see that a motor car is delivered to a war-disabled man as soon as possible after the approval of his Department has been given to the application.
    Mr. Marquand: I undertook to supply 1,500 cars over a period of two years. Up to date, 1,334 have been delivered to pensioners: thus the promise is being completely fulfilled The actual date of supply to individual pensioners has been arranged as fairly as possible.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Ammunition Dumps, Hampshire
    Mr. Donnerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will either remove, or provide guards for, the large quantities of ammunition still dumped in wooded country in north Hampshire.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): The two ammunition dumps in north Hampshire are guarded by civilian watchmen, four men being constantly on duty at each dump.
    Mr. Donner: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Harewood Forest children, Communists and criminals can help themselves as they please?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. That is contrary to my information.
    Sir Jocelyn Lucas: Do not four make a good bridge party?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I visited the dump in Harewood Forest two months ago, examined the ammunition in the greatest detail possible without causing a by-election, and was not at any time interrupted by any of his guards?
    Mr. Strachey: These are no doubt large dumps, but I think there is a fairly generous provision of watchmen. In any case, I think that the dumps are being fairly rapidly cleared.
    Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I pass these dumps every-other day, and that I have never yet seen a watchman?

    Cadets
    Mr. John Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a large number of schoolboy cadets are prevented from attending annual camp through the inability of their parents to pay for boots; and whether he will now consider making one free issue of boots to members of cadet forces during their period of service.
    Mr. Strachey: I am afraid that it is not possible to make a free issue of boots to cadets.
    Mr. Tilney: Is the Secretary of State aware of the importance of encouraging recruiting to the cadet forces of this country, and that the lack of a free issue is detrimental to their training?
    Mr. Strachey: We should no doubt like to make all sorts of further expenditure on the cadet forces, but we have to limit ourselves in this as in other matters.
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the inconvenience being caused to Boys' Brigades and other similar cadet corps by the inability of the Aldershot Command to lend them camp equipment as they have done in previous years; if he realises that it is only in the last few weeks, when no other arrangements could be made, that this decision has been conveyed to them; and what steps he will take to assist them.
    Mr. Strachey: I appreciate the difficulties of these organisations. A redistribution of stocks of camp equipment in
    2086
    Southern Command is being effected, which it is hoped will permit substantial help to be given to the organisations concerned.
    Mr. Gammans: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why, only five years after the end of the war, it is apparently difficult to get enough equipment for these camps? What has happened to the immense war stores? If we cannot fulfil a demand like this, what would occur if we had to mobilise?
    Mr. Strachey: It is largely a financial question, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that we can meet legitimate demands.

    Fainting on Parade
    Major H. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Guardsman Peter Youdale was put on a charge for fainting during the Trooping the Colour rehearsal on 29th May, 1950, and received punishment of five days' extra drill; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that fainting on parade ceases to be treated as a punishable offence.
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. and gallant Member has been misinformed. While each case of fainting is investigated, no charge is preferred unless the man has fainted as a result of some action or negligence on his part which has rendered him unfit for parade. This guardsman was not guilty of such an act and was not put on a charge.
    Major Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this guardsman had to suffer five extra drills? If that was not a punishment, what was it?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. My information is that after this occurrence this guardsman took part in the drills of his unit, which he had not been doing because of other duties beforehand, but these were in no sense a punishment.
    Mr. Snow: What happens to a mounted officer who is unseated involuntarily from his horse?
    Mr. Strachey: There again, no blame is attached to the officer if it is not considered that it was his fault.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Ministers get unseated, too.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the Secretary of State aware that the country is prepared to leave this to the justice of commanding officers, and that this Question was really quite unnecessary?
    Mr. Blackburn: Is it not almost inconceivable that fainting in any circumstances could be a crime under King's Regulations?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. King's Regulations do provide that if, in the opinion of the authorities, the fainting has been due to some negligence on the part of the man or the officer, then a crime might be committed, but this did not arise in this case.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings: What conditions which could be prevented by the individual give rise to fainting?
    Mr. Strachey: Three conditions have been given to me, one of which is being out late at night on the eve of the parade.

    Sentries (Orders)
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for War if he will issue instructions to ensure that orders to sentries to shoot to kill are limited to theatres of war or very exceptional cases where special security considerations arise.
    Mr. Strachey: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would await a statement on this and other issues raised by the Linsell case, a statement which, with your permission, Sir, and that of the House. I will make tomorrow.
    Mr. Blackburn: While entirely accepting that, might I ask whether that statement will cover the general issue raised in this Question and not merely the particular case to which my right hon. Friend is referring?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, to the best of my ability.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Without asking my right hon. Friend to anticipate his statement in any way, might I ask him to bear in mind the importance of making it clear that it is not a defence to a charge of crime in this country, and never has been, that the man obeyed superior orders?
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that sentries and other soldiers are not penalised for obeying orders?
    Mr. Strachey: I think hon. Members should wait until tomorrow.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lockwood: When the right hon. Gentleman makes his statement about the case of Private Linsell, will he inform the House what were, to quote the official document.
    "the other aspects which arose in the proceedings which might, in the Commander-in-Chiefs view, have influenced the court's decision and resulted in an injustice to the accused man"?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind particularly to that point, and let us know what those facts were?
    Mr. Strachey: I think I should avoid making a statement about a statement.

    Camp Tents (Floorboards)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that under existing arrangements many Territorial Army units will not be issued with floorboards for tents at annual camp; and what steps he is taking to see that sufficient floorboards are available.
    Mr. Strachey: Floorboards for Territorial Army camps are provided on the same over-all scale as before the war, which in practice has proved sufficient. They are distributed, according to the needs of individual camps, by commands, but if the hon. Member has any particular camp in mind I will look into the position.
    Brigadier Head: In view of the immense number of floorboards in the country, is it not really cheese-paring to withhold floorboards from some camps because they are below a certain ground level? Would it not be better to give all the Territorials floorboards for their camps?
    Mr. Strachey: I am informed that at the height of the camping season it is not possible to provide floorboards for camps of all kinds on a complete scale, but I think that we can meet all cases of real need.
    Mr. Tilney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are considerable supplies of floorboards in private hands; and will he do his best to borrow them, anyhow for the camping season?
    Mr. Strachey: We will look into that.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Albuasked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds he has refused the request for compassionate release from the Army of 22209622 Craftsman Reynolds.
    Mr. Strachey: This request has been refused on the grounds that the domestic circumstances on which it was based revealed no evidence of illness. As my hon. Friend has been informed, this soldier is being retained in the United Kingdom for three months on compassionate grounds.
    Mr. Albu: In view of the fact that it appears that some of the evidence supporting this case has been mislaid, would my right hon. Friend have a personal investigation made into the case before the lad is sent abroad?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

    Barracks, North Africa
    Commander Nobleasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a unit of the 1st Infantry Division is required to share barracks in North Africa with German ex-prisoners-of-war employed as artisans; and whether he will have these arrangements altered and forbid them in future.
    Mr. Strachey: I am making inquiries in this case, and will write to the hon. and gallant Member.

    Officers (Excess Baggage Charge)
    Sir J. Lucasasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that British officers travelling on special troop trains from London to Liverpool, en route for Malaya, are charged excess luggage on the baggage which they have to take; and if he will arrange with British Railways to cease this practice, or to charge any excess to his department's account.
    Mr. Strachey: We do pay for an officer's baggage up to at least 5 cwt. for himself, an additional 6 cwt. for his wife and a further 1 cwt. for each child. He has only to get a warrant or consignment note for excess baggage up to this amount.
    Sir J. Lucas: In view of the fact that many of these young officers are not married and have very little experience
    2090
    of how much they have to take, maybe for one year or two years or perhaps for many years, cannot the Minister allow a reasonable latitude?
    Mr. Strachey: I should have thought that 5 cwt. was a reasonable latitude.
    Sir J. Lucasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that officers proceeding in Government troop trains from London to Liverpool, en route for Malaya, are charged excess luggage rates for kit which they have to take, he will allow such payments for Income Tax relief until such time as they may be abolished.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): No, Sir.
    Sir J. Lucas: If I am able to show that these men have been charged at the wrong rate will he see that suitable action is taken?
    Sir S. Cripps: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has made it quite clear that there are very adequate allowances in these cases.
    Sir J. Lucas: But the men appear to have been charged at the wrong rate. Cannot something be done about it?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that that has nothing to do with me.

    A.A. Command Headquarters
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the changing nature of potential air-attack, he is satisfied that the proposed development of Headquarters, Anti-Aircraft Command, in its present location is both military sound and financially wise.
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Harvey: Did the right hon. Gentleman arrive at that conclusion by assessing Headquarters Anti-Aircraft Command, as operational or administrative headquarters?
    Mr. Strachey: As operational headquarters, but where it is located is entirely bound up with the question of Fighter Command of the Royal Air Force. We should take the advice ultimately of the Chiefs of Staff on this matter.
    Mr. Harvey: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again.

    Ex-Prisoners of War (Compensation)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider paying compensation to ex-prisoners of war who were permanently affected by their captivity, on the lines of the schemes now operating in the United States and Australia where a sum equivalent of 5s. is paid for every 24 hours' imprisonment.
    Mr. Strachey: I would refer to the statement made by my hon. Friend on 13th June.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: As that statement was unsatisfactory, will the Secretary of State keep an open mind until the matter has been settled in Australia, and study the proceedings there with a view to looking into it at this end?
    Mr. Strachey: I will certainly study any proceedings, but I cannot guarantee to take them as a precedent.
    Mr. Vosper: In view of the widespread opinion on this subject, and the fact that many people feel that they have been unfairly treated, will the right hon. Gentleman issue a memorandum to those concerned showing how it is that America can help in this respect and we cannot?
    Mr. Strachey: I think that my hon. Friend's statement was very clear on this matter.

    Anti-Bandit Operations, Malaya
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to raise special volunteer forces for offensive anti-bandit operations in Malaya.
    Mr. Strachey: I do not know if my hon. Friend has in mind the engagement of special or irregular volunteer forces for service in Malaya; if so no steps have been taken to raise such forces.
    Mr. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that for a war of this kind the most suitable troops are volunteer troops of the Commando type, such as were used during the war? Will he consider whether a special force can be raised?
    Mr. Strachey: There are considerations of that sort, but, on the other hand, I
    2092
    should be very cautious about recruiting anything of the Black and Tan type in this respect.
    Brigadier Head: Does the Secretary of State recall that before he went to Malaya there was a suggestion from South Rhodesia for volunteers to fight in this area and that an answer to that suggestion is still pending? Cannot he expedite the reply?
    Mr. Strachey: The War Office has that and other suggestions under consideration at the moment.
    Brigadier Head: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell them to hurry up?

    Meritorious Service Medal
    Mr. G. P. Stevensasked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to ensure a quick decision on the conditions attaching to the award of the Meritorious Service Medal.
    Mr. Strachey: It has been agreed that all those who have already been registered for the award of the Meritorious Service Medal shall, in principle, receive the medal now. The actual issue may take some two years owing to practical difficulties. The grant of any annuity will be made as in the past, as vacancies occur. Once the medal has been issued to those at present registered, its issue in future cases will take place at about the time of registration. The numbers awarded will be such as to provide the numbers who may ultimately expect to receive the annuity, but for many years to come there will be a long period between the award of the medal and the grant of the annuity
    Mr. Stevens: Having regard to the fact that some of those awarded the medal have been waiting nearly 30 years for it, would it not be possible to ensure that the medals are delivered in under two years from now?
    Mr. Strachey: The numbers involved, as the hon. Member knows, are quite large, and I am advised that that is the time in which it can be done.
    General Sir George Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor, when answering a Question on this matter some six months ago and answering the same Question some two

    2093
    years ago, in each case said that it was being considered by a board at the War Office, and that a decision was hoped for at a very early date? Is there any reason to expect that that decision will be come to quickly, and that it will be one favourable to these men?
    Mr. Strachey: The decision has been made to issue the medals without waiting for vacancies to occur on the list of those eligible for the annuity.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Does "in principle" mean the payment of the annuity almost immediately, although the medal may not be received for two years?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The payment of annuities can only begin as vacancies occur on the list.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the Secretary of State aware that his predecessor held out hopes that the medal might be issued to all the men concerned after a reasonable period, even if the annuity was not available? Is there any chance of that being done?
    Mr. Strachey: I have just announced the decision that that will now be done.
    Commander Noble: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the cost to the Treasury would be if the annuity list was complete?
    Mr. Strachey: Not without notice.

  WHITE FISH INDUSTRY
  Mr. Duthieasked the Prime Minister whether he has now any statement to make on the white fish industry.
  Mr. Edward Evansasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make a statement on the white fish industry.
  Miss Irene Wardasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement on Government policy with regard to the future of the fishing industry.
  Brigadier Medlicottasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the white fish industry.
  Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement of Government policy in relation to the immediate difficulties and long-term problems of the white fish industry.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I hope to make a statement on this subject on Tuesday of next week.
  Mr. James Stuart: Is the Prime Minister aware of the extreme gravity of the situation? Fish is being dumped at Moray Firth ports and urgent action is essential.
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of that, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the great complexity of this question.
  Mr. Duthie: Will the statement refer to the increased cost of gear and operating expenses generally?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot particularise the statement at the moment.

  DEPARTMENTAL DOCUMENTS (PUBLICATION)
  Mr. Errollasked the Prime Minister if, when documents are placed in the Library by Government Departments for perusal by hon. Members, he will arrange for additional copies to be made available for the Press.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, not necessarily. If there is a clear demand in particular cases for documents which have been placed in the Library to be made available to the Press, Ministers will no doubt take that into account. The hon. Member, I have noticed, makes a frequent practice of asking Questions which, if they are to be answered, require the compilation of voluminous information collected from many Government Departments. I do not think, however, that he is entitled to assume that the Press will always have the same interest in information in this rather unwieldy form which he appears to have himself.
  Mr. Erroll: Are we then to assume that such information may not be shown to the Press if they should be interested, in addition to hon. Members?
  The Prime Minister: Not if they should want it, but I do not think that the general appetite is quite as great as that of the hon. Member for long lists of facts.
  Mr. Martin Lindsay: Are we to assume that the Prime Minister's reply was a rebuke to my hon. Friend?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, it was a recognition of an appetite.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at any rate, with regard to the question of petrol, in which my hon. Friend takes a great interest, it would require a volume to give the facts which the Government have hitherto concealed?
  The Prime Minister: This has nothing to do with petrol.

  LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (PUBLICATION)
  Miss Wardasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that Press announcements and wireless statements are not sufficient to inform all interested persons of changes in law or administrative regulations; and what instructions he has given Departments as to the further steps to be taken.
  The Prime Minister: When changes are made in the law or in Statutory Rules and Orders which affect some clearly defined section of the community, Departments normally circularise the trade or professional organisations concerned, and I have no doubt that in many cases they pass on the information to their individual members; in the case of changes affecting the community as a whole, such as adjustments in the rationing system, it is obviously not possible to give direct warning to everyone individually, but as hon. Members will be aware, in addition to Press publicity, including advertising, and announcements on the wireless, posters are displayed and leaflets explaining the changes are often available in the local offices of the Departments concerned. In general, I have no reason to think that the publicity given to such matters is inadequate.
  Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that in
  2096
  future Government Departments will not assume and put in writing that information which is broadcast and given in the Press makes it certain that everybody understands an alteration in the regulations, particularly having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the other day told me that he himself had not the time to listen to wireless announcements?
  The Prime Minister: I can never be sure that everybody will ever understand anything that is either written or spoken.
  Mr. Assheton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very real problem at the present time, and that anything that can be done to help should be done?
  The Prime Minister: I quite agree. We will do all we can, and if there is any specific Department which the right hon. Gentleman thinks is not doing its full share in this matter I hope he will let me know.

  FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MARKETING (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Hurdasked the Prime Minister whether the suggestions made by the Minister of Food, speaking at Catford on 12th June, represent the policy of the Government for the future organisation of fruit and vegetable marketing.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend, who was replying to a question regarding the Government's intention in the field of fruit and vegetable marketing, referred to the proposals contained in the election manifesto of the Labour Party at the recent General Election, which proposals, of course, still stand as a general declaration of our intentions.
  Mr. Hurd: Is the House to take it that no particular significance attaches to the Minister's remarks, and that there is nothing to hinder producers promoting their marketing schemes under the Agricultural Marketing Act.
  The Prime Minister: The statement stands quite clearly where it stands. I do not think there is anything to add to it. I do not know what is the point of the hon. Member's supplementary.
  Mr. Hurd: Producers of tomatoes and cucumbers have promoted a marketing scheme under the Act. What I am seeking information about is, whether they are to be encouraged to go ahead and put that into effect.
  The Prime Minister: That depends on the scheme.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the Prime Minister aware that considerable confusion exists in the public mind about the relationships between statements of Labour Party policy and statements of Government policy? Will he take steps to clarify the position?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any real difficulty. I have noticed certain differences on the other side between statements of policy and statements made by prominent members of the party.
  Mr. Nicholson: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House at any rate that he has read the statement of Labour Party policy?

  HYDRAULICS RESEARCH ORGANISATION
  Mr. Errollasked the Lord President of the Council if he will give an indication of the research work carried out and the scientific results achieved by the Hydraulics Research Organisation since its inception four years ago.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Marked advances in instrumentation have included (a) methods for the continuous measurement of velocities in the sea and in streams without appreciable interference with the flow of the water and (b) the development of a pneumatic tide generator, which automatically reproduces any desired tidal conditions. Basic problems under investigation include: (a) the characteristics of natural water channels; (b) some problems of coast erosion; (c) the behaviour of channels in estuaries. Some problems of the Rivers Forth and Wyre have been studied with models.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Dollar Imports
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer since one-third of wheat flour and sugar, one-fifth of cheese, one-quarter
    2098
    of petroleum and copper, one-third of zinc, four-fifths of aluminium, one-sixth of lead, two-fifths of cotton and one-half of tobacco imported in 1949 were free gifts from the United States of America under Marshall Aid, which of these items he proposes to cut down, and by how much for 1950 as a consequence of the smaller allocation of Marshall Aid for 1950.
    Sir S. Cripps: Final decisions have not yet been taken on the level of imports of each of these commodities in 1950. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that supplies of the raw materials in question should be adequate to meet the needs of industry. While imports of tobacco and the particular foodstuffs mentioned are expected to be somewhat lower than in 1949, supplies should be adequate to meet the expected level of consumption or to maintain existing rations as the case may be.
    Mr. Osborne: Does that answer mean that our earnings in North America have not been sufficiently increased to pay for supplies that previously have been given to us? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman anticipate that if we are not able to earn enough to pay for the foodstuffs there will have to be a reduction in rations?
    Sir S. Cripps: The answer to both those questions is "No."

    Property, Bahamas (Sale)
    Mr. Donnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the purchase price paid by the Colonial Development Corporation for the estate recently acquired on the island of Eleuthera, in the Bahamas, was paid for in dollars to its American owner.
    Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), on 20th June.
    Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this transaction has terminated a policy of investment in the Colonial Empire, and is that a policy which has the right hon. and learned Gentleman's approval?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. That is not my understanding.

    Stockings (Purchase Tax)
    Mr. John Rodgersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that utility fully-fashioned stockings made from wool and heavy cotton are almost entirely used by the older section of the community, such as old-age pensioners, he would be prepared to relieve these stockings from Purchase Tax and confine such tax to fully-fashioned silk and nylon stockings.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. Fully-fashioned stockings of all kinds are still a very good export proposition and it is as necessary as ever to encourage the maximum export effort.
    Mr. Osborne: Can the Chancellor advise the House when he expects supplies to be sufficient to give the home market a break?
    Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Gentleman will put down that Question to the President of the Board of Trade, no doubt he will answer it.
    Mr. Osborne: And he will refer me back to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

    Inter-European Payments
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proposed scheme for Inter-European Payments.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. I cannot make a statement until these matters have been considered next month by the Council of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As the Chancellor claimed that this proposed agreement was a success for His Majesty's Government, and as he is waiting until after it is ratified next month so that there will be no opportunity for this House to discuss it before it becomes operative, can he say why the Government are so "cagey" in giving details of this so-called victory?
    Sir S. Cripps: I did not make the statement which the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests. We hope it will be finalised about 6th July, and subsequently no doubt it will be ratified by different countries.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the Chancellor looks at the speech he made last night he will see that he claims that this agreement was a "success." That was the actual word he used. If it is a success why will he not give details to the House?

    National Savings
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the measures adopted by His Majesty's Government to support the efforts made by the National Savings movement to increase savings.
    Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement of the Government's financial and economic policy contained in my last Budget speech.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Since the Chancellor made his last Budget speech there have been increased and ever-increasing withdrawals from National Savings. Is that not proof that his level of taxation is too high? What is he going to do to arrest this trend, because if savings decrease his whole Budget policy is finished?
    Sir S. Cripps: That does not arise out of this Question, which asked what measures I had taken to support the efforts of the National Savings movement.
    Mr. Drayson: Will the Chancellor consider paying a more generous rate of interest on National Savings certificates?
    Sir S. Cripps: That has been considered.
    Mr. Nicholson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the greatest contribution he can make to the success of National Savings would be to ensure the stability of the purchasing power of the pound internally?
    Sir S. Cripps: That has been done.

    Entertainments Duty
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what annual amount of entertainments duty is collected from societies not conducted or established for profit.
    Sir S. Cripps: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the Chancellor say that the estimated sum is so small that it will not of itself prevent him from accepting my Amendment to the Finance Bill on the Report stage?
    Sir S. Cripps: I will certainly not say that, but I will say that it will not shake the Budget.

    Post-war Credits
    Miss Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that post-war credits have been compulsorily cancelled in respect of arrears of Income Tax of Service personnel on discharge, he will permit arrears of tax to be cancelled by post-war credits in all cases.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.
    Miss Ward: Why should the right hon. and learned Gentleman have a privilege which he denies to ordinary members of the public?
    Sir S. Cripps: I have no privilege.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: But did not this machinery operate during the financial year 1945–46? What is the administrative difficulty to it being extended to cover difficult cases?
    Sir S. Cripps: That was as a very special arrangement which was made to clear up administrative difficulties which had arisen in dealing with these cases.

    Foreign Currency Allowance
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the £15 foreign currency allowance for tourist motor cars to British-owned foreign-going yachts.
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir, in suitable cases if it can be shown that the fuel necessary for the journey is likely to exceed the yacht's storage capacity and that arrangements for bunkering abroad against payment in sterling in the U.K. cannot be made.

    "Bulletin for Industry" (Headline)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the headline on the front page of issue No. 19 of the "Bulletin for Industry" issued by the Economic Information Unit of the
    2102
    Treasury was approved by him; and whether it is his policy to insert controversial matter in this publication.
    Sir S. Cripps: The headline had my approval, and I can see nothing controversial in it. Care is always taken to ensure that this publication is factual and non-controversial in character.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that both the headline and the matter to which it refers, draw a comparison between the success and failure of the different industries, and that the material therein contained does terrible damage to the nationalised industries?
    Sir S. Cripps: It may or may not be the case, but that does not seem to me to show that the headline is a controversial matter in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer mean that he now makes no attempt to defend nationalisation.
    Sir S. Cripps: It means nothing of the kind. I believe it is wise to set out, factually, information about the industries concerned.

  KOREAN REPUBLIC (INVASION)
  Mr. Churchill(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he has any further statement to make on the situation in Korea?
  The Prime Minister: I have very little to add to the Press reports on the fighting in Korea. The scale and intensity of the attack leaves no doubt that this is a full-scale invasion. Although the attack was launched all along the 38th parallel, the first and main objective is clearly Seoul. The situation in and around Seoul is confused. There are reports that Northern Korean forces are pressing southwards to the east and west of Seoul, making full use of their superior mobility and greater weight of armour and artillery.
  The latest information about the small United Kingdom community is that all of them and all the other Commonwealth women and children living in Seoul, who

  2103
  wished to leave, moved to Inchon (the port for Seoul) on 26th June, for evacuation by sea. The Security Council is meeting again this afternoon.
  With permission of the House, I will interrupt the Debate later today if any further developments of importance occur.
  Mr. Blackburn: While entirely recognising that this is primarily a United States responsibility, may I ask whether the Prime Minister would bear in mind that there are many people in this country who believe that His Majesty's Govern-men should support the United States under Article 47 of the Charter if they are prepared to take action in collective self-defence with Southern Korea against this monstrous invasion?
  Mr. Churchill: May I venture to express the hope that the Prime Minister will reserve discussion of this matter until the announcement foreshadowed for five o'clock comes to be made?
  The Prime Minister: I think that that would be much the better course.
  Mr. McGovern: Has the Prime Minister noticed the large, bogus peace demonstrations that are being formulated by the Communist Party in the country, which are usually a prelude to some foul act by the Kremlin? Is he further aware that there is a growing volume of public opinion in this country which thinks that this bogus Communist Party, with its criminal conspiracy, should be outlawed?
  Mr. Bellenger: Does the Prime Minister expect that he will interrupt the proceedings for his statement before 7 o'clock?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot say, but I think so.
  Mr. John Hay: What steps are being taken by the Government to safeguard the lives of British subjects?
  The Prime Minister: I thought I had made that quite clear.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SCHUMAN PLAN
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [26th June]:
  "That this House requests His Majesty's Government, in the interests of peace and full employment, to accept the invitation to take part in the discussions on the Schuman Plan, subject to the same condition as that made by the Netherlands Government, namely, that if the discussions show the plan not to be practicable, freedom of action is reserved."—[Mr. Eden.]
  Which Amendment was to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the initiative of the French Foreign Minister of 9th May and, while recognising that it was not possible for His Majesty's Government to take part in the international consideration of his proposals on terms which committed them in advance of such consideration to pool the production of coal and steel and to institute a new high authority whose decisions would bind the Governments concerned, approves the declared readiness of His Majesty's Government to take a constructive part in the conversations with the hope that they may be able to join in, or associate themselves with, this common effort."—[Sir S. Cripps.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  3.34 p.m.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. Before the Debate is resumed, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you two questions in order to have the benefit of your advice to the House. You will remember that last week some of us pressed for an extension of time for the Debate yesterday and today. In view of your experience, do you not think that more time should have been given upon the big question that we are considering?
  Secondly, may I ask your advice upon these facts. In yesterday's Debate leading right hon. Members took two hours and five minutes, and other right hon. Gentlemen took one hour. Five other Members took two hours and 36 minutes. On this side of the House four right hon. Gentleman and several hon. Members including three lawyers spoke, but not one miner, not one engineer and not one steelworker. In view of the effect of these proposals upon large-scale industry, should not more time have been given?

  2105
  Can you say, based upon your experience in this Debate, whether more time should not be given to such questions in the future?
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I can only say now that I trust that in the short time that is available today, hon. Members who happen to catch my eye will be as brief as possible so that I can get in as many as possible. We did very well yesterday up to a point, and then we rather broke down. I hope that today we shall keep it up. As to the number of speakers, I did my best. One cannot call everybody, but I did what I could.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: May I make it clear, Sir, that I know that at one time you had at least 78 names, and that others were coming afterwards, so we all have a great deal of sympathy with your difficulty.
  Lord John Hope: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether a great deal of what the hon. Member has said was not a direct reflection on the Chair?
  Mr. Speaker: It depends upon how a thing is said. I am certain that the hon. Member meant no reflection on the Chair. We all realise, as I realise, that it is very difficult, with so many people wanting to speak, to call every interest. We got through a fair number yesterday. We have already lost five minutes. Let us get on with the business.
  3.37 p.m.
  Mr. Edelman: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), in a fervent speech last night, made it clear that he was prepared under certain safeguards to surrender British sovereignty to a higher authority. That statement was frank and unambiguous, but the hon. Gentleman did not make it clear to what length he carried his own party with him in that statement. One of the problems of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, ever since the Leader of the Opposition first associated himself with the idea of a united Europe, has been to find out exactly to what extent the Opposition are prepared to concur in the surrender of British sovereignty.
  Indeed, last year at Strasbourg, when the proceedings opened, it was widely thought among journalists, not only on the Continent but in America, that the Conservative Party were prepared, in
  2106
  their adherence to the idea of a United Europe, to support the idea of a federal Europe straight away. Because that view was so widely held, the Labour representatives, who urged that European unity should be brought about by cooperation in specific agencies for specific purposes, were charged with dragging their feet. Depite the fact that the British Labour Government had made for so long a period and at so great a cost to the people of this country, a practical contribution to the welfare of the Continent, and despite the fact that Britain had made many sacrifices in order to bring about its revival, the Labour representatives were considered to be opposed to European unity.
  When the Leader of the Opposition first came to speak at Strasbourg, he was thought by many of those present to be about to launch an all-out attack on the Lord President of the Council, for which newspaper correspondents had prepared the public. But when the Leader of the Opposition rose to speak, so far from attacking the Lord President, he went out of his way to associate himself with the approach which the Lord President had made to the unification of Europe. The Leader of the Opposition said:
  "It is not for us to make decisions which would require executive authority. We must not attempt on our present electoral basis to challenge the powers of the duly constituted national Parliaments founded directly upon universal suffrage."
  Then the Leader of the Opposition went on to say in connection with the future political structure of Europe:
  "To take a homely and familiar text, we may just as well see what a girl looks like before we marry her."
  That is the course of action which the Government have taken in connection with the Schuman Plan; and if the Leader of the Opposition considers that the Government have acted unwisely in asking for a preliminary inspection, he has only his own advice to blame for the action which the Government have taken.
  The fact is that a Labour Government which had made this unequivocal statement on the question of the surrender of sovereignty and which had stated quite clearly that it was not prepared to commit itself to the principle of such a surrender without prior consultation with Parliament and the people could not have acted other than it has done in connection with

  2107
  the invitation which was put forward by the French Government. Indeed, I can well believe that if the Leader of the Opposition had been in office, he, too, had he been consistent, would not have acted differently from the way in which the Prime Minister has acted.
  One thing must strike everyone as remarkable, not so much in the nature of the Schuman proposal but in the manner of the proposal. I have referred to it already as an invitation. In point of fact, it might seem to many of us rather more like an ultimatum. No responsible Government could have committed itself to a principle which would have bound Britain to a surrender of sovereignty unless that Government had first made the most exhaustive examination of the proposal and then submitted it to the consideration of Parliament and of Britain as a whole. If we examine the Schuman documents and look at the project as outlined in the first communiqué, one thing which strikes us is that, although the plan as a whole is merely a sketch, it contains certain very specific proposals whose acceptance was inherent in the conditions which the French Government put forward for the conference.
  One of the things which is made absolutely clear is that the structure of the body should consist of so-called "independent members." We are entitled to ask who the independent members are who would be put forward to direct the coal and steel industry of Europe. Who are these independent people, so free from national associations, so free from economic prejudice, such paragons of wisdom that they would be qualified to direct without any form of democratic responsibility a great European industry, which, after all, affects the lives of every one of us? These independent representatives would be answerable to no-one at all. They would be an oligarchy imposed on Europe, an oligarchy which, with arbitrary power and with enormous influence, would be able to affect the lives of every person in this country.
  It is true that several Members of the Opposition have suggested that certain safeguards might be included in the plan which would prevent an abuse of power by the control board. What are the safeguards proposed by the French? The independence mentioned in the first com-
  2108
  muniqué is a spurious one because the individuals who composed the body would be bound to have personal, national, perhaps even commercial, affiliations, although they would not be responsible to any elected body. They would be an arbitrary association, an undemocratic association of individuals, over whom there would be no public control whatsoever.
  What other safeguards are included in the proposals put forward by M. Schuman? There is one suggestion which, in the context of what is happening in Korea today, seems almost laughable. That proposal is that there should be a United Nations inspector sitting on the board who would be able to report to the United Nations and make sure that the purposes of the board were pacific and in line with the public interest. Who would this United Nations inspector be? Would he be a delegate from Guatemala—somebody perhaps who had no connection whatever with the steel industry of Europe? It is impossible to believe that a proposal of that kind would be a safeguard adequate to prevent an abuse of power by the body if it were set up in the terms originally proposed by M. Schuman.
  Even now, while the Paris Conference is going on, we read of improvised suggestions for some kind of democratic control for this body. We are told that M. Monnet has suggested that there should be an ad hoc Parliament of Europe which would have the responsibility of examining, presumably, the accounts and the proceedings of the coal and steel board; but is it possible to believe that such a Parliamentary assembly, scraped up for the specific purpose of examining in a very brief period the proceedings of this body over a whole year would be either technically or politically capable of providing sufficient supervision to prevent an arbitrary abuse of power?
  I have drawn attention to certain weaknesses in the proposals, and yet for my own part I welcome the initiative which has been made by M. Schuman, because of the general purposes contained in the proposals. We, as Socialists, have always believed that one of the root causes of war, not only in Europe but throughout the world, has been a conflict for raw materials. If it were possible to unify

  2109
  the Ruhr-Lorraine system of coal and steel production in such a way as to prevent the present political division—which on the one side prevents the iron ore of Lorraine from having its natural and organic relationship with the coal of the Ruhr and on the other side produces such abnormalities in the European political system as the present control of the Saar—if we could do away with that, if we could re-create the organic unity of Europe which the Schuman Plan proposes, then we should do two things at the same time.
  Not only should we make the coal and steel industry of Europe more efficient, but, in addition to that, we should succeed in bringing Germany and France, and indeed ourselves, together in order to avoid the conflicts which before 1939 produced a succession of wars; or, when there was agreement a series of cartels. It is clear that, so far from being a cartel pledged to restriction, the Schuman Plan proposes that there should be a vast expansion of the coal and steel industry of Europe. Now the question is, in what form should that expansion take place? What guarantees can we find to make sure that, when that expansion takes place, we do not get back to the pre-war days when expansion was always associated with so-called over-production, which brought in its wake the disaster of mass unemployment?
  The iron and steel industry of Europe was completely unplanned when it was left to the chaos of private enterprise. The result was that whenever there was over-production the less efficient firms were forced out of production through bankruptcy, but their own personal loss involved serious damage to the standard of life and the conditions of employment of vast numbers of workmen.
  Later, to sort out the chaos and to try to bring some plan into the iron and steel industry of Europe great industrialists got together and planned cartels, not to absorb the production of the iron and steel industry of Europe but rather to close down plants, to rationalise, to drive certain firms out of production. The result was high prices and mass unemployment. In other words, whether there was a cartel or whether there was free enterprise, the results were always the same: there was mass unemployment in the iron and steel industry of Europe as long as that industry was either in the hands of
  2110
  private enterprise or was planned exclusively by private enterprise.
  The singular merit of the Schuman Plan is that for the first time there is a proposal that the planning of the industry should not be left simply to the industrialists who are primarily concerned with the profit which they are extracting from the industry, but that the industry as a whole should be planned with the cooperation of Governments. Therefore, although the present structure proposed by M. Schuman may require modification, the purpose behind the plan is one which we as Socialists should welcome. Although I have been talking about overproduction, and although that word was mentioned frequently in yesterdays' Debate, we do not have to look to Africa to mop up this so-called over-production. As long as there is a single house to be built in Britain, as long as there are railways and rolling stock and vehicles to be built in this country, it is foolish and wrong to talk of over-production of basic raw materials.
  We have to devise a means by which we shall be able to have an organisation which is neither the arbitrary high authority proposed by the French nor an organisation of governmental representatives like O.E.E.C., whose limitations are caused to some extent by the fact that it is run almost exclusively by civil servants, able and eminent civil servants but nevertheless civil servants who have no direct electoral responsibility.
  If we could evolve some kind of intermediate organisation which would be able to co-ordinate the industry of Europe, which would be able to bring the interests of Europe together which would be able to join in consultation not just a collection of international civil servants, not just a collection of govern-mentally-appointed independent people, but which would really be representative of employers, of trade unions, of consumers as well as of governments—if we had a body of this kind, then we would indeed have an international organisation which would be able to compose the differences existing between the different interests of Europe, which would harmonise them, and which would be a working body to which I am sure my own hon. Friends would have no objection. This would provide a common ground to which those hon. Members

  2111
  opposite who are perhaps most vitally concerned with the interests of the employers could have no objection. A British nationalised board as employer could work side by side with the industrialists of France or the controlling employing organisations of Germany. That is the synthesis we must seek to find; and that is the common ground on which we must try to meet.
  It may well be that at present there is no suitable name for such an organisation. It may well be that those who are much tied to terminology may object that this is not a supra-national body or, alternatively, that it is not an international body as we know it today. It may well be—as has been said in a different connection—that the word for this type of organisation has not yet been discovered, but if we approach the matter pragmatically, if we consider the actual merits of the situation, I believe we shall be able to put forward an alternative to the Schuman Plan which will have the effect of co-ordinating the basic industry of Europe in the interests of Europe as a whole.
  Let us not imagine that the Schuman Plan, whatever form its organisation takes, can exist in a vacuum. One of the fundamental purposes of the Schuman Plan is to stimulate not merely production but also consumption. Consequently, if we want to stimulate consumption there will have to be an engineering organisation for Europe, there will have to be an agricultural organisation for Europe. This brings me to a question I should like to put hon. Gentlemen opposite: if there were a Schuman Plan for agriculture which envisaged a high authority for the agriculture of Europe, would they be prepared to go to the farmers of Britain and say, "We have surrendered our sovereignty to this high authority which henceforward will be able to tell the farmers of Britain exactly what they have to do?" I cannot help feeling that if a Conservative spokesman, having made that statement, were to go to the farmers and inform them of it, he would displace my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) from his place in the scale of the affections of the farmers.
  There must be a complete series of interdependent organisations which will
  2112
  flow from the application of the Schuman Plan. Therefore, I want to ask the Government not to wait till the discussions in Paris peter out in disappointment and in recrimination. If they do, I believe that our own Socialist idea of the planning of the basic industries of Europe by consent may be deferred for many years to come. I sincerely hope that, neither in the interests of prestige nor for any other comparable consideration, will we hesitate to put forward our ideas to the French as soon as possible.
  I have made a suggestion for a quadripartite organisation of employers, trade unionists, consumers and governments which would have the effect of synthesising the views of the French and of ourselves, and if we put forward something of that kind—
  Mr. John McKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that a tremendous number of hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Member at present speaking has been up 20 minutes already—
  Mr. Edelman: I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly, but I was putting forward a suggestion which might be a bridge between the point of view of the French and our own point of view in industry.
  I hope that the Government will consider my suggestion and will not wait until the Paris Conference is finally concluded before putting forward either that or any other constructive proposal. Britain has in the past proved her attachment to the idea of European unity. We have made great financial and material contributions to the revival of Europe. We must now show that despite sneers and incomprehension, from whichever direction they may come, we intend to persevere side by side with the Commonwealth in our practical support of a unified Europe, a Europe united in good will and by consent. I believe that we may thus discover not merely the means of creating a united Europe but also of laying the foundations for a united world.
  4.1 p.m.
  Mr. Boothby: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) for a very helpful and constructive speech. I cannot say that I disagree with a word of it, and I hope that the Government

  2113
  will listen to his advice. I would say to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) that it is extremely unfortunate that not many people can take part in the Debate. It is a pity that it is not a two-or even a three-day Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In a matter of this magnitude, it is not merely a matter of getting up to say a few chirpy sentences; anyone who succeeds in catching Mr. Speaker's eye might just as well make a case, lest he does not speak again for several months.
  I hope to answer some of the questions which the hon. Member for Coventry, North, put to this side of the House. I say at the outset that one of the advantages of becoming old—almost the only advantage, I think—is that one can remember what happened quite a long time ago, because one was there. Everybody agreed yesterday that what happened in the 1920's was very important and that we can today draw some lessons from what happened in those years. I remember the 1920's very well indeed. I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I remember very well the coal stoppage of 1926 and its aftermath of cut-throat international competition in the basic industries, when every ton of coal which was cut in Europe was sold below the cost of production and the figures of unemployment in our basic industries went up and up.
  At the beginning of 1928 I went to Germany. I went to the Ruhr and I met the leaders of the German coal and iron and steel industries. I am aware that the German industrialists of the 1920's are not regarded with much favour today, but they contained many men of great ability. Walther Rathenau, I think, was one of the most outstandingly clever men of our age. He was dead by the time I got there. Do not forget that these were the men who carried through the rationalisation of German industry which restored German industrial power. Do not forget that these were the men who founded the modern working parties in industry, who arranged for the scientific concentration of firms within an industry for the execution of common functions by means of a central executive. And do not forget that there is little doubt that their prototypes still exist in Germany today.
  2114
  These industrialists, including Fritz Thyssen, expounded to me a plan for a European coal, iron and steel consortium, under British leadership. They said that in the modern world this would have to be under political control, and that the problem would, therefore, have to be approached at the political level. They also said that it was the only hope of avoiding a Second World War. Well, we got the Second World War. They complained that they could not talk to the representatives of the British coal industry because they said that at that time the representatives of the British coal industry would not talk to each other, and so there was not much chance of their talking to them.
  So they asked me to make the first move at a political level. I came down to this House, and on 10th February, 1928—I cannot resist making a brief quotation—I said:
  "Our coal industry is engaged, so far as I can see … in a vast disorganised scamper for markets in Europe at any cost, at any price. … What is the effect? The effect is that the Germans are now preparing a retaliatory campaign …
  It is a most senseless business. … For between them this country and Germany could control practically the whole of the coal markets of the world, outside the United States. At the moment both industries are running at a loss. … There is no conceivable doubt that the policy that we are pursuing with regard to coal is going to force the Germans to lengthen their hours and to lower wages in the coalmines."
  And that is what happened. I went on:
  "I would say this to the President of the Board of Trade: the German coalowners, and the iron and steel industrialists also, are not only willing but most anxious to come to an agreement with this country with regard to markets and prices. … They say it would be a generous agreement on their part. …
  What is the alternative to this policy? The alternative seems to be a sort of ghastly combination of dumping and tariffs on all sides. … I believe in Protection, both economic and political, against unfair attack from any quarter. But I also believe that treaties of arbitration and agreements are better than armaments, if you can get them.
  I am certain, as a result of my visit to Germany, that an economic Locarno is possible in Europe today … If we can get that … then I believe we shall see in this country and in Europe … a period of unparalleled economic prosperity and development in the course of this century."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1928; Vol. 213, c. 445–449.]
  I am naturally a very modest sort of chap, but as I re-read this speech, I must

  2115
  confess that it occurred to me that it certainly looked as if I had anticipated the Schuman Plan by 22 years; and that is not bad.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: It is all in your book.
  Mr. Boothby: It is all in HANSARD. There was an amusing, and to me a very gratifying, sequel. A few days after the Debate, I got a letter dated 16th February, 1928:
  "I write to congratulate you on your speech in the House. I have asked the 'Daily Express' to give you plenty of support. Don't be afraid of your independent line. You are making a good and great name for yourself. Yours ever, Beaverbrook."
  In the event, nothing came of it. What happened was that Europe was in no condition to meet the impact of the American slump when it came in 1930. Riven by competitive nationalism, and continuing to apply the once valid but now disruptive ideals of undiluted national sovereignty and laissez faire, she accompanied the United States headlong into the abyss. And Hitler climbed to power on the backs of six million unemployed. That was the answer of the 1920's, and I do not think that we ought to forget it. So much by way of approach.
  I do not think we can over-estimate the gravity of the issue which we are discussing. It is really the issue of peace or war. We are now faced with the greatest challenge that has ever been made to our Western democratic civilisation. How are we meeting it? I am afraid, not very well. We are at present losing this titanic struggle for world power. The Communists have their own ideas about international, political and economic integration, and they certainly put them into practice. During the last five years they have collected half Europe and the whole of China, with the exception of South Korea, and now they are collecting that. We have asked, through the United Nations, for a "cease-fire," and I think it quite likely that our request will very shortly be gratified, but only after Southern Korea has been added to the Communist empire.
  I believe that there is only one answer to this Communist challenge—I have always believed it—and that is a comprehensive democratic union, based on a charter of human rights, strong enough to
  2116
  resist aggression from without or from within. It can only be strong enough if it comprises the United States, the British Commonwealth and a united Europe—all three. I genuinely believe that one of the obstacles to the creation of such a union has been His Majesty's Government. Let me explain why.
  In his speech at Fulton the Leader of the Opposition proclaimed the ultimate objective of wide Western Union under the acknowledged leadership of the United States. The Government said they preferred a European leadership. At Zurich later the Leader of the Opposition asked for a united Europe as an integral part of the wider Western Union and invited France to stretch out the hand of friendship to Germany in order to achieve this. The Government then said: "We prefer an Atlantic union." At The Hague Conference resolutions were passed which led directly to the Council of Europe and from that Congress the Socialist Party held conspicuously aloof and from that time they have put one obstacle after another in the way of European union.
  Listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday I could not help feeling he was living in a world of illusion and I think that many hon. Members opposite share that illusion. He said:
  "at no time in our history has the understanding between this country and France been greater than it is today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 1939.]
  And I think he believed it. I should like to ask if he received a telegram of thanks and congratulations from the French Government for the brilliant way in which he handled the devaluation crisis last year? It was, in fact, the biggest slap in the face ever given by this country to Europe. As I was listening to him, I began to feel quite sorry for the French of whom he said he had been seeing so much, because I think he genuinely believes they are devoted to him. They are very polite, but I do not think that is their real view.
  I suppose I have been at pretty well every meeting of the European Movement in the last two and a half years, that movement to which the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) referred in rather contemptuous terms yesterday. Let me tell him that it is not run nor financed by the federalists. I can give him an assurance on that point. I have

  2117
  never for one moment at any meeting of the Council or Executive disguised from them the fact that this country as the centre of the Commonwealth cannot enter a European political federation and that our approach to the problem of European unity must always be functional rather than constitutional. That attitude has been perfectly well understood on the Continent of Europe, and on this understanding we might have led the movement for European unity during the last two years. The whole Continent of Europe wanted our leadership and waited for it. They waited in vain.
  Let me turn for a moment to what I will call the Schuman initiative because, as an hon. Member said yesterday, it is not a plan—it is an initiative. I think that to some extent it was born of despair with the lack of British leadership and the negations of British policy. It could and should have been our initiative long ago. From an economic point of view, there is nothing very original or startling about it. Why, then, has it so stirred the imagination of an increasingly hopeless Western world? That is because it is the first real effort to break the icy fear which now grips a distracted and divided Continent and to re-animate the movement for European union and, above all, solve the eternal German problem. That is why it has given rise to such hopes and why it should have given rise to great hopes here.
  I think that, after their experience of the last two or three years, we cannot blame the French Government for regarding this as a test of our sincerity, and I say that we have failed miserably to meet that test. There is nothing in these documents to prevent us from welcoming that initiative. There is nothing which need have prevented us from joining in the discussions from the outset on terms completely understood by the French Government—indeed on the terms accepted by the Dutch Government. There is nothing except legal quibbles, of which we heard enough yesterday.
  I want to make a brief reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, East, yesterday. It was characteristic, always interesting, sometimes mischievous, and he had pretty well to box the compass before we got the real point he wanted to make. I do not think it is very helpful at this juncture
  2118
  to talk about taming the Germans by means of a power relationship, or to refer to the inner defeatism of the French. At one point the hon. Member was saying that if we cannot have a complete federal union now, we cannot have anything in Europe. If anything is defeatism, that is. But, of course, he did not stop there. He often comes round to the right thing in the end. I never know why he has to go round so many circles to get there. If he would go straight to the point instead of round to it, it would be simpler to our minds. At the end of his speech, he saw not only the light, but the red light, and saw what could happen if there was a treaty between Germany and France from which we were finally excluded. He said that it is not too late to devise a compromise and his wishes, were echoed by the hon. Member for Coventry, North. I agree it is not too-late to devise a compromise and put forward proposals, nor too late to ask the Government to go into those discussions now.
  I want to ask these questions of the right hon. Gentleman. Do we really want to be isolated? I can think of no country in the world less fitted for political or economic isolation. Do we really want to find ourselves confronted by a hostile United States and a hostile united Europe under German leadership, each with a capacity of steel production greater than ours? I cannot believe it and yet, if one reads this famous, or infamous, pamphlet published by Transport House, it would seem to be so. I must confess that it came as no great surprise to me, nor, I dare say, did it come as a great surprise to the hon. Members for Oldham. West (Mr. Leslie Hale), Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang) and Reading North (Mr. R. Mackay). They know as well as I do what we have been up against for the past three years In the Debate on Western Union on 5th May, 1948, the hon. Member for Reading. North, said:
  "Will the Prime Minister let us know-exactly where we are in regard to the question of sovereignty?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1948; Vol. 450, c. 1284.]
  Well, he has got his answer.
  This document is redolent of the narrow, insular nationalism and isolationism of which the late Lord Snowden was, so formidable an exponent and which

  2119
  still has deep roots in this country. It breathes the genuine spirit of Little Englandism, which lost us our American Colonies and finally landed us in two world wars with inadequate armaments. George III himself was scarcely less vehement a champion of rigid, uncompromising national sovereignty than the present Minister of Town and Country Planning. Superimposed is the doctrinaire national Socialism to which we have become accustomed:
  "No Socialist policy could accept a system by which important fields of national policy were surrendered to a permanent anti-Socialist majority."
  There we have it, nationalisation and nationalism marching hand in hand. They think that they and they alone have discovered in planned national Socialism the secret of full employment and I, with a terribly long experience, am quite convinced they have not. They make a great mistake. Full employment in the last six years in this country has been due to the continuance, against expectation, of the sellers' market, Marshall Aid and the sustained prosperity of the United States. We now have to face the certainty of a surplus production of steel in Europe and the probability of some subsidence in the present level of postwar demand. What then happens? There are two alternatives—a war of economic attrition such as we had in the 1920's, or international economic cooperation designed to regulate production and expand demand. There is nothing between the two.
  "There is no bottom to uncontrolled competitive international trade but the rice diet."
  That is a remark which the Minister of Health may remember, because I am quoting him. There is no surer method of stifling demand in the long run than economic nationalism.
  In an effort to find excuses for rejecting European union, because that is what this pamphlet amounts to, the pamphlet falls back upon two things—Atlantic union and the Commonwealth. I wish to say a few words on that. Maybe the authors of the pamphlet forgot the Preamble to the Marshall Plan passed by the Congress, which states:
  "It is further declared to be the policy of the people of the United States to encourage the unification of Europe."
  2120
  I do not think we ought to forget that. In any event, we are unlikely to further the cause of Atlantic Union by what the "Manchester Guardian" quite justly calls "self-righteous insular boasting," and that is what this pamphlet was—self-righteous insular boasting.
  As for the Commonwealth, there was no responsible European statesman at Strasbourg who did not believe and declare that the Commonwealth must be closely associated with European union at every stage. They know perfectly well that without the Commonwealth and without their own oversea associated territories, Western Europe can never hope to be viable either politically or economically. Hence the reference in the Economic Report to an extension of the preferential system. Far from being contradictory, I believe that the conception of a united Europe and a united Commonwealth is in essence complementary.
  Many of these European countries would like nothing better than to join, on our terms, the sterling area. If we had from the beginning acted in close co-operation with the Dominions, as we should have done, if we had, with them, given the necessary leadership, those countries might be in the sterling area today. As usual we gave no leadership. And now, I suppose, the Commonwealth itself is to be ruled out on account of having become anti-Socialist.
  I hate the expression "supra-national" but I am quite willing to face up to the question of national sovereignty. When all is said and done, unbridled national sovereignty remains the prime cause of the hideous disasters that have befallen us in this nightmare century. It is inconceivable to me, as it was to Philip Lothian, that we can continue much longer in Europe as an anarchy of separate sovereign nation-States. Some form of integration, both economic and political, is bound to come. If it does not come by voluntary union, it will come by way of empire. It nearly came by way of Hitler's empire. It may still come by way of Stalin's empire. We now have to break down national sovereignty by practical action in defined spheres of activity, and to use modern technical progress to build up a coordinated, complementary and expansionist Western economy. That is a

  2121
  revolutionary project, at least comparable to the industrial revolution of the 19th century; and, as then, the approach must be functional and empirical.
  I do not believe in putting this country in economic bondage to anyone. Nor do I believe in giving undertakings which we cannot fulfil. After all, I am on the record about the first American Loan. But I do believe that there must be not so much a surrender as a merger or pooling of national sovereignty for specific purposes if we are to survive. I also believe that we ought to have taken part in the discussions on this vital topic from the very beginning. Indeed we ought to have led them. We could have guided them had we been there.
  What are the implications? In the economic field it certainly involves the co-ordination of national monetary and fiscal policies and the acceptance of the principle of planned international investment, production and trade, and the abandonment of the principle of nondiscrimination. The truth is that the only alternative to international economic planning in the modern world is rigid national autarchy, and that is the path which the Government have apparently elected to follow.
  The fundamental choice confronting us in this country today, both in the political and economic fields, is between the rule of law and the rule of the jungle. The Communists are relying on the present anarchy of State sovereignties, accompanied by cut-throat international economic competition, to bring about the collapse of our Western democratic world. At the moment they have pretty good grounds for confidence. There is still time, but only just, to prove the Communists wrong.
  Yesterday the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. R. Adams) thought fit to make an attack on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He attacked his political record and even went so far as to make a disparaging reference to "blood, sweat, toil and tears." I would only say that in 1940 we saved Europe and Western civilisation, under my right hon. Friend's leadership, by our exertions, even though they did involve blood, sweat, toil and tears. In 1950 we can save Europe and Western civilisation again by our example,
  2122
  but it looks to me as if it will again have to be done under the same leadership.
  4.26 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Mackay: I should like to offer my congratulation to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby). It is not that I agree with all that he said in regard to European union, but obviously with much of what he said I agree completely. I trust he will not blame me if I do not follow him in all the remarks he has made. We have had in this Debate discussion of two matters, the Motion which has been put down, and the Amendment to it, and also the pamphlet which was issued some time ago. I have already said elsewhere what I have to say about that pamphlet, and there is no need for me to weary hon. Members again with it this afternoon.
  I wish to look, as few Members have looked, at the Amendment which has been put down, and, in the time available to me, examine in a constructive way what steps can be taken now. It is no use going over the past. If mistakes were made, then they were made, but I have grave doubts whether a Conservative Government would have taken a line different from that which the Labour Government have taken in regard to the Schuman negotiations. The problem which confronts us all—and it is a problem which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East did not really face, and which the House of Commons itself has never faced—is to what extent are we prepared to go into Europe? This issue has not been faced to date at all—and that is true of all parties and of all hon. Members as well.
  It would be a pity if this Debate were to pass without some positive and definite constructive proposals being made as to the way in which we in this country can take part in the integration of Europe. Before coming to that, however, which will be the main point of my remarks, I wish to make two preliminary observations as a background to it. The first is a reference to the economic position of this country and the second is to the Commonwealth.
  My angle of approach is from the point of view that there is really no great hope of an improved standard of living for the people of this country except in so far as

  2123
  we take part in an economic integration of Europe. With a world boom for the last five years, with no competitors such as Germany and Japan, which we have previously had, with customers whose pockets are filled with sterling to buy our goods, we are not exporting today more than we exported in 1913. That must be borne in mind. I would remind hon. Members that the population of the United States is 10 per cent. higher than it was in 1938 but their imports are 7 per cent. less because they are today more able to satisfy their own markets and their own demands by the manufacturing capacity of their own country. I would also remind hon. Members that our share of imports into the United States, which was 7 per cent. in 1938, is 4 per cent. today. I do not intend to complain about the export drive which the Government have made over the last five years. Obviously every one of us should take part in it. The more we can export the better, but if anyone seriously thinks that there is any evidence to show that we can balance the dollar gap by an increase of our exports or improve our general economic position by those methods, they are really not facing the facts in a sensible way.
  I was reading the third volume of the war history of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) when coming back from America a few days ago, and I noticed that there was a great dispute between Government Departments as to what was the strength of the German Air Force in, I think it was, 1940, or it may have been 1941. A High Court judge was appointed in order to ascertain the facts. He was given all the documents and access to everything and told to report to the Prime Minister what the facts really were. I think the time has come when we in this country should have the fullest examination ourselves to secure the answer to the question, can a country of 50 million people in the second half of the 20th century survive on their own without their full economic integration with the other countries of Western Europe? I have spent about 10 years studying the problem and I think that the answer is that we cannot. Because of that view, I have urged strongly in this House and elsewhere the need for the closer economic integration of Western Europe with Great Britain.
  2124
  It will, of course, be said that the Commonwealth stands in the way. I have spent two-thirds of my life in the Commonwealth and only one-third in Great Britain, and I have often to shake my head and wonder whether the people in this country (a) know nothing about the Commonwealth, and (b) are really interested in it. I remember the American Loan and the complaints about the harsh terms on which the Americans were lending to Great Britain. Nowhere in the history of the great British Commonwealth is there any evidence of Great Britain having made a loan to any one of its Dominions on terms half as favourable.
  The complaint about this document recently issued are equally true of the attitude of this country to the Commonwealth as a whole. But there is no inconsistency. In the first place, Great Britain has more investments outside the Commonwealth than she has inside the Commonwealth. She has a greater trade outside the Commonwealth than inside. The Commonwealth as a whole cannot sell its raw materials inside the Commonwealth. Australia cannot sell its wool, for example, and there are many others.
  Therefore, the Commonwealth as an entity is not self-sufficient, but there is no real conflict in the interests of the United Kingdom and the other members of the British Commonwealth and Western Europe. We are told that we must preserve the sterling area and that Western Union is incompatible with it. Take Great Britain away from the Commonwealth countries and put it in Europe, and in 1938 Europe has 52 per cent. of the world trade. Even in 1948 if Great Britain is put in with Europe then Commonwealth trade is 7 per ent. of the total and that of Great Britain and Europe 45 per cent. The fact is that Britain is the largest single trading area in the world. Put it with the Commonwealth, or with Europe, or with America or with the Soviet Union and the resulting area will become the largest trading area in the world.
  It is confusing to talk about the sterling area in this way unless we acknowledge that if we take Great Britain out of the sterling area then Europe plus Great Britain would become the greatest economic power in the world. I would ask

  2125
  hon. Members to think about this problem; for there really is no conflict. We have heard so much about the fact that there is a conflict between the Commonwealth and Great Britain going into Western Europe. That is untrue. No one has ever suggested any Western Europe integration which should develop otherwise than with the Commonwealth coming in. Every suggestion at Strasbourg and every other place has always been upon the question of bringing in the Commonwealth. What I would like to see, and I hope it can be done, is that the Government, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, should set out to draft a treaty between the Commonwealth countries and the Council of Europe, transferring to the Council of Europe—just to see how it works out—the rights those countries have in Great Britain at the present time.
  I speak with some practical experience. I am an Australian subject, or I was; I am now a United Kingdom subject under the new Act. But it would be very easy to give to all the members of the British Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom the same rights in Western Europe as they have in Great Britain. It would be equally easy to give to members of the British Commonwealth the same rights in trade preferences and the like in Europe as they get in Britain under the Ottawa Agreement. There is nothing at all to stop that development taking place.
  But, as I have already said, there is no real inconsistency in this matter. May I remind hon. Members that in the General Affairs Committee in Strasbourg last December a resolution was passed:
  "That the Committee on General Affairs expresses its unanimous wish that the President of the Assembly should establish contact with the British Government to request that it arrange for informal talks to take place between representatives of the countries in the British Commonwealth and representatives of the Council of Europe, with a view to seeing how the Commonwealth can co-operate in the political or economic field with the Council of Europe."
  In view of that Resolution, why should we be arguing that, there is an inconsistency? Take the letter written by the Foreign Secretary to the President of the Consultative Assembly in March of this year. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning knows about this because he was as much responsible
  2126
  for this Resolution being passed and for its success as anyone—and it is only right that hon. Members should know that. The letter from the Foreign Secretary states—I am not reading all of it, but the last sentence is:
  "The representatives of the other Commonwealth Governments expressed the view that there need be no inconsistencies between, the policy followed by the United Kingdom Government in relation to Western Europe and the maintenance of the traditional links between the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth."
  I think it only fair to say that at the Press conference which took place at that time a gentleman raised the question whether there could not be a proper meeting between representatives of the Council of Europe and the British Commonwealth. The Minister of Town and Country Planning replied that if that was required he saw no reason why it should not take place.
  I would ask hon. Members to put aside this bogey, to lay it to rest once and for all. There is no one in the Commonwealth, no responsible statesman in any one Commonwealth country today, who will not join with the United Kingdom in any steps which it takes to bring about a better economic and political unity of Great Britain and the European States. There is no reason why we should not have observers at the Strasbourg Assembly to go on developing this relationship.
  If we need not worry about the Commonwealth, may I devote the little time remaining to me to the question raised? We are asked to approve in the Government's Amendment its readiness to
  "take a constructive part in the conversations with the hope that they may be able to join in or associate themselves with, this common effort."
  It is the constructive part about which I wish to make a few remarks.
  Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer—though I may not agree with all he said—raised quite frankly and definitely the issue. He said, "Do you wish to go into European unity in an organisation on the inter-governmental level, of which O.E.E.C. is an example, or by some kind of supra-national authority?" That is the issue which every hon. Member must face, and which many have not faced in the past. If the issue had to be decided by a vote—and it would be

  2127
  an infinitely better Motion than the one put down by the Opposition—most Members would decide that they wanted to come in on an inter-governmental level. Of course, there are a few extremists of the Right who would not go anywhere at all and who would be willing to allow the country to suffer because they are not prepared to co-operate with their comrades in Europe. This, however, is the real issue of this Debate.
  There are people, of course, who say, "You who have been advocating federalism always wanted a supra-national authority." I have learned in politics that one has to put up with the least bad, the second best, or even a choice further down the line. It is no good going on saying, "Federalism, federalism, federalism" forever when one knows one cannot get it. What we must do today is to have a look at the Council of Europe and ask the question, "Can this develop into a political authority in Europe, and if so what steps should be taken to bring about that development?" The essence of the Schuman Plan is to create such an outside authority. I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Council of Europe provides a proper authority to which the board for the coal or steel industries of Europe under the Schuman Plan could be responsible. It is good for this reason. There are two bodies on the Council of Europe, the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. I know that there are weaknesses but they could be greatly improved. In the Council we have an assembly which is the proper place for the Schuman proposals to be brought up—I hope. I hope that, if the proposals, which we understand are being prepared by the British Government, are prepared, they will be brought before the next Assembly for discussion and thereafter be considered by the Committee of Ministers.
  I do not suggest that the Assembly is in any sense a representative House in the same way that this Parliament is the representative House of Great Britain, but I suggest that steps should be taken to make it that in the next five or 10 years. The Committee of Ministers is a body on which the Governments have the say. We are, therefore, combining in one political organisation the supra-national authority with the inter-Government level.
  2128
  We are saying that we should let the Assembly which, after all, does represent a number of people, take the initiative in these matters. We should let them formulate proposals for European organisation which may be seriously considered and dealt with by the Committee of Ministers representing the Government.
  If we adopt this proposal we are not giving away the control of the standard of living of the people or of our industries. We are not giving away in any sense the ultimate control of whether our plant is to be closed or not, because on the Committee of Ministers there must be unanimous decision, and we have our representative on that body. Let us be constructive. If we genuinely believe that European unity means something which is vital to all of us, but if we are afraid of going into a European Parliament because of conditions operating in other parts of Europe about which we cannot see eye to eye, and if we are not at present—as most English people are not—prepared to go blindly into a federal union of Europe, then here is a very interesting and simple solution for the development of a European political authority which meets all our needs.
  In three or four years the Assembly can become a representative Assembly and a Lower House. The Committee of Ministers can become an Upper House, but instead of being elected by the people as many Upper Houses are, it would be an Upper House representative of Governments. The member States of the Council of Europe are great Powers, or they have been. They are powerful national entities and they have a whole lot of prestige behind them. They are not prepared to give away their sovereignty as other States like those in the American Union were willing to do.
  I suggest to the Government that they give a little thought to the whole problem of the way in which the Council of Europe can be developed as an appropriate political authority for Europe. I am a little frightened that they are more concerned to develop the machinery of O.E.E.C. than to develop the political authority of the Council of Europe. I read with interest a letter from Sir Oliver Franks to Mr. Paul Hoffman, a few days ago. One of the illustrations he gave of the way in which Great Britain is playing its part in the movement for European

  2129
  unity was "the political venture of the Council of Europe."
  The Minister of Town and Country Planning, in a speech at Strasbourg which many people appreciated at the time, pointed out that as the Council of Europe developed it could take over the functions and the Committees of O.E.E.C. It is on those lines that I hope that events will develop. It is for that reason that I say to the Government, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he says that the issue which is posed today is an issue of whether we have to have an authority at the level of Governments or a supra-national authority, that while what he says is quite up-to-date it need not be so in the future. There is no reason why, if we develop the Council of Europe by creating out of the Assembly an Executive and by giving the Assembly itself a much more representative character than it has, and by treating the Committee of Ministers as an Upper House with a unanimous vote, we cannot keep the political institutions that we want for the protection of the Government of this country and, at the same time, develop in Europe a political authority which, in five or 10 years' time, may give us the political and economic integration that we require.
  Professor R. H. Tawney, who has been a great exponent of the ideas of the Labour Party and who has probably expressed in his writings more about the thoughts of the party than any other living person, in a recent lecture, ended by saying:
  "The gravest issues confronting us, therefore, if complex in detail, are, in principle, simple. The first is to reconcile the … liberalism, which is a property, not of any group or party, but the history of the Western Europe, and whose fruits are civil liberty, tolerance, and political democracy, with the tasks imposed by the emergence of a mass technology and the obligations of the welfare State."
  I think that we have been doing this in this country for the last five years with some success. He went on:
  "The second is to win general recognition for the truth that departments of life which, in a not distant past, could reasonably be regarded as the exclusive province of a score of separate Governments have been converted by the the changes of the last two generations into matters which, to be handled with effect, must be treated as affairs of common concern. It is to do on a grand scale for a Europe cabined and confined in a maze of restrictive nationalisms what was done, on a narrower
  2130
  stage, when economies crippled by the obsolete fetters of provincial particularisms municipal liberties and seigneurial franchises were submitted to the unifying control of authorities with wider horizons and a more inclusive grasp."
  The currency, the basic industries and the trade of Western Europe can no longer be cabined and confined within the narrow framework of 15 or 16 national States. We in this country, who have more to lose so long as we continue to play with this present form of economic nationalism, must face the necessity for change and take our proper place in the development of the Council of Europe so as to create ultimately an effective political authority for this great area of Western Europe.
  4.46 p.m.
  Mr. Garner-Evans: The hon. Member for Reading, North, (Mr. R. Mackay) said that he was frightened, and so am I. I am making a maiden speech. I am terrified about many events, and I am particularly distressed about this Debate. It discloses a fundamental difference between the Government of this country and the Government of France. That is a most distressing feature. It discloses, too, that we have now come to a parting of the ways on the bi-partisan foreign policy pursued by this country since 1945. Hitherto, we have been able to agree on fundamental issues. Now, for the first time since 1945, we find the Government and the Opposition defi-itely opposed.
  I am also distressed that this Debate has disclosed, not only in this House but in the country, a falling in the standard of internationalism on the part of supporters of the Government. I speak with all sincerity when I say that I have always respected hon. Members opposite for their international idealism. I fought side by side with them in many battles between the two wars. I remember the great idealism of the Prime Minister when he fought for the Geneva Protocol. I remember the attitude the Labour Party took in the Disarmament Conferences. I remember the attitude of the present Minister of Fuel and Power.
  I wish to goodness that the party opposite could recapture some of the idealism of George Barnes and Arthur Henderson. I wish that they could turn back on this new nationalistic socialism which has been discovered by the Chancellor of the

  2131
  Exchequer. I wonder what George Barnes would have said if he had read that new document entitled "European Unity"? I wonder what Arthur Henderson would have said if he had read that statement which suggested that we can get along only with Socialists. It is this new conception which unfortunately divides us at the present time.
  May I make this appeal? I beg hon. Members opposite to get back to the idealism and internationalism of George Barnes and Arthur Henderson, and to get away from this narrow, selfish, isolationist and smugly complacent attitude of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, to get away from this economic nationalism which was so well expressed in his speech last night, and to get back to some sort of expansionist policy. I am sure that one of the things that distressed us most was the idea, which he mentioned when he spoke yesterday, that any international plan would weaken our coal and steel industry. Not a bit of it. If only the right hon. and learned Gentleman would get back to his old ideas, he would see that there is at present no expansionism in Europe and that that is just what Europe wants.
  In regard to the Schuman Plan itself, I find the most extraordinary remarks in the White Paper and in some of the Government communiqués. I find that, when they came to discuss this principle of whether we shall pool our coal and steel resources with those of Europe and come under a supra-national authority, the Government could not make up their minds. It may be that they are for it, and it may be that they are against it, but the duty of a Government is to be able to decide on an issue of principle.
  What are the principles concerning the pooling of steel and coal? If we read the documents, we find that, all along the line, there are expansionist ideas. It is a case of more production, the modernisation of production, freer trade and greater free trade areas with regard to these commodities, the raising of the standards of living—these are the basic ideas and principles upon which, apparently, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor cannot make up his mind. I can say quite honestly, that, as far as I am concerned, and, I think also as far as the majority of the people of
  2132
  this country are concerned, they are prepared to accept a supra-national authority to decide matters of this sort.
  Why this fear on the Government benches? They themselves have advocated this particular type of organisation. There are some lengthy extracts from speeches made by the Prime Minister which I could quote, not only from the years 1939 and 1940, but going further back than that. We already have a supranational authority in a wider sphere, on which we are represented, and, at certain points, where it is necessary that our national sovereignty should be abated, we can accept that situation so long as that supra-national authority is working on those principles which we have agreed. The principles, of course, include the idea that it shall operate on an expansionist policy.
  What terrifies me at this moment is this. At a time when we are entering into new commitments, when the idea of national sovereignty is going by the board, and especially under the North Atlantic Treaty—and I believe that, in the words of Dean Acheson, that that was one of the most revolutionary results of the London Conference—at a time when we accepted the abatement of sovereignty at a London Conference, only six weeks ago—an abatement far greater than anything we have ever accepted before, since we have accepted the idea of a common foreign policy with 11 other Governments—we have this extraordinary situation. We actually agreed to a communiqué setting up, in addition to the North Atlantic Treaty Council, a Council of Deputies, and what terrifies me about it is this: if the Government are not prepared to abandon sovereignty in the case of the Schuman Plan, neither will they abandon sovereignty in the much more important field of the North Atlantic Treaty Council. When we read in the Press the other day of the appointment as deputy of a certain gentleman who, admirable though he may be, is a diplomat of the second rank, I am afraid that it rather indicated that the Government does not mean business.
  More important even than the coordination of foreign policy and the question whether the North Atlantic Treaty Council should decide policy for the whole Atlantic community is this revolutionary idea of balanced collective forces.

  2133
  Our sovereignty has gone here, because we have a North Atlantic Council which can say to us, "You do not have to bother about artillery; you get on with the job of building houses;" or which can say to the Dutch or to the French, "You get on with building small boats." Behind all this, apparently, there is to be—at least, I hope there is, if the scheme is to become a reality—a collective defence budget for the whole of the Atlantic community, and our share is to be worked out according to some kind of formula. If we drag our feet at this moment and reduce the great design of an Atlantic community with a common economic organisation, a common defence organisation and a common foreign policy, the whole thing will collapse.
  The news from Korea is bad. It is through the North Atlantic Pact and the organisation of a world community that we can really organise ourselves so as to abate our sovereignty where necessary, and in that way get on with the job of preserving the peace of the world.
  4.59 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: The House always listens very patiently and with very great interest to anyone addressing it for the first time, and I think that all of us will have listened to the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Garner-Evans) with an even greater degree of sympathy than is usual because he has chosen an occasion of very great difficulty on which to make his maiden speech to the House. I think we all agree that the hon. Gentleman has impressed the House with the carefulness of his studies of this question, and the clarity with which he has conveyed to the House the views which he has formed. We shall all be glad to hear him again on other occasions.
  It is, of course, a tradition that an hon. Member addressing the House for the first time should not be controversial and that whoever speaks next should not be controversial about that hon. Member either. I think that the hon. Member for Denbigh was a little led away from that, but I believe that the importance of the occasion justified it, and that he was perfectly right to be controversial about controversial matters if that is how he felt about it. May I say, without wishing to be too argumentative, that while we listened with great interest to what he
  2134
  had to say about the idealism of the Labour Party in the past, we would like to disillusion him about any anxieties he may have about this idealism in the present? What we are trying to do is to carry out, in a very difficult world, and in the face of the hard reality of the practical facts, the ideals upon which this party was built.
  This has been a fascinating, not to say an astonishing, Debate, and it is a privilege to have the opportunity of taking part in it. I think it would be fair to say that, for the most part, the Debate has not been about either the Motion which the Opposition have put upon the Order Paper or about the Amendment which the Government have put down to it. I am afraid that that is largely the fault of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say to him in all humility that, in the interests of Parliamentary debate, he-ought really to impose upon himself a self-denying ordinance never again either to open a Debate in the House or to speak early in it, because the inevitable result is that when he has finished, the Debate is over. He might as well make a speech ending the Debate instead of at the beginning of it because when he makes a speech at the beginning, it becomes inevitable that everybody who speaks after him shall speak about something else, or repeat over and over again fallacies and inaccuracies already demonstrated.
  I wish to come back to the Motion which asks the House to say that the Government were wrong in what they did with regard to the Schuman proposals or Schuman initiative—I do not call it the Schuman Plan. Is there really anybody who has spoken in the Debate who thinks that the Government were wrong? The Opposition have not said, so far, that the Government were wrong in the sense that they would have acted differently—or have they? The Government were not asked, on the Schuman proposals, to enter into a general discussion, with nothing barred, as to how we might co-ordinate or, possibly, integrate the coal and iron and steel industries of Europe. Had they been asked to do that, it is abundantly clear in this document that they were then, and are now, ready to go into any such discussions with anybody and to consider the whole subject in the broadest way.

  2135
  The point of the Schuman proposals was that they did not leave it to the Government in that unlimited, unhampered way. They made it perfectly clear that all they were prepared to discuss was not the general question of whether and if so, how European coal and steel could be unified, but how it could be unified on the basis of handing over the control of all the national coal and iron and steel industries to some authority whose decisions would be binding, without reference to anybody else, upon all the Governments who came into the scheme.
  It is perfectly clear from the speech of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who opened the Debate, as well as from the terms of the Motion, that they would not have done that themselves. If it is the case that they would have done it, then I think that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), when he replies, ought to make it perfectly clear. The suggestion that we ought to have gone in conditionally is not a new one. Conditionally, the Government were always prepared to go in. It is true that the Motion says that the conditions ought not to be those which the Government laid down, but those upon which the Dutch went in. But, from the point of view that we have been discussing, the Dutch did not go in on any conditions at all. The condition that if the result showed that federation of industries upon this basis proved to be impracticable, they would then be allowed to withdraw from it, means absolutely nothing whatsoever, because, if the resulting plan was impracticable, it could not be practised, and, therefore, there would be nothing from which to withdraw.
  Surely the point is that it might well turn out in such discussions that federation upon the basis of a supra-national authority was only too practicable and undesirable. What we wanted to do, as I understand the Government case, was to go in and discuss the unification, or, at any rate, the co-ordination of these industries, without being called upon in advance to accept without further question that it should be done only in this way. What has become clear in the Debate—and that is why I called it an astonishing Debate—is that nearly every speaker on the Opposition side has
  2136
  declared himself in favour of having some authority which shall control the production of steel in Europe, which shall control its distribution, which shall control its price, and which shall coordinate it in such a way as to remove from it cut-throat competition or, indeed, competition of any kind.
  I suppose, therefore, that we may now expect a complete cessation of opposition from the other side of the House to the proposals to nationalise the British steel industry. It really will not do for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to go up and down the country foaming at the mouth because the Government wish to nationalise our steel industry, and then to become frantic with indignation in the House because the Government are reluctant to internationalise it. Once it is conceded that it would be a good thing—and we on this side all concede it—that in a basic industry of this kind the public interest should come first and that it can only be economical and profitable in the best sense of the word if it is a controlled, planned and directed industry, it makes nonsense of the five years opposition which the party opposite have conducted to the policies of this Government ever since the General Election of 1945, the whole purpose of which has been to make sure that we in this country do, at any rate, plan and control our basic industries in the common interest.
  If the Opposition really have reached the position that it is right to do that now, not merely on the national, but on the international scale, then, at any rate, we can look forward to greater political peace in this country, and I should have thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might be anxious to take the opportunity of pointing out the facts to the electorate as early as possible. But if it is true that the Opposition have abandoned their belief in private enterprise in the steel industry, and if it is true that they are now prepared to hand over the control of this industry even internationally to some authority which shall be able to direct its activities in all countries in Western Europe, ought they not to address themselves to the further question of whether, in that event—that is to say, in the event of a great international monopoly—we can really have a great international monopoly of that

  2137
  kind except under public ownership and public control?
  Are the Opposition really in favour, not merely of abandoning all competition in the industry, not merely of handing it over to some authority responsible to no one, but of the authority being an authority not responsible to the public in any way? In that case, we may see the abandonment of a further line of opposition in this House. Members opposite have conducted a considerable degree of activity against the National Coal Board, the Railway Executive, or some other authority administering a nationalised basic industry, because questions cannot be asked in the House. They cannot maintain that opposition and at the same time say that they are prepared to hand over international control of iron and steel to an international authority which cannot be questioned, or be called upon to be answerable to anyone anywhere at any time for anything it does, more particularly when the industry which it is proposed to treat in this way is an industry that is the very foundation of the economic power of this country.
  I think we are not asking too much in asking the Opposition to make their position a good deal clearer than it is at present on these points. The question they have never yet answered, except evasively, is whether they would have accepted the invitation to go into these discussions on the only terms on which the Government were invited to do so.
  Mr. Boothby: Yes.
  Mr. Silverman: I am sure that the hon. Member is speaking almost for himself, because the answer all along has been "Yes—if." The argument between the two Front Benches has been as to the nature of the conditions. It is only the hon. Member who answers "Yes" unconditionally. He may be right, but he will have to reconsider the support he has been lending to the Opposition all these years in their endeavour to prevent us from doing at home what he would like us to do abroad.
  It seems to me to be quite clear that, with one or two exceptions, the House is unanimously of the opinion that we could not go in unconditionally, and that the kind of conditions the Government laid down were not, on the whole, unreasonable
  2138
  conditions. What has been behind all this is not that question at all, and that is why the Debate has not been about the Motion or the Amendment, but about the general question of the Government's action and initiative in regard to the whole question of European unity.
  I listened with very great sympathy to a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby). I think it is true that the Government have shown less initiative in this matter than we should have liked them to show. I believe that if we had taken a strong initiative in this direction as early as 1945 or 1946, we might have gone very much further along the road to a reasonable and sensible federation of Europe. If they had done that before the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made his speech at Fulton, it might even have had very much more important effects than even the Federation of Western Europe.
  Hon. Members opposite must realise that in this criticism of the Government they have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. They are accusing the Government of having failed to take this initiative at the right time because of too narrow a devotion to the doctrinaire ideas of the Labour Party. The truth is the exact opposite. The reason they were inhibited from taking an initiative about the public ownership and control of basic industries in Europe is precisely because they felt, quite reasonably in my opinion, that they were not entitled to take a party view of this kind and were continually attuning themselves to the necessity of bi-partisan policies.
  What was it that prevented them at an early stage from helping the French, the Belgians and the Germans, as well as others who were only too anxious to get a lead from Socialist Britain in those days towards the public ownership and control of their basic industries, except the feeling that we were following a bi-partisan policy and that it would be taking an unfair advantage of their position in the Government? Let hon. Members opposite not preen themselves too much about their initiation of support for the Idea of European unity. The Leader of the Opposition regards himself as the great apostle of this idea—the unifier of Europe. The right hon. Gentleman has

  2139
  a distinguished and assured place in history as a saviour of Europe, first from the Tory Party, and then from Hitler. He will not, in my opinion, be known in history as the unifier of Europe. He is really the divider of Europe.
  In his speech at Fulton, followed by his speech at Zurich, he claims to have foretold the policy and the system of Western international alliances in Atlantic Union, which we now have and which are, I suppose, how inevitable. The mistake he makes is to suppose that they were inevitable then. The course of conduct which has distressed all of us so much and which has brought about the present tragic division of the world into two hostile blocs, all that series of events, did not occur when the right hon. Gentleman was making his speech at Fulton, and for anything he or I know, they might not have occurred.
  What the right hon. Gentleman was doing at Zurich and Fulton was not laying down the lines of a future inevitable policy, but a course of conduct which made that ultimate necessity inevitable. In other words, he was firing the first shots in the cold war. The first operative act and the declaration of the cold war came from the right hon. Gentleman in his speech at Fulton. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I believe that to be true.
  Mr. Boothby: Then Stalin had nothing to do with it?
  Mr. Silverman: I did not say that. [Interruption.] Anyone who does not wish to listen to me is free to do so. I hope the hon. Member will agree that while he is not compelled to listen he has no right to silence me.
  I repeat that I did not say for one moment that Stalin had had nothing to do with it. Ultimately, the major share of responsibility undoubtedly lies upon the Soviet Union and its leaders in pursuing a course of conduct which has made a division of Europe, and then of the world, inevitable. What I said was that none of these things had occurred at the time when the right hon. Gentleman, in his Fulton speech, chose to regard that division of the world as inevitable before acts which made it inevitable actually took place. No one is entitled to assume that what he said and what he did, and what the rest of the world did in support and in
  2140
  consequence of those speeches, had no bearing upon the history of Europe and the world which has taken place since.
  The reply to Communist federation of Europe or the world, the real defence of the world against unemployment and against war, does not depend upon a federation of Europe without reference to the economic necessities of the case. The salvation of the world really depends upon its being able to establish and to practise a synthesis between the collective ownership and direction of its economic affairs and the preservation of political and civil liberty. That is precisely the synthesis we have established in this country; it is precisely the synthesis and the example, which if we had made it strongly enough and early enough and forcefully enough, Western Europe would have followed.
  It is not possible to federate Europe without the collective control of our economic resources and, until we get it, we shall have to do what we can with the looser co-ordination to which the Government have committed themselves. But it seems to me that we have no need, and no right, to apologise for standing up and saying that the salvation of civilisation in our day and generation depends, and must depend, upon the triumph of the democratic Socialism we have preached for half a century.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said that he would recall the Debate from its more discursive aspects to the Motion and the Amendment which, after all, are matters which we have got to settle tonight, and I was very glad to hear him say so. When he strays into these biographical spheres, I will only venture to say that it appeared to me that he seemed to lay too much upon my burdened shoulders. I did hope that I might get away with nothing more serious than a charge of foresight; but apparently I actually set matters in train so that they occurred in accordance with my predictions. If it be so, that I have in my words such mysterious and latent power, I hope he will pay the utmost attention to what I am about to say.
  Those who accept responsibility for the Motion on the Order Paper represent, according to the figures of the recent General Election, a majority of 1¾ million

  2141
  of voters over those who support His Majesty's Government; and I might say that my feeling is that, on the whole, the balance of arguments have shown at least an equal superiority on our side. At the end of this Debate, I still retain the impression that the fundamental issues which have been raised have sprung largely from the mismanagement of our affairs, and that a competent administration would never have needed to thrust them upon us at this time.
  The peculiar feature of this Debate is that it turns on a very small practical point, or a group of very small practical points, and at the same time raises in our minds many of the fundamental issues with which the future of a peaceful world is interwoven. When we study the White Paper of the Government's parleys with France, and consider it together with the apologia or explanation which our Ambassador at Washington has been instructed to tender to the American public, one really wonders why all this trouble has arisen between friendly Governments, and whether it could not have been avoided if there had been a Foreign Secretary fit to do his work or a Prime Minister able, amid graver preoccupations, to keep a grip on what was going on.
  I did not like the attitude of the French Government in springing this large question upon us so suddenly, or in making pedantic stipulations before sitting in council with their wartime comrades. I admit I was nettled by it. I am quite sure that France would never have acted in this manner towards any British Government but the present one. But there is an explanation which I will give. It is an explanation, even if it is not an excuse, and it should be stated. As for the suddenness; the French Ministers no doubt felt that after we had upset the whole of their economy and finance by devaluation without even a word of warning, they were under no special obligations to study our convenience where other large issues were concerned. I do not say they were entitled to retaliate in this way. It is a feature of friendship to rise above and overlook such treatment on both sides.
  There is also an explanation which the French may offer upon the merits of the question itself. They evidently wished the British Socialist Government to give a general affirmation in principle to the policy of a merger of the European heavy
  2142
  industries, and of British goodwill towards the ending of the quarrel of the centuries between France and Germany, which in our lifetime has cost us all so dear. Why did they do this? I will tell the House. It is because they suspected that the British Socialist Government were no friends to the process of the unification of Western Europe, or to what we call the European Movement, and they had good ground for their apprehensions.
  We have the record in our minds. We all remember, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) reminded us yesterday, how the Socialist Executive and Government used all their influence to prevent any members of their party attending the Conference of the European Movement at The Hague in the summer of 1948, and how many of their pledge-bound supporters went there in spite of them. Everyone will recall the attitude of the Lord President of the Council and his colleague, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, at Strasbourg last year. These matters are public.
  What has not been made public, though it is well known and many of us have been continually informed upon it, has been the constant efforts to hamper, obstruct, restrict and diminish the powers and development of the European Assembly by the Foreign Secretary and his representatives in the meetings of the Council of Europe which they had been forced by public opinion and their own party to accept. I have been told from time to time by some who were present at these meetings that the British were consistently using their influence to delay progress and to minimise decisions. Our Foreign Secretary was on almost every occasion regarded, rightly or wrongly, as the obstacle which must be overcome. I am not concerned today with his personal motives. We all regret his illness, but the prolonged illness of a Minister and his unfortunate absence from our Debates cannot arrest the march of events or relieve us from our duty to deal with them. I am sorry that this should be so, but none of us can help it.
  So I say, without hesitation, that the French Government had the feeling rooted in them by long or hard experience that the British Socialist Government and the British Socialist Foreign

  2143
  Secretary were hostile to the movement towards European unity and might, therefore, attend a meeting on the Schuman Plan only for the purpose of bringing it to naught. It was on these grounds that they were led to dwell, I think unduly and with a pedantic insistence, upon agreement in a broad and general expression of accord with the great international objectives which were in view and are now before us.
  But this was no excuse for the British Government piling their own prejudices on the top of French pedantry. If we had had an effective Foreign Secretary able to get through his work and a reasonable measure of goodwill between friends, comrades and allies exposed to common and increasing dangers, this curious deadlock on matters not so much of principle as of procedure and etiquette would never have occurred, and if it had occurred could easily have been smoothed away.
  When the House compares the words and the sentiments of the Conservative and Liberal Motion with those of the Government Amendment, upon both of which we shall vote tonight—because we certainly cannot accept the terms of the Government Amendment even if we are not able to establish our own point of view—hon. Members will find it hard to understand, when they compare these two, how the present breakdown and deadlock have occurred. We are, however, confronted with the situation as it now lies and with the larger issues which have now been raised. These have, of course, been carefully considered on both sides and the results are embodied in the Motion and the Amendment which, I agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, are the main direct topics before us. It is upon these that we have to pronounce this evening.
  If the French needed proof that the British Socialist Party and Government are hostile to the idea of a united Europe and would try to restrict and retard any international conference of which they were members, they could not find more conclusive evidence than the extraordinary pamphlet—and I have it here—issued by the National Executive of the British Labour Party and timed in such a curious manner with, I can only call it, the soiled fingers of coincidence. In this document it is stated that the British Socialists are
  2144
  opposed to joining any European system which is not dominated by people of their own kidney, by other Socialists. This is what I may call the Dalton theme, plainly declared to the Labour Party Conference three years ago. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
  "If the United States of Europe is indeed to succeed and is to benefit its peoples, it can only fully succeed if all the countries of Western Europe commit themselves, as our electors committed themselves in 1945, to the belief that Socialism is the hope of us all."
  It is this idea which the document expresses and reiterates. It amounts to a declaration that if Europe is to unite and Britain is to play any part in such a union, it can only be on a one-party basis—and that party the Socialists.
  This is a squalid attitude at a time of present stress and I should like to remind the House that this attitude is adopted at a time when Socialism is losing ground all over the free world outside the Iron Curtain, at a time when one cannot find any other Socialist Government in the British Commonwealth or in the English-speaking world or in Western Europe, apart from Scandinavia, which has a tale of its own to tell and is subject to many special factors. For instance, the first thing the Socialist Prime Minister of Norway did, on being returned to power with a majority—with an effective majority—was to say that there would be no more nationalisation. We have had something like the same language used here, but there is the great difference that an effective majority does not lie behind the Government.
  We are invited by the Government to bind ourselves to what the "Manchester Guardian" has well called "insular Socialism" and to make a party distinction between us and the countries which do not take our view. There is, of course, one exception—the outstanding, mighty, capitalist, free enterprise United States. That is the exception. But then, of course, they are paying us the heavy subsidies upon which the Socialists' claim that they are able to maintain full employment is founded. But, apart from this important exception, it would be a lonely pilgrimage upon which we are to be led. The Socialist Party, which assumes this self-opinionated position—I might almost say this arrogant position—has just been shown to be in a minority in Great Britain. It has had to modify

  2145
  or suspend its whole policy of nationalisation and is now looking about for a new version of the Socialist theme—I see the Lord President is out of the House, perhaps even engaged in this very task—upon which to found their class warfare. At home the Socialists are in full retreat. Abroad they claim to impose their ideology on nations and societies whom, after bitter experience, have cast it off.
  What plainer proof could the Government give of their hostility to European union than the appointment of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer—I like to keep the former Chancellor and the present both in view at once: both have rendered their contributions to the state of our national finances; both aspire now to lay their skilful hands upon our foreign affairs—but what plainer proof could the Government give than to appoint the right hon. Gentleman to lead their half of the delegation to Strasbourg, in full view of the declaration which he has made, and to send him as their representative? I say that that is a grimace. I had thought of using the word "outrage," but, on subsequent consideration, I thought that the more moderate word would cover the point in its correct proportions. I ask even now that this step should not be taken. If the Government persist, it is they who will suffer in the decline of their influence in Europe; but we shall all suffer, too.
  In this Debate we have had the usual jargon about "the infra-structure of a supra-national authority." The original authorship is obscure; but it may well be that these words "infra" and "supra" have been introduced into our current political parlance by the band of intellectual highbrows who are naturally anxious to impress British labour with the fact that they learned Latin at Winchester. Although we may not relish the words, no one will wish to deny this old-school-tie contingent their modest indulgence in class self-consciousness.
  As I listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, I could not help feeling very sorry that our relations with France have been reduced to this long legalistic argument, taking point after point with professional skill in order to reach and justify a deadlock. I reject the Chancellor's claim that at no time in our history the understanding
  2146
  between this country and France has been greater than it is today. It would hardly be possible to state that reverse of the truth with more precision.
  But what was really astonishing was the manner in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman based the breakdown upon the Documents 12, 13 and 14 of the White Paper, and omitted all similar mention of Document 10. The brilliant rejoinder of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), exposed this glaring oversight—as we must hope it was—for in their Memorandum of 30th May (that is, Document 10) the French Government stated specifically the words which have been read out to the House, but which are so important that I must read them again.
  "The special position"—
  say the French—
  "in these negotiations which the British Government wishes to preserve is justified in their Memorandum by the intention, said to be held by the French Government, of asking, as a prior condition, for full participation in the discussions, for an undertakng to pool coal and steel resources, and to set up an authority with certain sovereign powers.
  4. As their representatives have informed the British representatives orally, the French Govrnment wish particularly to confirm once more that these are not their intentions. As has already been made clear in the French Memorandum of 9th May, there will be no commitment except by the signature of a treaty between the States concerned and its parliamentary ratification."
  Here certainly was the point when the British Government might have safely agreed to enter the conference.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor has put to us the question. What would you have done? We reply that once we had the assurance conveyed in Document 10, that there would be
  "no commitment except by the signature of a treaty between the States concerned and its parliamentary ratification"
  we should not have hesitated to attend the conference, and we should have replied in the same sort of manner as the Dutch, and in terms similar to those which are embodied in the Motion on which we are going to vote tonight.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman later proceeded to draw an alarming picture of what might happen to us if we accepted the principle of a supra-national high authority which

  2147
  "… could cause a whole coalfield or steel centre to go out of production without any social or political responsibility for their action. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT: 26th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 1942.]
  Surely, this is one of the points we could have raised at the conference in a decisive manner? To win the war we agreed to put our armies under S.H.A.E.F., a great Anglo-American organisation that was for the tactical and limited purposes prescribed. No one would ever have suggested that General Eisenhower should have had the power to say what units of the British Army should be suppressed or disbanded, or how they should be raised or remodelled, or anything like it. All these remained questions within the control of the autonomous sovereign States which were willing to agree to a larger unity for certain well defined functional—I use the "functional" because it is coming into use—functional purposes. Surely, this is one of the points we could have urged, and even have made conditional upon our agreement to any final scheme.
  It is simply darkening counsel to pretend, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did, that by participating in the discussion, under the safeguards and reservations I have read, we could have been committed against our will to anything of this nature. I would add, to make my answer quite clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that if he asked me, "Would you agree to a supranational authority which has the power to tell Great Britain not to cut any more coal or make any more steel, but to grow tomatoes instead?" I should say, without hesitation, the answer is "No." But why not be there to give the answer?
  Nothing is said about the method of voting. We know nothing about the method by which voting power will be allotted to the different members of any supra-national authority which may be set up. But it is quite certain we should not agree to become members of it—and that we should have every right to disagree—if our great preponderance in coal and steel production did not receive full recognition. Then there is the question of the right to terminate such an agreement. That is surely a matter we could have looked at after discussion. Finally, there is the question of whether there could be two grades of members of such a body—full members and associate
  2148
  members. That is a matter also which should be borne in mind. I cannot conceive how such issues would not have benefited by any conference if we were there to shape and guide it. If they did not, if we did not succeed, our safeguards are overwhelming; we should not be bound in honour or good faith to accept adverse decisions on matters which we regarded as impracticable, but we would be the judges.
  But that is not all. Even if the Ministers or representatives taking part in the conference were too weak or too facile to stand up for our vital interests and rights, even if they reached agreement round a conference table nothing would be settled until Parliament had ratified the resultant conclusions. This is what the French say in their Document 10 of 30th May. By becoming a member of this conference on the conditions imposed by the French Government we should in no way abrogate the full rights of power of the House of Commons to judge the final result—to judge as a whole and not as a party or as supporters or opponents of a Government. The power of this House would be absolutely undiminished.
  If we attend the conference we can use all our influence and all our arguments, and if these are not accepted we are not committed in any way to agreement, and there would be no agreement so far as we are concerned. If, however, our delegates agree, as I have said, Parliament has still the full power to judge and to decide when the case is laid before it after it has all been thrashed out. There is the question: "To be there or not to be there," that is the question on which we shall vote tonight. It seems to me that we run no risk by being there, but let me examine some of the risks of our not being there.
  The Prime Minister is soon to reply, when his own political creed and record are, if I may say so, in a sad plight. We all remember how before the war he said that national patriotism and national armaments were wrong. His words are upon record, but I will not trouble the House with them unless he wishes me to do so. In this faith, however misguided, in the years before the war the Prime Minister led the Socialist Party into the Lobby against every Estimate to strengthen, or even maintain our Armed

  2149
  Forces; and only four months before the explosion he urged his followers to oppose National Service. When in later years—a year ago in fact—the Prime Minister was taxed with this, be offered the defence that he would gladly have voted for armaments and conscription on an international basis, a collective basis, under the League of Nations, but he would not associate himself with any form of national armaments or re-armament in any way. This is what he said on 16th March last in this House:
  "This party"—
  that is, his party—
  "never opposed the proper re-armament of this country. No, my speeches are on record in this matter. We were always prepared to support a system of collective security."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 1391.]
  But no system of collective security existed, as he knew well, and as we learned only too soon.
  This is the same leader of the Socialist Party who now, as Prime Minister, comes forward, or is persuaded to come forward, as the champion of the extreme insular view, which is inconsistent with the trend of what is going on, and also inconsistent with much that he himself has done. He seeks to win for himself and his party popular applause by strutting around as a Palmerstonian jingo. This diversity, in relation to the same story and the same issues, will not win for him or those who follow him any measure of public esteem.
  Let me ask him a specific question, and I direct his attention to this document which I hold in my hand. He may have seen it. Has he read what may be called the "Dalton Brown Paper"? It was issued before he made his first statement in the House on the Schuman Plan. Had he read it, or had he not? I quite understand his embarrassment. If he says he had read it, his first statement in Parliament was inconsistent with it. If he says he had not read it, he might well be accused of throwing an unfair burden upon his colleague. There is also a third aspect which I am sure he will not consider irrelevant, namely: What is the truth? What is the fact?
  It is no use for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that these are purely domestic party matters, and that the House of Commons has no right to ask questions about a declaration by the Labour Party Executive, or the Prime Minister's attitude
  2150
  towards it. So powerful a body as the Labour Party Executive, of which the Prime Minister and all his principal colleagues are active members, a body which has a recognised part in the constitution of the Labour Party, cannot be held to be outside the purview of the House of Commons; it is a living part of the way we are governed, and of the means by which we are governed. The Prime Minister cannot dissociate himself from it. We do not know now what his position is, but I ask him this simple question: Did he read this document before he made his statement on the Schuman Plan to the House of Commons, or did he not? If the right hon. Gentleman does not answer, or dare not answer, then he will be the sufferer in reputation. Apart from being a Prime Minister he is a public man, and I doubt if there is any Member in this House who, if asked a question of this kind, would shrink from giving a plain and simple answer.
  I venture, from long experience, to offer some advice to the House, which is naturally perturbed by the far-reaching issues which have been aroused in our minds, and which we have to discuss in the inevitably unpleasant atmosphere surrounding or between two fierce General Elections. It is not within our power, nor is it our task this evening, to settle all those vast questions of world destiny and Britain's part in it. We must keep them in our minds so far as we can perceive them, but we have not got to pronounce judgment upon them all. We have to deal with the definite practical issues put before us in the Motion on the Order Paper. This can only be a step, and a carefully-guarded step, forward in what the great majority on both sides of the House believe to be the right direction.
  We ought under all effective safeguards to take our part and use our influence in this forthcoming discussion, provided, first, that we wish it good success, and secondly, though no less important, that we reserve our full freedom to judge the final results. We cannot do that now. We do not know any of the details, or how they will emerge from a careful examination. We have only a general outline of what is proposed as a basis for discussion. Every Member should ask himself two simple practical questions: "Do I wish to see the unity of Western

  2151
  Europe advanced?" and anyhow, apart from that, "Had we not better take part in the conference subject to the reservations which the Dutch have made?" These are the issues before us tonight.
  More than a month ago when I addressed the Scottish Unionist Conference at Edinburgh we knew even less than we do now. Nevertheless, the course I should advise the Conservative Party to follow seemed clear. I will venture to read to the House what I said, because at that time I had no idea that this would become a controversial party issue. I hope that the House will forgive me reading this, but I think that it is relevant:
  "While the Schuman proposal is right in principle, we must nevertheless consider carefully the way in which Great Britain can participate most effectively in such a larger grouping of European industry. We must be careful that it does not carry with it a lowering of British wages and standards of life and labour. We must, I feel, assert the principle of levelling up and not of levelling down. We are all surely proud of the British steel industry which plays so large a part in our export trade. The terms on which we could combine with Continental nations must be carefully studied. If we were to destroy or even impair the efficiency of our steel industry by nationalisation, we might find ourselves at a serious disadvantage compared with Continental countries which are free from Socialist abuses. We must be reassured on these and other points while welcoming cordially the whole principle and spirit of what is proposed."
  That is what I said, and that is what, broadly speaking, I stand by now, and it is what I ask that we shall vote unitedly upon this evening.
  We are asked: How can the Conservative Party reconcile its opposition to the nationalisation of steel and yet give any countenance to the principle of internationalisation in a European system? It is a fair question. The answer is that we oppose the nationalisation of British steel because we wish to see it remain in the competent hands of those who under free enterprise have raised it to its present magnificent position among our industries. In our opposition to nationalisation we have never objected to a proper degree of Government supervision; indeed we have always insisted upon it. What we have opposed, and shall continue to oppose, is State ownership and management—or mismanagement as it has proved so far—of the industry.
  2152
  Under the Schuman proposals, ownership remains unaffected. We cannot see any objection in principle to a wider measure of international co-ordination if that proves practicable and in accordance with our essential interests. We see no reason why the problems of the British steel industry should not be discussed in common with the problems of the other European steel industries, and we have good hope that if this is done, an association mutually advantageous and acceptable may be created. But at any rate it will be far better for us to take part in the disussions than to stand outside and let events drift without us. That is the view of the present leaders of the British steel industry, and I am sure that it is a sensible and practical one.
  The Socialist Government, as their Amendment sets forth, speak of their desire to follow closely the conversations from outside and they welcome the proposal which M. Schuman has made. The French Government have promised to keep us fully informed. But what is that compared with taking part in the discussions and influencing them in the powerful way which we could have done having regard to our preponderating individual stake. There is a great difference between being outside a conference and being perhaps a leading member of one. There may well be a certain resentment against the Government which is thought by the others to have wilfully refused under all safeguards even to sit at the table.
  Here are the six Powers talking all these matters over among themselves with the United States beckoning encouragement to them from across the ocean—[Interruption.] Nothing has done more harm in the United States than the publication in this country of this document—and Britain, although absolutely safe from being committed, finding excuses, elaborate excuses, to keep out of the conference altogether and thus perhaps spoil the hopes of a general settlement. The French have a saying "Les absents ont toujours tort." I do not know whether they learn French at Winchester.
  There is certainly a risk of all these matters of great consequence being discussed in our absence. We have no means of intervening from moment to moment. New difficulties may be springing up in

  2153
  our absence, as we sit here. All kinds of draft conclusions or draft proposals may be presented which would never have seen the light of day had we been able to use our influence on the spot beforehand. Perhaps resentment is too strong an expression. Let me call it "a fellow feeling" among those who are there against the one who is out.
  Continental wages are lower than our own. If they were averaged out on the basis of those who were in, it might well increase in a marked degree the competitive undercutting power in the exports of all these countries. Whereas our influence at the table might well have been sufficient to turn the balance in favour of the British standard, it seems to me contrary to the interests of the British coalminers and steel workers that they should never have been allowed to put their case for a levelling-up on the Continent instead of a levelling-down.
  There is another reason why the boycotting of the conference is to be regretted. The absence of Britain deranges the balance of Europe. I am all for a reconciliation between France and Germany, and for receiving Germany back into the European family, but this implies, as I have always insisted, that Britain and France should in the main act together so as to be able to deal on even terms with Germany, which is so much stronger than France alone. Without Britain, the coal and steel pool in Western Europe must naturally tend to be dominated by Germany, who will be the most powerful member. This point was made by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) last night.
  I ask both sides of the House to consider whether it is really a wise policy for us to pursue at this particular moment of European recovery. It is difficult to imagine any course more inconsiderate to European interests in general, and to British interests in particular, than that into which the Government are forcing, not only the House as a whole, but their own party.
  I have spoken of this document—this Brown Paper. There was, however, in the Socialist pamphlet one declaration with which I wholeheartedly agree. I mean the declaration against Europe becoming a Third Force between America
  2154
  and Russia and creating a "neutral geographical bloc." This was formerly the view of many of the Socialists in the days when they condemned my Fulton speech in 1946. I am glad to read this recantation. I trust the educational process may continue.
  I should myself regard the neutralisation of Germany or Western Germany, still more of France and the rest of the six Powers now meeting together in Paris, as a disaster second only to actual war. It would simply mean that not only Western Germany but the European States in the neutral zone would be undermined and overcome one by one and bit by bit exactly as we have seen Czechoslovakia devoured before our eyes. The question which both the pamphleteers and we should ask ourselves tonight is whether British reluctance to assert herself within a movement towards European unity will not bring about just this very danger of a neutral geographical bloc, and whether we, by standing out, may not become responsible for bringing about the very situation the Socialist Executive in their pamphlet so rightly fear.
  I was deeply moved by the decisive gesture which France made in the Schuman Plan for an effective reconciliation with Germany on the basis of such a measure of pooling heavy industries, which would, if developed, make impossible a renewal of war between these two nations. When I asked four years ago at Zurich that France should take Germany by the hand and lead her back into the European family, I could not hope that such an historic event would have come to pass so soon.
  It would be quite fair to ask me whether I should have welcomed this event even if there were no such thing as this Russian menace, or the Soviet Government or the Communist movement in many lands. I should say, "Yes, certainly." The unity of France and Germany, whether direct or in a larger continental grouping is a merciful and glorious forward step towards the revival of Europe and the peace of the world. The fact that there is a grave Soviet and Communist menace only adds to its value and urgency. Here surely we can find agreement on all sides of the House.

  2155
  No one can say with justice that we are acting and feeling in this way in prejudice to the interests of the British Empire and Commonwealth. Everyone knows that that stands first in all our thoughts. First, there is the Empire and Commonwealth; secondly, the fraternal association of the English-speaking world; and thirdly, not in rank or status but in order, the revival of united Europe as a vast factor in the preserving of what is left of the civilisation and culture of the free world. When one hears Socialist orators claim that they are the champions of the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations and remembers that they did not even take the trouble to tell the Commonwealth what was going on, it is impossible not to repress a feeling of scorn.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): To what is the right hon. Gentleman referring when he says we did not take the trouble to tell the Commonwealth what was going on?
  Mr. Churchill: I am talking about the Schuman Plan.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The nations of the Commonwealth were kept fully informed.
  Mr. Churchill: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that they were consulted upon the Government's refusal to accede to the Schuman invitation?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman said that they were right outside altogether, and that we have informed nobody. Anyone with experience of Commonwealth affairs knows that in all these matters the Commonwealth countries are kept fully informed, and any point which they wish to raise they do raise with the other members of the Commonwealth. In a matter which primarily concerns one member of the Commonwealth they are kept fully informed and they may raise points on that if they wish.
  Mr. Churchill: I must go into this a little bit, because I did not get the correct impression. I have only got in my mind what took place in the House. I understood that the Schuman Plan came as a surprise, and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister at short notice made a statement in this House, in which he spoke of it in welcoming terms. I do
  2156
  not know, but I have no doubt that the Dominions wished to raise some points. Before the Prime Minister took up the position he has taken up, I doubt very much if they had had any opportunity expressing any opinion upon the course which events had taken.
  When I was asked at the Atlantic Conference in 1941 by Mr. Roosevelt to agree that Imperial Preference should be eliminated, I said at once that we should never be able to take such a decision without consulting the Dominions themselves and this would take time. The argument was effective, among other reasons, because of the time factor in issuing a communiqué, about which the President was so eager. I cannot think of a better argument which the Government could have used to our French friends if they wished to have more time to consider their attitude than to say that they must consult on these matters with the Dominions by sending a telegram, affording them an opportunity to give a considered opinion. That it does not seem to have occurred to them is only another example of the extraordinary lack of efficiency with which our affairs are now conducted.
  There are still one or two points which I must mention. The hon. Member for Coventry, East, last night asked the Tory Party whether they were in favour of the federal union of Western Europe. Such a tremendous step as the federal union of Europe as something like a United States of Europe is not a matter which rests with us to decide. It is primarily one for the peoples of Europe. In our European Movement we have worked with federalists, and we have always made it clear that, though they are moving along the same road, we are not committed to their conclusions. Personally, I have always deprecated in public our becoming involved at this stage in all the tangles and intricacies of rigid constitution-making, which appeals so strongly to a certain type of mind. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Coventry, East, should have marred an able speech, as he so often does, by a gross misstatement when he says that European union
  "is run and financed by federalists."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1950; Vol. 476. c. 2043.]
  That is quite untrue, and I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for

  2157
  Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), who spoke earlier this afternoon, dealt effectively with that.
  Mr. Crossman: If that is untrue, then I wish to withdraw it.
  Mr. Churchill: Certainly, so far as the European Movement is concerned—and I took some trouble to make inquiries about it when I heard what the hon. Gentleman had said about it—they rely upon voluntary contributions from England and America and they have not had any difficulty in finding the necessary funds.
  I am told that the difficulties of European federation are increasingly realised upon the Continent, and that it is one of the reasons why what I call "functional" associations, like this proposed merger of the heavy industries, are being sought. But the question that we have to decide for ourselves—and there is certainly plenty of time for mature consideration of it—is, what association should Britain have with the Federal Union of Europe if such a thing should come to pass in the course of time?
  It has not got to be decided today, but I shall give, with all humility, a plain answer. I cannot conceive that Britain would be an ordinary member of a Federal Union limited to Europe in any period which can at present be foreseen. We should in my opinion favour and help forward all developments on the Continent which arise naturally from a removal of barriers, from the process of reconciliation, and blessed oblivion of the terrible past, and also from our common dangers in the future and present. Although a hard-and-fast concrete federal constitution for Europe is not within the scope of practical affairs, we should help, sponsor and aid in every possible way the movement towards European unity. We should seek steadfastly for means to become intimately associated with it.
  In this, we are supported by many of the leading statesmen in all parties in all the Commonwealth countries: Mr. Menzies and Mr. Evatt in Australia, Mr. Fraser in New Zealand, General Smuts—for whose recovery we pray—and Mr. MacKenzie King and Mr. St. Laurent in Canada. All have warmly advocated a forward movement towards European unity and have not, so far as I am aware, assigned any rigid or fixed limits to it.
  2158
  With our position as the centre of the British Empire and Commonwealth and with our fraternal association with the United States in the English-speaking world, we could not accept full membership of a federal system of Europe. We must find our path to world unity through the United Nations organisation, which I hope will be re-founded one day upon three or four regional groups, of which a united Europe should certainly be one. By our unique position in the world, Great Britain has an opportunity, if she is worthy of it, to play an important and possibly a decisive part in all the three larger groupings of the Western democracies. Let us make sure that we are worthy of it.
  The whole movement of the world is towards an inter-dependence of nations. We feel all around us the belief that it is our best hope. If independent, individual sovereignty is sacrosanot and inviolable, how is it that we are all wedded to a world organisation? It is an ideal to which we must subscribe. How is it that we have undertaken this immense obligation for the defence of Western Europe, involving ourselves as we have never done before in the fortunes of countries not protected by the waves and tides of the Channel? How is it that we accepted, and under the present Government eagerly sought, to live upon the bounty of the United States, thus becoming financially dependent upon them? It can only be justified and even tolerated because on either side of the Atlantic it is felt that inter-dependence is part of our faith and the means of our salvation.
  No one can contend that sovereignty will be affected by our participation in the discussions in Paris which are the subject of our Motion and the Amendment tonight. They are well protected by the cumulative safeguards which I mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, there is a great moral and idealistic issue which, though irrelevant to our immediate purpose, has been stirred by the discussions which have taken place. We are asked in a challenging way: "Are you prepared to part with any degree of national sovereignty in any circumstances for the sake of a larger synthesis?" My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, with his prolonged experience in foreign affairs, has faced the issue, hypothetical though it be, plainly

  2159
  and squarely. The Conservative and Liberal Parties say, without hesitation, that we are prepared to consider, and if convinced to accept, the abrogation of national sovereignty, provided that we are satisfied with the conditions and the safeguards.
  Nay, I will go further and say that for the sake of world organisation we would even run risks and make sacrifices. We fought alone against tyranny for a whole year, not purely from national motives. It is true that our lives depended upon our doing so, but we fought the better because we felt with conviction that it was not only our own cause but a world cause for which the Union Jack was kept flying in 1940 and 1941. The soldier who laid down his life, the mother who wept for her son, and the wife who lost her husband, got inspiration or comfort, and felt a sense of being linked with the universal and the eternal by the fact that we fought for what was precious not only for ourselves but for mankind. The Conservative and Liberal Parties declare that national sovereignty is not inviolable, and that it may be resolutely diminished for the sake of all the men in all the lands finding their way home together.

KOREAN REPUBLIC (INVASION)
6.25 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): May I, Mr. Speaker, with your leave and the leave of the House, interrupt Business in order to make a statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This morning His Majesty's Government were informed by the United States Government of the terms of a statement which the United States Government intended to make later in the day on the situation in Korea. This statement has in fact just been released for publication in the U.S.A. It reads as follows:
"In Korea the Government forces, which were armed to prevent border raids and to preserve internal security, were attacked by invading forces from North Korea. The Security Council of the United Nations called upon the invading troops to cease hostilities and to withdraw to the 38th parallel. This they have not done, but on the contrary have pressed the attack. The Security Council called upon all Members of the United Nations to render every assistance to the United Nations in the execution of this resolution.
2160
In these circumstances I have ordered United States air and sea forces to give the Korean Government troops cover and support.
The attack upon Korea makes it plain beyond all doubt that Communism has passed beyond the use of subversion to conquer independent nations and will now use armed invasion and war. It has defied the orders of the Security Council of the United Nations issued to preserve international peace and security. In these circumstances the occupation of Formosa by Communist forces would be a direct threat to the security of the Pacific area and to United States forces performing their lawful and necessary functions in that area.
Accordingly I have ordered the Seventh Fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa. As a corollary of this action. I am calling upon the Chinese Government on Formosa to cease all air and sea operations against the mainland. The Seventh Fleet will see that this is done. The determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.
I have also directed that United States Forces in the Philippines be strengthened and that military assistance to the Philippine Government be accelerated. I have similarly directed acceleration in the furnishing of military assistance to the Forces of France and the associated States in Indo-China and the despatch of a military mission to provide close working relations with those Forces.
I know that all Members of the United Nations will consider carefully the consequences of this latest aggression in Korea in defiance of the Charter of the United Nations. A return to the rule of force in international affairs would have far-reaching effects. The United States will continue to uphold the rule of law. I have instructed Ambassador Austin, as the representative of the United States to the Security Council, to report these steps to the Council."
I should add that the United Kingdom representative on the Security Council has been authorised to support, at today's meeting of the Security Council, a resolution which I understand is being introduced by the United States representative and which recommends that the Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack.
The situation is of undoubted gravity, but I am certain that there will be no disagreement, after our bitter experiences in the past 35 years, that the salvation of all is dependent on prompt and effective measures to arrest aggression wherever it may occur, using for this purpose the international machinery which the peace-loving nations have set up for this very purpose. The fact is

2161
that the authorities in Northern Korea have invaded the territory of the Government of the Republic of Korea. This is naked aggression and it must be checked. We can only hope that all concerned will recognise this simple fact. If they do, there is hope for the future.
In view of the situation Sir Gladwyn Jebb is flying out immediately to New York to take up his post as permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations.
I felt that the House should have that information at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Churchill: Naturally, I only intervene for the purpose of expressing our thanks to the Prime Minister for making us acquainted with these grave matters and the sense of unity which dominates the whole House when questions of this gravity seem to touch the principles of freedom and law for which we stand.
Mr. Clement Davies: Mr. Speaker, will you allow—?
Mr. Speaker: We cannot have questions at the moment because, after all, we are in the middle of a Debate.
Mr. Davies: I only wanted to re-echo what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and to say that the whole House is behind the Prime Minister.

SCHUMAN PLAN
6.30 p.m.
The Prime Minister: May I ask the leave of the House to speak again? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We have had a very interesting Debate. I thought that there was, as is so often the case, a very great contrast between the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and the speech of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwich and Leamington dealt with this as a great issue and applied his mind to the real matters at stake, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford made it mainly an occasion for a party political attack.
2162
He started off by trying to do his utmost to make bad blood between this Government and the French Government. He suggested that the French were resentful over devaluation. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, as he has been Chancellor of the Exchequer, that in the matter of devaluation one cannot give long notice. As a matter of fact the French understood it perfectly well and we gave them 48 hours' notice, which was all that could have been given in the circumstances. It is quite untrue to suggest that there has been constant friction and bad feeling. It is utterly and entirely untrue, as Ministers know who have been in contact with French Ministers constantly.
It is also untrue that we are suspected of being no friends of European unity. We have been working for European unity and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, a vast amount of work has been done to build up that unity; and that work does not merely mean making speeches but means the difficult working out of concrete plans with representatives of a great many nations.
Then the right hon. Gentleman tries to make ill blood between us and other members of the Commonwealth by suggesting that we have not given them all the information. They have not made those complaints, and the French have not made those complaints. It is the right hon. Gentleman who makes those complaints.
Mr. Churchill: The Prime Minister has contradicted me very severely because I said that he did not consult the Dominions—
The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): Withdraw.
Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member should wait until he grows up before he tells me to withdraw. I will give the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT so that he can see what he said.
The Prime Minister: I said:
"I do not think there was time for any consultation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 43.]
That was when I made my first statement in the House. There could not have been any consultation because all I said was

2163
that we welcomed this initiative. What need for consultation was there on that?
Mr. Eden: Why did the right hon. Gentleman say that? He did say that. I remember the answer. The answer is in the recollection of the House. I remember the Prime Minister saying quite clearly that there was no time for consultation. That is why we looked up the quotation.
The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford said was that we had not informed the Commonwealth. The implication all through—it is not the first time we have had it—is that we have deliberately kept the Commonwealth in the dark in these matters. As a matter of fact, we have carried out to the full the usual methods of consultation.
Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman has not.
The Prime Minister: We have. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the usual method of consultation is that full information is given; there are meetings with Commonwealth representatives and there is a full discussion, and that is exactly what has been done in this case. They have been kept fully informed.
That was the start of the right hon. Gentleman's speech of which a good deal was taken up not with dealing with the real issue which is before the House, for the real issue is whether or not we ought to have accepted certain principles which were to be embodied in a treaty prior to going into discussion. We had a great deal of excellent rhetoric on the need for getting together with other nations. That is the common view of all of us in this House. We have had quotations of various kinds of what has been done in that way, and both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition have talked about some relinquishment of sovereignty.
It is quite true that in the world as it is placed today it is ridiculous to try to stand for the absolute sovereignty of the individual State, and no one has contended in that sense more often than have I and my colleagues here; but the question arises, when there is to be a surrender of sovereignty, to what body that
2164
surrender should be made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington gave a number of instances, which I have carefully looked over. There were O.E.E.C., the Atlantic Charter and U.N.O. and many others. I entirely agree that in all those instances there is an infringement of the old idea of absolute sovereignty, but in every instance that surrender is made to a responsible body, a body of people responsible to Parliaments, not to an irresponsible body appointed by no one and responsible to no one. That is the special need for the use of that word, which I do not like particularly, but it does indicate the difference between what is international and what is "supra-national."
We have always been willing, and are now, to enter into these international arrangements, but the point of this plan was that it was something entirely different from the international arrangements. This was to set up a supra-national authority. And it was of the essence of M. Schuman's plan that on entering into these discussions there should be an unequivocal acceptance of this principle. It is all very well to say that we can put in safeguards. I notice that everybody who has suggested that there should be acceptance has said, "With the necessary safeguards." But it is really making nonsense of an acceptance to think that one can accept a principle and then whittle it away until there is no principle left.
Now we have been learning just what is the intention and idea of this supranational authority. It requires to be looked at closely because it means that we are to hand over to the control of a number of appointed persons the two basic industries of this country. And those persons are not to be responsible to Governments, they are to be independent persons, and as far as I can make out from what I have seen of the plan coming through, they have no responsibility to Governments. Apparently the only time they may be responsible to anybody is at a meeting of a collection of members of legislatures, once a year. If the plan is to work, it means that those people are given authority by a majority to make decisions that are mandatory upon those who go in for this scheme—
Mr. Churchill: What is this plan of which the right hon Gentleman speaks? [An HON. MEMBER: "It comes from

2165
Paris."] It is all very well but, if this matter is to be raised at this last moment, I must ask that the House should be informed a little more clearly about this document.
The Prime Minister: Certainly. There was a preliminary account given in "The Times" today which was an advance of what is being given out by the French Government to the Press outlining the main lines of this plan.
Mr. Churchill: By the French Government?
The Prime Minister: Yes, the French Government.
Mr. Churchill: How is the right hon. Gentleman sure that the French Government are committed to it and that it is not the report of the experts or civil servants made to the French Government, which, in any case, is only one of the six Powers concerned?
The Prime Minister: As I am informed, this is put out by the French Government—
Mr. Quintin Hogg: There is not one.
The Prime Minister: I cannot help that. This is a Government document which has been put out. I will not go into it in detail. I was only saying that if one is judging this plan it is not fair to suggest that this is not what is intended. It is no good saying, "This is a principle" then cutting it down. This is the intention. Whether it is right or wrong, I do not know, and I am not prepared to say at the moment, but one has to look at it to see what is the intention, and that is the intention of this plan. It is to act by a majority and it is to have mandatory powers over industries in these countries.
Mr. Churchill rose—
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Churchill: It is all right, the Prime Minister is not limited to 7 o'clock. Is not this only the plan put forward by M. Monnet and his experts to the French Government? Have not the French Government reserved to themselves freedom to amend or correct it? Are the French Government themselves—[HON. MEM-
2166
BERS: "Oh!"] Do not hon. Members opposite want to know? Are not the French Government themselves only one of the six nations that have been talking over these matters during the week, every one of whom is entitled to put forward a version of his own, as we should have been had we been there?
The Prime Minister: This is the working document put forward as the principle of the plan which is to be embodied in a treaty, and that is the principle which has to be accepted.
Mr. Churchill indicated dissent.
The Prime Minister: But that is the principle. We cannot get away from the principle. The principle is not a principle of internationalism; it is a principle of the supra-national authority. This is the point which is really at issue: whether we should have accepted that principle before going in for discussions. We were perfectly willing to discuss. We welcomed this initiative on the part of the French Government. Here let me say to the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington that I think the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that this initiative could only have come from the French. The right hon. Gentleman rather suggested we had lagged behind and should have made it ourselves. Obviously, however, it was one which should have come, and did come, from the French in trying to settle this age-long Franco-German dispute. We said, "We will go in and discuss anything you like, but we cannot accept this principle until we have seen how it works out."
I think that was perfectly reasonable. There was a great deal of discussion. We offered to go fully into discussions with Ministers but the fact was that this was the key to the scheme and, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not believe he would have got them to depart from that scheme. It was not, as he suggests, a matter of prejudice against a Socialist Government; it was a definite conception of principles by which they believed this international body, this initiative, could be built up.
The plain issue which faces the House is whether the Government were right or wrong in saying, "We will discuss, but we cannot accept this principle blindly."

2167
The right hon. Gentleman and his friends have put forward a suggestion that we should have taken the same formula as the Dutch put forward. There, again, that is an exception; accepting the principle but saying that afterwards, if it is not practicable, the principle will be thrown over. I do not believe that is the right way to go into a conference of this kind. I believe that it is generally recognised—and I am quite sure it is recognised by our French friends and appears perfectly clearly in the White Paper—that there was this difference of opinion, and we were not asked to gloss it over and go in in the camouflaged way suggested, accepting it when we did not accept it, with power to run out. I think that would have had the worst possible effect.
The right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention away from the question before the House to some discussion of the document called "European Unity." I declined to answer questions in this House with regard to that document because it is not the duty of a Minister to answer questions on something which is not within his field of responsibility. I have sat in this House quite a long time and I have known even Conservative Governments to have annual conferences and to pass resolutions of all kinds. I have never heard it suggested that if a Minister or member of the Conservative Party were present he should have to get up in the House and answer for that conference.
Mr. Churchill: I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he approved it. I only asked him whether he had read it or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh. no."] Yes, read it or not. Surely he need not shrink from imparting that simple piece of information?
The Prime Minister: I was not referring specifically to the right hon. Gentleman. This was an occasion when he was not present. He went off on the question of a Debate the first time it was mentioned, but later the matter was taken up by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and others. [Interruption.] I am quite prepared to say that, as a member of the party executive, I am a party to this document and take my share of responsibility and that, of course, I have read it. It is equally true that, as
2168
it happened, I was away for a week at Whitsun and I did not know the date of publication, and that when it came out it did surprise me as coming out then. But these things do happen.
This document, as has been made perfectly clear, is an expression of Labour Party policy. It raised a storm, especially with the people who had not read it; they got excerpts. It suffered, perhaps, from a misfortune in which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will sympathise with us, because it obtained the support of Lord Beaverbrook. Because of that, it was at once condemned as an isolationist document by people who had never read it. It is not an isolationist document in any way whatever; it is a fair and balanced document. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman himself, in that more eloquent way which he commands, was summing up a good deal of the document in pointing out as against those who thought that there should be a third force, or European union, separate from others, that we were part of a larger group, that we were part of the Atlantic community, and that there were these various connections. He mentioned U.N.O., the Commonwealth and Europe, which had to be brought together. The document does that. I do not find that there is anything whatever at variance with my statement.
I explained in the Debate in January, 1949, I think, when a somewhat similar point was raised, that it has never been the position of this Government or of the Labour Party that we should deal solely with Socialist Governments. On the contrary, we have actually dealt with others, but that does not prevent us from saying that we should prefer other Governments to those any more than it prevents the right hon. Gentleman opposite from hailing with glee the fact that there are some Governments which if they are not called Conservative, at least are not actually Socialist. There are very few Conservative Governments in the world today. They almost always take another name, and I understand that the party opposite would like to do the same. That, I think, is a matter which Lord Woolton is still considering.
Mr. Eden: "A rose by any other name. …"
Mr. Churchill: You cannot give a Socialist another name.
The Prime Minister: All that was a matter of prejudice, but it does not in the least take away from the fact that what we have to discuss today is whether the Government were right or wrong in not accepting this principle blindly before entering into discussions. No one has suggested accepting without conditions. This thing was put to us to accept. We made various suggestions. We were asked to accept. I do not know what the real suggestion now is by the right hon. Gentleman. Does he suggest that we should now offer to go in on the Dutch terms? I do not know whether that would be accepted or not, but it is certainly not acceptable—
Mr. Churchill: I certainly think we should have gone in on the Dutch terms or some variants that were found agreeable. I see no reason at all to alter the Dutch terms.
The Prime Minister: That means that the right hon. Gentleman thinks we should have accepted this principle. The principle embodied in this is the handing over of the basic industries of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, it is.
Mr. Churchill: We are absolutely safeguarded against having in any way to hand over the basic industries of this country. If the terms for which the Dutch asked were quite acceptable, we could have been a member and taken part in these matters on the same terms and conditions with very great advantage all round.
The Prime Minister: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman did not set out in his Motion what was the actual Dutch reservation, because the actual Dutch reservation was accepting the principle but with the proviso that if they did not like it or found it impossible, they could then throw the principle over. That is not set out here.
Mr. Churchill: Metaphysics, not politics.
The Prime Minister: I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he accepts this principle. We on this side are not prepared to accept the principle that the most vital economic forces of this country should be handed over to an authority that is utterly undemocratic and is responsible to nobody. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he could have changed that principle, if he said that he would go
2170
in on another basis, if he was willing to go on, as one might very well go on, to discuss all kinds of organisations in Europe, including international arrangements, well and good—that could have been done.
That was not what we were asked. It was a condition of entering the conference that we should accept this principle. We could not do it. We said so frankly, and I think it is far better that in going into a conference like this, in negotiations of this kind, you should say quite frankly where you stand and not go in under false colours.
It is quite untrue to suggest that in any of these international matters this Government has been behindhand. On the contrary, we have taken the lead. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was quite wrong in suggesting that we ought to have done all these things in 1945 and 1946. In those years we were trying to build up one world. There had not come this deep gulf between East and West. We were still striving, on the quadripartite terms in Germany, to try to build up one Europe. After that, we had to work on these things with a smaller circle of associates.
It is not true, as has been suggested, that work has not been done on these problems of the basic industries. There has been work done in O.E.E.C., and in doing that work there are revealed a great many difficulties. I entirely agree that there are great possibilities of moving forward on these functional lines towards European unity. That is much better than trying to form fancy constitutions. I think that the practical work that has been done is the foundation for the unity of Europe.
But recollect that in Document 10 of the White Paper, this is specifically stated to be a foundation for a federated Europe. That is a different matter altogether. This is put forward as a basis on which is to be built up a European federation. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out the difficulty of our associating fully in anything of that kind. Therefore, there is also the political, as well as the economic, side.
A great deal of eloquence has been wasted in the House on urging everybody to be enthusiastic for European unity. We are enthusiastic for it, but it is no

2171
good being enthusiastic for the wrong method. This may or may not be the right method, but I am sure it is the wrong method of getting unity to accept a principle without examining it, because that is the way to bring about destruction of confidence. Had we gone in, accepting these principles, with all the reservations put before us by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, and then found we could not work them, we should have been accused of being the people who are breaking up national confidence. We are not prepared to go in on that basis and I am quite sure that there are many hon. Members on the benches opposite,
when they consider exactly what this means, who will have very great qualms in accepting the principle. I ask the House to unite on the Government Amendment, which expresses the view that we wish for this greater unity of Europe. We are prepared to enter fully with our friends and Allies, but we cannot go in pledge-bound to a principle which has not been fully examined and which we are not prepared at this stage to accept.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 309.

Division No. 48.]

AYES

[7.0 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip-Northwood)

Hogg, Hon. Q

Alport, C. J. M.

Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)

Hollis, M. C.

Amery, J. (Preston, N.)

Cundiff, F. W.

Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)

Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Cuthbert, W. N.

Hope, Lord J.

Arbuthnot, John

Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)

Hopkinson, H. L. D' A.

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Davidson, Viscountess

Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Horsbrugh, Miss F.

Astor, Hon. M.

Davies, Nigel (Epping)

Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

Baker, P.

de Chair, S.

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Baldock, J. M.

De la Bère, R.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Baldwin, A. E.

Deedes, W. F.

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

Banks, Col. C.

Digby, S. Wingfield

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Baxter, A. B.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hutbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

Donner, P. W.

Hurd, A. R.

Bell, R. M.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.

Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)

Drayson, G. B.

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

Bennett, R F. B. (Gosport)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Hyde, H. M.

Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Hylton-Foster, H. B.

Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

Dunglass, Lord

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Birch, Nigel

Duthie, W. S.

Jennings, R.

Bishop, F. P.

Eccles, D. M.

Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)

Black, C. W.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

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

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

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Boothby, R.

Erroll, F. J.

Kaberry, D.

Bossom, A. C.

Fisher, Nigel

Keeling, E. H.

Bower, N.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Fort, R.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Foster, J. G.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Braine, B.

Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Langford-Holt, J.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

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

Law, fit. Hon. R. K.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Leather, E. H. C.

Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Browne, J. N. (Govan)

Gammons, L. D.

Lindsay, Martin

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

Linstead, H. N.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Llewellyn, D.

Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.

Glyn, Sir R.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Butcher, H. W.

Gridley, Sir A.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

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

Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)

Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Carr, L. R (Mitcham)

Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)

Longden, G. J. M. (Herts, S. W.)

Carson, Hon. E.

Harden, J. R. E.

Low, A. R. W.

Channon, H.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

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

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grlnstead)

Harris, R. R. (Heston)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Clyde, J. L.

Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S.

McCallum, Maj. D.

Colega'. A.

Hay, John

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)

Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)

Heald, L. F.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Heath, Edward

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

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

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

McKibbin, A.

Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Cranborne, Viscount

Higgs, J M. C.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

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

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Maclean, F H. R.

Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Crouch, R. F.

Hirst, Geoffrey

MacManaway, Rev. J. G.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Raikes, H. V.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Rayner, Brig. R.

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Redmayne, M.

Teeling, William

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Renton, D. L. M.

Thompson, K. P. (Walton)

Marples, A. E.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)

Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Maude, J. C. (Exeter)

Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)

Tilney, John

Maudling, R.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Touche, G. C.

Medlicott, Brigadier F

Roper, Sir H.

Turton, R. H.

Molson, A. H. E.

Ropner, Col. L.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Vane, W. M. F.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Russell, R. S.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

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

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Vosper, D. F.

Mott-Radclyfle, C. E.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Wade, D. W.

Nicholls, H.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)

Nicholson, G.

Scott, Donald

Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylobone)

Nield, B. (Chester)

Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Nugent, G. R H.

Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Nutting, Anthony

Smithers, Peter H. B. (Winchester)

Waterhouse, Capt. C

Oakshott, H. D.

Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)

Watkinson, H.

Odey, G. W.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Webbe, Sir H. (London)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Snadden, W. McN.

Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Soames, Capt. C.

White, J. Baker (Canterbury)

Orr, Capt, L. P. S.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)

Osborne, C.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)

Wills, G.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Stevens, G. P.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Perkins, W. R. D.

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Wood, Hon. R

Pickthorn, K.

Storey, S.

York, C.

Pitman, I. J.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Young, Sir A. S. L.

Prescott, Stanley

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

Studholme, H. G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Summers, G. S

Mr. Drewe and Mr. Grimond.

Profumo, J. D.

Sutcliffe, H.

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Chetwynd, G. R.

Evans, Albert (Islington. S. W.)

Adams, Richard

Clunie, J.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Albu, A. H.

Cocks, F. S.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Coldrick, W.

Ewart, R.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Collick, P.

Fairhurst, F.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Collindridge, F.

Fernyhough, E.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Cook, T. F.

Field, Capt. W. J.

Awbery, S. S.

Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Finch, H. J.

Ayles, W. H.

Cooper, J. (Deptford)

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

Bacon, Miss A.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)

Follick, M.

Baird, J.

Cove, W. G.

Foot, M. M.

Balfour, A.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Forman, J. C.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

Crawley, A.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Bartley, P.

Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

Crosland, C. A. R.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Benson, G.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Gaitskell, fit. Hon. H. T. N.

Beswick, F.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S

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

Daggar, G.

Gibson, C. W.

Bing, G. H. C.

Daines, P.

Gilzean, A.

Blackburn, A. R.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Blenkinsop, A.

Darling, G. (Hillsboro')

Gooch, E. G.

Blyton, W. R.

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Boardman, H.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)

Booth, A.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Greenwood, Rt. Ht. Arthur (Wakefield)

Bottomley, A. G.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Grenfell, D. R.

Bowden, H. W.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Grey, C. F.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Deer, G.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Delargy, H. J.

Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Diamond, J.

Gunter, R. J.

Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

Dodds, N. N.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Donnelly, D.

Hale, J. (Rochdale)

Brown, George (Belper)

Donovan, T. N.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

Burke, W. A.

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)

Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne V'll'y)

Burton, Miss E.

Dye, S.

Hamilton, W. W.

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

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hannan, W.

Callaghan, James

Edelman, M.

Hardman, D. R.

Carmichael, James

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Hardy, E. A.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Hargreaves, A.

Champion, A. J.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Harrison, J.

2174

2175

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Manuel, A. C.

Simmons, C J

Hayman, F. H.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

Slater, J

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Herbison, Miss M.

Mellish, R. J

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

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Messer, F

Snow, J. W.

Hobson, C. R.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Sorensen, R. W

Holman, P.

Mikardo, Ian

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Mitchison, G. R.

Sparks, J. A.

Houghton, Douglas

Moeran, E. W.

Steele, T.

Hoy, J.

Monslow, W.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Hubbard, T.

Moody, A. S

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

Morgan, Dr. H. B

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Morley, R.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen) N.)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Stross, Dr. B.

Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)

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

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Mort, D. L.

Sylvester, G. O.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Moyle, A

Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Mulley, F. W.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Murray, J. D.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

Nally, W.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Janner, B.

Neal, H.

Thomas, I R. (Rhondda, W.)

Jay, D. P. T.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Jeger, G. (Goole)

O'Brien, T.

Thurtle, Ernest

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

Oldfield, W. H

Timmons, J.

Jenkins, R. H.

Oliver, G. H.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Orbach, M.

Tomney, F.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Padley, W. E

Turner-Samuels, M.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Paget, R. T.

Usborne, Henry

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)

Vernon, Maj. W F

Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Viant, S. P.

Keenan, W

Pannell, T. C

Wallace, H. W.

Kenyon, C.

Pargiter, G. A

Watkins, T E.

Key, Rt. Hon C. W

Parker, J.

Webb, Rt Hon. M. (Bradford. C.)

King, H. M.

Paton, J.

Weitzman, D.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.

Pearson, A.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Kinley, J.

Peart, T. F

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D

Poole, Cecil

Lang, Rev. G.

Popplewell, E

West, D. G.

Lee, F. (Newton)

Porter, G.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

White, Mrs. E (E. Flint)

Lever, L. M (Ardwick)

Proctor, W. T.

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

Lever, N H. (Cheetham)

Pryde, D. J.

Wigg, George

Lewis, A W. J. (West Ham, N.)

Pursey, Comdr. H.

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

Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.)

Rankin, J.

Wilkes, L.

Lindgren, G. S.

Rees, Mrs. D

Wilkins, W. A.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Reeves, J.

Willey, F. T (Sunderland)

Logan, D G.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Longden, F. (Small Heath)

Reid, W. (Camlachie)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

McAllister, G.

Rhodes, H.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

MacColl, J. E.

Richards, R

Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)

McGhee, H. G

Robens, A.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

McGovern, J

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)

McInnes, J.

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

Mack, J. D.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Wise, Major F. J

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

Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

McLeavy, F.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Woods, Rev. G. S.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Royle, C.

Wyatt, W. L.

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Yates, V. F.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Mainwaring, W. H.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

TELLERS FOB THE NOES:

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E.)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Mr. William Whiteley and

Mann, Mrs. J.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Mr. R. J. Taylor.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there added."
The House divided: Ayes, 309; Noes, 296.

Division No. 49.]

AYES

[7.14 p.m

Acland, Sir Richard

Bartley, P.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Adams, Richard

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Albu, A. H.

Benson, G

Brockway, A. Fanner

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Beswick, F.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

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

Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Bing, G. H. C.

Broughton, Dr A. D. D.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Blackburn, A. R.

Brown, George (Belper)

Awbery, S. S.

Blenkinsop, A.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Ayles, W. H.

Blyton, W. R.

Burke, W. A.

Bacon, Miss A

Boardman, H.

Burton, Miss E.

Baird, J.

Booth, A.

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

Balfour, A

Bottomley, A. G.

Callaghan, James

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Bowden, H. W

Carmichael, James

Cattle, Mrs. B. A.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

Oldfield, W. H

Champion, A. J.

Herbison, Miss M.

Oliver, G. H

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Orbach, M.

Clunie, J.

Hobson, C. R.

Padley, W. E.

Cocks, F. S.

Holman, P.

Paget, R T.

Coldrick, W.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)

Collick, P.

Houghton, Douglas

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Cook, T. F.

Hoy, J.

Pannell, T. C.

Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Hubbard, T

Pargiter, G. A.

Cooper, J. (Deptford)

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

Parker, J.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Paton, J.

Cove, W. G.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Peart, T. F.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)

Poole, Cecil

Crawley, A.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Popplewell, E.

Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Porter, G.

Crosland, C. A. R.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Proctor, W. T.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Pryde, D. J.

Daggar, G.

Janner, B.

Pursey, Comdr. H

Daines, P.

Jay, D. P. T.

Rankin, J.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Jeger, G, (Goole)

Rees, Mrs. D.

Darling, G. (Hillsboro')

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

Reeves, J.

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Jenkins, R. H.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Reid, W. (Camlachie)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Rhodes, H.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Richards, R.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Robens, A.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Deer, G.

Keenan, W.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Delargy, H. J.

Kenyon, C.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Diamond, J.

Key, Rt. Hon C. W

Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

Dodds, N. N.

King, H. M.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Donnelly, D.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Royle, C.

Donovan, T. N.

Kinley, J.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)

Lang, Rev. G.

Shinwell, Rt Hon. E

Dye, S.

Lee, F. (Newton)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Edelman, M.

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Silverman, S. S (Nelson)

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Lever, N. H. (Cheetham)

Simmons, C. J

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Lewis, A. W J. (West Ham, N.)

Slater, J.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Lindgren, G. S.

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

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Snow, J. W.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Logan, D. G.

Sorensen, R. W.

Ewart, R.

Longden, F. (Small Heath)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.

Fairhurst, F.

McAllister, G.

Sparks, J. A.

Fernyhough, E.

MacColl, J. E

Steele, T.

Field, Capt. W. J.

McGhee, H. G.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Finch, H. J.

McGovern, J.

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

McInnes, J.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J

Follick, M.

Mack, J. D.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)

Foot, M. M.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Stross, Dr. B.

Forman, J. C.

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

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

McLeavy, F.

Sylvester, G. O.

Freeman, J. (Watford)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

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

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Gibson, C. W.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)

Gilzean, A.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Gooch, E. G.

Manuel, A. C.

Thurtle, Ernest

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Timmons, J.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

Mellish, R. J

Tomney, F.

Grenfell, D. R.

Messer, F.

Turner-Samuels, M

Grey, C. F.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Usborne, Henry

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mikardo, Ian

Vernon, Maj. W. F

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Mitchison, G. R.

Viant, S. P.

Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

Moeran, E. W.

Wallace, H. W

Gunter, R. J.

Monslow, W.

Watkins, T. E.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Moody, A. S.

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford C.)

Hale, J. (Rochdale)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Weitzman, D.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Morley, R.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne V'll'y)

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

West, D. G.

Hamilton, W. W.

Mort, D. L.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Hannan, W.

Moyle, A.

White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)

Hardman, D. R.

Mulley, F. W.

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

Hardy, E A.

Murray, J. D

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Hargreaves, A.

Nally, W.

Wigg, George

Harrison, J.

Neal, H.

Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

Wilkes, L.

Hayman, F. H.

O'Brien, T.

Wilkins, W. A

2178

2179

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J H (Huyton)

Wyatt, W. L.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

Yates, V. F.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Wise, Major F. J.

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

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Woods, Rev. G. S.

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Collindridge.

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T

Alport, C. J. M.

Dunglass, Lord

Lindsay, Martin

Amery, J. (Preston, N.)

Duthie, W. S.

Linstead, H. N

Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Eccles, D. M.

Llewellyn, D.

Arbuthnot, John

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Wallet

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)

Erroll, F. J.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Astor, Hon. M.

Fisher, Nigel

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Baker, P.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Longden, G. J. M. (Herts, S. W.)

Baldock, J. M.

Fort, R.

Low, A. R. W.

Baldwin, A. E.

Foster, J. G.

Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S)

Banks, Col. C.

Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Baxter, A. B.

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

Bell, R. M.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

McAdden, S. J.

Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

McCallum, Maj. D.

Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)

Gammans, L. D.

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)

Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)

Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

Gates, Maj. E. E

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Birch, Nigel

Glyn, Sir R.

McKibbin, A.

Bishop, F. P.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Black, C. W.

Gridley, Sir A.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

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

Grimston, Hon J. (St. Albans)

Maclean, F H. R

Boothby, R.

Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Bossom, A. C

Harden, J. R. E.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Bower, N.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

MacManaway, Rev. J. G.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Harris, R. R. (Heston)

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Braine, B.

Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V (Macclesfield)

Maitland, Comdr. J W

Braithwaite, Lt -Comdr. J. G.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W.

Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S

Marlowe, A. A H

Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

Hay, John

Marples, A. E

Browne, J. N. (Govan)

Head, Brig. A. H

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

Heald, L. F

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Heath, Edward

Maude, A E. U. (Ealing, S.)

Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Maude, J C. (Exeter)

Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Maudling, R.

Butcher, H. W.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Medlicott, Brigadier F

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

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Mellor, Sir J

Carr, L. R. (Mitcham)

Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)

Molson, A. H. E.

Carson, Hon. E

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T

Channon, H.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Morris, R Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)

Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)

Hollis, M. C.

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

Clarke, Brig T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Clyde, J. L.

Hope, Lord J.

Nabarro, G.

Colagate, A.

Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

Nicholls, H.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

Nicholson, G.

Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)

Horsbrugh, Miss F.

Nield, B. (Chester)

Cooper-Key, E. M

Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

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

Howard, Gerald (cambridgesh()

Nugent, G. R. H.

Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Nutting, Anthony

Cranborne, Viscount

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

Oakshott, H. D

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

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Odey, G. W.

Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hurd, A. R.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D

Crouch, R. F.

Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip-Northwood)

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

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)

Hyde, H. M.

Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

Cundiff, F. W.

Hylton-Foster, H. B.

Osborne, C

Cuthbert, W. N.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Darling, Sir W. Y (Edinburgh, S.)

Jennings, R.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Davidson, Viscountess

Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Pickthorn, K.

Davies, Nigel (Epping)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W

Pitman, I. J.

de Chair, S.

Kaberry, D.

Powell, J. Enoch

De la Bère, R.

Keeling, E. H.

Prescott, Stanley

Deedes, W. F.

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Price, H. A. (Lewisham. W.)

Digby, S. Wingfield

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Prior-Palmerr Brig. O.

Dodds-Parker, A. D

Lambert, Hon. G.

Profumo, J. D.

Donner, P. W.

Lancaster, Col. C. G

Raikes, H. V.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.

Langford-Holt, J.

Rayner, Brig. R

Drayson, G. B.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K

Redmayne, M.

Drewe, C.

Leather, E. H. C.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Ronton, D. L M.

2180

2181

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)

Vosper, D. F.

Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)

Stevens, G. P.

Wade, D. W.

Robertton, Sir D. (Caithness)

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)

Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)

Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)

Storey, S.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)

Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Roper, Sir H.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Ropner, Col. L.

Studholme, H G

Waterhouse, Capt. C

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Summers, G S

Watkinson, H.

Russell, R. S.

Sutcliffe, H.

Webbe, Sir H. (Lonaon)

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D

Taylor, C S. (Eastbourne)

Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

White, J. Baker (Canterbury)

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Teeling, William

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Scott, Donald

Thomas, J P. L. (Hereford)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Shepherd, W. S (Cheadle)

Thompson, K. P. (Walton)

Williams, Sir H. G (Croydon, E.)

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)

Wills, G.

Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Smithers, Peter H. B. (Winchester)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Wood, Hon R.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Tilney, John

York, C.

Snadden, W. McN.

Touche, G. C

Young, Sir A. S L

Soames, Capt. C.

Turton, R. H.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Vane, W. M. F.

Brigadier Mackeson and

Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Mr. Grimond.

Resolution agreed to.

Resolved:
"That this House welcomes the initiative of the French Foreign Minister of 9th May and, while recognising that it was not possible for His Majesty's Government to take part in the international consideration of his proposals on terms which committed them in advance of such consideration to pool the production of coal and steel and to institute a new high authority whose decisions would bind the Governments concerned, approves the declared readiness of His Majesty's Govern-to take a constructive part in the conversations with the hope that they may be able to join in, or associate themselves with, this common effort."

PUBLIC REGISTERS AND RECORDS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

MEDICAL BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
7.26 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House is now being asked to turn its back on its recent performance as a theatre and become a workshop once more; and I hope that the excitement which has just occurred will not prevent us from giving proper attention to what is a prosaic, but very important, subject.
The Bill comes to us from another place, where a number of Amendments have been accepted, and I daresay that hon. Members of the House of Commons
2182
will wish to have a careful look at it, with a view to seeing whether any further constructive Amendments can be made. I am hoping it will not be necessary to have a protracted Debate on the Bill on Second Reading, because, I gather that there is general agreement with the main purposes of the Measure. The Bill does not purport to undertake a complete revision of the medical Acts. That would indeed be a major Measure calling for prolonged and very detailed study, necessitating a very heavy demand on Parliamentary time and possibly evoking a great deal of controversy. All that the Bill sets out to do is to make provision for a number of matters clearly of urgent public importance and for a few less important matters where some early change in the existing arrangements is obviously desirable. From discussions with representatives of the medical profession, and others, and from the welcome given to the Bill in another place, we believe it will command general support.
There are four main purposes of the Bill. The first is to improve the standard of medical education. The Bill gives effect to two of the main recommendations requiring legislation contained in the report of the Inter-departmental Committee on Medical Schools, called the Goodenough Committee, which was issued in 1944. It provides, in Clauses 1 to 6, that, from a day to be appointed, every medical student, after he has passed his final examination, but before he is admitted to the Medical Register, and thus allowed to take up independent medical practice, is to be

2183
required to serve satisfactorily for a prescribed period in one or more approved hospitals or institutions.
The intention is that the period of intern service should normally be one year. In fact, the Bill as introduced in another place, specified that that should be the minimum period, but, by an Amendment agreed in Committee there, the period is now left to be fixed by the General Medical Council subject to the approval of the Privy Council, without any specified minimum. Leaving the matter open in this way will, for example, facilitate any modifications which may have to be made in the event of an emergency and there is also just the possibility that at the outset there might be difficulty in enforcing a full year's service.
As the Goodenough Committee states:
"There has been enthusiastic support among our witnesses, including representatives of the medical students, for the proposal that, in future, entry into independent medical practice should be preceded by a compulsory period of approved and responsible clinical practice under supervision."
They point out that the special value of this experience before registration lies in developing in the holder a sense of responsibility. Following the passing of his final examination, he needs—before launching out into independent medical practice—to have actual experience of medical practice under guidance and supervision in circumstances which afford adequate time for thought, for further study and for the personal investigation of the social and environmental conditions of the patients with whom he comes into contact. When he launches out into the world he will do so as a more fully trained and equipped medical man.
There are various ways in which this pre-registration period, which may be called for convenience the "intern period," could be organised. There is, however, general agreement that the intern period should be spent wholly in an approved hospital or institution, and the Bill itself provides that this must be so. It is left to the General Medical Council to decide how long the student is to spend in medicine and surgery respectively during his intern period. For the most part it is anticipated that he will hold what are in effect junior house appointments, that is, posts as house
2184
surgeon and house physician. At present these are held by doctors after registration. An Amendment made in another place makes it clear that the institutions in which the intern period may be spent include, subject to certain safeguards, approved health centres.
Before a doctor begins his intern service he will be put on a provisional register. This will enable him to discharge the duties of a registered medical practitioner so far as is needed for him to complete his intern service, and will also make him subject, if necessary, to the appropriate disciplinary machinery.
It will obviously be some time before a day can be appointed for giving effect to the requirement of intern service. It is, for example, necessary to ensure that there are sufficient house appointments or other suitable posts for all doctors who pass their final examinations, before the requirement can be imposed; and since the intern will have to live in or conveniently near his hospital or institution, accommodation problems have to be faced. Obviously, too, some period of notice to existing students would have to be given before such a requirement could be imposed. All this will inevitably take time, and that is why the Government are so glad that they have been able to make a start now with the introduction of the Bill. It is possible that some parts of the British Isles may be ready for the introduction of the compulsory intern period before others; and the Bill makes it possible for the requirement to be introduced piecemeal for this reason in different parts of the British Isles—if that should ultimately be considered desirable.
One point of interest may be mentioned. The General Medical Council still exercises some jurisdiction in relation to the Republic of Ireland, under an agreement entered into between the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State, as it then was, in 1927. For example, doctors who pass their final examinations in the Republic are admitted on application to the General Medical Council's Register. Furthermore, the universities and Royal Colleges in the Republic appoint members to the General Medical Council. It has, therefore, been necessary to enter into consultations with the Government of the Republic to ensure that the present arrangements outlined in the Bill are acceptable to them and that they

2185
for their part would similarly be willing to amend their own law as necessary. Complete agreement between the two countries has been reached on this matter, I am glad to say, and the provisions of the Bill accord, we believe, with that agreement.
It should also be mentioned that we are not the first country to provide for the introduction of compulsory intern service. New South Wales, the Union of South Africa and many States of America already have a requirement of this kind. With some countries the General Medical Council have reciprocal arrangements; and provision is made; for newly qualified doctors from these countries who apply here for registration under these arrangements to have to show that they too have served an intern period or otherwise acquired equally extensive experience.
This provision, too, it may well be necessary to apply at different times to different countries. New South Wales and the Union of South Africa are already prepared for the introduction of such a requirement; other countries with whom we have reciprocal relations are not yet ready and some time for consultation and, if necessary, adjustments will have to be given.
There is a further provision in the Bill for the visitation of medical schools. The Bill empowers the General Medical Council to appoint visitors to visit places where medical students are taught. This, again, is in accordance with the views of the Goodenough Committee as expressed in chapter 16 of their Report. Hitherto the General Medical Council have only been able to appoint visitors and inspectors of examinations, whose duty it has been to report as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of these examinations. In fact, however, the standard of professional practice obviously depends more on the teaching given in the medical schools than on any control that the Council can exercise by visiting and inspecting these examinations.
I think that that will be clear to hon. Members who have given their time to the matter, because the general standard in the schools will have a profound effect on whether or not the intern period will be advantageous. Accordingly, the powers of the Council are being widened to enable them to visit the actual places where medical students are taught and to report on the training actually given. As the Goodenough Committee said:
2186
"The regular inspection of medical schools should contribute to the maintenance of good standards and should prove helpful to the schools."
There is power to give directions to the General Medical Council in connection with the arrangements made for visitations. This power is to be exercised by the Privy Council. The House will realise that, in this matter, we have been very careful all the time to ensure that any influence over the academic side of medicine should be exercised by authorities like the Privy Council and the General Medical Council and not directly by the Government. Here, as in the National Health Service Act itself, I have been particularly scrupulous to see that there is no governmental intervention of any sort with academic medicine. We believe that the General Medical Council and the university authorities should have no difficulty in making arrangements so that there should be some agreement as to these inspections. This particular provision in the Bill requires no long advance administrative arrangements, and will come into operation immediately.
The second purpose of the Bill is to alter the constitution of the General Medical Council. There are now 39 members of the Council, and, under the provisions of the Bill, this number is increased to 47. At the moment, the number of Crown members is five, and under the new constitution it will be eight. The number of members elected by the medical profession is seven, and the new number will be 11. The members appointed by the universities, medical corporations and Royal Colleges is 27, and will become 28. I am glad to say that the Royal College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians is added to the number of Royal Colleges now represented on the Council.
One reason why the strength of the General Medical Council has been increased is because everybody concerned in this matter believes that it is desirable to give the profession's own representatives a fuller say in the work of the Council as a whole, and to increase the total number of elected members also gives a wider choice of such members to sit on the proposed Medical Disciplinary Committee.
The Bill as introduced in the House of Lords provided for an increase from

2187
seven to nine, but the House of Lords agreed to an Amendment which brought the number up to 11—and also provided specifically for a Welshman to be included among the 11. I myself consider that this was a work of supererogation, because I am quite certain that a Welshman would have found his way there anyway, since so many are distinguished members of the profession. There has also been a desire that there should be an increase in the number of secular members of the authority, and that is the reason why there has been an increase from one to three.
The third point of the Bill, and a very important one indeed, is the improvement in the disciplinary machinery and procedure of the General Medical Council. Obviously, a Council of 47 is not suitable to act as a whole as a disciplinary authority. It is proposed, therefore, in Clause 14, to entrust decisions on professional discipline to a new medical disciplinary committee of the Council, which will have 19 members, including the President of the Council, at least six elected members and at least two laymen.
By an Amendment made in the House of Lords, the Bill provides that cases should normally be dealt with, not by the full Committee of 19—which is itself rather large—but by between five and nine of the members, including at least one layman. The President of the Council will, however, still be entitled to arrange for the full committee to deal with a particular case, if he thinks circumstances warrant this.
Provision is made for evidence to be taken on oath and for witnesses to be subpoenaed. There is no similar power at present, and, as a result it has, for example, often not been possible to secure the attendance of necessary witnesses. This change in the law is exceedingly important from the point of view of the doctors. A doctor whose name is erased from the Register is given a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, either on law or on fact or against sentence, and this I am sure hon. Members will realise, is an exceedingly important improvement on the existing situation.
The Government considered whether the appeal should lie to the High Court,
2188
to the Court of Session, or to the High Court of Northern Ireland, according to the nature of the case, but we came to the conclusion, after looking at this very carefully indeed, that there would be likely to be three different appeal standards, and, also, that it would be very difficult to find a wholly satisfactory definition of a Scottish or an Irish case, and it was agreed that it should be exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
There is also provision for rules to be made, both for the procedure of the disciplinary committee—rules made by the committee and subject to the Privy Council's approval—and as to the functions which the legal assessors to the Council will exercise. All these changes will come into operation on a day to be appointed. It is necessary to have a provision for an appointed day because the various rules that need to be made will require careful consideration and discussion with all interests involved.
The fourth provision is to increase the fees payable for registration in the Medical Register. At present, the maximum fee which the General Medical Council can charge is £5. This was originally fixed in 1858. The functions of the General Medical Council, carried on without imposing any charge on public funds, have obviously much increased since then, and the income from registration fees, the main source of the Council's income and other sources, has become quite insufficient to enable the Council to pay its way.
Accordingly, the Bill now provides for a fee to be fixed of a maximum of 11 guineas for full registration, including five guineas for provisional registration when that is operative. There is power for the Privy Council to vary the maxima by Order. This provision for increased fees will take effect on the passing of the Act.
There are also a number of matters of some importance, but not of sufficient importance to warrant their mention during a Second Reading Debate. For instance, hon. Members will note that there is a provision in the Bill which makes it impossible for Members of Parliament who are members of the General Medical Council to receive fees. This is to make it quite clear that we are not

2189
creating any offices of profit under the Crown, and, therefore, we shall not in this instance find it necessary to bring forward saving legislation.
Dr. Morgan: Why?
Mr. Bevan: For the obvious reason that it would not be right for hon. Members to receive fees for any attendances at the Council's meetings. They can draw subsistence allowances and other expenses, but they cannot take any fees, no matter how small. Otherwise, legislation would be necessary to exempt the person concerned from the most fierce penalties which he might have incurred. The provision in the Bill makes sure that that shall not happen.
I have endeavoured to be as short as possible, because I know that we are now considering this Bill against the background of an exciting day, and that hon. Members who wish to speak will be anxious to give the Bill a smooth and speedy passage. With those remarks I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Dr. Walter Elliot.
7.49 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for that little slip which you made in calling me "Dr." when summoning me to address the House, because it shows that there is a certain association of ideas in your mind which perhaps enables me to speak with considerable sympathy on the purposes of this Bill, though I am afraid that I have long since passed out of any immediate knowledge of the objects which it seeks to secure.
We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health for having brought forward this Bill and for his clear and succinct explanation of its provisions. I think the Bill is one to which the House will certainly give a ready assent, and, although a certain amount of consideration may have to be given to it in Committee, I do not think it should be prolonged. Like the Minister I have sometimes had experience of Bills which received the unanimous assent of the House on Second Reading, and met with general good will, but which somehow proceeded to attract a great deal more
2190
attention and discussion than matters which raised points of controversy and which could be summarily disposed of. But I do not think that will be the case here.
As the Minister has said the purposes of the Bill are fourfold. They are improvements in machinery in relation to the General Medical Council and a very important alteration in medical education. The latter, of course, is more important than all the others put together because the alterations in medical education will affect every graduate, whereas the disciplinary powers of the General Medical Council will affect only a very small proportion of those on the Register.
Dealing with them first, I think we would say that the second, third and fourth purposes which the Minister mentioned—the machinery purposes—are unexceptionable. It is interesting to note that the alteration of the General Medical Council will give elected representatives a larger representation. I hope, by the way, that consideration of this Bill will help to dispel—I cannot say that it will entirely dispel—the popular superstition that the General Medical Council is in some way or other the same thing as the British Medical Association, and that tremendous disciplinary powers are handed over to what is, after all, a trade union.
That is a matter which other trade unions bring forward as something which shows the great power of the bourgeois union as against the craft or industry unions of which they are members. Of course, the General Medical Council is in no way a trade union as, indeed, can be seen from the large number of persons appointed to it from outside, which any trade union would look upon with the gravest suspicion, and would probably insist upon dispensing with altogether. It is one of the composite bodies.
The great profession of medicine is one in which Governments have always taken a certain interest and over which they have always demanded the exercise of a certain authority, although it may be said that even the fact of being inscribed on the Medical Register gives one remarkably few privileges or powers. Anyone is free to exercise medicine without being inscribed on the Register at ill, and it is in no way possible to refuse permission to anyone to practise medicine

2191
in this country. But the General Medical Council, first of all, is to have a certain alteration in its representation. We can examine that when we come to it on the Committee stage.
With regard to the third purpose, the disciplinary machinery of the General Medical Council, I am sure that we all welcome the increase in its powers which the Minister has mentioned—the power to subpoena and to take evidence on oath—because miscarriages of justice have taken place in the past owing to the lack of those powers. As regards the right of appeal, I think we are all glad that this right has been given. I am not certain that we shall not have to examine more closely, when we come to the Committee stage, whether, in fact, the solution here determined of an appeal direct to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the appropriate court of appeal to have chosen.
I do not think there are many precedents for an appeal lying directly to this august body, and whether it is the proper one to decide on questions of law, fact, and sentence I think we shall need to explore further at a later stage of the Bill. The Minister said that the Government had examined the question of using the High Court, and that the difference in standards might arise. I do not think that is a very grave danger, but his other reason—that there might be some difficulty in deciding what was actually an appropriate case to remit to the appropriate authority—had more substance in it. We shall be very glad to look at the arguments on that point.
As for the final purpose, I fear it is one without which no piece if legislation nowadays, and very few undertakings, are complete—that whatever a thing cost before, it should cost more after we have handled it. It is true that there are very few charges which have gone unincreased since 1858, and no doubt it is necessary that this one, too, should fall into line. It is a remarkable tribute to our forefathers that they were able to set up a body with such adequate provision for its expenses as to carry it on without any change since 1858 to the present day.
As for the stipulation of removing the membership of the General Medical
2192
Council from that of an office of profit, I am sure that is a good thing, although I think it would be better if at an early date the Government could find it possible to bring in legislation tidying up this matter of offices of profit, which is extremely complicated just now. Nothing is more irritating than to find that some trivial and almost nominal acceptance of a fee, or of the possibility of a fee, has made it technically illegal for an hon. Member to sit in this House, I think we had to pass legislation for the purpose of saving two hon. Members of this House from such a consequence, and I believe that one of them is sitting in the Chamber now.
If, then, we can deal with those matters—as I am sure we can—without any great delay, it leaves open for consideration at a little greater length the main purpose of the Bill, which is the improvement of medical education. Here the very important step has been taken of recommending that an additional period of a year should take its place in the medical curriculum. The danger is that the curriculum may be unduly prolonged, that the final period may be projected further and further away until it comes to a period in a man's life where he can no longer take full advantage of it. In some ways, the curriculum is already overloaded. The masses of information which the medical student has to acquire, and which were appropriate in other days, are not, I think anyone would agree, appropriate today. A pruning knife ought to be applied to this tree, otherwise it may cease to bear fruit altogether and merely develop into a proliferation of foliage and branches.
In the second professional examination, a minute acquaintance with every aspect of anatomy is called for, which I think is carried far beyond what any student will remember, even for a short period, after he has once successfully satisfied the examiners. Anyone having to deal with those intricate matters would certainly read them up very closely beforehand, and no one would trust to the casual recollections of his student days. Medical education should constantly be re-modelled to suit the necessities of the time. As a medical student, I do not think I ever saw a live man without any clothes on. I saw a great number of

2193
dead men or skinned men, but the number of dead or skinned men which a medical student sees is, in practice, very small compared with the number of people he sees who are alive, and whose skin covers their flesh and bones. The whole great question of surface anatomy was long ago greatly needed. The danger is of these things piling on top of each other instead of substitutions taking place. I am sure it would be to the advantage of the students and the patients who subsequently come under their care, if this could be done.
I yield to no one in my admiration of the training which the great hospitals give young graduates in their houseman-ship. Practically all the medical men here have put in a year as housemen after they qualified. The point is, however, that responsibility is never felt on one's shoulders to the same extent when all the apparatus and resources of a great hospital are around one, as when one is starting to grapple with the multifarious emergencies of private practice with one's own hands and knowledge. When I went to my first locum, I heard the bell ring with considerable trepidation.
Mr. Bevan: Probably the patients rang the bell with equal trepidation.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I trust that I concealed my apprehensions from them. In fact, I thought I did so fairly successfully, because the skill of the doctor is shown, not merely by his professional qualifications, but by the confidence he can impart to those under his care. It is an essential part of all successful medicine that the doctor radiates an aura of confidence, although how far I was able to do that, heaven only knows. The great hospital has the power to buoy up a man to an extent he never realises until he leaves and tries to tackle the problems on his own.
It is said that a new set of posts will need to be created to give greater responsibility to the housemen. These posts will be difficult to get, and an appropriate responsibility will be a difficult thing to devolve upon them. We all remember the "Hospital Sonnets" of W. E. Henley and his description of ward sisters, the new style and the old. "The Chief himself is half afraid of her." If the great Lister himself said that he was half afraid
2194
of them, how much more will it be said of graduates newly entering the hospital wards.
The power and authority of women, both inside and outside this House, we all know, but the power and authority of a woman who has had long professional experience is something terrific, and the support she gives to a man who thinks he may be going to make some mistake is impossible to exaggerate. I am sure that this extra year will need to be looked at with very great care, to make sure that a sense of responsibility is really developed and that it is not merely used as a further occasion for learning.
The Minister says that he is about to bring this Measure into operation on an appointed day, and that it may not be possible to bring it in simultaneously all over the country. In passing, may I say that I am not clear from the Bill, or from the Minister's explanations, what is the relation to the Republic of Ireland on this point. Is it possible for a graduate of the Republic of Ireland to come and practise in this country without any reciprocal requirements, that is to say, is it now necessary for a graduate of the Republic of Ireland to do a year in a hospital?
Mr. Bevan: As I understand it, the answer is "Yes." If it is a requirement for doctors on the general Register here to have a year intern, we shall have to require the same thing for doctors trained in the Republic.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am glad to hear that, but I do not see it in the Bill, although perhaps the Minister can point it out to me during a later stage. If it is not so prescribed, then I think it will need to be prescribed.
Mr. Bevan: We cannot write into our law an obligation in regard to a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, but we understand that they will write into their law a similar provision.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I quite understand that we cannot write anything into their law, but we can lay it down as a requirement for admission to the Register that those coming from outside shall not be subjected to less rigorous terms than doctors in this country. I think we can lay that down without any appearance

2195
of discrimination. It is simply part of the new system we are bringing in here.
The provisions for the operation of this new requirement will be difficult and will need to be carefully scrutinised. I trust that from time to time it will be possible for the Minister to inform us how they are progressing in regard to bringing these things into force. Apart from that, I am sure that all my hon. Friends welcome the Bill and will do their best to give it an easy passage.
Its purpose is to maintain and improve the standards of medical education in this country, purposes which all of us have very deeply at heart. The high standard of medical education, which transcends national boundaries, is very carefully guarded and is one of the glories of our country. We have maintained as high a medical education and professional conduct as anyone in the world. Admission to the Medical Register of this country is something highly prized in every country in the world.
I had the privilege during the Whitsun Recess of visiting one of the newest professional schools in the Empire, the new medical school that is coming into existence in Nigeria, the University College of Nigeria at Ibadan. An attempt is being made to bring into existence in the heart of Africa a professional school which will take men from entry to complete graduation, giving them an education which will enable them, forthwith, to enter the Medical Register of this country. That is a high ideal and something greatly prized by the students entering upon their courses. It is a school of the London University. The professional examinations are of the highest standard, and are supervised by external examiners coming from this country. It is to be in all respects fully equal to the education that can be gained in medical schools in this country. And so, we are legislating for them as well as for our own people.
Many people far and wide, will be intimately affected by what we do tonight. It is a great trust that we have to administer, and I am sure that we shall all set ourselves to the task of administering it wisely and well. For that reason, we are very glad the Bill has been brought forward, and we shall give it our close and sympathetic consideration during all its stages.
8.10 p.m.
Dr. Morgan: I must oppose this Bill. I cannot be a hypocrite; I cannot get up in the House of Commons-with certain honest intentions, and then deliver a speech—nor can I listen to the speeches of other hon. Members—which I know to be not related to the true facts of the situation from the point of view of the reform of the General Medical Council, a question with which I have lived and which I have studied for nearly 40 years.
What are the chief functions of the General Medical Council, apart from the trivialities of deciding such things as whether there should be payment for a job, or considering antediluvian ideas of reform? There are three functions attached to the General Medical Council. First is that of the supervision of the British Pharmacopoeia—supervision of the dosages and preparation of drugs that are used in the course of treatment by physicians. We need not spend much time on that, because that is the one function of the General Medical Council which has been very well done—excellently done. No tribute can be too high for the men who have the supervision of treatment from that point of view.
The second function is medical education, and that is bad—very bad. There should be in this country a one-portal system of entering into the profession on one fixed standard, so that everybody—every medical man—who comes into the profession should pass a qualifying examination, and enter the profession through one door only, so that he can be recognised throughout Great Britain and the world as being of a certain standard.
Now we have different standards of examination. There are not only those of the great university schools. Again, one cannot pay too high a tribute to them. There are also the undemocratic bodies not of great concern to the public but only to themselves. Take the London Society of Apothecaries. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) tell me that the L.S.A., as an independent society of apothecaries—as they were called in the old days, and as they are still called—should be entitled to have an examination of the lowest type—or, as I should not say the lowest type, of a minor type—to enter universities, by which a man may

2197
be qualified? Should there not be one fixed portal for medicine through which they should have to pass—one examination, one portal; and then, if a man wants to specialise, letting him do so by postgraduate courses? Surely that should be the way.
Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Does the hon. Member suggest that the Society of Apothecaries does not carry out its functions properly, or that the examinations are valueless?
Dr. Morgan: I say that the standard of medical education and of the knowledge asked for, is too low for qualification. In any case, that does not affect my first principle, that instead of having a variety of examinations there should be one governing professional qualifying examination, with an examiner—not examiners from the schools—to see that every man has a fair deal. It should be a non-judicial examination, although when I say "non-judicial" I do not mean non-medical. I mean that the entrants into the profession should be properly taught.
Many of these organisations, like the colleges, take no responsibility for training. They are purely examining bodies. I think that when we come to require a medical curriculum we should take note of the bodies which make no provision for medical education themselves, but are purely examining bodies, sometimes claiming revenue from those whom they deliberately flout.
Mr. Somerville Hastings: No.
Dr. Morgan: My hon. Friend must not say "No."
Mr. Bevan: We are not, in this Bill, dealing with the medical curriculum at all. That is entirely outside the scope of the Bill. I am not saying that my hon. Friend is not perfectly entitled to make his point. With great respect, I think he is quite in order, but it is hardly a charge to be laid against me that I have not included, in a modest Bill, provisions for changes in the curriculum. Indeed. I am not quite certain that I have the statutory right so to do.
Dr. Morgan: I know the Minister may think I seem rash and hasty. Perhaps we could discuss these things outside afterwards. However, I think, with great respect, I am in order. I hope I will be
2198
left alone, because I feel very strongly about this. I know that the ordinary run of the profession are concerned about keeping up the dignity of the profession, but I feel very strongly on this point. One of the functions of the General Medical Council is the supervision of medical education, and it has the right to represent advice to the medical schools about what subjects should be included in the curriculum.
The Trades Union Congress is very keen on medical education. The T.U.C. wants the subject of industrial diseases, which is of great importance to the working class, taught in the medical schools. It maintains that if there is one subject in which tuition should be given throughout the whole of the medical curriculum, it is the subject of the relationship between occupation and health. The T.U.C., which, in an organised way, represents 5,500,000 workers, some in very difficult jobs, and jobs where grave risks are run of injury to health or limb—the T.U.C. says it would be of advantage to the workers of the country that it should be represented, and it has asked the General Medical Council to include this subject of the relationship between occupation and health in the ordinary curriculum.
What have the medical schools done? They simply did nothing. Indeed, in only three or four of them is there an organised course of lectures—Glasgow, Manchester, Durham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne—where the subject is excellently taught through qualified professors. In none of the others, however, is there any organised course of lectures. One specialist in London, Dr. Donald Hunter, is doing excellent work in the London Hospital, where he has taught the subject The other schools did not bother about it at all.
The General Medical Council should take its courage in its hands and have a democratic body which would not have a mere constitution of only a comparatively few elected members, with the rest nominated, or brought in by the universities. These are nominated members coming from different sources. One actually comes from the Ministry of Health. He is a medical officer of health now in the Ministry of Health. Why should an officer in the Ministry be put on the General Medical Council? Why

2199
should not other Departments be entitled to representation like this?
If the Ministry of Health can have one representative, why should not the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of National Insurance be represented? They are concerned with medical matters from the point of view of industry and health in industry. Why should they not have one member each? I know Mr. Deputy-Speaker is looking at me, thinking I am not quite in order.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Gentleman is quite in order.
Dr. Morgan: That being so, I ask, from the point of view of the working class—and I appeal for support especially to Labour Members of this House—that some attention should be paid to this matter in the consideration of this Bill. It looks an innocent little Bill, but at the back of it there are great powers against the democratic administration of medicine in this country. Take the question of registration. At present, the medical course lasts six years. When a working man's son gets a scholarship his parents have to make great sacrifices for six years to get him through his school. It is now proposed to add another year. Why?
Mr. Hastings: He gets paid for the last year.
Dr. Morgan: He gets paid for the last year when he is working in a hospital, but how does he know he will get into a hospital? There are not sufficient institutions in the country to keep all the doctors that will come out. I am being interrupted in an attempt to put me off my guard. This is a quite deliberate act by certain people in the House who want to stop me talking on a subject which is of vital importance to the public.
Mr. Hastings: As a matter of personal explanation, I merely interrupted to correct what I thought was an inaccuracy by my hon. Friend.
Dr. Morgan: If I were guilty of as many inaccuracies as some consultants in some hospitals, including many with which I have been associated, although not the one with which I am associated now, I would keep quiet and say nothing
2200
about this. There is provisional registration on a qualified examination by any of these examining bodies after six years, and this Bill adds another year. A doctor who has been provisionally qualified and registered will have to wait for a year in an approved institution. Who will approve that institution? What evidence will be submitted for approval, and from where? There will be different standards and different types of institutions.
Suppose a man does not want to go into general or even consulting practice. Suppose he wants to be a specialist, or to go in for medical literature to become, perhaps, editor of the "British Medical Journal." Is he still to be forced to attend for another year before registration? Suppose he wants to go into medical research under the State, or in a university. Must he waste another year on a subject in which he is not interested? Suppose he decides to go in for tropical medicine and to become a specialist. What institution will he go to? There are three—it might even be four—two of which are in Liverpool and London. Does it not seem a little absurd, with, at present, no variation in the Bill, that those men who do not desire to do clinical work, either as consultants or general practitioners, should have to study a subject in which they are not interested for this extra year. Suppose a man wants to specialise in leprosy, and become a leprologist; suppose he does not want to stay in England but wants to go to India, or Nigeria, or South Africa, to follow his desires. Is that man to be asked to spend a year in a hospital handling cases in which he is not interested?
This is the weakness of the Bill we have before us today. During the passage of the National Health Act I heard even Members of the Government sometimes making statements in order to meet the Opposition—such as that hospitals like Guys were costing only £160,000 a year, though the latest accounts show that it will cost £1½ million. Before making statements of that kind we must get down to the real figures, and go into the real background to the Bill. I say that on the question of medical education there should be one system and standard; everything should be brought within this province, and we should decide so to amend the Bill.

2201
I should like the Bill to be taken back and re-considered. I suspected its origins in another place, and I now suspect them still more. This extended registration will hurt the working boy whose parents will have to keep him for another year. With regard to the British Pharmacopœia, on which we want the G.M.C. to have a stranglehold, and with regard to medical education, I say that this Bill is a rotten Bill; it is a Conservative Bill. The composition of the General Medical Council should include no nominee, or very few in comparison with the elected members. It should be a purely professional body with certain statutory duties to perform.
I am ashamed to say—and I hope the Government will pardon me for saying it—that this Government, with its particular political opinion, recognising the T.U.C. as the big organised body for industrial workers, has not yet approached the T.U.C. for its views on a matter of such importance to the workers, and particularly the industrial workers, on the question of medical education and conditions. Even now, the conditions in certain workshops are disgraceful. Let any hon. Member go into any firebox on our railways and see the conditions of heat, steam, temperature and pressure under which men have to work—men who, because the railways were deliberately kept out of the Factory Acts, have no facilities for keeping themselves in good health by cleaning themselves after their work.
It is things like that in the field of health to which this House should be devoting itself, and not passing trivial Bills which do not get to the bottom of the problem, which do not mean business, but which merely play for respectability in a superior-class way in a matter which affects the health of every working-man in the country.
8.27 p.m.
Dr. Hill: I shall perhaps be forgiven if I do not follow the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) in all his arguments and assertions, but I should like to comment briefly on his three main points. He argued, in the first place, that there should be a common portal of entry to the medical profession, ignoring the fact that the rôle of the
2202
General Medical Council is to secure a minimum standard, as applied by all licensing bodies, which are left to apply a standard in excess of the minimum standard if they so choose. High as is my regard for the university to which he and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) belong, I, for one, as a graduate of a university on the plains of East Anglia, do not wish to see a levelling-up or a levelling-down of the qualification awarded by his university to reach the level of the one awarded by my own or any other university.
Dr. Morgan: It is the highest in Great Britain.
Dr. Hill: With his second point, on the rôle of industrial medicine in the medical curriculum, I have a great deal of sympathy, but on that he should address himself to that part of the Bill which strengthens the power of the General Medical Council in visting medical schools, and in so enabling the General Medical Council to exercise a stronger influence over those schools.
I believe his third point to be based on a misapprehension. If he is right, I share a good deal of his view. But I hope it is not right to assume that, as a result of this new and important arrangement, which I warmly welcome, under which there is first qualification and then registration, this is merely a year added to the curriculum. If he is right in assuming that, then I believe that the full purposes of this Bill will not be served in relation to medical education. I regard this as a most important change and as a most important feature of the Bill, and I welcome this arrangement under which at a certain stage towards the end of the student's career examinations are out of the way and the man or woman is enabled to assume a post of some responsibility under supervision; is enabled to have a full year, or part of a year, without the prospect of examinations looming ahead, and with such responsibility as can safely be given. I sincerely hope that is not planned as an additional year to the medical curriculum.
I hope that this Bill will lead to a reexamination of medical education. I hope that it will lead to the elimination of some of the unnecessary parts of medical education and to the integration,

2203
if I may use a laboured word, of medical education. I hope, too, that these new posts—and I am glad that the Minister used a relatively new word for this country "internship"—will be designed for the purpose; not house appointments, as we know them today, multiplied for the purpose of this year, but new posts created in relation to the function they have to fulfil in medical education. Indeed, it has been suggested in some quarters that a good way of spending this last year would be for provisionally registered medical practitioners attached to a hospital to be allotted patients on their coming to hospital for treatment and to follow those persons throughout the whole of their treatment back to their homes, with a measure of responsibility for that treatment.
The essence of the point that I want to make is that we shall get the full fruits of this important new development only if that year is related to a revised medical curriculum and special posts and the right kind of responsibility are created for the purpose. I am glad—and I am sure that the Minister will agree—that certain changes were made in another place to leave elbow-room to enable these requirements to be introduced in stages in relation to the number of posts which are created. It would be fantastic if in fact there were not sufficient posts or if there were a waiting period so as unduly to prolong registration. I regard this part of the Bill as of unusual importance and as affording an opportunity to the General Medical Council, which I believe they will take, to re-mould medical education and to secure the creation of the right kind of posts for this phase of responsibility.
The only other aspect of the Bill on which I should like to comment is that dealing with the disciplinary provisions. I am glad that discipline is to be a matter not for the Council as a whole but for a committee specially established for the purpose, because I think that will lead the Council to think more and more about medical education and save them having so much of their time taken up by disciplinary work. In Committee on this Bill there will be an opportunity to look at certain parts of the disciplinary machinery. I do not like the arrangement under which one committee of the Council—the penal cases committee—can
2204
decide whether there exists sufficient evidence to justify the investigation of a case. I do not like to think that any person involved in the original sorting out and assessment of cases may in fact be a member of the medical disciplinary committee.
Dr. Morgan: Why not let us say that a charge needs investigation and let there be a Clause in the Bill by which the whole thing is then referred to the Privy Council, who should appoint two judges with an independent chairman as assessors?
Dr. Hill: The difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself is that he detests this Bill and I like it very much. He prefers lawyers, and lawyers only, to deal with the disciplinary difficulties of doctors. I prefer these problems to be dealt with by doctors, with a lay element as is provided in the Bill.
There are other points which will be raised in Committee. I notice there is a minimum number of elected representatives to be on the committee of 19, which is the disciplinary committee. But there is no provision for any such minimum of elected representatives among the nine which will normally form the committee for hearing any case.
The last point I want to mention involves returning to the point that the hon. Member for Warrington made earlier, for it may lead to some confusion if it is left unanswered. He asked, what is to be the use of this year between provisional and full registration to a man who is going to be a medical journalist, or an expert on tropical diseases, or a surgeon or a physician. The answer is that that year is not merely something grafted on to part of the medical curriculum. It is a part of it. There is the further practical point that the expert on tropical diseases might get weary of tropical diseases. The medical journalist might get weary of his journalism and decide to enter into practice in one or other of its clinical forms. It would be wrong to have two standards for the care of patients, and he knows full well that many men who go into the field of research, change their minds and subsequently find themselves engaged in the medical care of patients.
I join with my right hon. and gallant Friend in welcoming this Bill, in welcoming the opportunity it presents for

2205
re-casting medical education, and in saying that, with such changes as may be thought wise to make in Committee, this is more than a modest contribution to medical education. It is a Bill of a modest size, but it seems to me that it makes a substantial qualitative contribution to medical education, which in the end will bear fruit in a raised standard of medical services, preventive and curative, for the people of this country.
8.38 p.m.
Mrs. Jean Mann: I hesitate to intervene in a Debate of this kind, where I am surrounded by so many members of the medical profession. I would merely offer as an excuse for my intervention that I have provided quite a number of doctors from my own family, and have studied them very closely from their first year until they eventually took their Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons.
I want to speak on that part of the Bill that deals with the one year. I think it could be amended to give us something better. I deplore the fact that it is another year, because there are very few medical students who manage to get through their courses in orderly progression from year to year. Often the most brilliant student can be unlucky in the final, and, willy-nilly, have to wait for a further six months. The public fail to realise, I believe, that the faculty itself lays down a very high standard for entrants to study medicine. I have found, time and again, with at least three of my children that the ordinary school-leaving certificate, the highest, was not accepted by the faculty. The children had to sit again another examination either for physics or for mathematics or for something that the school certificate has excluded.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said that the curriculum was overloaded and so, I believe, did the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I would like to ask any of the doctors here which part they would throw overboard, beginning at the first year. Would they cut down on physics, chemistry, biology, zoology or anatomy? The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove indicated that he would, yet it is recorded in the biography of Lord Lister that he took seven years, I think it was, for anatomy. And James
2206
Bridie the playwright, one of whose plays is "The Anatomist," also confesses to the years that it took to get his second professional anatomy and physiology. Surely neither of those could be dropped, or materia medica, or any of the clinical subjects that follow in the later years.
The curriculum may be overloaded, but the number of "ploughs" in the finals indicates that there is a curriculum overloaded that could very well be stretched out. There is the public aspect of this matter. The overloading from the public point of view at the moment is 4,000 patients per doctor. That is the overloading I would like to see something done in the Bill to help out with that situation. The proposals in the Bill will hinder rather than help. The Bill lays down—
Mr. Bevan: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I would not like it to go out that there are 4,000 patients per doctor in this country. It is nothing like an average of 4,000 patients per doctor. Actually, the maximum is 4,000 patients per doctor.
Mrs. Mann: I am not sure that that is so, because at Question Time the Secretary of State for Scotland was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Trades-ton (Mr. Rankin) whether he thought he could reduce this 4,000 to 3,800. [HON. MEMBERS: "As a maximum."] Well, as a maximum, but the Secretary of State for Scotland could not promise any particular date for reducing it. Even 3,800 as a maximum is far too many.
I want now to look at the six months that is proposed to be added for each medical graduate. Six months would be insufficient for a graduate who is to specialise. I do not know, from my own experience, any doctors who have not taken far more than these six months. It is not so necessary for those entering general practice. I speak from experience, from a very close experience, of watching the studies, indeed with my heart in my mouth watching the result of the examinations and then the development afterwards. Here is what I found. Those of my family who go in for specialisation, require more than six months in a hospital. They require perhaps 10 years. Others who are going in for general practice find that the six months is useless. They are clerks.

2207
Just take the set-up of a hospital. A young houseman or housewoman has to choose a ward. They probably reckon that general practice is as great a specialisation as anything, and I agree. The student has to serve six months in the ear, nose and throat ward. The doctor may have to serve his six months in orthopaedics, clinical medicines or clinical surgery just as a clerk, whereas the doctors outside are short of trainee assistants and are waiting for young men and women.
Why not amend the Bill and let the registration be not merely in a hospital but under a general practitioner? I know nothing better than that a young person should serve under the eager supervision of a man who has been serving the public as a general practitioner year in year out. I think the method is that the young doctor goes round to the patients one day and the old doctor goes round the next day. What a grand education that is for a young trainee.
Why not extend these provisions so that graduates in medicine who are going in for general practice may register provisionally with a doctor of experience in general practice? Otherwise, I think that the six months or a year as a houseman is just a waste of time and is not helping the general practitioners who are overloaded at the moment. I hope that the Clause will be re-examined and that the Bill will be amended during the Committee stage.
8.47 p.m.
Mr. Fort: One of the reasons why it has been possible to give this Bill such an easy passage this evening is that we have been guided in so many of our thoughts by the improvements made in another place to the original Bill. The reason why someone who is not of the profession, like myself, wishes to speak, particularly on the clauses about medical training, is that those of us who have had training in technical fields similar to those in medicine often make comparisons between the training we had and that which our friends who are doctors have had.
It seems to me that one of the noticeable features of a doctor's training and his practice subsequently is that it is the most curious mixture of science and art. There is almost an art, based upon the judgment
2208
of a particular set of circumstances, in diagnosing the condition of each patient, and there is certainly science in so far as doctors are trained, like those of us who take chemistry, physics and biology, in measurement and in comparison and then can use those methods in diagnosis and treatment. Medicine never looks likely to become an exact science in the way that physics and chemistry are, and this parallel course of science and experience must therefore continue.
The purpose of the first six Clauses of the Bill will be to give a better opportunity to those who are training to be doctors to gain the experience which they must have if they are to face their patients with confidence, and, also, as most of us in the Chamber at the moment are patients, if we are to face the new doctors with confidence.
With regard to the question of medical students spending up to an extra year on gaining clinical experience in hospitals or health centres, there are certain practical features about which perhaps the Under Secretary of State for Scotland will give us further details? First, will it be possible for the hon. Lady to tell us what are the chances of there being enough space in the hospitals of England for all the house appointments envisaged first by the Goodenough Report and now by this Bill? Will it be possible to administer the extra year's planning so that the interns will be able to have 20 or 30 beds in conformity with the Goodenough recommendations?
Then there is the question raised in that Report of free board and lodging for the interns. In implementing the Measure, will provision be made for that, and if so, what sums of money are likely to be involved? Furthermore, will the hon. Lady be able to say anything about the rates of remuneration apart from saying, as was said in another place, that the rate for the job would be paid? These are important matters because we need to know whether we are talking about an improvement in medical education which will take place within the next two years or so, or whether we are looking forward to something which will only bear fruit within the next decade.
We are all grateful that, at long last, this Bill clears up the ambiguity about doctors trained in Ireland because we

2209
know that conditions would have been even worse than they are at present if we had not had the advantage of drawing on doctors from Ireland. It is because we on this side of the House think that the Bill is of great importance in medical education that all of us commend it on its way to Second Reading and will look forward to speeding it through its later stages.
8.53 p.m.
Dr. Broughton: This is a short Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has described it as a modest Bill but, nevertheless, it is important. It is of considerable interest to members of the medical profession because of the effect it is intended to have on the doctors of the future. When I say that my opinion of it differs from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) it will not be the first time that doctors have disagreed. I cannot share the views he holds on the need for uniformity, but I am sure that he and I are united in a sincere desire to improve medical services still further so that patients may receive the best treatment possible.
I welcome the Bill because it aims at raising the standards of medical efficiency and conduct. That part of it which relates to the General Medical Council and to its medical disciplinary committee I see as designed to maintain a high standard of ethics, and to be fair and just both to the profession and to the public.
The part of the Bill on which I wish to speak mainly is that which affects medical education by requiring proof of experience before the granting of full registration. The benefits to be derived from a period of post-graduate work under supervision in hospital are no recent discovery. We have known of them for a long time. Many of us did this in the past; more are doing it today. But there have been a number of doctors who have been denied that valuable experience by lack of funds.
Now that all intern post-graduate appointments carry with them remuneration, the financial obstacle has been removed from the path leading to greater proficiency, and I am sure that a period of service for every doctor will raise the standard of subsequent professional work.
2210
The Goodenough Committee, which examined the question, were firmly of the opinion that the period ought not to be less than 12 months. It might appear, therefore, that we seek to add yet another year to the course of medical training, as several hon. Members have already mentioned. That is only correct, however, in so far as it affects a minority of students, because the majority of newly qualified men and women have, in their desire to gain useful experience, already undertaken post-graduate studies in hospitals and the majority of medical students have the firm intention of doing so.
I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health state that no injustice would be inflicted upon those students who are undergoing their course of training, who, for one reason or another, do not desire to have the year of post-graduate work in hospital and who began their medical duties on the understanding that they could qualify in six years.
The Bill may serve as a reminder that a course of training in medicine is a very long one, and that may lead, in turn, to a close examination of the medical curriculum. I was interested in the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), because they showed that they have applied their minds to this problem. The views which they expressed briefly are views which I share. Indeed, I wish that the Government had gone further in the Bill, because I think that the system of medical education (requires review, revision and reform.
Medicine, like other sciences, does not remain stationary, and every time that a discovery is made the medical student is given additional knowledge to absorb. It takes at least six years to qualify in medicine. The Bill seeks to make compulsory a further period of training, probably a year. The whole course is one of intensive training, and is becoming more so. The medical curriculum must be examined and pruned.
When the Minister of Health, the General Medical Council and the examining bodies bring their minds to bear upon this problem I hope they will realise that a sound knowledge of medicine does not of itself make a good doctor. The

2211
expression "The family doctor" does not only mean the family's doctor, but also the family's friend and adviser on all manner of matters.
I regret very much that the universities have found it necessary to insist upon new entrants passing the first M.B. examination before admission, because it means that boys and girls have to begin the study of science in their early 'teens and to concentrate upon it alone for many years throughout the long and arduous course of medical training. I hope that the medical curriculum will soon be revised in such a manner as to allow the schoolboy to learn more about the arts, and possibly classics, before going to a university to embark upon years of intensive scientific study. I suggest this because I think that would provide the doctor with wider knowledge and make him still more capable of carrying the heavy burden of responsibility which is his when he enters practice.
This Bill is brought before Parliament for the purpose of improving medical training and increasing efficiency. I think it will do that. I see in its ultimate effect a better service for the patient, and for that reason I welcome it.
9.1 p.m.
Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Reginald Bennett: May I join with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and hon. Members opposite who have expressed their concern at the length of the curriculum and at the probable lengthening of it by this extra year of intern work? I cannot help feeling, however, with some confidence that a good deal of lopping is possible and that it can take place.
I can look back, not quite so far as some, upon the years I have spent in various ancillary occupations before ever I reached the clinical work of medicine, and I feel that many months of those years could have been better spent in getting ahead with medicine without prejudice to education or to one's maturity or judgment. I feel that the time spent in getting such an extremely minute knowledge of anatomy that a mass of mnemonics are required in order to carry it in one's head, is quite unnecessary, although it may be convenient to those
2212
who are to become surgeons in specialised fields.
I never found my studies of botany did me very much good in medicine. The sex life of the male fern did me no good whatever and when it came to the subject of zoology, although in my embryonic stage I resembled a dog-fish and therefore the anatomy of a dog-fish was good to learn, I cannot believe that it applied to the anatomy of the cockroach, which I had to learn in minute detail. There are many fields in which sweeping changes can be made to compensate for some of the lengthening that will be required. I had to pass an examination in divinity before I could pass my medical examination, but that did not help my clinical skill one jot or tittle.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Mind over matter?
Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: I hope we may have some assurance on this matter. Another thing which struck me is that I suppose that when we have these extra hospital posts there will be some kind of reduced status and responsibility' for interns below those of the normal house physician or house surgeon of today. Presumably these posts have considerable responsibility, or they would not be worth having, but they will not have the full responsibility of the fully qualified person; and the house-physicians and house-surgeons will be upgraded and some of their work downgraded to some of the intern postgraduate students. Can we expect that the intern will have responsibility extending to the signing of death certificates and other things which are open only to fully fledged medical practitioners?
Dr. Morgan: Once on the Register, he is entitled to sign death certificates, or birth certificates.
Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Surely he cannot sign provisional death certificates.
Dr. Morgan: I think the hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. He may be provisionally registered, but he is really legally registered and entitled to sign death certificates and birth certificates.
Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: I did not get that from a perusal of the Bill, but I am glad to find that desirable state of affairs.
There is another minor point which has occurred to me, although it is not perhaps a minor point to those concerned. The General Medical Council will be taking on the inspection of medical schools. I am sure that is a very good thing, but it has certain drawbacks in the case of some schools which are already highly organised within a university, because they can be inspected by their own university or the University Grants Committee. Are they to be liable to three forms of inspection? Furthermore, when the General Medical Council comes to inspect them, the Council, consisting as it does of members from other and possibly not even British medical schools, are the standards of those other schools to be brought to London or how are the standards to attain any homogeneity?
Another matter which has occurred to me is a rather grave affair about which I feel we shall perhaps hear more at a later stage. I refer to the question of the disciplinary powers and in particular the selection of the crime of adultery as the one type of civil case in which the General Medical Council disciplinary committee should not have power to call further evidence before pronouncing judgment on an erring doctor. I understand that criminal charges can be regarded as proved, the conviction being taken and action taken accordingly by the disciplinary committee of the General Medical Council. But adultery is a civil offence. Why when that is found proved in the divorce court, should that alone be selected as the one civil offence on which no further evidence can be offered to the General Medical Council before a decision is reached? That gives me some misgiving and I should like to hear more about it.
I would also refer to a further point affecting the graduating student. I cannot help feeling that in these days, when one's medical career and earnings are largely controlled by the State, it is a little hard on the student of all people to have to pay not only a registration fee but an increased one. He or she and his or her parents are probably the last people able to afford such moneys in these times. It
2214
is not an entrance fee to a free-for-all as it may have been in the past. This is a profession in which the earnings are to be limited, and at a time of the student's career when parents are groaning under the financial oppression, I would ask if it might not be possible for the severity of that fee to be eased.
I wish my welcome to this Bill to be added to all the others, and I feel sure that in it we have reached a milestone in medical practice.
9.8 p.m.
Mr. Somerville Hastings: Although in some respects this Bill does not go as far as I should have liked, I welcome it because it makes the education of British doctors, already the most practical in the world, even more practical. I have seen medical work in many countries in Europe on both sides of the Iron Curtain, and I am convinced that we have in this country the best general practitioners, the most widely knowledgeable doctors in Europe. The reason for that is because our education is already perhaps more practical than that of any other country. We depend less on lectures and demonstration and more upon practical examination and care of patients.
As I see it, the trouble today is that there is too sharp a division between the time when as a medical student the young doctor has very few responsibilities, and never has to make decisions, and the time when he suddenly becomes qualified and then finds that the life and death of his patients depend upon his diagnosis and sometimes even upon his treatment. I think that hon. Members of this House who are also members of the medical profession will agree that the most anxious and exacting time of their lives was not when they were waiting to make their maiden speeches, but when they first went into practice alone. I remember very well when, many years ago, without having taken an appointment at my hospital, having to wait some four months, I went into general practice as assistant to a doctor in North London, with, of course, much trepidation. But my anxiety was tremendously increased when, a few weeks after I had started, my principal suddenly announced that he proposed to take a week's holiday. I said, "What shall I do? May I call in the doctor opposite if I get into difficulties?"

2215
This was a good many years ago, before the National Health Service Act, when practice was purely competitive. He said, "No." I think he went so far as to say, "My dear idiot, that is the one thing you must not do." And so I was left alone.
I feel that the Bill is a very good thing in that it makes the division between irresponsibility and responsibility gradual. I do not believe in too early specialisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) suggested that a man might be wanting to specialise in leprosy and the care of lepers; he asked why he should take appointments in medicine in surgery. Clearly, the answer is that his patients who are lepers may suffer from medical and surgical conditions in addition to leprosy and they may require his advice accordingly.
While I accept completely the general principles of the Bill, I feel that between now and the Report stage careful thought will have to be given as to how they can be carried out. I cannot see that there is enough suitable appointments for interns to go round. There are some hospitals where the young doctor will learn, mainly, what not to do. There are other hospitals, teaching hospitals, where the physician or surgeon has drawn to him cases of a special type, and these he treats, usually by operations. Such cases may be relatively rare and though of great importance may be such that a young doctor who goes into practice may not be likely to meet many of them. Therefore, although such appointments will be very valuable for the training of specialists, I do not think they will be of much value for the general practitioner.
There are difficulties in deciding whether a young doctor's work is satisfactory and there are difficulties in the case of a physically handicapped person. What about the man who has lost the whole, or part, of his hand? He certainly cannot be an efficient house surgeon, or indeed in my opinion take an appointment as an obstretrician. Yet the Bill says that he has to serve part of his time in one of these capacities. I should like to know what is to happen to such a person. We are told, and very rightly, that service in a health centre would do just as well as service in a hospital, and I am glad of that. But at present the health centres do not exist. Moreover,
2216
while I agree that to help an efficient doctor in a health centre would be most valuable training for a general practitioner, I feel that service in a special department in a health centre should only count as training for a specialist.
There are two other points I wish to discuss. I am disappointed about the constitution of the General Medical Council. It has been recognised generally that it is safe to leave the conduct of most professions mainly in the hands of members of those professions. I do not think that the public have any cause to regret that policy. We passed in this House only a couple of years ago the Nurses Act which reorganised the General Nursing Council which deals with the education of nurses as well as the conditions of service in that profession. There we provided for 34 members, of which 17 are being elected by the nurses. Here we have the General Medical Council which the Minister has told us is to consist of 47 members, of whom only 11 are to be elected by the profession. Are doctors less responsible than nurses?
Lastly, there is the disciplinary procedure. I agree that the Bill provides for a great improvement. The right of appeal is a great advantage to doctors. But I am not quite satisfied. I should like there to be some less penalty than that of being struck off the Register. According to this Bill, if the disciplinary committee decide that a doctor must be struck off the Register for some dishonourable or undesirable conduct, the doctor cannot apply for replacement for 11 months. By that time any doctor's practice will have gone to pieces. This will mean that the doctor will have to start again and probably, with his record, he may have considerable difficulty in rehabilitating himself in the profession. Careful consideration should be given to discover whether some lesser penalty should be introduced. In spite of these weaknesses, which, I hope, will be put right on the Committee stage, I strongly commend the Bill to the House.
9.19 p.m.
Dr. Barnett Stross: I find myself in agreement with the majority of those who have welcomed this Bill although it is indeed a small, modest and unassuming Measure which does not pretend to go very far. There is nothing particularly handicapping

2217
in life about modesty. Lots of folk have shown that they can do very well even though they are somewhat small or petite, as I am sure the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will agree.
The Bill has caused some anxiety to the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan). I wondered whether he was right in denigrating and blaming it because there is not contained in it the power to compel each and every medical school to set up a chair in industrial medicine. I would have thought that every university and every medical school in the country would readily and gladly set up a chair in industrial medicine, and indeed in social medicine, too, if they had the money available, and what we have to do is to discover some way of finding the financial assistance for universities, and then we might impose the means upon them. That is a suggestion which I offer to my hon. Friend as a friend and colleague, and I hope he will consider it in that way.
It has been said that this Bill consists of two parts, educational and penal, and I quite agree that, broadly, it does fall into these two divisions. We have heard quite a lot of the qualities that will make a man into a good general practitioner, and much has been said about his capacity for accepting responsibility. Of course, I agree that this is a touchstone, but there is such a thing as having a sense of vocation, which is just as important. I remember that, when I was associated with a surgeon in my medical school days, his attitude was that three things, and only three, were needed if one was to be a good surgeon, or indeed a good medical man. One must have a sense of vocation, the heart of a lion and the hand of a lady, and I think that is obviously correct.
Without a sense of vocation, no one will accept fully the sense of responsibility in work of this type, where life and death are at stake. No one, without a sense of vocation, will put in the number of hours which only Members of Parliament and members of the medical profession are prepared to put in. Without the heart of a lion, one may shrink at times from responsibility without the umbrella and the cover of the senior man. But that is a point which has been already adequately covered by my hon. Friend
2218
who has just spoken. Without the hand of a lady, one cannot be sensitive enough to understand that the pain and suffering of the patient belongs also to oneself. Without the hand of a lady, one would not be worthy of the name of doctor.
There are certain other questions which we shall want to ask during the Committee stage, but this is not the time to discuss them at any length, and I think they can safely be left to the next stage of the Bill. There are, however, certain aspects that disturb some of us. In spite of the suggestion that there is to be a year's extra work before full qualification, the word "satisfactory" is used, and we shall want to know what is meant by "satisfactory." We would also like to know whether, if certain men and women during their training are injured or crippled, or if they fall ill, possibly with infantile paralysis, they are to be denied any opportunity of further work or of service with approved institutions. We shall want to know how long they may have to wait, and, if by any chance there are no immediate opportunities for entry, we shall want to know how long it will be before they may register. But all these are matters which we can leave to the Committee stage.
On the penal side of the Bill, I welcome the matters that are there dealt with and which fall apparently into two simple improvements. One is that there is now a court of appeal. The work of the G.M.C. in its penal aspect more closely resembles a court-martial than a court of law, and I am glad to see it suggested that, if the court-martial type is to remain, it will be improved. At any rate, the court will be smaller, and will handle cases better, in addition to which there will be greater representation by elected representatives of the profession.
The right of appeal is another and even more important change which we find here, and we are all very glad about it. Here again, on the penal aspect, there are certain changes which we hope to bring about by Amendments during the Committee stage. We must separate the judicial from the executive functions of the Council, so far as the procedure of the disciplinary committee is concerned. Let us be certain, too, that no one who has been concerned with a preliminary investigation shall sit later upon the disciplinary committee itself. It would not

2219
be reasonable for anyone who has sifted the cases to say, "I recommend this one as suitable to put before a disciplinary committee." No one who has been in that position should then sit on the disciplinary committee to give judgment on the case. There is a difference between discrimination and—I was going to say execution—judgment.
Lastly, I hope we shall be able in future to see that no action is taken against a medical man unless a formal and written complaint is sent in and can be supported by whoever has made it. I remember the first time that I ever went to Venice and looked into the lion's mouth. Some medical men have to look into the lion's mouth, the mouth that sometimes has anonymous documents dropped into it, in the same way as they used to be dropped into the mouth of the lion at Venice when people wished to inform anonymously against someone. I think that anyone who informs against a medical man or woman should be asked to support his complaint by a written document and should be called upon, if necessary, to appear to substantiate it.
Dr. Morgan: Is that enough?
Dr. Stross: At any rate, I think that would be some improvement on the situation which has existed up to now.
Dr. Morgan: I am thinking of the Hennessey case in which the charge was made by the complainant in writing, and the G.M.C. struck him off. Yet when Dr. and Mrs. Hennessey were, very wisely, advised to take an action against the complainant, they won, and the judge begged the G.M.C. not to be so silly.
Dr. Stross: That is what I have been discussing. It has been unsatisfactory, and we want to see an improvement in the future.
May I say again that, so far as it goes, this Bill is very welcome to all of us. Even if it does not go far enough, we shall do our best on the Committee stage, and it may not be the end even then.
9.29 p.m.
Mr. Linstead: At the end of this very interesting Debate there really remains very little to be said. Nevertheless, there are one or two speeches
2220
upon which I desire to comment very briefly. I think that someone during the Debate might have seized the opportunity to pay a tribute to the General Medical Council for the work they have done in the educational and disciplinary fields over a very long period of years, and in conditions of some difficulty. I have attended sessions of the General Medical Council sitting in its disciplinary capacity, and I have been amazed at the way in which an extremely clumsy machine managed to function with what certainly appeared to an onlooker to be efficiency and justice. It was not the quality of the Council which was at fault, but the difficulty of the appeal which tended, perhaps, to give it a bad name.
I think that in Committee we shall have to examine a little more carefully the full implications of this extra year or extra six months. There seems to be a certain amount of misunderstanding among members of the medical profession and Members of this House. The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) seemed to consider it would be no more than a repetition of the house posts, and to contemplate that one of those duly qualified men in the future might go straight away to a speciality for his six months. That, I take it, is quite remote from the intention in having this period. One assumes that a completely new type of post is to be created in hospitals, which will enable the young, duly qualified man to move rapidly round among different departments and to get a bird's eye view of the profession; and that it will be a period not of specialists but of general training.
I sympathise with the hon. Member who discussed the question of overloading and undue specialisation. It is something from which every profession is suffering. I feel that there is no simple answer. We cannot cut out of the curriculum of a scientific profession—and medicine, after all, is a scientific profession—any substantial amount of its basic science. As science advances so the medical practitioner, as do the specialists, must keep pace with it, and if there is to be found any answer it can be partly, I think, in the direction of the qualified practitioner relying upon specialists in other branches in professions allied to medicine for a great deal of the technical work which at present he

2221
does himself. The radiographer and the physiotherapist, for example, must have responsibility upon their shoulders. Moreover, in the teaching of the sciences more attention must be paid to making them a part of a liberal education. We dare not substitute the arts for science, because science is a necessity in the training of medical students. So, the answer is to be found in the method of training, and I believe that a scientific education can be a liberal education just as much as an education in the arts.
There is a very large number of minor points which we shall be able to deal with in Committee. I am not quite certain that we have got this situation with regard to the Irish curriculum quite clear. As I understand it, it is this: if Ireland imposes the same period as we do, then the two countries will march in step. What we are not quite clear about is the situation which arises if we impose it and the Republic of Ireland does not impose it at the same time, and I expect the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us that there is an arrangement between the two Governments for the two things to be done at the same time. If so, the difficulty disappears.
Some consideration will have to be given to the conditions in which health centres are to be approved for this period of a year's training. There are about a dozen health centres in existence at the present time, and I should think that only one of them at present is fit for the training of general practitioners. Therefore, the Minister of Health will have to turn his attention to the standards very carefully. That we shall have to look at in Committee. I think also we shall want to look at the disciplinary machine a little bit more closely. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), I am a little concerned about the position of the penal cases committee. I think that no member of the General Medical Council can at the same time be a member of the penal cases or disciplinary committees. I think that is clear. We must also be careful that the penal cases committee does not assume to itself part of the function of the disciplinary committee. By being the first sieve, it should sift out a number of cases which really ought to go on to the disciplinary committee to be determined.
2222
I also hope that the Minister will have another look at the point we raised, about a finding of fact in a case involving adultery in a matrimonial cause being binding on the Council, but no other finding of fact of the High Court in a civil case, and no other finding of the High Court in a civil case which may involve adultery in some other type of action than a matrimonial cause. It seems to me very curious that that one particular and very limited example should have been chosen for binding the General Medical Council in acceptance of facts and the hearing of further evidence. I am sure that wants looking at again.
Dr. Stross: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a difference in these cases, and that in effect the Council would constitute itself into an appeal court in certain types of divorce case if it were not to accept the facts as proved?
Mr. Linstead: I realise the argument, but I do not think we have time to go into it now. I am only saying that if a finding of the High Court in one particular type of case is to be accepted as binding, then one wants to look very carefully to find why a similar state of affairs is not to apply in other cases.
There are only three other matters to which I want to refer, and to all of them quite briefly. Personally, I welcome the introduction, for the first time in this type of legislation, of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Hitherto the High Court has been the court of appeal from the professional tribunals. Owing to constitutional changes in the Dominions, the status of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is obviously changing, and it may be a very happy innovation here to give to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council a new type of jurisdiction. Most of the professions value their association with the Privy Council, and if we can gradually substitute the Judicial Committee for the High Court as the court of appeal for professional tribunals we may find that we have introduced a very useful innovation into our legal system.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett) drew attention to a difficulty that may arise in connection with overlapping inspections by the University Grants Committee, the General Medical Council and the parent

2223
university itself. For some years now I have served as an inspector for the Pharmaceutical Society when inspecting schools and universities jointly with the University of London, and we have found no difficulty in so arranging those inspections that, although two bodies were concerned, the reports were unanimous and both bodies acted in step, one with the other. I am sure that can be done.
My last point is a rather specialised one that has not yet been dealt with in this Debate, except by the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan), when he said that the one function of the General Medical Council that is well done is the supervision of the British Pharmacopoeia. Curiously enough, that is one of its functions which the General Medical Council does not perform, but hands over to someone else to perform. Had the hon. Member for Warrington realised that, his condemnation of the G.M.C. would have been complete and absolute, and I am glad to make that little present to him.
Dr. Morgan: No, thank you.
Mr. Linstead: Originally, in 1858, the British Pharmacopoeia was a book of compounded medicines primarily. As the years have passed it has changed and become a book of simple substances and chemicals which are used as ingredients of medicine. As the years have passed it has become not a book for doctors, but a book for manufacturing chemists and public analysts, and I think that very few general practitioners will find it necessary to refer to the British Pharmacopoeia. The General Medical Council were, originally, quite an appropriate body to supervise the production of this book, but with the passage of years they have ceased to be the appropriate body and have handed the duty over to the Pharmacopoeia Commission, composed of one or two doctors, but mainly of chemists and pharmacists.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to assure us that we are not crystallising by the chance reference to the British Pharmacopoeia in this Bill the existing method of producing the Pharmacopoeia which is by no means suitable in all quarters. I sincerely hope that the Bill will have a Second Reading, and that we may make what little improvements are necessary in Committee.
9.41 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): It has been a very pleasant and agreeable Debate. The last two-and-a-half hours in the House have been very different from those that went before. I think that with only one exception this Bill has received acceptance from both sides of the House. There has been much criticism of the overloading of the curriculum in the medical schools, and I feel that the Debate may bear some fruit in that matter. I am certain that those who have discussed it did so from a very full knowledge and from their own experience, and I hope there will be some examination of the curriculum.
I should like to take up the points made by the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan). He said that there ought to be a power of direction, possibly vested in the General Medical Council, to direct universities and medical schools as to what should be taught in them; and he referred particularly to the teaching of industrial medicine. I am sure that everyone in the House agrees that industrial medicine is of the greatest importance. The Trades Union Congress are seriously considering this matter and they feel that sufficient time is not given to it, but I think that the hon. Member for Warrington was a little less than fair when he suggested that in our medical schools and universities almost nothing was being done in the field of industrial medicine. We find that in the Universities of Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle there are departments of industrial medicine.
Dr. Morgan: I mentioned those particularly.
Miss Herbison: I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I am going to follow on with what else is being done. I was particularly interested in the point made on this matter by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) when he suggested that one of the great difficulties was the lack of finance. The three universities that I have mentioned have been provided for in these courses of industrial medicine by the Nuffield Foundation. In addition to the three departments mentioned by the hon. Member for Warrington, it is known that there are one or more lecturers in industrial medicine, industrial health or industrial hygiene in Birmingham

2225
Bristol, Edinburgh, London and Sheffield. We do not say at this point that we are satisfied with that as sufficient, but what we are absolutely satisfied about is that the correct way of getting either industrial medicine or any other subject into the curriculum is not by vesting power of direction in the General Medical Council. That would be a very serious matter indeed, and one which, I am certain, not only the medical profession would object to, but also people all over the country.
There may be one way of overcoming this difficulty. Quite a number of questions have been raised in this Debate about the duplication of visitation. In another place this was discussed and we hope an arrangement will be come to by which there will be, in effect, only one set of visitors. Great improvement is made in the provisions of this Bill by which visitors not merely examine an examination, but really examine what is being taught in the medical schools. We would hope that in that way the General Medical Council will be able by persuasion, not by force, to make those changes in the curriculum which public opinion seems to think necessary.
Another point was raised by the hon. Member for Warrington with which I must deal. He seems to take grave objection to this year which we term the intern period. Other Members have dealt with some of the points he made. He made a very strong point that this would be very hard on the young student from a working-class home. That may have been the case some years ago. I am speaking for Scotland now and perhaps not for England and Wales, but in Scotland today the young man or woman coming from a working-class home is able, with help particularly from local authorities, to take the whole course for a medical degree without costing his parents one penny of finance. That is an important point to remember when weighing this year against the difficulties that may be entailed. We have also to remember that during this intern year the young doctor will be receiving a salary.
A number of points were raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Gosport and Fareham (Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett). I have dealt with one of them—the examinations, where we hope that by arrangement there will be one pretty
2226
big visitation. He wanted to know whether the doctor when provisionally on the register can sign a death certificate. He can. He also wanted to know—and this was also raised by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) who wound up for the Opposition—why there had been selected in the Bill one single case in which the disciplinary committee could not re-examine the evidence. I think the answer was given from this side of the House on that matter; it is that it would create very great difficulties if provision was not made for this kind of case. On the other hand, it may be that after examination we may decide that other cases ought to be put into the same category as this one which we have chosen. This one was chosen because it is the one which in the past has most often come before the General Medical Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) seemed also to think that this period of a year's intern service was not a good thing. Indeed, she had grave doubts about it, and wanted to know if this year could be spent in general practice as a trainee assistant. This would be completely contrary to the findings of the Goodenough Report, which strongly recommended this intern period. It would also be contrary to the views that have been expressed by the General Medical Council.
We find in our Empire countries, in New South Wales and in South Africa, and I believe also in the United States of America, that the intern period is done in hospitals or in similar institutions. For these reasons we feel that the provision in the Bill is correct. We feel that the best experience can be got in hospitals and in similar institutions, and that if we were to yield to the suggestion that this period might be in general practice there would be very great difficulty indeed over proper supervision. What we would suggest is that it would be much preferable to wait and find what will be the results of the working of the provisions of the Bill before we make any further extension for experience in general practice among doctors. Indeed, I would say that the majority of doctors have had their first year, or two years or even more, as trainee assistants with other doctors.

2227
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), and I think an hon. Member on the other side, were rather afraid that those who served on the penal cases committee would be serving also on the disciplinary committee. They suggested that that would be completely wrong. What we find in other fields does not bear out the contention that it is wrong. There is nothing in other fields to justify the contention that a man's judgment will be prejudiced if he tries in the first instance to find whether there is a primâ facie case for inquiry. If we take the solicitors' committee, we find that they first seek to find whether there is a primâ facie case. Then that same committee go on to hear it. There is another instance among the justices of the peace in England. When they have committed a case for trial at the quarter sessions, they can, and very often do, sit at the quarter sessions. In the case of the solicitors or of the justices of the peace, I do not think it can be contended that they have shown in the past that they are prejudiced; but this is a point that may be worth discussion in Committee.
Quite a number of questions have been asked about the supply of posts. Will it be possible in the near future to begin to make compulsory this one year of intern training? There was much discussion on this question in another place, where the figure of 12 months was taken out. We are still leaving it at 12 months, but we cannot at this stage say how soon we can make the figure work. We decided that it was important to have on the Statute Book power to make preparation. We have gone into the figures. There may in Scotland be more difficulty than in England and Wales because in Scotland we train a third of the doctors produced in the whole of the British Isles. In going into that position, we have come to the conclusion that we may not be able to provide the full number of places in Scotland, and that perhaps England will provide the beds for these other doctors whom we train.
A question has been asked about Ireland and what will really be the position of Ireland. A doctor qualifying in the Republic who wants to get on the Register—that is the important point—must from an appointed day do intern service in the same way as a doctor
2228
qualifying here. That is under Clause 1 (1, a). I hope that makes it clear to those who were in difficulty about this position.
Many other points have been raised, but again, I am certain that they can be brought up during the Committee stage, and I recommend that the Bill be given its Second Reading tonight. There is, however, one point which was raised by the hon. Member for Putney, who was a bit worried that we were laying down for all time what will be the composition of the body which prepares the British Pharmacopoeia. No Act can ever do anything for all time, and all we are doing in Clause 22 is to make adjustments which have been rendered necessary by the progress of science; there is a great deal of obsolete language in the Pharmacopoeia, and the adjustments will also meet practical difficulties. That is all that Clause 22 does in this matter. I again commend the Bill to the House.
Mr. Linstead: Before the hon. Lady sits down, may I ask did I understand her to say that the arrangements for producing the Pharmacopoeia have not been re-examined from the bottom and approved, so to speak, in 1950 by the Minister?
Miss Herbison: No, Sir. I give the assurance that it was only for the two reasons which I have given.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Sparks.]

ALLOTMENTS [MONEY]
Resolution reported:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to allotments and to abolish restrictions on the keeping of hens and rabbits, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

(i) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department in paying compensation under the said Act; and

(ii) any increase attributable to the passing of the said Act in the sums which, under any other enactment, are payable out of moneys so provided; and,

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by a Minister of the Crown or government department by way of compensation under the said Act."

GAS INDUSTRY (PENSION SCHEME)
9.58 p.m.
Colonel Crosthwaite - Eyre: I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 9th May, 1950, entitled the Gas (Pensions Scheme) (Amendment) Regulations, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 742), a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, he annulled."
The House will remember that under Section 58 of the Gas Act the Government were given the right to approve any schemes put forward either by the Gas Council or an area board to take over a pensions scheme that was in existence before the nationalisation of the gas gas industry. They were given carte blanche either to approve or not to approve any scheme then in existence and to accept whatever schemes they might feel fell within the ambit of natural justice and, of course, the terms of Section 58.
These powers were exercised and presented to this House in Statutory Instrument No. 744 of 1949, and as far as I know the powers under that Regulation have been exercised well and no complaint has been raised to their use. In fact, I think it would be true to say that those who were subject to schemes taken over within the ambit of that Statutory Instrument have been well satisfied with the treatment which the Government has given them.
But these Regulations introduce a new element and something which is outside either the terms of Section 58 or of the regulations which could be prescribed under Statutory Instrument No. 744 of 1949. Indeed, if a new element had not been introduced there was no need for this specious proposition that members of the Gas Council and of the area boards had to be covered by a special regulation.
The regulation produced in 1949 gives the Minister power to approve any scheme which affects any member within the industry. Those are the terms of paragraph 1 of that Regulation. That is quite right, but just as in private industry if someone joins the board of a firm he is entitled to take part in whatever pension scheme may be available, so one would naturally expect that anyone who joins one of the gas boards or the Gas Council should automatically be entitled
2230
to benefits that are available under a Statutory Instrument. But we have something quite new here, something which I think is being pushed through with no reference in the Explanatory Note and which demands an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. I refer to the words in line 3 of paragraph 2 (c) of the present Regulations "or entitled to rights," and to where it says later that in lieu of those rights they may make some arrangement with the area board or with the Gas Council.
It is fair to say at the outset that the only possible reason for the introduction of these words is that the Ministry wish to go outside the terms of the Statutory Instrument they laid before the House in 1949, and wish to include some new category of persons whom they could not justify under any scheme taken over under Section 58 or, indeed, under any terms of the Gas (Nationalisation) Act. If that be true, then there are only two sets of circumstances in which this could happen.
The first one, which I do not think is likely to occur, is where the Ministry have decided that in relation to people who are not covered by Section 58 they will now wield the big stick. That is in relation to people, for instance, who, two years before the Act was passed, were approached to take service once the industry was nationalised, who took the opportunity for one reason or another, who joined in good faith, whose pensions were in excess of what could be provided under Section 58, and who are now faced with an ultimatum by the Ministry that unless they reduce the terms of the pension claims they have they will not be allowed to have any part in any scheme that the Minister has put forward.
That is the first possibility and, of course, it can only apply to those people who are least fitted to meet such a burden for instance, members of a trade union who are serving on an area board or on the Gas Council. They might have certain minor claims which would be absorbed within the major emoluments they are now receiving from an area board. It might well be that the area board is trying to beat down the claims of those people to a pension when they retire. I do not think that is likely, but it is a possible interpretation.
The only other interpretation is, from the viewpoint of the Ministry, a far worse

2231
one; that is, that they have now found that they have signed contracts with people to serve either on a board or the Council which involve them in commitments for pensions which they cannot justify under any scheme under Section 58; that, in fact, we are getting the story of Sir Leslie Plummer all over again; that this time the Ministry are not waiting until they have to pay up but are now trying to shelve their responsibility by making provision beforehand. That, from the point of view of the Ministry, is a far worse interpretation of what these words mean.
Particularly is that so if one considers what the ordinary person who had to be compensated under the Gas (Staff Compensation) Regulations had to put up with. I ask that for a few minutes the House should think back to the terms with which people had to contend under those Regulations. They had to be over 18; but I do not think that that is a hardship as far as a member of an area board or the Gas Council is concerned. They must have served eight years before they could get in. Is the Parliamentary Secretary certain that there is no one serving on an area board or the Gas Council who cannot claim a pension compensation unless he serves eight years? I should be very doubtful whether the Parliamentary Secretary could give me that assurance.
Again, under the original regulations it had to be proved that 30 hours a week were served in the service of the gas industry. How many people who are to be covered under this new exception would be able to prove that? The Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that because of the composition of the Gas Council and the area boards, most of the people concerned are on a part-time basis. Is he going to say that the regulations are to cover only those people who can prove that they have served 30 hours a week? Again, I doubt that very much. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say above all, that the restriction which was made before, that a person is not allowed to serve in any other capacity whatever if he wants compensation, will be observed?
One of the things that strikes me as very curious is how fond the Government are of introducing restrictive covenants in matters for which they are responsible,
2232
and how righteous they are in wrath when those restrictive covenants are not produced by themselves. Of all the intolerable pieces of smugness, the difference between the treatment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Lord and Black case and what the Parliamentary Secretary is doing by these Regulations, in ensuring that restrictive covenants are to be part and parcel of his pension compensation terms, is something of which all Members of the House should take note.
I should like to know how many people who will be covered by this new phrase in the Regulations have had applied to them the four tests which I have mentioned, and how many are covered by them. Then, has this new test, or this new escape clause, which I think is a better term, been introduced merely to cover people who have been brought in from outside the industry and who are not covered by the Act and, therefore, special provision has to be made for them because they cannot be ground up under the terms of the Gas Act?
If that is so, and I think that it is, then surely it is all wrong that the House should pass, whether it be right or wrong, one set of pension regulations to cover people who have been in the industry, and to have a completely different set of pension regulations for people who were brought in from outside the industry once it has been nationalised, and who are allowed so much more scope and so much more benefit. That seems to be entirely wrong.
It appears, looking at the Regulations, that as we have said before, nothing is too bad for those who were in the industry and have made the industry and who are expropriated by the Government, but that nothing is too good for those who are brought into the industry who happen to climb on to the Left band wagon and obtain some sort of position on a board or the Council; then, a regulation is immediately introduced to exempt them from all the provisions which govern private enterprise and the people who are taken over by the Government.
Once they have managed to get on a board or the Council any rights they may have are accepted, considered and made exemptions to what is considered good enough for other people in the industry. I think that of the many regulations we

2233
have seen, this one is open to the gravest exception because it shows once again how little the Government care about justice and how much they care about looking after "the boys," once they are under their charge.
It is for these reasons we bring forward this Prayer. We feel that those who so often stand at that Box and condemn the extravagance of private enterprise should be the last to introduce measures to which they dare not even put a limit in terms of cash, merely to satisfy their own requirements.
10.11 p.m.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I beg to second the Motion which has been moved so effectively by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre).
There is disquiet in the public mind on the subject of appointments which seem to be covered by the particular paragraph to which we are referring, and a measure of the disquiet may perhaps be judged by the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has also put his name to the Motion to annul these Regulations. I notice that the hon. and learned Member is not present. He may be on the Terrace or elsewhere—
Mr. Brendan Bracken: He may be going on a gas board.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: He may already be on a gas board for all we know. It is interesting to know that the hon. and learned Member is so disturbed by these Regulations that he wishes to see it annulled and is joining his Tory colleagues in seeking to get that done. On the other hand, there is just the chance that he is not so interested in that as to make sure that his Tory colleagues do not postpone the Regulations from this particular date to some other date. I do not know, but it would be interesting to hear the hon. and learned Member on the subject of this Prayer, and I hope that he will be here shortly.
I do not think anyone wants to stir up trouble, but it is important that we should have an assurance, or at least an explanation, from the Minister of what is the real purpose of bringing forward
2234
these Regulations. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, it seems to us that the previous Regulations covered all the cases which seem to be required to be covered but in these Regulations we find that certain people entitled to rights—not pension rights, but other rights—are to be considered for some special treatment in connection with their service on an area board or on the Gas Council.
I feel sure the Minister will tell us quite frankly the type of person to whom that is expected to refer. The Regulations cannot have been brought forward merely for fun, but must have been brought forward with some particular class of person in view whom the Minister thinks are not covered by the previous Regulations and it is to ascertain that information in the interests of the country as a whole, and of the taxpayers who, after all, have to produce the money, that we move this Prayer tonight. I hope we shall have a clear and succinct description and explanation of why the Regulations are considered to be necessary in view of the existence of the previous Regulations.
10.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I have listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) and the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). I am somewhat puzzled to follow their line of reasoning. Indeed, at one stage I felt that the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest was really talking about regulations for compensation for loss of office. This is a very simple set of regulations which refer to quite specific people. They propose that where there is a man who was in the employ of a gas undertaking before nationalisation, and who then became a member of an area board it is a fair, right and proper thing that when the pension scheme which is provided for in the previous regulation to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, No. 744, is prepared and in operation he should then become a member of that scheme if he so desires. Those concerned are not forced into this scheme in any way, and if they have other better rights under the main Act they are perfectly free to pursue those rights.

2235
These Regulations mean that a man would, if he became a member of an area board, be then allowed to calculate the whole of his service in the undertaking in which he was in pensionable employment as part of the terms of membership of the new scheme together with the period which he serves on the area board.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Parliamentary Secretary said that these Regulations cover only people who were in the industry and then became members of an area board. Could he say where that is mentioned in the Regulations?
Mr. Robens: That is what I am saying. It covers only those persons who were in the gas industry. That is in the Regulations. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member does not wish me to read out the whole of the Regulations. If he will allow me to finish what I am saying I will return to the point and indicate the lines in question. I am trying to answer some of the points which hon. and gallant Members opposite have raised. They have asked me what these Regulations mean, and I should like to say what they mean. We can then get down to details if hon. Gentlemen wish me to do so. All we are doing is to enable those people who were in the industry prior to nationalisation to have that period of service computed in the new scheme together with any service which they serve as members of an area board.
Mr. Bracken: Would the Parliamentary Secretary show us where in the Regulations there appears what he has told us, because there is nothing about it in this particular piece of ill-contrived language at which we are looking? Would the hon. Gentleman also oblige the House by telling us whether, in calculating pensions, the basis of remuneration is the inflated pay of a board member or the salary or wage paid to that person before he joins a gas board?
Mr. Robens: The right hon. Gentleman is running a little before he has learned to walk. I am amazed at hon. Gentlemen opposite should ask me to point to the part of the Regulations which proves the point I am now making. The whole of the Regulations say it but I will read the relevant part, because it is
2236
apparent hon. Gentlemen have not been able to read it—they probably have not had the time. In the Regulations they will see:
"(2) For the purposes of any such pension scheme as aforesaid"—
that should appeal to the hon. Gentleman—
"the service of any person as a whole-time member of an Area Board or the Gas Council may be treated as if it were service in the employment of the said Board or Council, if that person"—
then follow three provisos. The first contains the subject matter of what I am now saying, that if that person
"was subject to the scheme in question immediately before becoming such a member."
If hon. Gentlemen will allow me to proceed and finish this broad case it will be revealed to them in complete simplicity. If I may be pardoned for repeating what I have already said, those persons employed in a gas undertaking immediately before gas nationalisation, and who became members of a gas board after nationalisation, will be able to join the new scheme provided for under Regulation No. 744 and compute all those years of service in the industry as part of the new scheme.
Those persons who were appointed to area boards before the vesting date will be in precisely the same position, provided that they were in pensionable employment within the gas industry. I think the House will agree it is perfectly clear that in these public corporations many men will rise from the ranks, and in due course, as ability determines, will become members of area boards. It would be quite wrong to say to an area manager, "We would like you, because of your great efficiency and the work you do so well, to become a member of the board; but if you do become a member, you will forfeit all your pension rights for the 30 or 40 years which you have had in the gas undertaking." The men would not regard that as promotion, and obviously, for financial reasons, they could not take it.
We feel it not unreasonable to say that when they have promotion they may commute all these years of back service for the purpose of a pension, together with their service on the area board, and I am certain that no one would say that that is not a right and proper thing to do. That is all that the Regulations do. They do not apply to anyone else, they apply

2237
only to those persons who are members of an area board or the Gas Council and who have former employment with the undertaking with pensionable rights. With that explanation I think hon. Gentlemen opposite should thank me, and agree to withdraw the Motion.
10.23 p.m.
Mr. Brendan Bracken: Far from thanking the Parliamentary Secretary, we have to confess to you, Mr. Speaker, that in the fairly long experience of Parliament which most of us have had, we have never heard such a strange explanation from a Minister.
Mr. Poole: We shall hear a stranger one from you.
Mr. Bracken: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt?
Mr. Poole: All I said was that if hon. Members wait a little while, they will hear a very much stranger one from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bracken: The wit of the hon. Gentleman is the least admirable quality which he possesses.
The Parliamentary Secretary was described by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) as a donor of "jobs for the boys." I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend was absolutely accurate. He ought to revise his language and say "therms for the boys" and take out the "h." This is a monstrous piece of jobbery, let us face up to it—
Mr. Messer: What a line bit of wit!
Mr. Bracken: The Minister has made secret arrangements with certain persons connected with the Gas Council—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he has, and he is anxious now to alter the Regulations so that he can fulfil arrangements which have never been scrutinised by this House—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh. I suppose they think we are talking about humble people. But no, I know of cases where people are being paid very large salaries indeed, salaries even outside the scope of these Regulation, and I know the reason for the Minister bringing in these changes in these
2238
Regulations. He wants to legalise something unknown to this House, something which is thoroughly—
Mr. Poole: What is it?
Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman will hear, if he does not interrupt. That great democrat, the Parliamentary Secretary, tells us that he is anxious to look after the youngsters about to rise to great positions in the gas industry. I am all for that, but in this particular case it is not the youngsters who are being rewarded; it is a number of quite elderly gentlemen who are seeking cushioned retirement.
Mr. Robens: It would be quite wrong if the right hon. Gentleman were permitted to get away too far with this. These Regulations apply to none of the people to whom he ascribes the term "jobs for the boys." They are all people with big positions in the gas industry. I do not want to bring politics into this Debate, but I doubt very much if any one of them was a supporter of my party. The fact is that these Regulations are only for those who were in the gas industry. Not one of them applies to anybody coming from anywhere else, who is a member of an area board.
Mr. Bracken: Now we have had a confession. These Regulations are apparently to look after the people who were what the Minister calls "big" in the gas industry. There are tens of thousands of small people who have been "bilked" of their profit-sharing arrangements by—
Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with these Regulations.
Mr. Bracken: I was led into my error by the Minister. If the Minister will give us another opportunity of discussing his strange confession, we will gladly take advantage of it. We have had the real reason given to us now. I must protest very strongly about the conduct of the Minister in coming to this House with Regulations which abound in jargon and and which pass all understanding, recommending them to us as necessary to promote youngsters in the gas industry to great places, and finally confessing that it is to reward the "quislings" who served him so well.
Mr. Robens: That is a shocking thing to say.
10.27 p.m.
Mr. Poole: I will not detain the House for more than a few moments, but I think that the opinion which some of us hold of the spectacle we have just witnessed ought to go on record. Perhaps "spectacle" is too kind a word. For sheer irresponsibility, we have had the classic example tonight. The right hon. Gentleman who graces the Opposition Front Bench—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraces."]—has had the audacity to make assertions that the Minister is introducing Regulations to cover up something Which his Department has done, which is entirely illegal and which he seeks to legalise. He told the House that the evidence would be forthcoming. I am at this stage prepared to sit down for the right hon. Gentleman to give to this House that to which I feel it is entitled—the evidence on which he based a charge so foul that he ought either to substantiate it here tonight or have the common decency to withdraw it.
Mr. Bracken: Certainly. The Minister himself confessed that these Regulations are made to look after the big boys in the gas industry. That is exactly what I say, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will remember his performance tonight in helping these "quislings."
Mr. Robens: I want to make it quite clear for the record. What in fact I have said is that these Regulations provide for the promotion of those employed in the industry from the humblest position to that of an area board member without loss of pension rights. When the right hon Gentleman referred to all these people—
Mr. Bracken: Not all.
Mr. Robens: —who were big people in the gas industry—general managers and so on—as "quislings" I thought that was a very bad thing for an hon. Member to say in this House. Nevertheless, the fact is that people who are on area boards from the gas industry are the people who were general managers and others. The point I made was that they could not be regarded as political supporters of the party on this side of the House. I said that in response to something else which the right hon. Gentleman had said.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Raikes: I never like to add heat to a friendly Debate such as the one we are having tonight. I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary most carefully, as I always do, and I noted that he did not meet all the points raised in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre). The Parliamentary Secretary was not using the ferocity which he used the other day—as he is now engaged in a conversation. I will be silent until he finishes. I am always courteous to the Government; I never interrupt a conversation. Now I will continue. A very powerful speech was made by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I will not deal with any of the matters he touched upon, because I am always moderate.
I understand that the object of the Prayer was to ensure that nobody would slip in under these Regulations because he had been in the industry before. The reply of the Minister was that he was not attempting to let anybody in. What I am still not satisfied about is paragraph 1 (2, c). I agree that under paragraph 1 (2, a) we are dealing with anybody who
"was subject to the scheme in question immediately before becoming such a member."
That is clear; and 1 (2, b) is also clear. But I should like to know why paragraph (c) appears at all, if in fact we are not going to slip in persons who would otherwise be outside. Paragraph 1 (2, c) says:
"(2) For the purposes of any such pension scheme as aforesaid, the service of any person as a whole-time member of an Area Board or the Gas Council may be treated as if it were service in the employment of the said Board or Council, if that person—
(c) is, by virtue of the Act and any regulations relating to pension rights made by the Minister under section fifty-eight thereof, subject to another pension Scheme, or entitled to rights, in relation to any Area Board or the Gas Council and agrees with the said Board or Council that in lieu thereof he shall become subject to the scheme in question."
I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is misleading the House, but if his reply is right, that we are dealing with nobody who was not in the scheme beforehand, they are covered by (a) and (b) without bringing in (c), which seems to lay open the possibility of persons being worked or slipped in for other purposes than the fact that they were engaged in

2241
this operation before the beginning of the scheme. I only ask for information. It is likely that my right hon. Friend is correct. I know that when we are dealing with fuel and power many surprising things are either said or hidden for the time being by the Front Bench. I want to be satisfied that it is necessary to bring in paragraph (c), instead of leaving it to (a) and (b). Why is it necessary at all, unless there is some object of slipping in a certain number of what are called "big boys"? I will now sit down in the hope that the Minister will enlighten me.
Mr. Robens: The reason for this is fairly simple. Each area board will have its own superannuation scheme. If a man is transferred from one area board to another it is right and proper to transfer his pensionable rights, and paragraph (c) enables us so to do.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think that of all the explanations which the Parliamentary Secretary has given of paragraph (c) that is the most unconvincing. If the hon. Gentleman looks at it he will see, to start with, that he has tried to limit it to transference of a servant from one area board to another. He will see that the Gas Council is mentioned in the same line as the area boards. That, I think, destroyed his arguments. If he will try to construe the paragraph a little more carefully, he will see that the word "rights," which he uses in the third line, cannot apply altogether to pension rights. Paragraph 1 lays down the purposes of the Regulations. It says:
"… (which authorises the establishment of pension schemes by Area Boards and the Gas Council) …"
As I said earlier, if it is only desired to deal with pension schemes operating within the gas industry before nationalisation—and I would make that point abso-lately clear—the hon. Gentleman has complete power under the regulations of 1949. There is no need to introduce supplementary regulations. I asked him that question. It was one of the first questions which I did ask. The hon. Gentleman has refused to answer it up to now.
Mr. Robens: Regulation No. 744 refers to those people in the employ of the area boards. Members of area boards cannot be in their own employ, and, therefore, one must make a special regulation to deal with the members of area boards.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Parliamentary Secretary is misleading the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] Perhaps hon. Members who shout "Withdraw" so readily will allow me to read from the Regulations. They say:
"Any Area Board, or the Gas Council may, for the purpose of paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of Section 58 of the Gas Act"—
That is the paragraph which allows them to take over any pension scheme—
"establish and administer any pension scheme which has been approved by the Minister."
There is no such limitation as the Parliamentary Secretary suggested when he interrupted me. Do hon. Members still wish me to withdraw? I do not think so. The fact is that there is every power in the original Regulations for any pension scheme, whether it affects the youngest or the oldest, the richest or the poorest, in the gas industry, to be administered. These Regulations seek to do something new. These words can only, by definition, refer to something outside the Gas Act, and Section 58 thereof and schemes approved under it.
Mr. Robens: The hon. and gallant Member is overlooking the fact that we are not providing pensions for every member of a board. Therefore, in Regulation No. 744, the previous Regulation, the pension scheme relates to those in the employ of the area boards. That would exclude members of area boards. Regulation No. 742 merely brings in members of area boards who have previous service in gas undertakings, and pensionable service at that.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: That was the point which I made when I opened this Debate. I then said that there was nothing in Regulation No. 744 to prevent an area board, or the Gas Council, doing exactly the same as is done in private industry, where a director is entitled to take part in any pension scheme of his firm. The Parliamentary Secretary has not contradicted me, except in the last half-minute.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he looks at the Regulations again he will find that the terms of reference are perfectly clear. The area board or the Gas Council might carry on any scheme which has the approval of the Minister; it does not say, "any person who is under the board, or a member of the board." What we are saying is concerned with para-

2243
graph 1 (2, c) of these Regulations. The Parliamentry Secretary has not tried to answer the main point as to why paragraph 1 (2) covers only those in the gas industry. There is not one word to support it, and he knows that to toe true. As he has said, the first object of this is to cover people who have been taken over from the industry under nationalisation under the terms of Section 58, which cannot be substantiated and for whom special provision has got to be made. He is talking of the "big boys"; the people who are brought in from industry. I shall be only too glad to accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance, if he wishes to intervene.
Mr. Robens: It is impossible for me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to go on reading from these Regulations, and, if I may say so, if hon. Members opposite had read them, they would see that this can only apply to those who were in schemes. It says so quite specifically.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Gentleman says that, but we have a divergence of view, as we sometimes have in this House, as to What words mean. It is always the practice here to explain what a particular phrase means, but the hon. Gentleman has not done that. He has read out the initial phrase, but when he was asked to comment on the words "or entitled to rights," by my hon. Friends he failed completely to comment on them. He ignored them completely.
It is a very slipshod method of treating the House for the hon. Gentleman merely to get up and say, "I am getting bored" or something like that, when he has a perfectly valid case put to him which he cannot answer. It would be far more helpful of him to say, "I cannot answer this, but I will look at it." Here is a phrase on which a certain interpretation has been placed and which is designed, by the Parliamentary Secretary's own admission, to cover the "big boys," and which according to our interpretation—
Mr. George Wigg: On a point of order. How many times is the hon. and gallant Member allowed to repeat himself, Sir?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. and gallant Member is trying to make his point.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If I have made a point too often, Sir, I apologise. If I have wearied the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) there is nobody more sorry than myself.
Surely a regulation should be so closely worded so as to make certain that it covers only those things which the Minister responsible wants to cover and which are justified in the national interest. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are always so concerned with the national interest. Whatever may be the Minister's interpretation it has not been borne out by the arguments which we have had put before us this evening.
Mr. Bracken: It is cruelty to animals.
Question put, and negatived.

COMMUNISM
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
10.46 p.m.
Sir Waldron Smithers: I would ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We have only half an hour to discuss this most important subject and I ask hon. Members opposite to be quiet for that time. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) referred to the "soiled finger of coincidence" and that soiled finger is again prominent today because I am privileged to raise this very serious question after 48 hours of further evidence of the Communist menace.
Having only half an hour in which to discuss the menace of Communism, I would first point out that it is the most momentous and awful menace with which mankind has ever been faced. In Mr. Speaker's office there is a book where we enter our names for an Adjournment Motion. There, an hon. Member is allowed to enter the name of the subject and the Minister he wishes to reply. I put down the Prime Minister's name, and I want to protest most strongly that he is not here tonight to answer this Debate, because even the right hon. Gentleman has not got a clean record. Elaborating his Socialist plan for local governments, the Prime Minister wrote this:
"What is required is a regional authority having jurisdiction over a number of existing Local Government areas. … The regional

2245
Authority should be a commissioner. He is not impartial. He is a Socialist … rather like the Russian plan of Commissars."
I would say to him, if he were here, that leopards do not change their spots. The war between good and evil has been going on since the world began. [Interruption.] I appeal to hon. Members to give me a chance. Periodically, it flares up into armed conflict, but the Communists have taken this war on to a spiritual plane. They have got half Europe and half Asia without firing a shot, and it looks, according to the events of the last 48 hours, as if this armed conflict will break out again.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
I say that there is wickedness on our Government Front Bench because no one knows how many fellow-travellers there are among the members of His Majesty's Government. Other countries have outlawed Communism, but His Majesty's Government, with their usual ineptitude, do next to nothing, because they are not masters in their own house.
There are no neutrals in this spiritual war. In a sentence, the war today right throughout the world is Christianity versus Communism and I ask hon. Members opposite and the country, "On which side are you? There are no neutrals." What we want from His Majesty's Government is deeds, not words. This country of ours, the mother of freedom, the home of freedom, is farther down the totalitarian road than anyone realises, and the farther we go down it the harder it will be to turn back. We are asking for, and getting, help from America to fight Communism, and I say that for America to give money to this Government is to subsidise Communism.
My time is limited, and I want to kill two birds with one stone by reading some extracts from the Congressional Record of the Senate of the United States of 1st May, which will show that I am not the only one who is alarmed about the policy of this Government. This is the quotation:
"The British Government that was our loyal ally in World War I and World War II has passed into other hands. It is now entirely different. In Great Britain, the ruling Government is a Socialist government. It follows closely the doctrines of Karl Marx. The
2246
Government of the U.S.S.R.—the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—also adheres to the teachings of Karl Marx. In event of war with Russia—and God forbid it—the Marxist Government of Britain would decide with whom Britain would cast her lot—with the U.S.S.R. or with the United States. …
The miners' union of Britain is dominated by its secretary, Arthur Horner, who is a Communist. He has announced publicly that if England goes to war with Russia, no coal will be mined in England. …
Mr. President, I have none but feelings of friendship and affection for the British' people"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I make a, further appeal to hon. Members to be quiet. I have a difficult speech to make. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The only argument hon. Members opposite have is gibes and jeers. They will not listen to serious arguments. The quotation continues:
"After the British election last February, Prime Minister Attlee appointed John Strachey to head the vital British Ministry of War. It so happens that Mr. Strachey has quite a record as a Communist writer and Communist worker. He has written numerous books on the virtues of Soviet socialism, as he calls it. He once wrote, 'the coming of Communism can alone render our problems soluble.'"
Think of that. The man who now heads the British Ministry of War has said, 'The coming of Communism can alone render our problems soluble.'"
The final quotation is this:
"Certainly Mr. Attlee, the Prime Minister, could not have been unfamiliar"—
Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. Is it in order, Sir, to make libellous statements about hon. Members in this House? May I get your Ruling on that?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): No libellous statement has been made so far as I have heard.
Mr. George Wigg: Further to that point of order. May I take it, Sir, that it will be in order later, if we are fortunate enough to catch your eye, to make similar damaging statements about the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I will listen carefully.
Sir W. Smithers: I am quoting from the Congressional Record of the United States. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whose speech?"] It was by Senator Kem. The quotation goes on:

2247
"Certainly Mr. Attlee, the Prime Minister, could not have been unfamiliar with the reputation and activities of Mr. Strachey. I do not agree, I cannot agree, that the appointment of Mr. Strachey can be properly laid to stupidity. I believe it is a key move in a carefully calculated plan of Communist forces to dominate the world. …
"There must be no compromise with Communism. But the British Socialist Government has compromised with Communism."
All that the Government has done, as far as I know, is to carry out a mean little purge of civil servants. If there is to be a purge of civil servants, they must be judged by their past record—and there are several Ministers of the Crown who, if they were civil servants, could not pass that test. I do not know how many fellow-travellers there are in His Majesty's Government but the Chancellor of the Exchequer once wrote:
"The Socialist Government's first step will be to call Parliament together at the earliest moment, and place before it an Emergency Powers Bill to be passed through all its stages on the first day. This Bill will be wide enough in its terms to allow all that will be immediately necessary to be done by Ministerial orders. These orders must be incapable of challenge in the Courts. … At the present time it is left to the Courts to decide whether these (Ministerial) orders are within the powers given by Parliament. … This power must be taken from the Courts."
In the General Election there was a Conservative publication which said this:
"If you do not vote Right this time you may never vote again."
A Conservative accepted a Labour challenge to this view, when Mr. W. A. Fearnley-Whittingstall, K.C., said:
"Sir Stafford Cripps has written that 'unless during the first five years so great a degree of change has been accomplished as to deprive the capitalists of power, it is unlikely that the Socialist Party will be able to maintain its position of control without adopting some means of prolonging Parliament without an election."
The strongest force in human nature is the religious force. Left-Wing Governments—even that in Russia—have found it impossible to carry on their policies successfully without roping in the religious. And yet our Chancellor of the Exchequer preaches in St. Paul's Cathedral on the eve of the election. It was disgraceful that the Church authorities should have allowed him to do that.
Mr. Shurmer: What about the hon. Member playing the organ?
Sir W. Smithers: The B.B.C. is riddled with Communism, and if hon. Members and the public generally want particulars of that, will they please write to the Listeners' Association, 71, Victoria Street, Kensington?
There is no difference in principle, in my opinion, between the policies of Hitler and Stalin and of this Government. They want power at any price. As Lord Acton once said, "All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." They will say or do anything to keep in power—and the Communist influence is very strong in the present Government. The Minister of Town and Country Planning did a disgraceful thing which caused him to leave the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer; if he had done that in ordinary business circles he would have been hounded out—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would remind the hon. Member that he must not cast reflections on an hon. Member unless he puts down a substantive Motion to that effect.
Sir W. Smithers: I only ask the House to note this—that the Minister of Town and Country Planning is now a member of the Cabinet: the recent Minister of Town and Country Planning was not a member of the Cabinet. What blackmail powers does the Minister of Town and Country Planning have over the Prime Minister?
Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to use words describing the actions of the Minister of Town and Country Planning or any member of the Government as "blackmail"?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman said, "Blackmail powers"; I was listening very carefully.
Sir W. Smithers: I believe that today there has been a Debate in another place on similar lines to the one I am initiating now. In the National Provincial Bank's review for May there is a remarkable article by Professor Hodder. It tells how industries have been nationalised and, in four or five tables at the end of the article, he shows how the Government has obtained a complete strangehold—if they like to use it—over all the economic activities of our country. He says that the apparatus of complete despotism is

2249
in existence and has been modified only because of the Government's reduced majority.
I have been able to touch on only a few of the headlines, and I wish I had time to deal with more. I want to say, in conclusion, that I have many friends in the Socialist Party who sincerely believe in the philosophy of Socialism—but in my opinion they are barking up the wrong tree. [HON. MEMBERS: "Bow-wow!"] They will have to learn their lesson by bitter experience, because the philosophy of Socialism must end in Communist dictatorship, especially in Great Britain, which is not, and cannot become, self-supporting.
When Marshall Aid and the sellers' market end, when we get full German and Japanese competition, we shall have to export at world competitive prices or starve, and our only hope is to do away with all the Communist controls which now govern the country, and return to free enterprise, allowing men of experience and ability to use the talents God has given them. To those Socialists who may be using office to set up a Communist dictatorship, I quote some words used 2,000 years ago which are as true today as they were when they were uttered:
"You hypocrites, you generation of vipers, who shall deliver you from the damnation of hell?"
I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to the country, "Beware, the false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing."
11.2 p.m.
Mr. Wigg: It may be in order for the hon. Gentleman to quote the Gospels, but I should have thought it came as near to blasphemy as anything. There is a view held on this side of the House that the hon. Gentleman is an amiable idiot. I dissent from that view. I do not think he is amiable.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is out of order for one hon. Gentleman to say that another hon. Gentleman is an idiot. That was the inference I drew.
Mr. Wigg: In that case I withdraw, Sir, although I thought I said it was a view held by my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I will substitute the statement that I think that the view is that he
2250
is amiable but irresponsible. I dissent from that view because I do not think that he is amiable. I think that he is vicious and unkind.
I have searched the hon. Gentleman's speeches over a period of 10 years, and I have failed to find that he has sponsored any decent human cause. He now has a bee in his bonnet about Communism. In 1936 the bee in his bonnet was expenditure in South Wales. He put down Question after Question deploring the cost of Public Assistance for miners; he criticised the cost of education. Between the odd occasions when he put down Questions—for he spoke remarkably few times in those days—I presume he was composing further masterpieces such as "On, Stanley, On" to the tune of "Yes, we have no bananas." In the intervening years the hon. Gentleman swung from the anti-South Wales bee in his bonnet—
Sir W. Smithers: I have tried my best to restrain Government expenditure because I knew we cannot afford it. If extravagant expenditure continues, we shall not merely have a South Wales and a Jarrow. The whole country will be a Jarrow.
Mr. Wigg: My purpose is to show the hon. Gentleman as an irresponsible man with a beehive on his head. At the moment it is anti-Communist.
I can prove from the hon. Gentleman's speeches that the bee in his bonnet for two or three years was that the miners of South Wales were getting too much Public Assistance. Next it was too much on local expenditure. He charged us on this side with being on a par with Hitler. What a charge to come from an hon. Gentleman on the Conservative benches. Did he ever raise his voice against the menace of Nazism or Fascism in Hitler's days?
In the first question put down by the hon. Gentleman after the outbreak of war he asked the Minister of Health whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that evacuated children were suffering from various diseases, including whooping cough, impetigo, scarlet fever, and verminous heads. That was his attitude towards the grave social consequences disclosed at that time. The hon. Member finished by quoting the Scriptures. May I quote them back, and, I hope, with a little more reverence? What is wrong with the hon. Gentleman is not that he

2251
is worried about Communism, not that he really cares about the level of expenditure in South Wales, or anywhere else. He has another god. It is the love of money. If he will turn to First Timothy, chapter 6, verse 10, he will read:
"For the love of money is the root of all evil."
If the hon. Member would go back and read those words, and have them inscribed above his bed, perhaps he would become a better Member of this House.
Sir W. Smithers: I deny the hon. Gentleman's charge absolutely.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I am reluctant, as a Member who has been in Parliament a considerably shorter time than the hon. Gentleman, to instruct him about our practice here, but the fact is that a junior Minister nearly always takes the Adjournment, and from time to time when hon. Members put down Adjournment Motions directed to the Prime Minister he courteously, as in this case, transfers them to a junior Minister. The hon. Gentleman complained so much that the Prime Minister was not answering that I should like to point out that only on two occasions in the last five years has the Prime Minister replied to an Adjournment Debate: to one arising directly out of a statement by him, and to one when the Leader of the Opposition informed him that he was to speak. If the hon. Gentleman becomes Leader of the Opposition I can assure him that when he raises a matter on the Adjournment the Prime Minister will be here.
He was good enough to give me some idea of what he was going to say, and that he was going to attack certain Members of the Government. But I had no idea that he was going to devote so large a proportion of his time to attacking members of the Government, and so small a proportion to constructive suggestions of what is to be done to meet the menace of Communism. As to the attacks on Ministers, I do not think the hon. Gentleman has taken sufficiently seriously the reply the Prime Minister gave to his Question on 14th March. He asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister
"what steps he takes, before inviting any hon. Member to accept ministerial office, to ascertain, as in the case of other servants of
2252
the Crown, that they are reliable persons from a security point of view."
The Prime Minister replied:
"I cannot accept the implications in the hon. Member's Question. In any case, I would remind him that it is established constitutional practice that the Prime Minister of the day is solely responsible for recommending ministerial appointments to His Majesty, and it is not customary for him to answer Questions on these matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 37.]
As to the hon. Member's general point about security, I would refer him to the Lord Chancellor's speech in another place on 29th March which covered that topic. I said I was surprised the hon. Member had devoted so much of his time to his personal attacks. Perhaps I should not really have been surprised because we who have had the advantage of being with him in this House know that his great activity is not in the battle for such things as how best to raise the standard of living for men and women throughout the world, how best to bring peace and security to the world by international political and military agreement, how best to convince the world that parliamentary democracy and political and religious and racial toleration are very great ideals. Rather, instead, his great activity in this House has been at Question time and, out of character with his many kind actions to many people outside the House, has been chiefly in vilification, hatred and intolerance and generally displaying marked totalitarian tendencies.
Sir W. Smithers: How funny!
Mr. de Freitas: For instance, the first two Questions put down by the hon. Gentleman in this Parliament—at least the first two I remember—illustrate this. In the first he was rebuked by Mr. Speaker for reflecting on the patriotism of hon. Members, and in the second, again repeated tonight, was his desire that we should outlaw the Communist Party. Surely it is a very dangerous step, a very dangerous first surrender of democracy, to do such a thing. The hon. Member spoke of vipers and quoted Biblical texts. I have not exactly a Biblical quotation, but surely to outlaw the Communist Party is really to call in Beelzebub to cast out Satan. And does the hon. Member really think it would help us to outlaw the Communist Party. Would not the Communist Party be far more dangerous as an underground movement?

2253
HANSARD records other interventions and Questions by the hon. Member against free speech and against the freedom of the Press. His hatred of Communism is so great that he is prepared to take on many of the characteristics of totalitarianism in order to defeat it. I say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that if we can possibly avoid it, we are determined not to deal with the evil of Communism by adopting illiberal methods entirely opposed to our traditions.
It is right that we should get this Debate into perspective. The hon. Member is really almost a party of one in this House. He is not taken seriously in this House or in the country, but on an occasion like this we should not rejoice too much in that fact.
Sir W. Smithers: My constituents doubled my majority last time.
Mr. de Freitas: Yes, but there was redistribution to help that.
On this occasion let us not rejoice too much in the fact that the hon. Member is not taken seriously, because there is always the proverb, "Wolf, wolf." One day there may arise in this House an hon. Member who is justified in his accusations against his colleagues in this House or against the Government of the day, and he may be regarded wrongly by the House and the country as merely another hon. Member in the tradition of the hon. Member for Orpington.
11.14 p.m.
Mr. Bing: When the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) was suggesting that we should outlaw Communism, I did not know whether he was proposing legislation. Therefore, I am in some doubt as to
2254
whether I should suggest to my hon. Friend that we should outlaw foolishness. If you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, feel that that would be suggesting legislation, may I suggest, as an administrative measure, that we should tighten up the regulations for certification?
This is a question which I think worth while asking. Is the conduct of the hon. Member in the national interest? I do not know if I have time to read the whole of the letter which the hon. Gentleman saw fit to write, on a most critical subject of national interest, to the American Press. Does the hon. Gentleman remember what he wrote to the "Wall Street Journal" at a time when he had a moment of authority, when he could throw the pound sterling off its balance? He said:
"To send dollars to the British Government is to subsidise Communism."
That is the sort of insanity in which the hon. Gentleman thought fit to indulge. That is the sort of feeling against which I think the State ought to take executive measures to protect itself. During the war it was necessary to send into protective custody the stable-mate of the hon. Gentleman—Captain Ramsay. Perhaps in the present circumstances, when we are in equal difficulties, one might also consider a similar measure in regard to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington. When one considers the complete untruths—and I say that advisedly—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at a Quarter past Eleven o'Clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Festival of Britain Site (Strike)
  Festival of Britain Site (Strike)
  Pneumoconiosis (Unemployed Miners)
  Pneumoconiosis (Unemployed Miners)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Oil Tankers (Dollar Expenditure)
  Oil Tankers (Dollar Expenditure)
  Currency Control
  Currency Control
  Civil Servants (Cars, Mileage Allowance)
  Civil Servants (Cars, Mileage Allowance)
  Sterling Balances (Egypt)
  Sterling Balances (Egypt)
  Maintenance Orders
  Maintenance Orders
  Historic Houses
  Historic Houses
  Income Tax Arrears
  Income Tax Arrears
  Personal Export Scheme
  Personal Export Scheme
  Government Holdings
  Government Holdings
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Utility Wool Cloths
  Utility Wool Cloths
  Comic Supplements (Import Ban)
  Comic Supplements (Import Ban)
  German Machine Tools (Prices)
  German Machine Tools (Prices)
  Panama Hat Fibre
  Panama Hat Fibre
  Rayon Piece Goods (Exports to Australia)
  Rayon Piece Goods (Exports to Australia)
  Timber Imports
  Timber Imports
  Foreign Trade Zones
  Foreign Trade Zones
  Fishing Equipment (Prices)
  Fishing Equipment (Prices)
  Government Factories, South Wales
  Government Factories, South Wales
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  Accounting (Committee's Report)
  Accounting (Committee's Report)
  Redundant Staff
  Redundant Staff
  Decentralisation
  Decentralisation
BRITISH ARMY
  Housing Allowance, Singapore
  Housing Allowance, Singapore
  387 Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
  387 Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
  Sentenced Soldier, Germany
  Sentenced Soldier, Germany
  Cadets (Equipment)
  Cadets (Equipment)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Tree Preservation Orders
  Tree Preservation Orders
  Thames River Walk
  Thames River Walk
  Research Division
  Research Division
  Social Development Officers
  Social Development Officers
  Bombed Cities (Reconstruction)
  Bombed Cities (Reconstruction)
  Development Corporations
  Development Corporations
  New Towns
  New Towns
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Family Allowances (Invalid Children)
  Family Allowances (Invalid Children)
  Pneumoconiosis (Compensation)
  Pneumoconiosis (Compensation)
  Auxiliary Forces (Training Camps)
  Auxiliary Forces (Training Camps)
  ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE (REPORT)
  ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE (REPORT)
  UNITED NATIONS (U.K. CONTRIBUTION)
  UNITED NATIONS (U.K. CONTRIBUTION)
FUEL AND POWER
  Petrol (American Companies)
  Petrol (American Companies)
  Electricity Supplies (Steel Poles)
  Electricity Supplies (Steel Poles)
  MACHINE TOOLS (ALLOCATION)
  MACHINE TOOLS (ALLOCATION)
  BRITISH SHIPS (LOSSES)
  BRITISH SHIPS (LOSSES)
HOUSING
  Berkshire, Hampshire and Wiltshire
  Berkshire, Hampshire and Wiltshire
  International Sanitary Regulations
  International Sanitary Regulations
  Sewerage Schemes
  Sewerage Schemes
  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES
  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES
  EAST AND CENTRAL AFRICA (DEFENCE)
  EAST AND CENTRAL AFRICA (DEFENCE)
  WEST AFRICA (INTOXICANTS)
  WEST AFRICA (INTOXICANTS)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (IMMIGRATION)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (IMMIGRATION)
  RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (SURVEY)
  RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (SURVEY)
  AGRICULTURAL STUDENTS, TRINIDAD
  AGRICULTURAL STUDENTS, TRINIDAD
  BROADCASTING (MILITARY INFORMATION)
  BROADCASTING (MILITARY INFORMATION)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers

  THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL
  2.36 p.m.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA LORD BRABAZON OF TARA rose to move, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the Bill may be referred to consider the advisability of including upon the Conservancy Board a representative of associations of persons owning boats for private use on the River Thames. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not in any way wish to delay the interesting debate that is to follow—namely, that on the Liberties of the Subject Bill, and I know that it is rather unusual to put down a Motion with regard to a Private Bill. But this Private Bill does refer to the River Thames, once described by the late John Burns as "liquid history"—though when one looks at the sometimes muddy constitution of the river perhaps the phrase does not seem quite so happy as was intended.
  The object of this Private Bill promoted by Thames Conservancy is to increase charges. We have no objection to that; in these days all charges are increasing. It also enables them to increase their charges a second time without going to Parliament. We understand in these days that that is a necessary form of machinery, otherwise we should continually be having Private Bills of this sort. To-day, I am speaking as the representative of private boat owners, who sent a deputation to see whether the Thames Conservancy would be agreeable to having on their Board a representative of private boat owners. They received us very courteously, but said that although the constitution of the Conservancy was recited in the Bill they did not want it in any way disturbed, because if it was disturbed by ourselves other people would also be trying to get representation. That was a very cogent reason. I now understand, however, that the status quo is not to be maintained, and that other people and other interests are asking for a
  1036
  change in representation. That being so, the whole thing being in the melting pot, I am submitting this Motion to ask that the Committee shall consider the particular claim from the point of view of private boat owners. If the land drainage contribution is eliminated, boat owners at present contribute no less than 12 per cent. to the funds, and even if land drainage comes in it is over 5 per cent. Consequently, the boat owners are quite an important body.
  This Motion is not an instrument of a very rigid type. It is very mild, and says:
  "…to consider the advisability of including upon the Conservancy Board a representative of associations of persons owning boats for private use on the River Thames."
  I assure your Lordships that nobody has a greater affection for or would be more helpful to the Thames Conservancy than private owners. This Motion is not moved in any spirit of animosity—far from it; all we want is to see whether we can get the justice that we think is our due. I beg to move.
  Moved, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the Bill may be referred, to consider the advisability of including upon the Conservancy Board a representative of associations of persons owning boats for private use on the River Thames.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
  2.40 p.m.
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I think it is particularly fitting that the noble Lord should bring up his Motion at this moment, because next week at Henley-on-Thames there takes place the greatest annual gathering of another fraternity of boating enthusiasts. I think the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, had particularly in mind the owners of mechanically propelled craft, but I refer, of course, to the owners of those craft who spurn his mechanical aids to propulsion and use their own brute force. As a rowing enthusiast myself, I would ask your Lordships to agree that that fraternity, if on account of its numbers alone, which are growing every day, is also entitled to a considerable representation on the Thames Conservancy. I believe I am right in saying that the Amateur Rowing Association, to whom belong the great majority of rowing clubs on the River Thames, are in fact well content with their present relations with the Thames Conservancy, and that they are given

  1037
  every possible assistance in the holding of such events as Henley Regatta and the other lesser regattas on the river. I do not think they would willingly seek for any alteration in these relations, but I should like to suggest that if any consideration is given to actual representation for the owners of private boats on the river, then that representation should include a voice from the rowing fraternity.
  There is only one thing that struck me as slightly strange, in the clause in the Bill referring to such representation. Clause 3 says that one of the members to be appointed by the Minister of Transport shall be appointed after consultation with the associations of persons having recreational interest in the use of the river. I must say that it never occurred to me, when bathing in or boating on the River Thames, that I was doing so under the ægis of the Minister of Transport and of his colleague on the Bench opposite. I should have thought that if those recreations were to be subject to ministerial supervision of any sort, that supervision might more aptly have come from the Minister of Health. However, we are probably in safer hands as we are, so I raise no objection on that score.
  2.43 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships in all parts of the House have listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Brabazon and Lord Polwarth. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has excited in your Lordships a great deal of sympathy for the case he has put forward—that there should be representation upon the Thames Conservancy Board of associations of persons owning boats for private use on the River Thames. On behalf of His Majesty's Government, I support the plea which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara has made—and I do so for these reasons. First of all, it is a matter of great satisfaction to His Majesty's Government—a satisfaction which, I am sure, will be shared by all your Lordships—that this great national waterway, the Thames, is being increasingly used by the citizens for recreational purposes in their own private craft. The number of private registered boats of all
  1038
  sorts—including not only motor-boats but sailing boats, dinghies and rowing boats generally—is over 8,500. Secondly, since those who ply their trade for commercial purposes upon the Thames—those having barge and transport irterests, boat-building interests and boat-letting interests—are all directly represented upon the Thames Conservancy Board, we think it proper that representation should be given to the private boat owner. Thirdly, although appointments to the Thames Conservancy Board are not necessarily related to revenue, the Board at the present time obtain front the private boat owners a revenue of about £25,000 a year, and, as Lord Brabazon of Tara has intimated, under this Bill that will be increased to £30,000 a year.
  I feel certain that the reasons which I have given to your Lordships are very pertinent. That is why His Majesty's Government support the plea of the noble Lord. In asking your Lordships to approve the Motion I think you will appreciate that there are many practical difficulties in the way of the associations of private boat owners appointing an extra conservator on their own initiative. I would suggest—and I hope that your Lordships will agree—that the best way of implementing the intention of Lord Brabazon is to empower my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport to appoint an additional conservator after consultation with such associations of owners of boats used for private purposes as he may think fit. My right honourable friend already has power under the Bill to appoint three conservators.
  If I may, I would now reply to the point which was made by Lord Polwarth. I can tell him that under Clause 6 of the Bill my right honourable friend appoints three conservators. It is provided that one of these shall be appointed after consultations with persons and associations concerned in the use of the Thames for recreational purposes. I can only consider rowing as including in such purposes because, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has rightly said, that involves the expenditure of (to use the noble Lord's own language) a certain amount of brute force. The persons and associations to be consulted by my right honourable friend in that appointment are five bodies re-

  1039
  presenting fishing interests, two representing rowing interests, and one concerned with the preservation of open spaces. So it will be seen that, while rowing interests are represented, at present boat owners in a private capacity are not. As my right honourable friend has this right of appointment after consultation, precedent will be followed if the Select Committee to whom this Bill will be referred follow the same procedure in the appointment of this extra conservator. I suggest that that is the best way of achieving what is desired.
  I think it right to point out to your Lordships that if this Bill were amended as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, desires, and in the manner I have proposed, the Bill as drafted would not allow this extra conservator to take up his duties until 1952. I feel certain, however, that the Select Committee will give very careful consideration to the advisability of allowing the extra conservator, if appointed, to take up his duties at an earlier date than 1952. Perhaps I should add that the main object of the Bill, as Lord Brabazon of Tara has said, is to enable the Thames Conservancy Board to obtain more revenue. In this it has the full support of His Majesty's Government. It is, I think, obvious that this important body, with its great responsibilities, should have the revenue which it needs for the conservation of the river. The state of the Board's finances has been very carefully investigated by the various Government Departments concerned, and the need for additional income has been fully demonstrated. There is just one other point. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has indicated, the Bill as drafted did not set out to amend the constitution of the Board, but I think the case made for representation of private boat owners is so strong that I trust your Lordships' House will approve the Motion, and that the Select Committee will give sympathetic consideration to the instruction which it contains.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, as a humble member of the Opposition, I find it is not often, when one moves a Motion, that one has it accepted by the Government. I am therefore very agreeably astonished at the sympathetic way in which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has received my suggestion. I agree with
  1040
  the noble Lord, even though I did not think ahead with him as to the difficulties about the date and other matters which might ensue. His suggestion about the appointment of this additional conservator is entirely agreeable to us, and I thank the noble Lord for his kindness in this matter.
  On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.

  ARBITRATION BILL [H.L.]
  2.50 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934; and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read la;.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read la;; and to be printed.

  LONDON AIRPORT BUILDINGS
  2.51 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: 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 when an announcement may be expected about the arrangements for the proposed open competition for the design of the Terminal Buildings at London Airport.]
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for giving me an opportunity to make a statement about this matter. When my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Winster, announced that he proposed to throw open the final design of the Terminal Building at London Airport to public competition, it was the intention to build temporary buildings on the terminal site in the first place and later to replace these by permanent construction. It is now clear that pressure on space in the central area will be too great to allow this transitional plan to be carried out, and I therefore propose that the Terminal Building shall be in permanent construction from the start. The final requirements for the terminal

  1041
  area have become settled only after a considerable period of development, in the course of which it has become clear that the work is not an appropriate subject for open competition. After consultation with Mr. Graham Dawbarn, who was to have been assessor for the competition, and with the appropriate authorities, I now propose to appoint as architect for the permanent building Mr. Frederick Gibberd, who since October, 1948, has been consulting architect for the interim scheme and has already acquired during its planning stage a considerable experience of the problems generated by the complex and functional layout of a great modern international airport. I thought it right to place this matter before the House in view of the earlier statement made to your Lordships.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his statement. I can well understand that in a highly technical matter of this kind it is important to secure the best and most experienced technical expert we can, and that it would not be a wholly suitable subject for competition among architects at large. While I appreciate that, it is important that the buildings should be as agreeable in their aspect as possible in addition to being as convenient as possible, and I should like to be sure that due attention is being paid to that side of the matter.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his remarks, and assure him that great attention is being paid to the point he has mentioned.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (HARTLEPOOL) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.

  LIBERTIES OF THE SUBJECT BILL [H.L.]
  2.54 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the Bill which I have the honour to submit for Second Reading consists of twelve operative clauses which deal with twelve different matters, but they are all con-
  1042
  nected because they embody a single principle, the vindication of the liberties of the subject. If anyone were disposed to criticise a Bill so constructed I could offer quite respectable precedents in the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. During the last thirty or forty years, imperceptibly, almost unconsciously, here a little and there a little, there have been encroachments upon that great and precious heritage. Only yesterday I had the pleasure of listening to an interesting oration by a distinguished American statesman, Mr. John W. Davis, who years ago had been Ambassador in London, and in the course of his speech he greatly moved his audience by referring to those liberties which were the foundation of the American way of life. He said of these—supremacy of elected assemblies, the rule of law, trial by jury, habeas corpus, freedom of the Press—that not a syllable in any of.them but was drawn from the old law and custom of Britain. I do not suggest to-day that we have lost, or are in danger of losing, those liberties, but I do suggest that they have been again and again impaired, that that process is still continuing, and that it needs to be stopped and reversed.
  For this tendency there have been two causes, springing front the two principal events of the first half of the Twentieth Century. One of them has been the two world wars, which brought upon the State many problems of instant urgency, calling to be dealt with without a moment's delay and resulting in the slow procedure of normal legislation having to be brushed aside and almost dictatorial powers conferred, upon the Government of the day. Short Statutes were passed by the assent of Parliament, sometimes through all stages in a single day, conferring immense powers upon the Ministers to make rules and regulations on all manner of subjects which every citizen, under penalties of fine and imprisonment, was obliged to obey. Even now, after the peace, or semi-peace, of the last five years, not all these liberties have been restored, and there is danger that some of these restrictions may be allowed unnecessarily to slip into our permanent system of government.
  The second great event of the present century has been the rapid growth in State action. Laissez faire as a universal principle is no longer supported by any

  1043
  Party in the State, and all have realised that often it may be necessary to have more law in order to secure greater liberty. Much social and economic legislation has been passed, after a time perhaps by general agreement and with general support. And it is realised that measures which were needed must be allowed to work to be effective. Therefore, Bills must be passed without too much delay, and the power conferred must be adequate to prevent evasion by interested parties. We realise that democracy must not only be free government but must also be effective government. Those were wise words said by Alexander Hamilton:
  "In a government framed for durable liberty not less regard must be paid to giving the magistrate a proper degree of authority to make and execute the laws with rigour than to guard against encroachments upon the rights of the community; as too much power leads to despotism, too little leads to anarchy, and both eventually to the ruin of the people."
  Democrats must learn that adequate power to make and enforce the laws must be granted to democratic Governments if they are to be efficient for their purpose. We have to learn by the events of the first half of this Twentieth Century. We have seen democracy fall in many countries—Germany, Italy and Spain, for example. In others—for instance, Greece and sometimes in France—it remains precarious, because quarrels between the democratic Parties mean ineffective government, necessary tasks left undone, and peoples left to suffer.
  Therefore, I am not one of those who believe that we can sweep away at a stroke all the delegated legislation, and expect that Parliament should pay attention to even the minutest details of administration. That would mean the choking of our Legislature and the inefficiency of our Government. It has been the wise practice sometimes to devolve power upon local authorities—who are themselves elected by and responsible to the people, and make great codes of by-laws—and sometimes to authorise the Government to draft Orders-in-Council or to make departmental regulations. The powers must be divided, as has always been recognised by every constitutional theorist, between the legislative, the executive and the judicial; and the distribution of those
  1044
  powers may need reconsideration and adjustment from time to time.
  The consequence of these two great changes, first the impact upon the world of war conditions, and secondly the largely extended activities of the State, has been an increase in the number of those encroachments to which attention was drawn nearly twenty years ago by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hewart, in his book The New Despotism. Following upon the publication of that book, the Lord Chancellor of that day, Lord Sankey, appointed a Committee on Ministers' Powers, who reported in 1932. The Chairman of that Committee was first Lord Donoughmore, and afterwards Sir Leslie Scott, whose recent death we greatly deplore. It is the publication of these Reports, and the general current of public opinion, which is becoming sensitive and alarmed at these encroachments, that have led to the introduction of this Bill.
  Three years ago a similar Bill, with some differences, was introduced in this House by my noble friend Lord Reading. When introducing that Bill he used these words:
  "I claim no personal credit for this Bill. I introducing it to your Lordships, I am acting merely as the mouthpiece of the liberal Party, by whom it has been conceived, prepared and sponsored."
  Lord Reading having, unhappily, left us, I do not think that I should plead guilty to having kidnapped his infant Bill, but rather that he should face a charge of desertion. Nor do I desire to claim any monopoly for the Liberal Party in devotion to liberty, or in anxiety to enact the principles of this Bill. Mr. Churchill said at a great meeting a few weeks ago that he was "much encouraged by the Bill embodying individual rights which the Liberal Party had sponsored and had introduced in the House of Lords." It might at first sight appear that this was one of those blandishments of which we have been the gratified but coy and wary objects since the General Election. But that is clearly not the case, because this Bill was introduced in 1947, before the Election, and was at that time supported by noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, and by their votes and those of their followers in the Division Lobby. As to the position of the Government, the Lord Chancellor, in speaking on that Bill, said that of course he approved the

  1045
  general principles as unexceptionable, though I believe that he took exception to all the clauses one by one.
  The Lord Chancellor himself has done much to promote this movement towards the restoration of the liberties of the subject, for it was he who was responsible in 1947 for the Crown Proceedings Act, that great Statute of fifty sections which fully vindicates the rights of the subject in litigation against the Crown. That and other Statutes will make his tenure of office as Lord Chancellor noteworthy in the history of English law. I hope that he will add to his renown by taking the present Bill under his patronage and by co-operating in shaping it, redeeming it from the faults which no doubt it possesses and in curbing any undue ambitions which he may find in it, so smoothing its way to the Statute Book.
  For my own part, being anxious to gain general assent to this Bill and to ease its passage, I have omitted two clauses included in the former Bill which evidently gave rise to keen controversy in debate. One was the then Clause 12 which dealt with the highly controversial subject of the closed shop. Those opposed to that clause may well have been justified in voting against the Second Reading of the Bill, as it was a matter of such great importance and high controversy. As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon said:
  "That clause stands rather apart from the rest of the Bill."
  Indeed, it must be admitted that the matter of the closed shop should be dealt with (if at all) as part of trade union legislation, or in a separate Bill. Clause 10 in the previous Bill, dealing with the Assistance Board, has also been omitted from the present Bill. The late Lord Rushcliffe spoke in the debate on the former Bill, and took strong exception to that clause. Other members of your Lordships' House also showed that they disapproved of it. Therefore, in order that this Bill may be made as non-controversial as possible, that matter has been left out. On the other hand, we have inserted two new clauses in this Bill, Clauses 10 and 11, which have arisen out of experience gained since 1947.
  I trust that if the Bill passes Second Reading and goes to Committee we may enjoy the co-operation of all members of your Lordships' House, and particularly
  1046
  of my noble and learned friends Lord Reading and Lord Simon, in redrafting any clause which may be found imperfect. A highly technical Bill of this character is most difficult to draft, and ought properly to be prepared by the Government draftsman. I need hardly say that if the Lord Chancellor would co-operate by putting the Government draftsman at our disposal, as is sometimes done in regard to Bills that are intended to be non-controversial and have general assent, no one would welcome that more than we should. Such a spirit of accommodation would certainly be shown by the promoters of the Bill, and particularly by myself—it might even extend to absolute subservience if only we could get the Bill through as a measure passed by the whole House as a result of its cornbined wisdom.
  It is my duty to give a brief explanation of the clauses. It will be brief, because, after an experience of generations, we have learned, both in this House and in the other House, that we cannot expect to do everything at once. We divide our procedure into stages: certain thins are proper for the Second Reading, and others are properly relegated to the Committee or the Report stages. To-day I shall not attempt to present a full argument in favour of each clause, but will give merely the gist of it and the main reasons for promoting it, although I shall feel obliged in a number of cases to say a few words in reply to the observations of the Lord Chancellor in the previous debate, since there was no opportunity for reply on that occasion. However, I shall do my best not to plunge into a mass of technical detail.
  Clause 1, which is perhaps the most important clause of the Bill, deals with the control of Parliament over delegated legislation. As your Lordships are aware, when regulations or other statutory instruments are laid before your Lordships' House, they can be either rejected or approved. There is no intermediate course; they can never be amended. It is the same in the other House. Therefore your Lordships may frequently be placed in a great dilemma, especially at a time of national emergency, when all of a hurry great powers have to be conferred upon the Administration of the day. Among those powers there might be one to which strong objec-

  1047
  tion is taken, and properly taken. For example, there might be included the power to establish industrial conscription, and for the allocation of labour over the whole country, in all trades and occupations. In those circumstances, this House and the other House would be slow to reject the whole body of regulations, because to do so might imperil the State. On the other hand they would be slow to pass that particular regulation. Consequently, it has been felt by many Parliamentarians for a long time past that there ought to be a power to amend, and that we should not merely have to submit to a dilemma, both horns of which might be dangerous, either to accept or to reject.
  The Lord Chancellor objected to this course, saying that the clause was unnecessarily wide and that it brought in certain classes of regulations which need not have been brought in. Consequently, in this Bill, in order to narrow the limits of discussion, we have not made the clause applicable to "any Act," covering a great number of instances in the past history of this country, but only to the Supplies and Services Acts, 1945 and 1947. There, especially in the latter measure, enormous powers were conferred upon the Government. They can make any regulations

  "(a) for promoting productivity of industry, commerce and agriculture;

  (b) for fostering and directing exports and reducing imports, or imports of any classes, from all or any countries, and for redressing the balance of trade;

  (c) generally"—

  your Lordships will mark these words—
  "for ensuring that the whole resources of the community are available for use, and are used in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community."
  It is impossible to imagine a wider range of powers than those that have been thereby conferred.
  The proposal which is embodied in this Bill is already the law of the land in regard to one particular Statute—namely, the Government of India Act. 1935, Section 475, which declares that when a draft order has been laid before Parliament an Address may be presented to His Majesty by both Houses of Parliament—these are the words:
  "praying that the Order may be made either in the form of the draft, or with such amendments as both Houses of Parliament may have agreed to."
  1048
  That being now the law of the land—although I believe there has never been occasion to act upon that particular provision—the proposal in this Bill cannot be brushed aside as being merely impracticable or quite unnecessary. The Lord Chancellor said that the real difficulty was how this right to be given to both Houses of Parliament concurrently, could be made to work, supposing that one House took one course and the other House took the other course. He indicated that the wit of man had found it impossible to overcome that difficulty. But we overcome it every day in the case of Bills, and whenever one House introduces an amendment to which the other House disagrees, there may be conferences between the two. One or other then gives way, or a compromise is agreed to, and in the last resort each House has to make up its own mind whether by insisting it will lose the whole Bill or by giving way it will enable the Bill to pass into law. Precisely the same procedure should be adopted if it is desired to discover a method for putting into operation this proposed provision.
  As to this suggestion being unreasonable and impracticable, I would draw the Lord Chancellor's attention to a statement made in the other House in 1934 by Mr. Attlee, the present Prime Minister, when he was Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. He said on this very matter:
  "I think the system has grown and has got steadily worse; one recognises, in the complicated legislation of the present time, that there must be a means of making Orders applying detailed regulations, but they should come in a form in which the House can amend them."
  He went on to say:
  "This House should have the opportunity, either on the floor of the House or through Committees, of thoroughly examining regulations in draft and amending them."
  If the Lord Chancellor again roundly condemns the whole suggestion he will be saying that his present Leader—and then a very responsible one in a very responsible position in the other House—was making a recommendation which was unreasonable or impracticable.
  Clause 2 deals with powers to make regulations under a new Act—powers which are embodied in several Statutes—including power to adapt requirements of previous Statutes on the same subject to fit in with the new Act. That has usually been done by Parliament, with full

  1049
  agreement on all sides, mainly for the adjustment of administrative details. Some new voluminous Statute, very complicated, is brought in to amend a large number of previous Statutes, and then regulations are authorised to fit the procedure of the one into the procedure of the others. But the point is that sometimes these Statutes exclude the jurisdiction of the courts on the issue whether a regulation is itself lawful—not whether a regulation is desirable or not, but whether the regulation does in fact conform to the provisions of the Statute. That is the only point which is dealt with in this clause of the Bill.
  The Committee on Ministers' Powers, to which I have referred, said that this practice should be abandoned in all but the most exceptional cases, and then a period of challenge of at least three months and preferably six months should be allowed; that is to say, that within that period the validity, the legality, of the regulation might be challenged in a court of law as being ultra vires. That is a clear recommendation of that Committee, which was appointed to examine precisely into these subjects and consisted of seventeen members of a very representative and authoritative character—Members of both Houses, civil servants, members of the legal profession, including respected members of the Labour Party, Miss Ellen Wilkinson, Professor Harold Laski and Mr. Robert Richards—and all its recommendations were unanimous. I submit that when a Committee of that kind makes unanimous recommendations, Parliament should regard the burden of proof as lying on those who would reject them, and not on those who would accept them. When a representative Committee is appointed and it makes recommendations, you have to give reasons why you should not accept them and not reasons why you should. Since,prima facie, that regulation is reasonable I submit to the Lord Chancellor that when he demurs from it he should give convincing reasons why he should do so.
  Clause 3 deals with Statutes which allow Ministers to alter the provisions to the Statute itself and modify other Statutes as well. That is a very strong power to give to a Minister—that he is authorised to say that what hitherto has been the law of the land, enacted by Parliament, is to be altered without the
  1050
  specific assent of Parliament to such amendment, and that he can alter even the new provisions of Statute itself. Here again, the Committee to which I have referred roundly condemned that practice. It said that (a) it should never be used except for the sole purpose of bringing an Act into operation; and (b) that it should be subject to a time limit of one year from the passing of the Act. That recommendation has not been acted on and eighteen years have elapsed since then. Of course it would be absurd now to pass an Act laying down that this should apply for one year after the passage of each of the Acts to which it applies. Therefore we insert this clause in this Bill to say such powers should lapse one year after the passage of the present Bill.
  Clause 4, again, embodies a recommendation of the Committee. Many Statutes authorise Ministers to appoint tribunals, and sometimes these tribunals are called upon to decide points of law, as well as matters lying within the discretion of the Minister, without any appeal to the High Court. This clause proposes that an appeal to the High Court should be authorised in all such cases. That is another recommendation of the Committee. The Lord Chancellor gave no reason against the proposal except that it would give a great deal of trouble and that it had been done once by Parliament in connection with ex-Service men, necessitating the review of a large number of cases already decided amongst ex-Service men. But it was quite right that those cases should have been reopened; and certain test cases having been brought and decided against the Minister, great numbers of disabled soldiers secured pensions. There may be many other such cases—not of ex-Service men but of injured workmen who have suffered disability through their employment and who have been wrongly deprived of their pensions through misinterpretation or maladministration of the law. It is surely desirable that that injustice should be remedied.
  Clause 5 deals with a widespread grievance. Many Statutes have provided that local public inquiries should be held in certain matters, and those inquiries are usually presided over by a lawyer of high status or by some senior official of the Department concerned. Evidence may be taken and counsel heard; there

  1051
  are, perhaps, several days of inquiry and a report is drawn up by whoever presides over it. But such reports need not be published and the recommendations need not be acted upon. The parties concerned, who have taken all this trouble to present their case, may never know whether the judgment has been given in their favour or against them; or, if the decision is not acted upon, what the reasons have been. It is, again, a recommendation of this authoritative committee that such reports should be published, and that when the Minister dissents from the recommendation of an inquiry he should give reasons for his decision. The Lord Chancellor, in taking exception to this clause also, said that it did not precisely conform to the recommendation of the Committee but depended in some degree on the definition of "quasi-judicial." Surely that is a matter of drafting: the question is whether the principle is right.
  Clause 6 deals with food control regulations and the right of inspectors of the Department concerned to enter premises in search of goods which are not being handled in accordance with the regulations. Judging from the cuttings I have received from the Press, their observations on this part of the Bill are more numerous than on any other. The Bill is regarded as an "anti-snoopers" Bill—to quote the headlines I have seen. These observations refer to the general power of entering without specific authority which is possessed by these inspectors, who are extremely numerous. This is resented by the population at large. We ask that the same kind of authority should be needed in this case as that which is required by the police when they are making searches. The Englishman's house is still immune from arbitrary entry by the police; they have to go to a magistrate and get a search warrant. These officials are under no such obligation and no equivalent obligation to produce an authority from a high official of their Department. The Lord Chancellor said in this connection that he did not know whether an affidavit would be required. The police do not have to present an affidavit and, similarly, it is not suggested that an affidavit should be required in these instances; but what is necessary for the police, who are enforcing the regulations of criminal law, should
  1052
  surely be necessary also for the lesser right of entry in connection with a search for possible infractions of the food Acts.
  Clause 7 deals with a different kind of point. Your Lordships may remember that during the fuel crisis of two or three years ago, restrictions on the use of power were enforced. Many industries were affected, including the printing presses. No regulation was made, but the Government ordered as part of their proceedings that certain periodicals, which they regarded as unessential, should stop publication altogether. This included certain weeklies, for example the religious weeklies. This was not done by any regulation, though it could have been done under regulation had the Government so desired. But the Press obeyed the instructions of the Government without inquiring into their legality, and the stopping of the publication of these papers was greatly resented. When the Supplies and Services (Amendment) Bill was introduced not long afterwards no provision appeared in it in regard to this matter, and one of my right honourable friends in the other place moved an Amendment to make any such action illegal. That was debated by Parliament and the principle was embodied in the Bill; but it does not apply to the original Act. This clause, which we suggest is a very reasonable one, would cause it to be so applied.
  Clause 8 deals with breaches of marketing schemes. It is too technical a matter to go into in detail but the purpose of the clause is clearly set out and its terms made clear in the accompanying memorandum. The Agricultural Act of 1949 retains powers to inflict penalties which are in future to be exercised by a discliplinary committee. That is certainly an improvement. The present Acts give wide powers to non-judicial bodies to impose penalties; but we suggest that there is no reason why the ordinary magistrates' courts should not find a person guilty of an offence—if he is in fact guilty—and should not themselves apply penalties, as they are empowered to do in all the other multifarious regulations which affect (or, as some would say, afflict) our lives. That is the kind of matter which could probably be threshed out in Committee.
  Clause 9 deals with the disabilities of litigants when they are proceeding against public authorities. Anyone who brings

  1053
  a suit against a public authority, or certain public authorities, is subjected to a number of disabilities from which he would be free if the other party were a private individual. This has been dealt with by another Committee, the Committee on Limitation of Actions, presided over by Lord Justice Tucker. Their Report was published in 1949, since your Lordships' last debate on this subject. Here again, that Committee were unanimous that there is no justification for the discrimination now made, and that it ought to be altered. Some question arises as to what should be the period in which certain proceedings have to be taken. That is not a matter for this Bill, but a general matter which should be decided elsewhere. This Bill, however, can lay down the principle and not leave the matter over, perhaps for twenty years, as has been the case with the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee.
  Clause 10 is new. It deals with the very difficult question of a proper Parliamentary control over nationalised industries. There must be sufficient control to prevent industries from being irresponsible and abuse arising. On the other hand, one does not want so much control as to interfere in the day-to-day administration of those industries. When an industry has been nationalised, that having been deliberately done by Parliament and it being the law of the land, the industry ought to be given an even chance to make its administration efficient and successful; it should not be subjected to all kinds of red-tape regulations from which private enterprise is free. To hold the balance even between those two considerations is a matter of difficulty. The course that we propose here is that which has been already adopted by Parliament in one of the earlier nationalised or socialised industries—the Port of London Act, 1908, which gives power for people who consider that they have been treated unjustly by the employing body to invoke assistance from higher authority. We suggest that that might be done quite generally in the nationalised industries.
  Clause 11 is also new and is the result of an incident which has taken place comparatively recently, when a very important business firm of retail traders made a regulation that no one who was either a Communist or a Fascist should be admitted to their employment. We may strongly disapprove of Communists or Fascists, but we may also disapprove of
  1054
  such Communist or Fascist principles as that of making people's employment dependent upon their conformity to the predominant opinions of the country. If it is contrary to public policy that such a condition should be imposed, the making of the condition ought to be prohibited by Parliament, just as in the making of wills or bequests a person who has been excluded from a bequest, or upon whom certain conditions have been imposed, may apply to the courts that it should be held invalid as being against public policy. In the case of employment, that course could not be followed without special statutory provision, and in this Bill we make that provision.
  Exceptions have to be made, and exceptions are made in the Bill. If, for example, the Catholic community have some institution and desire that Catholics should be employed in it, that would be quite proper and would be covered by this Bill. Similarly, the headquarters of the Socialist Party might be at liberty to exclude any person who would otherwise have secured employment, on the ground that he was a vehement and active opponent of their Party. Those special cases have to be met. I understand that some objection will be taken to the actual wording of this clause, on the ground that it does not sufficiently permit the religious organisations to employ in their own institutions persons of their own faiths. I need hardly say that we should be very ready to accept any reasonable Amendment in that respect.
  Clause 12—and your Lordships will no doubt be relieved to hear that this is the last clause that I shall mention—deals with habeas corpus. The point was fully debated by both Houses at the time when the Visiting Forces Act was introduced. It says that visiting forces in this country, whether from the Dominions or from other countries, established here for strategic reasons shall be exempt from the law of the land and subject to their own military law, and that there shall be no right to sue for a writ of habeas corpus. Again, I do not wish to enter into the pros and cons of this particular argument, but I do urge that it is a matter that is prima facie well worthy of the consideration of your Lordships' House. That is all the more so since the view expressed in this clause of the Bill was ardently supported in another place

  1055
  by Sir Stafford Cripps when the matter first came before Parliament in 1933. He said that it was a matter of the most profound importance and he moved an Amendment in the very terms of this clause of this Bill. I had forgotten the circumstances myself, but on looking up the debate I found that I had the pleasure of seconding that Amendment, in a very eloquent and convincing speech! Moreover, Lord Buckmaster and many other high legal authorities have held the same view. I would venture to urge the Lord Chancellor that he should not dismiss this proposal out of hand, but should give it further consideration and, above all, should not deny the Bill as a whole admission to a Committee. I may mention that this particular suspension of habeas corpus applies now to the Polish Resettlement Corps which has been established in this country.
  Those are the clauses of the Bill and I have endeavoured to deal with them in as concise a manner as was compatible with comprehensibility. The main question now before your Lordships, I submit, is not the propriety, and still less the wording, of any one of these twelve clauses, but whether this Bill should go to a Committee for further examination or whether your Lordships should now throw it out as being a bad or an unncessary Bill, there not being even a prima facie case for the consideration of all these matters. As I said in my opening observations, I earnestly hope that this Bill will receive a tolerant and sympathetic consideration from the whole of this House and, indeed, from Parliament as a whole. We would not venture for a moment to prescribe or even to suggest a procedure for another place in any of their own affairs. We have drafted these clauses with a view to our own procedure, and as a basis for discussion in another place, in their own way, in so far as they feel disposed to examine this matter. Therefore, I hope that both Houses and all Parties, lawyers as well as laymen, will by general assent agree to pass this Bill. I feel sure that, if they do so, such action will be most welcome to the public opinion of the nation at large. It is in that spirit that I beg to move the Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a;.—(Viscount Samuel.)
  3.39 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am glad to be able to give my support to the general principle underlying this Bill. I should like to say how grateful the whole House must be to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, for the full explanation which he has given us of this measure. It was accompanied by certain blandishments and I must say, whatever the attitude of the Liberal Party, that I thought I detected that the Lord Chancellor was looking a little coy and wary when the blandishments were made to him.
  On Second Reading we should be discussing, and, if necessary, voting upon, the general principle underlying a Bill. It is only right for me to say that there are certain clauses in this Bill—I will not mention more than one of them—which I, at any rate at the present moment, could not support. I will refer only to Clause 12, which says in effect that habeas corpus proceedings can be taken in respect of Dominion troops or persons of that sort when stationed in this country. The reason why I am against that clause is very simple—namely, that it seems to me that one cannot lightly break an agreement come to at an imperial Conference. The Governments of the Dominions must certainly be consulted first. It is true that in present circumstances no one sitting on this side of the House has the right or opportunity of consulting the Governments of the Dominions. This clause has raised an important point, and it was raised as far back as May, 1947, when the Bill was previously before the House. It would be interesting to know from some Government spokesmen whether the Government have in the meantime made any inquiries of the Dominions upon this matter.
  The last time this Bill was before us we had a brilliant introductory speech from the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, whom I am glad to see sitting among us now. I do not think it will be found that he has deserted the Bill. I would not call his recent action desertion of the Liberal Party, but rather a wise exercise by the noble Marquess of that liberty and freedom of expression which is the whole object of the Bill before your Lordships' House at the present time. I have referred to the point about

  1057
  Clause 12, mainly to ask whether the Government, since this Bill was originally introduced into this House in 1947, have looked into the various points which it raises. Three years ago the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack said of the similar Bill that as a manifesto he could support it but as a Bill he could not, and it was not wise to put a manifesto into a Bill. That seems to me to bring us straight up against one of the most difficult things in life—it is, no doubt, an expression often used by marry of your Lordships in the Prayer of General Thanksgiving—namely, that those things to which we Rive service with our lips we should practise in our lives. I would suggest to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that it is no good giving merely lip service to freedom and saying you will support it in a manifesto, if there is to be no action to see that our freedoms are restored to us. Bearing in mind the wisdom of that course, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to give the Bill more active support this afternoon.
  I do not wish to go into great detail in regard to the various clauses of this measure; that has already been done by the noble Viscount who introduced the Bill. May T. however, say a word about Clause I? I do not see that it is beyond the wit of man to establish some procedure whereby each House may suggest amendments to Orders-in-Council without there being any great degree of Parliamentary obstruction. Not very long ago we had a case of a regulation put forward under the Town and Country Planning Act. I believe that that regulation would not come under Clause I of the Bill as at present drawn, but there was considerable agitation in regard to it in both Houses, and I moved a Prayer in this House to negative it. It is true, also, that the Minister withdrew it because of the representations made to him in both Houses, and, I believe, privately by local authorities. The position, however, is that the only way in which we could deal with that regulation was to pray against the whole Order. It was quite an extensive Order and we wanted an alteration in regard to only one particular point. Similar instances can be quoted, but I give that one because it is
  1058
  very much in my mind, as I moved the Prayer in your Lordships' House.
  As I say, it does not seem to me to be beyond the wit of man to arrange some procedure whereby these genuine points could be raised and an amendment made by either House of Parliament, the Order being passed back to the other Howe to see whether they agreed with the amendment or not. Knowing your Lordships' House, as I have now for five years, I do not think there need be any fear of frivolous points or Obstruction of other kind being taken on those Orders. Of course, it is wrong for me to criticise another place, but I was once there, and I know that sometime; when one wanted to prevent other measures being brought in, one could put down a large number of Amendments to measures to which one had not a great dear: of objection. But I think that difficulty could be overcome. It would' e for the House of Commons to work out in what way it could be overcome, so that only really substantial points in Orders-in-Council would have to be dealt with as at present.
  I wish now to pass to Clause 4. I think that in regard to points of law there should always be an appeal to the courts from any of these judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals. We have now a number of these tribunals. Speaking on December 15, 1948, in another place, the Attorney-General said that he thought there were about a hundred of them. It certainly seems to me that where the tribunals, which are by no means ail stalled with experienced lawyers, go wrong on a point of law, they ought to be subject to correction, as indeed judges of the lower courts are by Judicial Members of this House, by members of the Court of Appeal or by members of the Court of Criminal Appeal. Lord Justice Denning put this problem quite clearly, I think, in the Hamlyn Lecture for 1949 when he said:
  "In many of the cases which come before the tribunals you will find that the Government Department or the local authority concerned has already come to a conclusion on it adverse to the individual. A soldier will have had his claim for a pension rejected by the Minster of Pensions, an injured workman will have had his claim for industrial benefit rejected by the Insurance Officer, the Agricultural Executive Committee will have formed the view that the farmer is not farming his land properly, the Medical Executive Council will have thought the doctor should not be con-

  1059
  tinued in the Health Services, and so forth. The man is therefore appealing against the official view.'
  Consequently the need is for a tribunal of absolute impartiality and independence. Lord Justice Denning goes on to say:
  "How then is this independence to be achieved? The answer is, by giving a right of appeal on a point of law to a superior Court which is itself known to be independent. The law then which the tribunals will apply will be the law laid down by the superior Court and not by the Government."
  I am strongly of opinion that something ought to be done on the lines of Clause 4. I must say that, like the noble Viscount, I was not greatly impressed by the arguments adduced against this clause on the last occasion by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack. Surely, if so many cases had arisen requiring to be dealt with because of the decision of the High Court Judge which the Lord Chancellor quoted, then clearly the persons concerned were not getting their rights. It is surely better to have a considerable number of appeals under this procedure, rather than to permit a whole number of cases in which men do not get that treatment and that justice which Parliament laid down merely because there is no right of appeal. I am told that one of the fields in which this is more necessary at the moment than in any other is that which comes under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. There are a large number of tribunals up and down the country which are giving a bewildering diversity of decisions. As one solicitor who knows quite a lot about that class of work said to me only the other day: "You do not want all these tribunals acting on different principles." It is right that there should be a co-ordinating authority, and the right co-ordinating authority to administer what Parliament has laid down should surely be, as it has always been, the High Court of Justice in this country.
  Now I should like to say a word about Clause 5, which deals with public local inquiries. I am convinced that something needs to be done to make them less of a farce than they often are at the present time. Why do I say that they are rather a farce? One remembers the case that arose in connection with the town, the name of which the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack has, I believe, attached to his title—Stevenage. Your Lordships may
  1060
  remember that the then Minister of Town and Country Planning made some extremely outspoken remarks—and I do not know that he was to be blamed, if he thought it right to make them. He said that he was determined to go on with the scheme before ever the public inquiry had been set up, and he was the man to take the decision upon the report which his inspector made. The House of Lords has decided that it is quite unnecessary for the Minister to show any impartiality under the Town and Country Planning Act, because he is not occupying a judicial or quasi-judicial position.
  What is more, in this case what the House of Lords decided—that is under the present law, of course—was that the persons trying to get the thing done (I use a neutral expression purposely, because it may cover a multitude of matters) to which objection is taken need never make out their case at all. One finds cases similar to that in which the Army authorities tried to take over a hit of Dorset. There was a public local inquiry, but the Army authorities never had to go into the witness-box, so there was no opportunity of asking them why they could not go to some derelict part of the country, or of putting any questions of a similar nature to them. Surely the right way to conduct an inquiry, when it is held, is to have all parties present and to allow each to question the other's case. When that is done you get a broad basis on which the inspector can make his report.
  Another thing I should like to say about these inquiries is that in my view there should be a panel of inspectors appointed by the Lord Chancellor, instead of having inspectors from the different Departments concerned. I recall that in the days when I practised at the Bar I was given a brief, on behalf of the Middlesex County Council, when the Western Avenue was being constructed. The objections that were being made to it, generally speaking, were to the effect that we were taking too much ground, that we were making the road too broad and that it was not going in the right direction. We appeared before a Ministry of Transport inspector. I asked my instructing solicitor what attitude the Ministry of Transport were taking to this matter. He said: "It is a large arterial road out of London, and they are paying

  1061
  a large proportion of the costs." I have forgotten the exact proportion, but I think he said about 90 per cent. I said: "They will know all about the plans will they not?" He replied: "They have approved the plans; in fact the plans are practically their plans, rather than ours." I. said to the solicitor: "I should think this is going to be one of the most easily earned fees I shall ever take in my life." However, there it was. I was as kind and tactful as I could be to all the objectors, and perhaps I earned my fee in that way. But at any rate there was not the slightest doubt, from the moment the inquiry started, that this road was going through just at it had been planned by the Ministry of Transport in conjunction with the Middlesex County Council.
  That really should not be. In cases like that I think an outside inspector would have taken the same view as the Ministry's inspector, and there is no doubt of the view that the Ministry of Transport's inspector would take. It is important that in all these cases the Minister should publish the inspector's report, and in every case where there has been a public inquiry the Minister ought to give the reasons for his decision. He has to do so under the Ribbon Development Act, and if he has to do so under that Act, I do not see why he should not have to do it under any other Act under which local inquiries are held.
  Clause 6 deals with the power of officers of entry without a warrant from a justice of the peace, as is normal in the bulk of cases. I believe there are still 18,000 people who have these powers of entry without warrant. It is incredible to think that these inspectors of the Ministry of Food, who form the main portion of this number—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The number o Ministry of Food inspectors is 750, out of a total staff of 18,800.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I accept his figure of 750 inspectors of the Ministry of Food, but almost all these 18,000 officers I Live mentioned act in some way under the Supplies and Services Act—the noble and learned Viscount will correct me again am wrong. The astounding thing is that now, in times of peace, it should still be thought necessary to equip inspectors with these powers, when an ordinary policeman en-
  1062
  forcing the law does not have them. I was led to deal with the Ministry of Food inspectors because on the last occasion the noble aid learned Viscount said that a black market might run riot without such power that when an inspector was looking for black market food it might be roomed by the time he obtained a search warrant. The really prevalent offence in this country to-day is that of receiving stolen goods. There are more housebreakings, burglaries and robberies to-day than at any other time. Yet it is not thought to give the police power to follow up stolen property without a search warrant. I see no reason whatever why we should give this unlimited power of entry to some 18,000 officers, from whatever Department they may come.
  I should like to say a word on Clause 8. I do not think we should go so far as to say that any case under the Agricultural Marketing Act should necessarily be taken before the courts of summary jurisdiction. If people think they ought not to be fined behind closed doors, as it were, and should be dealt with in public, I think the way to get round that would be give the offender the right to say that he would sooner be treated by a court of summary jurisdiction than be dealt with by the disciplinary committee of the organisation concerned. There is good precedent for this. I do not know whether at any time any of your Lordships has failed to lake out his motor vehicle licence. It has not actually happened to me, but I know that in some counties when a motorist runs over the date he receives a letter from the county council saying that a road licence has not been taken out and the mitigated penalty will be so many Pounds. If he there and then pays the mitigated penalty, proceedings will not be taken. A wise motorist will pay the mitigated penalty straight away, but if it is desired to contest the matter he can take it to the courts. Let us deal with these agricultural penalties in the same way.
  On a Bill like this, one could go on talking at great length on every clause, but I am not going to deal with them arty further. In conclusion, I would go back to the principle underlying the Bill. Over the course of the past twenty years or so, as a result of the effects of two world wars in which we have been engaged, we have tended to whittle away the liberties of the

  1063
  subject. It is about time we took a look round to see how many we can restore and what restrictions are still essential for the purposes of the State. Those that are not essential ought to be abolished. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel referred to the speech that Mr. John Davis, a great friend of this country, delivered at the Pilgrims' dinner yesterday. I should like to make another reference to his speech. Mr. Davis said that
  "Our chief invisible export is liberty."
  We hope that it will continue to be so, but we cannot build up a good export trade unless we have a good sale for a commodity in our own country. I beg your Lordships to look at this Bill in that light, and to keep our liberty as wide as possible. By all means let us examine the Bill clause by clause, and see which clauses are necessary and which ought to be modified, but I hope that this measure will receive a unanimous Second Reading from your Lordships this afternoon.

  THE POSITION IN KOREA
  4.10 p.m.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to intervene to read a short statement about Korea which the Prime Minister made in the other place a few minutes ago. He said:
  "I have very little to add to the Press reports on the fighting in Korea. The scale and intensity of the attack leaves no doubt that this is a full-scale invasion. Although the attack was launched all along the 38° Parallel, the first and main objective is clearly Seoul. The situation in and around Seoul is confused. There are reports that Northern Korean forces are pressing southwards to the east and west of Seoul, making full use of their superior mobility and greater weight of armour and artillery.
  The latest information about the small United Kingdom community is that all of them, and all the other Commonwealth women and children living in Seoul, who wished to leave, moved to Inchon (the port for Seoul) on June 26 for evacuation by sea.
  The Security Council is meeting again this afternoon.
  1064
  With permission of the House, I will interrupt the debate later to-day if any further developments of importance occur."
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships are grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for making that statement. I should like to ask him two questions, one particular and one general. I do not know whether he is able to say what is the approximate number of British and Commonwealth subjects in South Korea. My other question the noble Viscount has rather anticipated by his last sentence. I feel sure that if there is other information to give to the House, either to-day or on any other day when we are sitting, he will not hesitate to give it.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, as to the last observation of the noble Viscount, I can assure him that if there is any further information to be communicated to the House I will take the earliest opportunity of putting it before your Lordships. With regard to the noble Viscount's first question, I am informed that the total number of British nationals, including members of other Commonwealth countries, in Southern Korea is approximately eighty.

  LIBERTIES OF THE SUBJECT BILL [H.L.]
  4.18 p.m.
  Debate on Second Reading continued.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, as you have already been reminded, on a previous occasion I had a somewhat ample opportunity of discoursing to your Lordships on the main theme of the Bill. I should certainly not aim any accusation of "baby-snatching" at the noble Viscount who has presented the Bill to-day. I have a recollection that there has recently been devised by one department the phrase, "the deprived child." I am, for my part, glad that this Bill has not fallen into that category, but that if its original foster-parent has shown himself somewhat irresponsible the Bill has at least found an adoptive father of impeccable reliability to give it a further chance in life.
  I feel that in many ways this revised version of the Bill is better than the authorised version which I was privileged to introduce three years ago: it seems

  1065
  better constructed, better drafted and to form a more coherent, harmonious whole. Perhaps in 1947 I was a little guileless, because I certainly thought that a Bill of this kind and with this purpose was likely to commend itself to the unanimous approval of your Lordships' House. After all, its purpose was to preserve from further encroachment certain liberties, and to restore others which appeared to have been almost, if not entirely, suppressed. One would have expected any such object to be generally commended. In the event, although both Opposition Parties supported the Bill, the Government, while proclaiming their passionate addiction to liberty in the abstract, shied violently at the sight of it in any concrete form.
  The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack delivered a most brilliant technical—I almost said pyrotechnical—onslaught upon it on that occasion. He met his difficulties by the effective if not entirely logical procedure of denouncing the Bill as being a manifesto, and not a Bill at all, and then going on through the clauses of the Bill one by one, raising what one rather regarded as Committee-stage points upon most of them. I admit that he was in superb form. Never, I think, had his eye been clearer or his hand guider: one after the other he shot down clauses, sometimes two or three in the air at the same time—and never a wounded clause; each one of them stone dead. So it appeared at the time and for the moment. But, unfortunately for him and others who shared his view, all but two turned out to be runners; and those two were shot down, not by him, but by others on either side of him. Now, after these clauses have enjoyed a period of rest and refreshment, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, is in a position to put them over the guns again. I do not know at this stage to what extent the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack proposes on this occasion to emulate the exploits of Miss Annie Oakley and her gun.
  But one thing I do feel—namely, that the interval of time which has elapsed between my introduction of this Bill three years ago and to-day has not made the Bill less necessary now than it was then. I have particularly in mind, I admit, a statement made by the Lord President of the Council which I have always regarded as most ominous, in
  1066
  regard to the use to be made in the future of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act. It has been quoted to your Lordships before, but I make no apology of any kind for reminding you of the exact text. It was made in the course of a speech at the Labour Party Conference at Blackpool just over a year ago, when the Lord President said:
  "The Executive and Government have no intention that the Supplies and Services Act of 1945 shall come to an end. It is an essential basis for the organisation of economic planning and control and therefore we shall place a revised and permanent version of that Act on the Statute Book if we are returned to power."
  That seems to me to follow upon an earlier and not less alarming statement made by Sir Stafford Cripps in the rather more rollicking mood that used to characterise him in the 'thirties, when he said:
  "The Government's first step will be to call Parliament together at the earliest moment and place before it an Emergency Powers Bill to be passed through all its stages on the first day."
  That was perhaps a rather extreme view, even at that time, but I cite those two passages merely to impress upon your Lordships on all sides of the House how necessary it is—and the more necessary the more extensive use is made of them—that Parliament should reassert and retain effective control over the use of delegated legislation. There are people who have somewhat unusual views as to what liberty means. I select only one sample, a member of the Back Bench of the present Government in the last Parliament, who stated one view with great precision and force:
  "This is a free country, in the sense that individuals are permitted to exercise all the liberty we can afford to allow them in these times."
  That does not happen to be my view of what is a free country I believe that a free country is one in which those who are deeply concerned with liberty watch from day to day and note every encroachment upon liberty, and publicly and repeatedly express their resentment at that encroachment. In my view a free country is one in which administrative convenience is not made the sole or sovereign test.
  When this Bill was before your Lordships' House before, it survived a Second Reading but was then smothered for lack

  1067
  of further time. No time for liberty! There are many people in this country today who have no time for liberty. I very much trust that this time if, as I hope, this Bill obtains a Second Reading, it will not come to the same premature and unhappy end as was meted out to its predecessor. I hope, though perhaps without a very glowing confidence, that His Majesty's Government may enable the hopes of the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill to be realised and accept the Second Reading to-day. If they do not, let them take the responsibility of opposing this measure; but let us take the responsibility of saying: So far as in our hands lies we shall gladly and hopefully set it upon its road.
  4.24 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Marquess who has just spoken has said that on the last occasion when we dealt with this matter I expressed a passionate affection for liberty in the abstract and a shrinking from it, almost with horror, when I came within sight of it. The fallacy of his argument from my point of view rests in those last words. If I thought that this Bill was going to increase the sum total of liberty I should support it. But, as I believe this Bill will not only not increase but will decrease the sum total of liberty, I am opposed to it. I regard it as setting forth a string of spurious remedies to deal with a very real problem.
  I make not the slightest complaint that this subject should be examined. It seems to me that the situation of the world to-day—I may add the very serious situation of the world to-day—is one which makes it essential that this subject should be examined from time to time. On the one hand we have seen the Fascist régime and on the other hand the Communist régime, both alike in this—that they have not the slightest regard for the liberty of the subject. They treat their subjects as mere ants in an anthill, and it behoves all of us who have been nurtured and brought up in traditions of liberty to see that those ancient privileges are not snatched away from us. Recently we had a most interesting discussion on a Motion by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood. I confess that I thought his diagnosis was wrong; I did not believe that the Cabinet was the danger. I think
  1068
  that if he had concentrated his case and unmasked his very formidable batteries on the machine and not the Cabinet, he would have presented a more powerful case than he did. But I quite agree, as I have said many times, that there is a danger to-day of the individual being crushed, and it is a danger against which we have to guard.
  What are the true remedies that we must follow? First of all, I believe we must have a vigilant, a resolute and a strong Parliament. It must be armed with the necessary powers. It must not degenerate into the position of a mere "talking shop" where nothing can be done. It must have power to act, and to act quickly in appropriate cases. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said much the same thing and, indeed, with the general exordium with which he started his speech I find myself wholly in agreement. One of the tests which we should apply to any of these various proposals is this: Will it tend to increase the power of Parliament or will it tend to clutter up Parliament with such a mass of detail that Parliament will not be able to attend to its important functions? Secondly, I believe that we must maintain a strong and independent judiciary of sufficient numbers to be able to deal promptly with cases brought before the courts and, of course, absolutely independent of any control at all. I thank God that I believe we have that to-day, and I think we shall always have it. As a corollary to that, we must make the law more readily available to the people, and that means several things. It means the elimination of delay, the reduction of the expense of litigation and, if necessary, providing help from public funds. It means also a simplification of the law.
  Now I do not doubt for a moment that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has devoted much time and much of his great ability to this subject of liberty. I claim with the support of my colleagues in this Government to have made a notable contribution. Indeed I make the claim that there has never been a Government which has made a greater contribution to liberty than this Government has made during the last five years. We introduced—the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was good enough to refer to it—the Bill providing for civil proceedings against the Crown; and you can now sue the.

  1069
  Crown just as you can sue any other defendant in any court of the land. We have provided—it is coming into force I hope this year, at any rate in part—legal aid; and we have put the legal aid scheme not under Government control but under the control of the Law Society, which is completely divorced from the Government. We are putting at their disposal considerable sums of public money in order that the man in the street can go to them and be assisted in bringing a case if he thinks he has sustained a grievance.
  So far as the simplification of the law is concerned, I have already made a real contribution by these Bills for Consolidation some four of which are included in to-day's Order Paper. That is not due to any merit of my own; my colleagues have allowed me to set up a special branch divorced altogether from current day-to-day legislation, devoting itself entirely to consolidation in order that the law may be simplified. May I say one other thing to make good my claim that this Government has made an immense contribution? There will shortly be brought out a new edition of Statutes of the Realm. No attempt at this had been made since 1927. This new edition of the Statutes will reduce to thirty-seven volumes the previous fifty-two volumes. The Statutes will be revised completely up to the end of 1948. These things may seem to you rather remote from the problem which we are considering today, but I believe they lie at the very heart of it. I believe there is no more important task to be carried out at this moment than that we should advance and secure and, if need be, increase the liberty of the subject.
  There is one other thing I should like to say, and it concerns the Donoughmore Report, which I have read and re-read. I believe it is wholly fallacious to regard the Donoughmore Report as if the Committee were recommending that a Bill should be passed on these general lines. I think they were concerned to indicate certain danger signals, to map the way, and to point out what Parliament should have been considering in passing Statutes; and with the great majority of the Report from that point of view, I agree. What I complain about is that the noble Viscount and the Liberal Party who press this Bill are doctrinaire in their approach,
  1070
  and that instead of considering these various questions on their merits they come with a preconceived idea which very often is completely removed from any reality.
  Now let us take the first clause. I do not see how I can explain my reasons for being opposed to the Second Reading of this Bill without considering it clause by clause. The difficulty for any speaker is that on any one of these clauses we could have a whole day's debate. I must indicate what I think of several of these clauses. I agree with what the noble Viscount said about the first clause: I think it is a most important one which raises the question whether or not, with this delegated legislation, we should be able to modify as well as to reject; and, be it observed, that is diametrically opposed to the recommendation of the Donoughmore Committee. They said expressly and in terms that there should not be this power to modify. The noble Viscount on this occasion has limited it to the Supplies and Services Act. I am sorry if I led him to do that by anything I said on the last occasion. I confess I have not refreshed my mind as to what I did then say. But on looking at the matter with a fresh mind, on this occasion I came to the conclusion that it is quite illogical to confine it to those Acts. If the principle is right that Parliament should be able to modify as well as to reject, then obviously it ought to extend to all occasions.
  Will your Lordships just consider what is involved in that? Suppose there is to be some Statutory Order made under an Act of Parliament which comes before either House. There must be a Committee stage. I do not believe that anybody who has had experience doubts that if you have a Committee stage you must also have a Report stage. Suggestions have been made; some are accepted and others not accepted and there must be a later stage than the Committee stage at which you can consider the Amendments together. If you are going to have a Committee stage and a Report stage, is it not wise for you to have also a Second Reading stage when you deal with the general principles of the matter? If we are going to say that, then this Parliament or any other Parliament is going to get absolutely cluttered up with a mass of detailed business which it really can-

  1071
  not undertake. I am far from suggesting that there has been any obstruction in this House; and it is not for me to indicate whether there has been any obstruction in another place. But if you introduce this as a scheme, you are going to create an obstructionist's paradise.
  Consider for a moment, my Lords, the amount of delegated legislation. In 1913, when we had a most respectable Government (both Lord Samuel and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, would, at any rate, unite on that point)—
  VISCOUNT SIMON: And I think the present Lord Chancellor would have approved of it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it was one of the best Governments we have ever had. In the year 1913, there were 1,406 of these regulations made by that Government. Then, coming to 1938—I am deliberately taking years before the Wars, when we had a Government which included Lord Simon (and a very admirable Government it was—I need not express my opinion en that one) there were 1,660. In the last year there were 2,468. I agree that if we were to devote ourselves to it we should no doubt find some way of resolving to some extent the problem of the differences between the two Houses. I have no doubt that the scheme of having modifications is a possible scheme, but I believe there is a much better method which was, in fact, adopted. It was pointed out that what was wanted with regard to these measures was a closer scrutiny than anything we had had. Accordingly, in 1944, there was set up a Scrutinising Committee of the House of Commons, which now scrutinises every Statutory Instrument which is laid; and if they think there is any reason they draw the special attention of the House to it. The Committee consists of ten Members, drawn from the different Parties. In the year 1948–49 they considered 1,300 of these Orders and drew the attention of the House of Commons to five of them: three of them because the Committee thought the use being made of them was unusual or unexpected, one because there was considered to be unjustifiable delay in sending notification to the Speaker, and one for elucidation. In fact, these five Orders have passed through quite happily.
  1072
  We, too, have a special Committee of our own. It consists of a large number of Peers of whom the Opposition Peers are in a substantial majority. It considers all those Statutory Instruments which require an affirmative Resolution. For myself, on the spur of the moment and without consulting my Leader and the Officers of the House, I should not in the least mind, if it were possible, extending its powers to consider all regulations. It considers to-day whether the provisions raise important questions of policy or principle, how far they are founded on precedent and whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them. We are not allowed by our Rules to put down one of these regulations for approval of the House unless and until that special Committee has reported upon it.
  I believe that is a much more effective way than the other of dealing with the matter. I think the power to refuse consent is a very real power. I do not see why your Lordships—we have never attempted to take this power away from this House—should not exercise that power if you think that some regulations offend in this, that or the other respect. If you do refuse, the regulation will be withdrawn and most probably will have to be reintroduced minus the peccant paragraph. It seems to me that the procedure that is open to your Lordships now is far better than letting loose the floodgates by providing that you can move to amend these regulations. I point out again that the Donoughmore Committee, who did not merely make an abstract consideration of this question, expressly said it would be a mistake to make any such alteration. I hope I have made it plain. I object to this scheme in limine because I believe that, so far from making the House effective, it would do as much as could be done by one stroke to make this House ineffective. We should find ourselves cluttered up with a mass of detail and not have time to give to the consideration of those broad principles which ought to be considered.
  I pass now—I am going to say this as briefly as I can; I am sorry to inflict all this upon your Lordships again—to consider Clause 2. That deals with the validity of certain Orders. Up to the year 1930, there was a practice sometimes

  1073
  of stating that an Order could not be questioned by any legal proceeding at all; but since the year 1930—and bear in mind that the year 1930 was the year of a Labour Government—that provision has never been used. All that you do is to say sometimes that the Order, if it is to be questioned, must be questioned within a limited period of time. The Donoughmore Committee thought that the period of time ought to be three months. I think it is much better for Parliament in each particular case to consider, first, whether there is any need for a time limit at all, and secondly, if so, what the time limit should be.
  Let me give your Lordships an illustration. Suppose some question arose about land for the Festival of Britain which is opening next year. Obviously a prompt, quick decision would be required. Then it would be for Parliament to consider whether the regulation in question was to be opposed within six weeks or three months or longer, if you like. One should not start off by a rigid rule which is to apply to all cases. One should bear in mind those two principles: first of all, that we should never refuse to allow a challenge at all—no Party has ever done that since 1930; secondly, we should consider in each particular case what is the appropriate time limit. I am perfectly prepared to agree that, unless there is some strong case to the contrary, three months would be an appropriate time. Recently we have had in this House, either this year or certainly last year, several Bills dealing with this matter. There was the case of the special trunk roads, where we provided for six weeks as the appropriate time of challenge. Then there was the distribution of compensation under the Coal Industry Act, where we provided for six weeks. Then there was the case of the authorisation procedure for the compulsory purchase of land, where we provided for six weeks. It is quite true that the Donoughmore Committee say that generally it should be three months, but you will see the note at the bottom of page 65 referring to the Housing Act, 1930, which, they say, exactly meets their requirements. In fact, the Housing Act. 1930, prescribed the period of six weeks. Therefore I object to this clause because it is casting into a rigid statutory mould that which Parliament ought to
  1074
  consider in each case having regard to the facts of that case.
  I come to Clause 3, which deals with the abolition of all existing powers to alter an Act of Parliament by delegated legislation. It is a great pity that those who advised the noble Viscount on this Bill did not tell him of the distinction between the Henry VIII clause—a distinction which is often lost sight of—and a very different type of clause with which I will deal in a moment. The Henry VIII clause properly so called is where an Act itself provides in detail the machinery and the steps which are to be taken—and then there is a provision saying: "If for any other reason a difficulty arises, then A, B or C may alter the provisions of the Act." There is only one case in which this is now the law of the land—that is, under the Local Government Act, 1894, where, dealing with meetings of the parish council, the Act sets out full details as to the various steps to be taken; and then there is a section providing that the county council may authorise a departure from those steps. That is the only Henry VIII clause, properly so called, which survives.
  But one often finds an Act of Parliament which contains power to alter Acts by Order-in-Council. It is absolutely essential that it should be so. May I give your Lordships some illustrations? Take the India Act of 1949, when India declared herself to be a Republic; or the Newfoundland Act of 1950, when Newfoundland ceased to be a self-governing Dominion and became part of Canada. It is provided in those two Acts that there shall be power to modify previous Acts, and there were a vast number of Acts that had to be looked at in which Newfoundland was referred to as a Dominion and in which India was referred to as being under the King. They had to be altered. Take another instance, the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act. Suppose you are transferring a certain power from the President of the Board of Trade to the Minister of Transport. You have to go through a whole host of Acts which say that the approval of the President of the Board of Trade is necessary and you have everywhere to strike that out and write in "Minister of Transport." Nearly every year there are about twenty of these regu-

  1075
  lations that come to be made. There has never been the slightest objection to any of them. No one has ever suggested that anybody has been wronged, aggrieved or hurt in any way, and it would be most unfortunate if Parliament were called upon to do that particular piece of work by passing Bilk each time. To my mind, it would give us and another place much wholly unnecessary work which could be done otherwise.
  Let me give another illustration—one Could go on almost for ever. Take the Poisons List. There is a list of dangerous drugs or poisons which the Home Secretary may amend and alter from time to time, and of course it does not have to be considered by this House. When some new drug is evolved which is found to be dangerous, or some old drug is found to be not so bad as had been thought, quite frequently the list is modified. Is it really to be suggested, in the name of the liberty of the subject, that this must be done by a Bill on each occasion? It seems to me that there we should get such a rigidity of structure that the thing would be quite impossible. Let Parliament scrutinise and watch all these things. Let them see that we are not taking undue advantage of the powers. But do not put us in the straitjacket of making Parliament pass Bills for all these things. I warn the noble Lord below the gangway and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that, if either of their Parties were in power, whatever they may do with this Bill—they may vote for the Second Reading now—I am absolutely confident that they would never pass Clauses 1, 2 or 3 of this Bill at all. I believe that those clauses would be far from helpful but rather a very great hindrance.
  Now we come to Clause 4, which deals with the universal right of recourse to the High Court on a point of law. Here, again, I am a great believer in people bringing these points of law to the courts. This year I have had great trouble with regard to appeals from the General Medical Council. There had been no appeal, but ultimately I managed to get all the parties concerned and the Scottish authorities (which is no mean feat) to agree to an appeal to the Privy Council, since that is not an English Court any more than it is a Scottish. Court. Incidentally, it is, of course, not the High Court. The
  1076
  clause, as drafted, does not help solve the difficulty at all. Wherever a Minister is dealing with a judicial or quasi-judicial function, no doubt it is right as a broad general rule that there should be an appeal to the courts. I am sorry if on the previous occasion I did not make my objection plain. I do think there is truth in the old adage that it is in the interest of the public that there should be an end of litigation. When a man has had his case heard and disposed of and has not appealed, I think it is unfortunate that the demand should arise thereafter that that case should be reopened and reheard. It does not happen in the law courts. If a man brings a case at law and loses it and it is not appealed, then that is that; and if thereafter some litigant in exactly the same sort of case takes that case to the higher courts and wins, the man who has previously lost does not litigate all over again, nor would it be in the public interest that he should do so.
  The trouble about the pensions appeals was, first of all, that there was a divergence of opinion in England and Scotland, which is most unfortunate and can only be resolved by the House of Lords, a Court common to both countries; and secondly, we have now twice had some new decision given and the whole thing has been opened up all over again. If that is done there will be no end to litigation, which is an undesirable thing. My Lords, as any competent lawyer will know at once, the trouble is that this clause has obviously not been drafted by a lawyer, because points of law emerge which cannot be identified and isolated, and it cannot be done as it is done in this clause. I am anxious not to spend undue time, but I want just to add that when I was Minister of National Insurance and I launched the Industrial Injuries scheme there was one point (which as a lawyer I regarded with some regret) on which I found the workers and the employers absolutely united: they wanted a tribunal staffed, as it is, by three competent lawyers—indeed, two of them are former county court judges. They wanted to cut out the appeal to the courts because they thought that an appeal from one court to another, going up to the highest courts, added to the delay and to the uncertainty, and they wanted the informal atmosphere of a tribunal. That we gave them. Lord Beveridge was here. He has a great

  1077
  knowledge of this matter, and my recollection is that he supported me on that occasion. We have deliberately provided in that case that there shall he no appeal to the courts. But, of course, there is an appeal to this tribunal, which, as I have said, consists of three very competent lawyers, two of them former judges.
  I pass to consider briefly Clause 5, which says that the report of a public inquiry should be published. I criticised it on the last occasion because I said that the Donoughmore Report had made it quite plain that its recommendation applied only to judicial and not to administrative determinations. If any noble Lord would like to look at pages 105, 106 and 107 of the Donoughmore Report he will find that the Committee's recommendation is limited to judicial, not administrative determinations. They point out that there are border-line cases, partly judicial and partly administrative, which are left to the discretion of the Minister. Here, again, I object to putting this into the rigid mould of a Statute. I think it is a very sound principle that wherever you have a report dealing with a judicial matter, it should be made public. I can recollect one case in my experience where I decided not to make the report public, I think for very good reasons; but in the vast majority of cases I should always make the report public. That is the very wise principle that the Donoughmore Committee laid down. By all means let us have regard to that general principle, but do let us remember that the Committee are not seeking to lay down absolute principles. They made it quite plain that all these recommendations were to apply, save in exceptional circumstances.
  Now, m Lords, a word or two about the men who are authorised to go into and inspect premises. There was an error on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, if he will forgive my saying so. He seems to think that most of the powers of entry arise under the Supplies and Services Act. The noble Lord will find the totals in the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place of May 23, 1950, column 1858. The total is 18,342, of which only 3,685 are enabled to go into private houses. So far as the Food Ministry are concerned, the noble Lord will find the figure given in this return as 1,112, but these inspectors are authorised to inspect only food establishments; they have no
  1078
  power whatever to go into private houses. The number has since been reduced to between 700 and 750, and I hope that it will be reduced still further. I believe the right principle here is this: that so long as you have a rationing system there must be an organisation to see that that system is enforced, otherwise the rationing system becomes a great evil, because you are simply encouraging a complete disregard for the law. The right way in which to deal with this matter is, as soon as you possibly cart, to abolish the rationing system. When you abolish rationing all these inspectors and people will go with it.
  When I think of this list, I think of the Inland Revenue—2,657 officials who are entitled to go into your private houses. After all, this Bill is being introduced under Liberal auspices. There are 1,409 people in the Revenue Branch who have these powers, 1,124 in the rating branch and 134 revenue officers going round watching sheets and P.A.Y.E. records; and there are 1,800 customs and excise officers. And this scheme was largely introduced by that great Liberal measure, Sir William Harcourt's Act of 1894. Encroachment on the liberty of the subject, of which we have heard so much, was at any rate started by the Act of 1894. Does anyone really suggest that all these powers should be taken away, that the Home Office should not be allowed to inspect children's homes, that the powers of inspection of farms by the agricultural authorities and the power in this connection in respect of civil aviation and the Tithe Redemption Commission should be taken away?
  Let Parliament scrutinise these things, and look at them carefully if you will. But this general principle of selecting out of these masses particular services coming under Supplies and Services seems to me, if I may say so with the greatest respect, to show that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, is here straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. He strains at the 750 who are allowed to go to inspect food establishments but accepts the proportion of the 18,000—there are some 3,800 of them—who are entitled to visit private houses.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Would the noble and learned Viscount forgive me for interrupting him? I am sure he would he the last to wish to make a mistake in this

  1079
  connection. I think that perhaps he is doing so, though on the other hand it may be that it is I who am making the mistake. He appealed to the House to consider whether they would really wish to prevent the Home Office inspecting children's homes. Am I wrong in saying that I think they do not do that under the Supplies and Services Act, or under any Order-in-Council or regulations made thereunder?
  THT LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course not,
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Then what on earth is the point of referring to that in criticism of Clause 6?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I pointed out, first of all, that I think the reference to the Supplies and Services Act is absolutely illogical. I said that the noble Viscount was straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. He is prepared to accept the right of inspection by all the inspectors of the Revenue Branch in private houses, but boggles at the 750 inspectors who can enter food establishments under the Supplies and Services Act—and I am now pointing out how utterly illogical the whole position is. I hope that I have carried the noble Viscount with me in that observation.
  Clause 7 I pass by very rapidly. Of course we have not the slightest desire to suppress or suspend any newspaper. As the noble Viscount is aware, I accepted an amendment in the Supplies and Services (Extended Powers) Act of 1947 to provide for this. Clause 8 I am going to leave to my noble friend Lord Hall. We have parcelled out this work between us and this will be the first of the clauses with which he will have to deal.
  With regard to Clause 9, I ask again: What is the encroachment? I am sorry to remind your Lordships of this matter. The Public Authorities Protection Act was passed in the year 1893—I think Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister at the time —and the Act laid down the period of limitation for local authorities at six months. That survived until 1939. Then the Government, just before the war, extended the period of six months to one year. That one year was copied in the Crown Proceedings Act, and we extended it to three years for the great public services. I, myself, caring something about
  1080
  liberty, was so impressed by this that I appointed a small but very powerful Committee to advise me what we ought to do. That body has generally been known as Lord Justice Tucker's Committee. They made recommendations to this effect: that the statutory period of limitation should be six years for private and public persons for both contract and tort, save that in what they called "personal injury cases" it should be two years.
  I confess that I have devoted a great deal of time and care to this matter and I have discussed it with many of my learned friends. I express no final opinion now. I agree with the proposition, as at present advised, that the period of time should be the same whatever the status of the defendant may be. But I am not satisfied, if I may say so with the greatest respect; that that Committee, for whom I have the most profound regard, have come to a completely satisfactory conclusion. I am inclined to think, myself, that a better conclusion might well be that it should be six years for everyone in contract and three years for everyone in tort. I am not satisfied that the proposal that they have made to apply to the court for an extension in time is right. This is a matter to which, as I say, I have given consideration, and sooner or later this Government or its sccessors will have to deal with it. Clauses 10, 11 and 12 are going to be taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall.
  I hope I shall not be criticised if I have tried to make runners fly again. In fact I do not know how to do that. I have tried to indicate briefly but quite sincerely why I believe this Bill is not one which would assist the cause which, believe me, my Lords, we all have at heart. It is, if I may say so, not quite right to introduce a Bill with the title "Liberty of the Subject" and to append to it a number of clauses which have not been very carefully worked out or thought out, and then when anyone opposes those clauses to say: "You are not in favour of the liberty of the subject." I suppose that every doctor who tries desperately hard to advance by one inch the sum total of human knowledge about his trade must be slightly annoyed sometimes when he finds quacks advertising all sorts of remedies which are going to cure every ailment under the sun. It behoves us all to look to see whether these remedies are

  1081
  real and useful remedies or whether they are spurious remedies. I must say that, in my most respectful submission, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has, for once in his life, been led astray and has failed to distinguish the true from the false.
  5.10 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack have both described the progress of this Bill in sporting metaphors. It is now possible to see the result of the last drive. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack has, unfortunately, shot every bird clean out of the sky and he has severely peppered most of the beaters. Speaking as one of the younger and more inexperienced beaters, I am not well able to see where the birds have fallen or how many are still runners. That does not prevent my regretting that the noble and learned Viscount who was sitting on the Woolsack has adopted the strong line that he has adopted with the Bill. I agree that many of these clauses are open to objection. I myself take exception to one or two of them, particularly Clause 11, and I think they might well be amended. But that is what we are here for, and, if I may say so with the greatest respect, we do that job very well.
  I believe that this Bill is a great improvement on the previous Bill which the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, introduced, because it drops two of the most controversial clauses. I have, however, never known a Bill so "savaged" as this one has begin by the Lord Chancellor—with perhaps the possible exception of the Bill which I attempted to introduce last year. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said—I could not get his words quite accurately, but he suggested in effect—that in the last five years this Government had taken vast strides forward in furthering the liberties of the subject, and he quoted several examples which none of us will for one moment deny. We are grateful to him for all the things he is doing in this respect. He is doing a fine job and layman and lawyer alike on boll sides welcome it. But I am sure that, whilst the noble and learned Viscount is progressing with Statute Law revision and all the other things he men-
  1082
  tioned, it might be a good idea for him to look to the left arid see what one or two of his colleagues are up to. He will find that as he attempts to give us a taste of liberty some of his colleagues are doing exactly the opposite. I thought also that the Government might succumb to a political temptation and agree with this Bill.
  There was a comment in the American Press recently that one factor which swayed votes in the last General Election more than most English observers realised was fear of the threat of dictatorship which some quite reasonable people, maybe wrongly, read into the Government's policy of the last five years and their programme for the next five. That fear may have discouraged them from voting for the Government. Perhaps the American view was right, because we now find the leaders of political thought in the Socialist Party attempting to break down that fear, or trying to assuage it. Mr. Morrison is assiduously wooing the middle classes. I am never quite certain who they are. I suppose in this case they are the people who think in terms of overwork rather than of overtime. In any case that fear was widespread and any of us who went to political meetings during the Election must have heard, time and time again, the repetition of the apothegm: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," by speakers who I am sure would never have been able to give correctly the context of that very wise remark.
  It seems to me that between the two Parties there is a differing conception of liberty. We on this side regard liberty as a fundamental right. I do not in any way allude to noble Lords opposite, but too many of their supporters think in the same terms as the honourable Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme who, I gather, from the tenour of the quotation of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, must have been the Member to whom he referred. They think of liberty as permissive. If Mr. Mack himself is not a sufficiently senior or responsible member of the Party, perhaps I may quote the Minister of Town and Country Planning who the other day used an expression which electorally he may live to regret. He described some concessions as "experiments in freedom." That may have been thought to be a slip of a notoriously slippery tongue, but he went on to repeat

  1083
  it, so we must confidently expect that to be the view that he and his senior colleagues hold.
  That is why I feel that the time for action has come, and the time for talking has ceased. We have had books, broadcasts, propaganda, essays and theoretical disputes. Now the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has taken a concrete step which, however criticised it may be, registers a protest against this constant attack upon the liberties of the subject. Both Parties on this side, Liberal and Conservative alike, have admittedly an equal share in the responsibility for the development of delegated legislation. Certainly noble Lords opposite cannot possibly be saddled with the sole blame for that. What we accuse them of doing is of taking undue advantage of the conditions which two wars and the vast increase in the complexity of legislation have brought about. The real thing wrong with this Bill is that it ought never to have been necessary to introduce it at all. I readily agree that there are better ways in which this problem might be met. I should like to see, for instance, Ministers not asking to have put into Bills which their Departments father any of these powers against which we protest. More could be done administratively to remedy these evils. I admit that it is difficult to legislate about this sort of thing away from the separate Statutes with which the clauses of this Bill are concerned, but it seems the only way we can tackle it at the present moment. We are grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, because he has not gone too far. He has not attempted to undertake too much in this Bill. That, I know from my own experience as an amateur legislator, is fatal. Many a man who has fallen in love with a dimple has made the mistake of trying to marry the whole girl. That has not been done by the noble Viscount, and this Bill, however much it may be objected to in detail, is worthy of your Lordships' support. We can amend it when the time comes.
  The time is not far off, I feel, when we shall want a wider restatement of all the liberties of the subject. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, mentioned the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus. Not much of our Constitution is written, but if it is to be slowly whittled away, the time may shortly come for a completely
  1084
  new Bill of Rights to be drafted. I warn your Lordships. I am sorry to tell you that I have already tried my hand at drafting it. There is only one alternative it this Bill is not acceptable, and time apparently runs against us in another place. We have time to discuss cattle-grids, midwives, white fish, digging up of streets and diseases of animals, but no time to discuss the liberties of the subject. Very well, we must accept that. The only other remedy that remains is a change of Administration, and that is not a bad remedy either.
  5.18 p.m.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, began by describing himself as one of the youngest and most inexperienced members of your Lordships' House. However that may be, I think I am certainly the youngest and definitely the most inexperienced member to take part in this debate. Other noble Lords have dwelt in considerable detail on the clauses of the Bill. I intend to make a few general observations on this vital issue of liberty which we are discussing this afternoon, an issue which I think is too often and too long kept dormant in the hazy background of our affairs. I intervene to say a few words on this issue simply because I believe that the vast and overwhelming economic and political problems which confront the country to-day will never be overcome until once again the individual is restored, far more than is the case at the present moment, to his rightful status and may once again aspire to the just reward of his energy and skill.
  I fully realise that we must be fair. The tendency to subordinate the individual to the State has not come about during the last few years. During several generations now, and more and more as the generations have gone by, we have been subjected to more and more controls and regulations, and to increasing delegation of legislation. Few will argue that much of this has been necessary if such a highly complex civilisation as ours is to survive. But I think it must be admitted that there must be some basis of agreement between the individual and the State. As the American Declaration of Independence puts it, Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

  1085
  There are a great many rights, such as defence, protection of property, and so on, which are voluntarily surrendered by the individual to the State. Nevertheless, as has been pointed out, there is a limit. I feel that we should depart at once from the whole character of the British contribution to civilisation if we failed to assert definitely that the individual comes before the community and the community before the State. If we reverse or confuse that order, then we betray not only ourselves but the whole cause of human rights. I would say that, certainly in the last decade or so, the potential threats to freedom have really become unequalled. It was the late Earl Baldwin who once said, in reference to the British people: "They hardly notice freedom; it is the very air they breathe."
  It is perhaps small wonder that the constant encroachments upon our individual liberty have failed to provoke the truly British outcry which they might well have provoked from this once so-called "cradle of freedom." I am afraid that the war has so dulled our senses that it has blinded us to the melancholy existence of these thousands of controls since the war, and to the various increases that have taken place in ministerial power over our lives. There is altogether too much of a tendency to force individuals into becoming accustomed to manœuvre their way through cobwebs of controls, and to care less for personal initiative and responsibility. Our national traditions and our very way of life are becoming increasingly menaced by the administrative power held by a handful of men, and those who value liberty should be constantly on guard. Well was it said that "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." We should never forget that. It is rather significant that, in this progressive and enlightened age, ancient principles so often have to he re-stated. We have the four freedoms—the freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of speech and freedom of religion—all constant reminders that liberty is a right not to be taken for granted. Somerset Maugham once said:
  "Any country which thinks more of its ease and comfort than its freedom will very soon lose its freedom; and the ironical thing about it is that it will have lost its ease and comfort as well."
  1086
  I welcome this Bill as one which is long overdue. It is a modest start in trying to tackle a few of the glaring examples of excessive administrative power. It may be said that it is a some-what unconnected string of proposals. Nevertheless, they all have one common link—namely, that they aim at curbing the potential abuse of power over the individual. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this Bill has much in common with a proposal made in 1947 at the annual conference of the Conservative Party, which endorsed a proposal calling for a Charter of Liberties. This Bill does not go nearly as far as that, though it is a step towards it. I feel that the challenging times of this materialistic and modern age call strongly and loudly for a new 1950 Charter of Liberties which can take its place amongst the other written documents, another monument to freedom in our unwritten Constitution.
  Noble Lords opposite may point out that in recent months there has been a considerable relaxation in various controls. Certainly since the beginning of this year there has beet a great improvement in our economic situation. I should say that the fresh and invigorating winds of returning freedoms have largely been the cause of that. But I feel that the average person feels little gratitude or thankfulness towards the Government for what one might well call this "policy of appeasement" or, as one member of the Government so irritatingly calls it, these "experiments in freedom." Far from that, all I can find amongst the average person is a continued impatience for the whole process to be speeded up. After watching five years of the policies of the Labour Government, it will take a long time to convince me that: the leopard has changed its spots. Certainly by not accepting this Bill the Government have come out in their true colours. I must say that I could never understand how the Government could reconcile a Bill of this kind, limited in scope though it is, with their declared intent on to make permanent the Supplies and Services Act—an Act with such unprecedented power that no Government before the war would have dreamed of introducing it. If ever that Act is made permanent—and I hope it will not be—I feel that it might well be called a Charter of Bondage.

  1087
  I have no doubt that noble Lords opposite agree with the principles behind this Bill, but I have grave doubts of their colleagues in the other place. I find it scarcely reassuring when the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, Mr. Gordon-Walker, says that the aim of the Socialist Party is to achieve permanent power by democratic means. How can one talk of "permanent power" and "democracy" in the same breath? Such statements as these make me, and I am sure millions of others, very doubtful about the true intentions of the Government, not only as to this Bill, but to the whole issue of freedom. I hope that this Bill will fare well and have a speedy passage through Parliament, though I have doubts whether it will. At any rate, one useful purpose will have been achieved—and all our thanks should go to the noble Viscount who introduced the Bill—in that the Bill places to the forefront the too long dormant issue of freedom. It draws the attention of us all to the ever-growing tendency for all power to be invested in the State, and for our lives to be more and more controlled by remote and inept bureaucrats, a process which, if completed, can result only in a harsh totalitarianism which nobody wishes to see. If the inevitability of this can be brought home to the minds of our freedom-loving people—and certainly this Bill is a step in the right direction—I feel that there is little danger of that ever occurring.
  5.28 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, at this hour, and after this full debate, I do not desire to make a speech of the ordinary kind or of uncommon length. However, I should like in a few sentences to state what is the effect of the debate upon myself, and I hope upon a good many others. The effect of the debate as a whole on me is to make me feel that we ought to have a Committee stage in which we examine these clauses carefully, one by one. There is obviously a great deal to be said in their favour, and some things have been very forcibly said against some of them. I should have thought, the subject being what it is that is not a reason for rejecting this Bill on Second Reading, but is one for saying that we should like to have the contents of the Bill carefully and systematically examined
  1088
  with the help of members of the House on all sides.
  My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made a brilliant speech, not repeating altogether what he said before, but adopting a rather different line in some respects. He has indeed a logical ground on which he would seek to reject the Bill here and now, and he stated it in his first sentence. If what he then said was correct, I should agree with him at once that we should have nothing more to do with the Bill. His view is that this Bill will not increase the sum total of liberty at all, but on the contrary will actually decrease the liberty of the individual. That is what he stated in terms in his very first sentence. I ask myself only: Is that really true? Is that really the effect of this Bill?
  One of the provisions of this Bill is that it provides for the individual recourse to a court of law where he conceives himself to be injured by a wrong decision—a right which at present he does not enjoy at all. Whatever may be said of the practical merits of that proposal, it is not decreasing but increasing the liberty of the individual. Another provision of this Bill is that there must be an appeal from a Ministerial decision or from the order or regulation whose validity is challenged in point of law in cases where it does not now exist. I do not understand the sense of saying that a provision of that sort will not increase the sum total of individual liberties but will in fact decrease it. Another provision of this Bill—and I do not think the Lord Chancellor very much objected to this—is that an individual's extent of claim against a public authority should not be less than the extent of his claim, in point of time and other things, against an individual. In what conceivable sense can it be said: "There is a provision which does not increase the liberty of the citizen but decreases it"? With all respect to my noble and learned friend, I am wholly unable to follow the meaning of the language which he used in that respect.
  There is another provision upon which I ventured to interrupt him. One of the clauses of this Bill would reduce the number of cases in which an official has the right to enter a house without a magistrate's warrant. Whether that be wise or unwise, can it be disputed that that, in

  1089
  fact, is giving an additional protection to the individual liberty of the man who lives there? When I interposed to ask the Lord Chancellor why it was relevant to appeal rhetorically to the House and ask whether their Lordships really desired to abolish the right of the Home Office to send its inspectors to examine children's homes, I received an answer which, with very great respect, does not appear to me to have any logical basis whatever. Of course, my noble and learned friend at once admitted that there was nothing in Clause 6—the clause in question—which affected that in the least—the Home Office could go on doing that after this Bill became law as they do now. But the Lord Chancellor said: "No. I used that illustration to show you how foolish it is to pick and choose." If you are not going to pick and choose in the cases where officials are to have a right to enter your house without a magistrate's warrant, what sort of State are we going to live in? We are going to live under Hitler. Hitler is the truly original supporter of the proposition that you must never limit the right of one class of official to enter the house of an individual because to do so would really be picking and choosing between one class of case and another.
  The whole point is that there must be some cases in which individual liberty and individual rights are modified and set aside in the general interests of the community. But there is a distinct limit to the cases in which that is the right thing to do. If we look at this thing for one moment historically, without going into the detail, I think that the case for discussing the clauses of this Bill in Committee is very strong indeed. What has happened, as we all realise, is this. During the war there was of necessity an immense extension of autocratic power authorised by Parliament and exercised by Ministers under regulations such as would never have been tolerated in times of peace. It is very regrettable that since then, instead of there having been a rapid return to the old system under which we used to live, there has in many cases been a very great delay.
  The noble and learned Viscount said that the number of statutory instruments had greatly increased. They have indeed. In this very year up to date—and we are only half-way through the year—the num-
  1090
  ber of such instruments is 1,050. I venture to say that there are not two members of this House, or the other House, who could give an account of one-hundredth part of them. I do not deny that there must be regulations in proper cases, but surely we are blind to the situation in which we live if we do not realise that in these years after the war there has been, for good reason or for bad, a very grave invasion of what used to be regarded as the ordinary rights of the individual. You may be able to justify that according to your political philosophy, but to say that a Bill of this sort will not decrease such interference but will increase it seems to me to be very difficult to follow.
  Therefore, without in the least saying that I agree with every clause in the Bill —in point of fact, I do not—the effect upon me is to feel that it is high time we did have, clause by clause, a discussion of the principles of this Bill in order that we may, without rhetoric, quite calmly, taking one thing at a time, see whether or not the war-time extensions of interference in individual liberty are not continuing too extensively and too far. I am far from saying that there is nothing in this Bill with which I, on my present information, would disagree, but I am quite certain that it would be wholly contrary to my notions of liberty, at any rate, to treat our present situation as though it were one deserving of nothing but praise; of treating the situation in which the ordinary citizen finds himself every day of the week, restrained in all sorts of ways by regulations, as the normal situation of his time. Surely, the general judgment of the House, while complimenting the Lord Chancellor on his ingenuity and the boldness of his argument, will recognise that we are in a grave danger of seeing what is called the Welfare State developed at the expense of a sacrifice of liberty which some of us, at any rate, are not prepared to see. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in the course of his very eloquent oration, complained of the doctrinaire approach. There are one or two doctrines of which I am not in the least ashamed. I have a horrid prejudice in favour of liberty.
  5.38 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, many differences of opinion have appeared during The discussion of this Bill, but about two things I am sure all your Lord-

  1091
  ships are agreed. The first is that debates of this nature, upon such a subject as this, are essential to the working of our democratic Parliamentary system. The second thing upon which I am sure all your Lordships are agreed is admiration for the speech with which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, introduced the Bill. If the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack will not think it impertinent of me to say so, I should like to say how deeply impressed I was by his speech. While I thought in one or two places I detected a slight fallacy, I must say that he entirely convinced me upon some other points. I would certainly agree with him that there has been a great extension of liberty and freedom for the individual in consequence of the social legislation which has been introduced in recent years. I fully agree also with the steps which the noble and learned Viscount has taken to reform the law and to strengthen the Judiciary—steps towards preserving and ensuring the liberty of the individual.
  However, I felt two other things about the noble and learned Viscount's speech. I felt that in many respects it was more a demonstration of the fact that this Bill requires considerable amendment than that the object of the Bill is wrong in itself. I felt that, in spite of what the noble and learned Viscount said, our liberties do seem to be shrinking; there does seem to he encroachment upon them—very likely inevitable. I was reminded of something which Mr. Bevin once said. He said that he looked forward to the day when a man would he able to go to Victoria Station and buy a ticket and travel anywhere he wanted in the world. Mr. Bevin saw a picture of a brave new world. Some little time after that, I read an account by Sir Norman Angell of his experiences when he was a young man. He was filled with a desire to visit the United States and to try his luck there. He says that he left this country without having to procure one single paper—no exit visa or anything of that sort; he was able to go without any such documents. He travelled across the Atlantic for £3 steerage, when the first-class fare was between £10 and £12. When he stepped off the boat on arrival in America he did not have to produce a single paper of any kind whatsoever; and thereafter for several
  1092
  years he travelled the length and breadth of the United States, earning his living at one job after another and never having to produce a single paper of any sort. So that when Mr. Bevin was contemplating a "brave new world" he was really thinking about the brave old world.
  I apologise for detaining your Lordships at this hour but I should like, if I may, to devote myself to one aspect of this matter which is particularly in my mind. We are now committed to the policies of the Welfare State and of a planned economy. I support, as I always have supported, those policies, but I find that there are many people who fear very much that the policies contain within themselves the seeds of authoritarianism. Even if the Government set out to pursue such policies without any intention whatever of encroaching on liberty beyond the least possible extent, I feel they are in danger of finding themselves upon a slippery slope. The Welfare State must be based upon a planned economy—and how can you plan your economy 100 per cent. unless you have control over everything? We have already seen one weakness develop in the planned economy policy in the inability to control wages. That has presented considerable difficulties to those concerned, Moreover, although 80 per cent. of our industry is still in the hands of free enterprise, yet almost daily one notices expressions of irritation that the Government have not yet complete control, and that there are some portions of the national economy which still escape. I think this irritation is very natural. On the other hand, some people may find it inexcusable. I will not argue that now, but at least it is natural. If you have a plan which you believe to be a good plan, which you think will advance the welfare and happiness and prosperity of the people, it must be very irritating indeed to find that someone is able to hold you up.
  I hope your Lordships will not think the illustration I am about to give too trivial. I have every day to pass the Army and Navy Stores, which some years ago embarked upon a great rebuilding scheme—and to-day there is that fine facade of theirs in Victoria Street. But at one corner of the building there is a shop—Fuller's sweet shop. I do not know the whole story, but I am perfectly convinced that when the Army and Navy

  1093
  Stores were embarking on that extension they must have made some proposal to Fuller's for securing, that shop. But Fuller's evidently did not wish to be swallowed up in this way, and they were able to resist. I have often thought about that as I have passed the Army and Navy Stores. But, my Lords, Governments have no mercy on the Naboths of this world. If the Government had been concerned and had been building some great air terminus or something of the kind, one may be sure that Fuller's sweetshop would not be standing there where it is today: it would have gone into the general plan. In these ways it does seem to me that we stand in danger of a drift towards authoritarianism when we are committed to these right and proper policies of the planned economy and the Welfare State. We have to be constantly on our guard: Parliament must he constantly on its guard, to see that any drift at all towards authoritarianism is dealt with at once.
  The matter goes deeper than that. I fear there are those who look upon authoritarianism as an end in itself—not as a means to an end, which is quite legitimate. I confess, my Lords, that the doctrine that "the gentleman in Whitehall knows best" gets "under my skin," if I may use that colloquialism. It was the "gentleman in Whitehall" who made the unfortunate miscalculation about the ground-nuts scheme. It was a lady in Whitehall who told us that the period of gestation for a cow is eleven months. It was the "gentleman in Whitehall" who said, "You must throw your surplus milk away down the drain—you must not make it into cream." And when a certain old lady of eighty-six wanted to send some honey to her son in hospital abroad it was only when she had completed six forms that she was told that she could not do it.
  I am not sure who is responsible for putting out posters. I remember that there was gentleman in Whitehall who some time back put out posters very lavishly. I recall one in particular, which ran:
  "Some use big tools, some use small,
  But a little more production, would be good for us all."
  And that, if you please, was displayed in Bond Street—that is where I saw it. I observe now an outbreak of posters
  1094
  which actually tell us the correct way to hail a bus. I do not think this is very good employment for those gentlemen in Whitehall. I think they might be better employed in many other activities. I am reminded of the mother who said to the nurse "Go and see what Master Willie is doing and all him not to." I think, too, of the nurse who was always saying "I know best what is good for you, Master Albert." I feel that these are reminiscent of the sort of things that an: being said and done by those "gentlemen in Whitehall." It is all one of a piece with the phrases which have been quoted to-day about "experiments in freedom." "Experiments in freedom" in the country of Pym and of Hampden—a country in which even a Lord Chancellor once died for conscience' sake! Well, my Lords, this is not the country, and the English are not the people, to talk to about "experiments in freedom".
  I have ventured to put forward these few remarks because I feel most sincerely that in these polices of a planned economy and a Welfare State these dancers lurk. They may well be brought about with the best of intentions, and for the best of motives; but the danger does lurk of starting a trend towards authoritarianism. I find everything that I feel on, that point summed up in an article that recently read in the Church Times which, with your Lordships' permission, I will read:
  "Faced with economic crisis,"
  a start might he made by
  "tampering with the rights and liberties"
  of our people,
  "in the hope or on the pretext of saving their economic lives. How easy and fatal it will be to make an argument on chose lines."
  The article goes on:
  "Hard circumstances play havoc with good intentions. The situation may present itself as a choice of circumstances. Liberty must be curtailed or the achievements of the past few years must be jeopardised."
  It concludes:
  "A people loses liberty by a process of erosion, rather than by a single act."
  In connection with that article, I venture to remind your Lordships of words used by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, when he dealt with the growing power of the Executive. He said:

  1095
  "We have a Constitution here in Britain which, if extremists gained office, would enable them to carry through any policy they wished."
  It seems to me that, although a Welfare State may be right, you cannot box up nearly 50,000,000 people in an island of this size without having to regulate their lives for them to a considerable extent; the Welfare State is in many ways completely incompatible with full individual liberty. If we achieve liberty in this modern complicated world, we must accept the corollary that bad luck or failure may land us in poverty and misfortune. But if we achieve social security, we must accept an ever-increasing regimentation, because such security must be based upon a planned economy which cannot go hand in hand with the right of the individual to do exactly what he likes. Therefore, I feel that the question which we have to consider and examine is this: How far can we pursue the policies of planned economy and of a Welfare State without encroaching too far and unbearably upon individual liberty? In those policies I feel lies the possible danger which the frogs found in Æsop's fable:
  "It is so very easy indeed to change King Log for King Stork."
  5.53 p.m.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, in his remarks I thought that the noble and learned Viscount who sits upon the Woolsack was a little less than fair to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party, who I think was at particular pains to say that he recognised that the Bill might he improved in detail, and that he would be only too ready to co-operate with the Lord Chancellor if he felt inclined to lend him his own eminent legal ability together with the abilities of the Parliamentary draftsmen. So I cannot think that the noble and learned Viscount was being wholly just in calling the noble Viscount a doctrinaire, although, as my noble and learned friend, Lord Simon, has said, in the pursuit of liberty he is not ashamed to hold prejudiced and even doctrinaire views. If we are going to accuse the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, of being doctrinaire, we must at the same time accuse Lord Acton, who said quite specifically:
  1096
  "Liberty is no: a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end."
  During the course of this debate, it seems to have emerged that, although many noble Lords on this side of the House and possibly some on the other side do not agree with every clause in this Bill, it is a Bill which is worth committing to the Committee stage. It is easy, or apparently easy, to criticise each clause and show that as drafted it would not achieve the end which it has in view. But surely that consideration is the duty of the House sitting in Committee. I do not agree at all with the view once expressed by a former Minister in the Government, Miss Ellen Wilkinson, who in an Annex to the Donoughmore Committee's Report said that in her view:
  "Parliament can only deal really effectively with the principles and the general plan of proposed legislation. The details should be left to the experts."
  She added that
  "it would be better if the Committee stage of a Bill, as we now understand it, did not come before Parliament at all."
  We have seen—and it has been long known since the time of John Stuart Mill a hundred years ago—that we cannot draw any general theory of where liberty begins and tyranny ends. It lies in the question of expediency and detail. It lies so much in detail and it is vital, as the Lord Chancellor himself recognised, apparently differing from his late colleague, that Parliament should be intimately concerned with the details of legislation.
  How far we should go and how far Statutory Instruments and regulations should remove from Parliament the consideration of detail is in itself a matter of expediency. Certainly a freedom-loving people always lean towards Parliamentary control rather than towards Ministerial control. The Lord Chancellor told us that the independence of the judiciary was a certain prop and stay of a free people. It is, and we agree with him; but he must forgive us if we feel slight misgivings when some of his colleagues give utterance to such sentiments as these. The Minister of Health, speaking in Committee stage in another place, said:
  "That is what the courts are being asked to decide under this Amendment, and I say that if we give to the doctor his right of appeal

  1097
  to the High Court against his dismissal because he has been a bad servant to the public, how can we withhold it from any member of the public?"—
  and so on. Then he says:
  "This would be real judicial sabotage of socialised services…"
  I do not know whether he considered his words or whether he received the support of his colleagues in the Government, but such sentiments as that give us the gravest cause for misgivings, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Winster, had in mind when he gave expression to his views and misgivings about the course of our national politics and. where we are going. It is not enough for the noble and learned Viscount to say that he has during this present Parliament introduced a Bill which increases the liberty of the subject. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, it is his duty to reconcile his action with the sentiments and actions of his Government and his colleagues. If we weigh in one balance the Act in which he so justly takes pride against the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, I do not think that the historian of the future will find that the balance is weighed down on the side of liberty.
  The noble Lord, Lord Winster, told us that we were in grave danger in the Welfare State of losing our liberty in the pursuit of security. I am sure that his remarks are just and will be read with the greatest interest. In our view, it is also because the Government have needlessly pursued the political aim of nationalisation that we have so many more regulations than are really necessary for the running of a modern State. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House told us the other day that an industry, whether it is coal, gas or electricity, cannot be nationalised without a comprehensive mass of regulations, Orders and all the rest of it. That is exactly our political objection to nationalisation. As the accumulation of Statutory Orders and regulations grows, it is necessary for Parliament to see how liberty is faring, and that is why we on these Benches congratulate the noble Viscount that, by introducing a Bill offering specific remedies to what he believes to be legislative and administrative evils, he has focussed attention upon this very important question. We believe that he has every right to see this Bill considered in Committee We believe that from time to time we must
  1098
  consider as widely as possible how liberty and order are to be reconciled. We believe that that cannot be done by general sentiment, but by looking at legislation and administration in detail.
  I myself do not take so depressed a view as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, about the future of freedom, if we really mean to have it. We feel that there are influences at work which do not really love freedom; but in a world in which, if it manages its affairs aright and maintains peace, the productive forces should increase the welfare and wealth of the world, there ought to be increasing and not diminishing liberty to every man woman and child. But we must plan for it. We must regard this matter in detail, and we must not throw away an opportunity such as this. Therefore, I advocate that we give this Bill a Second Reading.
  6.3 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I am very glad to see this Bill before us to-day because I believe it gives an opportunity to me and to many who I believe are of my opinion to state where we stand in this matter. I personally entirely agree with Lord Samuel's main contentions as to the necessity for increasing liberty in all possible ways, and, what is more, I also agree with his general method of attempting to do it through Parliament. There is only one snag in the matter and that is one which I think the Lord Chancellor has already very well pointed out—namely, the fact that if it is done by the methods advocated in this Bill it will produce the complete collapse of Parliament through gross overwork.
  Although along Lord Samuel's general lines it lies later on in the process, I believe that the real remedy must start with a reform of Parliament. I have seen my father's old speech notes. My father, of course, sat with Lord Samuel on the Liberal Benches. In one of those speech notes my father stated that he thought that a Second Chamber was useful only for reassuring old women. I personally differ very strongly from that view. I follow Bernard Shaw in the matter. Bernard Shaw was once asked whether he was in favour of a Second Chamber, and he said: "Yes, certainly; we shall want four or five before we are through." That is the real truth.

  1099
  We must have four or five, or possibly more, different departments of Parliament which can deal with these matters. The separate Committees which now sit on the matter of the Statutory Rules and Orders are what one might call the eggs from which such later Houses may hatch. If we have something like that, then I think we may be able to tackle the problem along the lines suggested by Lord Samuel. Until then, I believe that such a method is hopeless, because it will cause such confusion as to bring this Parliament to disaster. Let us remember that dictatorship abroad has generally been caused by one of two things: either by foreign invasion or by the internal collapse of the Parliaments of the countries concerned. That, I believe, is something upon which we must ruminate when we consider laying extra burdens on this already overburdened Parliament.
  As to these statutory Rules and Orders and the rest, what disturbs me most is the matter of inspectors. We do not want to have more of our lives inspected than is necessary. I personally divide inspectors into two kinds—those who inspect factories and such places, and those who have a right to enter our homes. I think the idea of having somebody inspect the kitchens of various hotels and such establishments is a very good one. When I am eating out, many times I have a quiet shudder when I think of what may be going on down in the kitchen. Perhaps it is lucky for me that I cannot go down and inspect it myself. Therefore, I am glad to think that there is somebody who can. I believe those inspectors are vital to the existence of this country, and I believe that they represent an actual increase in our liberty.
  But there arc inspectors whom we really must try to get rid of—namely, those who can enter our homes. Here I should like to congratulate the Government on the great decrease in recent years in the number of such inspectors. I think that a debate of this kind should not conclude without somebody mentioning the fact that we have got rid of the majority of the inspectors who can inspect men's homes. We have got rid of the Poor Law inspectors and we have got rid of the Means Test inspectors. They really were inspectors of a dictatorial kind. If the Govern-
  1100
  ment can find any method of getting rid of that kind of inspector (and possibly the best way is to get rid as fast as possible of rationing and such other controls as make them necessary), then I think they should take the chance. If there is any way of transferring those who inspect men's homes to the alternative work of inspecting factories or food depots or any such place, then we should try and change the law to make that possible. But I believe that any sweeping legislation of a general type such as is now contemplated would he quite impossible and, whilst Parliament is formed as it is now, would lead to Parliamentary disaster.
  6.9 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I do not propose to take up much of your Lordships' time at this late hour, but I should like to address a few remarks to your Lordships upon this exceptionally important subject. It must have been fairly clear that many noble Lords who support the Government are more than a little worried about the whole situation, particularly in respect of administrative law and many of the other matters covered by this Bill. Your Lordships will have realised that from speeches which have been delivered from this side of the House this afternoon, and that anxiety is but a reflection of a very widespread anxiety in the Party to which I have the honour to belong—perhaps more particularly among those members of the Party who are practising members of the legal profession. I have, indeed, myself been asked to convey to His Majesty's Government the anxiety of the Society of Labour Lawyers in respect of this matter, and to ask the Government whether they cannot see their way to going at any rate some distance in support of the principles of this Bill.
  I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack said in his speech to the effect that the present Government have done more to spread liberty widely through the great masses of the people in this country than any previous Government have ever done. The noble and learned Viscount himself has been one of the greatest Lord Chancellors we have ever had, and I feel that I have bad a little reflected glory by reason of the fact that I have been privileged to assist him in some of

  1101
  the very important liberty-promoting measures which he has carried through your Lordships' House. As he has said, some of the work upon which he is engaged at the present time is of the greatest importance from that point of view. But I cannot see that that fact prevents his accepting at any rate some of the proposals made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel.
  The whole of this problem of administrative law has been left exactly where it was when the Donoughmore Committee reported about the matter well back in the 1930's. Not only have the recommendations of that Committee not been fulfilled, hut, so far as I am able to see, no very real effort had been made by any Party, until this Bill was brought before your Lordships' House, to get the proposals of the Don oughmore Committee implemented. I find it very difficult to believe that proposals which have had the backing of my late colleague Professor Laski, the late Miss Ellen Wilkinson, and Mr. Richards, are really not proposals which are valuable from the point of view of the liberties of the subject in this country. This is not a matter which is so difficult that it cannot be effectively dealt with in legislation. This country is one of the few countries with modern civilised legal systems in which provision is not made for appeal from administrative decisions on legal points of great importance. In the United States of America, within only the last few years, a most important Act of Congress has been passed through which, I suggest, is in many ways a model of its kind. It provides valuable recourse from the decisions of administrative tribunals in the United States to what is in effect an administrative court of appeal. The precise way in which such appeals should be provided for is a matter for discussion.
  It might well be that this Bill could be withdrawn and a new Bill introduced after consultations had taken place. I am sure that the great masses of the people of this country are feeling very anxious at the present time, holding the view that something is needed in respect particularly of administrative law and the decisions of Ministers of State, given in almost every Department of State at the present time, which in all sorts of ways affect the rights and liberties of the ordinary men and women in this country and from which
  1102
  they have no sort of appeal whatever. It is only right that there should be an appeal and that that appeal should be brought in a neutrally constituted court. There may be reasons against these cases going to the ordinary Court of King's Bench. It may be that the judges there have not sufficiently wide experience of administrative arrangements to be able to deal with such matters effectively. But I cannot see why some sort of administrative court such as exists in other countries should not be set up. The President of such a court, I suggest, might be a judge of the High Court, who would be assisted, possibly, by eminent retired civil servants or others who had detailed knowledge of the administrative arrangements of the country. I suggest that there are a number of clauses in this Bill which the Government could very well accept, and if they will do so they will accept them with the support of the great mass of men and women of this country. I hope, therefore, that they will look at the matter again to see whether something can be done.
  6.18 p.m.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, I want to join with other noble Lords who have expressed their gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, for initiating such a very interesting and important debate. Nobody is more anxious than His Majesty's Government to ensure that the ancient rights and liberties of the subject are safeguarded. We therefore welcome the motives which have prompted the presentation of this Bill, and I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that nobody will be more zealous than ourselves in jealously safeguarding the long-established liberties of this land. The debate has been essentially a legal debate, and I should have wished that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, had waited a while and had delivered his speech at the end of the debate, instead of intervening about hall' way through, for I regard his able and indeed devastating speech against the Bill as about the last word which it was necessary to say against it. His legal arguments were such that I thought it would be impossible for a layman to follow them or to deal with the points as fully as he dealt with them. In the course of the short time which I propose

  1103
  to detain your Lordships I shall not attempt to emulate that able and eloquent speech.
  I was interested to note the emphasis placed in the earlier speeches upon the individual liberty of the subject in this country. I fully agree with the importance of it, but I should have wished that some reference had been made before the speech delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, to the economic and industrial liberties and rights of the people in this country. Some of us who have lived a long time recall the state of affairs which existed a good many years ago, and while "the good old days" might have been regarded as a sort of Eldorado in the matter of personal liberty for a number of people, it may be said of the great masses of the population of the country that the economic and industrial conditions in which they lived were worse than at present, and they did not enjoy even the measure of political liberty which they enjoy at the present time.
  My memories go back to 1947 when the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, introduced the previous Bill. The House was impressed by the powerful speech of our late colleague Lord Dukeston, whose passing we all deplore. He dealt fully with that aspect of the situation. He and I. and many who were with him during the latter part of last century and the first half of this, became somewhat cynical at this prating of liberty after the treatment we received at the hands of the Liberals in the early days. I agree with what was then said by my noble friend. Lord Dukeston. The period between 1906 and 1914 was a period in which we had more strikes and victimisation of the industrial population than at any other period in our history. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, refers to the miners' Minimum Wages Act of 1912, but the minimum wage the miners asked for was a moderate and totally inadequate wage for the people employed in the most important and dangerous industry of this country—no more than 2s. 6d. per day, plus a percentage. Our memories go back to the dockers' strike, when the dockers went on strike for the "dockers' tanner" and were kept out on strike because those who prated about political liberty at that time gave no consideration whatever to the standards of life of the people.
  1104
  I was somewhat alarmed by the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, about the Welfare State and the social services. We have been building up the Welfare. State over a long period, ever since 1870, when the Government gave the people the right to receive education—just a grounding in the three "Rs". But that was enough to enable some of us to do what was necessary to build up what Parliament had denied to the people, an adequate standard of living. We built up outside Parliament the strongest industrial movement in the world, and whilst we were not deterred from building also a political movement, the working people in those early days pinned the whole of their hopes upon industrial action. The result is that to-day we have, working side by side, a powerful trade union movement and the most powerful political movement in the country. Both would sacrifice a considerable amount for the complete restoration of the liberties of the subject—but not at the expense of our economic and our social liberty. That is where I cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Winster. We can have adequate safeguards for the liberty of the individual if they coincide with safeguarding the standards of the people. There is this difference between the present day and thirty or forty years ago, that to-day it is the great mass of the people who enjoy both economic and political liberty.
  The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said that I would refer to some of the clauses with which he did not deal. I will first of all deal with Clause 8, which proposes to deprive the marketing boards of their statutory powers and duty, now exercised by a special disciplinary committee of the board under the chairmanship of a lawyer. I question whether this clause is necessary. It would be interesting if the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, would tell the House where the representations have come from which prompted him to include a clause of this kind in the Bill. Have they come from the agricultural producers or from the consumers? I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, suggest that he was going to support this clause.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Viscount is wrong. I suggested that the right way of dealing with this was that

  1105
  a man should have the choice of going to the courts instead of paying the fine of the disciplinary committee.
  VISCOUNT HALL: That is so—I apologise to the noble Lord. A similar clause was moved as an amendment against the Agricultural Marketing Act which passed through another place in April of last year and then passed through your Lordships' House without any amendment at all. The interesting thing is that when it was voted on in another place, this clause received only two votes, apart from those of the Tellers, one being a Liberal and the ether an Independent. Not a single Conservative Member voted for the clause. That is in itself an indication that there is no purpose in this clause. If there was, then the right place for introducing legislation of this kind was in the Agricultural Marketing Act.
  We take strong objection to two clauses in the Bill, Clauses 10 and 11. Although the noble Viscount said that Clause 10 of the 1947 Bill had been dropped. Clause 10 in the present Bill takes its place, for the Unemployment Assistance Board, as well as the industries which have been nationalised, is brought within the scope of the clause. I think that this clause is.misconceived and it seems unlikely that the noble Viscount realizes its full implications. In the first place, the socialised industries are commercial undertakings, and it was the deliberate intention of Parliament that they should be free from detailed Ministerial or Parliamentary interference in their day-to-day operations and that Parliamentary supervision should be limited to the broadest questions of policy. This clause offends against that principle and, if it is desired to attack it, it would be more honestly and fairly done by an attempt to amend the nationalisation measures themselves than this rather loose method of inserting a clause in a Bill concerned with the liberty of the individual.
  It is impossible to accept the implication of the clause that the public authorities listed in the Schedule to this Bill are more inclined to be unfairly oppressive than are private enterprises. Quite the contrary. The Government have no reason to think that the existing safeguards of the individual are insufficient. They are certainly more substantial than
  1106
  in the case of private industry. In many cases the aggrieved individual has a remedy in the courts. Where this is so it is better that the courts should deal with the matter, and it would be undesirable that the Minister should intervene in a case which was before the courts or might come before them. In other cases the aggrieved individual has at least the same, and indeed greater, opportunities for obtaining redress than he has from private industry.
  Those supporting this clause entirely ignore. the machinery which the Statutes have set up for dealing with the grievances of the two largest bodies of people affected by the operations of the social. ised industries—namely, the consumers and the workpeople. Consumers' consultative machinery was set up in each industry for the precise purpose of enabling the grievances of consumers to be thoroughly ventilated and, if necessary, brought before the Minister who is empowered to give direction to the hoards. Similarly, the grievances of the work people are at present most successfully dealt with through conciliation machinery. Is it wise to imperil the success of these arrangements, which have never worked better than they are working at the present time, by enabling the aggrieved individual to short-circuit: them? It is most undesirable that the Minister should deal with the details of staff relations and personnel manageinent. Indeed, the trade unions concerned, and the nationalised boards themselves would resent interference by the Minister in matters which they have already discussed and agreed through the usual machinery of collective negotiation. It will be another interference with the work of the trade union movement in this country if the Bill is carried through in its present form. Indeed, the Minister himself would find it difficult, and possibly disastrous to the stability and efficient running of the industry, to interfere in these matters. It is right, of course, that the liberties of the individual should be protected, 'put it would be wrong to allow and certainly to encourage any individual to make collective bargaining unworkable. In short, the adoption of this clause would drastically upset the economy which the socialised industries need for their everyday commercial activities. while it would be more likely to weaken than to add to the safeguards

  1107
  against oppressive behaviour on their part.
  As to Clause 11, why such a clause has been included is indeed a puzzle to me. I suppose it takes the place of Clause 11 of the 1947 Bill, which has been dropped. This clause has for its purpose the prevention of political and religious victimisation by an employer. Those of us who have had to deal with large numbers of cases of victimisation know that it is almost impossible in private employment to fix any cause for victimisation. You can legislate, if you like, and say that this legislation prevents victimisation, but we have seen every device adopted for the purpose of victimising a man for his religious, political or, indeed, his trade union activities. We feel that this clause, again, is an interference with an organisation which during the last twenty or thirty years has been able, through its relationship with the employers, to deal with this matter infinitely better than any legislation could possibly deal with it. Indeed, the trade unions would deprecate the singling out of any political Party or any religious denomination for mention in a Bill of this kind, as here they have cegislative protection against what was one of the worst evils—namely, the victimisation of the individual by industry. The trade union movement would take strong exception to that clause, because, as they rightly say, again it is an interference with duties which have been carried out much more successfully than they could he carried out under any legislative instrument of this kind.
  Finally, I come to Clause 12, the object of which is to allow a writ of habeas corpus to be issued in the case of a member of a Commonwealth country's Forces stationed in this country.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Or others.
  VISCOUNT HALL: Yes, or others. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, asked whether any approach had been made to the Commonwealth countries in relation to any change which might be required in connection with this legislation. No approach was made to the Commonwealth countries or, indeed, to any of our Allied countries during, the last war; indeed, there was hardly any need for an approach to be made by us. The position is as it was. Here is legislation which was entered into as a result of a complete
  1108
  understanding between the Commonwealth countries and our own Government and our Allies during the last war, and that legislation has worked very satisfactorily for the seventeen years for which it has been upon the Statute Book. Why, in a Bill of this kind, further legislation should be asked for upon legislation which is agreed between ourselves and other nations, is beyond our comprehension. There is nothing more that I can say. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has dealt with what are regarded as the legal aspects of the Bill, and I have attempted, very inadequately, to follow him and deal with the clauses which were left to me. From what he and so many noble Lords have said about certain clauses of this Bill, I hope noble Lords will agree that there is no purpose at all for this measure and will vote against the Second Reading.
  6.40 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I confess that I am profoundly disappointed at the attitude taken by the Government. We invited their co-operation. We wished the whole House to work together in order to deal with a few exceptional matters which have aroused a good deal of public opinion in recent years. They have returned a fiat negative, and apparently are going to press the House to a Division and vote against this Bill. The reasons given seem to me quite inadequate, consisting almost entirely of Committee points which could properly be dealt with at the next stage of the Bill. With regard to the first part of the speech of the noble Viscount who has just spoken, it seemed to me to have a certain familiar ring about it—grievances of the miners thirty or forty years ago, and the injustices which they suffered. I forget whether he mentioned the Means Test this time—he may have done so. But noble Lords know the familiar feeling when one seems to have heard exactly the same thing before and to have been in a place already. I seem to remember hearing the same speech on two or three previous occasions on entirely different matters. However, at the end he came to the Bill and dealt with one or two of the particular clauses.
  The noble Viscount urged that the Welfare State requires all these restrictions on liberty. Well, the two ought not to be antagonistic to one another. You cannot have a true Welfare State

  1109
  which treats personal liberty as unimportant. That is the Welfare State in Russia, where people have to submit to slavery in order to have what is called economic freedom. The business of this Government, and particularly a Labour Government, I think, should be to relieve the Welfare State which they have helped to build up from the accusation that it unnecessarily restricts liberty. I was much struck by the courageous speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who, speaking on behalf of an organisation of lawyers belonging to the Labour Party, said that they were deeply concerned at the manner in which the judicial procedure was neglected in certain cases and the encroachments that had in fact been made upon personal liberty. He urged the Government to take these facts into account and to think yet again before they gave a complete negative to all proposals such as those embodied in the Bill.
  With respect to the noble Viscount's last point, in urging that political and religious tests should not be imposed by private employers as a condition of employment, I fail to follow his argument entirely, because he said that we were interfering—tha t was his word—with the activities of trade unions in protecting their members against victimisation. In what smallest particular would this clause, if it were passed into law, affect in any way the admirable efforts that are made by the trade unions to protect their members from victimisation? It adds a fresh safeguard to personal liberty in the case where private individuals try to make as a condition of employment some particular political or religious faith, or the absence of some particular religious or political profession or belief.
  With regard to habeas corpus, the noble Viscount said that the legislation has worked perfectly satisfactorily for seventeen years. How can you tell that it has worked satisfactorily if you deny to an aggrieved person the right to sue for habeas corpus? How do you know whether or not things have occurred on which a writ of habeas corpus ought to have been issued?
  VISCOUNT HALL: Because His Majesty's Government have had no complaint at all from the British Commonwealth. If there had been any complaint against it, then, of course, His Majesty's
  1110
  Government, with other Governments, would have heard of those complaints.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble Viscount again refers only to Commonwealth affairs, but there are other foreign forces—certainly the Polish forces. How do you know that people have not been subjected to injustice there for their political beliefs or other beliefs? I do not say that they have been; I have no knowledge whatever of the subject. I am making no insinuation of any sort or kind. All I say is that we cannot tell—because no writs have been sued for, having been prohibited by law—that there have not been occasions upon which writs ought to have been, and probably would have been, sued for if there had been permission to do so. An opinion strongly urged by Sir Stafford Cripps—this was when he was not in the present Government—was that this was a matter of pro-found importance, a matter of principle; that certainly no ham could be done by allowing writs of habeas corpus to be sued for, and that much harm might be done by the refusal. However, I do not propose to chew the cud of the debate and to go over again till the matters that were dealt with in my previous speech, for the length of which I must apologise to the House. I trust that noble Lords who have heard the debate and have followed these matters will support the Bill in the Division, since one is being forced upon us, and will urge that this measure is worthy of consideration, point by point, in a Committee of your Lord, ships' House.

  THE POSITION IN KOREA
  6.47 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, before the noble Viscount on the Woolsack puts the Question to the House, I am sure your Lordships would wish me to report to you, whist the House is assembled, a very important statement which the Prime Minister has just made in the House of Commons. It is rather long and I will do my best to piece the cables together. It is as follows:
  "I am grateful to the House for allowing me to interrupt business in order to make the following statement.
  This morning His Majesty's Government were informed by the United

  1111
  States Government of the terms of a statement which the United States Government intended to make later in the day on the situation in Korea. This statement has in fact just been released for publication in the U.S.A. It reads as follows:
  'In Korea the Government forces, which were armed to prevent border raids and to preserve internal security, were attacked by invading forces from North Korea.
  The Security Council of the United Nations called upon the invading troops to cease hostilities and to withdraw to the 38th parallel.
  This they have not done, but on the contrary have pressed the attack.
  The Security Council called upon all members of the United Nations to render every assistance to the United Nations in the execution of this resolution.
  In these circumstances I have ordered United States air and sea forces to give the Korean Government troops cover and support.
  The attack upon Korea makes it plain beyond all doubt that Communism has passed beyond the use of subversion to conquer independent nations and will now use armed invasion and war.
  It has defied the orders of the Security Council of the United Nations, issued to preserve international peace and security. In these circumstances the occupation of Formosa by Communist forces would be a direct threat to the security of the Pacific area and to United States forces performing their lawful and necessary functions in that area.
  Accordingly I have ordered the Seventh Fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa. As a corollary of this action I am calling upon the Chinese Government on Formosa to cease all air and sea operations against the mainland,
  The Seventh Fleet will see that this is done.
  The determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.
  I have also directed that United States forces in the Philippines be strengthened and that military assistance to the Philippine Government be accelerated.
  I have similarly directed acceleration in the furnishing of military assistance to the forces of France and the associated States in Indo-China and the dispatch of a military mission to provide close working relations with those forces.
  1112
  I know that all members of the United Nations will consider carefully the consequences of this latest aggression in Korea in defiance of the Charter of the United Nations. A return to the rule of force in international affairs will have far-reaching effects. The United States will continue to uphold the rule of law. I have instructed Ambassador Austin. as the representative of the United States to the Security Council, to report these steps to the Council.'"
  Then Mr. Attlee went on:
  "I should add that the United Kingdom representative on the Security Council has been authorised to support at to-day's meeting of the Security Council a resolution which I understand is being introduced by the United States' representative and which recommends that the members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack.
  The situation is of the utmost gravity, but I am certain there will be no disagreement, after our bitter experiences of the last thirty-five years, that the salvation. of all is dependent upon prompt and effective measures to arrest aggression wherever it may occur, using for this purpose the international machinery which the peace-loving nations have set up for this very purpose.
  The fact is that the authorities in Northern Korea have invaded the territory of the Government of the Republic of Korea. This is naked aggression, and it must be checked. We can only hope that all concerned will recognise this simple fact. If they do there is hope for the future.
  In view of the situation, Sir Gladwyn Jebb is flying out immediately to New York to take up his post as permanent representative of the United Kingdom on the United Nations."
  6.54 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader for having made that statement to us at the earliest possible moment. I will only say this: in a moment we are going into the Division Lobby on a purely domestic question; but on the grave matters on which he has spoken to us now we are all one.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I would endorse what has just been said by the noble Viscount who is acting Leader of the Opposition. In the present very serious situation I feel sure that the whole nation will rally as one behind the Government of the day.
  Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a;accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  FOREIGN COMPENSATION BILL
  7.3 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, at this hour you will not want a second long speech from me, but I must say something to explain the purposes of this Bill. We hope to receive some£4,500,000 from the Government of Yugoslavia and some £8,000,000 from the Government of Czechoslovakia, spread over a number of years, in respect of the losses which have been suffered by British concerns

  LIBERTIES OF THE SUBJECT BILL
  Debate on Second Reading resumed.
  On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a;?
  Their Lordships divided: —Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 24.

  CONTENTS

  Reading, M.

  Marchwood, V.

  Llewellin, L.

  Samuel, V.

  Lloyd, L

  Bathurst, E.

  Simon, V.

  Luke, L.

  Birkenhead, E.

  Swinton, V.

  Mancroft, L.

  Halifax, E.

  Mendip L. (V. Clifden) [Teller.]

  Iddesleigh, E.

  Altrincham, L.

  Merthyr, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Baden-Powell, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Perth, E.

  Carrington, L. [Teller.]

  O'Hagan. L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Cawley, L.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  St. Aldwyn. E.

  Cherwell, L.

  Polwarth. L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Clwyd, L.

  Remnant. L.

  Shaftesbury. E.

  Clydesmuir, L.

  Rochdale, L.

  Courthope, L.

  St. Just, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Caldecote, V.

  Denman, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Camrose, V.

  Derwent, L.

  Sempill, L.

  Cecil of Chelwood, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Stamp, L.

  Elibank, V.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Gifford, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Furness, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  Harcourt, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Wardington, L.

  Long, V.

  Layton, L.

  woolton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Jowitt, V.(L. Chancellor.)

  Archibald, L.

  Lawson, L.

  Bingham, L. (E. Lucan) [Teller.]

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Burden. L. [Teller.]

  Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L..

  Calverley, L.

  Marley, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Crook, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Darwen, L.

  Pakenham, L.

  Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

  Faringdon, L.

  Quibell, L.

  Hall, V.

  Haden-Guest, L.

  Shepherd. L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Kershaw, L.

  Uvedale of North End, L.

  through nationalisation and other similar activities. The amounts received would be only enough to pay a dividend —but I hope a fairly substantial dividend in the case of Yugoslavia, where I estimate it at something like 50 per cent. In the case of Czechoslovakia, I estimate it at something like 33⅓per cent. There are various methods by which this could have been done. Sometimes there is a mixed claims Commission to ascertain the various sums. Sometimes the "lump sum" method is adopted, and that has been done in this case. We have agreed these lump sums. In former days, it would have been the responsibility of the Foreign Office to divide up the sums so received amongst the various claimants, For that purpose, in practice the Foreign Secretary would appoint some kind of

  1115
  legal committee, though the responsibility was his; yet he would, of course, act on the advice of that committee.
  Let me explain this for a moment, When a Department or a Minister is dispensing the money amongst the various claimants, in those circumstances he is not a trustee dispensing money or holding money for a cestui que trust. There is the celebrated case that was decided in the House of Lords after the First World War. It is rather like a Sovereign dispensing justice to his subjects: he cannot be called into question or brought before the courts on appeal. This is quite plainly a case in which no one would ever seriously suggest that there should be an appeal, and it shows how unwise it is to have that general rule. We are going to set up a judicial tribunal which will he presided over by one or two very distinguished lawyers.
  I hope that it will include accountants and business men, and they will have to decide, and decide finally, how this money shall be divided up. There is all the more reason for doing it in this way, rather than leaving it to the Foreign Office, because in the case of Yugoslavia, for instance, there will be claims by Commonwealth citizens and naturally enough they would or might be more content with the decision of a tribunal than with that of a particular departmental Minister here.
  We are setting up a permanent Commission. I hope—I am not authorised to say more than this—that ultimately we shall get payments from a number of other countries, and if we do we think it will be convenient for the Commission to deal with these claims. Further, it may be that some of the other countries, if we are going to try to fix lump sum agreements, may demand that we shall give them some idea of what the amount is going to he. We may therefore want to have some system of registering claims, to try to ascertain what the amount is before we pay the claim. Previously that was done by some Government Department, either the Foreign Office or, in more recent years, the Administrator of Enemy Property.
  All I want to say about this agreement is this. It will, of course, be a Commission before which anybody who so desires can appear, and if he wants to argue his
  1116
  case in person or by Counsel he will be fully entitled so to do. Since we propose to do this by Order-in-Council, we set out two drafts of the Order-in-Council showing the sort of thing which we contemplate. They are not like the Laws of the Medes and Persians; they are not fixed. We shall have some amendments to make and I have no doubt that your Lordships will have some amendments which you would like to put forward. But the drafts give some idea. They arc set out in a Memorandum, Command Paper 7942, which those of your Lordships who are interested in the matter will have read. I should just add that paragraph 6 of that Memorandum is no longer applicable. That was the paragraph which dealt with the various enforcoments—provisions about perjury and the like. We think the existing general law is sufficient.
  If we bring it into being, I hope that this Commission will be in operation next August. So far, we know of something like 1,800 claims to be considered. Of course the Commission's main function will be judicial, but there will have to be a secretariat which will deal with claims and the like, and the idea is that there should be some legal officer who is going to play the part of the advocatus diaboli who will find out which claims shall not be admitted. The hearing will be before the three Commissioners and I think they will have to sit in two divisions. That, my Lords, is the substance of the Bill. The expenses of the Commission will have to be met by a small reduction in the case of each claim; but it will be very small. In that sense the Commission will be self-supporting. I think this Bill is pretty generally agreed, and in spite of the fact that it offends against the Samuel principle I have no hesitation in commending it to your Lordships and in moving that it be now read a second time.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a;.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  7.11 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, we are all very grateful indeed to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for his full explanation of this Bill, and we think that everybody in the House is glad to see it before Parliament. Those who know anything about the story of these Continental claims will realise that this Bill is really a link in

  1117
  two long chains of negotiations between this country and Czechoslovakia and similar negotiations between this country and Yugoslavia, and after two or three years' negotiating in one form or another we have now reached the point where, as the Lord Chancellor has explained, agreements have been arrived at with each of these two countries for a certain sum to be set aside to deal with compensation. Agreements have also been reached with the two countries that those sums which will he set aside shall be global sums, and that the cake shall be cut here by the tribunal which the Lord Chancellor has described, and not by tribunals overseas.
  Here I must declare an interest, because I am a member of one of the British Committees who have been negotiating with Czechoslovakia and, I may say, negotiating very happily with Government Departments in some of these matters. I should like to pay tribute to the way in which the representatives of certain of the Committees with which I have been connected have been received and helped by the various Government Departments. Those who are in any way concerned with these claims view with great relief the idea that the share in regard to each claim compared with the global total is to be decided in England and according to English legal procedure. Everybody will be very content with that. I think that we can agree with the Lord Chancellor to leave the matter in the hands of the tribunal and in this case not to ask for appeal.
  Having said that, I think I have said all that I need say about the Bill itself. But as your Lordships know, with the Bill came out a White Paper, and in the White Paper there was issued a draft Order-in-Council. That draft Order-in-Council is a fairly technical document and, as the Lord Chancellor told us just now, the last word has not been said. It is still a draft and it is not thought entirely satisfactory in every respect. Negotiations are going on, however, and I have no doubt that by the time the Order-in-Council comes to be laid most of the remaining matters will have been ironed out. Perhaps I may be excused, even at this late hour, for mentioning three points on which I understand further discussion on the draft Order-in-
  1118
  Council is necessary. In the first place, so far as the Czechoslovakian position is concerned there is a little doubt whether certain claims for actual cash debts will be eligible. They are definitely eligible in the Yugoslav Agreement. If they are not eligible, we want to take care that those debts do not fall, so to speak, between two stools—that they are not blackballed (if I may use that term) in regard to the monetary agreement of 1945, and equally blackballed by this Bill.
  Similarly, there are certain matters connected with trusteeship claims. There are certain firms in this country who are acting as trustees for people, some of them not resident here but possibly in the Dominions. Those claims need to be taken care of. There is a third class of claim—namely, claims made by a company registered in this country whose ownership of a Czechoslovakian assets conies through the ownership of a subsidiary. Let me take the case, I think: not entirely imaginary, of a British company which owns a subsidiary registered in Switzerland, and the Czechoslovakian asset is actually owned. by the Swiss Company. There was an agreement, I think, made a couple of years ago, between Switzerland and Czechoslovakia in which that kind of asset was excluded. Here, again, we must take care that those cases do not fall between two stools. I say that, not because I am in any way alarmed at the possibility—because negotiations are going on and, to my knowledge, they are very happy and constructive negotiations, between the owners of the assets and the Government Departments. I want merely to mention those points as indicating the sort of complications with which we must deal if the machinery of the Claims Commission is to work to the greatest satisfaction of everybody. When the Commission starts to wont there may be further adjustments to the machinery, and I suggest that in that case it would be right to feel our way as we go. As the Lord Chancellor told us, if this procedure works well in the case of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia we hope it will be used in the future should it be possible to make agreements with other countries now behind the Iron Curtain, because nationalisation has taken place in almost every one of those countries. It is a dose of nationalisation which would almost cause noble Lords opposite indigestion,

  1119
  because nothing like that has happened here yet.
  I will leave that matter and just make these two main points. As I say, this Bill is a chain in a course of events. But it has a very clear background—namely, that neither this Bill nor anything like it will achieve its object (which is that British concerns shall be compensated for what has been taken from them), unless two things happen. The first is that the Board of Trade see to it that sufficient trade is promoted between Britain and Yugoslavia and Britain and Czechoslovakia to make it possible for these compensation payments to come through at the rate which has been envisaged in the agreements; because if there is no trade going through, these payments will dry up and nothing will happen. Secondly, and in parallel with that, steady diplomatic pressure will have to be exercised if these agreements are to stand up to events. It has been necessary to give a good deal of diplomatic attention to this matter in the past, and it would be a great tragedy if all the work and good will which is represented by this Bill were to be lost through failure to maintain the objective which His Majesty's Government have so far set themselves. My Lords, we support the Bill and we will do all we can to bring it speedily into law.
  7.20 p.m.
  LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I gladly join with the noble Viscount who has just sat down in congratulating the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack on the explanation which he has given your Lordships of this matter. I should also like to take this opportunity of congratulating His Majesty's Government on the fact that, despite the fears of many, and despite a mass of obstacles, they have been able to conclude these Compensation Agreements with the Governments of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. I, too, like the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, have an interest to declare. Like him I have been working for some time on a committee to try to assist these people who have lost their all. As your Lordships well know, the Committee, on which my noble friend Lord Bridgeman sits, and of which Mr. Hansard is Chairman, was set up a number of years ago. and is known as
  1120
  the Beevor Committee. It bears this name as a tribute to the excellent work done by Mr. Jack Beevor, its secretary, who is a partner in the firm of Slaughter and May. Shortly after its establishment, another Committee to deal with other claimants, one might say the smaller claimants, was set up. Of this Committee I am privileged to be the chairman. The Committee is called "The Czechoslovak Claims Committee, 1948." On it we are fortunate to have as our secretary Mr. K. Schwartz, who is of Czechoslovak birth but has for many years been a naturalised British subject.
  I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to the following points arising out of the present wording of the Foreign Compensation Bill, 1950, and the draft orders accompanying it. The matter has been referred to by the noble Viscount who has just sat down, and I will confine myself exclusively to the provisions relating to Czechoslovakia. Under the Anglo-Czechoslovak Compensation Agreement of September 28, 1949. His Majesty's Government have given a general discharge to the Czechoslovak Government in respect of nearly all British claims. In defining the claims to which such discharge relates, as a result of protracted negotiations with the Czechoslovak Government—who all the time had at the back of their minds, as your Lordships will be aware, the necessity of having to make similar Agreements with other countries and wanted to avoid prejudicing themselves—rather artificial terms were used.
  It was generally expected that all claims which were thus discharged under the terms of Clause 3 of the Anglo-Czechoslovak Compensation Agreement, would qualify for compensation under the Foreign Compensation Bill. However, the Bill suggests a different method of definition, and there is a grave danger lest a number of claims to which the discharge relates may, nevertheless, not be admissible under the Bill. The Compensation Agreement refers to:
  "various Czechoslovak methods of nationalisation, expropriation, dispossession or other restrictive measures."
  whereas the Bill refers only to such Czechoslovak laws and decrees as are enumerated in a Schedule attached to the Bill. For example, the second Czecho-

  1121
  Slovak Agricultural Reform Act is not included. In view of the fact that since 1945 the Czechoslovak Government have been issuing a great number of laws, orders, decrees and regulations affecting the rights of these British owners, it is almost impossible to draw up a complete list of all relevant measures, and the Commission may find themselves confronted with cases which could not qualify under the Bill for the reason that the act of dispossession was based on a measure inadvertently omitted from the Schedule.
  Moreover, the interpretative minute to the Compensation Agreement contains a clause to the effect that, in cases where British-owned property has been first confiscated and subsequently nationalised, the elate of promulgation of the nationalisation law shall be deemed to be the date of the relevant measure. This clause has not been incorporated in the draft Order-in-Council, and this may result in a number of cases covered by the Compensation Agreement under the said definition clause, and thus comprised in the general discharge, not being entitled to compensation under the Compensation Bill. I feel sure that such is not intended. It would, therefore, seem advisable to acid to the draft Order-in-Council a general clause to the effect that the Commission are to admit any claim in respect of which the British Government have given a discharge to the Czechoslovak Government under the Compensation Agreement, even if such claim is not covered expressly by any of the other provisions of the Order-in-Council. British claimants know only too well, from experience, Mat the Czechoslovak authorities are very reluctant indeed to give information about expropriated property, although according to the Anglo-Czechoslovak Compensation Agreement of September last the Czechoslovak Government promised to assist in securing all documents, proofs, et cetera, which would be required here. It is. therefore, suggested that the Claims Commission should take into consideration the difficulties in collecting documents and accounts or any other kind of proofs.
  I should also like to suggest that it would be most desirable, and in accordance with practice, that an advisory committee should be set up. This committee would, of course, be at the call of the Claim; Commission to assist and advise the Commission in all cases in which
  1122
  claimants were unable, through circurnstances beyond their control, to submit documentary proof. An advisory committee consisting of independent experts with personal knowledge of Czechoslovak affairs could give valuable assistance in many respects, and ensure a fair and just valuation on the evidence available. A number of such experts are available; and I would strongly recommend that the aforementioned proposals are taken into account when the final text of the Order-in-Council is prepared.
  I should like to support what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgman, has said. My committee have had excellent relations with the authorities concerned; they have been exceedingly helpful, and have met us on all possible occasions. If it should be the wish of the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack that a meeting should be convened between our representatives and the officials concerned in order that there may be full explanation of these points, we are entirely at their disposal. I beg leave to support the welcome which has been given to the Bill.
  7.26 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, all I need add is a word of thanks to your Lordships for the support which you have given to this Bill. I will see that the points which have been mentioned by both the noble Lords who have spoken are considered. If I can be of any help in calling a meeting I will certainly do so.
  On Question, Bill read 2a;, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  7.27 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Morrison, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill which is a Bill to consolidate, without amendment, the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1925 to 1949.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a;. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a;; and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

  ARMY RESERVE BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill, which is a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the Army Reserve, be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a;.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I would not take up the time of your Lordships' House were it not that I have often asked the noble and learned Viscount who sits On the Woolsack when this Bill was coming along. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how much we appreciate the appearance of this Bill, the form of which shows how many Acts have to be consolidated. If I may, with the leave of the House, I will add that the same remark applies to the next Bill on the Order Paper.
  On Question, Bill read2a;; and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

  AIR FORCE RESERVE BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is a Bill to consolidate certain enactments and Orders in Council relating to the Air Force Reserve.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a;.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a; and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

  DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY BILL
  7.30 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, on its Second Reading this Bill was received with unanimity in your Lordships' House. If I may be allowed to say so with respect, I thought that the speeches which were made on that occasion upheld the best traditions of
  1124
  your Lordships' House. I am very grateful to noble Lords for what they said, and my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade wishes to be associated with that remark. On the Committee stage, no noble Lord thought it necessary to move. an Amendment. It only remains for me in moving the Third Reading to thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for the part which they played in a most instructive and interesting debate. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a;.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, it is true that on the Second Reading of the Bill some warnings were given about the use of the powers which this Bill will confer, but there was a general appreciation that they were necessary. If the Government are always so successful in finding non-controversial measures in the present curious position of Parliament, they will be fortunate indeed. I would commend the Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 3a;, and passed.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
  7.31 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, upon the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, raised some doubt about the assurances given to the industry, both employers and employees, that proper consultation would be given before the regulations which the Minister has power to make under the Bill were actually made. I should like to repeat the assurance definitely and in terms about which there can be no equivocation. There will be full consultation with both employers and employees before these regulations are made, and similar consultations will take place before a decision is taken on the extent to which an existing fishing boat coming in for structural alterations or repairs must comply with the standards laid down in the new regulations. I think that assurance will be acceptable to the noble Lord opposite. We intend fully to carry it out. With that assurance, I

  1125
  hone your Lordships will give this Bill a Third Reading. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a;.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I should like to thank the noble Lord for these assurances, which are on lines which I think my noble friend would approve.
  On Question, Bill read 3a;, and passed.

  ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND CORPORATION BILL
  7.33 p.m.
  Read 3a;(according to Order), and passed.

  GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  WAKEFIELD EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Reported, without amendment.
  LAND DRAINAGE (SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL (HOGSMILL RIVER IMPROVEMENT) (AMENDMENT)) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  Reported, with an Amendment and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  RAYON STAPLE FIBRE
  RAYON STAPLE FIBRE
  POSTAL SERVICE TO ETTRICK VALLEY
  POSTAL SERVICE TO ETTRICK VALLEY