Sitting of 23 March 1950

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next at Seven o'clock.
ETON RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

    Health Centres
    Mr. Somerville Hastingsasked the Minister of Health (1) what arrangements he has made for practitioners who are willing to undertake full-time service in health centres in any part of the country to secure an opportunity to practise their profession in this way;
    (2) what steps he takes to ensure agreement by suitable practitioners of a district to undertake service in a health centre before he sanctions the provision of such a centre by new construction or adaptation.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Before approving a health centre I obtain an assurance from the Executive Council, after consulting the local medical committee, either that enough local doctors want to practise there or that the need for more doctors in the area would justify advertising vacancies.
    Mr. Hastings: With reference to the first Question, does not my right hon. Friend think that if he agreed to the arrangement suggested there it would greatly improve the distribution of doctors, which is most unequal at present?
    Mr. Bevan: As my hon. Friend is probably aware, a special committee of the Central Health Services Cowed is exploring the whole question of the lines on which health centres should be developed.

    Chemists (Payments)
    Mr. Stanley Prescottasked the Minister of Health what is the total sum under the National Health Scheme now outstanding to chemists; over what period such sum is owing; how many chemists are concerned; and why there is delay in settling accounts.
    Mr. Bevan: About £3¼ million, representing balances due for the period August, 1949, to February, 1950, after substantial payments on account had been made to the 12,975 chemists concerned. The pricing staff have been unable to deal satisfactorily with the greatly increased number of prescriptions issued, but a new procedure has started which should lead to better progress.
    Mr. Prescott: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because I think that it was factually accurate—may I ask whether he is aware that there is great hardship among chemists throughout the country because, during the last six months they have been financing the National Health Service? Will he do everything he can to expedite payment in future?
    Mr. Bevan: We are doing all we can but, as I explained to the House when we discussed the Supplementary Estimates, there has been a very large increase indeed in the number of prescriptions. Ninety per cent. of the bills are paid within a month.
    Mr. George Wardasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to reduce the delay in payments to chemists.
    Miss Irene Wardasked the Minister of Health on what date he proposes to pay the outstanding claims due to the chemists in the Parliamentary constituency of Tynemouth
    Mr. Bevan: Chemists including those in Tynemouth, are paid each month about 90 per cent. of the amount due for the preceding month. A new method

    2133
    of pricing prescriptions, introduced recently, is expected to speed up the payment of balances.
    Mr. Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Worcester chemists are experiencing delays of between three and eight months in some cases in receiving payment, and that at a recent meeting they resolved to make representations to the Minister which he should have had by now?
    Mr. Bevan: Chemists have their own means of making representations to me. The arrears cannot be more than 10 per cent., as I have explained. Ninety per cent. of the amount due is paid within a month of it being due, so that the arrears are only 10 per cent.
    Mr. De la Bère: South Worcestershire is not at all satisfied.
    Miss Ward: As the Government are making money on the outstanding amounts due to chemists, will the right hon. Gentleman consider paying interest on the amounts which the Government owe to chemists?
    Mr. Bevan: I am satisfied that chemists are adequately remunerated for the services they render.
    Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the distressing financial circumstances of chemists, will my right hon. Friend consult with the Minister of National Insurance or the National Assistance Board with a view to giving favourable consideration to any application for help

    Hospital Beds
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to prevent patients who have been informed that they will have to wait several months for a bed in hospital being admitted within a few days to Section V pay-bed in the same hospital if able to pay the doctor and hospital fees.
    Mr. Bevan: If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any cases known to him, where admission was medically urgent and was refused, I shall be only too glad to look into them.
    Mr. Hastings: But has not my right hon. Friend had many such cases brought to his notice during the last Parliament,
    2134
    and does he not agree that it is unfair that there should be a restriction on general practitioners not to receive fees from their National Health Service cases when consultants are not restricted in that way?
    Mr. Bevan: It is, of course, for those concerned with the administration of a hospital to deal with matters of this sort. Obviously, it is an abuse of the Act to deny admission to a patient who requires it on urgent medical grounds and then to admit the patient immediately because the surgeon can obtain a fee.

    Kingston Hospital Committee (Appointments)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Health why the chairman and three members of the Kingston Group Hospital Management Committee, whose names have been supplied to him, have not been re-appointed; and whether the decision not to re-appoint these persons was approved by him.
    Mr. Bevan: The making of these appointments is a duty placed by Statute on the regional hospital boards, and no question of my approval arises.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Has the right hon. Gentleman investigated the many complaints that are now arising about the abuse of these powers by regional hospital boards, and in view of the fact—
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member to proceed with this matter now in view of the fact that only last night, or in the early hours of yesterday morning, he pursued the matter in Debate in Committee of Supply and received a full answer from the Parliamentary Secretary?
    Mr. Boyd-CarpenterFurther to that point of Order. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, completely inaccurate in referring to the matter as being raised in a Debate in Committee of Supply. It was raised on the Adjournment, and I would respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that when an unsatisfactory answer is obtained, hon. Members are not inhibited thereby from pursuing their inquiry.
    Mr. Bevan: As I have explained, this is a matter placed by Statute upon the regional hospital boards, and the House

    2135
    must not complain about its own decisions.
    Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread feeling that there are some political backgrounds to these appointments, and will he give an undertaking that he will look into the matter?
    Mr. Bevan: That is a point which I have not yet been able to establish, but many of my hon. Friends behind me have informed me that they are satisfied that, in some instances, Conservatives have been put on some of these committees.

    Hospital Boards and Committees
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Health whether it is with his approval that paid servants of Regional Hospital Boards or Group Hospital Management Committees are appointed members of the particular boards or committees by whom they are employed.
    Mr. Bevan: As a general principle, I am not in favour of these officers serving as members of the bodies with which they are immediately connected. The requirements of the Acts make it inevitable, how-fever, that a limited number of the senior medical and dental staffs should be so appointed, and I recognise that there may be other exceptional cases where it is desirable so to appoint officers.

    Tuberculosis Cases
    Mr. Scottasked the Minister of Health if he will consider sending a proportion of tuberculosis cases to Continental sanatoria in order to relieve the waiting list for beds in this country.
    Mr. Bevan: I have no power to do so. There is nothing in the National Health Service Act to empower the Minister or regional hospital boards to provide treatment abroad, or to contribute to the cost of it.
    Mr. Gerald Williams: Is the Minister aware that it is only the slight cases which can at present get into hospitals and that more advanced cases, which have little hope of being cured, cannot get into any sanatorium? Would he take steps to see that they can be given this opportunity?
    Mr. Bevan: I have no power to do it.
    Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about it?

    Injured Miners (Treatment)
    Mr. Bartleyasked the Minister of Health to what extent he has given consideration to the recommendation contained in paragraph 182 of the annual report of the National Miners' Welfare Joint Council, 1948, of which a copy has been sent to him, in regard to the establishment of hospital facilities for the treatment of miners who are sufferers from complete paralysis of the lower limbs, resulting from injuries to the spinal cord.
    Mr. Bevan: Steps are being taken to improve and extend the paraplegic unit at the Wharncliffe Hospital, Sheffield, and plans are being considered to develop the facilities at Southport and Stoke Mandeville, and to establish units in South Wales, Tyneside and London.

    Prescriptions (Payment)
    Mr. Douglas Houghtonasked the Minister of Health whether his regulations authorise a doctor in the National Health Service to tell a patient that he is forbidden to prescribe the drug he considers most suitable for treatment on the grounds of cost, but that he may prescribe it privately on payment.
    Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. A general practitioner is required by his terms of service to prescribe such drugs as he thinks requisite for the treatment of any patient, but the cost of his prescribing should not exceed what is reasonably necessary for proper treatment.
    Mr. Houghton: Will my right hon. Friend say what is the remedy of the patient if confronted with this situation?
    Mr. Bevan: He has the remedy of changing his doctor.
    Mr. Hastings: is it not illegal for a practitioner to give private treatment, for which he is paid, to one of his National Health Service patients?
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, it is illegal.

    Medical Services (Accounts)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Health what was the total value of orders placed for medical services, drugs, prescriptions and equipment, and not yet paid for at the latest convenient available date.
    Mr. Bevan: I regret that information is not available in the form requested. If the hon. Member will let me know more clearly what he has in mind, it may be possible to supply further information.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to State control and red tape, many of the biggest chemists are short of liquid funds, because the Government do not pay their bills, and that if a private person did that he would soon be at the Old Bailey?
    Mr. Bevan: That is another question entirely. We have no evidence at all of chemists being unable to get the necessary stocks because they cannot afford them.
    Mr. G. Williamsasked the Minister of Health the approximate sums of money due to doctors and others under the National Health Service
    Mr. Bevan: The greater part of the remuneration of general practitioners is paid quarterly so that the amount due to them at any particular time varies between a full quarter's payment and practically nothing. The bills of dentists and opticians are met monthly but at varying dates. Chemists bills are similarly met monthly but only to the extent of 90 per cent., the balance for that and previous months being paid as and when pricing is completed.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister say why there have been so many complaints from chemists in my own constituency, who have lost sums of money owing to them by the Government and which is causing them great hardship?
    Mr. Bevan: We have not received representations from chemists' organisations that bear out that complaint, but I will certainly make further inquiries.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some chemists have gone into liquidation because they cannot continue to finance the National Health scheme? Will he give his attention to that matter?
    Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Gentleman will give the names of the chemists concerned I will make inquiries.

    Hospital Securities (Sale)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Health how much he has realised by the sale of hospital securities; and whether the selling of them has been completed
    Mr. Bevan: The sum of £1,614,499 has been realised by the sale of hospital securities included in the Hospital Endowments Fund. Further sales, amounting to approximately £1,250,000, will be completed before the end of the financial year.
    Mr. Keeling: Does that complete everything?
    Mr. Bevan: I am not quite sure, but I think it does.

    Maternity Accommodation, Cornwall
    Sir Harold Roperasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the shortage of accommodation for maternity cases in North Cornwall; and if he will take steps to remedy the situation with the least possible delay
    Mr. Bevan: I am informed that the regional hospital board are already taking steps to increase the accommodation available.
    Sir H. Roper: Will the right hon. Gentleman please give details of the steps the Government propose to take?
    Mr. Bevan: I will send them to the hon. Gentleman.

    Hospital Glassware
    Mr. John Grimstonasked the Minister of Health what was the landed duty paid value of hospital glassware imported for his Department from Germany; the rate of duty paid; and the saving made compared with the prices for the same ware made at home
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Health in respect of what categories of glassware his Department have had difficulty in obtaining satisfactory tenders from British manufacturers
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Health for what kinds of glassware for hospitals British manufacturers have tendered; for what kinds no tenders were received; and the approximate value of the annual requirements in each category
    Mr. Bevan: I understand that the agreements between manufacturers and distributors of furnace-blown and pressed laboratory glass preclude manufacturers from tendering for Government bulk requirements of beakers, flasks and heavy chemical glassware. The total hospital needs are estimated at £15,000 a year, of which only one-third can be obtained under direct contracts with manufacturers. The landed duty paid value of glassware recently imported from Germany was £2,765, the rate of duty paid being 33 per cent. This purchase represents a saving varying between 10 per cent. and 30 per cent. compared with prices for the same sizes and types of British glassware.
    Mr. Grimston: Is the Minister aware that this is a trifling saving but that, nevertheless, there is a dollar component in these purchases and that if this glassware had been purchased at home he would have saved that number of dollars?
    Mr. Bevan: No; I think the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in this matter. The reason why we went to Germany was because of an arrangement made between retailers and manufacturers of these articles by which retailers alone were allowed to tender, and that is the reason why this saving has been made. I have, however, now asked British manufacturers to tender again, and I hope that their conduct in future will be better than it has been in the past.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that his statement, on 14th March, that retailers had been asked to tender, was wrong? They were not asked. Is he aware that, by his own showing, he was also wrong in saying that there was a large saving by buying in Germany? Is he further aware that, by buying in Germany, he went against the advice of a Government Committee which said that this laboratory glassware was a key industry which should be maintained in this country at all hazards?
    Mr. Bevan: If we saved from 10 to 30 per cent. after paying 33⅓ per cent. duty on glassware surely an excessive price was being charged to British users. If this industry is necessary, as it is, for the welfare of Great Britain, that situation ought not to be exploited by the industry itself.
    Mr. Emrys Roberts: Will the Minister refer this arrangement between the glass
    2140
    manufacturers and the retailers to the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission?
    Mr. Bevan: I am considering it, but I hope that the steps I have already taken will improve their conduct.
    Captain Crookshank: Will the Minister drop the use of the term "percentage" and say how much money was saved?
    Mr. Bevan: No; I am not prepared to give manufacturers at this stage, when we are still asking for tenders, the precise information.
    Captain Crookshank: Would it be about £3,000?
    Mr. Bevan: No, it may be a lot more, but I am not prepared, when we are buying this material, to give tenderers information to enable them to fix prices.
    Mr. Grimston: Is there not, in fact, a dollar component in these purchases, and would not the Minister have saved a number of dollars if he had bought these wares in this country?
    Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Gentleman would give me information as to what is the dollar content I will try to have it inquired into.
    Mr. Grimston: Ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Later
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. Question No. 26 was not called.
    Mr. Speaker: Questions Nos. 24, 26 and 29 were answered together. I was looking at the hon. Member, thinking that he might ask a supplementary question, but he did not rise.
    Sir H. Williams: The Question was not answered at all. I asked the Minister of Health:
    "in respect of what categories of glassware his Department have had difficulty in obtaining satisfactory tenders from British manufacturers."
    Mr. Speaker: We have passed that Question. The hon. Member cannot ask it again.

    Deaf Aids
    Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Health what evidence is available as to

    2141
    the percentage of deaf people who continue to use their Medresco hearing aids after an initial period of six months.
    Mr. Bevan: Information is not available at present, but I am already taking steps to get it.
    Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister examine the falling off in demand for replacement batteries, which appears to indicate the reduced usage of these aids?
    Mr. Bevan: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it very often happens that deaf people, having acquired hearing aids—either the Medresco aid or private aids—give them up in despair because they do not like to use them too long. We are making investigations to ascertain whether there is any wastage.

    Mental Patients
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Health if he will give any information about the practice of some institutions which look after mentally defective girls of allowing them to take jobs of daily service; and what safeguards are taken by these institutions to ensure that the homes in which the girls work are of a respectable type.
    Mr. Bevan: It has been the practice in mental deficiency hospitals to grant suitable patients licence on trial or leave of absence to daily situations. It is a valuable method of ascertaining the fitness of patients to return to community life. No patient is granted this until the superintendent and the hospital management committee are satisfied as to the suitability of the place to which the patient is going. Thereafter, the patient is visited by the social worker from the hospital or by an officer of the local health authority, and reports are furnished to the committee of management of the hospital.
    Mr. Janner: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether, in view of the fact that there have been some cases in which the proportions have not been sufficient for the purpose, he will inquire into those cases and see that these matters are dealt with to his complete satisfaction?
    Mr. Bevan: I will certainly make inquiries into any instances which my hon. Friend may bring to my notice.

    Adoption Orders
    Mr. Michael Astorasked the Minister of Health how many complaints he has had from parents of adopted children making claims under the National Health Service on the need for producing adoption orders in order to comply with regulations.
    Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will let me know what he has in mind I will look into it.
    Mr. Astor: Is the Minister aware that in small communities indiscretions concerning secrecy are almost inevitable and cause considerable embarrassment to parents of adopted children? Would the Minister try to devise some scheme whereby the production of a birth certificate instead of an adoption order meets all the requirements?
    Mr. Bevan: I think the hon. Member will find that the requirements are already met. I will certainly make inquiries to see if there is any removable embarrassment.
    Mr. Astor: I will communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Bevan: Thank you.

    Spectacles
    Mr. John E. Haireasked the Minister of Health what is the present delay in the supply of spectacles under the National Health Service; and when it is hoped to overtake the demand.
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the reduction of the waiting period for spectacles, as compared with six months ago
    Mr. Bevan: The average delay is now a little over four months, compared with some six months last autumn, and is rapidly decreasing. Supply has exceeded demand for some months and the greater part of the arrears should be overtaken before the end of the year.
    Mr. Haire: While appreciating the improvement, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the delay in the case of children is still distressingly long? Would my right hon. Friend urge

    2143
    opticians to establish some measure of priority for children, because of their rapidly changing eyesight?
    Mr. Bevan: I asked opticians many months ago to give priority to children and sick people.
    Mr. McAddenasked the Minister of Health when Miss Palmer, 7, Bournemouth Park Road, Southend-on-Sea, is likely to receive the pair of spectacles ordered by her on 3rd June, 1949, under the National Health Scheme, through Mr. Vennall, optician, Southchurch Road, Southend, against prescription No. D. 1022.
    Mr. Bevan: Soon, I hope. I understand there was no case for any priority here.
    Mr. McAdden: Although there is no question of priority here, according to the Minister, will he remember that quite a short while ago the delay was four months whereas this lady has been waiting for 10 months? Is there any chance of her getting them before the next General Election?
    Mr. Bevan: The period of delay is now rapidly decreasing.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the Minister give an assurance that any ginger he proposes to apply to the supply of spectacles to Southend-on-Sea will not slow down the rate of production for Twickenham-on-Thames?

    Mental Hospitals (Staffing)
    Mr. Basil Nieldasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the shortage of staff in mental hospitals; and what proposals he has for encouraging recruitment in this service.
    Mr. Bevan: I am well aware of it, and I presume that the hon. Member is referring mainly to nursing staff. A revision of salary scales has been agreed, and continuous efforts are made to bring the needs and advantages of this Service to the notice of likely recruits. My Advisory Committee is giving close attention to this matter at the present time.
    Mr. Nield: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of an improvement in pay and conditions reasonably soon, so as to tend to relieve the situation?
    Mr. Bevan: The salary scale has been agreed.

    Nurses (Salary Scales)
    Mr. J. N. Browneasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the concern in the nursing profession and the effect on recruitment caused by the delay in the publication of new salary scales; and whether he will allay this concern by giving an assurance that all grades will be dealt with; and if he will make a statement on the extent to which all new revised scales will be retrospective.
    Mr. Bevan: These are all matters for the negotiating machinery in the first instance. The salaries of some of the senior hospital grades are before the Whitley Council. Those of the public health and domiciliary grades have been referred to arbitration.
    Mr. Browne: Is the Minister aware that all that is required to cure the deep apprehension in the nursing profession is the simple assurance that all grades will be dealt with and that all pay improvements will be restrospective to 1st February, 1949?
    Mr. Bevan: I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is far better to leave these matters to the Whitley machinery.
    Brigadier Peto: Will the Minister say whether the new scales will include the midwives' profession.
    Mr. Bevan: I think, as I suggested, that it would be very much better if these matters were left in the first instance to the Whitley machinery.
    Mrs. Hill: May I ask the Minister, in view of the fact that he has so much power and that the Health Service is within his control, whether he will urge the Whitley Council to get down to this question of the new salary scales? It is a fact that some of the Departments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—I want the Minister to know that the Departments—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, will the Minister please give me some satisfaction?
    Mr. Bevan: I realise that the hon. Lady has not had much experience of the House, but as a general rule it is just as well that these matters of negotiating

    2145
    scales of salaries and conditions should be left to the appropriate organisation. The less the Minister interferes the better.

  HOUSING

    Requirements
    Mr. Blackasked the Minister of Health if he will give an estimate of how many new houses would need to be built to enable every family in Great Britain to have a separate house; and how long the building of such new houses would take at the present rate of progress.
    Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 9th March to questions by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Irene Ward) and other hon. Members.
    Miss Irene Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he did not give any answer on that occasion?
    Mr. Bevan: It is quite clear that it would only be possible to answer a question upon these lines if a house to house survey were made of the whole country.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would not be possible, even on a house to house survey, to get an accurate estimate without knowing how many young men intend to propose to how many young women in the next week or the next month? Any forecast would be completely inadequate.

    Huts, Colchester
    Mr. Alportasked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied with the standard of accommodation of the Service hutments now used by civilian families around Colchester; and what action he intends to take to assist in securing decent homes for the families concerned, promised to them at various intervals during the last five years.
    Mr. Bevan: The general standard of accommodation in these hutments is as good as can be provided in such buildings. But in two groups where there have been complaints of condensation, the local authorities are doing all they can to remedy it. The continued use of this type of accommodation must clearly depend on housing progress in the particular area.
    Major Tufton Beamish: To what extent does the Minister think that people who are living in such shocking conditions—for example, in Rushey Hill Camp, in my constituency—are comforted by the knowledge that the huts in which they live are described as "new homes" in his party's propaganda?
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Member is entirely inaccurate. The housing figures of new accommodation do not include hutments or Service camps.
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no, housing problem by the time the next General Election takes place?
    Mr. Bevan: The Opposition can rest content that we will never again accept any Conservative figures about housing

    Farm Workers' Cottages
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Minister of Health what progress he has made under the Housing Act, 1949, with the reconditioning of farm workers' cottages.
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Health how many farm workers' cottages in England and Wales have been reconditioned under the Housing Act, 1949; and how many of such cottages are situate in the County of Norfolk.
    Mr. Bevan: Many local authorities, including rural district councils, are considering schemes under Part II of the. Housing Act, 1949, but specific information about farm workers' cottages is not available.
    Brigadier Rayner: Is the right hon. Gentleman yet willing to admit that tens of thousands of agricultural workers would be much better housed today if he had not scrapped the Housing (Agricultural Workers) Act, 1938?
    Mr. Bevan: Very large numbers of agricultural workers who now occupy new houses would not be in them if the materials and labour used to build them had been expended in the way the hon. and gallant Member desired.
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the necessary increase of agricultural production is impossible unless licences are

    2147
    granted for the private building of farm workers' houses to be let at rents they can afford; and what steps he proposes to take to overcome this shortage.
    Mr. Bevan: Priority has for some time been given to agricultural housing, and local authorities have already built large numbers of houses for letting at rents which agricultural workers can afford. I cannot, therefore, accept the implications in this Question.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that if he examines the matter again he will find that the rural houses he brags about are being offered at rents that farm labourers cannot afford—in some cases, in my constituency, at 30s. a week?
    Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Gentleman will give me information I will have the matter inquired into, and also the character of the council concerned.
    Mr. Baldwin: Does not the Minister know that I have already given that information in a Debate, about 18 months ago?
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman then advanced a large number of opinions which were at variance with the facts.

    Building Licences
    Brigadier Petoasked the Minister of Health why it is necessary for a local authority to surrender one of its quota of licences for permanent houses where application is granted for the adaptation of a hut or pavilion purchased privately and off licence, before the applicant can erect or adapt the hut as a temporary dwelling instead of coming out of the permissible ceiling allocation of money for repairs, conversions and provision of additional housing, provided that the architectural plan has been approved by the appropriate authority.
    Mr. Bevan: It is not necessary for a local authority to use of its quota of licences for permanent houses. Where a structure is approved by the planning authority for use as a temporary dwelling and conforms with the local by-laws, the local authority may issue the necessary building licence out of their permissible ceiling for repairs and the like.
    Brigadier Peto: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the housing authorities in Bristol are informed of this because, at the moment, they are not aware of it?
    Mr. Bevan: I should be astonished if they were not aware of it.

    Rent Appeals
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to have defined more clearly what is a fair rent for the guidance of rent tribunals and the law courts; and when does he propose to widen the appeal allowed to a divisional court against rent tribunal decisions from the one issue of jurisdiction to all issues.
    Mr. Bevan: I do not propose to introduce the legislation which would be needed.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Minister aware that the Lord Chief Justice has stated that it is most unsatisfactory that there is no proper definition of a fair rent, and has also commented on the narrowness of the right of appeal? In view of that statement, and of experience gained in the working of the Act, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision?
    Mr. Bevan: I have not seen the statement alleged to have been made by the Lord Chief Justice, but the House is master of its own legislation.
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no right of appeal at all, and that the divisional court intervenes only in questions of jurisdiction? Does he agree that in view of the very large number of cases in which they have quashed the findings there ought to be a right of appeal?
    Mr. Bevan: This matter was very fully discussed by the House when the Bill was before it. The House has taken its decision on the matter and, until it varies it, that decision will stand.
    Mr. S. Silverman: In view of the reference to the Lord Chief Justice, will the Minister consider the advisability of sending him a copy of the proceedings of this House, in which the matter was debated at great length, so that he may be aware of the reasons that led to the legislation?
    Mr. Bevan: I shall certainly find out what the Lord Chief Justice has said on this matter and acquaint him with the facts.

    Local Authorities (Allocations)
    Miss Irene Wardasked the Minister of Health which of the following local authorities have had allocations of houses which they cannot build: Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Cardiff, Coventry. Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Nottingham, Plymouth. Sheffield, Southampton, Wallsend-on-Tyne, Whitehaven, Wolverhampton. Tynemouth and Whitley Bay.
    Mr. Bevan: It is not possible to obtain information in the form asked for in the Question. Allocations are made to local authorities from time to time and are based upon an estimate of what each local authority is able to build within the resources available. The rate of actual building progress which is made on houses allocated to an authority is one of the factors taken into account when the next allocation is made.
    Miss Ward: In the light of that information, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability, when answering supplementary questions in future, of not trying to bowl "fast ones"?
    Mr. Bevan: Is there any objection to bowling "slow ones"?

    Census
    Mr. Fortasked the Minister of Health whether the Registrar-General is preparing to carry out in 1951 a census of the population of the United Kingdom; and whether a census of housing will be carried out simultaneously as was done in the 1931 census
    Mr. Bevan: The Registrar-General is making preparations for the next census which falls due in the normal course in 1951, and is in touch with the Ministries of Health and Town and Country Planning as to the information on housing that can conveniently be obtained through the census.
    Mr. Fort: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that the Registrar-General includes the information needed to answer Question No. 2?
    Mr. Bevan: No, it would not be possible to obtain such detailed information as that for the census.

    Property Values
    Mr. Spearmanasked the Minister of Health if he will enable local authorities to purchase property at current market values, as under his present regulations they are unable to obtain the necessary premises
    Mr. Bevan: The basis of compensation on compulsory purchase was laid down by Parliament in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and it is essential that local authorities should not pay more than this basis allows, as otherwise the purpose of the Act may be defeated.
    Mr. Spearman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be in the public interest if he recognised the change in market values, which has largely come about through the inflationary policy of this Government?
    Mr. Bevan: It certainly would not help the Exchequer if they paid far more money than was necessary for the property.

    Haig Homes, Cardiff
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Minister of Health the reasons for the delay in building the Haig homes for disabled ex-Service men in Cardiff
    Mr. Bevan: I understand that delay was caused by the decision of the trustees of Haig homes to reduce the number of houses at Rumney from 32 to 16 which necessitated reconsideration of the site, but that they have now been authorised by the local authority to proceed.

  WATER SUPPLIES

    Aust, Gloucestershire
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Minister of Health (1) when he anticipates that a main water supply will be available for the Parish of Aust, Gloucestershire;
    (2) whether he is satisfied that there is no danger to health from the contaminated wells which supply water to the people of Aust; and whether each well will be tested by his Department
    Mr. Bevan: I have had no recent complaints about the condition of the wells in Aust, but a piped supply is undoubtedly needed. The area is within the limits of supply of a water company and I have approved a scheme for the extension of their mains to serve the area and the payment by the rural district council of a substantial part of the cost. I cannot say when the supply will be available because the company cannot supply without a new source and the procedure for obtaining the necessary water rights may be lengthy.

    Congleton
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Health if he will now give a decision regarding the third contract in connection with the Hug Bridge Water Supply, Congleton, Cheshire, details of which have already been sent him
    Mr. Bevan: The Congleton Borough Council have been authorised to accept a tender for this contract.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the Minister say why this matter has been pending for nearly eight months? Had he authorised the pipes last summer he would now have the water.
    Mr. Bevan: It is necessary always to consider starting dates for these schemes; otherwise, they would jostle each other out of existence.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister aware that other parts of the contract have been completed, except for the pipes. which are eight months late?
    Mr. Bevan: That is the reason. If all these schemes started simultaneously they would impede the progress of each other.

    Rural Areas
    Mr. Profumoasked the Minister of Health what proportion of the £15,000,000 granted under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, has so far been allocated to local authorities towards the capital cost of providing piped water supplies in rural areas; and whether he will make more speedy use of the remainder of this sum for these purposes
    Mr. Bevan: I have allocated grants amounting to £5,709,000 towards the cost of providing piped water supplies in rural areas, and £4,130,000 for sewerage and
    2152
    sewage disposal. Applications for grant in aid of further schemes estimated to cost £16,846,000 have been submitted and will be dealt with as soon as possible.
    Mr. Profumo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer is a rather poor commentary on the achievements of the Government in this very vital field? Is he further aware that if he could persuade his colleagues not to export so many pipes he might be able to get more speedy financial help to enable this important work to be carried out?
    Mr. Bevan: The achievements of the Government in this field in the last 4½ years compare very favourably with those of the previous 30 years.
    Squadron-Leader A. E. Cooper: Is the Minister aware that the information he has given to the House is not in accordance with information recently given to the House by the Minister of Agriculture?
    Mr. Turton: Can the Minister say what proportion of this grant has actually been paid to the local authorities?
    Mr. Bevan: Not without notice.

  AMBULANCE OFFICER, BEDFORD (CAR)
  Mr. Moeranasked the Minister of Health on what grounds an ambulance belonging to the local authority in Bedford was used for the purpose of transporting Mr. House, of 2, Wendover Drive, Bedford, to a polling station on 23rd February, 1950; who gave permission for this public service vehicle in charge of a uniformed driver to be so employed; and what action he proposes for dealing with this irregularity
  Mr. Bevan: I have made inquiries, and I am informed that the vehicle was a private car belonging to the ambulance station officer, and that, although in uniform at the time, the officer was, in fact, not on duty.
  Mr. Moeran: Having regard to the ownership of the ambulance, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to its use, and permission for its use, with his customary zeal and energy?
  Mr. Bevan: I have made inquiries into this matter, and, as I say, it was a private car and not an ambulance.
  Captain Soames: Would the Minister try to persuade his hon. Friend to apologise to the public body against whom he has levelled this false and serious accusation?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I, Mr. Speaker, ask your advice on this problem? Is it not a fact that this Question says that the car was an ambulance owned by a local authority, that this statement is quite untrue, and should not hon. Members be careful not to ask Questions based on information which is quite false and largely, if not entirely, tendered because they dislike the result of elections in neighbouring constituencies?
  Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me. Every Member is responsible for what he puts down, and if it is in order it has to go on the Paper.
  Sir H. Williams: If the hon. Member is responsible, what is the sanction on him if he is wrong?

  SEWERAGE SCHEME, LLANGOLLEN
  Mr. J. Grimstonasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to stop the discharge of untreated sewage in the River Dee at Llangollen
  Mr. Bevan: A scheme to provide treat-bent for the sewage is in preparation by the Llangollen Urban District Council. who are the local authority concerned. I hope to be able to approve it shortly.

  HERTFORDSHIRE (POPULATION)
  Mr. Maudlingasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to a recent speech, of which a copy has been sent to him, by the chairman of the Finance Committee of the Hertford County Council, stressing the financial burden caused to the county by the prospective influx of an additional population of 200,000; and what steps he proposes to take to assist the County Council in meeting this burden
  Mr. Bevan: I have noted these observations. It is to be assumed that an influx of population will bring added rating resources. But if these do not suffice to prevent the county figure falling
  2154
  below the average of the whole country, and in so far as the expenditure is not met by other grants, the County Council will be entitled to an equalisation grant.
  Mr. Maudling: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that the Hertfordshire County Council is involved in considerable expense in preparing for this influx of population in advance of the creation of any additional rateable value?
  Mr. Bevan: That happens to every local authority when there is a local influx of population.

  PARK HOTEL, PRESTON
  Mr. Julian Ameryasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the great shortage of hotel accommodation in Preston, he will take steps to prevent the Park Hotel being taken over by the Lancashire County Council to be used as offices
  Mr. Bevan: I may have to decide an appeal if consent is refused under Defence Regulation 68CA to the change of use, so I cannot prejudge the matter now.

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  Mr. John E. Haireasked the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made by local authorities in preparation for the Festival of Britain
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Of the 1,532 local authorities in England and Wales 645 have shown interest in the Festival of Britain to date. Of these 178 have sent in information about their programmes of Festival activities. These figures do not include 141 parish councils which are also interested. I am unable to give figures for Scotland. This is quite a good beginning, but I hope that many more local authorities and other bodies will start planning for the Festival soon as time for preparation is getting short.
  Mr. Haire: Will my right hon. Friend continue to impress on those local authorities who are still back-sliding that this is an important national occasion? Will

  2155
  he do everything he can to get a truly united front?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I will do my best, but on the whole there is a lot to be said for treating local authorities with that full care and respect which is due to them.
  Squadron-Leader A. E. Cooper: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many local authorities in this country feel that the manpower and raw materials used in the Festival of Britain would be much better used in building houses for the people?
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Morrison: I do not know what that noise from the Opposition is about, because they have acquiesced in this Festival as we have gone along. My impression is that local authorities are taking a rather broader view of the needs of the country than is the hon. and gallant Member opposite.
  Sir Austin Hudsonasked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of the urgent need for all building operatives to concentrate on building houses, he will postpone the Festival of Britain from 1951 to a later date
  Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir.
  Sir A. Hudson: Is the Minister aware that if the energy which had been expended in trying to finish this Exhibition in time were expended on building more houses it would much improve the housing situation in London?
  Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, that is a very partisan observation. It is, of course, possible to advance the view that every piece of building other than working-class housing should be stopped, and there is something to be said for it. That is to say, that repairs and reconditioning of the houses of the rich, cinemas and anything else should all be stopped and that industrial building should all be stopped. If the hon. Member wants to advance the theory that everything in the building line other than direct municipal building should be stopped, let him say so.
  Commander Galbraith: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the policy of the Government is to build for need and not for class?
  Mr. Morrison: I have said what I have said. In the meantime, all Parliamentary parties in the House are represented on the Festival of Britain. We debated this matter earlier and there was general agreement, and I think it is a pity if this partisan shooting is to begin in spite of the agreement.
  Sir A. Hudson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when this scheme was first mooted we were told that the number of building operatives to be employed on it would be so small that if they were employed on housing it would make no difference? That does not appear to be the case, however, and many of us are genuinely alarmed, particularly in view of the cut in housing.
  Mr. Morrison: It will not really make all that difference, so as to involve a dramatic issue. Our country really must exhibit itself to the world as a progressive country which has achieved things. There are great economic advantages, direct and indirect, from the Festival of Britain and I would urge hon. Members opposite not to make this a partisan issue but to think of the broad issues of the country as a whole.

  AGRICULTURE

    Oxfordshire County Committee (Staff)
    Mr. John Hayasked the Minister of Agriculture how many salaried officers of all grades are employed by the Oxfordshire Agricultural Executive Committee including officers of the National Agricultural Advisory Service; and what is the total amount paid by the Oxfordshire Agricultural Executive Committee for wages and salaries
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The salaried staff of the Oxfordshire Agricultural Executive Committee numbers 131 (including six part-time). Their salaries and wages amount to approximately £41,000 per annum.
    Mr. Hay: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that all these people are fully and productively employed at this tremendous cost?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, and I think it is a fine national investment, as increased production has shown.

    Livestock (Damage by Dogs)
    Captain Duncanasked the Minister of Agriculture how many sheep, lambs and poultry in England and Wales have been reported to him as having been killed or damaged by dogs in the years 1947, 1948 and 1949; and if he will give an aproximate estimate of their value
    Mr. T. Williams: My Department does not receive regular reports on the subject, and the information which reaches the Department is not sufficiently comprehensive or representative to give an indication of the position throughout the country or to enable me to make any estimate of losses.

    Horses (Export and Slaughter)
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to accept the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Export and Slaughter of Horses, and in particular whether he will make an order raising the values below which no horse should be allowed to be exported
    Mr. H. A. Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the illegal traffic in horses which is rampant throughout the country; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter
    Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the anxiety that exists about the export of horses to the Continent for slaughter; and if he will bring in legislation to prohibit this
    Mr. T. Williams: The Government are considering the Report of the Committee on the Traffic in Horses for Export and for Slaughter for Home Consumption, and I hope to be able to make a statement at an early date. In the meantime, the present ban on the export of horses for slaughter is being continued.

    Open-cast Mining, Flintshire
    Mrs. Eirene Whiteasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to protect the farmers of East Flintshire who are now threatened with the development of open-cast coal-mining
    Mr. T Williams: Before any farmland is requisitioned for open-cast coal-mining I am consulted by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Fuel and Power, so that I may examine the agricultural implications of the proposal. My hon. Friend
    2158
    may rest assured that the interests of farmers in her constituency whose land is affected will receive the most careful consideration.
    Mrs. White: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this neighbourhood a large amount of land is being taken for extensive housing, for a large technical college and for other purposes? Will he bear all this in mind?
    Mr. Williams: Certainly.

    Potatoes
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of potatoes were under cultivation when potato rationing was ended in 1948; and what is the corresponding figure today
    Mr. T. Williams: The 1948 potato acreage in the United Kingdom was 1,548,000 acres. For 1950 we are aiming at an acreage of 1,300,000 acres.
    Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister satisfied that in view of the fact that potato consumption has gone up by 12 per cent. since potato rationing ended the acreage will now fulfil the requirements of the nation?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir, with anything like normal yields I estimate it will be sufficient.

    Tractors
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture the numbers of agricultural tractors on farms in the United Kingdom in 1939 and at the present time
    Mr. T. Williams: It is estimated that in 1939 there were about 55,000 agricultural tractors in use in the United Kingdom. According to census returns, there were about 245,000 in January, 1948. A further census has just been taken and up-to-date figures should be available in a few weeks. The best estimate that can be given in the meantime is that there are about 300,000 in use at present.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that his Department has now made up its mind about the number of tractors, because in the Debate on the Address the Parliamentary Secretary gave a very different figure?
    Mr. Williams: That was unfortunately due to a clerical error.

    Marginal Land
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now make a statement on the Government's policy as to the better use of marginal land
    Mr. T. Williams: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary stated in the Debate on the Address on 8th March, an examination is being undertaken of the whole problem of the improvement of marginal land, but I am not yet in a position to make any further statement.
    Sir I. Fraser: Could the right hon. Gentleman put in a White Paper or some other document the facts as regards the areas, and the definitions to be used, and which are within the knowledge of his Department, so that this matter may be considered by an informed House?
    Mr. Williams: I shall be answering a Question on that later.
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Agriculture what is the estimated acreage in England and Wales of land generally described as marginal; and the Government's policy on the development and better use of such land
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Minister of Agriculture, whether, in view of the Government's pledge to make and encourage fuller use of marginal land, he will now order a survey to be made of land suitable for development and not at present in production
    Mr. T. Williams: The acreage of marginal land depends on how the term is defined. Very roughly, I estimate that in England and Wales there are about three million acres of land which is used, or could at reasonable cost be made suitable for use, for the breeding or rearing of cattle or sheep, and which is not suited for the production to any material extent of milk, fatstock or crops for sale. As my bon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary stated in the Debate on the Address on 8th March a survey is being undertaken of the possibility of further measures for the improvement of such marginal land, but I am not yet in a position to say what the outcome may be.
    Captain Duncan: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "reasonable cost"?
    Mr. Williams: Reasonable cost.
    Captain. Duncan: But what does it mean?
    Mr. Williams: It means—well, reasonable cost.
    Sir I. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his promise when answering Question 55, now answer my supplementary question and give all the facts?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, when the facts are made available to me by the committee that has been investigating this matter for weeks.
    Mr. Vane: By whom has this survey been carried out?
    Mr. Williams: By civil servants plus a certain number of scientists.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clearer who are the experts involved, and will he tell the House if he is in touch with the National Farmers' Union, which is making a survey at the moment?
    Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place one day last week he would have known that I gave the answer to the question he now puts.
    Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman did not give a list of the officials concerned or the experts.
    Mr. Williams: I did not give the names of the civil servants, but I did give the names of the scientists.

    New Price Schedules
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now say when the February review of prices will be completed and announced
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now announce the results of the February price review
    Mr. T. Williams: With permission will answer by making a statement at the end of Questions.
    At the end of Questions:
    Mr. T. Williams: In accordance with Section 2 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, the Agriculture Ministers have, in consultation with the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, undertaken a review of the general economic condition and prospects of the agricultural industry. Among the matters

    2161
    which have been considered are the already announced increases in prices of feedingstuffs as from 1st April and of fertilisers from 1st July. These and other additional costs of production have been considered in relation to the statistics of aggregate farmers' net incomes, as published annually in the White Paper on National Income and Expenditure. The whole review has taken place against the background of the national economic position.
    The conclusions which the Government have reached in the light of the review tall into three parts:
    First, increases are to be made in the prices for milk, fat cattle, fat sheep and fat pigs, with effect roughly from 1st April, 1950. Acreage payments for potatoes and rye will be discontinued as from and including the 1951 harvest, but there will be price increases for main crop and second early ware potatoes. Prices of the other principal crops will not be increased.
    Second, from 1st July, 1950, schemes will operate in the United Kingdom to assist farmers in the purchase of fertilisers used for improving grassland and marginal land.
    Third, there will be extensions in the near future to the marginal production schemes in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, for the purpose of assisting certain classes of the smaller producers of milk, pigs and eggs in respect of their purchases of feedingstuffs, and partly to speed up the rehabilitation of semi-derelict land and other similar activities eligible under the existing marginal production schemes.
    The cost of these new or extended improvement grants will in a full year be approximately £7 million. They therefore constitute a major element in the Government's decisions arising from the price review. The leaders of the National Farmers' Unions have indicated their acceptance of these decisions both general and in relation to the separate components which I have outlined. Their concurrence is prompted by a desire to avoid an undue rise in prices to the consumer and to concentrate a substantial part of the relief from additional costs on those farmers most in need of assistance.
    2162
    The Agriculture Act, 1947, also requires Ministers to determine and announce during 1950 minimum prices for milk, fatstock and eggs in 1952–53 and 1953–54, but by agreement with the Farmers' Unions consideration of this subject has been deferred on the understanding that decisions will be reached within the next two months.
    I am circulating with this answer a statement giving the main features of the new price schedules and an outline of the proposals for assisting the purchase of fertilisers and extending the marginal production schemes.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister tell the House the sum involved in the elimination of the foodstuffs subsidy, how much of this will fall to be borne by the farmers without recompense and how much will be borne by the housewives in higher prices of milk, eggs and other livestock products?
    Mr. Williams: I think that the hon. Gentleman would do well to read the statement and the schedule of new prices, now available in the Vote Office.
    Sir I. Fraser: Do the prices which will be disclosed when we read the OFFICIAL REPORT take into account the rise in production which has followed devaluation and the prospective rise in the cost of freights?
    Mr. Williams: No, Sir.
    Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I think we all agree that before we can pass judgment on the schedule of prices they will have to undergo careful examination by Members in all parts of the House. I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions on this statement: first, who will pay for the increased charges that he has announced in general terms today; second, is he satisfied that the position of producers who cannot grow their own foodstuffs has been amply safeguarded, with particular reference to such specialised producers as poultry producers? As to the announcement of the Minister about the marginal production schemes, is the House to assume that his statement takes no account of the wider schemes for marginal land which were referred to in the Gracious Speech? Can the Minister also say whether the £7 million to which he has referred is to be injected into the marginal production

    2163
    schemes? Is this supposed to take the place of the fertiliser subsidy, which is to be taken off during this year?
    Mr. Williams: So far as I can remember the questions, I will answer them beginning with the last one first. The fertiliser schemes will now apply exclusively to grass and all seven-year-old grass land which is ploughed up as distinct from the present-day fertiliser scheme which covers arable land of all kinds. I replied to the question on marginal land in its widest sense in connection with an earlier question. The marginal land referred to in the Gracious Speech is something outside that referred to in this review, which is devoted more or less to marginal production as distinct from marginal land in its widest sense. The question of increased prices is a matter, of course, exclusively to be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Can the Minister tell us whether in reaching this decision the proposed increased rail freights will or will not be implemented?
    Mr. Williams: Yes and no.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by that not very lucid answer?
    Mr. Williams: If it pleases the right hon. Gentleman, all these matters were taken into account at the February review.
    Mr. Stanley: Then the answer was "yes."
    Following are the further details:

    LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS
    Milk: The present average U.K. pool price will be increased by an average of seven-eighths pence per gallon. In addition the production bonus in England and Wales of 1½d. per gallon on the first 400 gallons per month in the winter will be increased by the equivalent of a further 1½d. a gallon in the winter months. Corresponding additions will be made in Scotland and Northern Ireland
    Fat cattle, sheep and pigs: The following price increases are subject to grade and/or seasonal variation.
    Fat cattle: There will be an overall average increase of 2s. per live cwt.
    Fat sheep: There will be an average increase of ½d. per lb. of dressed carcase weight for fat sheep and lambs.
    Fat pigs: There will be an average increase of 4s. per score lbs. deadweight.
    Hen eggs: No change in the average annual price of 4s. 1d. per dozen paid by packing stations.
    Duck eggs: There will be a reduction of 4d. per dozen in the average price.
    The practicability of introducing in future years a system of payment for eggs according to weight grades will be examined during the next few months by representatives of the Agricultural Departments, the Ministry of Food and the Farmers' Unions.

    CROPS
    The following changes in crop prices operate with the 1951 harvest:
    Potatoes: The acreage payment will be discontinued. Sound and marketable potatoes sold on or after 1st August, 1951, will receive an average price increase of 39s. 0d. per ton.
    Sugar-beet: No change.
    Wheat: The existing price will continue, but may, after consultation with the Farmers' Unions, operate as a guaranteed minimum price.
    Barley: (i) There will be no maximum price for malting barley.
    (ii) The current feeding barley fixed price of 21s. 6d. per cwt. will be a minimum price. The application of a seasonal range to this minimum is under consideration.
    Oats: There will be no maximum price for milling oats.
    Rye: The acreage payment will be discontinued and a partial compensatory adjustment in the price of rye offered for sale for human consumption will be discussed. The guaranteed minimum price for rye will be reduced to 21s. 6d. per cwt.

    SCHEME FOR ENCOURAGING THE USE OF FERTILISERS FOR IMPROVING GRASSLAND AND MARGINAL LAND
    This will be in two parts:
    (a) There will be grants on the application to grass, including rough grazings and similar marginal land, of fertilisers

    2165
    acquired after 1st July, 1950, i.e., the beginning of the first stage of the removal of the present Board of Trade subsidy. The grant will be one-third of the farmer's actual expenditure on the purchase of fertilisers up to a maximum of 25s. 0d. per acre, limited in any one year to one half of the total area of grass on each farm. The grant will not be approved by the county agricultural executive committee if the area under crops on the farm is considered insufficient. Either permanent or temporary grass will be eligible, excluding grass sown as one year ley which is now regarded as a tillage crop.
    (b) Grants on the application of fertilisers after the ploughing up of grassland of at least seven years standing. The rate will be two-thirds of the actual expenditure up to a maximum of £3 per acre.
    These details of the schemes apply only to England and Wales; some modifications will be needed for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

    EXTENSION OF MARGINAL PRODUCTION SCHEMES
    The marginal production schemes in the three countries will be extended to afford relief to farmers who are in a small or moderate way of business producing milk, pigs or eggs, where these commodities constitute the major part of their gross farm income, and whose farms are of such a nature by reason of position, size, soil or permanent equipment that they are heavily dependent on purchased feeding stuffs and have little opportunity by grassland improvement or otherwise to make their holdings reasonably self-sufficient.
    County agricultural executive committees in England and Wales will be authorised to pay a proportion of the cost of farmers' purchases of feeding-stuffs. Administration in Scotland and Northern Ireland will take a somewhat different form.
    The existing marginal production schemes in England and Wales and Scotland will also be extended in other directions. In England and Wales there will be a relaxation of the existing means test, and in both countries there will be additional provision for reclaiming semi-derelict land of the following chief descriptions: old ridge and furrow grassland which is difficult to cultivate
    2166
    in its present condition; grassland covered by light scrub, anthills, rushes, etc.; and small areas of felled woodland if they are of high potential value for grass or tillage. Each application in England and Wales will be examined separately by the county agricultural executive committee, and a similar extension suitably modified will he operated in Scotland.

    Skilled Workers
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the present hostel system of casual labour is holding up agricultural production owing to the high rate of charges made by the county agricultural executive committees which are higher for unskilled workers than regular skilled workers; and what steps he proposes to take to make possible an increased supply of skilled workers
    Mr. T. Williams: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." As to the second, it is the policy of the Government to create conditions that will encourage recruitment to agriculture, and the figures show that this policy has met with marked success. As the hon. Member will appreciate, it is only on the farm that skilled workers are made.
    Mr. Baldwin: Will the Minister consult with the Minister of Health, and make it known to him that we cannot get skilled agricultural workers until we have cottages to put them in?
    Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member is not aware of it, perhaps I had better remind him once again that since 1945 the number of skilled workers has been increasing annually. It has gone up from 515,000, since we took office, to 580,000 today.

    Poultry
    Mr. G. Williamsasked the Minister of Agriculture when he expects to be able to lift the control on the minimum number of store poultry that can be sent to market
    Mr. T. Williams: I regret that I cannot say when it will be possible to withdraw this regulation, but it now applies only in the areas around London and four other industrial centres in England and Wales.
    Mr. G. Williams: Is the Minister aware that the number is 25, and that it is very difficult for small poultry keepers to muster 25 birds to send away to sell? As fowl pest is now receding, will he take off the restriction as soon as he can, to help the small poultry keepers?
    Mr. T. Williams: I do not think we should be wise to withdraw any of these regulations until we feel sure that fowl pest is no longer with us.
    Mr. Nugentasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the small increase in rations announced for poultry is not sufficient to enable poultry keepers to play their full part in expanding production; and if he will give further consideration to the needs of the poultry industry, and particularly special producers, and say when he expects that increased allocations will be possible
    Mr. T. Williams: The increases in rations announced a week ago are the most that supply considerations at present permit. I am well aware of the needs of poultry keepers, including the specialist producers, and their claims will be given sympathetic consideration when the possibility of a further improvement in ration scales is reviewed towards the end of the summer. I also recognise, as I believe do many producers, that additional supplies of feedingstuffs, by increasing the output of eggs, will enable unit costs of production to be reduced.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is the Minister aware that the price of feedingstuffs for poultry has now fallen below the control point? Is that not an indication that these rations should be taken off?
    Mr. Williams: No, Sir.

    Beekeeping (Regulations)
    Mr. J. Grimstonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will withdraw the regulation under which beekeepers may only put sections on hives which are collecting heather honey in order that clover section honey may once more be available
    Mr. T. Williams: There is no regulation restricting beekeepers from putting sections on hives for the collection of clover honey. While raw materials for
    2168
    making sections were short, supplies went mainly for the collection of heather honey, but the position is now rapidly improving.

  CRABS (MARKETING)
  Brigadier Thorpasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to assist fishermen who have great difficulty at present in selling their catches of crabs
  Mr. T. Williams: None, Sir. While the price of crabs generally have fallen, real difficulties in marketing have been confined to those areas where substantial quantities of small crabs of poor quality have been landed.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Dog Licences
    Captain Duncanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many dog licences were issued in 1949
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): In the financial year 1948–49, the latest period for which figures are readily available, the number was 3,050,062.

    Wages (Policy)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any statement to make respecting his recent negotiations with the Trades Union Council Special Economic Committee, with reference to the wage-freeze policy and the latest rise in the cost of living
    The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Gaitskell): No, Sir.
    Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister satisfied, in view of the increased rise in the cost of living, that he can hold the wage-freeze policy?
    Mr. Gaitskell: My right hon. and learned Friend is meeting the Special Economic Committee of the T.U.C. next week. I think it would be premature to make any further statement now.

    Post-war Credits
    Wing-Commander Bullusasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the outstanding amount of post-war credits owed to the people of Great Britain, and the present annual rate of repayment
    Mr. Jay: The total amount of postwar credit outstanding is about £650 million. The present rate of repayment is about £17 million a year.
    Wing-Commander Bullus: Would the hon. Gentleman consider making repayment in all cases of proved hardship?
    Mr. Jay: I cannot anticipate the Budget in that matter.
    Mr. Baldwin: Has the hon. Gentleman considered paying to the next-of-kin the interest on post-war credits which would have been paid to the holders if they had lived?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

    Retiring Age
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider, in certain Government Departments, employing men over 65 years of age, subject to a strict medical examination, with special regard to the large number of first-class men who would rather work than draw a pension and continue to assist their country in any way
    Mr. Jay: A considerable number of men and women over 65 are at present employed by Government Departments. I am not clear what further measures the hon. Member has in mind, but I would remind him that, in general, matters affecting the conditions of service of civil servants require discussion through Whitley Council channels.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that these men are willing to work, and that it is the will of the Government that all should work? Where there is a will there is a way. Why not go further?
    Mr. Jay: If the will were extended no doubt a way would be found.

    Civil Servants (Political Rights)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has come to a final decision as to whether or not to implement those recommendations of the Masterman Committee which would involve a restriction in the political rights of certain categories of civil servant
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir. This matter is due to be considered towards the end of 1950.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why, in view of the fact that the Committee reported in June last year, the Government have not yet been able to make up their minds?
    Mr. Jay: The Government have already made up their minds, and put into operation those provisions of the Report which were in the direction of making conditions easier. On the other provisions, as has already been announced, we have decided to postpone a decision until later this year.

    Public Relations and Press Officers
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider amalgamating the duties of public relations officers and Press officers in Government Departments in order to effect a saving in personnel
    Mr. Douglas Jay: A separate Press Officer is employed only in a Department where the volume of work is so great that it could not be carried by the information officer himself.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that there are an overwhelming number of public relations officers, and that many of these men are employed solely to boost the Ministers of their Departments? Let us have the truth for once.
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir, Government Departments receive a great many inquiries from the Press, and it would be very inefficient if they were answered by a large number of different people.
    Mr. Stanley: Can the hon. Gentleman say which are the Departments where this work is so heavy that they have to have two officers?
    Mr. Jay: I can mention some of the Departments where that is not so. They include the Ministry of Pensions, Customs and Excise, Forestry Commission and one or two others.
    Mr. Stanley: Am I to understand that these are the only ones who do not have two officers?
    Mr. Jay: There are only one or two others; these are the majority.
    Sir H. Williams: Is it not the constitutional practice that Ministers themselves are the only appropriate people to be public relations officers?

MEMBER FOR WEST BELFAST (ELIGIBILITY)
Sir Hugh O'Neil(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Reverend J. G. MacManaway) has not yet taken his seat in this House owing to doubts having been expressed regarding his eligibility as a clergyman of the Church of Ireland to sit in Parliament, and can he indicate what steps he proposes to take to enable the House to determine the matter.
Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I am aware that the hon. Member has not taken his seat because doubts have been raised regarding his eligibility. His Majesty's Government consider that this is a question which can best be handled by setting up a Select Committee of this House to report upon it, and a Motion will accordingly be put on the Order Paper.
Sir H. O'Neill: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say what will be the terms of reference to the Committee?
Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.
Mr. Bing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these objections have only been raised by one back bench Member of this House, and, in those circumstances, would it not be more profitable if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim, North (Sir H. O'Neill) were to communicate either to the Government or to the House the reasons why he thinks the hon. Gentleman may now be disqualified; whether he considers, for example, he is disqualified as a clergyman of the Church of Ireland, or, alternatively, as a clergyman of the Church of England through the operation of the Army Chaplain Act, 1868?
Sir H. O'Neill: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is a matter which requires expedition, and will he set up the committee as soon as possible?
Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, the Government have been very forthcoming and reasonable about this matter. There is no obligation on the Government to do anything at all. I have given the right hon. Gentleman a favourable answer, and I really think that in the circumstances he ought to be happy for the week-end.
Mr. Churchill: When will the Lord President be able to place on the Order Paper the terms of the Motion appointing the Select Committee?
Mr. Morrison: I do not know, Sir, I will consider that. We have to consider the terms of the Motion.
Mr. Churchill: It was the terms of the Motion that I was asking about. Has the Lord President not been considering this in the number of days on which it has been discussed? Is he taken by surprise when, having been asked a Question and answered that he will set up a Select Committee, he is asked the terms of reference of the Select Committee? One would have thought that those two processes would have been gone through in his mind at the same time. [Laughter.] Do not be so insolent over there. You are only half the House remember.
Mr. Morrison: I am not surprised by the question the right hon. Member for Antrim, North asked. What I am surprised about is the mood and temper of the Leader of the Opposition. If I may say so, if the Conservative Central Office and the Conservative Party did its electoral business properly, it would not have left the hon. Member for Belfast, West in such miserable doubt as to what his legal status is.
Mr. Churchill: Is the Lord President not aware that the Conservative Party do not have the minute control over the selection of candidates which is practised on the benches opposite?
Professor Savory: Is the Lord President not aware that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Reverend J. G. MacManaway) took the highest legal opinion before standing as a candidate?
Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Gentleman had the highest legal advice, why did he not take his seat instead of it being left to the right hon. Member for Antrim, North, to come to the House to ask for a Select Committee to be appointed so that the doubt could be resolved? I never saw such a muddle in all my life.
Mr. Churchill: Might it not be that the hon. Gentleman who is not with us, refrained from taking his seat out of deference to the laws and customs of the House of Commons?
Sir H. Williams: Is the Lord President not aware that, had this hon. Gentleman taken the Oath and his seat and not been qualified to do so it would have cost him £500 every time he appeared?
Mr. Morrison: No doubt that was a consideration taken into account by the high legal authority who gave him advice. Why there should be all this difficulty and unpleasantness when the Government have been so generous and forthcoming in the matter, I fail to see.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We have had a number of questions on this. I think we might now pass to the next business.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Churchill: Might I ask the Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons whether he has any statement to make on the subject of Business?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 27TH MARCH—Supply (8th Allotted Day).
Report stage of the Navy, Army and Air Estimates, and of any Civil Supplementary Estimates announced for consideration today but not debated before 9.30 p.m.
At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, and Excess Vote required before the end of the Financial year.
Consideration of Motions to approve the Import Duties (Consolidation) Order and the Import Duties (Exemptions) (Newsprint) Order.
TUESDAY, 28TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Debate on Foreign Affairs.
Consideration of Motions to approve the Purchase Tax Orders relating to road vehicles and calendars, greeting cards, etc.
WEDNESDAY, 29TH MARCH—Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which it is proposed to take formally.
A Debate will take place on Fuel and Power on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, which is usually a formal stage.
THURSDAY, 30TH MARCH—Consideration of the following Orders: Cinematograph Films (Quotas) Amendment Order till about 7 p.m.; and afterwards the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations, and similar Regulations for Scotland.
FRIDAY, 31ST MARCH—Further progress will be made with the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill, and the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget on Tuesday, 18th April.
It may also be convenient for me to state that it is proposed to adjourn for the Easter Recess on Thursday, 6th April, and to meet again on Tuesday, 18th April.
In regard to the business tomorrow, Friday, after the Summer Time Order we desire to complete the Second Reading of the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill, and then to take the Committee stage of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill.
Mr. Churchill: With regard to the Business on Tuesday, 28th March, I understand we are to have a Debate on Foreign Affairs on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. May we presume that this Debate will be opened by a statement by the Foreign Secretary?
Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that the answer is "No, Sir." The House will understand, of course, that it is sometimes right that my right hon. Friend should open, and sometimes he may have a discretion otherwise. This is analogous to a Supply Day on which the Opposition, within their right, have put down the question of Foreign Affairs, and my right hon. Friend feels that on this occasion it is reasonable that the Opposition should open and make their case, and that he should speak later in the Debate.
Mr. Churchill: But is this not a new Parliament? Have not, in any case, three and a half months passed since there was

2175
a Debate on Foreign Affairs? Are we not entitled to have from the Foreign Secretary the information which this Parliament lacks entirely upon the whole field of Foreign Affairs before we are ready to make our own statements? Why should the House be denied what any other House of Commons would, I think, have received at its inauguration, or in its first month of life, namely a statement, in times of grave needs, from the Foreign Secretary?
Mr. Morrison: Of course, there could have been a Debate on this on the King's Speech, but the Opposition had their own means of handling the King's Speech. I personally did not agree with them, but it was their own business. This could have been raised on the King's Speech. I do not see that the fact of a new Parliament is decisive. My recollection is that in the last Parliament the right hon. Gentleman sometimes complained if my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary opened a Debate; and he also sometimes complained, I think, if my right hon. Friend left it to the Opposition to open. We are always anxious to do as best we can, but I think that sometimes the Foreign Secretary ought to have some reasonable choice of his own so that he can be left free to open or to speak later.
Mr. Churchill: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me some instance where we complained of the House having the advantage of listening to a statement on Foreign Affairs by the Minister who bears these grave responsibilities? I cannot recollect any myself. No doubt it fitted in very well with the right hon. Gentleman's answer to say that when he could think of nothing better, but I should like to know whether he has any evidence of it. In the second place, may I respectfully say that we have tried as much as possible to keep Foreign Affairs above the level of ordinary party disputes, and have given a great deal of support to the right hon. Gentleman. Surely half the House has a right to be considered by the Foreign Secretary when they ask that a statement should be made at the beginning.
Mr. Morrison: The recollection of the Prime Minister and myself is that it has worked both ways, sometimes the Opposition taking one view and sometimes another—I am not complaining
2176
about that at all. But, it is really unreasonable to expect that the Foreign Secretary has always to make a comprehensive opening statement. This is, in essence, Supply Day time which the Opposition have claimed, within their rights, for a Debate on Foreign Affairs. Having claimed it, I do not think on this occasion it is unreasonable for the Foreign Secretary to take the view that the Opposition had better state their views and then he can come into the Debate later on. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this half of the House does not wish to treat the other half with contempt. I must insist that the Government and the Foreign Secretary have a right to their opinions as well as the Opposition.
Mr. Churchill: Might I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that business is not likely to be advanced by the Government refusing to make a statement on foreign affairs? On the contrary, the resources of Parliamentary procedure enable us to raise the question, if necessary, on an Adjournment Motion. May I hope that the Prime Minister will say a word to the Foreign Secretary and inform him that it is the desire of this side of the House that he should open with a statement, otherwise there will be discursive interchanges between both sides of the House until he is pleased to get up? May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will make these representations to his colleague who is so closely associated with him in foreign affairs?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will, no doubt, give full consideration to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but foreign affairs range over a very wide area. If the Foreign Secretary is expected on every occasion to give a kind of tour d'horizon all round the world, it is very difficult when there may be questions and points which the Opposition really want to raise. It is reasonable that the Opposition should raise their points and set the line of the Debate they want, rather than that my right hon. Friend should make a discourse which might be off the points they want to raise.
Mr. Clement Davies: May I raise another matter on Business, and remind the Leader of the House that last week I asked whether time could be provided for

2177
debating the Motion which stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends?
[That this House views with deep uneasiness the treatment accorded to Seretse Khama; regrets that the Report of the Judicial Inquiry has not been published; and urges His Majesty's Government to reconsider both the publication of the Report and the decision to exclude Seretse Khania from his Chieftainship for a period of five years.]
The reply at that time was that that question should be postponed as a White Paper was being issued. As the White Paper was issued yesterday, will time now be provided for discussion of the Motion?
Mr. Morrison: I did not say that when the White Paper was issued time would be allocated. There was a suggestion that time should be allocated, and I said that the House would probably wish to look at the White Paper before making up its mind on the point. The White Paper has now been published, and although I cannot be dogmatic on what the House thinks, I think that the situation has improved somewhat after its publication. I am afraid my answer must be that I have no time available between now and the Easter Recess. I am very sorry, therefore, that I cannot oblige the right hon. and learned Gentleman in this respect.
Mr. Davies: Surely this matter raises vital and fundamental issues that not only relate to these people and their chief, but may have repercussions covering the whole of Africa and even a much wider area? May I ask the Leader of the House to consider that the country is now being administered, as far as one can judge, unconstitutionally against the will of the people? Is that not a matter calling for immediate Debate in the House which cannot be left standing until we come back after the Easter Recess? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, as the matter stands after the publication of the White Paper, this Motion really amounts to a Vote of Censure?
Mr. Morrison: I do not want to be drawn into the constitutional issue of whether nine Members of the House have a right to compel a Debate on what they call a Vote of Censure Motion. I am prepared to Debate that at the right
2178
time, and I do not think this is the time to raise that issue. The simple fact is that I have no time between now and Easter, and therefore I am afraid that I cannot give it. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has got the thing a little out of proportion. I really do not think it essential that the Debate takes place.
Mr. Davies: May I make a final application to the right hon. Gentleman? Could not this matter be raised on the Consolidated Fund Bill?
Mr. Morrison: My view, subject to correction, is that time on the Consolidated Fund Bill is in the nature of Supply, which is the prerogative of the official Opposition. I should be loth to interfere with the constitutional and traditional rights and the prerogative of the Opposition, because they are vital constitutional rights as a check on the actions of the Executive.
Mr. Churchill: Would it not be possible for the matter to be discussed on the Motion for the Easter Adjournment?
Mr. Morrison: That, of course, is a matter for Mr. Speaker in allocating the time for the different subjects on that day.
Mr. Davies: Surely this is a matter requiring a much longer Debate. May 1 appeal to both sides that this is a matter which raises such fundamental issues that it ought to be debated by the House before we adjourn?
Mr. Hopkin Morris: is not the position, according to the right hon. Gentleman, this—that nine Members of the House have no right to raise an issue which affects the good name of Britain and its Colonial Government, and that no satisfactory answer has been given to that problem by the White Paper?
Mr. Morrison: The hon. and learned Member is not being fair. I did not say that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether I was not aware that the Liberal Motion was in the nature of a Vote of Censure. He was obviously raising the point that if it was, there was an obligation on the Government to find time for its discussion. I cannot concede that doctrine, even if the nine Members form a Parliamentary party.
Mr. Janner: Can we be given an indication of when legislation will be introduced on leasehold reform? My right hon. Friend will be aware that every day many people are being affected by the conditions as they stand at present. Will he press on the Commission to make their report and let us have legislation as speedily as possible?
Mr. MorrisonI have every sympathy with my hon. Friend and I know the importance of the matter. I believe that the Committee are reporting as soon as they can. Clearly we cannot act until that report is received.
Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman give Government time before the Recess for a Debate on Malaya, where the situation has deteriorated rapidly in the last few weeks, including the new feature of incidents on the island of Singapore itself? Does he not realise that when these matters are lumped into a general Debate on the Far East or on the Colonial Vote, the House has no time to concentrate on this serious problem? Does he not remember that two years ago when I and other Members asked for a Debate in the Government's time, he pushed it off and then the most serious incidents occurred. It is up to the Government to provide time for discussion of this serious business, which may become a major crisis throughout the Far East.
Mr. Morrison: My recollection is that on that occasion I suggested to the hon. Gentleman that he might persuade the right quarters to make it a subject for a Supply Day Debate, but as regards the period between now and Easter I have not got the time available
Brigadier Medlicott: Does the Leader of the House contemplate being able to find time for a discussion of the Motion on crimes of violence which stands on the Order Paper in the names of myself, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton)?
[That this House views with alarm the recent increase in crimes of violence, especially against women and children; that it rejects as misleading and inaccurate the contention that these crimes are the result of military service or training
2180
and affirms that such a contention is an unworthy reflection upon British ex-Service men; and calls upon His Majesty's Government to set up an immediate inquiry with a view to bringing up to date the findings of the Cadogan Committee on Corporal Punishment.]
Mr. Morrison: I am afraid not.
Sir Richard Acland: Would my right hon. Friend sympathetically consider the possibility of extending Tuesday's Debate for an hour, because a good many Members may want to speak on that subject?
Mr. Morrison: I do not think that that is necessary.

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS (CIRCULATION)
Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of Order. In today's Order Paper, page 268, at the bottom appears these words:
"For Amendments in Committee on Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill, see pages one and two of Supplement to the Votes."
This morning I wanted to examine these Amendments for I knew some had been sent in, but I found that they were not enclosed with the document. It used to be the practice that notices of Amendments were circulated with the Order Paper, and I am rising to ask whether that practice cannot be resumed for the general convenience of hon. Members?
Mr. Speaker: Have the Amendments not been circulated?
Sir H. Williams: These Amendments are not now circulated, but are a special supplement. They have to be asked for at the Vote Office, otherwise one does not get them.
Mr. Speaker: I will look into that point.

NEW WRIT (ATTORNEY -GENERAL'S STATEMENT)
The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): With permission, I should like to make a statement with regard to what I hope the House will consider only an error of detail in the observations I made last Tuesday, when we had a discussion on the Motion to issue a writ for

2181
the Neepsend Division of Sheffield. It is my duty and, of course, my desire to be scrupulously accurate in all the information which I give to the House whether it is a matter of detail or not.
The House may remember that I expressed the view that whilst the basic period of 21 days for the presentation of an election petition which might have the effect of awarding the seat to another candidate, should elapse before the House was moved to issue a writ for a new election, regard need not be paid, as had been suggested, to the longer period based on the date of the return of election expenses, and actually 49 days arising under Section 109 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, and still less to the unlimited period arising under Section 109 (2). In that connection I cited four precedents, of which one related to a writ issued in 1924. Whilst that case remains, for what it may be worth, a precedent for the general proposition which I made, I must tell the House, with regret, that owing to a typographical error for which, of course, I accept full responsibility, I said that the writ there was issued nine days after the return to a previous writ, whereas, in fact, the period was 39 days.
I hope the House will forgive me for this mistake, since the principle of my argument remains unaffected, and was indeed not that nine days or 11 days, as in the case of the 1922 precedent, was correct, but that the basic period of 21 days set out in Section 109 (1) of the 1949 Act ought to elapse, and that regard need not be paid to the 49 days under subsection (3), for which the 1924 case is still a precedent, although obviously not of such a striking nature.
Sir Herbert Williams: The Attorney-General's statement implied that the writ was issued in 1924 arising out of the death of a Member who was a member of the Conservative Government. Is it not a fact that the Member in question was Mr. E. D. Morel, who had been elected Socialist M.P. for Dundee on 29th October, 1924, and that Parliament did not meet for the first time until 2nd December. If my recollection is right, the
2182
writ was moved on 8th December, at the instance of the whips of the Labour Party and not of the whips of the Conservative Party?
The Attorney-General: I suggested nothing to the contrary. What I said was there was a Conservative Government in office at that time.
Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied in his own mind that this perfectly unintentional typographical error into which he fell did not exert an influence upon the decision which the House took on Tuesday last when it allowed the writ to pass?
The Attorney-General: I cannot say, of course, what may have influenced individual Members in the conclusion which they did take, but I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it could not have affected in any way the principle I am arguing, which was not that a writ could be issued in nine or 11 days, but that 21 days had to elapse. Once that 21 days had gone by, we need not wait, as was argued on the other side of the House, for the 49 days. Consequently, the case still remains on the precedent, although I agree it is not so striking a one as is needed for waiting the full legal period.
Mr. Churchill: May we assume that the learned Attorney-General will take special care to avoid repetition of errors so serious that they can confuse nine days with 49 days—[HON. MEMBERS: "Thirty-nine days."]—when majorities are so uncertain and when a balance on that sort of point might sometimes count?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered:
"That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock."—[The Prime Minister.]
Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  (7TH ALLOTTED DAY)
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLE MENTARY ESTIMATE, 1949–50.

    CLASS 11 VOTE 2. DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENTS, &C.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,010,355, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments abroad; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."

BURMA (SHORT-TERM LOAN)
4.8 p.m.
Mr. Erroll: I beg to move that Item Sub-head DD (Short Term Aid to Burma (Loan)) be reduced by £100,
I should like to inform the House briefly that the Parliamentary Mission, of which I was a member and which visited Burma at the beginning of this year. was well received by the Speaker of the Burmese Parliament and that we were made very welcome guests of the Members of the Burmese House. We learned a great deal from our stay and were able to make acquaintance with a number of members of the Parliament of that country. This makes it more readily possible for us to speak frankly in a Debate on Burmese affairs than might otherwise be the case. I propose to speak frankly about this subject of a short-term loan.
The Burma Government have decided to make a permanent feature of their economy a State Agricultural Marketing Board, which possesses the monopoly of the exports of all rice which is grown in Burma. this State Agricultural Marketing Board, or S.A.M.B., is, in effect, a bulk-selling organisation and one of those
2184
often given as an excuse by the British Government for having itself resorted to bulk purchase. We are in no doubt about the many disadvantages of Government-to-Government trade, but in this short-term arrangement we are finding yet another disadvantage in this form of trade. In this case we, as the would-be purchasers, are to finance the State Agricultural Marketing Board of Burma Not only are they having considerable administrative difficulties but they have run out of money and must needs apply to their intending purchasers for a short-term loan to see them through their difficulties
It is important that this Committee should realise that, had the export of rice been in the hands of the great City firms as it was before the war, this loan would be altogether unnecessary and we should be able to receive the rice which Britain and our Colonies require without any form of public loan, short-term or long-term.
Mr. Harold Davies: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that were the production of rice in Burma in the hands of private enterprise at this moment, there would be no need for Burma to apply for help to Britain?
Mr. Erroll: I am dealing not with production but with marketing, the financing of the purchase of rice from the peasantry in the paddy fields, its collection, its movement from the rice mills to the ports and other places of departure from the country. We are now being invited to make this short-term loan to the Burmese State marketing monopoly and we are entitled to know what terms and conditions are to apply to the purchases which the British Government may make.
Surely we are entitled to more favourable treatment than that which is set out in the circular letter issued at the beginning of the current year by the State Agricultural Marketing Board to all intending purchasers. Are we, for example, to get any reduction in the price? The S.A.M.B. announced a schedule of prices at the beginning of the current season prices which were higher than last year's, although there has been a fall in the prices of comparable food grains in all parts of the world
Mr. Harold Davies: It is the same price as in Siam.
Mr. Erroll: Are we to pay the price demanded initially by the Burmese Government, or are we to receive some concession in view of the loan which we are making? According to the circular, the buyer must accept any quality which the S.A.M.B. may choose to give him. A particularly obnoxious feature is that, in the event of any dispute, the rice, although it may be admitted not to be of the right quality, may not be rejected by the buyer. The buyer can submit the matter to arbitration, but not to the independent arbitration which was a feature of prewar rice dealings in Burma. It will be to arbitration by a surveyor appointed by the Union of Burma. We therefore have an unfortunate state of affairs in which the seller is in a position to control the independent arbitrator on questions of quality. I suggest to our Government that we might secure the benefits of independent arbitration in return for the proposed loan.
Since this Supplementary Estimate was introduced, there has been a reliable newspaper report of the Japanese intention of buying a large quantity of rice from Burma and possibly from Siam. The figure mentioned in Wednesday's "Times" is 500,000 tons. The total rice from Burma during the current season is not expected to exceed 700,000 tons. It would therefore look as though Japan may prove to be an important bidder and a big buyer of such exportable surplus of rice as is available. Can we be entirely sure in the circumstances that we shall get the rice for which this loan is intended?
I understand that the repayment, which is mentioned briefly in the details under the heading in the Supplementary Estimate, is to be by the export of the rice itself. There is a short risk period of three months between our handing over the money and the receipt of the rice in the bottoms of British ships. We are assuming that the rice will come forward. Certainly, it has been grown, but will it be put into British ships? Will there not be a danger of preferential treatment to Japan, now that she is coming into the market in such a big way, and with the attractions of other forms of trade which would perhaps suit the Burmese very well?
I want to ask how much we are expecting to get? Are we to confine our
2186
purchases of rice to the amount which £500,000 represents? Or is that £500,000 to be regarded merely as necessary to prime the system of moving rice in the paddy fields to the ports? It would be of great help to the State Agricultural Marketing Board if they could know approximately how much we were intending to buy. If the British Government are accepting the beginning-of-season price, as I expect they will have done, there can be no real harm in saying how much will be bought at that price, but I would be the first to agree that we should not do so if we hope to secure an improvement on the present price.
It is also mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate that there is to be Commonwealth collaboration in this matter. I have since learned from the junior Minister, in answer to one of my Questions, that the proposed loan is not to be regarded as part of the Commonwealth loan which was discussed at Colombo, but is an entirely separate rice loan. In the circumstances, it would be of great value to this Committee to have some indication of the extent and the nature of the proposed Commonwealth collaboration.
I presume that our share of the loan will not be used in any way to finance purchases of rice by other countries, whether Commonwealth or foreign. We should have an assurance that this priming operation, as I regard the loan, is not to be a great help to the Japanese and that if they are to enter this field of rice purchasing, they must put down their own money. We must not, as so often happens nowadays, be handing out money so that others may get the benefit.
In return for the loan, I hope that the Burma Government will be pressed by our own Government to go back to private trading in rice, as it is far more efficient than any other method. However, knowing the predilection of the present Government for State trading, bulk-purchasing and bulk-selling, it is unlikely that they will impose any such condition. For that reason I move the reduction of this sum by £100.
4.20 p.m.
Mr. Wyatt: This seems to be a most extraordinary Amendment, because the actual sum of money involved in the Estimate has not yet been lent to the Government of Burma. For the hon. Member for Altrincham and

2187
Sale (Mr. Erroll) to propose that we should impose upon the Burma Government a series of conditions which they must fulfil in return for money they have not yet received, seems a very strange departure in international relations. This money has been earmarked as our share of a Commonwealth rice loan should the negotiations for a Commonwealth rice loan as a whole become necessary and need implementation. None of this money has yet been received by the Government of Burma. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale seemed to suggest that in some mysterious way the fact that there was a State Marketing Board in Burma created a necessity for a loan of this kind which did not exist before.
In fact, it has been the practice for many years for the banks to advance money for the rice crop rather earlier than this in the year in order to enable the cultivators to get their money and so forth—a long process with which I will not weary the Committee. This has been done for many years, and no new departure is involved merely because the State Marketing Board is selling the rice in Rangoon to the buyers from overseas. Many banks in Rangoon—British banks primarily—used to finance the rice crop. They have not chosen to do so in recent years. Last year the Burma Government were unable to get a loan from the banks to finance the rice crop, and so they financed it themselves.
Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the hon. Member say why they could not get it?
Mr. Wyatt: Naturally, because private enterprise has no patriotism. It is not in the least bit concerned about the welfare of the country or the welfare of Britain in South-East Asia. It merely said that this was not a good commercial risk and that it was not interested in lending the money. Consequently the banks would not lend the money and the Burma Government was obliged to raise it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Wyatt: Three hon. Members are trying to interrupt me. I am not certain to whom I should give way so perhaps I will not give way to anyone.
Mr. Erroll: If it is not a good commercial risk—
Mr. Wyatt: Perhaps I may be allowed to develop the case a little before we have too many interruptions. I was saying that the banks would not advance this money because they did not think that it was a good commercial risk. The fact that it was extremely important for the future of democracy in South-East Asia that Burma should be able to get her rice crop out and sell it to India, Pakistan, Ceylon and other parts of South-East Asia was of no concern to the banks. I do not blame them for that; that is normal commercial practice.
As I have said, private enterprise has no patriotism and is not obliged to lend money in these circumstances. The Burma Government were forced to finance the crop by spaced sales of the rice in Rangoon to the Ministry of Food, which allowed them to finance it on an alternating basis. I presume that this year they have started a similar process, although it would be much more convenient for them to borrow the money from the banks as in the past and finance the crop directly themselves. So far, they have not been able to do that, and so far, they have not actually been lent this money, which is earmarked for that purpose if it becomes necessary.
In this House never for one moment have we allowed ourselves even to think that we would accept conditions from the United States of America when accepting Marshall Aid as to the manner in which we conduct our own economic affairs inside Britain. There seems to be no reason why the Burma Government should accept such conditions either. In fact, if the Opposition were really interested in promoting democracy in South-East Asia they would not even begin to make such a suggestion because, as they should know—certainly the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale should know, having now visited Burma—sensitivity in Burma about foreign interference is extremely high.
One of the great difficulties which the new Government have found is persuading the people of that country that it is not subservient to or dependent upon England and America but is a truly independent Government. Therefore, if we are to make suggestions here that no Government loan should be given to

2189
Burma, unless the Burma Government are prepared to accept conditions for which they throw away any advance towards Socialism which they may have chosen for themselves, it is only—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh. I know that they regard this matter as being extremely funny. It is of no concern to them whether we build up democracy in South-East Asia or not, or they would not talk as they do. They could not possibly talk as they do if it were of any concern to them. They think it extremely humorous.
This nation has been ruled by us for a long time and now it wants to run its own affairs in its own way. The view taken by the Opposition is not quite good enough for 1950 although it might have been good enough in 1900 or 1850. What we have to face in South-East Asia is a tremendous rise of nationalist feeling which in its advance with any form of democracy, is menaced by a counter upsurge of Communism, and if we try to impose conditions on a country like Burma which has newly found its independence, the Communist forces there will be given a tremendous fillip. They will be able to say that Burma is not yet independent but is still taking orders from England and America and that they will fight the semi-Quislings now in power so that they need not take orders from England and America. In such a matter as this we must use care and skill. If we are to impose conditions in advance on a loan not yet received, we shall certainly ruin the good relations which we are building up between Burma and ourselves.
There is another aspect of this matter. Hon. Members opposite talk frequently about the need for unity in the Commonwealth. Unfortunately in the past that has too often meant unity only of the white Dominions of the Commonwealth. As yet there are very few hon. Members opposite who sincerely think of India and Pakistan when they talk about unity between the Dominions in the Commonwealth. I hope there will be more as time goes by. India and Pakistan are perhaps almost the most important of the Dominions in the Commonwealth now. They may be the most important. With them and with Australia we are making an arrangement by which we treat Burma as a Commonwealth problem.
2190
This sum of £500,000 is earmarked so that we can play our part in this joint Commonwealth arrangement should the need arise. If we are unilaterally to start imposing demands on Burma without consulting India, Pakistan and Australia, we shall hinder a wonderful step forward in Commonwealth consultation and joint working. Over the last year one of the most encouraging things in South-East Asia has been that the Commonwealth has been able to agree on a joint policy for a rice loan, the share which each country should put forward towards that loan and the policy which they propose to adopt in trade in order to stop the spread of Communism in South-East Asia and in Burma in particular.
If we in this House are to make all sorts of suggestions of conditions to be imposed on the Burma Government we shall very much upset our friends in India and Pakistan who are as much involved in this matter as we are. We do not rule the Commonwealth. We merely consult with the Commonwealth. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale should have been able to find that out while he was in Burma recently. He must realise that he is playing with dynamite when he produces this kind of Amendment in the House of Commons and seeks to impose all sorts of conditions on so tenuous a basis. I suggest that the Committee reject the Amendment quite emphatically and that we have it very clearly from all sides of the Committee that we do not propose to try to force upon Burma conditions which are unacceptable to her, and which are designed in the end to promote more and more Communism in that area.
We have to remember that if Burma goes Communist, she is next door to China and divisions have crossed over the Burmese-Chinese border in the past often enough. Also she is next door to Siam, which is next door to Malaya, and it is vital for us to do everything we can to assist the Burma Government. Even though hon. Members opposite may not agree with its politics, it is a democratic Government and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale will agree that there has been no attempt by it to suppress newspapers or to limit Parliamentary discussion. It has had great difficulties in the past two years. In many ways Burma is still in an excitable state, but it has made much progress. There is much

2191
more law and order there today than there was a year ago, and it is partly due to the wise policy which His Majesty's Government have followed. If we start to wreck that now, we shall hand Burma over to Communism and all the things which hon. Members opposite profess to dislike.
4.31 p.m.
Mr. Gammans: I must try to bring the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) off the sizzle, back to the point we are supposed to be discussing, this rice loan to Burma. The hon. Member said that it was an extraordinary Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved. Well, it is an extraordinary transaction that we are being asked to pass today. We have heard a lot about bulk-buying being financed by the taxpayers of this country, with results not altogether in their favour; what we are being asked to finance here is somebody else's bulk-selling as well.
Let us understand what has happened with regard to the rice in Burma. It is the story of a tragic fiasco. Before the war Burma exported between 3 million and 4 million tons of rice; now she is exporting only something of the order of three-quarters of a million tons. When the hon. Member for Aston tries to find reasons for supporting the present form of Burma Government, he might consider whether those figures justify all the eulogies that he has paid.
Mr. Wyatt: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that more rice would be produced if we withheld this loan?
Mr. Gammans: I want to find that out. That is one of the things we ought to discover from the Government before we pass this money. After all, it is the money of the British taxpayer with which we are dealing. Listening to the hon. Gentleman one would think that this country had money to splurge all over the world.
It may be that this loan is justified, but we want much more information than we have had today. Is it not the fact that the peasants in Burma are not at the present time prepared to produce rice for the Government buying depots without cash and, as the Burma Government have not any cash which the Burmese peasants are prepared to take,
2192
the British taxpayer is being asked to put it up? Is not that a paraphrase of the situation? It may be justified that we should do it. It may be necessary that we should do it, but let us know what we are doing and what guarantees we have that this money will not go down the drain like so much of the other money which the taxpayer of this country has poured into Burma in the last two years.
I want to ask the following questions. Having put up this money, what are our guarantees that the rice will be forthcoming, especially since it appears that since the Supplementary Estimate came before the House, the Japanese have entered the market? How do we know that the Japanese, backed with American dollars, will not come along and get the rice when we have put up this money? This House ought to know, and the hon. Member for Aston ought to know before making the kind of speech he made just now.
My other question is this: Are we and the Commonwealth the only people who are putting up loans to Burma? I have seen a report by Reuter from Washington dated 6th March as follows:
"Burma has asked for economic and military aid from the United States, Reuter learns authoritatively today. Burmese embassy officials told Reuter their Government had informed the State Department of the kind of assistance they would like to receive from the United States."
We, of course, have no reason to query Burma making application to the United States, but we are entitled to know before passing this loan whether we are likely to get the rice, who else is in the market for it, and to what extent the Burmese are not only asking for financial help from us but from America as well. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give the Committee this information because we are entitled to have it before we pass this Estimate.
4.35 p.m.
Mr. Diamond: I am happy to be able to agree with the first sentence of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Errol). The deputation of which I had the good fortune to be a member was received with the greatest possible courtesy, good will and friendliness by the people, the Speaker and the Members of the Parliament of Burma. So far as I am concerned, it was an expression of friendship that I shall never forget.

2193
I am extremely sorry that the hon. Member has such a short memory that he has forgotten everything he saw and heard with his own eyes and his own ears in Burma in my company. I am sorry that he should have forgotten the tremendous admiration which all of us felt for the organisation of the State Agricultural Marketing Board—the very organisation, the very tool which the Burma Government are using for the appropriate purpose of disposing of the rice crop. At all events, it permits me to say that I was most impressed with that organisation, and anyone who has considered the figures of rice exports for 1949 must share with me my admiration that the S.A.M.B. were able, in spite of the insurrection and the enormous difficulties in that country, to come within an ace of their programme of 1¼ million tons.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) referred to certain figures, carefully leaving out the relevant ones. He referred to the pre-war exports; he referred to the possible exports, of which nobody has any detailed figures as yet because they are a matter for the future; he has not told us of the immediate postwar exports; he has not told us of the enormous increase in exports since the Burma Government achieved independence that has taken place through the medium of the State Agricultural Marketing Board. With his great knowledge of that country I should have thought that the hon. Member would have appreciated that, inasmuch as no country has been bombarded and blitzed as much as Burma, for it to get back even to an export of 1¼ million tons compared with its pre-war export is a great achievement.
I am delighted that the Government are proposing to make this loan in order to relieve the Burmese peasant of the burden of money lending to which he has been subjected hitherto. Everybody who knows what happens in Burma realises that it was part of the normal machinery of marketing the crop that moneylenders should lend money to peasants and to farmers at exorbitant rates of interest to enable them to go through the season until the next crop matured. And everybody realises that, the Burma Government have done a most creditable job in extinguishing completely that form of financing.
2194
I am sorry indeed that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale should have forgotten that point, and should not have stressed to the House our condemnation of money-lending. If I am mistaking him, if he is not with me in condemning money-lending, I will willingly give way and allow him to say that he is in support of it. I should have thought however that he was, with me, condemning it and, therefore, supporting the Government in replacing on commercial terms and at commercial rates of interest, money which was previously loaned at moneylenders' terms and rates of interest.
For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will throw out the Amendment without any hesitation whatever. I would go further and say it is a great mistake, if I may say so in a non-party spirit, because on a matter like Burma, as with the Commonwealth, which is associated with us in this loan, we try as far as possible to be non-partisan.
Lord John Hope: What about the opening of the hon. Member's speech?
Mr. Diamond: I am only too glad to answer any question which is put to me. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale knows full well that if there was one thing which concerned the Burmese more than any other, it was the fear of the change in attitude which might follow as between this country and Burma from a change in Government here. I did my best to reassure the Burmese that there was no likelihood of that, and I am glad to be able to say, with my enormous majority of 42, that I have been able to carry out my promise.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, however, made the most memorable statement in Burma when he said that he would be only too glad to make a gramophone record, so that the Burmese could play it and refresh themselves with the memory of his melodious voice, repeating as often as might be necessary that if a Conservative Government were to be returned, it would make no difference whatever in the attitude which this country had towards Burma.
I ask the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale to read through his speech, to remember the Amendment which has been put down and to realise that it is put down, not only under his important

2195
name, but under a no less important name than that of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), and to see whether that bears out the view which we are anxious, I am sure, on both sides of the House to show, that, irrespective of which Government is in power in this country, our attitude to Burma will be one of sympathy and good will.
It is in terms of that sympathy and good will that I support the loan entirely. It is good sense, it is good finance. It is a most commendable example of Commonwealth co-operation, which everyone of us would wish to support. It is complementing State trading where it has done a good job. There is no question of financing, as the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) suggested, State trading in the interest of replacing losses. This is merely a temporary loan which is to be returned. I should like to know what trading organisation in this country would accept a loan from its bank at normal bank interest if the bank said, "Yes, we are prepared to lend you the money provided you completely alter your political views," which is what the hon. Member for Hornsey suggested.
Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond) be a little fair to my hon. Friend? No single statement from this side regarding the alteration of political views has been made. I hope to have the opportunity later of refuting what the hon. Member has said; he himself should refute it here and now.
Mr. Diamond: I will withdraw immediately if I have done any injustice to any hon. Member who has spoken or if I have made the slightest inaccurate reference to what has been said. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale and I thought he was basing the first part of his objection to the loan on the fact that it was helping State trading, to which, he said, he strongly objected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Apparently, that is within the recollection of everybody present.
Mr. Erroll: I was quite clear in what I was saying, which was simply that I objected to a loan for a State selling organisation because that is yet another reason against such forms of trading; that one has to subsidise the other side
2196
and that it might not always be possible for us to come forward with loans; and therefore, obviously, a return to private trading would undoubtedly be better. That is not politics—it is common sense.
Mr. Diamond: I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) will not now ask me to withdraw what I have said.
I am sorry that the Amendment should have been put down, and I ask the Committee wholeheartedly to support the loan, not only for the reasons I have given, but for the supremely important reason that it is a token—a very small one admittedly, but nevertheless a token—of our desire to help Burma. We all know that Burma is today in the front line of anti-Communism. We all know that food is the first weapon in anti-Communism, and that in giving this loan we are helping Burma and are helping the production of food, and that we are working with the Commonwealth in this action. For those reasons I hope that the Committee will wholeheartedly reject the Amendment.
4.46 p.m.
Mr. Walter Fletcher: I am delighted to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond). I am certain that his recent visit to Burma has been of great value, as were those of other members of the Mission, but I must point out that my connection with that country and with these matters goes back, possibly, a little further. Putting aside the political aspect as far as possible, I should like to get back to what the Amendment is really about: whether this is the best means of procuring, in an orderly way, at a reasonable world price, and with the correct quality, the maximum amount of rice, which is not solely a matter of helping the producer and, thereby, helping Burma, but of helping Malaya or any other country which, if rice goes short, will be open to Communistic influence more than ever.
I would refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory; he, after all, twitted my hon. Friend about shortness of memory. Does the memory of the hon. Member for Blackley go back to the occasions in the last four or five years in the House of Commons when we discussed the procurement of rice in Siam, when a contract

2197
for 1,250,000 tons was gaily signed by Lord Killearn in 1946, when the delivery of that rice was 700,000 tons short in the first year and took about three years to be delivered? Does he not think that that is a justification for a certain sensitivity, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), on our part to see that the rice is delivered?
Does he realise that it is ordinary business prudence and caution, whether the buying is done by the Government in bulk or by an individual firm, that before the contract is signed it is natural to settle the terms of that contract and to see that they are fair and equitable terms? Does he realise that the quality of everything being shipped from both India and Pakistan in the way of commodities in the last two years has gone down to such an extent—both with jute and hides and wool and deliveries of every sort—as to raise a great deal of perturbation? Let the hon. Member for Blackley ask the Bank of England about the claims that exist that have not been settled.
Is it not perfectly correct, in protecting the interests of the taxpayer in this counry, that we should look at this factually, as the hon. Member in his business capacity would do, and ask these very pertinent questions: Are we going to get delivery of the rice in view of what happened in Siam, and what was the reason why it was not delivered in the case of Siam? Let us analyse that. The first reason was that the producer and the holder of that rice did not receive any share of the foreign currency that was paid for it; it remained in the hands of the Government. I saw many senior Members of His Majesty's Government about this personally, because, in spite of what the hon. Member for Blackley says, we on this side are very often not only extremely keen that things should go well there, but very keen to make a contribution.
I should like to remind the hon. Member that the barrier in obtaining the rice, which remained there for three years, was the action of the local Government in not giving inducement in the form either of foreign currency or in goods which were wanted, against the rice to the producer. It is, therefore, perfectly right and natural to ask in the case of Burma, with no sense of hostility at all, with the idea of establishing a medium which would
2198
help the Government, the producer, and the consumer in the rest of the world, that we should ask a pertinent, normal commercial question: is it really certain that, under the terms of this contract as it is drawn, we shall get delivery of the rice because the producer will get a proper deal from his Government?
That is not interference, it is a normal thing to ask. The method of arbitration is, I think, very open to question. In the old days when there were established in this country many commodity exchanges the fairness of arbitration here meant that if a buyer in Brazil and a seller in Australia, had a dispute, they brought it for arbitration and settlement here because there were undoubtedly, fair, uninterested third parties who could deal with the matter. But that does not obtain in this case as the arbitrator is one of the interested parties.
It is an ordinary business precaution to try to avoid having another Supplementary Estimate on this matter next year and that makes us ask the question as to the effect on the Burma Government. There are many of us here who have made certain sacrifices and are keen on Burma for every sort of reason. If any Burma Government, of any sort, is to have a future and establish itself on sure foundations, it must be inevitably on the basis that they are not wrongly protected from the cold winds of reality and the outside world. If we make an arrangement by financing them in a way that will not stand secure and is not a reasonable business proposition—I am not talking about usury and do not propose to listen to any ridiculous accusations of that sort about the banks there—
Mr. Diamond rose—
Mr. Fletcher: Allow me to finish the sentence. Unless it is shown that this method of finance, from the time the loan is made to the Burmese Government and buying commissioners are set up, to the time when it is given to the producer, or the man who holds it, or collects it, is a sound method, we are doing no service at all to the Government. This must not be on a basis of goodwill and trying to support a Government of which we might approve, or on a charitable basis. That would be doing no service at all. It must be on a basis which will stand up to the ordinary laws of economics.
Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given way and for having shown that it is possible to misunderstand my remarks by assuming that my reference to moneylenders was a reference to banks. If the hon. Member misunderstood that, it is possible that others may also misunderstand and I am grateful for the opportunity of pointing out that I did not use the word "usury" in relation to banks and I had no intention of referring to banks. My information was that it was private money lending entirely divorced from the banks.
Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to the hon. Member for having made that point and I hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Aston has listened to it carefully because it would take a great deal of the sting out of his remarks. To accuse us of doing something wrong in raising this point, when the sole object is to see that the contract is carried out really well and when in recent years there was an incident in Siam—a neighbouring country—of disastrous failure because the contract had been wrongly drawn, wrongly worked out and carried out—
Mr. Wyatt rose—
Mr. Fletcher: I have not the slightest intention of giving way to the hon. Member; he is not worth it. I believe that it would for that reason be wise of the Government not to treat this as a hostile act on our part. We are seeking to examine the facts of the case and to see that this contract is carried out well from beginning to end. There must be some question of security for this loan, from its inception until it is repaid. Countries which have to come forward and confess that through no fault of theirs their financial situation is such that they have to borrow in this way have very often to be assisted with advice and help on the question of repayment. There must be give and take on both sides and if, for some reason, an extension may he needed, that must be examined. This is not a hostile act, but an effort to help, by people who have a real knowledge of Burma and other Eastern countries. We have put down the Amendment to elicit from the Government whether they have really thought of this question in these terms, or have not.
4.55 p.m.
Mr. Harold Davies: The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) wants to introduce some reality into the Debate. On other occasions he does so, but today I think he has been very unreal. There is nothing wrong in the Opposition wanting to know the facts about conditions in Burma and the conditions under which this loan is to be made, but I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) was right when he said that the way in which the Amendment will be interpreted in parts of South-East Asia will be to make them think that the Opposition are more or less playing party politics—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—merely playing party politics. It was rather unfortunate that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) illustrated his speech by specifically mentioning the issue of bulk-buying.
During the General Election, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) received letters from the West Indies—I hope the Opposition will correct me if I am wrong; I had better say I believe he received them—
Mr. Oliver Stanley: I have not any idea.
Mr. Davies:—and that they were concerned with whether or not the Conservative Party regarded bulk-buying as part of their Colonial policy for the maintenance of trade and industry in the Colonies. In the "Malay States Times" there was an article on this subject only a few weeks ago. The party opposite say they want to kill Communism, yet they talk of this loan as wasting the taxpayers' money. If we lose a little money in the fight against Communism, I would prefer that to losing the blood of Britishers. I look on this loan as a type of British Marshall Aid to a country in Asia which is trying to develop a democratic way of life. In this country we protest about interference by outside bodies and when we make this loan we are quite justified in expecting the State Agricultural Marketing Board to work it in a manner fitting to the country itself.
One would think that the economic deterioration in Burma had only been caused in the past few years. The truth is that of all countries in the Far East, Burma suffered more than any other in the war.

2201
We know, for instance, that next year the estimate is that the shipment of rice will be 60,000 tons short. If this Amendment in any way restricts the production of rice and makes the target even less than that, how far do the Opposition think they will be helping in the fight against the spread of Communism in South-East Asia, of which they are so afraid?
I understand that the acreage of rice sown this year is 7,666,300 acres, whereas last year it was 8,763,800 acres. This is due to the civil war and to problems that Burma has faced in working out a democratic way of life. Thus, already only 68 per cent. of Burmese rice will be available for her commitments this year. It is not only rice that is suffering like this. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know full well that timber is at a standstill and cotton and the production of peanuts and even oil, about which I see they have another Amendment on the Order Paper.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) spoke of trade with Japan but this type of Amendment would drive trade to Japan.—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but only the other day U Thet Su, Chairman of the State Agricultural Marketing Board, was trying to organise an agreement by which 100,000 tons of rice was to be supplied to Japan. Time and again I have heard the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe say that we wanted rice and food to solve the Malay problem. How far can we expect this Amendment to help in solving that particular problem? Surely it is encouraging the attitude that not much would come from Britain if the Conservatives were in power, that they would investigate every one of these loans on the basis of the old-fashioned business methods that created such chaos in this country in the past 30 years. The present situation in Britain is due entirely to the old-fashioned method associated with a struggle for markets, areas of investment and routes for those markets. Members opposite are still preaching today the kind of philosophy that they preached in the 1850's.
Mr. W. Fletcher rose—
Mr. Davies: The hon. Member is not worth giving way for. One cannot treat him seriously. I am delighted that the Government have in their wisdom decided to encourage any honest effort within Burma to establish a democratic way of
2202
life, I can think of no better way than producing rice. If we desire to defeat Communism in Asia, we shall do so on the rice fields rather than on the battlefields. I sincerely hope that this House will reject the Amendment.
5.2 p.m.
Lord John Hope: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate until I heard the speeches that have been made from the benches opposite. Even now I intend to make not so much a speech as a very short and, I hope, reasonable interruption. Early in his speech, the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) said something by way of warning in connection with the possible interpretations which might be put abroad upon speeches made on this side in this Debate. I ask him to reflect how much he and his hon. Friends the Members for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) and Blackley (Mr. Diamond) have contributed towards a proper interpretation of the views of those of us on this side by the way they have interpreted our motives in their speeches this afternoon. Their speeches have been unfortunate, to say the least.
The Prime Minister of Burma said, when Burmese independence became a fact:
"What both sides have sought and I believe have achieved is nothing less than arrangements which will form a firm and solid basis for Anglo-Burmese friendship."
I would make the suggestion to hon. Gentleman opposite that critical advice has never been inconsistent with true friendship. What is inconsistent is an unwillingness to tell the truth to your friends, an unwillingness which, in the case of Burma, I believe one or two hon. Members opposite share. The hon. Member for Aston warned us about the sensitiveness of the Burmese towards the acceptance of critical advice given by Englishmen, on the grounds that it might well be interpreted by other Burmese as weakness. Although I know that that attitude has been held and is almost bound to be held by certain people at a critical stage in a country's transition from dependence to independence, nevertheless there comes a time when the truth and the telling of it can only help everyone. I suggest to the hon. Member for Aston that that time has now come.

2203
suggest to those in Burma who may feel sensitive about critical advice that the time has come for them to realise that a change of mind might now be interpreted, not as a sign of weakness but as a sign of their new-found strength. They will find that the advice which we on this side will give them, which will be selfless and objective, will be given not only for the benefit of our own people in this country, but also very much for the benefit of Burma.
5.6 p.m.
Mr. R. A. Butler: Before the Minister replies, I should like to add a few words to those which have been said on this side of the Committee. So far as I can see, this Debate will have served sonic useful purpose if it can educate certain hon. Members opposite in the ordinary practices of the House of Commons, especially in Committee. If we can achieve that, we shall have achieved something. Further, I trust that this Debate may he of some purpose in indicating to the people and to the Government of Burma the full facts about the Conservative attitude towards that country and its Government. I will spend a little time on those two aspects before I address myself to the attractive subject of rice.
It is not for me to give a lecture on liamentary procedure, and if I did, you, Sir Charles, would perhaps rule me out of order. It is in order for me to say, however, that this Amendment for a reduction in the Vote has been moved for the specific purpose of attracting attention to a particular Item on the Diplomatic and Consular Vote on which we desire to obtain further information, and subject to the reply which will shortly be given by the Under-Secretary, I see no reason why my hon. Friends should press this matter. In fact, we have no desire to do so.
I must remind hon. Members opposite that had we not adopted this procedure, we could not have centralised the discussion on this particular aspect of the Diplomatic and Consular Vote. If they propose to continue with these very intransigent and most unreasonable speeches we have heard, we shall be perfectly ready to range over the whole of the Diplomatic and Consular Vote and keep thoroughly busy for the rest of the
2204
afternoon the two new Ministers who have just taken up their duities in the Foreign Office. Those two Ministers have taken up the responsible position which I used to occupy alone in the days when we had no Minister of State, and when the Under-Secretary was expected to do two men's work. They might just as well be given a little practice. It has always been my view that the representatives of the Foreign Office do not appear often enough on the Floor of the House, and this might be an occasion for helping to remedy that state of affairs. We shall certainly not be satisfied by a speech from the Under-Secretary alone. I feel certain that the Minister of State will desire to intervene on this occasion and give us the benefit of his wide experience of Burma.
I must address myself to the speeches which have been made by the hon. Members for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), Blackley(Mr. Diamond) and Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). Those three hon. Members seem to me to have fallen into the error, prevalent in the last Parliament, and which we then attempted to kill—and which I hope we can kill forever in this Parliament—that they have a monopoly of friendship for the peoples of the East. That is totally and absolutely untrue. The hon. Member for Aston made some extremely exaggerated remarks about the attitude of the Conservative Party. The hon. Member for Blackley, with a little less than the usual brilliance which we associate with his name, said that because my name was attached to this Amendment, there was something sinister in it as indicating the unfriendliness of the Conservatives to Burma. The hon. Member for Leek launched into a most inaccurate account of the magnificent contribution which private enterprise made to the past prosperity of Burma. It remains to be seen whether Burma can achieve such prosperity in the future.
Mr. Wyatt: We should like to be fair to hon. Members opposite, but is the right hon. Gentleman now saying, in effect, on behalf of the Conservative Party, that they are sorry they voted against the Burma Independence Act when it came before this House?
Mr. Butler: I was addressing myself to the subject on the Order Paper, and subject to your Ruling, Sir Charles, it

2205
is not in order to range over the whole subject of an Act of Parliament which is not before us this afternoon. I was addressing myself to the quite intemperate and unreasonable remarks of the hon. Member for Aston. I should like to say to him and to hon. Members opposite that there are several people on this side of the Committee, myself included, who began to work for the independence notably of India, Pakistan and Burma long before they ever thought of it, and we shall continue working for the good of those countries long after he has finished doing so. Perhaps it would be just as well if that sort of message went across to the headlines of the Burmese newspapers at the same time as the intemperate and inaccurate remarks which the hon. Gentleman himself made.
Now let us address ourselves to this complex question of rice. We noticed when examining the Supplementary Estimates, which it is our constitutional right and duty to do, that there were these two interesting items on Burma. We are taking the first one now; and some rather wider considerations will have to be raised on the second one. But upon this, the first thing we want to know is whether in fact this is a settlement of what may be described as Commonwealth aid to Burma which we understand amounts to some £7½ million, of which the British Government are going to shoulder half. That will be £3¾ million and if that part, that proportion, is laid down in this Supplementary Estimate, it gives us an opportunity to consider this matter in Parliament, as indeed it should be considered.
I say quite frankly to hon. Members opposite that if we are to be deterred by unreasonable speeches which traduce our motives in raising matters on which we require information, I think the whole objective of the procedure of Parliament will have been thwarted. We have not been informed of this loan before. We have received no account of what happened at Colombo. The Foreign Secretary even refuses to open a Foreign Affairs Debate to tell us something about these things. We have obtained the minimum of information from the Foreign Office, and had we not taken the opportunity of raising this matter here, on the Supple-
2206
mentary Estimate, we should have learned or heard nothing about this Commonwealth loan which emanated from the Colombo Conference. I trust, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will enlighten us a little bit on the point of the extent of the money to which the British taxpayer would be committed by a loan of this sort.
I further want to know the nature of the loan; what is the nature of the security and what is the nature of the repayment of the loan? I should like also to know the nature of the transactions whereby we or the other countries concerned, notably India, Pakistan and Ceylon, obtain rice under the arrangements made? When we examine the world situation with regard to rice, we find that in the days before the war in the South-East Asia area rice provided some 61 million tons for export. In 1949 it had dropped to 2,600,000 tons; and we believe that for 1950 not more than 2,200,000 tons will be available. Rice is the very basis, not only of the fight against Communism, to which hon. Members opposite have referred, but is the staple diet of that part of the world. Proper transactions in relation to the rice crop and the sufficient growing of rice are the very basis of the solution of the problems of the South-East Asia area.
As regards the details, I am informed that the exportable surplus in 1949–50 is probably in the nature of 800,000 tons. According to my information, which I should like either to be confirmed or refuted by the Under-Secretary, some 600,000 tons of that amount have already been sold. If that is the case, what is the position of the United Kingdom in relation to rice exports which it may desire, and what is the position in the transaction of the State Marketing Board to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll)? While I am mentioning this question of State trading. I think I should say that hon. Members opposite are extremely touchy if they consider that they are to be allowed to give full vent to their belief in State trading, and that we are not to be allowed to make any reference to our own views without being told that we are insulting a foreign Government.
I think it quite essential in this Parliament that we should all be absolutely

2207
frank in our intimate beliefs. The fact is that we do not like State trading, and I do not mind who knows it, either in this country or overseas. From my knowledge of the people of that country, with which my family have been most intimately, and I believe honourably, associated, they are the most cheerful and friendly people; and they would be extremely surprised to hear, at any rate from my lips, sentiments which they knew were insincere, and which did not represent my Parliamentary beliefs. From some knowledge of other peoples and Governments in that part of the world, I am quite convinced that they are just as ready to face the truth from people who say what they believe, as they are to take untruths when they know they are uttered in an insincere way.
Mr. Harold Davies: I would not like it to be put on record that we thought hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were insulting Burma. So far as I can remember now, I am certain that those words were not used by myself; neither were they used by my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. I would say, secondly, that I am quite certain that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are concerned with the production of rice in Asia and it would be unfair of any of us on this side of the Committee to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite were not concerned at that. Lastly, we differ only on the approach, and the party political line, we really believe, was introduced by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale asking that some control over the methods of marketing in Burma should be introduced. That is why the Debate took the line which it did take.
Mr. Butler: The hon. Member has been fortunate in being able to make an extra speech which in any case is quite in Order, but, inserted in my speech, it becomes an absolute jewel; because attention will be rivetted on my remarks, and the hon. Member may feel satisfied that these remarks of his at least will be read.
Mr. Davies: Cheap!
Mr. Butler: I should like also to thank the hon. Member for his very greatly
2208
improved tone. I can see that already we have had a moral victory in this Debate, because the argument on that side of the Committee started in an extremely acid, acrid and bitter manner and it has been converted, by reason of the arguments from this side, into a most sweet and reasonable response. Therefore, we have already gained our main objective, except for the information we hope that we shall have from the Under-Secretary.
I was saying that the Burmese would be the first people to understand when we state our beliefs, and I have no need at the present time to go further into that matter. I simply wish to ask what is the position of the Board? Was the Board indebted to the rice millers for rice of the previous season and is that why it cannot operate without further funds? If that be the reason, it will be an interesting fact to elucidate from the Under-Secretary as the reason why the loan is necessary. Then, is each of the Commonwealth countries helping with this loan to receive an allocation of rice, or is the rice to be handed over for disposal to a committee of the lending countries for distribution as it thinks fit? Perhaps the Under-Secretary can answer that point. Further, what, as I asked earlier, is the security for a loan of this character, and what is the nature of the terms for the repayment?
I put that last question because, while it would be out of order to go into it in any detail, it is well known that there are some £30 million of loans outstanding which at some date are expected to be repaid to this country. In view of the very straitened and difficult circumstances under which the Burma Government are at present operating, it would be interesting to know what are the possibilities and likelihood of the repayment of this loan.
Before I sit down, I wish to raise this question of the trade between Japan and Burma. We saw in "The Times" newspaper of yesterday a telegram from Tokyo dated 21st March that a trade agreement has been ratified between Japan and Burma providing for an exchange of Roods amounting to £17½ million during 1950. Reference to the many items in the trade agreement would be out of Order, but one of the items is rice; and we should value the opinion of the

2209
Foreign Office as to the terms of this treaty; what it means; what it is likely to do to the very straitened supplies of rice available for the Eastern peoples themselves; and what is the importance to their future of that trade agreement? So far, no opinion has been given to the Committee or to the House on this matter, and it would be very valuable, not only for the Lancashire Members, but also for those interested in rice, to have some further opinion given on this occasion.
Those are all the matters on which I think I can usefully comment on this subhead, while reserving the right to raise the broader issues on the next one. I would make an appeal to the Under-Secretary. I trust that he will not follow the tone of the speakers who have preceded him on his side of the Committee. I believe he occupies an extremely responsible post in the Government. We have no desire to import into the realm of foreign affairs any particular controversy unless that is necessitated by the failure of Government policy in any respect. As this is a Debate upon the Diplomatic and Consular Vote, I hope that he will confine his remarks to the facts of the case and not import into the situation any unnecessary rancour.
5.20 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): I appreciate the remarks which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). I do so because in the first speeches made here this afternoon there was considerable misunderstanding as to the purpose of this Vote. The reason why there was a little acrimony on both sides of the Committee was due entirely to that misunderstanding. It was perhaps unfortunate, because of this, that this Amendment was put down and—
Mr. Stanley: What does the hon. Gentleman mean.
Mr. Davies: I think it was unfortunate that this Amendment was put down because it has resulted o in some remarks being made during the Debate which do not, I think, help us in the pursuit of our policy in South-East Asia.
Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member surely understands, and if not we must make it
2210
plain, that the only way on Supplementary Estimates in which we can concentrate the discussion of the Committee on a particular item in the Vote of a Department is by putting down a reduction. That was the sole reason why an Amendment was put down in this case. We cannot help it if hon. Members opposite do not understand the rules of the House.
Mr. Davies: With all due respect, I should have thought that. when Supplementary Estimates are presented, it would not always be necessary to put down an Amendment in order that the Supplementary Estimates could be discussed.
Mr. A. Edward Davies: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Stanley) has raised a most interesting point. He says that this subject could not have been discussed—that we could not have given it the same attention—if there had not been an Amendment. I was under the impression that when a substantial sum of money appears for the first time on a Supplementary Estimate and when it is not a fraction of a main Estimate which has previously appeared, it can be discussed.
The Chairman (Major Milner): Certainly it can be discussed.
Mr. Stanley: Is it not the position that on a Supplementary Estimate, the Opposition, by tradition of the House, can choose which Votes are put down, but they have to be put down in a block. We can put, as we have done, first the Consular and Diplomatic Vote. That means that the whole of that Vote is open to discussion at the same time, and the only way in which the Committee can be restricted to considering only one item at a time in that Vote is by moving a reduction to the particular item in the main block.
The Chairman: Yes, I think that is correct.
Mr. Diamond: Is it not open for the Opposition, when putting down an Amendment of this kind, to act in one of two ways—either to ask for information and then withdraw the Amendment or, alternatively, to speak critically and to pursue the Amendment? Therefore, should not the first person who speaks for

2211
the Opposition on such an Amendment make clear what the object of the Opposition is?
The Chairman: I do not think that I should be drawn into expressing an opinion in any way on that subject. These matters may be discussed in half a dozen different ways.
Mr. Ernest Davies: I return to the question of the loan. Perhaps the way in which the sub-head is written into the Supplementary Estimate has caused some misunderstanding as to its actual nature. It is stated to be a short-term loan to Burma. Possibly, a more accurate description would be a "rice loan" because, in reply to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, I can say that this is not part of the larger loan. This is an entirely separate loan which is limited to £500,000. It may not be called upon, and none of this loan has as yet been provided to Burma. In the event, it may not be provided, but it was put down in the Estimates because it seemed likely that the offer would be made to the Burmese and that their reply would be received by the time the Estimate came up for consideration. It will be possible to discuss the far larger loan to which reference was made when the Estimates of the Foreign Office are under discussion. That amount appears in the Estimates which have now been printed, and there will be ample opportunity to discuss the whole policy when the Estimates are debated.
This loan arose from discussions with the Commonwealth countries for the purpose of assisting Burma in financing the provision of rice to Commonwealth countries. The object was to facilitate the purchase of rice by India, Pakistan, Ceylon and, of course, this country. It was agreed in principle at the Colombo Conference last January that it should be a joint Commonwealth loan. Our share is only £500,000. It is limited to that. It should be borne in mind that that does not cover a very large amount of rice. The total amount of money involved in the financing of the rice crop of Burma would be something like £30 million, and the £500,000 advanced by this country is a very small proportion. It is necessary to keep our sense of proportion when we discuss the amount involved.
2212
Several questions have been asked about the terms of the loan and the nature of repayment. I have been asked whether any conditions are being imposed upon the Burmese. This is a straight-forward normal commercial loan, and it can be regarded as a revolving credit. No money will be provided until the rice is provided, and then it will be liquidated and the money will be available for the financing of the further purchase of rice if that is desired.
Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman clear up two points. He said that no money will be paid until the rice is ready. Is this rice lying at the port in the bottom of the ships, is it in the canals, or where is it? That is an important point. I have one other question. Why does the hon. Gentleman always speak of "conditions to be imposed." Conditions can be negotiated by two friendly parties without any question of their being imposed.
Mr. Davies: The situation of the rice is a matter for negotiation. It depends upon the time when the loan is finally agreed. On the second point, the reason why it was suggested that there was an imposition of conditions was because certain hon. Members made the implication. The position is that at this stage we cannot say what the terms will be, because they are subject to negotiation. When the negotiations take place, the terms will be decided upon. They will be on a normal commercial basis, a low rate of interest being charged in accordance with the guarantee that will be given.
The present position about the purchase of this rice is that the United Kingdom will be buying for itself and its Colonial Territories including, of course, Malaya which, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher), is very important in that part of South-East Asia, and Ceylon which is in considerable need. As these agreements have not yet been negotiated, it is not possible to reveal at this stage the figures of the probable amount to be taken by us and by the various Commonwealth countries. We do not consider that it would be wise at this stage even to indicate how much these Commonwealth countries are negotiating for, as it might prejudice the negotiations and make it more difficult for them to reach a successful conclusion.

2213
It is true that Japan is in the market and negotiating for a certain proportion of the rice, but we do not consider that that fact should in any way make it more difficult for us to obtain our requirements. I say that in spite of the references which have been made to bulk purchase this afternoon. We consider that working closely in consultation with the Commonwealth countries, and also working through the Marketing Board in Burma, we should be able to negotiate reasonable terms for this purchase, and we are not concerned about Japanese competition in that field. Nor have we any information that 600,000 tons have already been sold, as was suggested by one hon. Member. Certainly, there will be no political considerations to be attached to the loan; we can state that categorically, but we do not yet know whether the loan will finally go through.
Mr. Gammans: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he make clear exactly what he meant? Do we understand that no money will, in fact, be advanced by this country unless the rice is actually in our hands in one form or another? Is that what the hon. Gentleman meant? If that is what he meant, why should he say that it is an advance of funds to Burma for the financing of rice purchases, which suggests that money is going to the Government of Burma to enable them to buy the rice? Would he give an explanation?
Mr. Davies: It is put in that form in order to cover all contingencies, but the present intention is that this is a short-term loan and that it is to be repaid in cash within a few months. I think that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. As soon as the rice starts flowing and is available, obviously, the loan will be covered many times over by the rice which is available, but this is a revolving credit which will, so to speak, lubricate the flow of rice, and there is no reason for us to question the honour of the Burmese in honouring the terms which will be negotiated with them. So far, the Burmese have already honoured, as we expected of them, all the agreements which we have entered into with them, whether they concerned rice or not. On that score, I do not think hon. Members need question the attitude of the Burmese in this matter. Hon.
2214
Members have no reason to fear that the Burmese will fall down on it, inasmuch as they did not fall down last year.
Reference was also made to the participation, or at least the interest, of the United States in Burma. Here again, we have no information, but, of course, if the United States is interested in coming to the assistance of Burma, then we would certainly welcome it, but we do not see any reason why we should be concerned about it.
This is part of our larger policy in giving assistance to Burma at the present time. As other hon. Members have suggested, Burma is a food-producing country supplying South-East Asia, and it is of vital importance to a very large section of the community in that part of the world. We therefore feel that, if we can in any way assist them by way of financing the crop, not only are we contributing towards the production of foodstuffs in Burma and South-East Asia, but we are also facilitating the flow of that crop into the countries which most need it, and, in particular, Commonwealth countries.
Mr. Erroll: As the purpose of our Amendment was only to focus the discussion on this particular sub-head, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

BURMAH OIL CO. (GUARANTEE)
5.40 p.m.
Mr. Erroll: I beg to move that Item Sub-head EE (Compensation Payment to the Burmah Oil Company Limited), be reduced by £5.
I hasten to reassure hon. Members that the purpose of this Amendment is to focus attention on the second of the two subheads, which relates to Burma and concerns a guarantee which, we now learn, the British Government gave to the Burmah Oil Company early last year in respect of its rehabilitation operations in that country. I think it will be necessary for me to outline very briefly the background to this guarantee and state the reasons that led up to it.
After the war, the Burmah Oil Company was engaged in a big programme of rehabilitation of its oilfields, pipelines and refineries, which had been damaged

2215
during the war and also partially destroyed in order to prevent their use by the Japanese invader. That programme of rehabilitation was making good progress while the British were still in the country after the war, but, when independence came to Burma, law and order disappeared and it became impossible for the Burmah Oil Company to continue with its rehabilitation work. The company has spent up to about £10 million of its own money on this rehabilitation work, and, towards the end of 1948, it became clear to the company that, owing to the continued disturbed state of the country, it was useless to proceed with further rehabilitation.
The new Burma Government then made an approach to the Burmah Oil Company and suggested that the Burma Government should partly finance further rehabilitation work, in return for a share in the Burmah Oil Company itself. Negotiations then took place between the Burma Government and the British Government for the necessary money to enable the Burma Government to do this. Thus the British Government was being asked to pay the Burma Government the money necessary for the Burma Government to acquire a share in the Burmah Oil Company. The negotiations took some considerable time and the Burmah Oil Company were quite unable to continue further rehabilitation work. The British Government in an earnest desire to do all they could to help the new Government of Burma, thereupon guaranteed to the Burmah Oil Company a full return of all the moneys expended in rehabilitation work if carried on after an agreed date.
Obviously, the British Government and the Burmah Oil Company hoped that such a guarantee would never, in fact, be called upon. However, after some further months of protracted negotiations, the British Government finally decided in January of this year that the state of the country was such that it could not give a guarantee of the further cost of rehabilitation by the Burmah Oil Company. The announcement that a guarantee had been given nine months previously was made at the same time as the Burmah Oil Company had to announce that large-scale dismissals would take place as a result of the withdrawal of that guarantee. Since then, dismissals have taken place,
2216
but a number of the staff are still employed at the refinery or, rather, are still on the pay-roll at the refinery.
We require, and I hope we shall receive from the Government today, a full statement on why the guarantee was not made known at the time when it was first given. I think it is quite intolerable that Parliament should only be told months afterwards that a highly expensive guarantee had been negotiated with the Burmah Oil Company. It is obvious, of course, that the Government hoped that the guarantee would never have to be implemented. But, in fact, it is having to be implemented, and this Supplementary Vote is a token amount with which to start the implementation of the guarantee.
Why were we not told about this at the time? Why, too, was it not made public, so that the people of Burma could know what practical assistance the British Government were giving to its people? The net result of this secrecy has been that the full odium for the dismissals has fallen upon the Burmah Oil Company, who are being blamed for what are described as "ruthless sackings," when, in fact, they are merely carrying out the instructions of the British Government. The secrecy in regard to the guarantee has undoubtedly harmed the company's position in Burma, and has resulted in the British taxpayer—who is, after all, going to foot the bill—receiving no credit from the people of Burma for his great generosity.
It is stated that the sum is not expected to exceed £1 million. Nearly all of that sum has been spent on wages, and I understand that very little will go on materials. Therefore this £1 million represents, not a gift to the Burmah Oil Company, but a large measure of unemployment relief to Burmese oil workers. That may or may not have been a good thing to do, but we must be quite clear that this is not any measure of assistance to the Burmah Oil Company as such. It is certainly not helping them to pay their dividends, and I hope that no hon. Member opposite will start any innuendoes of that sort. This money is simply unemployment relief to Burmese oil workers, and it has had no effect at all, since they had to be dismissed in any case.
I do not think that the British Government really care very much about the fate

2217
of this company in Burma, or whether their action has helped or harmed the company. We in the last Parliament saw just what the Labour Party thought about many British industries. In fact, the more successful a British company in this country, the more clearly was it to be marked down for nationalisation or expropriation. I hope that we shall not hear from the Minister that this guarantee was in any way designed to help the company. There was no such motive in the Government's mind.
The figure of £1 million, as I have said, is largely made up of wages for the workers in the oilfields and at the refineries. I cannot agree, however, that the figure will not exceed £1 million. I think it is much more likely to be about £2 million when the final bill is rendered by the company. The fact is that, although the company were given instructions to carry out the dismissals when the British Government withdrew the guarantee, very few of the refinery workers could be dismissed because of the rather complicated procedure of the new industrial court in Burma. There is a rule in the industrial court procedure that when a reference has been made to that court, no employees may be dismissed, and therefore some 3,500 refinery workers have remained on the books of the company and continue to receive their weekly wages for doing no work whatsoever. That is a cost, of course, which will have to be met by the British taxpayer. It represents what I would call a terminal payment which may be of a very high order indeed, and may well amount to something like £500,000 before the industrial court reports on its findings and the company is then free to dismiss its redundant staff.
If the Burma Government and the people of Burma had known about this guarantee, we might surely have been entitled to expect that they would have hastened the procedure of the industrial court so as to avoid the British taxpayer being put to unnecessary expense. Hon. Members opposite may say that I am once again trying to impose conditions on an independent country; but I think that where the British taxpayers' money is concerned, we are entitled to get something in return for it, and we cannot idly stand by and see more and more of the money of the British taxpayer being poured out on vague unemployment relief
2218
in Burma without some attempt being made on the part of the Burma Government either to reduce the unnecessary idleness which is taking place or to find alternative employment for these men.
Of course, as things stand at present, it is in everyone's interest in Burma, except that of the Burmah Oil Company, to prolong and delay the proceedings in the industrial court, because the longer the proceedings take, the more money must be paid out in wages to employees who are not at work. That money, I submit, will have to be found out of this Vote. I know that the Minister, in reply to a Question of mine earlier this week, indicated that the guarantee would refer only to money expended during the period of the guarantee; but the Minister cannot possibly escape the terminal obligations, the consequences of withdrawing the guarantee, because those consequences are very much more severe now in 1950 than they would have been had the Burmah Oil Company been free to dismiss its staff early in 1949.
The fact is that the people of Burma have become much more conscious in the last few months of industrial court procedure, and have learned what a valuable weapon it is to them for extracting more money from foreign-owned companies, and, in this case, for extracting more money from the British Government. Had the Burmah Oil Company been able to dismiss its staff early in 1949, they would have been dismissed without the industrial court procedure being invoked, with all the expenses involved. This is proved because the company was, in fact, able to dismiss some 2,500 in August without such procedure being invoked when the modified joint venture scheme did not go through.
It is claimed, therefore, that the present cost of continuing to employ these people, or, rather, I should say, to pay them, must be a cost which in equity should be borne under the terms of this guarantee. When the Minister comes to reply, I should like him to state whether he has made any suggestion to the Burma Government that events might be hurried up in Burma so as to reduce the extent of these terminal payments; or would that he regarded by hon. Members opposite as an unwarrantable measure of interference in the internal affairs of an independent country, and are we just to

2219
witness the pouring out of money, month after month, while these proceedings in the industrial court go on wearily and unendingly?
I should like to ask the Minister what representations he has made to the Burma Government about the protection of the property of the Burmah Oil Company during the period of this guarantee. We have the situation in which the British taxpayer has had over £1 million of his money spent in paying the wages bill of the employees of this company and, at the same time as this was going on, of seeing the property and the assets of the company being steadily looted and plundered. It is said that the Burma Government have done their best. I wonder whether they have? It is significant that they have made practically no use of the British Military Mission. That is another expensive piece of aid we have given Burma in order that her troops might be more effectively trained and able to keep organised banditry in check.
The truth of the matter is that the British Labour Government do not really care very much about the Burmah Oil Company, or what happens to it. That is the only conclusion to which I can come, because the situation has been allowed to go from bad to worse. However, the money has been spent and the guarantee has been given—unfortunately without Parliament's knowledge. Nevertheless it is plain that Parliament will have to honour this guarantee.
Is there anything we can learn from this fiasco? Is there any way in which we can get something now out of the money which has been spent? Can any good come from this costly and wasteful expenditure? Possibly it can. I believe we can show we have learned a lesson. We can show that we have learned the conditions which must govern any future aid. I know that hon. Members opposite are touchy if any reference is made to conditions being attached to a loan. But why should there not be conditions? After all, the people of Burma are perfectly free to reject a loan if they do not like its conditions. There can be no question of imposing conditions. The other party has a perfectly free right to reject a loan, or to reject it if it dislikes the conditions.
Mr. Diamond: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to financial conditions exclusively, or possibly political conditions also?
Mr. Erroll: I am coming to the conditions I would suggest. What we have learned from the operation of this particular guarantee is that money spent in Burma is wasted until law and order are restored. It ought to be one of the conditions of any aid we may give that really energetic steps will be taken to secure the return of law and order throughout the country. I think it is agreed by most people that we can have a restoration of law and order only when there has been a full and satisfactory settlement of the Karen dispute.
Mr. Wyatt: On a point of Order. Are we not now discussing a specific loan to the Burmah Oil Company? Would it not be out of order to discuss a settlement between the Karens and the Burmese?
The Chairman: I think it would be out of order. As I understand it, we are discussing compensation payments.
Mr. Erroll: With respect, Major Milner, I agree that we are discussing this payment, but it is specifically stated that this compensation payment was to give the Government an opportunity of restoring law and order. That is stated on page 14 of the Supplementary Estimate in line 3 of the small type. I therefore think that I am in order to refer to the maintenance of law and order.
The Chairman: The money has been given. I do not think that is any justification for talking about the details of the present position.
Mr. Erroll: I understand fully the ruling you have given. I would have expected, however, that the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), who ranged very widely on a much narrower vote, might have accorded me the courtesy of allowing me to finish—
The Chairman: The hon. Member for Aston was perfectly entitled to draw the attention of the Chair to the hon. Gentleman's infraction of the rule, and I am obliged to him for doing so. The hon. Gentleman would also appear to be reflecting on the Chair.
Mr. R. A. Butler: With respect, Major Milner, law and order are specifically

2221
referred to as the reason for granting this money, and I suppose we can refer to the need for the restoration of law and order for the purpose of making that money a stable proposition.
The Chairman: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman I would point out that the question of Jaw and order is one of the past, and has been dealt with. I think, therefore, that it should not be a matter of present discussion.
Mr. Butler: My information goes to show that this grant is not necessarily limited to the sum included in the Supplementary Estimate, and in discussing that Estimate, are we not entitled to ask whether this is the last instalment to be paid to the Burmah Oil Company?
Mr. Ernest Davies: Notice of termination has been given of this guarantee, so no further liability can be incurred other than is provided for by the token payment.
Mr. Erroll: I had in no way intended to make any reflection on the Chair, Major Milner, when I addressed my remarks to the hon. Member for Aston and that hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what I had in mind.
I regard it as regrettable that during the period of this guarantee, when it was operating, such ineffective steps were taken by the British Government to assist the Burmese Government in the restoration of law and order. The effect has been negligible. The expenditure of this money might have resulted in a great improvement in the internal situation of Burma had we only been willing to realise that, by giving this money as unemployment relief, we were surely entitled to say something about what should be done with it. We were surely entitled to insist to the full on the protection of British assets in that country and to insist upon proper protection from looting. We might well have said that we disapproved of the discriminatory treatment to which other companies were subjected. Had the guarantee been generally known to the people of Burma and of this country, it would have been easier to say these things, and we might have been able to carry a considerable measure of Burmese political opinion with us in this matter. Now an extremely difficult terminal position has resulted.
2222
The guarantee may have terminated, but the payment has not, and His Majesty's Government cannot possibly escape from liability for this terminal payment. During the period of guarantee the British Government, had they had a mind to do so, could have enlisted more successfully the co-operation of the Burma Government in speeding up industrial disputes through the industrial court. As it is, this is going to be very costly to the British Government. They might also have taken the opportunity of offering a financial adviser to the Burma Government without any strings. That adviser would have been able to help in the proper application of any further aid which may be given to Burma in the future.
We all recognise, on both sides of the Committee, that Burma is in grave danger from within and without. We appreciate fully how easily Burma could become a centre of Communist infection in South-East Asia. We should help the Burmese Government to improve their position, to restore law and order and to settle the Karen dispute as soon as they can. I believe the lesson our Government have learned from the expenditure of this £1 million is that in future we must be quite firm in our lending policy and not be afraid to give advice and to make conditions at the same time.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Diamond: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) for two reasons. First of all, he was good enough to make clear at the start of his speech that this Amendment had not been put down, as we in our ignorance might have assumed, to give the Opposition an opportunity to criticise either this Government or the administration of the Department, but that it was merely for the purpose of seeking further information. In that I join with the hon. Member. I am sure we are all glad to have information on a rather complex matter of this sort.
Mr. Erroll: It surprises me to learn that the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond) should have forgotten the excellent lecture which he gave on Parliamentary procedure in Rangoon, in which he dealt, among other things, with the niceties of our Parliamentary procedure.
Mr. Diamond: It is obvious that anybody who would listen to me talking

2223
about Parliamentary procedure must be very ill-informed on that subject. I was therefore very glad indeed that the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) took the opportunity in our last discussion of making it absolutely clear that in all quarters of the House we are united in our desire to give help and support and to act sympathetically towards Burma. I am glad there is no misunderstanding whatsoever that the Amendment was not put down to criticise the Government or the action of the Government of Burma.
My second reason for congratulating the hon. Member is because of the excellent speech he made on behalf of the Burmah Oil Company. As an accountant, I offer him my professional congratulations. No one could have done it better. He got all the terms right, including "terminal payments." No doubt, the Burmah Oil Company are very grateful to him for having put forward their case in such an excellent manner. He certainly carried out his duty with extreme care, treading delicately midway between the path of suggesting that we should not be careless with taxpayers' money and at the same time making it quite clear to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the Burmah Oil Company were not only going to ask for expenditure incurred under the guarantee but that they were also going to ask for payments which, he alleged, they had incurred after the guarantee period. I am sure he trod that path with great delicacy, considering his very substantial proportions.
I too should like information on this question of the guarantee, because I find it very difficult to form any clear idea of how this guarantee will be interpreted, having regard to the answer which my hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale two days ago. He said:
"… His Majesty's Government invited the Burmah Oil Company and Associated Corn-panics to continue the work of rehabilitation for a period after 7th March. They agreed to guarantee the Company against any losses incurred during this period which were attributable to their response to His Majesty's Government's request."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 110.]
We have to consider losses incurred during a period when rehabilitation was
2224
continued. Rehabilitation was continued during the whole of this period of the guarantee. My information from responsible officers of the Burmah Oil Company at the Burma oil fields was that not a single man had been idle. At least, I hope they were responsible officers; I do not wish to tie the Burmah Oil Company in any way. The answer given by the cost accountant of that company to me as an accountant was clear and precise—not one penny had been charged to idle time. That means that everybody had been fruitfully occupied either in building up assets or in earning income.
This is a matter which gives one considerable doubt as to what the word "losses" means in relation to this rehabilitation. If the Burmah Oil Company at a future date re-establishes its business, as we all hope it will, and is able to supply oil, all the rehabilitation work which has been carried out during this period and which accounts for a large part, if not all, of this £1 million will be money well spent as far as the Burmah Oil Company is concerned. In that case the hon. Member will be quite wrong in his statement that under no circumstances should we misunderstand the position as being one in which the Burmah Oil Company has had any benefit at all from this transaction.
If that position does materialise, the Burmah Oil Company will have spent £1 million, taking this figure as the correct figure for the moment, on improving its assets. It will, therefore, have £1 million worth of improved assets and will have been refunded the whole cost by His Majesty's Government, and at no cost to itself. It will have bad £1 million worth of improved assets, in taxpayers' money with which the hon. Gentleman is so concerned. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will help us all if he can give us any indication as to how this guarantee is to be interpreted.
I nevertheless feel that in terms of other than pure business terms this was a wise transaction, because it helped tremendously in keeping down industrial unrest, in helping to establish law and order, in giving the Government—a new and young Government which was struggling manfully with great difficulties—an opportunity of having some of those difficulties removed for the time being. Everyone

2225
was hopeful for the best of reasons that this liability, if it did mature, would not prove too great, and at all events the benefit from keeping down industrial unrest would be of service on all sides. For that reason I am glad that this guarantee was entered into, but I hope, with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, that the taxpayers' point of view will be carefully considered in interpreting the terms and fixing the amount of the guarantee.
6.8 p.m.
Sir Harold Roper: I am exceedingly fortunate, in addressing the Committee for the first time, to find myself speaking on a subject which is very near to my heart. I have lived many years in Burma, and I have long experience in the Burmah Oil Company.
The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) said there was a lack of interest taken by private enterprise in the welfare of Burma. I do not know whether he has been in the oilfields; if he had been in the oilfields before their demolition, I feel sure that he would not have said on the Floor of this Committee that private enterprise took no interest in the people of Burma. One great pride I have is that I had the privilege of leading a company in the East which has paid so much attention to the welfare of its workers in the last 20 years. I have also had experience in the Legislature of Burma and, as a former Member of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, I am particularly interested in this matter of procedure to which reference has been made. I am also interested to know that the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond) has lectured in Burma on legislative procedure.
I have learned from past experience of procedure, not in this legislature but in the Burma legislature, that an Amendment proposing a cut in Supply is put down in order to raise a subject for discussion and not necessarily to oppose it. It would not he appropriate for me, in making my maiden speech, to dwell on the events which led up to the situation in which Burma finds herself today and in which the Burma Government are themselves unable to finance the loan to the Burmah Oil Company. The first approach made was between the Burma Government and the Burmah Oil Company. The Burma Government made the
2226
first suggestion of a joint arrangement and terms were agreed. The Burma Government were unable to find the finance, however. It was not until that point that His Majesty's Government intervened.
I will not go into the course of events which led up to the situation in which the Burma Government were unable to find their own finance. To do so would be to enter into the realms of controversy, which would be inappropriate in a maiden speech. My concern is for the future of Burma and the future of its people. I am still interested in their future and I am interested in stopping the spread of Communism into that part of the world. We have, therefore, to examine this item in the Supplementary Estimates both from the point of view of financial soundness and from the point of view of its value as an insurance in preventing the spread of Communism.
This Debate was preceded by a Debate on the rice position and it has been made clear in this Committee today that the rice industry is extremely important to the economy of Burma. If rice is the most important, then the oil industry certainly comes second. If help is to be given to Burma there is no better way of giving it than, first, by ensuring the success of the export trade of the rice industry and secondly the survival of the oil industry. The Burmah Oil Company was a good employer and there was none better in Burma. The oil industry of Burma is an immense asset to the country. May I make it clear that I am not in the Burmah Oil Company and I am not speaking for them; in stressing its importance, I am trying to bring before this Committee a point which it is essential that the Committee should understand in considering this matter of the guarantee.
The hon. Member for Aston dealt in some detail with the course of events leading up to this loan. It is important, in considering the Government's action in giving this guarantee, that we should realise that the oilfields in Burma are some 300 miles up-country. It is an industrial area and a semi-arid area where there is no alternative employment of any importance. It is a country which would be quite unable to sustain the addition of the large numbers of unemployed which would be thrust upon it if the Burmah Oil Company closed down.

2227
The hon. Member for Blackley raised an important point about what would constitute the losses to the Burmah Oil Company in this rehabilitation. I trust that in his reply the Under-Secretary of State will make quite clear what is the Government's interpretation of this guarantee which they have given to the oil company—whether that guarantee is to be held for payment at some indefinite date when it may be possible to determine whether loss has actually been incurred. How long do the Government propose to wait before they decide this question, which is obviously fundamental to the giving of this guarantee? I trust that in his reply the Under-Secretary will make this clear.
The Estimate refers to the guarantee as being made pending other measures of financial assistance to the Government of Burma and I hope I may be allowed to say a few general words on the giving of such guarantees and loans to Burma. There is no doubt that unless someone helps Burma, the country will fall into complete anarchy. It may be asked, "Are we not throwing good money after bad?" When the Burmah Oil Company undertook this vast scheme of rehabilitation, they did so as an act of faith. There was no certainty that Burma would ever resume its normal condition. I do not accept a suggestion that we are throwing good money after bad. I maintain that we must not abandon hope. We cannot tell what will arise in Burma and what the position may be in the Far East.
As I see it, the tragedy of Burma is that, in gaining that last 5 per cent. of political freedom, she has lost other freedoms—freedom from violence, freedom from fear and, as the circumstances of this guarantee made clear, freedom from unemployment. In Burma it is the political aspect which draws public attention and which is apt to disguise the real wants of the people of the country which are to be allowed to carry on their business, to carry on the cultivation of their fields, and to carry on working in the oil industry without fear of molestation. What is referred to as public opinion in Burma is too often the opinion of the one who shouts the loudest. Let me give an illustration of this point. It will lead up to something I have to say in a moment.
2228
At one time I found myself taking part in a discussion related to the future employment of European professors in Rangoon University. A leading Burmese member of the committee was constantly putting before us the argument that public opinion would not stand for it. At last another Burmese member of the committee, employed in Rangoon University, suddenly spoke up, and said, "I cannot sit here any longer and listen to what is referred to as public opinion. In the course of my duties every year I interview many hundreds of parents, of parents, of potential students and students of Rangoon University, and I am convinced that what the people of Burma want is a good education for their children." He went on—and this is the point—"What is referred to as public opinion is not public opinion at all, but is the opinion of a handful of the politically minded, with the backing of the Burmese Press." That was a most important remark from one Burman to his superior Burmans, and I trust that hon. Members opposite, when they visit Burma, and visit other countries in the Far East, will make quite sure that they get to the bottom of things. There is a danger for those who go to those countries that they go to just those people who have politics ingrained in them, and who often do not represent the true interests of the people.
The true interests of Burma at the present time are the restoration of law and order and, as is becoming increasingly realised amongst the Burmese people, the importation of foreign capital. I believe that the restoration of law and order is by far the more important, and particularly the ending of this most unfortunate civil war which is going on at the present time with the Karen people. It may be it is not for us to suggest how the Burma Government should tackle this question, but following up from my last argument, I ask that the Government consider this question of the continuation of strife between the Burma Government and the Karens. Can we not do something to bring about mediation?
It may be that there will be political objection from the other side, but following on what I have said, I believe that beneath the surface there will be a strong feeling in Burma in favour of patching up this trouble, and if the Gov-

2229
ernment could find any way. without offending Burmese susceptibilities, of suggesting a settlement of that trouble, they would make a great contribution, not merely to the wellbeing of the Burmese people, but towards going forward with this financial contribution.
I believe that the Government, generally speaking, are tackling this question on the right lines. There is no question of pouring money into Burma, unchecked as to its use. I agree with one Member who, in the last Debate, expressed the view that the responsibility for working out their own salvation must be left with the Burmese people themselves, and if we overdo the financing of their needs, we shall be defeating our own object. I believe that our help to Burma should be in the form of limited ad hoc aid. We must keep the door open.
The need in Burma is steadily growing and may continue to grow, and I can see the possibility of a situation developing in which the Burma Government may come to us with readiness to agree to terms which would be acceptable to both of us. So we must keep the door open, because I believe that it is in the association between ourselves and the Burmese, two free, independent peoples, in the forging of a new link between us that there lies the best hope for Burma, the best hope for the Burmese people, and the best hope of holding back Communism in that part of the world.
6.27 p.m.
Mr. Wyatt: It is a pleasure to me on behalf of the whole Committee to be able to congratulate the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Sir H. Roper) on his maiden speech. It was, I am sure, wise of him to address us on a subject he knows very well; because the House and the Committee always appreciate speeches from people who have singular and peculiar experience of the subjects on which they address us. I should like to say straight away to the hon. Gentleman that I do not for one moment criticise the Burmah Oil Company.
I believe that the Burmah Oil Company was and probably still is one of the best employers in Burma, and it did conscientiously go out of its way to try to improve relations between the British and the Burmans; and improved the education and welfare facilities of its employees to a very considerable extent. I hope the
2230
hon. Gentleman will acquit me of thinking the company in some way reprehensible. I hope also he will acquit me of only getting my views from the violently politically minded in Burma. The main information I have on this particular topic comes from long talks I had with Mr. Lingeman, the Burmah Oil Company's representative in Rangoon when I was there and met him several times last year. I do not think the hon. Member would consider him to be someone motivated by political considerations.
I believe that there are two prime reasons why this guarantee had to 13e given and was rightly given to the Burmah Oil Company during the last few months. One, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. Diamond) has already pointed out, was that it was vital at that time to do nothing which might make the Burma Government's problems on the law and order side more difficult than they were. If at that time a large number of the employees of the Company, through no fault of the Company, had been thrown out of work it would very much have exacerbated an already difficult political situation and might have made it unmanageable.
On that score alone, this guarantee was justified and fitted into the framework of our general policy in South-East Asia of trying to assist any new Government there. As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, rightly said, we must not think that it is a hopeless task. It is not a hopeless task, and I think that over the last year there has been a substantial improvement in conditions as against what they were a year ago. It may be a long task and a difficult one, but it is certainly one that should not be given up.
There was, as I understand it, quite another reason for this guarantee and perhaps an even more important reason. It was that in Burma and in other countries in the East there is going to arise increasingly a conflict between local national feeling and foreign-owned industries which operate in those countries. As soon as a country approaches self-government, or acquires self-government, it begins to feel very strongly that it should own and operate at least some of the basic industries of that country. It was the case, I think, that the Burmah Oil Company had some very enlightened

2231
representatives on the spot in Rangoon, who felt very strongly that it would be possible to work out an arrangement with the Burma Government by which some new association could be developed which might even be a model for the whole of that part of the world.
It was with that in mind, I believe, that the British Government said, "Let us have a look at this scheme you are trying to work out. While we are looking at it, please try to keep the work on the oilfields going, and we will give you a guarantee that we will make up your losses during that period, while we consider the wisdom or otherwise of applying the wider scheme which both the Burma Government and the Burmah Oil Company are considering."
I do not want to reveal any details of this scheme because I believe that it has not yet been made public, other than to say that the central idea was that over a period of years the Burma Government would acquire a part-share in that section of the Burmah Oil Company operating in Burma, and that it would gradually learn some of the "know how" and the business side of producing oil and marketing it, and of operating oil companies, which would be of enormous benefit to the Burmans themselves, and also of enormous benefit in promoting good relations between Britain and Burma.
I think that the way in which the Burmah Oil Company handled this matter showed that they were acting with the best possible motives and were doing a great service to both countries, and we certainly have no complaint on this side of the House of the operations of the Burmah Oil Company. Several hon. Members have already pointed out it is absolutely essential to such a scheme, if it is to operate in the future, that there should be some law and order, and during all this time it is quite true that the oilpipe line has been cut off and it has not been possible to get ahead with the re-opening of the oil fields to anything like the extent that was originally desired. So I think that although it is a pity that the British Government have now had to withdraw this guarantee, and it is a pity that both the British Government and the Burmah Oil Company had, at any rate, for the time being to abandon the wider scheme, it was really forced upon them by a number of factors.
2232
One is, of course, that we were substituting for special assistance to the Burmah Oil Company through the Burma Government a general Commonwealth plan for assistance; and the second is that although the Burma Government have been considerably strengthened vis-à-vis the disruptive elements during the last year, the oil pipeline is still not operating; and the third point is that the Burma Government are now in a better position to deal with any labour difficulties that may arise than they were a year ago. On these grounds it is reasonable to put the wider scheme into cold storage.
I think that it was wrong of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) to say that the British Government do not care about the Burmah Oil Company, as he very emphatically stated. I am sorry that he said that. The rest of his speech indicated that he realised that we were not standing any nonsense on this side of the House on these subjects, and consequently he very much tempered his observations. I think that it was a pity he did suggest that because as far as I know the relations between the British Government and the Burmah Oil Company have been of the friendliest and both have been working towards the same very good end.
I agree with him on this point, however. Whereas it is obviously wrong to try to impose political conditions on another country when offering it a loan of the kind he was suggesting in his earlier speech, when he suggested that they should abandon certain practices of having a State marketing board or bulk buying or anything of that kind, I think it is perfectly right that we should point out to the Burma Government that this rather strange system of settling industrial disputes should be hastened so far as this matter is concerned. As he rightly said, we had been "carrying the can" for the last nine months or more, and there is no reason why we should have to do so longer. I am sure that the Burma Government would listen to representations of that kind which are perfectly reasonable.
As to why we have not heard about this guarantee before, I was under the impression that the general reason was that it had been agreed by all three parties—the British Government, the Burma Government and the Burmah Oil Company—that none of these negotiations

2233
should be made public until the final decision had been reached, because there was a tricky political situation in Burma and a very complicated series of negotiations to go through, and it was not desirable to focus publicity, particularly in Burma, at that time on the negotiations going on. The Government of Burma was having some difficulty in persuading its followers that it was wise to co-operate with foreign industrial interests. I think that on the whole the British Government was right. It was not the intention to keep this secret from the House of Commons for the sake of doing so, and there is nothing sinister in that we have not heard about this guarantee before.
I am sure that no one would go to elaborate pains in keeping secret a matter of £1 million which, although considerable, is infinitesimal compared with the Budget itself, and obviously we must be prepared to accept that the Government had very good reason for not making the guarantee known earlier. We on this side of the House were glad to register the rather more temperate spirit with which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale approached his second topic for Debate, and I was glad that he did not want to make any complaint about the Government advancing money towards a private enterprise concern and that he wanted to reserve his complaint for money advanced towards State-owned concerns. That is an ideological difference which I can understand coming from him. In general, I am sure the Government have acted wisely in this matter, and I am sure that the Burmah Oil Company have too, and that all three parties in this matter have done their best to help in bringing about law and order.
I should like to make a special plea, because I think that the wider oil scheme has in it the germ of an idea which could be adopted by many other countries in the East, that this scheme be reconsidered as soon as law and order is sufficiently obtained in Burma to allow the pipeline to be re-opened.
6.40 p.m.
Mr. Gammans: The only comment I will make on the speech of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) is on that portion of it in which he said that the hope of the loan was to keep the oilfields going. If that is the justification for this expenditure, the policy has
2234
failed, because the oilfields have not been kept going; not a trickle of oil has come through the pipeline; no work is going on at the refineries, and the only way one can get to the oilfields today is by means of an air-lift. So the policy has failed. But we are not only being asked to pass a Supplementary Estimate. We are also being asked to approve the policy of His Majesty's Government towards Burma generally in the restoration of law and order. Indeed, we are asked to do more than that, because there is reference in this statement to
"Pending other measures of financial assistance."
Our contention is that His Majesty's Government's policy towards Burma has not only been a failure with regard to Burma oil, but has been a failure generally. It has obviously meant considerable financial loss to the taxpayers of this country; it has meant a tragic fiasco for the people of Burma; and it may be one of the main causes of a potential large-scale tragedy for South-East Asia. I do not think that anyone can accuse us of any lack of generosity towards Burma. As the Foreign Secretary told us yesterday, since 1945, in one form or another over £70 million has been advanced or spent by the British taxpayer towards Burma. I need not remind the Committee of the many thousands of British graves in Burma. Today, we have over £100 million worth of British assets in Burma, most of which I think are in jeopardy.
We have criticised His Majesty's Government's policy towards Burma in three respects. To start with, we did not in any way differ from them on the ultimate attainment of self-government by Burma; there was no quarrel on that point. But we did vote against the Second Reading of the Government of Burma Act, because we felt that there were adequate reasons for us doing so. Those reasons were as follows. We thought it was wrong that this country, which had a responsibility towards the people of Burma, should hand the country over in a state of chaos and anarchy. We see that chaos and anarchy continuing today, and it is referred to in this Supplementary Estimate. The second reason why we opposed the Government was that we did not take at its face value the Panglong Agreement

2235
alleged to have been made between the Burmese and non-Burmese people.
The Chairman: I cannot conceive that these matters have any reference to this particular compensation payment, and I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that line of argument.
Mr. Gammans: I naturally will not do so if you rule me out of Order, Major Milner, but, with respect, I would point out that we are considering the restoration of law and order; and we are also considering a token Vote which suggests that other measures of financial support to the Government of Burma are pending. I would therefore submit that we are entitled to make a general criticism of His Majesty's Government's policy towards Burma where it concerns the question of law and order.
The Chairman: I am sorry, but I cannot agree to a general debate at all. Even if other measures of financial assistance are pending, we cannot deal with them now because they are not before us at the moment. Nor can we deal with the question of the opportunity to restore law and order, which presumably has already passed. The sole question is the ground on which the Government have thought fit to make this compensation payment, and I certainly cannot agree to the whole policy towards Burma being gone into on detail upon this Supplementary Estimate.
Mr. Gammans: But, with respect, are we not entitled, where we have an item which says:
"Pending other measures of financial assistance"—
The Chairman: When that question of financial assistance comes before the House, that will be the time to discuss it. This is not the time.
Mr. Erroll: On a point of Order. Surely one of the objects of the compensation payment is to give the Government of Burma an opportunity to restore law and order. The sentence beginning in the second line is one of the objects of the compensation payment, and is not influenced by the subordinate clause which precedes it.
Mr. Ernest Davies: This compensation payment for which a token Vote is being asked is for a period which has already
2236
expired. Therefore, the question of restoring law and order does not come into this, and is in respect of a period during which an attempt was made to restore law and order.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: The whole need for this compensation arose from the fact that there was no law and order because of the relations between the Government of Burma and these other peoples, such as the Karens.
Mr. Gammans: I do not want to go back too far, but I hope, Major Milner, you will allow me to say just this. From what we have seen of His Majesty's Government's policy towards Burma, there was no real safeguard for British interests in that country, and we see here, in the case of the Burmah Oil Company, an example of that. I think that we ought to have some soil of statement from the Government about the present condition of Burma itself, because my information is that the present Government of Burma is wholly unable to maintain law and order, or to put down the dacoits who are ravaging a large part of the country.
So far as I know, there is no traffic on the railways between Rangoon and Mandalay; it is impossible even for there to be river traffic; and the only way to the oilfield is by an air-lift. In other words, it is as if in this country His Majesty's Government could only maintain itself in London, the suburbs of London, the Thames Estuary and Manchester, and that the only contact between London and Manchester were by air; and that all Scotsmen, both at home and in England, were in revolt, with the Welsh in the same position. I think that is a fair analogy with the position in Burma today. My information is that the Government of Burma do not control one-sixth of the country.
The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but he really cannot drag in the whole of His Majesty's Government's policy towards Burma for which country, in any event they are not responsible. He must make his remarks appropriate to the particular item. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the question raised by this token Estimate. That is whether it is proper or improper to make a grant to the Burmah Oil Company, which has already

2237
apparently been made, for the purpose of stimulating employment, to give the Government of Burma an opportunity to restore law and order. That is the only question.
Mr. Gammans: That is exactly my point, that they have failed to restore law and order, and I am endeavouring to give the Committee proof that that is so. I hope I may be entitled to point out to the Committee that there is no law and order over a large part of Burma; that the writ of the Government of Burma does not run, except in the large towns; and that therefore this money which has been advanced for that specific purpose has very largely been wasted. Would you rule on that, Major Milner?
The Chairman: I must not be tied down, but if the hon. Gentleman will put the matter somewhat in that form, he may be in order. Hitherto he has not done so.
Mr. Wyatt: Would it be in order if the hon. Member were to try to show that this compensation should not be paid to the Burmah Oil Company?
The Chairman: Yes, I think it would.
Mr. Gammans: If only for obtaining that concession, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aston.
My other point is shortly this—and I hope this will be in order—that the Government of Burma have failed to allow British interests to maintain themselves in the country. Perhaps here I might quote a speech of the British Ambassador in Rangoon reported in "The Times" on 23rd February, in which he said:
"So far little has been done to implement the Government's declared policy in regard to industry and capital."
The Chairman: I am sorry, but I really cannot allow this line of argument. I have re-read the note and the matter is perfectly clear. The United Kingdom Government are guaranteeing the Burmah Oil Company against loss. That is the point to which the hon. Gentleman must address himself. The question is not one of the general condition of Burma, but the grounds on which the Government have thought it proper to guarantee the Burmah Oil Company. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to that
Mr. Gammans: I will conclude then, by saying that this loan has been a failure. It has been a failure because it has failed to effect the purpose set out in the Supplementary Estimate. It is quite obvious that politically Burma is in a state of semi-dissolution, and that we shall be very lucky if the country exists at all as an independent land within the next two or three years. The policy has failed economically, because we have seen Burma, which before the war not only fed itself but was able to look after, with food, oil and raw materials, a large part of South-East Asia, rapidly relapsing into a bullock-cart civilisation. For that reason, the policy of the Government in regard to this particular loan has been a failure. I should like to have suggested, if it had been in order, the conditions which should attach to any future loans that are advanced, because the time has come when the British taxpayer can no longer be asked to pour money into the sieve of Burma.
6.52 p.m.
Mr. R. A. Butler: I think the time has come when we can draw this discussion to a conclusion. I do not think my hon.,Friends will wish to press this matter any further, and we should like to have a few words from the Under-Secretary. I do not propose to add very much to this Debate, except to endorse the excellent maiden speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Sir H. Roper). He has spent a most useful life in Burma, and his excellent services in the war in denying some of these very services to the enemy are well known to the Committee. He has enhanced an already distinguished reputation in the contribution he has made today.
I had wished to develop this matter rather more fully, but I understand the Ruling of the Chair, is to the opposite effect. I would remind the Committee that we are dealing here with a company that has a first-class record in Burma. In the inter-war period, the production was averaging 18,000 barrels of oil a day, and in the year 1939–40 the export of oil alone from Burma was valued at over £10 million. That is the past glory of the Burmah Oil Company. The present situation is absolutely tragic, both from the point of view of world oil production and from the point of view of the situation in Burma itself.

2239
In view of the Ruling which has been given, I shall confine my remarks to this one point, and that is that the position today in Burma and during the currency of this agreement is one which causes my hon. Friends the utmost anxiety. It is a situation to which the Under-Secretary should address himself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) has said, however honourable the motive in giving aid to the Burmah Oil Company in assisting employment, it is of no value because the circumstances are such that full and proper advantage cannot be taken of the loan.
I appeal to the Government, in regard to the granting of money which has been made and in regard to their future policy, so to conduct their attitude towards Burma, in company with the Commonwealth countries, that law and order, to which reference is made in this Supplementary Estimate, is re-established, and so that future aid we give, either from the British taxpayer or other sources, may be spent to the best possible advantage. It would be very wrong to allow these Estimates to pass without expressing the great anxiety we feel about the internal situation in the country, despite the aid of the Government and many other high-minded people to improve the situation.
6.56 p.m.
Mr. Ernest Davies: I wish to endorse the closing remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). The purpose of this guarantee was to assist in the restoration of law and order in Burma, or at least to prevent the position, if that were possible, from deteriorating through the discharge of large numbers of men from the Burmah Oil Company. The Government are very concerned about the position in Burma, but are satisfied that there has been some improvement during the last 10 months. Any assistance which can be given by this Government, in co-operation with the Commonwealth, will be given. As evidence of that is the loan to which reference has been made, and in regard to which a further statement will be made in the near future.
I think that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) was a little less than fair to the Government
2240
when he referred to our assistance to the Burmah Oil Company. He said that the Labour Government did not care about the Burmah Oil Company and that we had allowed the position to go from bad to worse. One of the main reasons why this guarantee was given was to enable this very important British interest to be protected, if it were possible to do so. If conditions had improved during the period of guarantee, this important British interest would have been maintained.
The tragedy, and I endorse the word used, is that the oilfields are at present producing an extremely small quantity of oil, as a large section of the pipeline is still cut by those opposed to the Government. As the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) said, the oil cannot flow down to Rangoon. The purpose of the guarantee was to put off the labour discharges that were threatened by the Burmah Oil Company. It was because it was considered that there would be a serious deterioration in the position if these discharges were made at that time, and because it was thought that it would prejudice any decisions that were to be made on any further proposals, such as that put forward by the Burma Government for acquiring a share in the oil industry in return for a large loan with which they approached the company, that this guarantee was given.
There was a risk taken at the time that law and order would not be restored, and that it would not be possible to bring about the rehabilitation of the oilfields. As it has turned out, the rehabilitation of the oilfields has not been possible. During the period of this guarantee, of which notice of termination was given at the end of last year, labour was employed and considerable work was done in reconstructing the refinery near Rangoon. Some of this work is not wasted. There are some assets there, but it would be a mistake to exaggerate their value as a result of the expenditure of this money.
I think Members will appreciate that the risk was one worth taking at the time. It appeared that there was a possibility at that time of law and order being restored, and the oil industry being got going again. That has not been possible, to the regret of His Majesty's Government. I can quite understand the criticism that has come from some Members in regard to the failure to inform Parliament of this guarantee.

2241
There are extenuating circumstances, however, why the information was kept from Parliament. It was considered that any announcement of this, guarantee at that time would have encouraged disastrously undue speculation in Burma and at home about the Government's future policy in respect of the oil industry. At the same time it might have diminished Burma's own efforts to restore law and order.
In other words, if this guarantee had been announced, it was thought that it would indicate to Burma and the Burmese that far greater assistance was forthcoming than actually was contemplated at that time. It might have prejudiced consideration of future Commonwealth loans and oil ventures to which reference has been made. That was the main reason why Parliament was not informed at the time. It was considered preferable to decide on a Commonwealth loan prior to making an announcement in regard to this guarantee.
I would point out to the Committee that the Burma Government themselves were not informed of the guarantee at the time, and, because of that, conditions certainly could not have been imposed on the Burma Government such as those suggested by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale. He should realise that this assistance was to the Company and was not to the Burma Government. It was the company which received the guarantee, of which the Burma Government was not aware, and, therefore, it was not possible to say to that Government, "You must do this or that because we are making this guarantee." They are entirely separate entities and cannot be related; but at the same time, in defence of the Burma Government during this period, it should be stated that energetic steps were taken to restore law and order. As I have stated, the military position is, in our view, somewhat improved.
Reference has been made to the terminal payments which will have to be made in one form or another by the Burmah Oil Company. The position is that the company have not been able to carry out their full programme of discharges, since the issue of retrenchment of labour has been referred to the industrial courts because those courts had intervened. Whether this labour can be
2242
discharged or not is before the industrial courts, and the Burmah Oil Company have to keep these men in their employment.
The Government do not consider that they can decide at this particular moment whether there will be a liability on the part of His Majesty's Government to meet these terminal payments. We prefer to leave that to the experts to decide, but we take the point of view that it is not possible for this matter to go on indefinitely. We cannot be subject to an indefinite continuing liability on account of the refusal of the industrial courts to allow these men to be dismissed. We have made representations to the Burma Government for this matter to be solved as quickly as possible in view of our liability. We do not admit liability for these terminal payments, and we seek an early decision on that matter. We are hopeful it will be forthcoming in the not very distant future. It might be pointed out that these terminal payments would presumably have been paid by the Burmah Oil Company whether there had been a guarantee or not.
Mr. Erroll: That is the whole point. A year ago there would not have been an industrial court arbitration, and during 1949 the company were able to dismiss 2,000 men without the excessive terminal payments. The terminal payments only arose because the company operated the guarantee given by His Majesty's Government.
Mr. Davies: That just depends on the date the Burmah Oil Company would have discharged these men had the guarantee not been given. They postponed any discharges contemplated until 7th March, 1949, when our guarantee came in. In other words, in November they proposed to close down on a care and maintenance basis. In practice this did not take place.
I do not think I need deal at any further length with this matter. The guarantee was given after the Burmah Oil Company had spent £6½ million on rehabilitation. We consider that, that money having been spent, and the Burmah Oil Company being such a valuable British asset, it was well worth while to make a guarantee in the hope that we could keep the company operating in Burma, enabling it to rehabilitate itself, and that

2243
it would continue to be a valuable investment for this country. We risked in the event possibly something over £1 million to save that £6½ million and other assets. For the moment, it appears that the £1 million will have to be met out of the taxpayers' money. Some of it remains the property of the Burmah Oil Company, but for the most part the taxpayer will have to meet the bill. We make no defence of doing that, because we consider it was in the circumstances fully justified. Therefore, I would urge the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale to consider withdrawing his Amendment to reduce the Vote.
Mr. Erroll: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved:
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,010,355, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments abroad; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."

CLASS VI VOTE 16. MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, including certain grants and subsidies."

B.O.A.C. (GRANTS)
7.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): Hitherto when I have ventured to say a few words on the subject of civil aviation in this Committee it has been from the more bracing atmosphere above the Gangway, and I feel, therefore, on this occasion that I might properly expect some indulgence from the Committee.
The money sought under this Supplementary Estimate is a token amount only. My noble Friend is placing no additional burden on the taxpayer. Savings in
2244
various directions have been made, which will enable him to meet an additional grant to help cover an increased deficit on the working of B.O.A.C. However, this transfer is a substantial one, and the Committee is entitled to ask for an explanation. I shall, if the Committee wish it, give that explanation under the various heads, and if anyone would like me to answer points later on I shall be glad to try to do so.
The original estimated grant to B.O.A.C. was £3,500,000 and the additional requirement is for £3,057,000. I must say frankly that this will not be the total amount of the Corporation's deficit for the financial year, which has not ended, though it is the maximum which the Exchequer can be asked to meet. An amount of £250,000 of this £3,057,000 is simply a book transfer. It was spent on that purpose for which it was originally voted but under the name of B.O.A.C. instead of B.S.A.C.
There is another item, which though comparatively small, is still most irritating. It is for £207,000 and is an adjustment of the 1946–47 deficiency grant to B.O.A.C. It is largely made up of delayed bills from Government Departments for spares, and other charges by B.O.A.C., carriage of goods and personnel in the early post-war period when immediate accounting was reckoned of less importance than expeditious transport. It is only recently that the need for this adjustment has been brought to light.
The first item in the unforeseen expenditure that has resulted in this deficit is the result of devaluation. I am afraid that devaluation hit the Corporation very sharply. There were immediate increases in overseas station costs, in American type spares, and in fuel taken up in dollar countries. These costs were partially offset by increased earnings, but the net additional increase to the current financial year's deficit is put at £650,000. The biggest and unhappiest item with which we have to deal is the £1¾ million consequent upon the decision to withdraw Tudor aircraft from South American services. This decision, with which no one in the House disagrees was financially calamitous for the Corporation. All the plans had been made for extended services and increased traffic. Ground staffs had been augmented and additional expenditure properly and inevitably in-

2245
curred. Then followed the accident to the "Star Ariel" and the whole pro gramme had to be tom up.
For a time it was contemplated cutting losses and pulling out of the South American area until new machines were available. I am sure it was right not to accept defeat in that way, but the alternative was very costly. Most of the charges on the proposed expanded services still persisted. The obsolescence and insurance costs on the remaining Tudors, for example, still carried on. The expensive crew training had already been carried out, although now completely wasted. To fit out and bring in the old Yorks meant more expense, and although a gallant fight was put up by these machines they could not compete commercially with other modern aircraft against which they flew. Revenue dropped by something round £1,900,000 below the original estimate, a drop of more than 60 per cent. It is easy to lay the blame for this unfortunate business, but I cannot see that anyone can fairly criticise the B.O.A.C. on this Vote for this particular item. I only wish I could say that this Vote represents the end of the bills which will come in on account of Tudor aircraft.
The other major cause for this additional deficit is delay over delivery of new aircraft. It is not only disappointment over new British machines with which the Corporation has had to contend. Of the original six Boeing Stratocruisers due for delivery by March, 1948, only one had been received by November, 1949. In original estimates agreed with the Corporation, it was expected that these machines would be earning money by July of last year. In fact, they completely missed the lucrative traffic of the peak period, and indeed it was the machines that were subsequently bought from Scandinavia for sterling that were put into service in the winter. I suppose I might also mention that fact that the Hermes, the first of which had been promised for July, 1948, is still not operating.
All these delays have not only meant lower revenue than calculated but additional preparatory and planning costs. It is an expensive business to convert air crew to these new types. The Stratocruiser, for example, I am told, costs something like £120 a hour to fly on circuits and bumps, a figure greatly in excess
2246
of what it was in the days when some hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite were taking their ticket on new types of aircraft. These costs, resulting from delays in delivery in new aircraft types, more than account for the remaining sum which the Department propose to transfer.
All I would say now is that this year, 1949–50, has been a difficult one and, I am bound to say, that the financial results, at any rate, are most disappointing. It would be silly to deny it. Although there are explanations and excuses in abundance, neither my noble Friend nor B.O.A.C. under its present Chairman, Sir Miles Thomas, have for one moment relied on those explanations to secure confidence from Parliament or from the taxpayer. I suppose that I ought to refer to some of the measures that have been taken to keep this figure down to the amount I now bring before the Committee.
There has been during the current year a most determined effort to get the Corporation into proper shape. I believe that the spade work which has been done this year will yield results in the next. There has been a re-organisation designed to give greater decentralisation, and the elimination of one tier of administrative officials. At the instigation of my noble Friend there has been an additional economy campaign which has brought down the staff employed by a substantial figure at a time when output has been going up.
After the first flush of post-war optimism, B.O.A.C. expanded to a peak of 24,624 employees, in 1947. This was reduced by 1st April, 1949, to 18,920. As a result of these further measures, the full results of which are still not to hand, the figure has now been reduced to 16,477. I speak only of B.O.A.C. figures as they are comparable with the original ones I quoted. Let me emphasise that these fewer men are putting out greater work. Probably the greatest cause for hope is the fact that at last we are getting modern aircraft into service. Given the proper tools, the Corporation can, I am sure, do the job. There are already hard figures which support that claim. If questions are asked during subsequent contributions I shall be glad to give the sort of figure which I have in mind.
Some hon. Members opposite will agree that in the past I have myself not been

2247
uncritical of the Corporation. I do not propose to forego that right now. I am sure that my noble Friend will welcome constructive criticism from both sides of the House. Nevertheless, I think I can claim that the Corporation is in better shape and is fitter now than before. It has sweated off a good deal of administrative fat. The Chairman in recent months has not had an easy task, nor a pleasant one, and I hope that we are now near a period when every member of the Corporation can feel a better sense of security, with every prospect of getting on rather than getting out. It is dangerous to prophesy in this field of aviation, but, if we pass this Supplementary Estimate, I think there is every reason for guarded optimism for the future. I think we can now claim that we have got over the financial hump. I hope that the Committee will be able to pass this Estimate.
7.18 p.m.
Air-Commodore Harvey: I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary upon his appointment. I am sure that with his knowledge of aviation he will be a great success there. I only hope that he will continue to take the same line of approach to these matters as he took when he was critical of the Corporations as a back bench Member of the House. I should like to apologise for my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who is unable to reply. He is suffering from throat trouble, and I am deputising for him. I apologise for any shortcomings that I may display.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to avoiding placing a burden on the taxpayer. I am not quite clear what he means by that, because the money that has been saved has been spent in another direction. He said that this is a token sum of £10, but I feel that the money allocated by Parliament should have been spent on items like airfields. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles) had a question for the Parliamentary Secretary about flying aids purchased at an airport at Manchester. He did not get a very satisfactory reply. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary had been adequately briefed on that subject.
Safety must be the first essential. If money has not been spent on proper aids
2248
for that airport it should have been spent. To my way of thinking that is bad planning. Only last summer, in the Pennines, a number of people were lost when a Dakota crashed. The facts about that matter have not yet been published. Surely money voted by Parliament should be spent in that way, and I do not think that the Committee will be satisfied that there should be a saving of money in that direction.
I should like to know about airports in the provinces. Are they to remain the property of the municipalities or are they to be taken over by the Ministry of Civil Aviation? The Committee would welcome a list of the airports actually taken over and of the others that are not going to be taken over, so that we might be clear on the point. Some play was made about the nationalising of airports. Cities like Manchester have been very desirous of keeping their airports. I only hope that these cities will be allowed to continue to operate their airports.
Since the end of the war the export of British aeroplanes has steadily risen. The aircraft industry, in aircraft engines and accessories, has made a great contribution to our exports, particularly to the hard currency areas. In 1949 the figure rose to £34,250,000, which was tremendous. However, I am alarmed now at the rate at which imports are rising. Up to 1949 it amounted to £17,250,000, practically all of it in hard currency. That is alarming and is offsetting the contribution which is being made by the industry. I can understand the difficulties of the Minister regarding late deliveries of aircraft. The four Stratocruisers to which he referred were bought from Scandinavia in sterling, but the other six were bought in the United States at a cost of over £6 million, and the Opposition regretted that contract from the very beginning.
At the time I said it was a great mistake to purchase these Stratocruisers at enormous sums, because it would saddle the country with having to purchase spares, spare engines, propellers and accessories in hard currency for years to come; and this was an aircraft which had not really been proved. I do not want to create alarm about these aeroplanes, but I have read quite recently that on two occasions the engine mountings have fallen out, not in this country but

2249
on American airlines. Is the Minister of Civil Aviation quite satisfied about the performance of the Stratocruiser and its reliability? We should like some information on that subject.
We purchased the 11 Constellations for nearly £3 million. It would have been far better to have continued with the Constellations until the time when the Comet and the other aircraft were in service rather than to have branched out into a new type for which the air crews and engineers had to be trained. Also, 22 Canadairs have been purchased for £4,500,000, a total of £13,500,000 upon American aeroplanes.
The hon. Gentleman referred to devaluation. Of course it has hit the aviation industry. It has hit many other industries, such as the British shipping industry. I should like to know whether his Ministry was consulted by the Treasury about devaluation before it took place to see what the effect might be. It is no good the Parliamentary Secretary coming to this House complaining that his Department is hit by devaluation. Many other firms are in a similar position, and they have to make the best of it and increase their turnover.
As has been explained, the American aircraft were bought primarily to fill the gap created by the most unfortunate accidents and grounding of the Tudors. I do not want to go into great detail about the Tudor. It is a long story. I should however like to make one reference to the Report of the Tudor Inquiry, Command Paper 7478, which says:
"The operators put forward requirements for alterations and modifications without apparently paying much regard to their effect on the design of the aircraft and its performance, and the designers accepted these requirements too readily, without first insisting on agreement to the penalties involved."
It goes on to say:
"While the primary responsibility for failure to state requirements must rest on B.O.A.C., the ultimate responsibility rested on the Government Departments concerned to ensure that performance requirements were drawn up and transmitted to the constructors. There was a failure to discharge this responsibility."
I do not want to go into that in too great detail, although I think it is in Order because we are discussing why the losses were brought about. It should be remembered that the constructors were placed at a great disadvantage in this matter.
2250
In many cases these expenditures of millions of dollars have been brought about by delayed action and its consequences. There has been far too much centralised control and there has not been very much clear thinking on some of the subjects. In another place the noble Lord the Minister of Civil Aviation made a statement on 2nd February of last year in columns 492 to 495 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He said that B.O.A.C. had been set a target of £5,500,000 for their deficit in 1949–50, but the noble Lord had announced in another place on 19th January, some two weeks earlier, the withdrawal of the Tudor. If he knew two weeks before that the Tudors were going to be withdrawn, surely he ought to have anticipated the estimated loss or his advisors should have informed him of it.
Now we are being asked to supply another £1,750,000 because of that. These are very large figures. I know that £1,750,000 these days is not much compared with some of the figures which we discuss, but it has to be paid by the taxpayer and we ought not to lose sight of that fact. I do not for one moment think that the noble Lord deliberately misled Parliament. I am sure that he is not the type of man who would do that. I think he was wrongly advised, and he ought to set about his staff for giving him incorrect information.
I want now to refer to the Solent flying-boats which were brought into service in April, 1948, the Corporation knowing perfectly well the relative economics of the landplane and the flying-boat. I know that they changed their minds quite often on that subject, but they ought to have known that. The service was opened with full ceremony and a tremendous Press, and we were led to believe that an era of civil aviation had come to stay. However, in less than two years the service is closed down. It is bad business to inaugurate an expensive service which will have to be closed down in less than two years. The aircraft are left with four-fifths of their life unused. Why was the service ever set up at all? Can we be told the answer to that?
There is also the Princess flying-boat which is being constructed at the Saunders-Roe factory at Cowes. This is a great engineering project in which Britain can and will lead the world, but we are hearing the most dreadful

2251
rumours that the flying-boats may be cancelled and that the construction may not be completed. We should like some assurance that these flying-boats will really be used for the purpose for which they were built. After the merger of British South American Airways with B.O.A.C. we asked for assurances and were given them, but it is very disturbing to the workmen, designers and others in the factory if they are continually to be uncertain because of rumours in the industry. The Minister will be doing a great service to the industry if once and for all he stops these rumours and makes it quite clear that the flying-boats are to be operated. We do not necessarily want to know where, because economics may enter into it.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the Hermes. I agree that it is unfortunate that the Hermes airliner is late in being delivered. I have taken the trouble, as no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary has, to check on the point, and I am assured that it is not altogether the fault of the constructors. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor is pulling a face, but I have gone into it. Had the ancillary equipment which was available some three years ago been accepted the aeroplane could have been ready not on time but earlier than it has been. It was agreed to delay it for some time to bring about a better aeroplane. That is my information. It is the first British airliner to have a self-steering nosewheel. I am told that five of these aeroplanes have already been delivered and that their performance exceeds that laid down in the requirements.
I am concerned about this continual placing of orders with the United States, not only from the point of view of expenditure, but because we shall lose a great deal of knowledge of this industry. Americans are clever people. During the war they built transports and we built fighters. It was expedient and had to be done, but at the end of the war they were in a much better position than we were to build air liners.
Dr. Morgan Dr. Morgan (Warrington) indicated dissent.
Air-Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member shakes his head. Would he like to interrupt and contradict me on this
2252
point? If he knows otherwise, the Committee would like to hear it. The hon. Member knows medicine very well, but I did not know he was interested in aircraft.
The Comet I believe, will be the great saviour of British civil aviation. Its flights are world news almost daily and the Americans are shaken by its performance. Had we struggled along and accepted reduced earnings until it was in service, that would have been the right policy instead of buying Stratocruisers. In 1945, when the Labour Party wrote "Let Us Face the Future," they thought that nationalising civil aviation and having under 200 aeroplanes flying round the world would be a good advertisement for the Labour Government. I do not think any of them really knew the difficulties of operating modern aircraft and they are only now beginning to learn the difficulties involved. We are told every year that the position will get better but it has become only a little better in each succeeding year and we on this side of the Committee are much concerned about the industry.
If we are to have economies in B.O.A.C., why should it be for the Minister of Civil Aviation to bring about an additional economy? Surely that is the job of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation? If they are not up to the job, change them and put in others, but do not bring in piecemeal economies two, three or four times a year. That is unsettling for air crews and everyone else. I ask the Government to give this subject serious consideration in the next few months and see that any cleaning up that has to be done, is done, so that the industry is given a chance to settle down and prove itself, as I am sure it can.
7.32 p.m.
Mr. Rankin: I desire to join with the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) in offering a welcome to my hon. Friend on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I am sure that I speak not only for this side of the Committee but for all hon. Members when I say that we wish him well and hope that all his landings will be happy. I noticed with interest that my hon. Friend is still prepared to be a little critical of the Corporation and is not to depart entirely from his former rôle.

2253
Consequently, I am sure that he will not be too deeply disappointed if his former mantle, however ill it may fit, falls on other shoulders. While I shall not seek to be unduly critical tonight, I want to offer a word of criticism on one aspect of the problem before us.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield that one of our great problems today is to ensure safety in civil aviation. I would not go so far as to place the solution where he placed it, but would rather take the sentence which my hon. Friend employed when he referred to the cost of modern aircraft as being in the region of £120 per flying hour. In making that statement, my hon. Friend put his finger on the big problem confronting this Committee and himself. We are still faced with the fact that, in spite of all we have done on the mechanical and navigational sides, tragedy occurs from time to time in the air. And now we possess the drastic knowledge that the greatest and most tragic occurrence in the history of civil aviation lies to our credit—or to our discredit.
As far as I recollect, the last time we debated civil aviation we prided ourselves that our record in the air as a nation was better than the record of most nations. We cannot say that tonight because of the tragedy which befell us recently. I think this is due to the fact that our approach has not been the proper one. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, when occupying the office of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, gave me figures time and again pointing out that the accidents per million passenger miles for this nation were smaller than for any nation in the world today. That may be true, but the basis of approach is completely false.
I am not interested in the number of casualties per million passenger miles; I am interested in the fate of the individual passengers travelling in a given aircraft. What is the accident rate there? In almost every case it is 100 per cent. Invariably there are no survivors. If that happened when a railway passenger train is involved in an accident—every passenger killed, or nearly all, and perhaps a few survivors maimed for life—if it happened every time two motor buses came into collision, the conscience of this
2254
country would be so profoundly shocked that there would be no peace until that state of affairs was remedied. What happened when we sent ships to sea loaded in such a way that every individual was carried to his death? It was left to Samuel Plimsoll so to arouse the House of Commons that steps had to be taken to end that state of affairs. We want to see similar action in regard to safety in civil aviation.
Because of the fact that we are aiming at greater and greater speed in the air—which we are bound to do, because civil aviation is still dependent on military aviation—I hope that my hon. Friend will press for freedom to develop this service from the point of view of ensuring the complete safety of passengers. It is nice to know that the Comet can go to Rome in two hours and two minutes—why the two minutes was flung in, I do not know—
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: To be accurate.
Mr. Rankin: —but just as top speed has become greater and greater, so the landing and takeoff speeds have become higher and higher. Because of that, these great new modern machines are controllable only at top speed; they are not controllable when they come down to the lower speeds. While we are able to say that on the navigational side, so far as aids are concerned, and on the power side, we have made wonderful progress, when it comes to the problem of human judgment we slide into the old excuse that it is the fault of the pilot. That covers the multitude of sins arising from our own wrong attitude.
Air-Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member referred to the Comet and then proceeded to speak about safety. I hope he is not inferring that these fast aeroplanes are not safe, because the fact that an aeroplane like the Comet operates in the sub-stratosphere makes it very safe indeed. It would be a disservice to this country if the hon. Member were to give the reverse impression. The Comet has a remarkable record in the short time it has been flying.
Mr. Rankin: I think I made it perfectly clear that, as far as top speed was concerned, there is no danger. It is when these high-powered machines come to the

2255
lower landing speeds that the danger that they are uncontrollable develops, and anything may happen, as has been shown time and time again. We cover that up by the expression "human error of judgment." It is in that factor that the greater percentage of accidents today is located.
It is for those reasons that I suggest to my hon. Friend that an aircraft should be designed—for after all, the Corporations must have some say in the type of machine they are to fly—which would ensure safety in the air by having lower landing and take-off speeds. That would certainly affect the top flying speed of the machine, but it would mean that the passengers are given a safety which is at present lacking. I suggest also that the machine to be built with these characteristics should carry in its airframe built-in crash survivability, which, again, would add to the safety of passengers in the event of an unhappy landing.
Now to my final point. It may be suggested that in matters of development we are bound to the speed of development in other countries. There exists, however, an international civil air organisation, and surely, if we can divorce, as I think we can, the development of civil aviation, which must be bound by considerations of safety, from the development of military aviation, then it ought to be possible to secure agreement amongst the other nations in the civil air organisation to ensure that these characteristics of safety are embodied in every new machine which is used for civil aviation. If my hon. Friend, in company with his noble Friend the Minister, can seek to develop civil aviation in this country along the lines I have suggested, I am certain that in the annals of this House he will win for himself a measure of lasting fame.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Malcolm Douglas - Hamilton: I should like to start by congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on his very sincere and honest statement. I do not think he is in any way blinking at the facts. One thing which we on this side have in common with him is that we all want to see British airways operating efficiently and leading the world. The only difference is in our method of approach. In civil aviation generally the first things which should be
2256
considered are the needs of the country and the people, and that regulations should cover first and foremost, as the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) has said, safety in operation; and secondly, they should guard against injurious competition. Within those bounds, however, civil aviation should be left as free as possible to the men who know how to run it.
I think that the history of the Tudor—I do not want to labour this point; the history is an old one now—shows really that we are suffering from the delayed consequences of over-centralised bureaucratic control in civil aviation. The same may be said of the suggestion which has been made of the consequences of the decisions on the Solent flying boat, in connection with whose disposal I want to make a constructive suggestion. We now have these boats on our hands, and it is important that they should be used. Three years ago the then Parliamentary Secretary said that British European Airways were obliged to undertake services of public utility which were unprofitable. He was challenged to allow charter companies to run these services without subsidy, but at that time he did not agree.
There is today a crying need for a service which could be operated and which would be of immense value to the country as well as being, I am convinced, a profitable concern: that is, a service which would serve the West Coast of Scotland, where there are no landing grounds but where there are ample and good flying boat bases. The Parliamentary Secretary said the other day of the dismantling of the flying boat base at Southampton that as most of it was water anyway, it could not be dismantled. He was quite right, because water forms the greater portion of a flying boat base, and on the West Coast of Scotland we have some excellent ones.
All these possibilities of flying boat services illustrate my case for disposing profitably of the Solent aircraft. The service I have suggested would be of immense social value to the West Coast of Scotland and of immense value in earning foreign currency from the tourist trade in that area. By this means we could link the area, which is now without an air service of any kind, from Sutherland, Ross-shire, the Isle of Skye and Argyllshire to the Clyde. It would

2257
be of tremendous benefit to the whole country and, more than anything else, it would enable the Highlands in time to play their full share in economic welfare. I suggest that the Minister should consider seriously disposing of the Solent flying boats either to B.E.A. for this purpose or to a private operator who is prepared to put these services into effect.
To return to the main point of running nationalised airlines, I am convinced that everybody wants to see the airlines in this country a success, but we on this side are nevertheless convinced that, given freedom, independent operators could revolutionise air transport in the United Kingdom.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. Ralph Morley: I would like to develop, of course not at any length, two points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), in the eloquent and very interesting speech with which he opened the Debate from the benches opposite, and by the noble Lord the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton). The first point is the decision of B.O.A.C. to close down the flying boat base at Southampton or temporarily to suspend the activities of that base and to sell the Solents. My remedy for that is not the remedy proposed by the noble Lord. I do not want the Solents to go to Scotland, but to stay in full operation in Southampton.
I also ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the defence position of the country was fully considered when the decision to sell the Solents was arrived at. It will be generally agreed that flying boats can perform a more flexible and a more varied service, perhaps, in times of emergency than land planes are able to perform. If an enemy Power were to occupy the Persian Gulf, we would have to go to the East by way of Mauritius and the Seychelles Islands, and in those conditions it would be necessary to operate a flying boat service which could not be done by a land plane service.
It was shown quite clearly in the last war that flying boats were of great advantage in military operations. I think it is true that flying boats raised the Japanese air blockage on Australia and I think it equally true that flying boats rendered very meritorious service in the Mediter-
2258
ranean and for a time kept the Atlantic route open. If the Solent boats are sold, the only boats which the Royal Air Force have left are the Sunderlands and they are somewhat out of date. From that point of view I think it might be worth while the Ministry reconsidering their decision to sell the Solent boats.
Many passengers prefer flying boats to land planes. They find them more comfortable and, rightly or wrongly, they believe them more safe. I have just been informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. J. Paton) that he thinks flying by flying boats is the most luxurious and magnificent form of travel. I understand the excuse for the decision to sell the Solents is on the grounds of economy, but, when first delivered, the Solents were not in a perfect condition for flying and a good deal of alteration and improvement had to be made to them. The total cost of the Solents to the taxpayer has been in the region of £4,500,000. In addition, about £153,000 was spent upon a berth at the flying boat base at Southampton. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary was altogether correct when, in reply to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) at Question Time yesterday, he said that flying boat bases did not cost anything because they were entirely composed of water. That is not altogether the case—
Lord Malcolm Douglas-HamiltonNot entirely, but mainly.
Mr. Beswick: I did not say that they did not cost anything, but I said it would be difficult to destroy the water element of the flying boat base.
Mr. Morley: I would point out that at Southampton £153,000 has been spent on the berth and £4,500,000 was spent on the Solents. They are to be sold and I do not suppose for a moment that the sale will realise anything like £4,500,000. I do not know to whom we are going to sell the Solents but, seeing that this country is abandoning these flying boats, people in Southampton are wondering where the economy comes in under these conditions. The Solent flying boat has never had a really fair chance to operate at the most economical cost. It has only been operating with 10 boats out of a possible 20. If the whole 20 boats had been operated, there would have been

2259
a considerable spreading of overhead charges which would have made the running of these boats more economical than it has been in the past. At the same time the running costs of the Solents have been gradually reduced during the past few years, until now it is claimed that the Solents can be run at £100 per flying hour.
As a matter of fact, the operational costs of the Solent are less than those of the Hermes, with which it is proposed to be replaced. The Hermes has no commercial record at all and no one knows what its performance would be under commercial conditions. It is not a very fast plane and not altogether up to date. If the Hermes is run instead of the Solent on the route to South Africa, the Hermes will be in competition with Sabena and K.L.M., both of which are faster than the Hermes. South Africans, who form a large proportion of the passengers flying to South Africa, have no very patriotic leanings towards this country and are not likely to prefer a plane because it is British. They will prefer a faster plane, and it is the K.L.M.
Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Member say what exactly is the difference in speed?
Mr. Morley: I have not the precise figures.
Air-Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member is not being fair to this aircraft. Unless he can give the performance, I do not think he is quite playing fair with the British aircraft.
Mr. Morley: I am sorry if I have made a mistake, but my instructions are that the K.L.M. is faster than the Hermes and, from the point of view of speed, passengers would prefer K.L.M. to the Hermes. From another point of view South African passengers, who are mainly of Dutch origin or descent, might have a sentimental reason for preferring K.L.M. planes.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps the best way to help the Solent is not to discredit the Hermes.
Mr. Morley: I am in this position; the Solent is to be displaced by the Hermes. The reason given for substituting the Hermes for the Solent is that the Hermes
2260
is more economical and likely to be more successful from the commercial point of view. I am trying to adduce reasons why it is not likely to prove more successful from a commercial point of view.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can give any definite assurance in regard to the future of the Princess flying boats, which are a magnificent job. They are one of the best-ever achievements of British engineering, but we have not had anything definite as to what is to be done with them, on what routes they are to be flown and when they are to be flown. I believe that when they are put into operation they will make history in civil aviation owing to their speed and the large number of passengers they can carry.
I wish to refer to the unemployment position which will arise in Southampton from the decision to sell the Solents and close down the Southampton airbase. We are somewhat apprehensive as to the future of employment in Southampton because there is a threatened redundancy in Southampton Docks when the summer is reached. We do not at all like the prospects of having another 1,000 or so men added to the number of unemployed ill Southampton through the closing down of Southampton Airport. Of course, I know that some alternative employment is likely to be offered to some of these men, but it will be offered in other towns and the housing difficulty will arise. Very few of them will be able to take the alternative employment offered because of the lack of housing accommodation, and my fear is that these men will drift into other trades, that their skill and experience in this very specialised occupation will be lost to the nation and will not easily be regained should a time of emergency arise.
The opinion is freely expressed by those who are employed at the Southampton Marine Airport that there is prejudice against flying boats in some high quarters in B.O.A.C., and a tendency to put land planes before flying boats. It is suggested that both land planes and flying boats are required in B.O.A.C., that it might be well to have a flying boat of intermediate size compared with the Princess and the Solent and to put the flying boats under a separate executive committee with a chief who is really interested and enthusiastic about flying boats and their development. I hope that even at

2261
this late hour the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give me some reassurance on these points.
8.2 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I should like to take up the question of flying boats which my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) mentioned in a very good speech. That speech aroused in me the hope of flying boat excursions up the West Coast of Scotland, when I might hope, at last, to be able to visit Staffa and Iona, which I have never yet been able to do.
The first question I wish to raise concerns staff reductions. About two years ago I asked the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation about some of the women and girls employed on the staff and urged that they should be made established civil servants with a pension. He said that he was not able to do that at that time. Some of those girls have since had reason to be grateful to the hon. Gentleman because they have left the Ministry of Civil Aviation. They took examinations to enter the Civil Service—one whom I know passed out top—and due to the hon. Gentleman's refusal to make them established civil servants in his Ministry, they have done much better for themselves.
The question of the number of staff to be affected by reduction may create a dangerous position. The numbers had to be reduced, of course. We could not have the money of the Ministry and the tax-prayers being wasted all the time, but I hope that this process is nearing its end. I know personally many of the staff concerned, and I hope that these men and women, who have served the Ministry very well, can now took upon their job as a permanency.
The question has been raised of excursion fares. Whether we are considering flying boats or land planes, the objective is to fill the planes for each trip. It has been suggested to me that the Corporations do not make sufficient reductions in their fares either in the slack season or midweek. Such a reduction might be possible on some services which operate on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday each week. If the Parliamentary Secretary will analyse the position, I believe he will find that seats are often vacant on those services, and it might be pos-
2262
sible to make a small reduction in fare and fill the plane.
The inability of the British aircraft manufacturers as yet to produce, in commercial quantities, a first-class aeroplane since the war has been very disappointing to every member of the Committee. The first name that comes into my mind is that of Short and Harland of Belfast, who last year produced four seaplanes with which a service is being operated at present between Australia and New Zealand. I understand that these seaplanes are operating most effectively and efficiently. I believe that this type is called the Pegasus. We all realise that the Tudors had to go, in view of their record. I hope the time is coming when we shall have a British aircraft produced in the same numbers as the Dakota which, whether known as the Dakota or the Douglas or the D.C., has been a wonderful "bus" in its time. I hope the time is coming when either the Hermes or the Comet will succeed it with a similar record.
Mention has been made of the question of accidents. I was surprised that, in connection with the accident that took place near Ringway Aerodrome, Manchester, in August, 1949, the report and the finding upon it, are only now in print. All of us would be interested to know the reason for that accident. I have spoken to pilots who have to fly by beam in bad weather and they tell me that these beams are not yet technically perfect, that in some places even the fact of a wrought-iron gate being open or closed would make a difference to the beam. I hope with the publication of that report all of us will learn more about that subject. In the case of one report, the Minister disagreed with it after it was published. It might be advisable for the Minister—
The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. and gallant Member's remarks are very wide of what is contained in this Supplementary Estimate.
Sir W. Smiles: The question of accidents has been raised by two previous speakers, but I will leave that subject, expressing the hope that these approaches, especially at Ringway Aerodrome, Manchester, will be perfected as soon as possible.

2263
During the past five years no one has been very critical in civil aviation Debates. Members have felt that the Ministry and the aeroplane manufacturers had not had a fair chance since the war to catch up with the Americans. I believe that in future the House will be critical, and I hope that the Ministry and manufacturers will do so well that they will deserve no criticism.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. Grimond: I feel that if civil aviation is to pay and become a really prosperous and soundly based industry it must make itself more popular and break down the feeling that air travel is a matter only for the very rich and is really a luxury form of travel. We must create a habit of air travel which has perhaps been lacking in this country up to now. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles) referred to the possibility of cutting mid-week fares, which would do something to encourage travel at that time. Now that transport is largely under State control of one form or another we should also be able to make sure that railway and air services, for example, are closely integrated. We must get rid of the feeling that one has to go to London to start one's air journey. The question of aerodromes enters into that aspect of the matter.
I feel that a great deal of attention should be paid to the improvement of aerodromes all over the country, and that this should not merely be done at one or two main centres. In my constituency, an island constituency, there grew up a great habit of air travel among ordinary people through the improving of the services and the spreading of landing grounds throughout the islands. Some of the services have had to be withdrawn and I would ask my hon. Friend to consider whether he cannot do something to improve and extend the services—
Mr. Beswick: I should like to give the information to the hon. Gentleman but am I not right, Sir Charles, in thinking that this Debate should really be confined to matters appertaining to the British Overseas Airways Corporation?
The Deputy-Chairman: I was just on the point of stopping the Chief Liberal Whip.
Mr. Grimond: I was merely trying to make the point, as an example, that the public would respond to better services by this Corporation.
I feel that the air services of this country are still largely in the pioneer stage, and we should like some assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that every encouragement will be given to pioneers who have new ideas, both in the Corporation and in industries concerned with the design of aircraft. We have had suggestions today about the use of flying boats which I feel are very valuable. We know that in the past, perhaps we have not been very generous to pioneers who have done a great deal to build up the air services of this country, both as servants of the Corporation, or as independent people running charter flights or in other ways. We are still in the pioneer stage and we must give as much help as possible to people who have such ideas to put before us.
8.11 p.m.
Group-Captain Wilcock: I also wish to offer my congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary who is not only a personal friend, but a pilot. His experience will I am sure help him tremendously in the problems he will meet in his new office.
I have always had great sympathy with the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Parliamentary Secretary and the boards of the Corporations. If they make a loss, there is a heap of criticism from hon. and right hon. Members opposite. If they endeavour to prevent a loss by making economies, getting rid of staffs and shutting down bases, again there is plenty of criticism from hon. Members opposite. It must be quite a difficult life which they have to lead. I want to add to their difficulties tonight by endeavouring to persuade them not to make any economies of a transport nature on the South American route. If they are looking for places to make economies, there may be something there to attract them, but I believe that in the long view it would be a great mistake.
There has been built up on that route and in that community of South America a very high reputation for British organisation. The fact that it was British South American Airways does not matter; it was British Airways. There

2265
are many people in the Caribbean and in South America whom we, as a trading nation, would be very short-sighted to lose as customers. I was over that route in the last few weeks and I was astonished to find the warm feeling towards British aviation in that area. I hope that the Minister or the board of British Overseas Airways will not think that it would be an economy to close any part of this route or to withdraw the organisation. I feel sure that it would be far from an economy and that it would be extremely short-sighted.
The noble Lord the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) spoke about operating flying boats to Scotland, and I think that that is an excellent suggestion. But will hon. and right hon. Members opposite mind if that adds a million or two to the deficiency of B.O.A.C. operations? It is the right thing to do, and in the same way, it is the right thing to continue our efforts in the South American sphere, although it will cost money. We shall lose money by so doing.
Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: May I say that the point I wanted to make was that the suggestion be investigated, not that we should rush into it with the object of making a loss.
Group-Captain Wilcock: The noble Lord knows as well as I do that it would be very difficult economically to operate flying boats in this country, although it might be a good thing to do so from the point of view of the industry. I believe that there is a future in flying boats, but it will cost money. Are we prepared to accept the fact that it will cost money? Flying boat bases are very expensive, even though they consist largely of water. There is the question of transportation and lighters and so on and it is a costly business, but I should be extremely sorry to see them go.
Sir Peter Macdonald: Is not it equally costly to build 3,000-yard runways of concrete, which cost millions of pounds? With a flying boat base we have a base laid down for us by nature.
Group-Captain Wilcock: I do not think that there is any comparison. A flying boat base must be in an area where it is out of the way of shipping and so on, and it must be in sheltered waters.
2266
All these things must be considered in connection with a flying boat base; whereas a land base, once it is put down, is fit for operation probably for 300 or more days out of the 365. I do not think that the two things can be compared. I would support the suggestion with regard to flying boats, but will hon. and right hon. Members opposite accept the cost of these uneconomical aircraft without offering criticisms—from their very high knowledge of operating aircraft—every time a public corporation loses money?
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), who has a wide experience of operating aircraft, made one remark upon which I must comment. He talked about the Labour Government losing money operating aircraft. The Labour Government do not operate aircraft; it is the public corporations, including men with flying experience, who operate the aircraft. If they cannot operate them economically, we in the House must take the responsibility for the loss. We cannot have it both ways.
I said that I was going to make it more difficult for the Ministry. I ask them to go on operating on the South American route and to keep the passenger handling facilities open, although it will cost us money, because I am sure that in the long run it will be worth while. In the Same way, I support flying boats being operated to Scotland; but that will cost money, and we must realise it and give the Corporation support in this matter,
8.18 p.m.
Mr. Mikardo: I think it would be generally agreed that we have had a thoughtful non-partisan and serious Debate. Perhaps the atmosphere in which we have debated this difficult subject, the consciousness which both sides of the Committee clearly have of the difficulties facing the Corporation and the desire of both sides of the Committee to assist in overcoming them, are due to the thoughtful and equitable speeches with which this Debate was opened; both by the Parliamentary Secretary for this side of the Committee and the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) for the other side. Indeed, if I may say so without offence to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd)

2267
I thought, while listening to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, that the Committee had not been robbed by the accident which temporarily made silent the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and projected the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield on to his own Front Bench.
There was perhaps one exception to the atmosphere of non-partisan helpfulness in which the Debate has been conducted, and that was contained in the earlier part of the third successive maiden speech of the hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) who clearly has not totally recovered from the hurly-burly of the election contest. He allowed himself one or two of the standard platitudes which he no doubt used with great effect upon his electors in Inverness about bureaucratic over-centralisation and all the standard jargon of the anti-Socialist doctrinaires. He was very vehement about these things, and I hope that I am not being impertinent if I suggest in all friendliness to the hon. Member, that he will enrich our Debates on Civil Aviation even further when he allies knowledge to his vehemence. I hope that I may remind him without offence that this nationalisation of the British Overseas Airways Corporation which he so wholeheartedly condemns, was not carried out by any Labour Government. It was carried out before the war.
The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that we can discuss nationalisation on this Vote.
Mr. Mikardo: With the very deepest respect, which anyone must have who has sat under your guidance, Sir Charles, I suggest that the hon. Member has said that the loss—and hence this Vote—was due to nationalisation. I am merely pointing out that, if that were so, he must make his case against the wicked gentlemen on his side of the Committee who were guilty of this vile act of nationalisation in 1939.
There are two points upon which I should like to comment. My hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), and some succeeding speakers, referred to the question of accidents. On this point I think that my hon. Friend was wrong. He said that in previous Debates we had discussed the accident rate of
2268
British aircraft and that we had then said that the accident rate of this nation was the lowest in the world. He regretted that we could not now say that, because of the regrettable accident which was costly in lives which took place a week or two ago.
It is not sensible to talk about the accident rate of the nation. We are discussing the British Overseas Airways Corporation, and the magnificent record of comparative freedom from accidents which the Corporation has, cannot be blotted out by the fact that a private enterprise company, which may not measure up in its work to the standards of the Corporation, has been so unfortunate as to have a grave accident. I think that it is right to say—and if I am wrong I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me—that it is still as true now as it was when it was said by his predecessor some time ago, that there is no large airline anywhere in the world—
Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order. The question is sub judice, with a public inquiry to be held and it is most unfortunate that these remarks should be made when everybody else has avoided the subject.
Mr. Mikardo: I am referring to the freedom from accidents of the British Overseas Airways Corporation.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a matter which touches some people's personal happiness very deeply. There have been three fatal Tudor crashes. Two have happened under a Government Corporation and one under a charter company. It is undesirable to refer to them at all, but it is most ungenerous and inaccurate for the hon. Gentleman to attempt to suggest that this happens exclusively in charter concerns.
Mr. Mikardo: If I had suggested that, that would be so; but the hon. Gentleman really must not be so touchy in refinding his voice. If he is anxious that one should not cause unhappiness, he ought not to have interrupted me when I was about to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm the fact, which I believe is still true, that no other major airline in the world has a freedom from accidents as good as the British Overseas Airways Corporation. I should have

2269
thought that even hon. Gentlemen opposite would have found some consolation in that and that they would not get "het up" about it. I was in the middle of that very sentence—as the hon. Member will confirm if he looks at HANSARD tomorrow— when he interrupted.
The point I want to make is that this very high record of freedom from accidents in B.O.A.C. is a costly business. I beg hon. Gentlemen to realise what is the connection in the terms of the economics of aircraft operation, between the freedom from accidents and the deficit, the bill for which we are being asked to approve now. No one in this Committee would advocate skimping the safety, the repair and maintenance and the overhaul services of our airways Corporations, and hence endangering lives, in order to save money. I am sure we shall all be agreed that the best salesman for any airways corporation is a good safety record. We should all be agreed, too, that there is no price which one can pay for lives. But let us bear in mind that there is another side to the matter and that we get this magnificent record of freedom from accidents by a standard of servicing, maintenance, repair and overhaul which is unequalled anywhere in the world and which really does cost a great deal of money.
I have the opportunity of seeing some of this work at first hand. I am sure that hon. Members would be most impressed at the thoroughness, the Meticulous care, and the sparing of no trouble and expense which is involved to ensure that the aircraft of the Corporation fly with the greatest freedom from the risk of accident. I say at once that we ought to bear in mind that some of this Vote—it is impossible to say how much—is for the cost of additional safety in British aircraft. Therefore, we ought not to begrudge it for a moment.
The only other point upon which I wish to comment has also been raised by a number of hon. Members. It will be clear to anyone who has listened to the Debate that the connection between the welfare of British aviation and the welfare and efficiency of the British aircraft manufacturing industry is very close indeed. If we are to fly British, as we are all anxious to do at the earliest possible moment, and if at the same time we are
2270
to put the Corporations on a paying basis, it is necessary that the British aircraft manufacturing industry, which stands behind both the R.A.F. and the civil flying services, should be at a very high peak of efficiency.
I doubt whether anybody, even the most ardent defender of that industry, would say that it is at present running at a very high peak of efficiency. I de not want to be controversial about this. The industry has had to face very grave difficulties. The change-over from manufacturing under war-time conditions to manufacturing under peace-time conditions was very difficult. It had to be made by the British manufacturers at a time when manufacturers in some other countries were not facing anything like the same difficulties, because even during the war they manufactured civil types, or so-called military types which were very little different from civil types.
Nevertheless, I think it is not being ungenerous to say that in some respects the British aviation industry has been badly let down by the British aircraft manufacturing industry. I tremble to think what would have happened if the story of the Hermes had been the story of a publicly-owned rather than of a privately-owned enterprise. If indeed the continual promises which were made, broken, made again, broken, remade and rebroken; if this sad story of a continued failure to carry out promises, a continued failure to take into account even the most readily forseeable contingencies in the development of these aircraft, had been the story of a publicly-owned industry, the amount of scream that would have gone up from hon. Gentlemen opposite, through the Press of the country, would have been most formidable.
Air-Commodore Harvey: Why does the hon. Member refer only to the Handley Page Company's Hermes and say nothing about the Stratocruisers, which are a year late in being delivered?
Mr. Mikardo: I do not say anything about that. I do think that two blacks do not make a white, however.
Sir P. Macdonald rose—
Mr. Mikardo: Perhaps I may first reply to the hon. and gallant Member for

2271
Macclesfield. The hon. and gallant Member must not let himself down by the "I am bigger than you or you are bigger than me" type of argument. If we are let down by the American aircraft manufacturers in what everybody agrees is a temporary phase in America, that is no reason why we should not all hope that the British manufacturers will stop letting down the British aviation industry. Let us not fool ourselves about this. Looking after British airlines is not a high priority with American aircraft manufacturers. It ought to be a high priority with British aircraft manufacturers, but it does not seem to be a high priority with them. There are some firms in the industry doing magnificent work. De Havilland and the Comet have already been referred to and I am sure we have all been thrilled by the excellent work they have done.
Sir P. Macdonald: Before the hon. Member goes on about one particular company and one particular type of aircraft, will he tell the Committee how many modifications were imposed upon this firm and that particular type of aircraft by the Government and by the Ministry of Supply in the course of its construction?
The Deputy-Chairman: I hope the hon. Member will not do that. It would be out order.
Mr. Mikardo: As always, Sir Charles, I bow to your Ruling. I am not trying to slit anyone's throat. I do appreciate the difficulties which they and other firms have had. What I am trying to point out is that a large part of this Vote which we are discussing today is in the nature of a disguised subsidy to the British aircraft manufacturing industry. Perhaps it is inevitable that that should be so. Under modern conditions, in which aircraft become obsolescent and even obsolete very quickly indeed, and when numbers of aircraft are required, it is very difficult to run an aircraft manufacturing industry at all without having a subsidy from somewhere, and all over the world both aviation and aircraft manufacture are being heavily subsidised and are making losses.
Let us be clear about this. We may criticise as much as we like the British Airways Corporations. If any of them had been listening to us today they would have come to the conclusion that they are nobody's sweethearts. Hon. Members
2272
opposite have criticised them. Hon. Members on this side of the House have criticised them. Even the Parliamentary Secretary does not altogether break a lance in their defence. But when we criticise them, let us bear in mind that the bill they have presented is partly a bill for themselves and partly a bill for other people. The price we are being called upon to pay today is to some extent the price of maintaining in the British aircraft manufacturing industry a potential which can be rapidly expanded for war purposes if, unhappily, that should ever be necessary—a potential which to some extent uses civil aviation as its test tube, its place for trying out these ideas. In many ways these losses represent money paid by way of a subsidy to the manufacturing industry.
As I have already said, there are many difficult problems about this industry and, as I have also said, it is a realisation of these problems which has prompted the constructive tone of this Debate. It is my earnest desire that this industry in the future, as at present, will continue to give the maximum help, without any undue spirit of partisanship, to the Parliamentary Secretary and even to the boards of the corporations in the very difficult task they have of ensuring that the British aircraft industry is an expanding one, a safe one and a successful one.
8.34 p.m.
Mr. Beswick: I should like, first, to thank those hon. Members who gave me their good wishes. I am sure they will join with me in paying tribute to my predecessor in this office whose helpfulness we all greatly appreciated. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) about the way in which this Debate has been conducted. I am grateful to those hon. Members who have made so many interesting suggestions, and I would also agree that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) opened the Debate in a very reasonable way. I should like, however, to take up one or two points which he made.
First, there was the suggestion that he made that some of these savings that my noble Friend has been able to make in the past year have been at the expense of safety. It would be out of order for me to go into details of how these savings

2273
have been made, but I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that they have not been made at the expense of safety, and that it is quite wrong to suggest that it is only on the ground of expense that we have not as yet replaced the S.B.A. system at Ringway. I would say also to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles) that it is a little unfortunate to talk about that accident at Ringway before the findings of the court have been published.
Now I should also like to mention one other thing about which the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke, the question of the Tudors. I refuse to be drawn on this matter of the history of the Tudors, but I cannot allow this myth of governmental interference to develop. It was not because of governmental interference that there were all those difficulties over the. Tudor aircraft. I know very well what the hon. and gallant Gentleman read out, but there were many other remarks that were made by those two reports, and I think it is wrong to emphasise the one which the hon. and gallant Gentleman read out. In any case, those items to which he made reference were very minor, interior items and did not relate to the fundamental change in design, which was the real cause of the difficulty.
I was asked about the Stratocruisers and the service they were giving to B.O.A.C. There have been teething troubles with the machines, but I can say that the Corporation has been able to identify the cause of those troubles, and we have not had the same difficulties with them as, the hon. and gallant Gentleman apparently heard, the American companies have experienced. I should like to say another thing about the Stratocruisers. If I say much about them I shall have quoted against me something I said two years ago when I suggested we ought to have Constellations instead of Stratocruisers. However, it is a fact that the people who are now operating them, who have brought them over and put them into service, have all the facts and operating data at their disposal, and they are confident that with these machines they can do better on the North Atlantic route than they could have done with Constellations. I emphasise the fact that we shall be competing against American companies using this particular machine; and, after all, in other
2274
contexts we are told that American air line companies have a commercial instinct that we should follow.
With regard to the deficit of the Corporation, I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield was right when he said that my noble Friend had no wish to mislead Parliament when he presented last year's figures. He had no wish to do so, and he did not in fact mislead Parliament. He made it quite clear, with his characteristic frankness, when he produced those targets on 2nd February last year, that they were likely to be upset by the accident—or the consequences of the accident—that had taken place only a few days earlier. Again, in this Chamber my predecessor referred to the operational changes which would result from this Tudor disaster. If anyone wishes to suggest that there have been any other attempts to mislead the country or Parliament about the way things were going with B.O.A.C., I would refer them to the very frank statement made at the beginning of this year, before the election, by the Chairman of the British Overseas Airways Corporation.
Many hon. Members in various parts of the Committee have asked me about policy with regard to flying boats. It seems an extraordinary thing that when any opinion is expressed or a decision is made either way about flying boats, almost by convention we say "It is due to prejudice." I have looked at the figures in relation to the Solents, and there is no prejudice about this matter at all. If these machines were to operate profitably, even so far as the operation was concerned, on the figures supplied to me they would have to be full every time they flew, and three people would have to be sitting on the wings and paying full fares. It would only be on this basis that we could break even on the overall operating costs of these flying boats. I have something to say later about the savings which have resulted from the substitution of more modern machines along the Far Eastern routes.
I might mention—if I can do so and still remain in Order—that some of the savings which have enabled us to offset this deficit, did in fact flow to the Department as a result of the closing down of the marine bases on the Far Eastern routes. May I answer a further question? If these machines were not

2275
economic, why were they put into operation comparatively recently? I think that is a fair question, but then we should also ask ourselves: If the Solents were not used along these routes at that time, what other aircraft were available? The answer is, None at all.
Tudors have been mentioned. Does anyone say that we should have put Tudors along these routes? We could have gone to the Americans and tried to buy some aircraft with dollars, but we have been criticised today already for buying too many American aircraft. The fact of the matter was that if these routes were to be maintained it was essential to use the only machines available, and they were flying boats. They served us well. They are most acceptable to the travelling public, but they are not economic to use. May I say about flying boats generally that I agree with the statement made that so far the flying boat, as a flying boat, has not been given a fair chance. It is not until we get something over 200,000 1b. all-up weight that we can get to an economic stage for flying boats. The Princess flying boat has I think, something in the order of 300,000 lb. all-up weight, and it is a very different proposition.
As the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) knows, I have been down to his constituency once or twice, and I agree with what has been said from behind me about these really beautiful ships that are being built in the yards of the Isle of Wight. I can say that these new flying boats are going to be put into operation, but exactly on what routes we cannot say at the moment. It is the intention, however, when they come along, and after they have been tried, tested and proven, that they shall be put into operation, and I personally look forward to the day when I shall be given a flight in one of these big flying boats. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) made some very interesting observations about safety, but I do not think I should be in order if I were to follow him in his line of thought.
May I say, in relation to the possibility of using Solents along the West Coast of Scotland, that it is a most attractive proposition? I do not think that we can rightly complain of the deficits of these Corporations and expect them to take
2276
on this particular task, but I would suggest to the hon. Member that if there is anyone who would like to put up a proposition to the Air Transport Advisory Council I am sure that it would be considered, and we would be very glad to find purchasers for these flying boats. As far as our case is concerned, it would tend to be in support of the application, although with that support there would be no undertaking to provide bases round the West coast of Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley), also had something to say about these flying boats, and I am sure we all admire the persistence with which he presses the claims of his constituents in this matter. I must repeat, however, that we are asked to reduce the deficit of these Corporations, and that we are doing that, but it is impossible to bring down this deficit if we have to fly these uneconomic machines. As for the possible redundancy, already the appropriate trade unions have been consulted, and whatever is done will be done in conjunction with and in agreement with the appropriate bodies.
I now wish to say a few words about the prospects of new machines, and to refer to the change that has taken place along some of the routes, giving a further reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen. These figures which I now give support the claim I made that the Corporation can do an economic job if it is given the proper tools. On the Kangaroo route to Australia, for example, the substitution of Constellations for Hythes was estimated to yield a saving of £1 million a year, and expectations so far have been more than realised. On the Far East route, where Argonauts have replaced the Plymouth flying boats, a saving at the rate of £750,000 a year is already being shown. A big operational deficit is again turned into a substantial surplus. I would mention in relation to the Argonauts that I think it is wrong simply to describe them as "dollar aircraft." They have got British Rolls-Royce engines, and I can say that all the way down the route these Argonauts are making friends, and the British engines are giving excellent service.
Altogether, on four principal routes on which the Argonauts and Constellations have been introduced, an operating

2277
deficiency of £149,000 in the last quarter of 1948 has been turned into a very useful surplus of £340,000 in the same quarter of 1949. I would stress, too, the nature of the Kangaroo route, because I think it is especially encouraging. Along that route we are now flying the same aircraft type as our Australian comrades in Qantas, and we share the same ground facilities. This was the ideal Commonwealth co-operation at which we originally aimed. It is a good thing financially and politically. I hope that the day is not too far distant when this same sensible co-operation will extend not only on that Commonwealth route but along all other Commonwealth routes. I join my voice with those of other hon. Members in saying that I also should like to see these routes flying, not only the British flag but the flag flown by British aircraft, and I can say that the encouraging progress of the Comet, so far does much to sustain that hope.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved:
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, including certain grants and subsidies."

CLASS IX VOTE 2. MINISTRY OF FOOD
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,880,400, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies; and sundry other services."

IMPORTED MEAT SUPPLIES
8.50 p.m.
Mr. Thornton - Kemsley: I beg to move that Subhead H (Trading Services (Net)) be reduced by £100.
In asking the Committee to turn its attention from Civil Aviation to the Trading Supplementary Estimates of the Ministry of Food, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his assumption to office. He brings to his new office a recognised ability, a human approach and a charm of manner
2278
which have contributed to the regard in which he is held in all quarters of the House. We on these benches wish him well with his national house-keeping.
If the Minister has inherited some troubles from his late but not lamented predecessor which he would rather be without, an empty larder is not one of them. His problem is not so much to secure sufficient stocks to meet the rations, but to store the supplies to which he has fallen heir. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last week brushed aside an increase in the Estimates of the Ministry of Food on the grounds that stocks held had increased by something like £24 million more than was estimated. It would be very much easier to follow the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman if the Committee could be told exactly what stocks were held and the value of those stocks. We on these benches have repeatedly pressed that stocks of food should be divulged. We have it on the authority of "The Economist" that stocks of wheat are something like twice as heavy as they were a year ago, that stocks of bacon, cheese and butter are more than three times as heavy, and that other stocks, with the exception only of sugar, have increased by something like 25–50 per cent.
I hope that the Minister is not going to follow his predecessor's practice of refusing to divulge food stocks to the House and the country. The Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade publish stocks of the commodities for which they are responsible, and in which they trade, in the Monthly Digest of Statistics. The late' Minister of Food told us a year ago that publication of stocks of food would not be in the public interest. Why should this be the case? It is possible for traders to work out stocks that are held in the country. Meat stocks, for instance, must be known to a great many people. It is quite easy to work them out from ascertainable figures of imports, home slaughterings and consumption. There would be no difficulty whatsoever for, let us say, the commercial attaché at the Argentine Embassy to work out these sums for himself. I can see no reason whatsover for a refusal to divulge the stocks, and I ask the Minister of Food to let us know what they are.
What is the reason for the stockpiling of food which has gone on apace during the past year? In time of war when

2279
shipping is short it is a good thing that stocks should be built up, because it is not always the case that shipping is available. Stocks in this country today are much higher than was customary before the war. Because of the amount of these stocks we are using refrigerated ships as static stores, and in consequence we have not been able to lift all the meat available for us in the Argentine and in Uruguay. Denmark has been asked to withhold supplies of bacon and our cold stores are cluttered up with New Zealand and Australian frozen rabbits and hares and Polish geese, which are virtually unsaleable at the present time.
In the short time which I have available tonight I want to concentrate on the Supplementary Estimate on Trading Services in respect of the meat and livestock division, where the increase has been of the order of 55 per cent. above the estimated amount.
Before the war 95 per cent. of our supplies of beef from South America came in the form of that most nutritious and edible food, chilled beef. In that case it went straight—
Mr. Keenan: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that 95 per cent. of the meat imported before the war was chilled?
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to me he would have heard that I said that before the war 95 per cent. of our imports of beef from South America came in the form of chilled beef. That is a fact; the hon. Member may shake his head but it makes no difference to that fact. That beef went straight into consumption. The balance of the stocks that were imported and were not held by the meat works overseas, were fairly evenly spread along the pipeline between producer and consumer.
Contrast that with the position today. Privately owned cold stores at the ports are filled to capacity, and the remote inland stores owned by the Government and strategically placed as an insurance against bombing during the war are filled too. Fifteen refrigerator ships have been pressed into service at a cost of no less than £250,000 in respect of storage charges over and above the cost of storing
2280
on land. That is saying nothing whatever of the high cost of the double handling and extra transportation involved. This seems to me to be a very expensive way of doing things.
What is the object? It cannot be to strenghten our bargaining power since the bargains were already struck before this storage fetish reached its height. The Committee should examine some of these bargains for a moment, because an understanding of our monetary commitments is essential if we are to see why the original Estimates have been so grossly miscalculated. We are concerned here with three Argentine Agreements which for the sake of brevity I will refer to by their trade names—Bulk Purchase Number 7, Bulk Purchase Number 8, which is the Andes Agreement, and Bulk Purchase Number 9, which is the 1949 Anglo-Argentine Agreement. The shipments under Bulk Purchase Number 8 were 70,000 tons short. In June of last year Bulk Purchase Number 9 was signed. Like its predecessors it suffered from the fact that it was negotiated not by experts but by diplomatic and permanent officials. The price under Bulk Purchase Number 9 was 33¼ per cent. in advance of the price under Bulk Purchase Number 8. Later, this price was made retrospective to 1st April, 1949. That is an appropriate date, since we have to pay an increased price for the 70,000 tons, due under Bulk Purchase Number 8, but actually delivered to us under Bulk Purchase Number 9 terms. That piece of folly cost us £1.3 million.
Other imported meat from the Dominions—Australia and New Zealand—has gone up in price, too, during the current financial year. I can give the figures, but I want, at this late hour, to keep my speech as brief as I possibly can. All these figures are at the pre-devaluation rate. What is to happen after that? That matter is under discussion at Buenos Aires at the present time—I am speaking now mainly of meat from Argentina—between the commercial Minister at the British Embassy, a gentleman who rejoices appropriately in the name of Mr. Joint, and the Argentine Government. Under the Anglo-Argentina Agreement, 1949, Bulk Purchase Number 9, the basic price of £97 5s. per long ton was agreed for the first year of the five-year contract. What has not been

2281
fixed is the rate of exchange at which this basic price is to be paid.
In respect of all shipments between 18th September last and 17th January this year we have had to credit Argentina through our joint clearings with sufficient sterling to offset the degree of devaluation of the £. It is very doubtful whether Mr. Joint will be able to do any better than that in his discussions, and I think we shall have, in future contracts, to deposit again sufficient sterling to make up for the degree of devaluation. The pre-devaluation rate of exchange was 13.53 pesos to the £. The post-devaluation rate of exchange is 9.40 to the £, a drop of very nearly 40 per cent. The prices that we pay for Argentine meat have already risen by 62¾ per cent. since the expiry of Bulk Purchase Number 7 in the first quarter of 1948. An addition of a further 40 per cent. in respect of devaluation will mean that the price of Argentine meat will have doubled in two years. I wonder whether the Committee realise the seriousness of the implication of a statement like that, the doubling in price of a large amount of our imported meat in two years.
Let me give one example. Before the war, Argentine chiller quality beef in chilled condition would sell at Smithfield Market at 5½d. 1b. Before devaluation, the same meat, but frozen and much less palatable, was costing 1s. 0½d. per 1b., whereas, at the post-devaluation rate it has cost 1s. 5d. Even so, the rise in meat prices is cushioned by a subsidy of £50 million which is included in the food subsidies, which are now running at the Chancellor's limit of £465 million a year. To reduce stocks by increasing rations, which I have no doubt is what the Minister would like to do, would mean either increasing the subsidy or allowing the price of food to rise.
I should like in rather lighter vein to call attention to a gross piece of bad administration which is responsible in some degree for the rise in these Supplementary Estimates. I want to talk about frozen imported rabbits, hares and geese, to which I have already made a brief reference. There are in store at present over 500,000 60-lb. crates of frozen Australian rabbits which have been brought into the country by the Ministry of Food and are a sufficient supply for 12 months. Because these rabbits are
2282
practically unsaleable, since last Chrismas the prices have been cut by 40 per cent. I am told by someone who has seen them recently that they are already mouldering and perishing.
This is a perfect example of the rigidity of the official mind. Someone in the Ministry made up his mind that a 10 weeks' stock was the proper reserve to hold in respect of these frozen rabbits. Distribution was therefore fixed at roundabout 30,000 crates a week. Last summer stocks rose to above the 500,000 level, yet the output was still fixed at around 30,000 crates a week. If the advice of the trade had been taken—it never was taken during the regime of the late Minister—stocks could have been cleared when the meat ration was down to 10d. and when bacon was in short supply, for I am told that at that time crates of these imported rabbits were selling on the black market at a premium of £2 a crate. Instead of listening to the advice of the experts, the Ministry of Food officials, worrying their bureaucratic heads about the question of replacement, lost a great chance of selling out at a moderate price. Now the loss on this item alone is unlikely to be less than £1 million.
Frozen Australian hares provide another example. Over 300,000 of them are in stock. Including storage, they cost about 7s. each. They could have been sold to Germany last year at 6s. a hare, but the late Minister, who had lost so much on his sale of Algerian wine that he was frightened of producing any further losses, refused to allow the sale. These hares are now unsaleable at 2s. 6d. each, so his unfortunate successor has been saddled with a loss in the region of £100,000 in respect of this item. There is very much the same story in the case of Polish geese. The Government could have bought high grade turkeys at rather less than the price at which they chose instead to go on a wild goose chase to Poland. They imported thousands of crates of frozen geese which they can now only sell at a loss which would be catastrophic to a private trader.
Such are the follies of the planners. What is the moral of all this? It is that if losses of this kind are to be avoided in future we should do what the Select Committee on Estimates, a body in the last Parliament of which 22 out of the

2283
35 members were Socialists, recommended in its 13th Report. It said:
"There is in the present system"—
That is, of the importation and distribution of meat—
"room for economy. The present machinery of procurement and distribution should be overhauled."
We should make a start now with handing back the trade to the experts. Government trading in the procurement of food wastes the money of the taxpayer, it produces less and poorer meat, and the housewife has to take what she is offered or go without. It took many months to prepare for D Day; let us start preparing now for decontrol.
9.11 p.m.
The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): I must begin my first speech from the Box by thanking the hon. Member for Angus, North, and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) for the kind words he said about my arrival in this rather hot seat at the Ministry of Food. I wish he could have found it in his heart to support his kind words by kind acts and let me have my Supplementary Estimate, but apparently his kindness must be confined to words. However, I am grateful for the sincere things he said, and I hope that at least he will refrain from dividing on this Vote and let me have my Estimate.
The hon. Member put his views in a moderate way and I have no complaint to make, except that I regret what he said about my predecessor. I want to make it quite clear to the Committee and to the public that if ever I am able in the next few months to relieve the burden of people in this country, it will be largely because of the excellent work done by my predecessor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I am not seeking the cheers of the other side, I am saying quite sincerely what I think and know, and in this post the Secretary of State for War did many excellent things. If I and the public can reap the benefit from them, I shall be grateful, but I want the credit to go to the right place.
To come straight to the issues of this matter we are discussing, I am afraid that many of the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman are not really relevant to the Supplementary Estimate, and we must keep to that. Before I consider
2284
the criticisms he made, however, I want to deal with one or two general considerations. The Committee must judge this Estimate against the scale of our operations. It is an Estimate for £13 million odd. After all we are a trading Department and the ordinary tests of probity and of efficiency and of management in Government Departments cannot be applied in quite the same way to the Ministry of Food. We are engaged, in association with private business, in buying and distributing food for 50 million people. Therefore, in judging the efficiency of our work and the effectiveness of our estimates, we must take into account some other standards.
So I want to remind the Committee that our turnover last year was no less a sum than £1,628 million and hon. Members must judge this figure of £13 million against that background in order to get it in the right proportion. Then, being a trading Department, it is obviously not possible for us to estimate ahead with the precision of other Departments, because we are dealing with all sorts of speculative matters—of harvests and of demands and changes in tastes and things of that kind—and it is not always possible to foresee trading possibilities. For example, a few days ago we effected an admirable arrangement in Washington that will bring to this country at a good price a large quantity of dried eggs.
Mr. Stanley: Are those the ones which the City of New York refused to take as a free gift?
Mr. Webb: No, these are the ones which the bakers and the confectioners of this country are very glad to have, and we got them at a very good price. Nobody could have foreseen, in preparing the estimates of our trading operations for this year that those dried eggs would have been available. That is the kind of problem which arises in a trading Department, and any business man on the other side of the Committee will recognise that we cannot estimate and assume that things of that kind are going to happen.
It would be wholly wrong of us, however, to miss the opportunity of getting things of that kind for the people of this country merely because of anxiety about having to introduce a Supplementary. Estimate. A trading Department, I

2285
should think any businessman would agree, must be flexible in order to succeed in its work. In the light of that situation, surely it is not unreasonable for us to come before the Committee and say that we want this money in order to accumulate more stocks in the light of favourable circumstances which have arisen, in order to help us to feed our people better than they were fed before.
This Supplementary Estimate represents no more than a process of stocking up, of stock-piling, of putting on one side the things that we have been able to find available. We want to get them here at a good price, and we have been able to do it. They are assets. The money has not been wasted. It is not a matter of bad management or of inefficiency in the Department. It is merely a matter of having paid bills for certain foods which we want and which we are glad to have. In the short time I have been in this Department, I am agreeably surprised to find such a high degree of accuracy in estimating our cash needs in these conditions. But whilst assuring the Committee and the taxpayer that this sum of money is not required to cover improvident spending, it is obviously an obligation for me to try to explain to the Committee why it has become necessary.
The hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns called attention to our negotiations with the Argentine. He called it a "storage fetish." I was really surprised to hear him say things like that. I should have thought he would have wanted to support us in the efforts we are going to try to make to show the Argentine Government that we are not going to be blackmailed any longer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The whole purpose behind this business of building up stocks and of using the vessels to store the meat was to put our negotiator, Mr. Joint, in a stronger position than he would otherwise have been. I should have thought that was a matter of good business, that every step the Department took to enable us to negotiate from a position of strength, and not from a position of weakness, was a good thing. That is precisely what we have been doing.
We want now to say frankly to the Argentine Government that we are now in a position where we want to get from them such meat as they can supply and we want, at a fair price, and no more.
2286
We want them to understand we are now in a position to protect our people by these stores that have been prudently built up by the very process about which the hon. Member complains, and that we are in a position to negotiate on that basis. I make no apology at all for that having happened. I should have thought the whole Committee would have rejoiced that we were now in that position.
A Department like the Ministry of Food must always be searching, not only for greater volume, but for greater variety, and if we are doing that, obviously it must involve a very high degree of speculative risk. I say frankly that in the light of the situation in which I am working, I shall go out as far as I can to take more risks in order to get more variety of food for the people of this country. That might mean on occasion that one will make what is called in the business world a "bad buy"; but that is not a strange thing, it is not confined to Government Departments. Every commercial undertaking, surely, has its chambers of horrors downstairs, with the things its buyers have bought thinking they were good, but which did not turn out to be good in the end. That is a normal commercial risk; it is part of business. If we are to be stopped from doing that kind of thing, then we shall be stopped from giving the ordinary people the variety of food which they ought to have.
So far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to go back on that policy, but to accelerate it. I warn the Committee that it means that on occasion we may have to come to Parliament to defend a mistake, and say, "In this case we bought this because we believed it was a good thing to underwrite the ration and guarantee to our people that they would have the food, but it turned out, in the light of market considerations and other things over which we have no control, to be a mistake." But consider the degree of the mistake against the degree of success in these operations; then we would get it in the right kind of proportion.
That is the essential obligation of the Department and the general answer to the hon. Gentleman. The Ministry of Food are under an obligation to maintain on behalf of this House the guarantee that we give to every citizen that his or

2287
her ration book will be honoured. That is a very big obligation for any Department to carry; and to make sure that we can honour the obligation that when people go to the shops to buy their butter, fats, margarine and the rest the goods will be there, we are compelled to carry rather higher stocks in reserve than otherwise might be the case.
That is part of the situation in which we are now living and working. The situation will inevitably get easier insofar as we can get rid of rationing. That will depend upon factors of supply, although I am bound to say that in the end there are certain elements of rationing policy in this country which I would always want to maintain as essential instruments of fair play and the proper and prudent management of our affairs. But obviously there are certain sides of rationing merely involved in shortages and things of that kind. Until we can get rid of those, the House must enable the Ministry of Food to have behind it adequate reserve stocks at all points so that if anything goes wrong with supplies the Ministry of Food are there with stocks to enable them to honour the rations.
I was as much worried about rabbits as the hon. Member. There they are; I wish they were not there. As a matter of fact, I think the hon. Member exaggerated their condition. [An HON. MEMBER: "Try to sell them."] I ask the Committee to remember what I said earlier, because it is a very serious point. We were bound to face that kind of circumstance now and again in order to make sure—and my Department must always make sure—that the food is there insofar as we can get it and that the people of this country are safeguarded against any anxiety or want. Sometimes we buy things which in the end, because of changes in taste and marketing, are not needed. Now and again that happens and we have to take the risk. I say on behalf of the Department that the total amount of the loss in that operation is almost negligible compared with the success of their general operations. The facts will prove that and in a later Debate, when we deal with the wider obligations and are not limited to this Supplementary Estimate, I hope to give fuller facts about the situation.
In the Ministry of Food we are trying to aim at an extension of freedom of
2288
choice. We want our people to be free to say they will not have things. That is a desirable situation. How can we get to that situation unless we are allowed some flexibility in buying? If the other side are too rigid and tight and critical in their tests of our buying policy, they cannot expect such successful results on this side. We believe, and I believe profoundly, that people are happier when they decide for themselves. I want people to be in an economic position to decide for themselves. As on this side of the Committee we advance in giving people the purchasing power to be able to decide what they want, I want in my job to be able to provide the things they can buy with that money. I hope that I shall have the full co-operation of all sides of the House in that responsibility.
9.25 p.m.
Captain Crookshank: I wish to make just one point. This general sort of argument between the two sides of the House will be continued later in the Session, but tonight we are concerned with a very small point, that of having to find £.15½ million more this year as a result of a net excess of payments over receipts. My hon. Friend pointed out in his speech where he had seen errors made, as he thought, in the purchase and procurement of meat. Had we had the time, other hon. Friends of mine had intended to amplify the point by giving examples in other directions. That we cannot do tonight. The main point to which our attention and the attention of the Committee ought to be directed when dealing with a Supplementary Estimate of this kind, of an excess of payments over receipts in trading services, is: What are the stocks held. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a Debate a few days ago, in which we first raised this matter, pointed out that the stocks had increased and that was the explanation. We do not know that except for his ipse dixit.
What we ask the Government to do is, in the case of the trading services of the Ministry of Food, to be good enough to do what they do in the case of the trading services of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply, namely, to give full information as to the stocks held. The right hon. Gentleman implies that because we are dealing with the

2289
food of the people, there is some risk in disclosing those facts. What is the difference between disclosing them when it is a matter of the food of the people and in disclosing stocks which are necessary for the employment or the housing of the people? In the case of copper, zinc, tin and other metals information is given, as it is in the case of timber—softwood, hardwood, plywood, etc.—which are required for housing. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to let us have this information about food? That is the question I want to put to him, and I have left him two minutes in which to reply.
9.28 p.m.
Mr. Webb: I am sorry that I did not deal with that very important point which the hon. Gentleman raised. There are difficulties about this matter, as hon. Members opposite will recognise. Obviously the negotiators in the Argentine would give a lot at this moment to know exactly what our meat stocks are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They cannot estimate so accurately. It would be very imprudent rashly to give information of that kind. My general undertaking is that one of the things I want to do is to give the people of this country much
more factual information about how the food supply is going. If that does on some occasions provide the opportunity of giving more information about stocks without any danger to our interests, that information will be given. That is as far as I can go. I must recognise the limitation imposed by the trading requirements of this country. It would be entirely improper to put our negotiators in a weak position by giving away information which other people ought not to have.
9.29 p.m.
Captain Crookshank: I am not asking for specific figures to be given at this moment. I am asking that as a matter of practice these stocks should he published year after year as is the case of stocks of other trading Departments. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that he does not intend to do this, that he cannot give a firm guarantee that it will be done. As he cannot do so, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Amendment.
Question put, "That Sub-head H be reduced by £100."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 288.

Division No. 4.]

AYES

[9.30 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

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

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Alport, C. J. M.

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

Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

Amery, J. (Preston, N.)

Clyde, J. L.

Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)

Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Colegate, A.

Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)

Arbuthnot, J. S.

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

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Cooper-Key, E. M

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

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

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

Harris, R. R. (Heston)

Astor, Hon. M.

Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

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

Baker, P.

Cranborne, Viscount

Harvey, I. (Harrow, E.)

Baldock, J. M.

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

Hay, John

Baldwin, A. E.

Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R

Head, Brig. A. H.

Banks, Col. C.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Heald, L. F.

Baxter, A. B.

Crowder, F. P. (Northwood)

Heath, Colonel E. G. R.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (F'chley)

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Bell, R. M. (S. Buckinghamshire)

Cuthbert, W. N.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)

Davidson, Viscountess

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)

Davies, Nigel (Epping)

Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)

Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)

de Chair, S.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

De la Bère, R.

Hollis, M. C.

Bishop, F. P.

Deedes, W. F.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Black, C. W.

Digby, S. Wingfield

Hope, Lord J.

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

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hopkinson, H.

Boothby, R.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.

Howard, G. R (St. Ives)

Bosom, A. C.

Drayson, G. B.

Howard, S G. (Cambridgeshire)

Bowen, R.

Drewe, C.

Hudson, Sir A. U. M. (Lewisham, N.)

Bower, N.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

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

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Dunglass, Lord

Hurd, A. R.

Braine, B.

Duthie, W. S.

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

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

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

Hyde, H. M.

Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

Erroll, F. J.

Hylton-Foster, H. B.

Browne, J. N. (Govan)

Fisher, N. T. L.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Johnson, H. S. (Kemptown)

Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.

Fort, R.

Jones, A (Hall Green)

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

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

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Carr, L. R. (Mitcham)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Kaberry, D.

Carson, Hon. E.

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

Keeling, E. H.

Channon, H.

Gage, C. H.

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Langford-Holt, J.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Stevens, G. P

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

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

Lennox-Boyd, A. T

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Lindsay, Martin

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

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Linstead, H. N.

Osborne, C.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Peake, Rt. Hon. O

Summers, G. S

Longden. G. J. M (Harts S.W.)

Perkins, W. R. D.

Sutcliffe, H.

Low, A. R. W.

Pato, Brig. C H. M.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth S.)

Pickthorn, K

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

Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)

Pitman, I J

Teeling, William

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Powell, J. Enoch

Thomas, J. P L (Hereford)

McAdden, S. J.

Prescott, Stanley

Thompson, K. P. (Walton)

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

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

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

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Mackason, Brig. H. R.

Profumo, J. D.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

McKibbin, A.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Redmayne, M.

Tilney, J. D.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Touche, G. C.

Maclean, F. H. R.

Renton, D. L. M.

Turton, R. H.

MacLeod, I. (Enfield, W.)

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

Tweedsmuir, Lady

MacLeod, J. (Ross and Cromarty)

Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)

Vane, W. M. F

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Robson-Brown, W.

Vosper, D. F.

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)

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

Morales, A. E.

Roper, Sir H.

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

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Ropner, Col. L.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

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

Russell, R. S.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Maude, J. C. (Exeter)

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Watkinson, H.

Maudling, R.

Sandys, RI. Hon. D.

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Medlicott, Brigadier F

Savory, Prof. D L.

Webbe, Sir H. (London)

Mellor, Sir J.

Scott, Donald

Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

Morris, R. Napkin (Carmarthen)

Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)

White, J. Baker (Canterbury)

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

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Mott-Radclyfle, C. E.

Smith, E. M. (Grantham)

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

Nabarro, G.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Wills, G.

Nicholls, H.

Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)

Wilson, G. (Truro)

Nicholson, G.

Smyth, Brig. G. (Norwood)

Wood, Hon. R.

Nield, B. (Chester)

Soames, Capt. C.

York, C.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Spearman, A. C. M

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

Nugent, G. R. H.

Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

Nutting, Anthony

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. (Bristol, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Oakshott, H. D.

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

Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Chetwynd, G. R.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Adams, Richard

Clunie, J.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Cobb, F. A.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Cocks, F. S.

Ewart, R.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Coldrick, W.

Fernyhough, E.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

Collick, P.

Field, Capt. W. J.

Awbery, S. S.

Collindridge, F.

Finch, H. J.

Ayles, W. H.

Cook, T. F.

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

Bacon, Miss A

Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Follick, M.

Baird, J.

Cooper, J. (Deptford)

Foot, M. M.

Balfour, A.

Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Peckham)

Forman, J. C.

Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.

Cove, W. G.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Bartley, T.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J.

Crosland, C. A. R.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Benson, C.

Grossman, R. H. S.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H T N

Beswick, F.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S

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

Dagger, G.

Gibson, C. W.

Bing, G. H. C.

Daines, P.

Gilzean, A.

Blackburn, A. R.

Darling, G. (Hillsboro')

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Blenkinsop, A.

Davies, Edward (Stoke, N.)

Gooch, E. G.

Blyton, W. R.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon P C

Booth, A.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Greenwood, A W J (Rossendale)

Bottomley, A. G.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon A (Wakefield)

Bowden, 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.)

Burke, W. A

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

Burton, Miss E.

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

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

Dye, S.

Hamilton, W. W.

Callaghan, James

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hannan, W

Carmichael, James

Edelman, M.

Hardman, D. R

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Hardy, E. A.

Champion, A. J.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Hargreaves, A

2292

2293

Harrison, J.

Manuel, A. C.

Simmons, C J

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Slater, J.

Hayman, F. H.

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Tipton)

Mellish, R. J.

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

Herbison, Miss M.

Messer, F.

Snow, J. W.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Sorensen, R. W.

Hobson, C. R.

Mikardo, Ian

Stewart, Michael (Fulham. E.)

Holman, P.

Mitchison, G. R.

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)

Moeran, E. W

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Houghton, Douglas

Monslow, W.

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

Hoy, J.

Moody, A. S.

Stross, Dr. B

Hubbard, T.

Morgan, Dr. H B

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

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

Morley, R.

Sylvester, G. O.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

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

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Hughes, R. M. (Islington, N.)

Mort, D. L.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Moyle, A.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Mulley, F. W.

Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Murray, J. D

Thomas, T. George (Cardiff)

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Nally, W.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

Neal, H.

Thurtle, Ernest

Janner, B.

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

Timmons, J.

Jay, D. P. T

O'Brien, T.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

Jeger, G. (Goole)

Oldfield, W. H.

Tomney, F.

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

Oliver, G. H.

Usborne, Henry

Jenkins, R. H.

Orbach, M.

Vernon, Maj. W F

Johnson, J. (Rugby)

Padley, W. E.

Viant, S. P.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Paling, Rt. Hn. Wilfred (Deane V'lly)

Wallace, H. W.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

Watkins, T. E.

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham S.)

Pannell, T. C.

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

Jones, W. E. (Conway)

Pargiter, G. A.

Weitzman, D.

Keenan, W.

Parker, J.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

Paton, J.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

King, H. M.

Peart, T. F.

West, D. G.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

Poole, Cecil

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

Kinley, J.

Popplewell, E

White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)

Lang, Rev. G.

Porter, G.

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

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Proctor, W. T.

Wigg, George

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

Pryde, D. J.

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

Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.)

Pursey, Comdr H.

Wilkes, L.

Lindgren, G. S.

Rankin, J.

Wilkins, W. A.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Rees, Mrs. D.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Logan, D. G.

Reeves, J.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Longden, F. (Small Heath)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

McAllister, G.

Rhodes, H.

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

MacColl, J. E.

Robens, A.

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

McGhee, H. G.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caertsarvonshire)

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

McGovern, J.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

Mack, J. D.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

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

Wise, Major F. J.

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

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

McLeavy, F.

Royle, C.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Woods, Rev. G. S.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Wyatt, W. L.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E

Yates, V. F.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

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

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks.

Question put, and agreed to.

It being after Half-past Nine o'Clock The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply) to put the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote then under discussion.
Resolved:
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,880,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies; and sundry other services."
The CHAIRMAN then proceeded forthwith to put the Question with respect to all such Army Votes for the coming financial year which had been put down on at least one previous day for consideration in the Committee of Supply on an Allotted Day:
"That the total amounts of all such Votes outstanding be granted for that Service."

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1950–51
"That a sum, not exceeding £137,577,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during

2295
the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz.:—

£

1.

Pay, &c., of the Army

84,630,000

2.

Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 35,000 all ranks for the Regular Reserve and 27,000 all ranks for the Supplementary Reserve), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 142,000 all ranks of the Territorial Army) and Cadet Forces

11,045,000

8.

Works, Buildings and Lands

25,345,000

10.

Non-effective Services

16,557,000

11.

Additional Married Quarters

100

£137,577,100"

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded in like manner to put severally the Questions,
"That the total amounts of all outstanding Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as have been presented seven clear days and of the outstanding Excess Vote, be granted for the Services defined in those Supplementary Estimates, and that Statement of Excess, the Committee of Public Accounts having reported allowing the said Vote."

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1949–50.
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £133,511,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES

CLASS I

£

4.

Treasury and Subordinate Departments

10

13.

The Mint

10

23.

Miscellaneous Expenses

2,500,000

23B.

American Aid Counterpart Funds

300,000

2296

CLASS II

£

4.

United Nations

20,000

6.

Commonwealth Relations Office

19,000

7.

Commonwealth Services

151,510

12.

Development and Welfare (Colonies, & c.)

5,950,000

13.

Development and Welfare (South African High Commission Territories)

59,400

CLASS III

3.

Police, England and Wales

592,000

5.

Child Care, England and Wales

123,000

7.

Supreme Court of Judicature, & c.

10

12.

Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

10

14.

Police, Scotland

54,540

CLASS IV

1.

Ministry of Education

10

2.

British Museum

10,000

10.

Grants for Science and the Arts

10

13.

Festival of Britain, 1951

174,000

14.

Public Education, Scotland

10

CLASS V

2.

National Health Service, England and Wales

89,400,000

7.

Ministry of National Insurance

1,605,000

11.

Ministry of Town and Country Planning

10

13.

Department of Health for Scotland

10

14.

National Health Service, Scotland

9,330,000

CLASS VI

1.

Board of Trade

10

9.

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Food Production Services)

2,600,000

CLASS VII

4.

Public Buildings Overseas

175,000

7.

Miscellaneous Works Services

10

8.

Rates on Government Property

10

CLASS VIII

2.

Ministry of Pensions

1,100,000

4.

Superannuation and Retired Allowances

650,000

CLASS IX

1.

Ministry of Supply

16,000,000

6.

Administration of Certain African Territories

10

7.

Advances to Allies, & c

600,000

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

1.

Customs and Excise

98,000

2.

Inland Revenue

10

3.

Post Office

2,000,000

£133,511,600"

CIVIL (Excess), 1948–49
"That a sum, not exceeding £611 1s. 5d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good an excess on the grant for Osborne for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1949.

Class and Vote

Excess of Expenditure over Estimate

Appropriations in Aid

Excess Vote

Class VII

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

5. Osborne

1,515

9

0

904

7

7

611

1

5

Total, Civil (Excess)

£611

1

5"

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow o Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS
Considered in Committee.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
Resolved:
"That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on 31st day of March, 2949, the sum of £611 1s. 5d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
Resolved:
"That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1950, the sum of £148,402,375 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
Resolved:
"That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1951, the sum of £1,246,213,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Douglas Jay.]
Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

MEMBERS' FUND
Lieut.-Colonel Boles, Mr. Bowles, Colonel Clarke, Mr. Clement Davies, Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew and Mr. Viant appointed Managing Trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund in pursuance of Section two of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939.—[Mr. Popplewell.]

POLES, LUDFORD (FOOD REGISTRATIONS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
9.48 p.m.
Mr. Osborne: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and also to Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to change the subject that I want to bring before the House tonight. I had hoped to have brought up some aspects of the National Savings Movement, and I still hope to bring that matter forward later on. However, my constituents ask me to raise as a matter of urgency a grievance of which, I think, this House ought to hear, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will reply to it.
In my constituency there is a village, Ludford, in which 500 Poles have been living for the past four and a half years. They are living in an old R.A.F. camp, and they have been getting ready for British citizenship now for some time past. I was asked to go up there on Monday, and and I spent the whole of the afternoon going round the camp seeing the Poles, and seeing the business people, upon whose behalf I wish to put their case. This village camp, as the right hon. Lady knows, is administered by her Department, and the National Assistance Board.
At the beginning of this year these Poles were told that they were to get ready to acquire British citizenship and that the first step towards that would be the issue of ration books. Then instead of being fed on a communal basis they would be like any other ordinary British citizen and would have to look after their own rations. The Poles, so far as I can tell, are welcoming this step forward, and I am sure that it is a good thing. The complaint that I have to make on behalf of my constituents is that when it came to the point of issuing the ration books at the beginning of this month, advantages were given to the Co-operative Society to secure these registrations, which were denied to the local traders. That is the point and pith of my protest and I wish to give details.
I am not criticising the Co-operative Society as such. All I am criticising is

2299
that they should have been given advantages and privileges which my constituents, as ordinary traders, were denied. If I can establish that, I am sure that I shall have even some hon. Members opposite with me. In January of this year, the Poles were given a series of lectures on British citizenship by a Mr. Gulc, an English-speaking Pole. I am told that from the beginning of January to the end of February his lectures were largely on the advantages of joining the Co-operative movement.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I shall welcome those "hear, hears" in a minute because they will support my case. He stressed what he considered to be the advantages of joining the Co-operative Society, and, as one of the Poles said to me, he continually dangled the "divi." in front of them. He did not go so far as Gracie Fields in her famous song and say, "You must shop at the Co-op.", but he went pretty near to it.
The complaint of my constituents is that they, as ordinary taxpayers, are having to pay to maintain this man who is advocating a form of trading which would take their living from them. My point is that there is no Co-op. shop nearer to this village than six miles. It was known in the village some weeks ago that ration books would be issued, but the exact date of issue was not known. Many of the Poles who had been getting their extra rations from the ordinary shops in the village naturally went to the people with whom they had traded before, and said, "We will promise you our registration when the time comes," but the local traders were not advised when that time would be.
On 3rd and 4th March—I should like the right hon. Lady to note these dates—these ration books were issued to these 500 Poles at Ludford in my constituency and by a strange coincidence—and this is my point—on the day, at the very hour, they were issued there were three representatives of the Lincoln Co-op. Society in the hut where they were issued. My constituents who have shops only a stone's throw away were not told anything about it. I have been told by certain people on the spot that it showed an intelligent anticipation on the part of the CO-op. Society. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is nice to know that some sections of the Socialist Party can
2300
at times show intelligent anticipation; it is not often that we see it. I want to prove to the House that there was a good deal more than that. They were there the whole day on their own, and they secured between 200 and 300 registrations before the local people even knew that these books were going to be issued.
I put it to hon. Members opposite that that is not fair to our ordinary constituents, and I am protesting about it. Furthermore, the nearest Co-op. shop is at Market Rasen, five and a half to six miles away, and it is by no means the biggest or the best shop, even in that small town. Therefore, if these people were going to register at the biggest or the best shop in the locality, they certainly would not have gone to the Co-op., unless they had gone to Lincoln some 25 miles away.
The questions I put to the right hon. Lady are these. How did the Co-op. know that these books were to be issued at this exact time? Who advised them?—because they were advised. On whose authority were they advised? The local grocers complain, and complain rightly, that they should have been told at the same time, and should have had as fair a chance of getting registrations as did the Co-op. The right hon. Lady's Department was represented by one of her officers from London, who had come down to see that the registrations took place properly. A Mr. J. Q. Evans of the Assistance Board, London, came down, so it is the responsibility of the right hon. Lady.
I am making a protest on behalf of the little shopkeepers of my constituency that they have not been given a fair deal. Hon. Members opposite will undoubtedly say that some of these Poles were members of the Co-op. before they came to this country, but for the past four and a half years the Lincoln Co-op. have done nothing for their Co-operative brethren—not one thing: they left it to the private traders, the little people in the village shops, to look after them. But as soon as ever a real plum comes along, one arm of the Socialist Party helps the other arm of the Socialist Party under the big umbrella of the State in order to get an advantage. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may think that is funny, but I think it is a dastardly thing to do.
I went up to my constituency, saw the people concerned, and this is what I was

2301
told. Mrs. Jones, who keeps the post office told me—[Laughter.] This is the evidence I bring to the House. Hon. Members may think it is something to laugh about, but it is both my duty and their duty to see that our constituents get a fair deal. It is no laughing matter when men protest that they are being treated unjustly. She said that this Mr. Gulc began his lectures on the Co-operative system in January. He said that the Co-operative way of trading was the best. He is entitled to say that, and I do not complain of that. But when the ration books were ready to be issued he advised only the Co-op. Society in Market Rasen, and the local people were ignored. I am sure that no hon. Member would say that that is fair, or would try to justify that procedure.
I questioned the education officer, a gentleman with the name of Kawecki, and he confirmed to me that lectures had been given to the Poles for two months, on and off, on the Co-op. system. I also saw the camp padre, whose name I will not attempt to pronounce, and he again said that these lectures had been given over a period of weeks, at which they were told what a good thing it would be, and what a great advantage it would be to these Poles to join the Co-op., ignoring the local people.
I got in touch with Mr. Spring, the chief food officer at Grimsby, who said this to me:
"This has worried me very much because of what I have heard. Right at the beginning I was asked to go over and explain the method of rationing and registration, which I did through an interpreter. I took great pains during my lecture to stress the fact that registration"—
It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]
Mr. Osborne: As I was saying, the food officer at Grimsby said:
"I took great pains during my lecture to stress the fact that registration could be done with any trader. But it is difficult to put this over through an interpreter."
I am convinced that the food office at Grimsby are in no way responsible for this treatment. The responsibility lies with the Department. The camp manager
2302
is quite a different kettle of fish. His name is quite an English one—Joyce. He states:
"No special opportunities were afforded to anyone, the Co-op, or anyone else."
That is not true, because it is admitted that the first time when the flush of registrations took place it was only the Co-op. that had three men there—the other people were not given a chance. If the manager did not know what was going on, he ought to have known, in order to hold his job. He is a servant of the Department and must take responsibility for what he has been doing.
I challenged the Co-op. manager at Market Rasen that he had got 300 out of the 500 registrations, and he said: "Not 300, but something over 200." I say that until this piece of rigging by the party opposite took place there were not half-a-dozen Co-op. supporters in the whole village. It is quite clear to me, therefore, that undue advantage has been given to the Co-operative Society, advantages that were denied to the ordinary small traders. That is what I am protesting about.
A farmer, Mr. F. T. Martin, who lives at "White House," has been supplying a large part of the milk to this camp for about four years. Suddenly the contract was taken from him. He is given no chance to get registrations, but is told that the milk is to be brought from miles away into this village, right past his own farm with all the petrol and labour involved, and that his milk, under this wonderful planning, must be taken miles elsewhere to be sold to other customers. He is, quite naturally, angry over the treatment he is receiving.
A coal merchant in the district, Mr. Cooper of Parsons Bros., told me that the Co-op. were breaking a gentlemen's agreement which had been entered into by engaging a Polish girl to go round this camp to get coal registrations. They have got all but six of the 200 registrations. I say that there has been no fair dealing as between the Co-op. and the ordinary private traders. It is a scandal, and if Members opposite are prepared to laugh and jeer at scandalous behaviour like this, then it is time someone else was facing us.
If a normal trader wants to open a new shop, he has to go to the Government Departments and prove that there is a consumer need. He has to prove that

2303
supplies cannot be made available through existing organisations. Why has not that principle been applied to the Co-operative Society? Why should the Co-operative Society be a privileged society? Do not forget that the nearest Co-op. shop is 5½ miles away. They have now applied for permission to open a shop in the camp. I want to know whether that application is to be granted, and if so, why? If it is to be granted, it violates the very principles the Government have laid down which affect and control the activities of ordinary private traders. That is completely unfair, and I protest against it.
I want to make this point also. The local traders have asked me to protest in the strongest terms, and it will not be very nice for me to go back and say to them, "I have done my best on your behalf, as is the duty of a Member of Parliament to his constituents, but all I met with was jeers and catcalls from those supporting the Government." The Socialists have no interest in the rights of individual persons. All they are concerned about are the trade unions, on the one hand, and the privileged Co-operative Society on the other.
This is the danger which I want to put to the right hon. Lady. She may think it far-fetched, but I do not think so. In two years' time these Poles are going to be entitled to full British citizenship, which means they are going to have a vote. That is quite right and proper, because they are doing a good job on the farms and in the canning factories. Will the same principle apply to them politically as is being applied commercially here? Will this Government if they are still in power—[HON. MEMBERS: "They will not be."]—they might be, and if they are still in power, will they, out of public funds, send down a Socialist lecturer to persons like these, telling them to vote Socialist and denying the right of the other side to put their case? If that is so, we are facing the worst form of Tammany Hall corruption ever seen in this country.
I am protesting against it. It is not so far-fetched as hon. Members opposite seem to think. In "The Times" this morning, the Labour correspondent writes:
2304
"The National Committee of the Co-operative Society is expected to move an emergency resolution in support of the Labour Government at the party annual conference at Great Yarmouth at Easter."
That is fair; and then he makes this point:
"The main intention of the resolution appears to be to secure a vote of confidence in Labour policy."
That is quite fair. I do not complain of that, but what I do complain of is that public funds, contributed by this side of the House as much as by hon. Members on the other side, have been used to send a Socialist-minded man down to this place so that the Socialist point of view and Socialist privilege can be put forward for another wing of the Socialist Party. Hon. Members may still think it is funny, but I do not. It is a scandal, and in the name of my constituents I am protesting. I hope I get a reasonable reply.
10.4 p.m.
Mr. Deer: I had better declare my interest in this matter, because I happen to be a member of the Co-operative Society that has been attacked. I have never heard a greater distortion of the facts than that which has come from the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), and I feel sure that when he has heard the real facts he will revise his views about the matter.
Mr. Osborne: I was not attacking the Co-operative Society. I was attacking the privilege that has been extended to them under the aegis of this Government.
Mr. Deer: If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he was attacking the Society for preferential treatment which he said the Government had given it to take advantage of certain circumstances that private traders were not allowed to use. He also said that the Cooperative movement was "tipped off" with some private information which local traders did not possess. How can that happen when the people have not only to register for groceries but also for meat? The Co-operative Society there left the meat position to the private traders, because it had not the mobile shop to deal with it as it did with groceries. To suggest that this was something done under the counter or outside the normal trade arrangement, seems all

2305
eyewash, in view of the fact that village butchers got the registrations.
After all, the Co-operative Society have a shop six and half miles away. I should like to draw attention to the fact that it is because of unfair preference against Co-ops. that the Co-operative Society have had to arrange the system of mobile shops going to Co-operative customers, in places where the local authorities will not give permission for Co-op. shops to be put up. There are housing estates in Lincolnshire where no Co-operative Society is allowed.
Mr. Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that local authorities have ever refused to Co-operatives the right to build a shop in Ludford? If not, he should withdraw what he has said.
Mr. Deer: I said in Lincolnshire. I could give the hon. Gentleman the names of housing estates where permission has been refused on the ground that all the shops had been allocated to small local traders?
Mr. Osborne: In Ludford?
Mr. Deer: No, not in Ludford. It is admitted that only 50 per cent. of the registrations went to the Co-operative Society. Therefore there was free choice for the remaining 50 per cent. Two private traders in Ludford, namely Mr. Lee and Mr. Gibson, who own shops, have stated that they are perfectly satisfied, and there is only one Tory shopkeeper who is not satisfied. The hon. Gentleman complained tonight about preferential treatment. I suggest that the Co-operative Society have nothing to be ashamed of in that they got those registrations. The customers can change them in eight weeks if they are not satisfied. If there is preference, it has been given to private traders. It is the Co-operative Society that has suffered, not the private traders.
The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): There have been other occasions when the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has raised matters on the Adjournment and, in his characteristic, impetuous manner has levelled wild and baseless charges which, after the Adjournment, he has regretted.
Mr. Osborne: Tell me one.
Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Member looks up HANSARD during the last 4½ years he will find that I have on occasions said to him, when I represented the Ministry of Food, that if he had come to me on the question at issue, and asked me for the facts before he had put his Question down or raised the matter on the Adjournment, I should have been able to reassure him. Tonight—
Mr. Osborne rose—
Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman has had 20 minutes for his speech, and I have only a quarter of an hour. I wanted to give him plenty of time to put his case. He must not feel aggrieved when hon. Members on this side of the House enjoy a little laughter at his expense. He must have felt that some of the charges he made tonight were quite unfounded.
Mr. Osborne: They are not.
Dr. Summerskill: I shall prove to him that they are. If on that Monday afternoon which he spent among the Poles he had devoted a little more time to going to people in authority, he would not have come here tonight and made, if I may say so without disrespect, such an unfortunate exhibition of himself. I would remind him that under the Polish Resettlement Act, 1947, the National Assistance Board administered 25 hostels in this country. They have in the past supplied these Poles with food and accommodation, and those men and women who were in employment paid an inclusive charge for their board and accommodation. Many of them now, quite naturally, have said the time has come when they would like to cater for themselves, but they would like to pay the Board for their living quarters. We who are anxious to make these people as comfortable as possible, have agreed that that would be an excellent idea.
Therefore it was decided that ration books should be distributed to them, and on 2nd March arrangements were made for the residents to register with suppliers. The Board's officers were informed that they should, of course, make no approach to traders of any kind, and the warden of the hostel went to see the food executive officer and explained the matter. Subsequently he went to see the secretary of the chamber of commerce at Louth, in the hon. Member's constituency. Perhaps

2307
the hon. Member will go and confirm what I am telling him now. He asked the secretary of the chamber of commerce what procedure should be followed, and the secretary agreed to get in touch with the traders in the district to notify them of the potential consumers in the hostel and to attend on a certain date.
Mr. Osborne rose—
Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member has had his say. Let him listen to the facts. These are the facts. I am not going to give way.
Mr. Osborne: There is not a chamber of commerce in Louth.
Dr. Summerskill: Again the hon. Member is displaying ignorance about matters which he should know. This was done. The traders were informed, and on 2nd March eight of them attended at the hostel. They included the manager of the Market Rasen branch of the Lincoln Co-operative Society. So far as I can ascertain, about 202 people registered for groceries with the Co-op., 95 registered with Mr. Gibb, grocer, a private trader, 65 registered with Mr. Lee, a private trader, and 30 registered with Mrs. Jones. In other words, 202 registered with the Co-op. and 190 with private traders. I, who have served for four and a half years at the Ministry of Food, say that that ratio between Co-op. and private traders in a community of this kind where the wages are not very high is quite a usual one.
A complaint was made by Mrs. Jones, who as the hon. Member has rightly described, keeps the little post office-grocery-general shop, where, obviously, her trade is very limited. Hon. Members can envisage Mrs. Jones's little shop. Mrs. Jones came to the hostel with the other traders. The hon. Gentleman alleges that none of them were known. Mrs. Jones alleges that the education officer had been bringing pressure upon the Poles to register with the private
traders.[HON. MEMBERS: "The Co-op."] I apologise. I meant "with the Co-op."
Mr. Osborne: Get the facts right.
Dr. Summerskill: The teacher in question is employed by the education committee, which is an agent of the Ministry
2308
of Education, and, of course, when Mrs. Jones made this complaint, inquiries were made and the teacher categorically denied that he had gone around among the Poles telling them to register with the Co-op. It is interesting that no other trader has complained—
Mr. Osborne: But they have; I have the evidence here.
Dr. Summerskill: —and Mrs. Jones, having complained, after all the registrations had been made, said she was quite satisfied and that she had as many registrations as she could cope with.
Mr. Osborne Mr. Osborne indicated dissent.
Dr. Summerskill: I have already described what accommodation Mrs. Jones has. Her tiny shop had 30 registrations and she said she was satisfied and that was all she could cope with.
Mr. Osborne: But it is not true.
Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman must remember that he is talking as though these Poles have come over to this country last week and know nothing about our institutions. They have been here for some years. They have been working in the district, they know Mrs. Jones's shop, all the other shops, and the Co-op., and they were in a position to know what they were doing. As far as I can see, the officers of the Board acted throughout with strict impartiality—
Mr. Osborne: Rubbish.
Dr. Summerskill: —and I am quite satisfied that they have done so. The hon. Gentleman emphasises the importance of these lectures on co-operation. I cannot say how many lectures on cooperation this teacher has given during the last few years. He is there not only to teach these men English but to tell them something about the institutions of this country. I have not inquired as to the nature of all these lectures, but I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has betrayed an ignorance of business institutions in Poland. At Question Time we are accustomed to the hon. Gentleman getting up from the back bench and telling this House how much he knows of the business of the world, how he goes to the United States and the Continent. We thank him for doing business

2309
for this country but he has displayed tonight a great ignorance of the business methods in Poland before the war. Does he know that the co-operative principle was applied to activities of all kinds in Poland? There were consumer co-operatives, industrial co-operatives—
Mr. Osborne: That is not my point.
Dr. Summerskill: —bank co-operatives. They even had co-operatives for the building of apartments. Furthermore, and this is an important point, the co-operative movement in Poland was never linked to any party.
Mr. Osborne: Jolly good. There is nothing to complain about in that.
Dr. Summerskill: The right wing political parties in Poland and the left wing parties were equally in favour of cooperation, so far in favour of it indeed, that the taxation system in that country favoured co-operative enterprise. Again, 80 per cent. of the arable land in Poland was in the hands of smallholders who, of course, enjoyed co-operative enterprises. Is it any wonder, with that background, that this Pole takes as the subject of his lecture, co-operation in this country?
Mr. Osborne: Just before the registrations.
Dr. Summerskill: We are told by the hon. Member that this Pole—a man, I am told, of the greatest integrity, chosen carefully—lectured on co-operation last year in the hostel—
Mr. Osborne: This year.
Dr. Summerskill: —in order to direct these little registrations from Mrs. Jones to the Co-operative Society. Tonight I feel that the hon. Gentleman is underestimating the intelligence even of his own side. Furthermore, I have other evidence to show the House that this charge is completely unwarranted.
Mr. Osborne: It is not.
Dr. Summerskill: I have already said that the hostels—not all of them, but some of them—are now managed in a different way and that people are allowed to register with certain shops and to conduct their own housekeeping. Two of the hostels, at Kelverdon and Dodding-
2310
ton, have this system in operation and in both these cases we, of course, allow the Poles to choose whom they like. It was asked if the local shopkeeper who was concerned could have a room in the hostel as a shop in order to provide facilities for the occupants. We said, "Yes Choose the people who have the biggest number of registrations." I looked up this matter this morning and I find that in the Kelverdon hostel the biggest number of registrations was with the Co-op. but that in the Doddington hostel the biggest number of registrations was with the private trader.
Mr. Osborne: That is not my point.
Dr. Summerskill: We therefore said to the Co-op, "All right, come in and use a room." We said to the private trader at Doddington, "Come in and use a room." The hon. Member for Louth asks what we shall do if we are asked in this case. We shall consider the matter in the same way as we have considered the position in Kelverdon and Doddington and, probably, give them the same accommodation.
I think I have proved that the case put by the hon. Gentleman tonight is completely without substance, that he has come here in his characteristic impetuous manner, without facts, without figures. He has come, I am very sorry to say, and, having gone to one of the officers of the Ministry of Food, publicly quotes in this House what an official has said to him privately. He should know the ethics of this place, that if an officer in one of the Ministries has a confidential discussion with a Member, the Member should regard that confidence as sacred.
Mr. Osborne rose—
Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member must recognise that tonight he has put that official, an important official, the whole House will agree, a food executive officer, in an invidious position. He is now suspect by a certain number of people because the hon. Member says that privately he has criticised the Co-operative institution. But that means nothing to the hon. Member. He wants to come here and make a speech of the type we have heard tonight, irrespective of how he may hurt or ruin individuals
Mr. Osborne: Nonsense.
Dr. Summerskill: The whole House knows that we have listened tonight to strong language and that we have been charged with abusing our position. These officials are unable to come to this House and speak for themselves. Therefore, Ministers on this bench who have to reply should try to defend them. The hon. Gentleman knows that tonight officials both in this Department, in the hostel, and in my Department, the Ministry of National Insurance, have had a certain stigma placed upon them, and I want the House to realise that there was absolutely
2312
no basis or foundation whatever for these charges.
Mr. Osborne: The right hon. Lady has not answered the question I put to her. I have asked her to substantiate that three men were put there—
The Question having been proposed at 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 Half-past Ten o'Clock.

  THANKSGIVING APPEAL (CONTRIBUTIONS)
  THANKSGIVING APPEAL (CONTRIBUTIONS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Pound Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  Pound Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  Double Taxation (India)
  Double Taxation (India)
  European Payments Agreement
  European Payments Agreement
  Conscience Money
  Conscience Money
HOUSING
  Girdwood Committee (Second Report)
  Girdwood Committee (Second Report)
  Rent Tribunals
  Rent Tribunals
  Aged Persons
  Aged Persons
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Dentures (Supply)
  Dentures (Supply)
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Outstanding Accounts
  Outstanding Accounts
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Displaced Persons
  Displaced Persons
  Iron Foundries (Conditions)
  Iron Foundries (Conditions)
  Medical Practitioners
  Medical Practitioners
  Holidays with Pay
  Holidays with Pay
  Foreign Film Artistes (Permits)
  Foreign Film Artistes (Permits)
  I.L.O. Conventions
  I.L.O. Conventions
  Ramsgate and Margate
  Ramsgate and Margate
  Gateshead
  Gateshead
  NATIONAL SERVICE (MEDICAL UNFITNESS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (MEDICAL UNFITNESS)
EDUCATION
  Loans to Students
  Loans to Students
  Exchanges of Pupils
  Exchanges of Pupils
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Special Schools
  Special Schools
  Community Centres
  Community Centres
  Home Decoration Class, Warrington
  Home Decoration Class, Warrington
  Furniture Industry (Apprentices)
  Furniture Industry (Apprentices)
  Inspections (Primary Schools)
  Inspections (Primary Schools)
  School Children (Nutrition)
  School Children (Nutrition)
BECHUANALAND
  Native Administration
  Native Administration
  Development
  Development
  Mr. and Mrs. Bradshaw
  Mr. and Mrs. Bradshaw
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Monopolies Commission
  Monopolies Commission
  Canadian Timber
  Canadian Timber
  New Factories
  New Factories
  TAXICABS, LONDON
  TAXICABS, LONDON
  ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS
  ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS
  CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
  CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
  SUMMER TIME (DATES)
  SUMMER TIME (DATES)
  UNLICENSED FIREARMS
  UNLICENSED FIREARMS
  CUP FINAL TICKETS (SALE)
  CUP FINAL TICKETS (SALE)
  ALIENS (NATURALISATION)
  ALIENS (NATURALISATION)
POLICE
  Entry Age
  Entry Age
  Metropolitan Area (Strength)
  Metropolitan Area (Strength)
  Special Constabulary
  Special Constabulary
  BORSTAL INSTITUTION (ABSCONDERS)
  BORSTAL INSTITUTION (ABSCONDERS)
CIVIL DEFENCE
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  Air-raid Shelters
  Air-raid Shelters
  FILM PRODUCTION (CHILDREN)
  FILM PRODUCTION (CHILDREN)
  CONTRACEPTIVES (MODEL BYLAWS)
  CONTRACEPTIVES (MODEL BYLAWS)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Pigs (Marking)
  Pigs (Marking)
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Wild Duck
  Wild Duck
  Animal Feedingstuffs
  Animal Feedingstuffs
  QUEDGELEY SCHOOL (EXTENSIONS)
  QUEDGELEY SCHOOL (EXTENSIONS)
  SEYCHELLES (ELECTIONS)
  SEYCHELLES (ELECTIONS)
  SURPLUS TEXTILE CORPORATION (SALES)
  SURPLUS TEXTILE CORPORATION (SALES)
  POISONOUS INSECTICIDES
  POISONOUS INSECTICIDES
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Earl of Feversham—Took the Oath.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield—Took the Oath.

SUMMER TIME ORDER, 1950
4.6 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Order be made in the form of the draft approved by the House on the 15th instant.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
4.7 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved by Lord Lloyd on Tuesday last, 'That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the large number of crimes accompanied by violence occurring in large cities.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, we are all agreed that my noble friend Lord Lloyd performed a most timely public service in taking his opportunity of putting down this Motion. I am sure we are also all agreed that: he opened the debate last Tuesday in an admirably phrased and moderate speech presenting the point of view which he wished to put before the House. The actual Motion deals with the prevalence of crime, and it is not surprising that the Lord Chancellor lost no time in accepting that Motion, for indeed no reasonable person at this time of day could resist the view that there is a lamentable amount of violent crime in our streets, especially of a sort which is comparatively novel and
446
with which it has been very difficult to deal.
I do not at all agree with the sentiment—if anybody holds it—that public concern in this matter has been stoked up by sensationalism. That is not true. Your Lordships, treated as a body, are not usually over-excitable, and I am sure there is no member of this House, in whatever quarter, who does not feel that the public disquiet on this subject is completely justified. An appalling number of crimes of violence are being committed in this country at the present time; and it is not only the number—as I will venture shortly to point out—which is of astonishing magnitude as compared with the past; it is the brutality and the heartless wickedness of many of these outrages which so offends and distresses all of us. Therefore the Lord Chancellor was naturally moved to say at once on behalf of the Government that he accepted the Motion, thereby ensuring that we should have no Division. To tell the truth, am sorry that it will work out like that, because it would have been interesting and instructive to see how the judgment of your Lordships in different parts of the House is now framed on this very controversial question, which has been so fully discussed in the course of our debates. However, that will not be so; there will he no Division.
Although the Motion is accepted, we have already had one day's debate, and now we are to have a second, partly devoted to considering and stating clearly the facts and statistics, and partly to the extremely vexed question of what is the best remedy for this shocking state of affairs. If your Lordships will allow me (I will endeavour not to make the time I occupy too long) I should like to say a few words on each of these two aspects. First of all, as to the facts and statistics, I recollect that my noble, and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when this matter was incidentally raised at an earlier stage, made the not unnatural comment that, after all, rightly understood, facts and statistics ought not to contradict one another. That, of course, is true. But it entirely depends upon whether the statistics are properly interpreted and whether they are correctly used. When statistics take the form of numbers we have also to remember that, though no doubt they have been most accurately

447
recorded and calculated, they are all on the assumption that every other factor remains exactly the same as before.
First, as to facts, apart from statistics. I have indicated already that, in my view at least, the public are perfectly justified in saying that they have a clear grasp of the principal fact, which is that there is a terrible prevalence of certain classes of crimes of violence, largely of a new type. In my view, also, the serious-minded public feel humiliated to think that we are in danger of losing the reputation that London is one of the safest cities in the world, a city where any decent person, man, woman or girl, may walk safely about. Further, I think the public are horrified by the knowledge that so many of the people who have been perpetrating this class of offence are still at large. One does not need to look at statistics to find that out: it is much as though one were to say that an observant agriculturist can perfectly well tell you that it has been an unduly early spring, or an unduly rainy autumn, without consulting the tables of the meteorological office. But I have been devoting myself somewhat assiduously for the last couple of days to looking at these statistics as well as I could. Every Home Secretary and ex-Home Secretary knows something about the annual return of the criminal statistics for which he is or has been responsible, and if the House will allow me I should like in a few sentences to state what I believe are the salient facts which emerge from an examination of the statistics.
First of all, I think it was the Lord Chancellor who said, "Let us be careful of relying too much on mere averages." I recall that about two years ago, when the Archbishop of York, Mr. Basil Henriques and I were taking part in a conference on juvenile delinquency, Mr. Henriques—who, of course, is President of the East London Children's Court and a most experienced magistrate in that connection—told a story which illustrates very well and amusingly a possible danger. He told us that the headmaster of an East End school had reported on the good behaviour of the Jewish boys who were attending his school. But the headmaster went on to say that he was much worried about the crime among the Christian boys in the school. Mr. Henriques dolefully inquired what the
448
statistics were, and he was told: "Why, 50 per cent, of the Christian boys in my school have been involved in crime in one way or another." Mr. Henriques, much shocked, then inquired, "How many Christian boys are there in your school?" and the headmaster said, "Two." Therefore, do not let us rely too much on figures, and especially averages. But it does seem to me that you can reach perhaps three important conclusions if you have the time and inclination to study these annual tables.
In the first place, take the years 1948 and 1949. The figures for 1948, as your Lordships know, are published and can be studied at length in the printed Blue Book. The figures for 1949 are not yet published, and we are greatly indebted to the Lord Chancellor for the trouble he took in getting these figures for our information and stating them early in the debate yesterday. But I think there is this comment to be made on those figures, and I should not be surprised if my noble and learned friend agreed with me. I myself have learnt from such experience as I had at the Home Office in studying this kind of question, that a comparison between two adjoining years for material for a criminal survey will not help one very much one way or the other. I do not say this with a desire to help one side or the other in the controversy, but I am not sure that everybody appreciates that the figures which the Lord Chancellor gave us for 1949 do not really help the people who believe we were right to get rid of corporal punishment. He first gave us some very big totals of offences known to the police, which looked at first as though there had been a certain improvement in the latter year, but he pointed out that that big total was arrived at by including crimes which really have nothing to do with the subject we are talking about. We are talking about crimes perpetrated with violence in order to get somebody else's property. Whether it is bag snatching, whether it is rushing into an office and trying to seize the till, or whatever form it takes, it is that form of violent crime against the person which is really the important topic to consider.
The Lord Chancellor, as I daresay many noble Lords noticed, gave us a figure which shows how that stands, and he said that if you were to take crimes of violence against the person—and he

449
illustrated what he meant by that, and they are just the crimes it is important to consider—in 1948 there were 11,780 cases of such crimes known to the police, and in 1949 there were 12,247, which is an increase. But it is no good trying to use these figures and relate them to the fact that on a date in 1948 the law came into force which abolished corporal punishment. I do not consider that they really have any usefulness either way. If you rely on evidence of this sort as showing what happens when you have abolished the possibility of corporal punishment, you must imagine that juveniles study the contents of the Criminal Justice Act and observe the date on which it was passed into law; and that, further, they observe that the abolition of whipping did not take place when it passed into law but at a later date to be fixed hereafter by His Majesty in Council. There are not half a dozen of your Lordships at this moment who have any idea—apart from what we told on Tuesday—what that date was.
But there was a further circumstance about those figures which the noble and learned Viscount himself said he regarded—as I am sure he does—as very grave indeed, and that is the extent to which people under seventeen years of age have been convicted in these two years of that class of crime. I ask your Lordships to observe these figures because they are very distressing ones. In 1948–confining oneself to convictions—there were 871 juveniles convicted of this class of crime; in 1949 there were 894. There again, those figures, exact as they are, do not prove anything. There is no ground whatever for saying, as I think one or two people have said earlier in the debate, that this comparison between those two years really gives us any comfort. But I am quite clear myself—and I submit it with respect—that to rely on so short an interval and endeavour to draw a line is not helpful. What we need to do is to observe the trend over a long period.
In that connection there are just two facts which I would venture to mention, both of them. I think, very striking facts, and facts which I dare say are known to some of your Lordships already. The first is the really astounding difference between the number of cases known to the police in the period round about the First World War and the number during the present
450
period. It is difficult to believe how great the difference is. The statistics, as your Lordships probably know, divide up crimes into different categories, and there are two columns—which cannot, indeed, be very strictly mathematically related but are nevertheless a strong indication. One: column shows the number of crimes of that category known to the police—and I may say, incidentally, that I suspect that that is very short of the number of such crimes that are actually being committed. I should suppose that there are a great many people in this Metropolis—girls whose bags are snatched and other people who are bullied or hustled into surrendering their property—who do not communicate with the police. That is not the fault of the police. Take the first column, which is the number of crimes known to the police in a year; the second group of figures is the much smaller number of convictions. Perhaps your Lordships will kindly observe these figures.
In the years immediately before the First World War, the number of robberies with violence known to the police of the whole country was 178–that is all. The figures did not increase after the First World War—in fact, in that period, the number of robberies with violence was 177.
How many robberies with violence are known to the police in the latest published statistics? The number has risen from the figure I have given to 1,101 in 1948. As for burglaries, what was the number of burglaries "before the First World War known to the police? I: was 1,612; and in the years following the First World War the figure was 1,448. But what is the number of burglaries known to the police in a single year now? The number is 4,174. When you come to other classes, such as housebreaking or shopbreaking, it is still worse. Therefore the public are perfectly right, even though they may not know these statistics, in feeling that there has been a most prodigious increase in the class of crime which we are considering.
Incidentally, I am sure—and I think the point is sometimes confused—that if you look at the figures you will not find that there was an increase in this kind of crime or any kind of crime immediately after the First World War. If you look at what happened before the First World War (your Lordships can find the figures on

451
page 130 of the Cadogan Report) you will find that during the years of that war—1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918–the number of convictions and presumably the number of crimes of this class, dropped. It is a very significant factor when you come to think of it. But nothing of the sort is true now, and it really looks as though before and after that period of 1914 to 1918 this kind of crime was committed mostly by adults—largely, of course, by the professional burglar; the juveniles were left at home while the men were away at the war, under conscription or otherwise; and during the years of war these offences very materially dropped in number.
Your Lordships will remember the story told us by Lord du Parcq—we all regret so much that he is not here to help us now. He told us of a professional burglar who had entered the Army in the First World War, had done very well, and ended up as an extremely successful sergeant-major. His colonel sent for him when he was getting his discharge and his gratuity and said to him: "I know your old record, but now you are going back, after having served honestly and gallantly for these years, I beg you to use your gratuity to set yourself up in some honourable business." The sergeant-major answered, "Sir, I am very glad to get my gratuity. I will tell you what I am going to do with it: I am going to buy myself a first-class set of burglar's tools." Lord du Parcq vouched for the truth of that story, which he had heard from the colonel himself. But certainly it is not true to say that crime increased very much after the First World War as compared with the figures before that war.
The only other statistical fact I want to mention is that, though that is true about the First World War, it is utterly untrue about the situation as it is to-day. I have been at some pains to compare and to prepare, if it is of interest to your Lordships, two or three contrasting figures as between 1938, the last year before the war broke out, and 1948, which is the latest year for which we have printed records. Listen to these figures. In 1938 robberies with violence—which, as I have said, at the time of the First World War or just afterwards
452
amounted to 177–were 287. Of course, there was some growth of population and there were some changes in circumstances, but anyhow that was the figure.
Now, when the fighting is over and we begin to look at the police statistics after the Second World War, what is the number of robberies with violence known to the police? It has grown from 287 to 1,101, and it goes on substantially at or above that figure. Burglaries known to the police in the year before the Second World War were 1,515; in 1948, they were 4,174. In 1937 housebreakings were in the region of 17,000; in 1948, there were 31,578 cases known to the police—in a single year. Then, worst of all, is the class of crime which is called shopbreaking. Shopbreakings known to the police before the last war were 17,819; in the last recorded year, 1948, the figure for shopbreaking cases known to the police was 54,071. I hope I have not unduly underlined these matters or wearied your Lordships by reciting them, but it appears to me that those are the significant figures that appear in the statistics. Every Home Secretary in turn has to spend a portion of his life in studying these things. I hope and believe that I have brought together the figures which really matter.
If these crimes be due to the fact that there are still so many deserters floating about in our population, as was suggested on Tuesday last, I would respectfully urge that the Government should reconsider the question of an amnesty. It seems a frightful thing that, because a man under some great strain in the fires of war got away and failed to discharge his duty, he should go on year after year with no prospect of returning to his old address or even of joining his old friends, and without even the invitation of an announcement which might help him to wipe out his fear of making himself known and trying to make a new start. I hope that the Government will consider this matter most seriously.
Nobody doubts for a moment that a portion of the explanation is the most regrettable shortage in our police forces. I doubt very much indeed that, if we did get the extra 5,000 police required in the Metropolitan area, it would reduce the figures rapidly to something which one might tolerate—although it would make

453
a difference. I believe that that is the feeling of all of us. My recollection is that not so very long ago, if one needed a policeman and one walked out of one's front door the chances were that an officer would be found in the course of the next block or two. To-day, one can often walk a mile in this Metropolis, and never see a policeman at all. As was observed by one of the speakers last Tuesday; not only is that a very unhappy circumstance, but it is the failure of the "man in blue" to be seen on his job, at his work, which no doubt has an important connection with the illegal and violent action especially of many juveniles. If those are the salient facts, I want for a few minutes to turn to the other question: What are we going to do about this really appalling situation? Of course everybody will agree in a series of measures which, unfortunately, are long-term measures. No doubt, the problem is partly due to the utter want of parental guidance in many homes; no doubt there is a lowering of the moral standards in some portions of the population. I must add, as my personal view, that I cannot altogether dissociate from the list of causes a decreasing respect for individual rights. All that is common-place, and one need not spend time on it.
I remember a speech which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, who has for years taken such a close interest in this subject, not only in this House but out of it, made some time ago. He said. "The nation is on a dangerous and slippery slope, owing to an increasing contempt for the law and a decline in standards of honesty." I am afraid we must admit that that is a diagnosis with truth behind it. But what I wish to observe about the matter is this: some of the attempts which are being made to alter that state of things are good, but they are all long-term remedies, and cannot be expected to produce better results for a considerable time to come. I am afraid that that is true also of improving the numbers of the police, for that, too, has turned out to be a very long-term remedy. I must confess that my view is that, unless there is a rapid and substantial reduction of this kind of crime in our streets—that is to say, violence, often brutally perpetrated, for the purpose of stealing somebody else's money or:goods—there will be an ever-increasing weight public opinion in
454
sisting that a short-term remedy must be found.
That brings us to the heart of this most puzzling matter. It is no consolation, of course, for the man or woman who has been stunned by what is called a "cosh" and robber:, to be told: "We shall endeavour to increase the number and improve the quality of boys' clubs," or "It is hoped that longer sentences of imprisonment will produce an improve., meat." I must firmly state, with great respect to anyone who takes the other view, that I cannot for a moment accept that that impression in the mind of the: public is due to what is called "sensational journalism." It is not so at all. It is due to the sober realisation of the shocking fact that these crimes have so multiplied in number and in brutality—and, what is more, so many people who do them escape and are at large—that people inevitably ask: "Is there no short-term remedy which might be employed, and which would operate quickly?"
My Lords, my own record in regard to this question—not that it matters to other people—I must very briefly state. I was the Home Secretary who appointed the Cadogan Committee, and along with life was the then Secretary of State for Scotland. Between us we did our best to choose a team of people—sensible, sober-minded people, who so far as we knew had no strong previous unalterable convictions either way. The Committee was appointed in May, 1937. It made a unanimous Report in February, 1938, which recommended the abolition of the sentence of whipping, while retaining flogging in prisons for violent assaults on warders—about which I must say a word. I happened then to hold another office, but both then and later I read the Report very carefully. I do not think anybody who tries to judge this subject reasonably, with an open mind, even though he feels the strength of some arguments the other way, can deny that it is a very impressive fact that the Cadogan Committee reached that unanimous conclusion. I, at any rate, was so much influenced 'by it that when, in the House here, we had a vote on the Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chief Justice, which would have got rid of the "cat-o'-nine-tails" but would have kept whipping, I

455
did not vote. Like my noble friend, Lord Llewellin who also abstained, I did not feel that I was sure enough either way.
But for what it may be worth, I have to some extent, modified my view. It does not seem to me that this question of a sentence of moderate corporal punishment, in what the Judge with all the circumstances before him thinks is a rare but necessary case, is a question of morals on which all the high-minded men are on one side of the line and all the low-minded men are on the other. I really cannot accept that classification. It seems to me that it is a practical question; and, in view of the fact that a good many of us (though I agree not quite in the same circumstances), may have had some experience of this sort of moderate chastisement, whether as giver or receiver, I listen with a good deal of surprise to the people who say that they do not know of any reason why it should he regarded as a deterrent. I find it impossible to accept all the arguments that are used on one side, or, indeed, all the arguments that are used on the other. For example, supposing the Cadogan Committee or a similar Committee equally impartial were sitting now, could we be confident, in the light of these new and most disturbing figures to which I have called your Lordships' attention, that the Cadogan Committee or its successor would have reached the same conclusion? Supposing they had known that since they were appointed robberies in the street, largely of a new and brutal kind, had increased five times, and that in 1949 the number of juveniles convicted for this sort of crime was bigger than it ever was before. I do not know, but it seems to me to be using the Cadogan Committee's Report really too hardly to suppose that their conclusions—which, mind you, were reached at a time when the figures of crime were coming down, before the war—really rule this matter for all time.
Then there is another aspect. I share the view of Lord Oaksey—and I really have not heard the answer to it that there seems to be a certain want of logic in the Cadogan Report. When it comes to discussing what is to be done with convicts who make violent assaults on their warders, what the Report says at page 110 is this:
456
"We are fully satisfied by the evidence that the fear of corporal punishment has a strong deterrent influence on prisoners who might otherwise commit serious attacks on prison officers."
I agree with that. One of the most difficult duties of a Home Secretary is to study for oneself all the details of one of these cases and to make up one's mind whether the recommendation made by the visiting justices, that the man should be subjected to the infliction of the "cat-o'-nine-tails," should be carried out. If the members of the Cadogan Committee were satisfied that in that case the infliction of that sort of punishment had a strong deterrent effect, what I want to know is, why does it deter? It is perfectly obvious that what they meant is that at least in that case it deters, because other prisoners think that that game is not worth the candle, and it may be that the person who has made the attack feels that he will never do it again.
If your Lordships will reflect for a moment, you will realise that the answer which is given by those who take the other view, is no answer at all. I have heard it said that, after all, in that case there is nothing else which can be done. But that is no argument whatever. If the particular punishment so strongly recommended by the Cadogan Committee does not do any good—does not deter—well then, it is as 'useless as though the chaplain in the prison chapel read the man's name out once a week for a year. It is manifest of course, that they did take the view that, at any rate in that case, there was 'a deterrent effect.
For my part, I fully appreciate the arguments—I think they are strong arguments—that may reasonably be put up against corporal punishment. Because of appeal judicial whipping sometimes cannot take place promptly. The duty laid on the whipper is unpleasant. Perhaps more profound than either of those is the view which many people hold with great solidity of mind, that the community ought not to rely on authorising the infliction of physical pain. I certainly do not ridicule those arguments at all. Two arguments are used which some people think dispose of the whole matter out of hand, but which I must say appear to me quite unacceptable. Even the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, in his speech the other day said

457
he was waiting for the evidence that corporal punishment inflicted by judicial sentence is a deterrent. I do not suppose that many of us have had occasion to come into personal contact with that kind of treatment by judicial sentence. But if the question is, whether that sort of moderate chastisement does or does not in many cases prevail for the purpose of securing better order and obedience, it is enough to say to many of your Lordships, "I wonder what school you were at"
There is a second argument which not only does not appeal to me but raises a certain indignation in my mind. There is an illustration of it in a letter published in one of the London newspapers to-day. The gentleman who wrote that letter thought fit to include this sentence.
"Psychiatrists know what the Judiciary do not—that there is the closest causal connection between the advocacy of corporal punishment and the indulgence in sadism."
I am afraid that the cocksure confidence which that sort of psychiatrist shows, when he claims that he knows all about it and that the Judiciary do not know anything—the arrogance of one view and the utter contempt for any other view—does not make an appeal to people who are trying to reach the right conclusion. I feel, therefore, that we are serving a very useful 'purpose in having this debate, even although it does not lead to a final expression of opinion. I noticed that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said that it is:
"impossible that we should now go back on the decision,we came to a year ago."
He used the word "now", and I think that he is right. I cannot imagine our attempting to legislate in a contrary sense within so few months of Parliament making its decision. To that extent, I entirely agree,
The only other point which I would make—and I make it very briefly—is this. It seems to me that in considering this matter we have to hear in mind that there are two kinds of people who have to form a judgment about it. Most of us discuss it as legislators, as reformers or as citizens who want to do what is right; and we balance the arguments in an abstract way. But there are people in our community who have to know objectively much more about the subject—I refer to the Judges who administer the criminal law. I do not know at the
458
present time the answer which ought to be given to the Judge who says: "I have before me this youth of seventeen. I know that, by the law, I must not, in any circumstances order that he should he whipped. I have sometimes thought it right in the past to order a whipping accompanied by a short sentence, but, as the Lord Chancellor has said, that is impossible now, and that, instead, this youth must have a long sentence." I think everyone ought to consider what that involves.
A youth of seventeen, who perhaps has committed some horrible offence, is semi to prison for, possibly, ten years. When he comes out, it may well be that his whole life is spoilt. He is too old to serve an apprenticeship, and it is too late for him to make a start. I hope very much that he comes out of prison an improved man, though as long as three prisoners are kept in one cell, I do not think one can be sure that that will he the case. Then what is to be done in the case of a young person under seventeen—a juvenile, perhaps one who is even too young to be sent to prison at all? The whole tenor of the teaching which I endeavoured to imbibe in the years when I was at the Home Office and sat at the feet of Sir Alexander Paterson are. other great and merciful reformers was that long terms of imprisonment are a terrible danger, and you may in many cases, though you are trying to improve a man, in fact make him worse. That is tie reason why, in dealing with people in our prisons, we let them know that they will be able to get out earlier by good conduct and encourage them to do all they can to get out as soon as possible.
My Lords, that is all I have to say, and am sorry to have occupied your Lordships' attention for so long. But I am tremendously troubled about this matter, and I cannot honestly say, after much study of it, that I have made up my mind. But what I have endeavoured to say to your Lordships has been said with a desire to show not only how serious is this matter but also what are the considerations which, as I think, should guide one in reaching a conclusion. Having said that, I am sure that it will be to the great satisfaction of your Lordships that I now give way to the Lord Chief Justice of England.
4.55 p.m.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, the object of this debate, as I understand it, has been to endeavour to focus public attention upon the disgraceful and, I would add, disturbing outbreak of violence which has recently occurred in this country. It is inevitable that in the course of this debate much attention has been and will be given to the question of corporal punishment. I did my best—and I am not ashamed to say so—when the Criminal Justice Bill was before this House to endeavour to have some form of corporal punishment retained, because I believed it the right thing to do. It is true, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, reminded your Lordships on Tuesday, that I suggested the abolition of the "cat" and the retention of other forms of corporal punishment—not merely the birch. Had my endeavour been successful, it would have enabled one form of corporal punishment to be given which I think has been too often forgotten. In the past, boys who had done wrong could be caned.
It may interest your Lordships to know that not so very long ago one of His Majesty's Judges did order a boy to receive six or eight strokes of the cane. The Governor of the gaol came to him in great perturbation and said: "Your Lordship must have meant the birch," "No I did not," said Mr. Justice Croom-Johnson—for that was the Judge—"I meant the cane. It is for me, under the Statute, to prescribe the instrument, and that is the instrument I prescribe." "But," said the Governor, "we have not got a cane." "Well," said Mr. Justice Croom-Johnson, "go out and buy one." The judge did not do as I should have done in similar circumstances—put my hand in my pocket and given sixpence to the Governor and told him to go out and buy a cane. I am told that a thick file of correspondence afterwards came into existence discussing the question as to who was to pay for the cane.
Too often, I think, when we are discussing the question of corporal punishment, we are apt to talk about flogging. The reason why I wanted to get rid of the "cat" and to keep the cane or the birch was not because I believe the "cat," as administered nowadays, is a brutal instrument. As the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, told your Lordships, the
460
"cat" nowadays is not a terrible instrument, it does not hurt any more than the birch, if the birch is properly laid on by a chief warder who knows his business. But there seems to remain in the public mind memories of the days when the "cat" consisted of nine leather thongs with knots at the end of them, and consequently, when a man went into prison and was given the "cat," he was apt to be treated afterwards as a martyr or a hero. When given the birch he was an object of ridicule when he came out of prison—and a good thing too, for nothing kills so quickly as ridicule.
I will not take up the time of your Lordships by telling you at length of the experiences of members of the Western Circuit, but we well remember how at Portsmouth Judge Radcliffe stamped out in less than twelve months the robbing of drunken sailors by men living on the immoral earnings of prostitutes. He gave quite short sentences—sentences of six weeks, or three months, or something of that sort—and twenty strokes of the birch. The friends of the convicted men used to wait for them as they came out of the prison, stand close against the wall, if I may so put it, and make gestures at them, ridiculing them. As I say, that form of crime was stamped out in less than twelve months. I ventured to predict when I spoke on this subject earlier that the abolition of any form of corporal punishment would cause additional violence.
We have had many statistics and I do not propose to take up time by examining them in detail, because that has already been done by the noble Viscount who has just spoken. When whipping was abolished on September 4, 1948, the day on which that section of the Act came into force, it took some time for that to filter into the minds of the criminal classes. No doubt they still thought for a time that they would be subject to whipping. The following figures concerning the City of Liverpool, where we are told that crime generally has decreased, have just been sent to me by the Judges on the Northern Circuit at the present time. For the sixteen months ending February 28, 1949, there were 14 cases of robbery with violence in the city, and for the same period ending February 28, 1950, there have been 26–that is, an increase of nearly 100 per cent. Out of the total number of 60 crimes on the calendar just

461
disposed of by Mr. Justice Oliver, 15 were robbery with violence or armed robbery—one involving murder in which two prisoners were concerned—and the other 13 were all men who had committed these crimes between November 10 and January 17. In my view that is not a pretty picture. It is not one on which anybody can look with complacency.
I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oak soy, said this to your Lordships the other day, or mentioned it to me privately afterwards, but I have never known, and he has never known, and no Judge that I know has ever known, a prisoner willing to plead guilty to robbery with violence. He will plead guilty to robbery, and to robbery with aggravation (which means that two or more are concerned in it or that a man has been am-led with an offensive weapon at the time, though he has not used it) but they will never plead guilty to robbery with violence, because they know and fear what the consequences might be. But whether or not there has been an increase in a number of these crimes, what I am quite certain of is that violence has increased, is increasing, and must be stopped. We have to find some way of stopping it.
The use of the cosh or some variety of that dreadful instrument—your Lordships have possibly seen pictures of them; I can assure your Lordships that a cosh is one of the most horrible instruments you can depict—is extraordinarily on the increase, and the most disturbing feature of it is the youth, or comparative youth, of the prisoners. Let me say at once that it is one thing to deplore, as I certainly deplore, the abolition of all forms of corporal punishment, and quite another to demand its reimposition. My reluctance to demand its return is because I think there is nothing worse than continually altering the penalties imposed by the criminal law. The position as I see it is that Parliament deliberately abolished corporal punishment in 1948, with practical effect from 1949–though it is true it took in the autumn assize of 1948, If we are to press for and succeed in getting its reimposition now, who is to say that in the next Parliament (and many people think it cannot be long before there is a new Parliament) might not take it off again? I cannot say that I visualise with any favour a see-saw of that description.
462
Let me remind your Lordships of what: happened in 1948 with regard to capital punishment. As soon as a clause which would have had the effect, if Parliament agreed to it, of abolishing capital punishment, was moved in another place, against the advice of the Government, and carried, the Home Secretary announces. that in all cases of murder, pending the passing of the Act, he would advise reprieve, I ventured to say in this House that I thought the action of the Home: Secretary in that respect was illegal. When your Lordships stood firm to retain capital punishment, the: clause abolishing it was dropped, and capital punishment was restored. In the interval several murderers, murderers of a very bad description, were reprieved. The murderer of police constable Edgar, who was shot like a dog by a burglar, the steward on a liner, who first raped and thee strangled a girl and pushed her body into shark-infested sea, and several other murderers, were reprieved. Then, when your Lordships stood firm, that policy had to he abandoned and capital punishment remained the law of the land. I cannot think that sort of up-and-down is a good thing for the criminal law of this country and it is certainly not a good thing for the Judges who have to administer it. That is why I am not pressing for the reinstatement of corporal punishment now.
The only alternative that seems to be left is heavy sentences, but on this I ask your Lordships to remember two things. The first is that every sentence must be really heavy, and the present position with regard to remission should be borne in mind. The old system whereby a man earned marks for good conduct has been abolished, I understand, and unless, indeed, there is some prison break or frightful assault on a warder every mar: now has a remission of one-third of his sentence. So, when considering the protection of the public, it is just as well to remember that when a man is sentenced to five years he will serve only three years four months—and so on clown the scale. When a sentence of ten years is given, something like six years eight months will be served. If heavier sentences are given these men will remain in prison longer. The prisons are all overcrowded According to some figures I received from the Home Office only this afternoon more than 2,000 prisoners are put three in a cell in different prisons. The staffs are

463
overworked and the prisons are understaffed. I believe it is no easier to recruit for the prison service than it is to recruit for the police service. Where are we to put these prisoners, and who is to look after them? I do not know. But I think it is the only alternative we have.
The second thing is that if heavier sentences are to be given, and if that is the only remedy, the courts must not be deterred by the youth of the offender. That gives me an opportunity of saying that though in certain newspapers, and in another place, it was suggested that I was heading a call for the reinstatement of corporal punishment, I have done no such thing. I think that possibly arose from some remarks I felt compelled to make at the Old Bailey in sentencing two youths for the most appalling case of personal violence one could imagine. One youth of seventeen and the other of fifteen, with a heavy pistol and a murderous cosh, had so battered an unhappy and defenceless woman of fifty-five or sixty that it was a wonder she was not killed; and they left her moaning and bleeding on the floor of a railway train. These two boys stood before me, and in passing sentence I said that it was not for me to question the wisdom of Parliament in altering any sentence. For it is not the duty of a Judge to question the wisdom of Parliament from the Bench, and it is not desirable that he should do so. But perhaps I may he permitted to do it on the floor of this House, because I am speaking here in a different capacity.
I hope that I shall never go to the length of questioning from the Bench the wisdom of Parliament. I said to these youths that the result was that I must now pass a sentence upon them of a class that I was sorry to have to pass on young fellows like them. To pass a sentence—which I did—of seven years on people of seventeen or fifteen years of age is a terrible thing to do. It is true that in the case of the boy of fifteen I was enabled by a section in the Children Act to say that he should be detained in a place to be selected by the Home Secretary; but that did not apply in the case of the boy of seventeen. If whipping had not been abolished, I could have given those boys what I venture to think almost everybody in their innermost hearts would agree they thoroughly deserved—that is,
464
a whipping and a short sentence. As it is, I had to pass upon them a sentence which I hated to have to pass. I ask your Lordships, which is the better: to give them a whipping and a short sentence, or for them to serve the sentence that I had to pass? Could I have sent them to Borstal for that offence? Borstal means detention for thirteen or eighteen months. I say that would be a derisory thing to do in a case of such brutality as those boys displayed.
What is the alternative? I have never received a satisfactory answer from anybody. We are told in season and out of season—and I entirely agree—that prison is the worst thing for the young and it should be avoided whenever possible. But, as I say, Borstal is not a suitable punishment for this crime and, therefore, there is nothing left, so far as I can see, except prison. Some people who write letters in the papers—such as the letter quoted by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon just now—seem to delight in picturing Judges as elderly sadists who go round the country desiring to send everybody to prison if they cannot flog them, and to flog them if they can. I do not believe there is any more untrue picture that could be painted. There is not a Judge on the Bench, so far as I know, who does not realise to the full—and I sincerely assure your Lordships that I do—how bad it is to have to send boys and young people to prison for any length of time. How often do we endeavour by every means in our power to get out of doing it if we can! But, surely, there comes a time, as in a case of murderous brutality, when there is nothing else to do, if only for the protection of others. Are we to think only of the boy? Are we not to think of the battered and bleeding victim who lies on the floor? Are we not to think of the others who may 'be exposed to the same fate? Perhaps in those circumstances it is better that the boy should be locked away. But do not then talk as though we Judges are doing something horrible in sentencing the boy to prison. We are doing it because it is the only thing to do, and so that the other lieges of His Majesty may not be treated in the same way.
I suppose there is nothing that is agitating the public so much now as the amount of crime there is among what are

465
generally called the adolescent. I am not very fond of talking about juvenile delinquents: I think it is dignifying them with a grand sort of name, and we might just as well talk about bad boys and girls. Is the reason for juvenile delinquency far to seek? I know that you can go into the causes of it—bad homes, lack of education, lack of police, and so forth—but there is another aspect which I believe is very much at the back of it, namely, the impossibility now of punishing ally young people. You just cannot do it. The worst that can happen is that they can be sent to an approved school until they are sixteen, when they can be sent to Borstal. I have been over some approved schools, and I cannot see any element of punishment in them. I had sent to me a copy of a letter written by a boy in a remand home in the county of.Durham. It was some time ago, but the letter has been kept. He wrote to his father after he had been sent to the remand home. The offence for which he had been sent there was a shocking attack upon a girl, and at the time he wrote the letter the girl was still lying unconscious. It is to remand homes that the young have to go until you can find the approved schools to which they can be sent. He says in the letter:
"Dear Father,
Just a couple of lines to say that everything went okay and that the place is fine. Every Thursday we go to the pictures, they call the picture hall the Cosy. The picture we are going to sea on Thursday is the picture that was on the Ritz not so long ago. They call it Laddie son of Lassie. The first day I arrived we had cricket. Also around the place we have strawberry beds, about three hundred heads of lettuce, a bed of potatoes, a greenhouse with Hg flowers on each side."
That is all very well. He goes on:
"We wake up approximately half past eight"—
that is the time they get up—
"go outside the door, put our sandshoes on, walk downstairs and get a good refreshing wash. After that we go over to the gymnasium and have a good half hour physical training. By the way I am sitting in the gym, writing this letter. After that we are finished with our P.T. and the boys stand in a line and start to smell "—
that means, to smell from the cook-house—
"and the bogs will say bacon for breakfast and we all go and get our breakfast."
466
I hope your Lordships all get bacon for breakfast these days. He continues:
"We can get a second cup of tea. To-day we are going to play games such as table tennis, draughts, dominoes, cards, then we read American comics and library books. Do you think you could send me some magazines and a toothbrush and a tube or tin of toothpaste? Well, I guess that is all I've got to say until visiting day and so I will say goodbye from your loving son."
That is the place that boy went to. Your Lordships no doubt notice that there is not one word of inquiry or expression of regret for the girl who was still lying unconscious front that boy's action.
No one recognises the value of probation or the magnificent self-sacrificing work that probation officers do more than I. But the time is coming when we have seriously to think, is probation to be treated as an end in itself, or ought it riot to be treated as a means to art end? Is it to take the place entirely of punishment? To put a. boy on probation and under the probation officer, surely, means that you should put him under the care of a man who will try to make him go straight in the future. But if these boys know—as they all do, and as very often they tell the police they know—that no one can do anything to them except put them on probation, the thing becomes perilously near to a farce, be cause as I say, probation is not punishment. I t is quite easy sometimes to escape the observation of the probation officer, who probably has far more youths to look after than he can possibly manage. There is really nothing worse than probation orders being made time after time. Do not think I am blaming the magistrates; there is nothing they can do except that. These two boys whose crime I described to your Lordships, I hope in not too lurid terms, had both been on probation twice; they were on probation at the time they committed the offence, and they planned the outrage when they met at the Probation office or just outside the office.
When I have people before me, of whatever age, for these murderous attacks, whether they are felonious wounding or whether they are robbery with violence, I am afraid I cannot stop to think whether misplaced parental control, lack of police officers or one thing and another is responsible for it. We have to deal with the matter

467
objectively: the man is there in the dock and we have to sentence him there and then. If we could find some way of dealing with this violent crime, I should rejoice. At the present time I feel a sense of frustration about it. I am told that frustration is one of the things which causes juvenile delinquency. Perhaps I am too old to be classed as a juvenile delinquent, but I can assure your Lordships that it is a great and difficult problem which faces us. I have told your Lordships briefly why I do not feel able to press for a return of corporal punishment yet—I say "yet," as did the Lord Chancellor, because I believe that if this wave goes on and cannot be stopped, the demand for an attempt to stop it by corporal punishment will be overwhelming. Then it must be applied, and I hope to goodness that it will not be applied too late.
5.21 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to add my flower to the bouquet of congratulations which have been offered to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, on his speech in moving this Motion. What I particularly liked about it, if I may say so, was that in advocating that every possible step should be taken to bring the recruitment of the police up to establishment, he put first things first—at any rate from the point of view of the short-term solution of this very difficult problem. If there is one thing which penological science has made absolutely clear, it is that much the most effective of all deterrents is the certainty of arrest and punishment. We can argue until we are blue in the face as to whether flogging will deter a man from committing a violent crime, but there can be no dispute as to the fact that if there is known to be a policeman in the vicinity it is very unlikely that the violent crime will take place.
This point was put forcibly and picturesquely in a noteworthy article in The Times the other day when the leader writer said:
"The old woman in the lonely lane, followed by the predatory hooligan with a 'cosh,' might be saved by his last-minute reflections on the unpleasantness of the 'cat'; she will certainly be saved if a constable comes round the corner in time."
Undoubtedly that is an absolutely true observation. Therefore, it is a question
468
of real urgency as to how we are to step up recruitment in the police force. During the course of this discussion, a number of your Lordships have suggested that one effective stimulus for recruiting would be to ensure that every police recruit has a reasonably good house in which to live. I think the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack went a good way to accepting that proposition when he described the circular letter which was being sent out to local authorities asking for priority in this matter. I myself am convinced that this would be the most effective stimulus to recruiting that one could find, but I confess that I am not satisfied that the course which the Government have adopted, of circularising the local authorities about it, will he adequate. We have been told in this House more than once that ever since the end of the war local authorities have been asked to give priority to police needs in housing, though so far they have always refused to do so.
There can be no doubt that the fabric of our whole society depends on the due and effective administration of the criminal law; the foundations of the complex society in which we live rest upon that. Unfortunately, as so often happens nowadays, we are too apt to take the foundations for granted. I would suggest that, as in the war years, when society was directly attacked by our enemies from overseas, we were prepared to take really effective measures to deal with the problem, and among other things were prepared to requisition houses where necessary—for example, for the provision of accommodation for officers in the Fire Service, in which I myself have taken part—the Government should be prepared to go as far as requisitioning houses in order to provide accommodation for the police. This problem is of such importance. I would go further than that: I would urge them to take into their own hands the job of building the houses. We now have a very energetic Minister of Works, and I have no doubt that if he were given a target, particularly in London where this problem is obviously of outstanding importance, to provide, say, 2,000 houses by the end of the year, he would be able to tackle the job and produce the goods. By means of requisitioning and direct building I believe we should be able to

469
provide, say, 4,000 houses by the beginning of l9.5 and I would he prepared to lay very long odds that that would have the effect of bringing the establishment of the Metropolitan Police Force up to the level at which we wish to see it.
I have no doubt at all—and in this I rather disagree with the noble and learned Viscount. Lord Simon—that that would have a considerable effect on the crime statistics in London.. Incidentally, if I may interrupt my argument to deal with the question to which he devoted a good deal of time—as to why corporal punishment should be retained for attacks on warders in gaols, and not in other cases of violent crime—the answer is surely that the certainty of punishment in respect of a crime of that kind is absolute. The man has practically no possibility of escape and, therefore, any sort of severe punishment is an effective deterrent. He is already in prison so he cannot be deterred by imprisonment, but he can by the certainty of corporal punishment. I think that is clearly the answer to that particular point.
I said that I considered this police solution as the short-term solution of this problem, Ism when the police have arrested the culprit, and he has been put in prison, society is faced with a heavy bill for keeping him there. We lose his labour and. what is perhaps worst of all, the chances are that when he comes out he will take to crime again, because the rate of recidivism is very high. The only possibility is that while we have him there we can reform him, and that is why penologists attach so much importance to the problem of reformation. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that penologists regarded deterrents as a matter of no particular importance in punishment, and that reformation was everything. If he will think about it. I think lie will see that while we do not take that view about deterrents we naturally concentrate a good deal on reformation, because if the man is reformed then society gets a good citizen back to carry on with the good work.
A little later the noble Lord went on thought rather unfortunately—to throw ridicule on attempts to eliminate the causes of crime. He said that the penologists hold that if we wish to eliminate crime we must first find out what turns a man into a criminal, and then eliminate the causes. I was a little disappointed
470
that he should have taken this sceptical view about this important matter, because I believe that it is one of real importance. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord. Archibald—in what I thought was one of the noteworthy contributions to this discussion—took up that particular point in a maiden speech. Surely it is very important to try to prevent these lads and young men from becoming criminals at all. E have always found it amazing that in this country hardly anybody is prepared to take part in any sort of work towards preventing evil from getting 1:;oing; but as soon as the thing has got under way, then we are prepared to spend millions of pounds to cure it. At the present time we are spending over £400,000,000 a year on curative medicine—dentistry and other things—but we are not prepared to find a few thousand pounds to keep going one of the most important experiments in preventive medicine at the Peckham Health Centre, which is being wound up for want of a small sum which might be found out of this £400,000,000.
It is the same with crime. Think of how much material loss this tremendous waste caused by crime represents to the community every year. And there is not only the material loss but the loss in spiritual values also: we lose a very great deal of human value in these hardened criminals. Yet there is no institute of criminology; there is only a small department here and there in the universities, and on them practically no money is spent. I think it is time that we were prepared to take much more seriously this question of studying methods of preventing crime.
I should like to turn for a minute or two to the question of the young criminal, which has been discussed earlier. We should all agree, I think, that his criminality seldom arises from any innate viciousness in the lad. It is often the natural instinct for adventure finding outlets in unfortunate ways. This has been realised more and more over recent years. Unfortunately, it has rather led the courts to regard a little house breaking and a spot of gang robbery by these young ruffians as a venial offence, a sowing of wild oats, and these youths in many cases are all too leniently treated. The spirit of adventure is undoubtedly the: material for building up the finest characters. It is also the

471
material out of which the hardened criminal and the pest of society is sometimes made. I have said it was a maxim of penology that the certainty of punishment is the best of all deterrents. But these lads know that they will probably not get punished at all. Indeed, the coming before the court is all part of the adventure. All that happens is that an old gentleman says, "Go away, and don't do it again "—and that is treated, very naturally, with derision. This has a most unfortunate effect on the police themselves. More than one chief constable has complained to me that his police will not be bothered to take up boys who are behaving in this way when they know perfectly well that this sort of thing will happen when the lads are brought before the court. In this way bad habits are built up on this instinct of adventure; and the lad who, had he been properly handled, might have made a good citizen, becomes a hardened criminal.
I was rather disappointed with the Lord Chief Justice's criticism of the probation system, which was, I thought, in rather harsh terms. The probation system has made a tremendous contribution towards this problem of delinquency. It is a British invention and, if effectively used, works very well indeed. I received only this morning a copy of the report of the Probation Committee of Stockton-on-Tees, and it is a remarkable document. There they have three probation officers, and the result has been a real diminution in juvenile crime over the last year or two. Never at the height of the post-war peak of juvenile crime did it go up to what it had been in 1938, which is, in itself, a remarkable fact. Last year, it actually went down from over 300 to just over 200–an improvement of over 50 per cent. That shows what can be done by effective use of the probation system. The report shows that whereas in 1948 they have twenty-five lads in an approved school at a cost of over £5 per head, the figure went down last year to six lads. They have saved, as a result of this policy, considerably more than the salary of the probation officers.
EARL HOWE: What would the noble Lord say about the case at New Cross, referred to by the Lord Chief Justice, where both these lads were under probation at the time?
LORD CHORLEY: I am not sure how far I am in a position to deal with that case, but I believe that the probation officer had, in fact, advised the Bench not to renew the probation of these boys, and the Bench took their action against his advice. Like anything else, probation is a method which has to be used with discretion; and I entirely agree with the Lord Chief Justice that from time to time it is wrongly used.
I should like to say a few words about one or two other matters, more particularly the question of crimes with violence, which, as a result of very proper public feeling, has given rise to much discussion here and throughout the country as a whole. The situation is very bad. The figures which the noble and learned Viscount gave on Tuesday show that, at any rate, it is rather better over the last year than in 1948. Indeed, while the diminution in crime as a whole was something like 12 per cent., in respect of these violent crimes there was a diminution of as much as 16 per cent. In other words, it was distinctly better than the average improvement. I cannot agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that this matter has not been, at any rate to some extent, worked up by the Press. In 1948, when the figure was much higher than in 1949, there were something like three of these cases every day, but the Press did not concentrate on them. Over recent weeks they have been concentrating on them. One noble Lord said, "I never open my paper without reading of a case." The Press convey the impression that it is a matter of very great gravity.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Is the situation not one of very great gravity?
LORD CHORLEY: Of course it is, but it is wrong for the Press to "star" it in the way they have been doing over recent weeks. I regard it as sensationalism. I believe that to some extent the Judges also have taken part in this, and I think it is unfortunate. When one of the Judges says that facts matter more than statistics, and says it a day or two after the Home Secretary has given statistics in the House of Commons, many people think—though no doubt that was not in the learned Judge's mind—that he is criticising the accuracy of the figures which the Home Secretary is producing, and it makes a bad impression. I

473
think and hope that after this debate the learned Judges will take rather more care before making pronouncements of this kind from the Bench.
When the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, came to discuss this question of reviving flogging, I did not feel that that part of his speech was so effective as in its earlier parts, not because I disagreed with it but because it did not give me the impression of really wanting to reintroduce flogging. Like so many members of the public, he was worried by the situation and would have recourse to flogging just because he could not think of anything more effective to do. That is exactly the situation which led to the Garrotting Act of 1861 which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, discussed in some detail, and which the Home Secretary at that time described as panic legislation introduced after the reason for the panic had subsided, or words to that effect. He then traced the rather discreditable history of this business in which, as he said, Parliaments from time to time "have been stampeded."
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a significant episode in the criminal history of Belgium, which is hardly known in this country, as emphasising the importance of not allowing ourselves to be stampeded in this way. After the First World War, there was a considerable outbreak of gang robberies and murders in Belgium. Gangs of young ruffians of the kind that we have heard about this afternoon attacked lonely farms, held lap the farmers and sometimes burned their feet to make them disclose where their valuables were kept. In some cases there was murder. There was an agitation for the revival of the death sentence in Belgium, which had not been enforced for about sixty years. The Attorney-General took part in this and advocated that one young murderer, I will call him Pierre, should be executed. At that time the great statesman Mr. Van der Velde happened to be Minister of Justice. He said: "No. This is a barbaric punishment. I would resign from the Government rather than assent to a revival of capital punishment." And so the man was not executed, but was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment.
Within a few weeks of that happening, this wave of gang robbery and murder had subsided. No more was heard of
474
that type of crime. But if Mr. Van der Velde had not been Minister of Justice at that time and stood out against it, and if the Attorney-General's advice had been taken, they would have reintroduced the death sentence in Belgium, and when the murders died away everybody would have said: "Post hoc propter hoc: We have abolished murder by re-establishing capital punishment." The corollary of this case is that this young Pierre, after serving his sentence in prison, where he was a model prisoner, was released and is now a happily married man with a family and a business, and is a valuable member of society. That emphasises the view put forward by the noble Viscount that we should not allow ourselves to be stampeded in this way.
I should like to add a little to what was said about corporal punishment being a deterrent. The noble Viscount discussed very carefully the Report of the Cadogan Committee. I should like to add one or two points to the points which he made. There are, of course, two ways of looking at this problem of deterrents. There is the question whether the criminal who is flogged will commit a similar sort of crime again; and there is the question whether other people who might be criminals in that type of crime will be deterred by the fact that they know that there is a good chance of their being subjected to flogging. On the first of those points, as the noble Viscount pointed out, the Cadogan evidence, though not very strong, is slightly to the effect that it does not deter a man from committing again that, sort of crime. I should like to add to that a little piece of evidence which comes from a colleague of mine, a young criminologist who is working in tie University of London on the subject of recidivism at the present time.
He has taken a random sample of 270 recidivists. It happens that out of that 270, only eleven have been subjected to corporal punishment. Of those eleven, three were flogged and eight were birched. The interesting point is the subsequent histories of these men. In the case of the three who were flogged, all three have later been guilty of crimes of violence—two of wounding with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, and the third of robbery with violence. Of the eight who were birched, the first has since been convicted of robbery with violence; the

475
second of robbery with violence; the third of aggravated assault; the fourth of aggravated assault; the fifth of three aggravated assaults; the sixth of rape; the seventh was implicated in the Dartmoor mutiny, which your Lordships may remember; and the eighth, although not guilty of violence against other people, has more than once tried to take his own life. Does not that strongly support the case of the noble Viscount that by subjecting those men to this punishment of flogging or birching the result is likely to be that they will be confirmed in their violent attitude towards society?
If I may look at the other question, the question of flogging being a general deterrent, I should like to add to the evidence which the noble Viscount placed before your Lordships two other pieces of evidence which I hope may strengthen the case he made. The first is in connection with what happened in the West Indies. Not so long ago there was an outbreak of "praedial larceny" in the West Indies, and flogging was reintroduced for dealing with that. "Praedial larceny" is the theft of growing crops, such as the carrying away of sugar cane. Let me take Jamaica as one example. In July, 1942, flogging was reintroduced in Jamaica for the purpose of dealing with this type of crime. The average number of whippings per month for the rest of the year was fifteen. By 1945, when the discussion took place in another place, the number had gone up from fifteen to twenty-eight per month; in other words, it had almost doubled. During the same period, the monthly average of convictions had gone up from sixty to seventy-seven. In those circumstances how can one say that flogging is an effective deterrent?
The other case that I take is evidence of a rather negative character in connection with Scotland, which was also referred to by the noble Viscount. Your Lordships will remember that Scotland abolished corporal punishment many years ago. That being so, if flogging were really an effective deterrent we should expect to find that the recent wave of crimes of violence was much more serious in Scotland than in this country, because until just over a year ago we had flogging and they did not. But the reverse is the
476
case. The Home Office have kindly provided me with some statistics on this matter. I qualify what I am going to say by telling your Lordships that the ingredients of robbery in Scotland are not exactly the same as they are in this country. Therefore, what I am saying is to some extent qualified by that fact.
The average number of robberies in this country and Wales before the war was 227 per annum. In Scotland the number was 121. That pre-war average in England and Wales went up in 1947 to 976, which was about four and a half times as many; but in Scotland only to 386, which was just three times as many. As your Lordships have heard, in 1948 it increased again in England and Wales to 1,101, which is over five times the prewar figure, while in Scotland it actually went down from 386 to 353.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Is that robbery with violence?
LORD CHORLEY: They are cases of robbery generally but they include the violent cases, and as the noble Viscount knows, most cases of robbery involve a certain amount of violence. My Lords, in the face of all this evidence, can we say that the case for re-establishing corporal punishment has been made out? After all, surely we are all agreed that it is a brutal punishment to inflict upon anybody, whether it is the "cat" or the birch. From the point of view of pain and nervous shock, a well known doctor has decribed it as equivalent to an operation without an anesthetic, and its psychological effect is often even more serious because it may make a man a permanent and hardened criminal. My Lords, before we go back to this sort of thing, surely those who are in favour of flogging have a very heavy burden of proof to discharge; and surely the whole of the discussions during this week in your Lordships' House have shown that they have not in fact discharged it.
5.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I have a Motion on the Order Paper on the subject of Part II of the Oaksey Report, and asking what steps the Government are going to take to implement any of the fifty-five recommendations contained in that report. I propose to leave that Motion on the Order Paper with a view to a debate on that point at a later date.

477
During this debate we have listened to great experts, men who have in the past. held the office of Home Secretary, to Judges on the Bench, and many others with great experience of life in this country. Rut so far I have not heard anybody who has been a policeman address your Lordships. I am the first to speak as one having occupied a high position in the police in days gone by. I have no right, nor do I intend to presume, to speak for the police. I was for a very short time with them—only four years; but, in those four years I felt I learned a lot, especially through the criticism that I received. I think I was more publicly criticised for three years of my time than any other public or police officer has ever been—and I learned a lot. I understood and admired the police in those days, but as I have said, I am not presuming to speak on their behalf, only to pass on to you such knowledge as I think I acquired during those days.
The debate on Tuesday and to-day is on Lord Lloyd's Motion on "the large number of crimes accompanied by violence" occurring in large cities in this country at the present time. I would here add my congratulations TO the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, on his opening speech. To my mind it divides itself into three parts—first, the prevention of crime, which can he achieved only by the police; second, the catching of the criminal, also by the police; and third—which this debate has discussed roost—the punishment of the criminals or the improvement of their conditions so as to prevent others committing a crime—in other words, providing a deterrent. Many noble Lords have already contributed to this debate on the question of punishment, or on the question of whether any punishment should he given. I thoroughly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, who spoke on Tuesday, especially when he said:
"I think that those of us such as Judges, police and prison officers who are in the closest possible touch with the criminals themselves, are in a position to form a better opinion about the effect which such sentences have upon the criminals than any of your Lordships who sit her!."
Further, Lord Oaksey said:
"I, in my simplicity, am unable to see why prison officers should he protected by corporal punishment, whereas poor old women, young women, old jewellers, and bank clerks are not."
478
My Lords, I thoroughly agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, said, and I agree more than ever with what the Lord Chief Justice said to-day. After hearing the letter which he read, I think one may come to the conclusion that we are now not punishing malefactors at all.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: If the noble Viscount will allow me, I think the letter that was read referred to a remand home to which the boy was sent, perhaps for a few days. Most of the inmates there would he persons who had not yet been sentenced at all and might be proved innocent. That is why they are treated in that way. That is not the penalty that was imposed upon the boy.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: I understand. En the short time that I was in the police, I got to understand all about remand homes and that sort of thing, and how people were treated when they were remanded.
It is well known that there has been a great outcry in the Press which has been reflected in speeches in both Houses of Parliament and outside, on this controversial question of flogging or whipping. There have also been discussions about the abolition of the death penalty and the greater use of the prerogative of reprieve: also on improving conditions in the prisons, giving the prisoners greater comforts, having prisons without bars and changing the life of the prisoners. Many seem even to advocate that punishment should not mean what is ordinarily understood by the word "punishment," but that criminals should be given some form of social education, or whatever the clever brains like to call it, which will improve their outlook on life, change their characters and turn them into law-abiding citizens, and they argue that this can be done better by improving the standard of life and living conditions in the prisons. That is what a large number of people think. I read a letter in The Times this morning—I think it was from a clergyman who had worked in the East End. He used these words:
"Human parents of all nations, and animal parents, all find a proper degree of physical punishment necessary to train their young. Therefore it is natural and not wrong. But, like everything else, it can be pushed too far, and then it 'becomes wrong. It is really a question of degree."
LORD CHORLEY: Did the noble Viscount also see a letter in The Times from a man who described himself as an ex-convict, who speaks of the deplorable effects which result from flogging?
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: I read that too. It may be that I am very stupid on all these things, or that, to copy Lord Oaksey's words, I am simple-minded or old-fashioned in my latter years, but I do not understand why some people should think that a criminal should never be punished. It is my opinion that a criminal should be punished according to the seriousness of the offence he has committed; he should be made to feel that brutal crime is going to be stopped. It seems at present that the victim suffers, but he has no redress. The criminal is given an easy time, with the chance to better his education and his standard of life; he has no need to pay for his misdeeds. If his victim is not insured, he gets nothing back; he loses all—even his life sometimes. The malefactor, when he is caught and sentenced, gets everything free—free food (sometimes better food than we do), free clothes, free books and free cinemas, all at the expense of those he has robbed, who pay the taxes. I feel that the malefactor benefits not only by his crime, but by the punishment that is meted out to him. The malefactor, by reason of his crime and his sentence, very often comes out with substantial advantages.
I should like to tell your Lordships a little story which I believe to be true. This sort of thing has not happened in England yet, but I wonder whether it soon will. An African was sentenced to death for murder, was reprieved, and was given a life sentence. After he had done eighteen years it was decided that he should be released. On his release, the ex-convict at once sent a petition to the King, through the usual channels, saying that he thought the treatment which he had received was unfair. He stated that he had given faithful and loyal service to His Majesty for eighteen years, and in his old age he was turned out to face an unfriendly world without means of support. Is that the way we are going? I am wondering whether someone soon will begin to suggest giving the criminal, after he has done repeated terms of imprisonment, a pension.
480
Now, I must refer for a few moments to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I may be misinterpreting him—indeed, I hope I am—but, from his speech, I gathered that he thought that some of the opponents of the abolition of the death sentence or of flogging are the natural successors of those who in medieval times put men on the rack or subjected them to the torture of the thumbscrews. I hope that that is not what the noble Viscount meant. We are as sincere as those who advocate lighter punishment. Our only thought is to take the best measures to put a stop to these crimes.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: As the noble Viscount has rather invited me to give an explanation, may I say that I used the phrases to which he has referred simply as an illustration in discussing the question of principle as to whether or not the infliction of physical pain should form part of the penal code of a civilised country. I was not referring to present advocates of the birch, nor was I comparing them to the people who inflicted tortures with the rack and the thumbscrews. It is the principle of inflicting pain that I object to.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: I fully accept what the noble Viscount says, and I am very glad to hear it, but I think that his speech may well have given a wrong impression to many other people besides myself.
I should like now to refer to what was said on Tuesday by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. He said—I am reading from Hansard:
"Is the public conscience so shocked by the violence of some of these crimes as to insist that equal violence be done in return to the guilty party? Putting it in another way, should we in fact return to the doctrine of 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?' Should we endeavour to make the punishment fit the crime? "
The noble Lord then went on to say:
"Not many noble Lords have put forward a plea for that.…"
and certainly I do not know of any noble Lord who has put forward such a plea. I do not think it ought to go out that such a plea was raised here. There is no one in your Lordships' House, I am sure, who would be prepared to go back to the principles which were followed in medieval times, or who would consider returning to the practices of those days.

481
I am one of those who believe that to-day crimes on defenceless people for gain are carried out with far more brutality than they have been during the last twenty-five years. I feel, too, that the police must be thinking, as I am on this subject.
I have dealt with only the third point which I referred to in my opening remarks—namely, the punishment of the criminal. I feel that the most important point is the prevention of crime, and for this it is essential to bring the police force to the required minimum establishment. As the noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood, said in his admirable speech, 6,000 men are needed to bring the Metropolitan Police Force up to strength. In the last six months, according to the figures given by the noble Viscount and quoted in Hansard, a gain of 171 recruits has been recorded to fill this large gap. That means that at that rate of progress it will take over seventeen years to bring the Metropolitan Police Force up to strength. To my mind that is a terrible thought, and rather alters the impression which the Lord Chancellor gave when he said that the net monthly increase in the 'Metropolitan Police Force has improved from 2.4 to 16 per cent., which he said compared favourably. I do not think that the noble and learned Viscount intended to give the impression that the improvement was so rapid as that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I answer the noble and gallant Viscount upon that point at once? By an error of mine or by an error of the shorthand writer the words "per cent." come in there. That is a mistake. It ought not to be "per cent.", but "men per month." The comparison is between 2.4 men per month and 16 men per month. Sixteen is, obvious!y, a good deal larger than 2.4, but I agree with the noble Viscount that unless we improve on that figure of 16 men per month, and raise it to a much higher figure, it will take a very long time to bring the police up to strength.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount has just said. I referred to the point because the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has dealt with some statistics this afternoon. Sometimes when a percentage is given, it does not give the same impression as if the actual figures
482
were given, and vice versa. I hope this improvement will go on, but judging by these figures there is still a long way to go. T his recruitment: of men for the police force is the mast important point of all. When we have got the establishment up to strength, we can then see how crime stands. I feel that this question of shortage of police is of the first importance and I would like to give notice now to your Lordships I intend to raise it in your Lordships' House at an early date after Easter, so that we can discuss fully the fifty-five recommendations of Part II of the Oaksey Report aimed at increasing the number of recruits joining the police force—a matter which has only briefly been referred to in the debate to-day and on Tuesday.
6.8 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, with all due respect to noble Lords who have already spoken in this debate, I do no: propose to pay any attention in my speech to statistics, or to enter into controversy as to the need or otherwise for corporal punishment: that is a matter in which it seems to me each side is satisfied that: it is right, and when 'we argue about we end by coming out of the same door through which we went. I am concerned, like the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, as a potential victim of the present outbreak of violence which we are now experiencing. One fact that to my mina renders consideration of the masses of statistics somewhat ineffective is that we have reached a condition of affairs which is, perhaps, without parallel in living memory. Many people are now afraid to go out of doors at night, women are afraid to venture out alone, or to answer a knock on the door lest there is trouble. A fortnight ago an incident of that kind happened in my own road, a quiet residential road. In the morning of the day a knock came to the door, and when the elderly woman answered it she was immediately struck over the head and knocked senseless by two young ruffians, who went in and did the same thing to another elderly lady, and ransacked the house.
That was not an isolated instance there are plenty of reports about such happenings in the Press. There is an atmosphere of fear abroad. People are afraid to give evidence because of reprisals. I have a life-long acquaintance with a part of London where a good deal

483
of this sort of thing is prevalent. I am also in touch with one or two institutes for young people. I think I have a firsthand knowledge of the problem, and my view is that there are some things that can be done almost immediately, even though we are short of police, to grapple with the problem. In various parts of South London there are places known as milk bars. These are dangerous places where many of these criminals foregather. They are well known to the police, who know that certain gangs are always to be found in them. From my own knowledge I could quote cases where the police have not made the arrests which they might have done, because they have said they are sick and tired of taking young people up before the juvenile court and then hearing somebody pat them on the head and say, "Be a good boy and don't do it again." That is no exaggeration.
All these things tend to accentuate the trouble about which we are complaining, although some of them may seem trivial. Many young people to-day have too much money. They do not know the value of money; they spend it in all sorts of ways that are harmful, and resort to all sorts of means to get it. The cinema does provide an incentive to crime. One has only to listen to the young people when they come out and watch their conduct afterwards to see the bad effect the cinema has on them. I hope I shall not offend in certain quarters when I say that there is a lack of proper teaching in our schools. Youngsters are not taught as they used to be the difference between right and wrong. And I may seem to be old-fashioned when I say that I believe a serious responsibility lies in the lack of religious teaching in the schools and elsewhere. That has a tremendous effect on the lives of young people themselves.
It is no good repeating our suggestions. I know that some things can be done. There are evening institutes and clubs for young people. I know that some of these places have been the scene of attacks by these young ruffians. What is important is the type of leadership in these institutes; it is upon that that their effect depends. The leaders must be people with a vocational call, not just somebody with a job to do. I would instance an institute in South London which is
484
probably the biggest in the country, a mixed club with a membership running into four figures. The principal is a young woman. This institute has received the praise and commendation of the police for its work in that neighbourhood, one of the worst in London. The members have an interest in running the club. To a large extent they discipline themselves, and they have found their own methods of meeting these young ruffians when they come round and attempt to commit acts of violence. But that cannot be done unless we have the people who can win the respect and esteem of the youth. I suggest that something more might be done along these lines. This institute has not all the amenities of the clubs for which huge sums of money are raised. It is run in an ordinary L.C.C. school building, and when one goes in there it is always a hive of activity, both recreational and educational. These youngsters take such a pride in the institute that when they are called up to the Services they correspond with it and come back when on leave. The experience of this institute indicates that even under present conditions something can be done.
A new danger is growing up. In some districts vigilante groups have been formed. These could develop into something much worse than the disease they set out to remedy. Unless steps are taken to make such groups unnecessary, then we are in for a bad time. As has been emphasised again and again, one cure is an increase in the police force. On the vexed question of corporal punishment, frankly I find it difficult to make up my mind. I feel there is an inclination to go too far the other way. Many of these young people have a strong streak of vanity which is often the compelling force in this trouble. I think that probably a few strokes of the cane and an experience of some of the pain they have inflicted on others—for example, in such dreadful cases of brutality as throwing paraffin on a squirrel and setting it alight—would have a good effect. We have a very good women police force and many policewomen are trained in judo and that sort of thing. I suggest that they should get on the track of these young people. The humiliation of being arrested by a woman will have far more effect than anything else we can think of. I think that might be a matter to which we could give some attention.

485
I venture to say, however, with all humility and respect, that to a large extent the debate has missed what I believe is the fundamental question—namely, that the acts of violence and the outbreaks of hooliganism which we deplore to-day are surely the outward signs of an inward sickness of the whole social order. The whole system of moral conduct and law has collapsed, not only here but elsewhere, and all over the world people are living in an atmosphere of violence. These things are hound to have their effect. More and more we regard purely material things as more important than persons. Those are the things which are fundamental and to which attention has to be given. We need to examine our conduct and our sense of values. We are content now to measure everything by the purely material, and we are paying for it in this way. Just as our own pound has been devalued, so has our moral and social conduct been devalued. That is bound to have its outward effect in the deplorable happenings of the present time.
The fact that the Government have accepted the Motion, but have indicated that they are not going to make any alteration with regard to corporal punishment, has to some extent cramped our discussion. At the same time, I say that we can carry it a little too far. There is a case for corporal punishment in certain circumstances. Other steps, such as have been indicated, of giving further help to those carrying on the work of reformation, would give great and permanent benefit. I have nothing but praise for the way the police have acted in the difficult circumstances in which they have to work at the present time. Again and again I have seen how they have been the means of stopping what might have been serious outbreaks in certain districts. But they cannot be everywhere: their movements are watched and known by these people.
It has been said that there is no viciousness in these young criminals. That just is not true. Some of these young people are really vicious and as depraved as human nature can be. You will not overcome that sort of thing by soft words, and calling it by something else. What is the cause of it is probably a matter for further discussion and consideration. I feel that the result of this discussion when
486
it goes out to the public will be disheartening to many of the people who are still living in great fear—who are afraid to go out in the evenings, afraid even to open their own doors, and who are living under this threat of violence, robbery and general lawlessness. It seems to me that this House—and the same remark applies to the other place—has not yet been able to find a remedy. I do feel that some slight measure of corporal punishment for young people (not for adults—I do not think for a moment that that is likely to have any permanent effect), and a greater consideration for the officers in charge of these various schemes, institutes and clubs for the reform of these young people, will have a lasting effect and be of great benefit.
6.25 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, at about this time of day one usually begins to talk about "this late hour," and I can assure your Lordships that I will not unduly detain you. I have followed this debate and the way Parliament have approached this question with the greatest possible interest and care. It first arose in the other place in the form of a Question and Answer. In replying, the Home Secretary said:
"No, sir, I do not agree. I think that for certain purposes additional publicity has been given to these cases, and the heavy penalties that I have read out will be sufficient, if inflicted, to deal with the matter."
I wonder what the Home Secretary meant by that? I have always been told that it is a most dangerous thing to impute motives, and I am glad that most of the speakers in your Lordships' House have steered clear of that danger. However, I was surprised to notice in the speech of my noble friend Lord Mancroft that he attributed motives. The noble Lord said:
"I myself am not yet satisfied that there has in fact been an increase in the violence of these crimes. I believe it is rather the publicity that has increased, but I stand ready to be corrected."
I hope that those of us who put forward a view here may be exonerated from any charge that we are doing so in order to obtain publicity, or anything else. What we are saying is what we sincerely believe—and other speakers this afternoon have emphasised that fact. Parliament, in their wisdom, decided to do away with corporal punishment. We are obviously faced with a very grave situation. What

487
has been so remarkable to me in this debate is that it seems to depend on whether you sympathise with the victim or with the aggressor. Broadly speaking, that is the division.
LORD STRABOLGI: No.
EARL HOWE: I am coming to what the noble Lord said in his speech in a minute. We have listened to speeches like that which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and that made by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, dealing with the question in a calm and detached way, as if we were discussing something that was of interest, and that sort of thing, but not a problem of the greatest gravity.
LORD CHORLEY: Does not the noble Earl think we are more likely to come to a proper conclusion if we discuss it in a calm and detached way, than if we allow our emotions to affect us?
EARL HOWE: Yes. But the point I desire to make is this: I have as much sympathy with the victim as with the aggressor.
LORD CHORLEY: So have I; everybody has.
EARL HOWE: I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, whether he would have made the speech which he made this afternoon, to which we all listened with great interest, if his wife, his sister or his daughter had been concerned in the frightful crime to which the Lord Chief Justice referred. Could you say you do not believe in corporal punishment, or anything like it, if one of your nearest and dearest were affected? I very much doubt whether the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, would have been able to make his speech in the way he did if one of his nearest and dearest had been affected. It is a fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, said in his remarkable speech, that people are becoming terrified. It is the fact—as the noble Lord also mentioned, and it is a point with which I had intended to deal—that we are faced with the possibility that people will take the law into their own hands if the situation gets much worse. We are faced with the possibility of the substitution of mob law for criminal law. It would be a bad day for the country if that were to come about.
488
The question is, what is the best thing to do? We are told that it will be a good many years (the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the Lord Chancellor said this) before the police force can be recruited up to its proper strength. The prisons are full to overflowing. What are we to do? It seems to me that if corporal punishment is not to be reimposed, there will have to be a special house of detention, possibly, as has been suggested to me by my noble friend Lord Hawke this afternoon, on the same lines as those adopted in the Services during the war—a prison or place of detention where the most stringent discipline will be imposed with no question of going to cinemas, or any such pleasant amenities. It seems to me that we shall have to establish something like that if we want to bring the seriousness of the matter home to the criminal population.
It is also said that we must not have corporal punishment because we are too soft nowadays. The noble Lord, Lord Strabogli, more or less said that in his speech. The noble Lord's speech struck me as being remarkable, coming from one sitting on the Benches opposite. He said, speaking in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Airlie:
"The noble Earl has a military tradition, and he must know that people of his class, as soldiers, can stand more hardship and pain than even the best of the lads from the agricultural or other labouring classes. That really is a fact, and it was proved in the last war."
I cannot help saying it—what complete rubbish! I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me, because we know each other very well. But surely the last war, if it proved anything, proved that the people of this country, the ordinary man and the ordinary woman in the back streets, can go through things like the blitz. Did they not have to put up with plenty of pain, anguish and all the rest of it? Of course they did. Whether you can put up with it or not does not depend on the class from which you come.
There has been a certain amount of criticism of His Majesty's Judges. It seems an amazing thing that His Majesty's Judges, who know the question inside out, and who know the problem with which they are trying to deal and for which Parliament has given them the responsibility, should be criticised. No fewer than eight of His Majesty's Judges have said: "We cannot give you the

489
"cat" or birch, or corporal punishment in any shape or form, caning of any kind, so we have to give you a long term of imprisonment." As the Lord Chief Justice said, what an awful thing it is to have to send a comparatively small boy to prison for seven years! It will turn him into a gaolbird and not a reformed character, and I hope that we shall try to find some other solution.
Since we had our debate on Tuesday, two interesting things have happened. The Prison Officers' Association issued a statement which was reported in the Press, and if your Lordships will forgive me, I will read it. It is as follows:
"The announcement by the Lord Chancellor that longer sentences are to be imposed for crimes which were previously punished by shorter sentences and floggings, means that there will be an increase both in the total prison population and in the numbers of prisoners who have been guilty of crimes of violence … Unless there is a substantial increase in the rate of recruitment of suitable men and women, and unless the rate of wastage of experienced staffs is reduced, the policy announced by the Lord Chancellor will add to the serious difficulties now confronting those responsible for prison administration."
That seems to me a most serious thing. There is another quotation I should like to give. The Women's Guild of Empire—whatever that is—announced publicly that:
"Women can no longer feel secure from brutal attacks which are so often fatal."
And they advocate corporal punishment.
These cases cannot be disregarded, and I feel that building up all over the country there is an opinion that something must be done—not necessarily the reimposition of corporal punishment. I was impressed by the considerations put forward by the Lord Chief Justice in that respect this afternoon. I feel that something should be clone rather than merely wait for the police force to be brought up to their proper strength, and. for the effect of long terms of imprisonment to be felt. I cannot help feeling that Parliament will have to think very seriously what it is going to do. I will not take up more of your Lordships' time, but I would say that I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and I hope that His Majesty's Government, if they will not give way to us at this moment, will keep the matter under review and that Parliament will be able to make its weight felt. I hope that corporal punishment will be brought back, because I see no alternative.
6.34 p.m.
LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, we have had a long (though not a bit too long, in view of the importance of the subject), interesting and, to me, most instructive debate. I am certain that the effect on most of us must have been to a large extent gloomy, but it has at least this cheering feature: that we have been assured on behalf of the Government that they do take a very serious view of the situation in which we are involved. I suppose that means that they will apply their best minds to supplying some solution to it.
At this hour of the evening I hesitated a great deal as to whether I ought to occupy your Lordships' time, and especially did I think so after listening to the speech delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, with every word of which I agreed, and which expressed far better than I can a great many of the ideas which have been passing through my mind. In particular, I should like to emphasise what he said on the subject of the danger of some public revulsion resulting in the formation of vigilante committees or bodies of that kind. That would be fatal to the administration of our criminal law, and to general law and order throughout the country. Generally speaking, as I listened, and as I thought beforehand of this debate, I threw back my mind fifty-six years to the moment when, with a very new and very white wig, I first entered the Crown Court at Liverpool in 1894. I asked myself what changes in the administration of the criminal law had come about since then, and how they affected the matters we are now discussing. Leaving aside questions of pure procedure—the Evidence Act and the Indictments Act—there seemed to me to be four. There was first the great cutting down of the heavy sentences to which I was accustomed when I was first called to the Bar. Secondly—or perhaps I ought to have put this first—there was the gradual disuse, followed by the total abolition, of corporal punishment. Thirdly, there is the institution of the probation system and, fourthly, the growth of the Borstal Institution.
The first two changes, the long sentences and corporal punishment, I would like to take together. I want to be quite candid to the House. I regretted two

491
years ago the decision which we reached then, and I regret it still; but I am not here to say that the abandonment of corporal punishment for adults is the sole cause or anything more than one—perhaps not even one—predisposing cause of the situation in which we now find ourselves, or that its restoration will cure all the troubles from which we are suffering. Again, I wish to be candid. I believe that corporal punishment for an adult is a deterrent. I find it difficult—it shows how differently our minds are constituted—to understand anyone who does not accept that dogma. I ask myself whether, if I had any inclination to heat old women into insensibility with a cosh, I should not be deterred by the fear of being beaten, and I am perfectly sure that I should.
In this connection, looking at the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, I should like to say that the date to which I have already referred, 1894, is for this purpose a somewhat crucial date, for it was shortly after the time when Mr. Justice Day had visited Liverpool. Of recent years we have heard it announced again and again that Mr. Justice Day's visits to Liverpool, and the sentences which he imposed, were not the cause of the decrease of violent crime in Liverpool. All I can say is that although I was not there when Mr. Justice Day was there, I arrived immediately afterwards. If you had asked any policeman, any member of the Bar engaged in criminal practice or any Judge who had sat, either in the court of assize or in the court of quarter session, he would have unhesitatingly told you—as indeed was common knowledge at the time—that the comparatively quiet state of the Liverpool streets was largely due, and perhaps wholly due, to the sentences which Mr. Justice Day imposed. The other story has been told so often—I know that it is told in perfectly good faith by the noble Viscount—that the people who tell it have come to believe it. But it really is not true. Those violent measures produced a very great improvement—an improvement which I had plenty of opportunity for observing during the few years when I continued to frequent that court.
The second question is that of long sentences. I was brought up under influences which peculiarly indicated to
492
me that one of the great troubles with which we were faced at that time and one of the great causes of crime, was the long sentence; and nothing was more welcomed by prison reformers than the cutting down of sentences to what people came to regard as fairly reasonable periods. I do not like to obtrude my own personality too much, but I must say that, like some Judges exercising a much higher jurisdiction than I do, I never send a man to prison for any lengthy time except with the greatest possible reluctance. I ask myself whether he is likely to benefit from the time spent within those walls. Prison is a much pleasanter place now than it was then, but the appalling aridity of the life, the boredom of the years of sitting down with no interest in life and no hope near enough to be any good, are things which I should have thought ought to be avoided by any means possible. Therefore my great criticism of the abandonment of corporal punishment for adults is that it forces His Majesty's Judges to impose instead heavy sentences of imprisonment.
There are other objections to heavy sentences, on which I will not dwell, but those of your Lordships who are as old or anything like as old as I am must remember that we all regarded this gradual trend towards shorter terms of imprisonment as one of the greatest improvements in the administration of criminal law that had been known for probably a hundred years. I think we who are actively engaged in the administration of justice are all agreed that a short sentence in itself is bad. Of course, "short" and "long" are relative terms. I mean by "a short sentence" one which is not long enough to enable a man to get any advantage from the prison discipline, but is long enough to enable him to learn all the other criminals can teach him in the exercise of his craft. I think that all interested in the reform of criminal law were reasonably agreed that the very long sentence must never come back, hut, on the other hand, that the short sentence was almost equally inefficacious in dealing with the criminal.
I pass to "ameliorations," as they would be known in the administration of the criminal law, and first the probation system. I am ready to give the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, all the praise he

493
would desire for his part in instituting that system.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I do not desire any.
LORD SCHUSTER: A great deal is due to my old friend and teacher, Lord Haldane, who had this matter very much at heart. During the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill of 1922, he bent all his energies to perfecting the system and getting it on its feet. I am thinking of courts which are of lesser jurisdiction than those over which the Lord Chief Justice presides. Magistrates in magistrates' courts and courts of less on must have come to regard the probation system as it went along as representing a magnificent and courageous effort on the part of those who started it. It is an immense amelioration in the working of the criminal law. But in order that it may remain successful, something more is required. The probation officers with whom I have come into contact have appeared to me to be admirable beyond expectation in the performance of their duties. They have carried them out with diligence and faithfulness—and with common sense, which is high praise in an occupation which lends itself to excess of sentimentality. But they cannot do everything.
We have before us at the sessions people who have been put on probation once, twice, three times and four times, who break their probation and are merely put on a further term. That is not treating the system fairly, and it is not treating the offender fairly; and it is by these means that the young offender is created. He is taught to believe that he need not care and that all that will happen when he gets to court will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Amnion, said, that some old man will pat him on the head and say, "Go away and be a good boy"; and he just laughs and commits the offence again. So long as this practice continues, probation will become less and less valuable, until it becomes a mischief and not a desirable thing at all. How that can be remedied I do not know. I do not approve of urgings from the Home Office on magistrates or upon Judges as to what sentences they should inflict. I think these things should be discussed at associations of magistrates such as the Lord Chief Justice constantly addresses in the country. They must take a sterner view. The things for which
494
these juveniles are brought up must be punished as offences, and the young offender must at an early stage be made to see that if he offends, then he will be punished.
Hitherto I have talked of corporal punishment only for adults. I am far more interested in the question of corporal punishment for the young. I believe that if we had abandoned corporal punishment for adults in the Criminal Justice Act and. maintained it for the young we should have retained something which was really most valuable and we should have lost nothing. What is the magistrate to do? He has before him a boy whose "high spirits and instinct for adventure" have to be quelled. Mine were quelled at a very early age by the application of the proper remedies. I believe that if you could birch the boy properly and give him no sentence at all—patting him, of course, on probation—you would give him a much better chance than you do by just patting him on the head. I am not asking the Government to go back on what they did two years ago. But I am, I know, expressing views held by many other persons wiser than myself: that a sharp short punishment is what is necessary and what should be applied.
I should like to say a few words about Borstal. I do not know enough about Borstal, by either experience or teaching, to express a competent opinion. I have a suspicion that the claims made for the system are sometimes pitched too high, and this causes persons such as myself to slip back rather the other way and criticise, perhaps unduly. But there are two matters connected with the Borstal system which I think have a great deal to do with the creation of the young criminal. With the open Borstal institution the boy can go out when he likes. It has been my lot to sit in a county which, for good or contains a Borstal institution from which the boys habitually run away. When they run away they break into the shops in the little town in the middle of which the institution is situated, until there is, to all intents and purposes, a kind of reign of terror amongst the small shopkeepers. Having broken into the shop, a boy's aim is to get money and clothes and walk to London, and as he walks up to London he breaks into lock-up shops on the way. He is usually apprehended when he

495
reaches London, probably trying to do some larger housebreaking. He comes up then to be tried for his more recent offence. It is curious—I do not understand what it means—but when he is called upon he usually says: "Whatever do you, do not send me back to Borstal." Whether or not that is on the same principle as the entreaty of the rabbit to the fox, "Do not throw me into the briar patch," I do not know. At any rate, that is what he says.
It is difficult to know how to deal with such a boy. I understand that usually he is sent back to Borstal or, if not, that he receives a sentence of imprisonment. In some circumstances, a sentence of imprisonment is the only possible remedy. If he is given a sentence of imprisonment, either the Home Office or the Prison Commissioners (I do not know which) promptly pull him out of prison and send him back to Borstal. That makes a fool of the criminal law. The boy in Portland knows that he can walk out when he likes, he can take a pleasant ramble, his high spirits and his spirit of adventure can be completely gratified, and he can have some open air. He comes up, he is scolded (perhaps he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment), and back he goes to his Borstal and the whole business begins all over again. One finds boys who have broken out or walked out three or four times. That cannot be a good thing for the system itself, and it cannot be a good thing for the formation of the boy's character. His character is supposed to be rectified and corrected in the institution.
What is the solution to this problem? I do not know. One would be put an end to open Borstal, but I frankly admit it is a very difficult question. It leaves one, as one usually is on the Bench when these things happen, completely unaware of the proper course to take. With the boy rather than with the man, when you arrive at the really difficult part of trying an offender, which is that of settling what the sentence is to be, you ask yourself: "What ought I to do with this boy for the protection of society and in his own interests?" There is really no effective answer.
I do not ask anything extravagant of His Majesty's Government, for I know
496
that they will not do what I ask, but I think the young offender ought to be beaten and, if possible, not given a term of imprisonment. But I fully admit that the question is so puzzling and difficult that no certain voice of wisdom can be heard. I am afraid I have spoken at greater length than I ought to have done, and I have not made any constructive suggestion—for which again I apologise. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, would understand that when my noble and learned friend was speaking about probation he did not intend to make, and did not in fact make, any attack upon the probation system.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The noble and learned Lord said the very opposite.
LORD SCHUSTER: What my noble and learned friend said is what I myself have tried to say—that it is a system which may, if we are not careful, be ruined by its misuse. So far as my noble and learned friend and those Judges who sit with him in the Court of Appeal are concerned, they show what they think of the probation system by not infrequently altering sentences of imprisonment to directions for probation.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am exceedingly glad to hear that from the noble Lord, I could only wish that the Lord Chief Justice had stayed during my speech. When I first had the honour to become a member of your Lordships' House, I was given to understand that one stayed during the speech of the speaker who immediately followed. I would have liked to have this from the Lord Chief Justice himself. I felt that what he said would be disheartening to many probation officers in the country. I am glad to know that he did not intend to dishearten them. In those circumstances, I gladly withdraw my criticism.
LORD SCHUSTER: My noble and learned friend in fact did utter words of praise for the probation system and for the probation officers. I happen to know, from frequent conversations I have had with him, that that is how he feels about this subject.
LORD CHORLEY: If I misunderstood the noble and learned Lord, I gladly withdraw my criticism.
LORD SCHUSTER: So far as leaving the House is concerned, I have spent

497
many quarter-hours trying to get tea at the most appropriate opportunity. Perhaps my noble and learned friend wished to refresh himself. I am sorry for speaking so long. I know that noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite take as serious a view of the situation as we take. I know that eighteen months ago they did not agree with us in the view which we took of the undesirability, particularly at that moment of time, of abandoning the appropriate method of corporal punishment in appropriate circumstances. I should like to say once more that I believe that it is necessary—and I hope, although I suppose it is a faint hope, that it might be done at an early date—to see corporal punishment reinstituted for the young, for I am perfectly certain, as the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, is certain, that the time to catch the criminal is before he becomes a criminal at all. It is only by dealing with the young at the proper time that we can ever stop this crime wave—though I do not wish to use exaggerated words. I do not think I can take the matter any further, so I leave it there.
6.58 p.m.
LORD SHERWOOD: My Lords, I rise to address you for only a short time on two or three points. I feel most strongly on this question. The first point is whether this has been a newspaper campaign or whether it has been run by His Majesty's Judges. Why has it arisen? I do not consider—I may be entirely wrong and at difference with the Lord Chief Justice over it—that everything is quite so bad as it has been painted. It is certainly not so bad as the outbreaks of crime were in places like Chicago. I think that to return to corporal punishment would be one of the gravest retrograde steps that we could take. It would not stop the crime. Of course, robbery with violence is a terrible thing. I should like to say this to the Lord Chief Justice. Yesterday, in answer to a question of mine, he said that the top punishment for robbery without violence was fourteen years. That, I understand, is the statutory maximum. Of course, I have not been able to look up all the instances in which this sentence has been given, but I have had the opportunity of finding out when the Lord Chief Justice last gave a sentence of fourteen years for robbery without violence. I stand subject to correction
498
by him, but I believe he has never given it.
LORD GODDARD: Of course I have not.
LORD SHERWOOD: Of course he has not. And that is the crime—robbery. Why does violence occur? It occurs when the robber goes into a house and is discovered. There are many in this House—in my own case it has happened three times—whose homes have been entered by robbers. Each time I happened to be absent. My cook, an old lady, fortunately with wisdom, put a dressing table against her door and did not go out. The robbers were never found. But I am certain of this: that if she had gone out, violence would have been committed against her. Robbery is a crime we have to stop. If you look at the cases which go through the courts and which come before us as magistrates, you will find instances of a man getting off again and again through the shortening of his sentence. I am in entire agreement with the very strong point made by the Lord Chief Justice on this question of remission of sentence. If a Judge of the High Court, with all the information in front of him and all the knowledge he possesses, thinks it right that someone should receive a sentence of five years' imprisonment, then the term of imprisonment should be five years. It is this remission of sentence that is causing so much of the trouble.
Robbery is a very serious crime and, as has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and many others, it can be stopped only by an increase in the police. It is true we are short of police, but there are two ways of increasing the powers of the police. One is by not using the police for useless jobs such as they are doing to-day. In many cases they have to undertake all sorts of jobs which have nothing to do with them. I can tell you, very briefly, of an instance connected with myself. In 1889 my father went to India and shot a tiger. He brought his rifle back with him, and ever since then, twice a year, I have been. bothered to find this rifle so as to get a licence for it. I have not the foggiest idea where it is, but sergeants and other policemen have wasted time coming to see me because I cannot produce that rifle or say where it is. Surely some other

499
person could do that while the policeman might be stopping a robbery or saving somebody from being knocked down in the street. It is in such tasks that I think there is a great deal of waste at present. The police are for the protection of property and the person, and should be used for that. Recruiting can be increased by better conditions in housing, and better remuneration. I have no doubt that that will come, but let us first stop the waste there is to-day of the time of our police. The feeling that most of us share has been well summed up by nearly everybody who has taken part in this debate—namely, that no one wants the return of flogging. It will never do any good. Short sentences are not a solution. What is wanted is protection for the individual from the evil man. We shall have to get more prisons, and more prison warders, and when we lock a man up we must see that he remains locked up.
7.4 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rather hesitate to intervene in this debate at all, because it has been so comprehensive that almost everything that can be said on this subject has already been heard by your Lordships. Indeed, I do not rise to add to what has already been said with such force and authority during this debate, but merely to try as best I can to sum up the issues which have emerged from the speeches that have been made. In doing so, I desire, like other noble Lords, to compliment and congratulate most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, upon the really remarkable speech with which he opened this debate. If I may say so, I think it will greatly add to the reputation which he already enjoys here. I think, too, that it will be generally agreed that this debate has shown your Lordships' House at its best. The present wave of violent crime is just the type of topic with which a Second Chamber is most fitted to deal. It is of burning interest and, as we all know, the public are genuinely and deeply anxious to hear the views of those with long experience on this subject as to the steps which are most appropriate to call a halt to the present unhappy situation.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who unfortunately is no longer
500
in the House—I hope he will forgive me if I refer to him in his absence. He attributed the great concern of the public, as evidenced by the references in the Press to these crimes, to sensationalism. I cannot share that view, and I am sure that most of you do not. Indeed, I have a slight impression, if it is not unfair to the noble Lord to say so, that he himself resented the mention of these crimes because it interfered with the views which he personally held. Perhaps it is unkind to say that, but that is certainly the impression I gained. I think he would have felt very much happier if the Press had refused to mention them at all. That, of course, is a line of thought which anyone may hold. But I have always felt that it was the duty of the Press to tell the truth to the people, and I personally hope that they will go on performing that duty. It is far better that one should face facts, and not hide one's head in the sand.
In the old days, the greatest pride of this country, as we all know, was a general respect for law and order, which made Britain the safest country in the world. My Lords, could anyone make such a claim at the present moment? Every day we read in the morning and evening papers of savage attacks on law-abiding citizens—on old people, young girls, and even on children. The noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, said just now that he did not find the situation so serious. Of course, that depends on one's standard of seriousness. I may well have a different standard from that of the noble Lord. I can only point out to him that the Lord Chancellor himself, in the speech which he made on Tuesday, described the situation as very grave, and I think that, coming from him, that carries conviction to the noble Lord as well as to myself.
Two years ago I was fortunate enough to pay a visit to Southern Rhodesia. There I stayed on a farm, far from any other white man, surrounded by a great native population whom we are sometimes accustomed to regard as the backward races. But out there no one thought of locking his door at night. The front door of the house was left open; the doors of one's sleeping quarters were similarly left open. But in London, in the very hub of the British Commonwealth and Empire, where it

501
can be done every door and window in any house is now barred and locked by the householder. As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, himself said, when there is a knock at the door of a house the woman almost looks through a grille before opening it to see who is there. That is an intolerable and humiliating state of affairs, and I am sure it will be agreed by all of us that something must be done to bring it to an end.
The reasons for this present outbreak of violent crime, as has been pointed out by various speakers in the debate, are many and various. No doubt it is materially, and perhaps largely, due to the war. The Lord Chief Justice, I gather, would not accept that. I will explain what I have in mind. There are deserters who are still roaming the country. I would not myself attach too much importance to them. I thank that they provide a sort of picturesque background, and that people are inclined to pay more attention to them than is perhaps deserved. But, of course, it is true that in a country—I am not making any Party political point here—where every citizen has to have ration cards and other permits for the things he has to use, and even to get the necessities of life, a man who is not able to obtain such cards and permits undoubtedly does become something in the nature of an outlaw, and has to depend upon his wits. To that extent deserters have been a greater danger since the end of this recent war than was the case, say, after the end of the last war.
Then there is the general contempt for law and property, which I am afraid war inevitably brings in its train, and which is perhaps the worst of all its legacies to humanity. Then there is the fact that many young people have been deprived of the discipline of their fathers, often during the most formative years of their lives. There is also—and this I agree is very important—the lack of religious teaching to which the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, referred in, if I may say so, a very wise and practical speech this afternoon. Some would add, also, the bad effect of crime films, in which criminals are often presented to the public in the nature of heroes. That does not have much effect on adults, but it may easily have a bad effect on children. These are only some of the reasons which have led, I believe, to increases in the criminal
502
classes, and which have encouraged young people in particular to embark on evil courses which they would never have contemplated in the years before the war.
The question is: What is to be done to deter them? That is tie real purpose of this debate. I entirely agree with the most reverend. Primate the Archbishop of York, who spoke on Tuesday, that it would be unwise to concentrate too much attention on flogging. Whatever view we may take on this subject—I take a quite definite view, as I shall show in a few minutes—that, clearly, is only one aspect of our problem. So far as the ultimate cure is concerned, I should have thought that it would be generally agreed that the greatest deterrent to crime is the certainty of punishment. If every lawless-minded person was certain that he would not, to use a vernacular phrase, "get away with it"—that applies to both young and old—no doubt he would think a great many times before embarking on a career of crime. That is the ideal towards which we must all aim. For this, as has been said many times during the debate, the paramount need is an adequate police force.
That is a subject which has been touched upon by various speakers in the debate, by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and by other noble Lords who have spoken since. I understand that it is likely to be a subject of further discussion after the Easter Recess, and I should like to leave any detailed comments upon it until then. Of course, it would be idle and dangerous for us to shut our eyes to the fact that the police force to-day—though, as I understand, completely living up to the high traditions which have always actuated it—is quite inadequate in numbers to deal with the wave of crime which is now sweeping the country. What is to be done to bridge the gap until the police force is built up, till housing for the police is provided—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, very rightly referred to this afternoon—and until the certainty of punishment is re-established? What is to be done until then?
A great many suggestions have been made in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, I think, referred to the desirability of multiplying boys' clubs, which, of course, give healthy amusement to a great number of young people, keep them

503
off the streets and out of bad company. Clearly that would be a considerable help, but the difficulty of multiplying them sufficiently must always limit their power for good. Then there is the possibility, referred to by the most reverend Primate, of enlisting the aid of parents in instilling a spirit of discipline in their children. I think that is clearly wise. Parental discipline is evidently better than any other if it can be exerted. The only difficulty, as I see it, is that many parents to-day seem unwilling to enforce discipline on their children. I do not know why it is so. It certainly does not apply to all parents, but it does to a considerable number. One wants to be in a position, I think, to bring a certain amount of pressure to bear on parents themselves. I believe that the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, on Tuesday, that the courts should impose penalties on parents who did not fulfil their responsibilities to their children, was a valuable one. I believe that if the courts were willing to do this—I understand that it is in fact possible for them to do so, though the power is rarely used—the effect would be immediate and salutary. We should find parents diligent in telling children "where they got off." By all means let us try all these remedies, whether they are likely to have immediate results or are of a long-term character.
But the question which above all we have to examine to-day—and I think we cannot evade our responsibilities—is: are other more immediately stringent measures also needed? It is, of course, in this connection, that the question which has occupied a very large part of our discussion has been raised—should corporal punishment be restored to the Statute Book? This, as all of us who were in this House at the time remember, was the subject of most anxious discussion when the Criminal Justice Bill was before your Lordships' House—I think nearly two years ago. The power to order such punishment was cut out of the criminal code in another place, it was put back again here, deleted again in the House of Commons, and then, finally, we accepted their decision—though with considerable misgiving and, I think, against the advice of the majority of the Law Lords.
Since that time the situation has deteriorated to such an extent and the
504
prevalence of ferocious attacks—I would emphasise the ferocity of them—has become so much more general, and public opinion is evidently so deeply disturbed, that I think it is only right that we should, as we have done in the last two years, consider the matter further, whatever conclusions we may come to. There is no question, I am sure, of anything sadistic, either in your Lordships, or in the British people. We do not like corporal punishment for its own sake, and in particular the vast majority of us are firmly opposed to the penalty of the "cat" on the grounds that it is savage, though I was interested to hear from the Lord Chief Justice that the character of this punishment has now considerably altered and that it does not now hold the terrors which it used to have. But there is increasing evidence, I think, that the public is becoming more and more disturbed—and I think that the Government should realise this—that the penalty of birching is entirely ruled out, even in cases where it is clearly the only appropriate penalty.
For that reason I deeply regretted that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor found it necessary to state so unequivocally that the Government were unwilling to consider the reimposition of this penalty. The noble and learned Viscount said it was politically impossible, unless there was definite evidence that it would improve the position. I understand that is what he said. It was notable and most regrettable that the Government showed no such hesitation in abolishing corporal punishment, although equally there was no definite proof at that time that that would improve the position. Therefore I do not find that argument very impressive. I can see that there are strong arguments for not switching about from one decision to the other, a point which the Lord Chief Justice made with considerable force, but that is an administrative point, and I cannot see that there is any political argument against it. The duty of the Legislature is to do what is right, and if, thereafter, conditions were to show that a wrong decision had been reached or that the situation had changed, I think it would be right of Parliament to revise their decision.
The noble and learned Viscount added—and I think this is an interesting point

505
—that from his inquiries he found that the subsequent careers of those flogged were worse than the subsequent careers of those who had not been flogged. The noble and learned Viscount went on to say, very fairly, that that might only mean that only the worst cases had been flogged. Though the noble and learned Viscount put his argument with extreme fairness, I think it is entirely irrelevant to the case put forward by supporters of corporal punishment. After all, the Lord Chancellor's argument might equally be used about long terms of imprisonment. I understand that many of these men who have been sentenced to long terms have returned to their old courses immediately after leaving prison. That is not at all an unknown thing. As I see it, the question is not whether every offender has been deterred by corporal punishment from a repetition of his offence, or whether all potential offenders have been discouraged from committing offences; the question is whether any offenders have been deterred and, if so, what number. As to that, so far as I have heard and read the debate, the Government have given no evidence at all. For that reason I submit that the question of reimposing this penalty deserves rather more objective reconsideration than the Government appear yet to have given it.
In considering this question, it seems to me that there are two different categories of offenders who have to be taken into account. First, there is the hardened criminal, the "tough," of whom Bill Sykes was an early example—brutal, callous, a real enemy to society. Secondly, there is the young offender who is not so hardened and probably sins often as much from irresponsibility as from vice. It seems to me that these two categories should be considered separately, and they do not necessarily present the same problem. I should like to take the second category first. Here, it seems to me, there are two objects which we should seek to attain. First, we obviously need to provide a deterrent to prevent the offender or any other offender from embarking on a similar evil course. But, equally, in the case of young offenders the possibility of reform must always be borne in mind.
Like, I suppose, other noble Lords, I read the other day of a horrible case of two youths who walked into a jeweller's shop, held the jeweller up with a revolver
506
and, when he resisted, shot him. The evidence at the trial—and I read only what was in the newspapers—seemed to show that one boy had been strongly influenced in committing that brutal and ruthless crime by what he had seen on the films, which had given him a warped view of life and a sort of perverted sense of adventure. That boy obviously had been guilty of murder, which is the most heinous of all crimes, and no one would seek to condone his offence, but it is not necessarily true to say that the boy is a hardened criminal. Rather is it true to say that he was completely lacking in any proper code of morality and his sense of values was entirely wrong. I should think that exactly the same thing might be said of the little boys to whom reference has already been made, who drenched an unhappy squirrel in paraffin and then burned it alive. Nothing could be more atrociously cruel, but it is a thing which little boys might conceivably do without being aware of the horrible nature of their offence.
I believe—and this is the point I am leading up to—that the truth is that many children, and I would say many children in all walks of life, have, not an instinctive sense of right or wrong. That has to be inculcated into them, partly by instruction and partly by stern punishment. That punishment is how they learn they are doing wrong, and if they are not punished they never learn at all. They need, to use a very old saying, a sharp lesson, and the sharper and more immediate the lesson, the better. I should have thought it was no good sending boys of that kind to long periods of detention or imprisonment. I was interested to hear what the Lord Chief Justice said about the case of the two young boys, one fifteen and the other seventeen, who made a savage attack on a lady in a train.
I was shocked, as I expect other noble Lords were, at the sentences imposed on those boys. I thought it a terrible thing to send boys of that age, one to seven years' imprisonment and the other to seven years' detention. From what the noble and learned Lord has said, I agree that he had no option under the law as it is. He could not give any other sharper or more severe punishment. But I entirely agree with him, and many other noble Lords will also agree, that it would

507
have been far better to beat these boys and give them shorter sentences, and send them back to normal life when they had paid the penalty for what might have been, to some extent, irresponsibility.
I know the view is widely held that there is something degenerating about the very fact of corporal punishment. I read the leading article of the Daily Herald on Monday, which described corporal punishment as
"degrading alike to those who administer and those who receive it."
We must all recognise that that is a view which is sincerely held in many quarters, but I hope that those who hold it equally recognise that many of us do not share it. As the House knows, at public schools corporal punishment has for many years been a common penalty for any infringement of the rules and customs of the school. I do not believe that any of us who has undergone that punishment has suffered permanent moral injury from it, nor have I noticed that it has had a markedly deleterious effect on headmasters and others. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in the speech he delivered to your Lordships on Tuesday, dismissed school beatings with a wave of the hand as being quite unimportant, and not to be taken seriously at all. No doubt with the passage of years the headmaster has lost his original terrors for the noble Lord. That is one of the compensations of advancing age. But I feel sure he would have taken a very different view at the age of 15. At that age I am certain the headmaster would have appeared to him, as to many others of us, as invested, to use the noble Lord's own words, "with all the majesty of the law."
We treat these cases lightly, but I sincerely believe that in the public schools the existence and the possibility of corporal punishment has performed a valuable function, perhaps through ridicule as much as through pain, in instilling a sense of discipline. I believe that same spirit might be instilled by judicial beatings. I am not recommending very heavy beatings for children, but I believe there are occasions when it would be the best penalty, and there would, in fact, be nothing degrading or humiliating about it.
508
Moreover, one must remember that in the cases which have been under discussion in this debate, unlike the schoolboys I described a few moments ago, the offenders have all been guilty of brutal and violent assaults upon their fellow citizens, generally from the sordid motive of personal gain. I should have thought these assaults were infinitely more degrading, both for the culprits and for the victims, than any stern retribution that might be meted out by the officers of the law; and to object to such retribution merely on the grounds of humanity is surely neither reasonable nor sensible. It is penalising the good at the expense of the bad, and it might well inflict a lasting stigma on the young offender himself who, as an alternative, would be condemned to a long period of detention or imprisonment. I certainly should not advocate corporal punishment as a common practice, or as a general rule, but I believe that for boys and young people beating may be one of the kindest penalties in the long run.
I now come, briefly, to the category of hardened criminals—that is to say, the men of more mature years, who are old enough to know better, and who are merely callous and brutal thugs. Here I take it that the question of reform in the majority of cases does not arise. It is extremely improbable that many of these men could ever be reformed—they are probably too old for that. The only hope is that the severity of the penalty will make such an impression upon them that they will not take the risk of undergoing it again. Whether it has that effect or not, I do not know—I have not the experience. That is a matter for the experts, for the Judges, for the police, for the prison governors, and so on, who have experience of such crimes and know the subsequent histories of the criminals. I assume that beating has some deterrent effect even upon hardened offenders from the fact that (this was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey) it has been retained in the Criminal Justice Act for offences against warders.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said in his speech this afternoon that there was an explanation for the difference in these particular cases, which was that, as these men were already under detention and could not get away, there was certainty of punishment, and the fact that they

509
could be beaten was a greater deterrent. We should all agree with that: the mere certainty of penalty is a great deterrent. But the noble Lord did regard it as a deterrent in the prisons, and that is the point we have been trying to make.
LORD CHORLEY: The explanation is the explanation of the Cadogan Committee, not mine.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That makes the Report of the Cadogan Committee a little more illogical than I thought. As I say, whether beating is as effective in the case of older men as in the case of young men is, to my mind, more doubtful. I should have thought quite a good case could be made for sentencing them to long terms of imprisonment, merely because they were too dangerous to be allowed about among their fellow citizens. That is a matter upon which I do not presume to dogmatise, though I was impressed, as was the noble Earl, Lord Howe, by the statement of the Prison Officers' Association, to which I feel the Government will have to give serious consideration. It is clear that the prison officers themselves think that if more offenders are sentenced for longer periods the prisons and prison staffs will be unable to control them. That, of course, is a matter of administration, but it is an important one.
What I believe is certain—it is my personal view only, and not shared by everybody—is that the power to inflict corporal punishment ought to be put back on the Statute Book for use where no other penalty will meet the case. The Judges, as we know from their speeches in this House—and we have heard a great many in the last two or three years—are certainly not monsters of cruelty; they are wise, just, experienced men, who I should think could be entrusted to administer the law with moderation and humanity. If they thought corporal punishment in individual cases was the only penalty that could be imposed, both from the point of view of the offender and of the community—and both are important—they would no doubt impose it; but not otherwise.
Above all, if I may say so (and this is practically the last thing I want to say to your Lordships), do not let us get into the frame of mind of thinking that a fundamental moral issue is involved in this
510
question of corporal punishment. I know that view is sincerely held by a number of people in this country. As I see it, it is closely akin to the pacifist attitude which reprobates the use of force in any circumstances whatever. But it is emphatically not the view held by British people as a whole. They are sensible, and they are robust: they may not like beating, but they dislike even more being "beaten up." They are shocked and horrified at the continuation of these crimes of violence against old people and helpless young girls, and they are becoming more and more determined that this state of affairs shall not be allowed to go on. On this question, as I believe on a number of others, your Lordships' House is far more in harmony with the mind of the British public as a whole than are many Members of another place. Therefore I beg the Government not to close their minds to the possibility of an alteration of the law in this respect, even if they will not agree to it now. Surely they must see that the present state of affairs disgraces our country before the world. We have had the advice of the Lord Chief Justice and of many other Judges, both in this House and in the Courts. We have had the advice of many others who have the highest reputation and long experience of offenders of this kind.
There was in the Daily Telegraph a letter from a clergyman—others of your Lordships may have seen it—which I found very impressive. This is what he said:
"I have spent twenty-two years of my life as an East End parson in the real old East End, and have known many hooligans and criminals, some of whom had been flogged. From my talks with them I know that flogging is a deterrent. I should like to see the 'cat' abolished, or at least never used till a birch or cane had been tried. But I have known men glad that they had been birched. It had pulled them up, and made them think. It had saved them, and very nice fellows some of them were."
That is the view of a moderate, humane and broadminded man, as will be seen by his view of the criminals in question who had been reformed by this method. He evidently knows what he is talking about. Your Lordships will notice that this clergyman supports corporal punishment both as a deterrent and as a vehicle for reform. I submit to your Lordships and to the Government that that is the sort

511
of advice, by people who have had practical experience, which should not be lightly rejected.
By all means let us take all the other measures which enlightened opinion suggests. Let us get at the children and young people through boys' clubs, through their parents, and in every way that seems likely to turn them to better paths. By all means do not let us abandon the hope of reforming even the older and the more hardened criminals. But do not let us reject the very possibility of sharper remedies. Remember the words of this clergyman which I have just quoted:
"I have known men glad they had been birched. It had pulled them up and made them think."
To make them think, as I see it, is exactly what we want to do, for once they begin to think there may be the beginning of better things. In the interests of the country and of the men themselves I beg the Government to keep an open mind on this question. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will be able to go at any rate as far as that in the speech with which he winds up this debate; otherwise, if I may say so, I believe most profoundly that the responsibility which they have to shoulder in the future may prove a grievous one before their fellow men.
7.42 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House, and at this late hour I do not know whether your Lordships desire me to do so. If I may take it that I have the consent of the House I will try to put into a short space of time what I want to say. May I start off by stating the view from which I myself approach this problem? I am not one of those who believe that there is anything intrinsically wrong or immoral in using corporal punishment. Personally if I were satisfied that corporal punishment would prevent these crimes I should be in favour of it. The only reason that I think we should not have corporal punishment is that, so far as I can see, corporal punishment has not proved an effective deterrent. That was the attitude which was taken by the Government two years ago. With the
512
greatest respect to the noble Marquess, I would point out that Parliament passed that Act two years ago, after a full discussion, and that it was a mere accident that it was not passed before the war.
What have the figures since shown? I agree—and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, made this point—that it is an error to base too much upon figures by comparing one year with another. And I think, if I may say so to the Lord Chief Justice, that it is an error to compare this Liverpool Assize with the last. But still, so far as the figures go—I put it no stronger than this—they bear out the case against the use of corporal punishment. What we find is this. Comparing 1948, when for the greater part of the year there was corporal punishment, with 1949, when for the whole of the year there was no corporal punishment, we see that the figures of cases of robbery with violence are substantially lower in 1949 than they were in 1948.
I would say this to the noble Marquess. It seems to me that it is perfectly idle to go back to another place and say, "Now we want you to reverse what you did in 1948." I can imagine this sort of colloquy taking place: "Upon what ground? What do the figures show?" We should have to say: "Well, since you abolished corporal punishment I am bound to say that the crimes for which you could have given a flogging have gone down." They have gone down in an atmosphere where other crimes, or at any rate certain other crimes, have increased. It therefore seems to me that what sensible people should do at the present time is this. If they take my point of view and the point of view of the noble Marquess, there is nothing inherently wrong in corporal punishment; but it is a question of expediency, and they should be prepared to see what happens. At the present moment I can give you only the figures for 1949, and I am sorry that I have had to give you those in rather an undigested form. Let us see 1950. Let us see 1951. No one can say what Parliaments of the future will do, but if we find that this class of crime has gone up then we may have to retrace our steps. If, on the other hand, we find that the present tendency—although I have never said that the situation is not very grave—is continuing, then let us rest where we are. That will give the noble

513
Marquess some satisfaction, but further than that I cannot go.
My view about punishment—and I do not know that I shall differ from the noble Marquess at all here—is this. I have given a great deal of thought to this problem for many years, and like other people who have given thought to a problem for many years I find at the end of it all that I am not quite certain. I was much more certain before I started to think about it. I confess that I believe punishment is an evil, and to justify punishment, therefore, it must be justified on the ground that it is preventing a greater evil. Thus punishment should be justified on the ground of deterrence, and even possible reform. Wherever we can we should combine both. In capital punishment there is no question of reform; it is justified on the ground that it is a deterrent. I am quite certain that the idea that we can best effect deterrence and reform by savage sentences—by that I mean not merely length of time but the sort of treatment in prison that prevailed in the eighteenth century—is profoundly wrong. We must see that the treatment to which we subject these people is humanising although, of course, there is a danger that we may go too far the other way. I was not unduly impressed by the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice about the remand home, for the very reason that it was a remand home. Many of the boys there would not have been convicted, and it is impossible to have one system for the boys who have been convicted and another for the boys who have not. If, on the other hand, it had been an approved school, then I should take that as an obvious case of having gone too far in the other direction.
Is whipping a deterrent? For my part I believe it is, and I think the Cadogan Committee believed that it was. Their view is very simply expressed. They say in paragraph 55, of their Report:
"For reasons which we have already indicated we believe that corporal punishment can only be justified on the basis of its value as deterrent"—
we should all agree about that—
"and we have therefore made every effort to determine the extent to which a sentence of corporal punishment may contain some special element of deterrence which is not provided by a sentence of imprisonment or penal servitude not combined with corporal punishment."
514
It was not that they decided as they did because they felt corporal punishment was not a deterrent, but that it had not a "special" deterrent effect which was not provided by imprisonment.
Now I come to consider for a moment the horrible case that the Lord Chief Justice mentioned, that of the two boys "beating up" that woman in the train. Quite frankly I put this to the noble Marquess. It seems to me that a birching in those circumstances is absolutely irrelevant. It is nothing to the point at all—and why? Because it is nothing like severe enough. If you were to go back to the old system and gave a birching once a month during the sentence, I could understand the significance of birching. If you tell me that a crime of that magnitude can be treated by the sort of remedy which may be provided for a small peccadillo like stealing a sweet from a shop, or something of that sort, when what you have is a most brutal "beating up," and nearly a murder of this elderly woman, then you tell me something that I cannot swallow at all. If seven years, which was the sentence given to that boy by the Lord Chief Justice—and knowing the Lord Chief Justice as I do I should suspect that in this case he erred, if at all, on the side of leniency—was an appropriate sentence, it seems to me that to give the boy a lesser sentence merely because he has had a birching would be to do something absolutely wrong. To say that that sentence of seven years compares with a sentence of six months and a birching is not to compare like with like, and it is to say something which, in my submission, is wholly irrelevant.
As to the birching of boys, I was never birched myself but I was caned a great deal, arid I have a healthy and vivid recollection of it to-day. I do not think it did me any harm or that any of the masters who administered it turned out to be sadists, but I am a little doubtful whether it did me much good. It taught me to be cunning and to learn what sort of things to avoid. But birching or caning by a schoolmaster is a wholly different thing from a caning by order of a magistrates' court. Experienced magistrates have often pointed out that there is, among other factors, the time element. After all, at school you have done something naughty—"cheeked" a master or

515
been persistently lazy—and you get it then and there; and that is a very important feature of it. But to take a boy before a magistrate and then to have an interval with perhaps the possibility of an appeal, and then in a cold-blooded way to take the boy away and birch him, is fundamentally a different thing. A man who knew more about this than anybody I know, the late Sir William Clark-Hall, a juvenile court magistrate, started his magistrate's career with the use of corporal punishment, and he had no moral or sentimental objection to it. But he gave it up quite deliberately because he came to the conclusion that it was not an effective deterrent. You will find that the most experienced juvenile court magistrates in London, I believe almost without exception, have given it up, not on highfalutin or sentimental or moral grounds, but simply because they did not believe it was any good.
So far as probation is concerned, it is, of course, a most admirable system, but one which, like other systems, can be very much abused. If you have a fellow up time after time, and bind him over and put him on probation and never give him a punishment, you are likely to do him grave injury. My theory about the hardened lag who is beyond reform—and I am afraid we must admit there are such—has always been that he should be punished from a rather different point of view, Reform is out of the question; deterrence, I think, is almost impossible. But the public have a right to be protected from these people. I should like to take them away to a South Sea island where they could have every modern convenience, with billiard tables and so forth, and have their ladies with them; and I would say, "Now there you stay; society is not going to be plagued with you any more." If there were such an island suitable for this purpose, a sort of St. Helena, I think there would be something to be said for the idea. At any rate, that is the idea lying behind the system of preventive detention which was specified in the Act of 1948.
I should now like to answer one or two specific points, if only as a matter of courtesy. May I first take the question raised by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York to which the noble Marquess has just referred? It is the fact
516
that to-day, under Section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, if the court decide to impose a fine, damages or costs for an offence committed by a child or young person, then, unless the court are satisfied that the parent or guardian has not conduced to the commission of that offence by neglecting to exercise due care, the court in the case of a child must, and in the case of a young person may, order the parent or guardian to pay. That same section also provides that in the case of a child or young person charged with any offence, the court may order his parent or guardian to give security for his good behaviour. I have had inquiries made to-day about this matter, and I am told that the power to order a parent or guardian to give security for the good behaviour of the child is freely exercised by the London juvenile courts and that these courts also, to some extent, use their power to order the parent to pay damages or costs.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is it not a more general point that is being made by the noble and learned Viscount? These powers of the court would apply to magistrates' courts in the country for small offences, and to juvenile courts. Are magistrates all aware of this fact? It seems to me very necessary that steps should be taken at once to circulate this information.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: It has been on the Statute Book for forty years.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I believe it is fairly commonly known, but I am reluctant that the Home Office should circularise magistrates on a question of this sort. I do not think that that would be a desirable practice because it would look as though the Home Office were dictating to magistrates. I hope that the observations I am now making will be widely reported in the Press and that magistrates will be reminded, in case any of them do not know, that there are these powers under the Act of 1933 and that it has been suggested in this House that more use might be made of them. I think it is most important to bring home to the parents their responsibility for offences committed by their children. So far as juvenile delinquency is concerned, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York asked me about the result of the

517
conferences that have taken place. I cannot tell him more than this. Out of 145 local authorities, 65 have already held conferences and 21 definitely propose to hold them. Only about a dozen say they do not propose to hold one. But the important point is not the mere holding of a conference, but the bringing together of the various representatives of the local services—education, probation, police and so forth—as a clearing house of practical experience and as a means of encouraging the individual services concerned to take action. We are circularising all these authorities, and as and when we get answers they will form one of the Papers that I shall most certainly make available in order that your Lordships may see how we are getting on.
I am not stopping now to deal with houses for the police or police pay. That, as the noble Marquess said, is to be the subject of a special debate. As regards deserters, I agree with the noble Marquess that a good deal more is made of this matter than perhaps should be. The facts seem to be that the number of deserters outstanding at the end of 1949 was about 19,000. More than 10,000 of these had addresses in the Irish Republic and about 1,000 of that number were "multiple" deserters—that is to say, persons who have deserted two or three times, having joined different regiments. It is estimated that the number of deserters at large in this country is not more than about 8,000. It may well be that the number is considerably less. I cannot, of course, tell your Lordships the number of those deserters who are engaging in crime, but the experience of the police and the Service Departments suggests that a considerably large number of them have somehow or other managed to restore themselves to normal lives and to normal occupations. In the view of the police, there is no reason to think that any substantial proportion of the total number of crimes of violence is attributable to deserters. Of those deserters who are engaged in crime, it is likely that many are men who had criminal records before they deserted, so it may not be so much a matter of men resorting to crime because they were deserters, as of men deserting because they were criminals. I myself do not think that deserters contribute very much to the present problem of crime.
518
I want to make an observation or two now on a different matter, which is not capable of statistical proof—that is to say, the degree of violence which is being used to-day. In a statement the other day, Mr. Justice Streatfeild indicated that in his view the quality of the crime was worse and more violent. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, said the same thing, and in so doing obviously was repeating the impression he got from his fellow Judges. So far as the Metropolitan Police District is concerned, the Commissioner of Police has informed the Home Secretary that he has no grounds for thinking that crimes recently committed involve any greater degree of violence than those of the past. As regards the rest of the country, differing opinions are held. Three chief constables of the larger cities said that they had come across crimes recently which they thought were marked by more extreme violence than the crimes of previous days. But the other chief constables said that they had had no similar experience. It is not a matter on which—if I may use a word that was used the other day—one can pontificate at all; yet so far as the police authorities are concerned, undoubtedly the balance of opinion is that it is not the fact that the quality of violence used in these crimes is greater than it was before. I cannot go further than that. Obviously, the opinion of the Judges who go round the country on circuit and see these things for themselves is a factor to which we should all of us attach considerable weight.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, in a most interesting maiden speech, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, whether we could do something to increase or assist scientific investigation into these matters. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, particularly suggested that universities should be called in to help us. But a good deal of research is already going on. A study of the methods of the diagnosis and treatment of juvenile offenders, financed by the Carnegie Trust, has just been completed at Redhill approved school, and the result is shortly to be published. Cambridge University are now starting a piece of research into the question of sexual offences, and recently the Carnegie Trust has appointed Mr. John Mack, Stevenson Lecturer in Citizenship in Glasgow University, to

519
survey the entire field of juvenile delinquency. In the past the Home Office have made material freely available to research workers, and they are actively considering how the statistics which they collect could be made more useful for research purposes.
I apologise for taking up your Lordships' time. It all comes to this: that I feel the situation is undoubtedly grave, but we can fairly claim that 1949 is better than 1948. I sincerely hope that 1950 will prove to be better than 1949. I myself believe that the most important and immediate thing that we can do is to try to step up recruiting to the police force. It is a very difficult problem. I often think that the Home Secretary in dealing with the police is dealing more with the wives of the police than with the police themselves. If he can satisfy them, he can satisfy the police. At a time when there is a considerable demand for labour it is difficult to get men who have to be out at night, and have to be on duty on public holidays. If we can solve that problem, we shall make the best contribution that we possibly can towards reducing these crimes of violence. I have endeavoured to show throughout this debate that, whatever else may be said about the Government, no one can say that they are complacent in this matter or that they are not aware of the danger which exists. I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, for having given us, by putting down this Motion, the opportunity for a most interesting and useful discussion.
8.7 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, at this late hour I propose to say as little as I possibly can. I put down this Motion because I felt that there was cause for very grave anxiety. I am glad that the Government agree with me. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount that he has given a practical demonstration of that agreement by accepting this Motion. I am also glad that the noble and learned Viscount said that the Government were prepared to take steps to cope with the situation. So far, without any qualification, I have been very glad. But what I am not quite so happy
520
about, to be perfectly frank, is the steps that the Government have proposed in this debate to take about the situation. I agree that the prevention of crime is the most important thing to be considered. I feel that, although some improvement in recruitment for the police forces has been registered, there is still a good deal more to do. If the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is right on the present recruiting figures it will take seventeen years to bring the police force up to strength. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will be as good as his word about the police, particularly as regards housing. I cannot help feeling that something more than a circular is needed for the local authorities. Cannot we bring to bear more pressure upon them to provide the police with housing?
On the question of deterrents to crime, I do not propose to re-start the controversy about corporal punishment. I accept the difficulty of immediately doing anything about it, but I was relieved to hear the noble and learned Viscount say that the Government were still prepared to keep an open mind about it, supposing the figures became very much worse. At the moment, I ask no more on that. I cannot help slightly deploring the existing alternative as regards the younger offenders. It seems to me that long sentences for young offenders are a bad thing, because they mean that the boy's life is taken away from him—he has no chance; he must become a hard case. To have that as the only alternative is a very serious step, and it is one that disturbs me a great deal. The only excuse is that it acts as a deterrent. Of course, although we have had much evidence to the effect that corporal punishment is no deterrent, we have had extraordinarily little evidence on the question whether the long sentence is any better deterrent. All we can do at the moment is to watch the situation. I cannot pretend—I say it quite frankly—that I am entirely satisfied with the methods that the Government have so far put forward to deal with the matter, and I must reserve the right, if the situation does not improve, to raise this matter again.
On Question, Motion agreed to; the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [H.L.]
Referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
  FUEL FOR COOKERS
  FUEL FOR COOKERS