Sitting of 18 April 1951

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

    European Population
    Earl Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the number of the resident European population in Northern Rhodesia on the 31st December, 1940, and the 31st December, 1950, or nearest convenient date, respectively.
    The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Dugdale): The total European population in Northern Rhodesia, including visitors, was estimated to have been 14,300 at mid-year, 1940, and 36,000 at mid-year, 1950. The resident population is slightly less than the total population, but precise estimates are not available.

    Relationship (Conference)
    Earl Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the discussions between officials representing Northern and Southern Rhodesia on the subject of the future relationship between those two countries have now been completed.
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. The conference, which concerned the question of the closer association of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, was concluded on 31st March. The members are submitting a joint report to their Governments.
    Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the fullest possible publicity to this report in view of the extreme importance of the situation, both from the point of view of the natural apprehension of the African populations owing to events
    1794
    south of the Limpopo, and the demand, which has never yet been refused by this House, of Britons overseas to have a reasonable measure of self-government?
    Mr. Dugdale: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this is a report of officials to their governments, and that until it has been seen by all the governments concerned I cannot give any guarantee of publication.
    Mr. Driberg: While agreeing with some of what the noble Lord said in his supplementary, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will give an assurance that there will not be any major constitutional changes until the interests and the suffrage of the African people are completely safeguarded?
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. I will certainly give that assurance.
    Earl Winterton: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply to this Question—which is causing the most intense interest and is a matter of Imperial concern which goes far beyond even the interests of this House and affects the Commonwealth—that if the Government do not like the report they will not publish it?
    Mr. Dugdale: I want to make quite clear that this is a report of officials of a number of governments, and that I cannot say without consultation with those governments whether they, as well as we, will agree to publication. If all agree to publication, no doubt the report will be published.
    Mr. Harrison: Can my hon. Friend say if the report which has been submitted to these three governments was unanimous?
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can one government veto the publication of the report?
    Mr. Dugdale: I should not think so.

  JAMAICA (TOBACCO INDUSTRY)
  Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to further his declared policy of

  1795
  giving every possible encouragement to the tobacco-growing and cigar-manufacturing industry in Jamaica.
  Mr. Dugdale: The furtherance of local industries in the Colonies is primarily a matter for the colonial governments concerned, though my Department naturally encourages colonial development in every possible way.
  Mr. Dodds: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that any agreement recently entered into or contemplated will in no way be likely to increase the estimate of unemployed in Jamaica? Surely my hon. Friend has heard that there are unemployed there, and that the less work there the more unemployed there will be.
  Mr. Dugdale: That is a purely hypothetical question. I agree as to the seriousness of the unemployment situation. I cannot say whether any agreement will or will not have any particular effect on the unemployment.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not a fact that there is now quite considerable unemployment in the tobacco industry in the West Indian Islands? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that while preference used to be 25 per cent. in the United Kingdom market it is now 3 per cent., and are we now free to increase that if we want to do so?
  Mr. Dugdale: The question of preference should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With great respect, the Minister has a large measure of responsibility for the West Indian Colonies. Is it not a fact that however much, constitutionally, it rests with someone else to answer this detailed question, the fact that we are now precluded from giving greater preference is a matter which ought seriously to disturb the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Dugdale: We are seriously concerned about it and we do take it into consideration, but the actual answering of that particular question, and the responsibility for it, is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Sorensen: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the apprehensions of the Jamaican cigar manufacturers
  1796
  about the rivalry of the Cuban cigar manufacturers is unfounded?

  CUBA (TRADE NEGOTIATIONS)
  Mr. Peter Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consultations took place with colonial governments before His Majesty's Government entered into negotiations with the Cuban Government with regard to the purchase of sugar, tobacco or grapefruit.
  Mr. Dugdale: There was no such prior consultation, because no one could foretell exactly what proposals might be brought forward in the course of trade negotiations covering a wide field. Discussions are still continuing, but His Majesty's Government have the interests of Commonwealth producers very much in mind.
  Mr. Smithers: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the colonial Governments were not consulted because the Colonial Office did not think it necessary to consult them, or was it because the Colonial Office did not know the negotiations were going on and, therefore, could not consult?
  Mr. Dugdale: The reason was the reason I have given in my reply.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance to the House that the Colonial Office were told by the President of the Board of Trade that negotiations with Cuba were imminent and would involve a new sugar contract? If so, what was the reply given by his right hon. Friend?
  Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. I think that all these matters will come out when my right hon. Friend makes his statement on the negotiations.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: But does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that while Porto Rico, Haiti and other independent countries were represented at Torquay, the only representation of the British West Indian Colonies was through his right hon. Friend? Does this not make it all the more incumbent to protect their interests before negotiations start, and not afterwards?
  Mr. Dugdale: I would remind the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend is a member of the Cabinet and that the Government act as one in these matters.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a large supply of sugar, and off the ration if possible, is the chief consideration?
  Mr. Michael Foot: To meet the very intense desire of the West Indies for consultation in these matters, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of sending out a delegation from his Department, or from his Department in collaboration with the Board of Trade, to consult with the West Indies on this after before an agreement is reached with Cuba?
  Mr. Dugdale: Consultations are continuous. I do not think there is any need for a special delegation of that character.
  Mr. Gammans: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to find out what an enormous volume of criticism there is in the West Indies today against the action that the Government have taken, and the fact that this action has been taken behind their backs without consultation at all?
  Mr. Foot: Since there is no action that has been taken decisively in this matter, will not ray right hon. Friend consider the suggestion which I have made, and which, I assure him, would meet with great approval in the West Indies? It would meet with great gratification if a delegation could go from here to discuss the whole matter fully before an agreement is reached.
  Mr. Dugdale: I will lay that suggestion before my right hon. Friend.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Local Forces
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will ask colonial governments which have not local military forces adequate for the prevention of serious local disorder where police forces are not sufficient for the purpose, to recruit, organise and equip such forces locally, thus reducing the demands on British Forces.
    Mr. Dugdale: Most colonial governments have either police forces or military forces, or both, considered adequate to prevent serious local disorder; and the
    1798
    scale of local military forces existing in the Colonies is based on that factor. Where deficiencies are known to exist, His Majesty's Government are considering, in consultation with the colonial governments concerned, what means should best be adopted to repair them.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, will he assure the House that the Government are busily examining the question of Grenada where there was a recent rebellion which troops of this kind might well have prevented?
    Mr. Dugdale: We are examining the whole question, including Grenada.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In connection with the safety of other West Indian Colonies, will the question of the reformation of the West Indian Regiment be seriously considered?
    Mr. Dugdale: That is another question.

    Development Corporation
    Mr. Errollasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the resignations that are about to take place from the Board of the Colonial Development Corporation.
    Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend has no information about any such impending resignations from the Board, nor, I have ascertained, has the chairman.
    Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister be mindful of these denials when the resignations take place?
    Mr. Dugdale: I shall be interested to know that the party opposite happened to have information which was denied not only to His Majesty's Government but to the chairman of the Corporation.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does it not seem rather serious that this information has come to some private Member and not to the Minister? Will he not make investigations?
    Mr. Dugdale: I cannot believe that the information is correct.
    Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report of the Colonial Development Corporation will be available.
    Mr. Dugdale: I am unable to give a definite date, but my right hon. Friend hopes that the publication of the report will take place very shortly.
    Mr. Alport: When the report is published, will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Leader of the House to ensure that full facilities are given to debate it?
    Mr. Dugdale: Certainly.
    Mr. Gerald Williams: What date does this report bring us up to? Will it be to the end of the year?
    Mr. Dugdale: The report will be to the 1st April.

    Racial Discrimination
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what Colonies have legislation or regulations making unlawful any discrimination of colour, race or creed in respect of accommodation, entertainment, refreshment or employment; and in which colonial areas such discrimination operates.
    Mr. Dugdale: No territory, so far as I am aware, has general legislation of the kind described. There are some examples of legislation against particular discriminatory practices. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) on 14th February.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that there are some colonial areas where race and colour discrimination are being practised at present? In the circumstances does he not think it rather advisable that legislation should be introduced, where possible, in those areas to meet that situation?
    Mr. Dugdale: I think it is advisable that we should consider whether legislation should or should not be introduced, but in any case before considering these questions we think it better to await the Survey of Racial Discrimination now being made. In the meantime those who feel, as I think most hon. Members do, that racial discrimination is repugnant in every country should express their feelings by refraining from entering any public places where it is practised.
    Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feeling that exists in Northern Rhodesia that certain hon. Members on the opposite side of the House showed racial discrimination against Europeans in Northern Rhodesia?
    Sir Ian Fraser: Will the Minister of State and the Colonial Service generally, be warned by the aphorism of a famous Socialist, Mr. Sidney Webb, about the inevitability of gradualness?
    Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand from my right hon. Friend that he thinks it advisable that legislation of this character should be introduced? Is so, would he consider the possibility of recommending legislation for Northern Rhodesia, where, according to the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), white settlers are badly treated?
    Mr. Dugdale: I think it would be better to await the Survey of Racial Discrimination, which I hope will be published within a reasonable time.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to read the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), in which he does not prescribe any protection against racial discrimination in employment in this country?
    Mr. Dugdale: As the question has been put to me in a rather peculiar manner, I would point out that the hon. Member is not the only person who has time to read Bills. I have, in fact, read that Bill.

    Information Services
    Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the continual misunderstandings which arise in the United Nations about the responsibilities and policies of the main colonial Powers, he will consider the desirability of seeking the collaboration of France, Holland. Belgium and Portugal in developing a more adequate information and propaganda service in that connection.
    Mr. Dugdale: I share my hon. Friend's view that information on these subjects should be as widespread as possible, but it is, I think, for each country with colonial responsibilities to interpret and to judge what it can do in this direction.

  NIGERIA (CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT)
  Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the development of the Cooperative movement in Nigeria and in the issuing of explanatory literature in the vernacular.
  Mr. Dugdale: The movement is developing steadily. I will, with permission, circulate some figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My right hon. Friend has asked the Governor about the issue of vernacular literature and will write to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Dodds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a recent annual Co-operative conference a unanimous decision was taken that the movement should provide teams of administrators for Nigeria and for backward countries, and that they are very anxious to help to create a higher standard of living?
  Mr. Dugdale: I am glad to hear that; in fact, the movement's progress has been exceedingly satisfactory.
  Following are the figures:

  —

  1945

  1950

  Number of societies of all kinds.

  580

  1,092

  Number of consumer societies.

  7

  38

  Share capital paid up

  £7,000

  £45,000

  Deposits

  £7,000

  £72,000

  Value of produce marketed through societies.

  £361,000

  £1,160,000

  Loans granted through societies.

  £25,000

  £141,000

  COLONIAL STUDENTS (HOSTELS)
  Mr. Porterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take in the interest of colonial students, residing at present in the hostels to be closed by the British Council at Leeds and elsewhere.
  Mr. Dugdale: The British Council is responsible for the accommodation of colonial students, and I am informed that it will make arrangements for the accommodation of any student who may be displaced
  1802
  by the closing of these hostels. There were only five colonial students in residence at the Manchester hostel. Alternative accommodation arrangements for four of them has been made by the British Council. The fifth one preferred to find his own flat. The Leeds hostel will not close until July. There are eight colonial students residing at the hostel at the moment. Arrangements for their rehousing will be made by the British Council in good time.
  Mr. Porter: Is it not true that my right hon. Friend's Department transferred these responsibilities only 12 months ago? If the Council are not now prepared to shoulder these responsibilities, will he again assume responsibility for these students?
  Mr. Dugdale: That is a hypothetical question, but there is every evidence that the Council are carrying out their responsibilities in an admirable manner.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the present financial arrangements between His Majesty's Government and the British Council in respect of the provision and supervision of hostels for colonial students; for how many centres the British Council are or have been responsible to his Department; for how many students accommodation by this means has been or is now being provided; and what is the extent and nature of alternative arrangements for students made by the British Council.
  Mr. Dugdale: A sum of £425,000 has been set aside from the funds which are, or will be, available under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts to cover the expenses of the British Council's work for accommodation and welfare of colonial students from January, 1950, to March, 1954. This includes provision for one hostel for men students and one for women students in London, and, for the present, for the maintenance of a hostel for men students at Edinburgh and another at Newcastle. These hostels house altogether about 300 students. Most colonial students live in university accommodation or in private hostels, in lodgings or with families. The Council has staff and arrangements for helping students to find such accommodation in

  1803
  every university centre in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister satisfied with the arrangements made some time ago regarding the function and power of the British Council to meet the needs of these students, and can he also say how often the British Council have reported to him on their progress in this respect?
  Mr. Dugdale: I have every confidence in the British Council's ability to provide this accommodation, and I have no reason to suppose that they are not provided at present.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is not accommodation for only 300 students grossly inadequate in view of the number of students visiting this country? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this is one of the most serious social problems of the City of London?
  Mr. Dugdale: I do not consider that accommodation for students in special hostels is necessarily the ideal solution of the problem. It is much better for them to be housed in universities or found accommodation with families, and the British Council make every effort to do that.
  Mr. Somerville Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend realise the difficulties of colonial students in London and other places, and will he institute an inquiry to see if something more cannot be done for them?
  Mr. Sorensen: Would the Minister kindly reply to the second part of my supplementary question, in which I asked him how often the British Council reported to him on the progress they make in this direction?
  Mr. Dugdale: We are continually in touch with the British Council, who keep us informed from time to time as cases arise.

  MALAYA

    Armoured Vehicles
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the majority of the armoured cars being used by the security forces in Malaya were made during the last war and are short of spare parts, and that
    1804
    an undue percentage of them is always under repair; and how many new vehicles have been sent to Malaya during the past six months.
    Mr. Dugdale: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." The armoured vehicles are, however, all completely reconditioned; there is no scarcity of spare parts; and less than 10 per cent. are under repair. Sixty-one armoured vehicles have been sent out during the past six months for use by the police. The Malay Regiment obtains its vehicles and stores through military channels. There is some difficulty over spare parts for these vehicles, and repairs to them are subject to delay.
    Mr. Gammans: How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile this statement with the assurance that the Prime Minister gave the House, about 18 months ago, that Malaya was getting first priority in the provision of new equipment?
    Mr. Dugdale: I explained that the position is very much better than might have been supposed by the hon. Member's Question.
    Brigadier Medlicott: As these vehicles are presumably supplied by the Secretary of State for War, was it not inevitable that they would be short of nuts?
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great shortage of armoured vehicles on rubber estates, and will he see that the men who are earning the dollars for us get some protection by having these vehicles?
    Mr. Dugdale: I will look into that.

    Leprosy Treatment (Sulphurtone)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what supplies of sulphurtone were sent to the two leper colonies in Malaya in 1950; if the amount sent was sufficient to meet the requirements; and what improvements in the treatment of leprosy have been recently introduced.
    Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend is consulting the High Commissioner and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as a reply is received.
    Mr. Awbery: Will my right hon. Friend see that periodical supplies of sulphurtone are sent to Malaya? Will he also see that every improvement in the treatment of this disease is introduced in Malaya and the other Colonies as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Dugdale: We fully realise the importance of seeing to these matters, but I must await the report before I can give a definite answer.

    Rubber (Acreage)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what acreage was replanted in Malaya with budded rubber in 1949 and 1950; and what acreage is contemplated in 1951 and 1952.
    Mr. Dugdale: Figures for 1949 and 1950 for the Federation of Malaya are 33,569 acres and 31,297 acres respectively. It is not known what acreage is contemplated in 1951 and 1952.
    Mr. Awbery: In view of the fact that this is the most productive method of producing rubber, will my right hon. Friend give instructions that it will be used throughout the Federation?
    Mr. Dugdale: That is a matter of opinion, but my right hon. Friend is only too anxious that every possible method shall be used, this one among them.
    Mr. Niall Macpherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how this acreage was divided as between estates and other producers?
    Mr. Dugdale: Not without notice.
    Air Commodore Harvey: What proportion of the replanting was carried out by native growers?
    Mr. Dugdale: I could not say without notice.

  GOLD COAST (DISEASED COCOA TREES)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the recent decision of the Government of the Gold Coast to abandon the practice of cutting out diseased cocoa trees.
  Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the Gold Coast Government's
  1806
  suspension of compulsory cutting down of cocoa trees infected with swollen shoot.
  Mr. Dugdale: It was announced in the Legislative Assembly on 3rd April that the Executive Council had decided that there should be a suspension of compulsory cutting-out for one month while an inquiry into the organisation and methods of the cutting-out campaign was held; but that cutting-out should continue in those farms where the owners agreed to it. A committee has been set up by the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources to undertake the inquiry and to report within one month. In subsequent statements by Ministers it was emphasised that scientists had so far produced no effective treatment for swollen shoot other than cutting out and that the Government must accept this.
  Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what is the constitutional position in connection with the cutting out of diseased cocoa trees? Has the Minister any power whatsoever now to enforce cutting out if he is convinced it is absolutely necessary to save the cocoa industry?
  Mr. Dugdale: I think I made it clear that there is no question of the cutting out being stopped. The Secretary of State has every confidence that the Government of the Gold Coast are taking this step only as a temporary measure and intend to see that a proper review is made of the subject within this month and that if there is any necessity for cutting out continuing it shall continue.
  Mr. Keeling: As not only the experts but also Mr. Nkrumah himself have said that cutting out is the only known treatment, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the suspension will not be extended beyond one month?
  Mr. Dugdale: It is for the Government of the Gold Coast to give that assurance, but in view of the statement by Mr. Nkrumah I have every confidence that it will be done.

  SINGAPORE RIOTS (REPORT)
  Squadron Leader Burdenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report on the riots in Singapore will be published.
  Mr. Dugdale: The report, which will be addressed to the Governor, has not yet been presented, and I cannot at present give a date for its publication. My right hon. Friend is, however, fully aware of the desirability of publishing the report as soon as possible.
  Squadron Leader Burden: Can the House have an assurance that it will be published and made available to Members at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Snow: Can my right hon. Friend say, whether, when this report is published, it will include reports made in the two years before the riots on the subject of the police, and whether these reports reached the High Commissioner in their complete form or not?
  Mr. Dugdale: That is quite a different question.

  EAST AFRICA

    Tea Prices, Tanganyika and Kenya
    Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken to equate the controlled price of tea in Tanganyika and Kenya so as to prevent existing anomalies; and what steps are being taken to unify fiscal and commercial regulations between the two territories.
    Mr. Dugdale: An inter-territorial committee of producers is at present working out proposals for a uniform range of prices for tea consumed in East Africa. With regard to the second part of the Question, the Government of each East African territory makes its own fiscal and commercial regulations. There is constant consultation between the governments in order to ensure that degree of uniformity which is to their common advantage.
    Mr. Alport: Has the right hon. Gentleman realised that existing circumstances are an invitation to continual smuggling between the two Colonies and the frustration of the existing Customs and Excise regulations? Will he do his best to secure that the regulations are unified to the greatest possible extent?
    Mr. Dugdale: I hope that there is no more smuggling between these two Colonies than between any other countries which have different Customs and Excise regulations.

    Construction Company, Tanganyika (Staff)
    Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what dates the redundancy terms were fully discussed with representatives of the staff of the Earthmoving and Construction Company, Ltd., in Tanganyika; and on what date his Department was assured that the terms were generally acceptable.
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what redundancy terms were offered to employees of the Earthmoving Construction Company, Ltd., in Tanganyika who are serving on a 12-month contract and to those serving on a three-year contract, respectively; and to what extent these terms differed from those offered to the Overseas Food Corporation.
    Mr. Dugdale: The question of redundancy terms does not arise in the case of the staff of Earthmoving and Construction, Ltd. All except 17 of that staff are, or were, on short-term contracts, and their employment has been, or will be, dealt with in accordance with the provisions of those contracts. The 17 who are on three-year contracts have been offered the alternative of completing their contracts or of terminating them and receiving the cash equivalent of one third of the unexpired portion. This option remains open.
    I regret that my statement on 5th March on the terms of compensation for European staff in East Africa was inaccurate. For the reasons given, redundancy terms have not been discussed with staff representatives of Earthmoving and Construction, Ltd.
    Mr. Alport: Will the Minister make certain that when he makes a future statement on a subject of importance of this sort to employees of a corporation the statement will be accurate?
    Mr. Dugdale: I cannot do more than say to the House that the statement was inaccurate. I hope that that information is sufficient.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a matter of the very greatest importance? In the debate on 5th March he said that a satisfactory agreement had been reached with the employees, but in fact no talks started until 16th March, when the chairman of the corporation went to East Africa. All the three-year-contract men have repudiated the agreement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] This is a matter of great importance to a number of people. Did not the right hon. Gentleman get out of a difficult Parliamentary situation by saying something which was wholly untrue?
    Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Gentleman is making rather heavy weather about this. I have admitted perfectly openly that the statement was inaccurate and I cannot do more than that. The number of people referred to is 17. They are on a three-year contract, as I have stated. They were offered alternatives, to accept either the one or the other. There was consultation, because they were offered either one alternative or the other.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet realised what the Question is about. It is not a question of consultation only with the three-year men. There was no consultation with anybody. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Is it not a fact—
    Mr. Speaker: This should be a question and not a debate.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not a fact that there was no consultation with anybody, three-year men or otherwise? The chairman of the corporation did not get to East Africa until 11 days after the right hon. Gentleman said that consultation had taken place.
    Mr. Dugdale: May I make this point? I have said, and I repeat, that all except 17 of that staff are or were on short-term contracts, that their employment will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of those contracts and that that is the method employed by private enterprise. It is, in fact, the method which has been employed by this particular company, whose servants are not Government servants.

  RUBBER CONFERENCE, ROME
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the official rubber conference being held in Rome; and state to what extent there is direct representation of the rubber industry both Asian and European.
  Mr. Dugdale: The official Rubber Conference now being held in Rome is a continuation of the conference held in London during February, on which the President of the Board of Trade made a statement to the House on 15th February. The British Colonial and Dependent Territories delegation includes advisers from the European and Asian rubber industry, selected after consultation with the governments concerned.
  Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what this conference is supposed to be discussing? Is it the price of rubber, or the denial of strategic materials to the Communist Powers? What is the main object?
  Mr. Dugdale: The conference is discussing quite a number of things, but certainly not the latter of those which the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS DEPENDENCIES
  Mr. Fitzroy Macleanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who is now in occupation of Paradise Island.
  Mr. Dugdale: I assume that the reference is to Paradise Harbour in the Falkland Islands Dependencies. There are an Argentine and a Chilean post on two islands in this harbour. Protests at these actions of trespass on British territory have been delivered locally to the leaders of both parties.
  Mr. Maclean: In view of the complete futility of these repeated protests will the Government take steps to expel these undesirable elements?
  Mr. Dugdale: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means. Does he mean engaging in warlike operations?
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the Minister tell us how long this fatuous state of affairs has existed? How long have these people been there?
  Mr. Dugdale: The protests were delivered by the "John Briscoe," when it was relieving British posts in the Dependencies. The Chileans have been there rather longer than the Argentinians. The Chileans set up their post during the Antarctic season, which is just ending.
  Mr. Maclean: Have no protests been delivered through the ordinary diplomatic channels to the Governments concerned?
  Mr. Dugdale: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Aircraft
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what time has elapsed between the issue of first staff requirements and the equip ping of the first Fleet Air Arm Squadron with the last three new types of aircraft accepted by his Department.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): Five, 4½ and 5 years approximately.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman's mind not disturbed by the length of time it is taking these aircraft to get into service from the drawing board?
    Mr. Callaghan: To the layman it seems long, but I am told that our aircraft are not out of line with any others in this matter of production.
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when it is anticipated that the GR 17/44 aircraft for which the staff requirement was issued in December 1945 will come into service.
    Mr. Callaghan: I regret it would not be in the public interest to disclose this information, but the House can rest assured that all practicable steps will be taken to ensure that the G.R. 17 will come into service at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that an aircraft which
    1812
    was conceived in 1944 and came into service this year was out of line with the answer which he has given to the previous Question? Will he not seriously consider holding an inquiry, with the Ministry of Supply, into the whole question of aircraft production?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am quite ready to look into those matters, but I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the weight of aircraft production is on the R.A.F.

    Dockyard, Bermuda
    Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the naval dockyard in Bermuda is now finally closed.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): Yes, Sir.
    Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that this small dockyard community has done very good work for over 100 years, and that the closing of the dockyard has severed an important link in the Colony with the Royal Navy? Would he consider sending a special message to the Government of Bermuda?
    Mr. Edwards: I am quite prepared to reiterate the expressed opinion of the Board of Admiralty as to the great services which have been rendered by the Bermuda Government and people living in Bermuda. I will look at the other point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Mr. P. Smithers: Does the Minister's answer mean that the considerable number of Barbadians employed in this dockyard have been discharged, and if so can he give an assurance that they have been found employment?
    Mr. Edwards: If we have no work we have to discharge them, and if there is no employment for them out there I can give no assurance that they will be employed.

    Defence Programme (Priority)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty which type of vessels rank as first priority in the defence programme.
    Mr. Callaghan: The emphasis, at present, is on ships and aircraft for antisubmarine and mine warfare.
    Colonel Hutchison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the shortage of steel arising from the shortage of transport wagons which, if not tackled very soon, will result in an automatic priority system which may not be as comfortable as the one which the hon. Gentleman wants?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, but I should have thought that that question would have been better addressed to the Minister of Supply.
    Colonel Hutchison: Has the hon. Member consulted his right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am always consulting him.

    Retained Men
    Captain Ryderasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps have been taken to assist those ratings who are being retained beyond their Regular long service engagements by reducing the additional time for which they are being retained, and by assisting them to obtain civilian or Government employment.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many men due for release after long service in the Royal Navy have now been retained for a further 18 months; to what extent he anticipates that it will be necessary for all these men to serve the full extra time; whether he has now investigated the possibility of safeguarding the position of such of these men as had already secured offers of employment in civilian life; and what provisions exist for appeals against retention on grounds of hardship.
    Mr. Callaghan: Approximately 6,000 men have now been retained. I am unable to say that any reduction in the period of retention will be possible. Appeals for release are considered on their merits, but release can only be permitted in cases where there are exceptional compassionate circumstances. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT information about the measures to assist the resettlement of retained men.
    Captain Ryder: As this comparatively small section of the community is particularly hard hit, is the hon. Gentleman
    1814
    satisfied that the measures he is taking to ensure their employment when they return to civilian life will be effective?
    Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that we can guarantee that for everybody. I should have thought that the chief advantage lies in the fact that we are likely to be in a period of full employment.
    Mr. Driberg: Can my hon. Friend say whether it would be possible to reduce the extra time by calling up more Royal Fleet reservists, who have, after all, always been aware of their obligation, whereas these men do feel that, although what the Government are doing is quite legal, it is a breach of contract?
    Mr. Callaghan: It would be possible to shorten the period of service by doing that, but I am not at all sure that we should do justice to the Royal Fleet reservists if we did so.
    Following is the information:
    The facilities for finding employment for ex-Regulars are constantly being extended, and will be available to these men. For example, in Civil Service examinations, and certain London County Council examinations, ex-Regulars are allowed to deduct the actual period of Regular service in order to bring them within the age limits. Men who had already competed successfully in the special Civil Service examinations for the executive and clerical classes will have appointments held for them. In the police my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary has informed the appointing authorities that, in suitable cases, he is prepared to approve the appointment of Regular Service men who would have been within the age limit but for their retention.
    Mr. Footasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give an undertaking that those men retained in the Royal Navy for 18 months after the expiry of their normal period of service will not have their period of service further extended.
    Mr. Callaghan: I can give a firm assurance that no increase in the period of retention beyond 18 months is contemplated.
    Mr. Foot: In view of that welcome assurance, can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the Admiralty is taking action to raise the regular size of the Navy sufficiently in order to make sure that he will be able to fulfil the assurance?
    Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend need be in no doubt that we shall increase the size of Vote A this year.

    Greenwich Hospital (Water Supply Scheme)
    Mr. Donald Scottasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is now in a position to report on the progress of the negotiations between Greenwich Hospital and the Alston-with-Garrigill Rural District Council with regard to a lease of land owned by the former and required by the latter in connection with a water supply scheme.
    Mr. Callaghan: Negotiations are now at an advanced stage and I hope that a satisfactory settlement will be reached shortly.
    Mr. Scott: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these negotiations have been going on for a very long time and that the dog-in-the-manger attitude of Greenwich Hospital has already caused grave hardship to the people of Alston-with-Garrigill? Can he promise us today that the negotiation will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion within, say, four weeks?
    Mr. Callaghan: I know that the negotiations have been going on for a long time, but I do not blame Greenwich Hospital altogether for that. I have been into the facts of the case. A more prompt reply to letters would speed up negotiations a little.

    Destroyer (Sale to Egypt)
    Captain Soamesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why H.M.S. "Cottesmore" has been sold to the Egyptian Government; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to sell to foreign Powers other destroyers of this class.
    Mr. Callaghan: This ship was sold in June, 1950, as surplus to our requirements. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. and
    1816
    gallant Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) on 4th April.
    Captain Soames: In view of the hon. Gentleman's reply to Question No. 36 about priority being given to antisubmarine vessels in the defence programme, how can he say that this vessel was surplus to requirements? If the Government wish to sell anti-submarine vessels, would it not be wiser to sell them to nations subscribing to the Atlantic Pact?
    Mr. Callaghan: As to the first part of the supplementary question, I believe we have none of this class of ships now serving with the Navy. At any rate, we have only one or two. As to the second part of the supplementary, it is our policy to sell these ships, or to loan them or give them, to countries in danger as a first priority.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman state in what respects the negotiations over H.M.S. "Cottesmore" differ from those over the Centurion tanks, which, we were assured in the House, were not to be sent to Egypt?
    Mr. Callaghan: This ship was offered to the Egyptians as long ago as the autumn of 1949. She is not now H.M.S. "Cottesmore," and has not been for a very long time. She is an Egyptian ship, manned by an Egyptian crew.
    Mr. Awbery: Were not old battleships and new battleships sold to friendly Powers and potential enemy Powers when the Tory Party was in power?
    Sir H. Williams: Would it not have been rather useful if H.M.S. "Cottesmore" had been retained in the Navy to escort British tankers through the Suez Canal?

    Naval Constructors (Pay)
    Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will now make a statement on the pay and conditions of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors.
    Mr. W. Edwards: The scale of pay of the constructor grade of the Royal Corps has, as already announced by my noble Friend in another place on 11th April,

    1817
    been increased from £900–£950 at the minimum, and from £1,250–£1,375 at the maximum, with effect from 1st August, 1950.
    Commander Noble: Is the Civil Lord aware that the changes which the First Lord announced are in the higher grades? Can he say when he will announce the changes for those under training?
    Mr. Edwards: I cannot give any definite date with regard to the probationers, but we are doing all we possibly can to reach an early settlement.

    Motor Torpedo Boats
    Brigadier Headasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many new motor torpedo boats have been built and commissioned since the end of the war.
    Mr. Callaghan: Twenty-four, Sir.
    Brigadier Head: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those responsible for constructing these vessels state that between 1945 and now nothing like that number-have been made, and that they have had to pay off men and close their yards through lack of orders? Is he aware that his answer is misleading to the House?
    Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir.
    Brigadier Head: If it is not misleading, may I ask him whether, in referring to 24 vessels, he is referring to vessels started during the war but not completed then and re-started recently?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am answering the Question, which asked how many M.T.B.s. have been built and commissioned since the end of the war.

    Retained Officers
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what progress he has made towards the granting to extended service officers now compulsorily retained in the Service an option to take up permanent engagements.
    Mr. Callaghan: This matter is under review. I realise that the officers concerned would like to have a decision quickly, but it will be some time yet before an announcement can be made.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, as these officers were so welcome to the Admiralty not only during but since the war, they are now likely to be equally welcome to the Admiralty in the longer term, and, therefore, should be entitled to expect consideration?
    Mr. Callaghan: I fully accept what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says.

  ARMED FORCES

    Aircraft Spares (Supplies to Egypt)
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Defence what quantity and value of jet and airframe spares have been sold to the Egyptian Government since 1st November, 1950, or are under contract to be delivered.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): The quantities of jet engine and jet airframe spares supplied to the Egyptian Government since 1st November, 1950 have been strictly limited to those required for the essential maintenance of aircraft previously acquired by that country. It would be contrary to practice to disclose figures of cost or other-details of contracts with foreign governments.
    Air Commodore Harvey: But does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that whatever quantity has been supplied to the Egyptian Government would have been of great use to our own units, particularly the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, which is short of jet spares? Does he not think this is an extraordinary thing to do to a country which has behaved in such a shabby manner to Britain?
    Mr. Shinwell: That has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Wilkes: Does the Minister think it a wise policy, or a policy which makes any kind of sense at all, to sell armaments of any kind to Egypt at the same time as Egypt is proclaiming that she will never sign a Peace Treaty in the Middle East?
    Mr. Shinwell: This Question does not relate to the sale of armaments but to the provision of spares.
    Mr. Profumo: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the difference

    1819
    between the provision of spares for armaments and the provision of new armaments? Does not this constitute a breach of the undertaking which was given to the House earlier?
    Mr. Shinwell: Certainly not, Sir.
    Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that during the recent discussion on financial facilities the case was repeatedly made that until Egypt honoured her international obligations we should not grant her any special favours? In the light of that, will he look at these deliveries, which are a special favour to the Egyptians?
    Mr. Shinwell: They cannot be considered as special favours in any sense of the term. The aircraft were provided some considerable time ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—that is not the question that I am answering now—and the only question that arises is whether we should provide spare parts; and that is what we are doing.
    Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least give us this decision, that no further supplies of aircraft will be forwarded until our Treaty rights are observed?
    Mr. Shinwell: The statement that was made in the House quite recently gives, I think, a complete answer to the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but there are certain aspects of the matter which might properly be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

    Reservists (Training)
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Minister of Defence why there is a difference between the policy of the Army and the policy of the Royal Air Force in deciding whether it is possible to change the dates of Class Z and Class G reservists called up for training in cases of personal hardship arising from the particular period for which the reservist is called up; and if he is aware of the dissatisfaction this difference is causing among Class Z reservists who feel that their Class G counterparts are receiving more sympathetic treatment.
    Mr. Shinwell: The difficulties of offering alternative dates to Z reservists have
    1820
    already been explained to my hon. Friend in the reply given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. Class G reservists, on the other hand, will be trained as individuals and not as members of a team. Consequently, there is more scope for adjusting their dates of call up. Every consideration will, however, be given to cases in which Army reservists would suffer real personal hardship.
    Mr. Mulley: In view of the great dissatisfaction among members of the Class Z and Class G Reserves because of this difference of policy, will my right hon. Friend take urgent action to see that the public is informed of the reasons for the different treatment in respect of the War Office and the Air Ministry?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware that the treatment differs but, if it does, I would suggest that my hon. Friend puts Questions to the respective Ministers.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his right hon. Friends in order to try to adjust these dates, particularly to meet the needs of the agricultural industry, which will have great difficulty over the harvest this year?
    Mr. Shinwell: If there is any question of serious inconvenience my right hon. Friends will consider it.
    Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be equal care and consideration in cases of personal hardship among the 6,000 long-service men retained in the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Shinwell: I would like to see that question on the Paper.

    Pensions
    Commander Nobleasked the Minister of Defence whether he is aware of the hardship suffered by Service widows, especially those getting on in years, under the present high cost of living; and whether he has any scheme to help these people.
    Mr. Shinwell: Service widows are in the same position as regards pensions as the dependants of Crown servants generally for whom additional provision was made by the Pensions (Increase) Act of 1947.
    Commander Noble: In view of the statement made by the Minister of Pensions yesterday about the immediate problem does not the Minister think that he might be able to help some of the more desperate cases? With regard to the long-term problem, is he expecting to make a statement on pensions like he did on pay a few months ago?
    Mr. Shinwell: As regards the latter part of the supplementary question, there is a Question on the Order Paper. As regards the first part, this is not a matter which comes within my responsibility. It has to be considered in the context of the Pensions (Increase) Act.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will not further hardship be imposed on these widows by the proposed charge for dentures and spectacles, and will my right hon. Friend make that representation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Shinwell: That remains to be seen.
    Mr. Osborne: Is not the Minister aware that since the last adjustment in 1947 the cost of living has increased by about 25 per cent., and ought not the pension to be looked at again because of that fact?
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member has a remarkable grasp of the obvious.
    Captain Soamesasked the Minister of Defence if he is now in a position to make a statement in regard to an upward revision of Service pensions to bring them into line with recent increases in pay.
    Mr. Shinwell: I hope to make an announcement on this subject at an early date.

    Railway Travel Warrants (Cost)
    Mr. John Morrisonasked the Minister of Defence what was the total amount paid to the Transport Commission for free railway travel warrants issued to Service personnel on leave in 1950; and whether the Service Departments pay full fare rates for these vouchers.
    Mr. Shinwell: It is estimated that the cost of Service leave travel at public expense during 1950–51 amounted to approximately £2,400,000. The exact amount could not be ascertained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour since payment is made to the
    1822
    railway regions for leave and duty travel together. In common with all other Service traffic this is paid for at special rates agreed between the railways and Service Departments.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Canned Meat Imports
    Brigadier Petoasked the Minister of Food why canned beef is not imported from Eire; and whether he contemplates opening negotiations with regard to price in the near future.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): Canned meats, including canned beef, are, in fact, being imported by private traders from the Irish Republic.
    Brigadier Peto: Can the Minister say whether he has negotiated on a Government basis with Eire for the import of canned beef?
    Mr. Webb: Not on a Government basis.
    Brigadier Petoasked the Minister of Food to what extent canned horse is now being imported from Eire.
    Mr. Webb: None, Sir.
    Brigadier Peto: Would it not be an advantage, at any rate to the horses, if they were killed and canned before export for human consumption in this country?

    Associated Tripe Dressers, Ltd.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Food who are the present directors of Associated Tripe Dressers, Ltd.; for how long this firm has been the Government agency for the distribution of tripe; and what profit or loss has been incurred to date.
    Mr. Webb: The present directors are Messrs. W. H. Hobbs (Chairman), W. S. Gibson, B. Emms, J. Almond, A. Hill, H. Longworth, R. Sanderson, H. E. Hearne and A. J. Ford. The company was set up in 1940. It is a non-profit earning company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: In the interests of the nation as a whole, and of His Majesty's Government in particular, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there is the closest

    1823
    possible co-operation and liaison at all levels between representatives of these tripe merchants and the publications and publicity department of Transport House? Further, can we look forward to greatly increased production of this commodity just before the next General Election?
    Mr. Webb: This firm of tripe merchants was founded by a gentleman for whom I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman has great respect—my predecessor, who was Minister of Food at that time. I do not feel called upon to interfere with his wise choice in this matter.

    Meat Ration
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Food why he was able to give only one week's notice that the meat ration for the week beginning 15th April would be solely fresh meat.
    Mr. Webb: We cannot know for certain how much home-killed meat we shall have until nine days before the week in which it will be issued; and nine days' notice was given. I always try to give the maximum notice of any ration changes resulting from the inevitable fluctuations in our supplies.

    Sugar Ration
    Major Lloydasked the Minister of Food why he cannot increase the sugar ration instead of making bonus issues from time to time.
    Mr. Webb: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) on Monday, 19th March.

    Cattle Allocations, Harrogate
    Mr. Yorkasked the Minister of Food what was the number of clean cattle and the number of old cows and bulls allocated to Harrogate from neighbour ing collecting centres during the weeks ended 7th April and 14th April, respectively.
    Mr. Webb: During the week ended 7th April 38 young cattle and 18 cows and bulls were sent to Harrogate from neighbouring collecting centres. For the week ended 14th April the figures were 41 and four respectively. During the same two weeks three beasts were allocated for manufacturing purposes.
    Mr. Yorkasked the Minister of Food to which towns clean cattle, graded at local collecting centres around Harrogate, were allocated during the weeks ending 7th April and 14th April, respectively.
    Mr. Webb: During the week ended 7th April all the clean cattle purchased by my Department at Pannal were sent to Harrogate. Fifteen out of 25 purchased in Knaresborough were sent to Leeds and 10 to Harrogate. In the following week there was no collection at Pannal and all the clean cattle from Knaresborough went to Harrogate.

    Imported Feedingstuffs
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Food what percentage of imported feedingstuffs are obtained from countries of Eastern Europe.
    Mr. Webb: Last year's figure was 29 per cent.
    Mr. Bossom: In view of the conditions justifying the great re-armament programme, does not the Minister consider it is more desirable to endeavour to get this feeding material from the Empire?
    Mr. Webb: We try to get these important feedingstuffs from wherever we can get them. If we can get them from the Empire, then indeed we shall, but we need to get them from Eastern Europe and shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Bossom: But cannot the right hon. Gentleman get more from the Empire?

    Enforcement Inspectors
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Food if he will explain the instructions that are given to his enforcement officers when they call upon butchers to see that the regulations are respected.
    Mr. Webb: In the normal course of their duties enforcement inspectors visit butchers' establishments to make sure that the orders governing the distribution, supply and price of meat are being observed. They have a detailed course of training and notes for guidance are issued from time to time which include instructions to avoid any improper use of their powers. In the course of an inquiry the services of trade experts are available to give any technical advice needed.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that on 14th April one of his employees gave an interview in which it was stated:
    "It was easy for me. I could often get round the butcher for a little over the top—some women can, you know"?
    Does he not consider such a procedure totally repugnant to English ideas of justice?
    Mr. Webb: I should like to have particulars of that allegation and that statement.
    Sir H. Williams: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware of what was published in the newspapers and of a picture of the blonde—who turned out to be a brunette—employed by his Department?
    Mr. Webb: I am aware of many things published in the newspapers—and of the inaccuracy to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention. If there is any basis in this allegation I would like to look into it.
    Mr. Bossom: If I hand the Minister the paper which I have in my hand, will he deny that the statement is true?

  H.M. SUBMARINE "AFFRAY"
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make in regard to H.M. Submarine "Affray.
  Mr. Callaghan: H.M. Submarine "Affray" left Portsmouth at 4.30 p.m. on Monday for a practice war patrol designed to give officers of the Submarine Training Course experience at sea in a submarine under war conditions. She has on board her Captain and four ship's officers and a crew of 46 naval ratings, together with 20 officers from the Training Course and four Royal Marine other ranks of a Marine Training Course. At 8.56 on Monday evening she signalled that she proposed to dive at 9.15. She was then south of the Isle of Wight, and her intention after diving was to proceed westwards through the Channel.
  She was expected to surface and to report between eight and nine o'clock yesterday morning, but no report was received. A search was at once organised
  1826
  by the Flag Officer, Submarines, acting on behalf of the Commander-in-Chief. Portsmouth. All available ships of the Royal Navy, aircraft of Coastal Command and Naval aircraft, including helicopters, took part in the search. I also gratefully acknowledge the assistance given by ships of the United States, French and Belgian Navies.
  The "Affray" is fully equipped with the latest type of escape apparatus, including sufficient escape suits for all on board. She is also fitted with a marker buoy at each end, which can be released from inside. Just before 1 a.m. to-day, H.M. Submarine "Sea Devil" reported that she had heard signals which were definitely from "Affray." Further signals were heard at 2.35 a.m. by another submarine. She is apparently lying on the sea bed at a depth of about 200 ft., near the place where she dived, but her precise position has not yet been fixed.
  Explosive sound signals were made at 5.45 this morning over the position where the vessel is believed to be lying. These signals told her crew that surface craft were ready in position to pick up any men who surfaced by means of escape apparatus. Forty-four surface ships and seven submarines taking part in the search formed a ring covering a wide area and are ready to proceed to the rescue should any survivors escape and appear on the surface. So far none has been sighted. Aircraft from 19 Group, R.A.F., and five naval air stations are also taking part in the search, while R.A.F. and Royal Naval helicopters are standing by. Some of the helicopters and aircraft are fitted with airborne lifeboats.
  The Board of Admiralty would like to extend their sincere sympathy to the relatives of the officers and men on board in their ordeal. I should also like to record the untiring and self-forgetful efforts of all those who have organised and are engaged in the search. The relatives can be assured that everything humanly possible will be done by those who are carrying out the search as long as there is any hope that lives can be saved.
  Mr. Thomas: We on these benches, of course, wish to join with the Parliamentary Secretary in the message of sympathy to the families of those on board in these most distressing hours of waiting, and also in congratulating those who are taking

  1827
  part in the search. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would wish to take the opportunity of denying a statement in certain sections of the Press, which I believe to be quite inaccurate, that there was any delay whatsoever in starting the rescue work?
  Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. That is quite untrue. I satisfied myself this morning, by reference to the signals that were passed, that there was no delay in putting into force the proper procedure that is laid down on these occasions.
  Mr. Bellenger: In view of what my hon. Friend has said—that there was no idea that anything untoward had happened until between eight and nine o'clock the next morning, when the submarine was due to surface—may I ask whether it is a matter of routine that submarines on such exercises should report their position during the night, after diving?
  Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. It is not possible for a submarine to report its position after diving. There were fixed instructions in the sailing orders of the "Affray" for her to report her position between 0800 hours and 0900 every morning. When 0900 arrived and no signal had been received, doubts began to be raised. The area of search has been narrowed down and it seems possible that the submarine suffered the disaster shortly after diving.
  Mr. A. Edward Davies: While I appreciate the good work which is being done, can my hon. Friend indicate what time it is expected remains for the rescue of the men in the submarine? What is the normal time that remains in such circumstances as my hon. Friend has outlined?
  Mr. Callaghan: That must depend upon the number of men and upon the number of oxygen producing canisters that have survived. I do not think that any useful estimate can be given. I am bound to say, however, that 43 hours have elapsed since the submarine dived, and time is getting on.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the fact that the submarine was fitted with marker buoys, and is at a depth such as has been ascertained, means that those buoys cannot reach the surface from that depth?
  Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. The submarine is lying in 200 ft. of water. I examined marker buoys of this kind at Portsmouth this morning, and they have at least 100 fathoms of wire attached to them. There is no reason at all why the buoys should not come to the surface.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: What is the possibility of using divers to discover the whereabouts of the submarine?
  Mr. Callaghan: I regret to say that we have not yet fixed her position. We know generally where she is, but we have not precisely fixed it.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT (ERROR)
Captain Crookshank: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question regarding the practice of the House, arising out of the reply by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs to Question No. 25 today, when he had, unfortunately, to admit that he had given an inaccurate answer during a debate—which, incidentally, had the result of curtailing that debate? Is it not the practice that when Ministers find that they have made a mistake, they should take an early opportunity of saying so in the House, whereas not only in this case has the Minister made no statement until Question Time today, but within the last fortnight exactly the same thing happened in connection with a reply by the Postmaster-General about the number of people who would be employed in dealing with certain accounts.
I should like to ask whether it is to be left to Private Members to find out if Ministers have made inaccurate or false statements and then to get an apology as a result of questioning them, or whether it is not the more normal course that as soon as Ministers find out that they have made mistakes—which everybody can make; I am not questioning that—it is their duty to come before the House and to take an early opportunity of saying so.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a question which I can be called upon to answer. All these matters must be matters for the Ministers concerned; I cannot lay down any rules about it.
Earl Winterton: Is it not, may I say with respect, Sir, the duty of the Chair to see that as far as possible Ministerial

1829
responsibility is carried out? Ministers are responsible to the House, and if they fail in their responsibility who will deal with them, if not the Chair?
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to have Ministers up "on the mat," so to speak. I cannot do that.
Earl Winterton: Do I understand from your last remark, Mr. Speaker, that if a Minister breaks a rule of the House, it is not for you to chide him?
Mr. Speaker: The noble Lord is exaggerating. I never said, and nobody suggested, that rules of the House were being broken. If anyone breaks a rule of the House, I deal with it; but this is not a rule, it is a matter of custom.
Mr. Dugdale: I should like to make it clear that I did not know that the statement in question was inaccurate until yesterday afternoon. That may be my fault, but I was not in any way intending to deceive the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS
  REPORT [10th April]
  Resolutions reported.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put forthwith on each Resolution pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).
  [For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 10 th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 868–879.]
  First Resolution—Hydrocarbon Oils (Customs and Excise)—read a Second time.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 289.

  Division No. 73.]

  AYES

  [3.40 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Diamond, J.

  Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)

  Adams, Richard

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Albu, A. H.

  Donnelly, D.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

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

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Dye, S.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Janner, B.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Edelman, M.

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Baird, J.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

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

  Balfour, A.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Jenkins, R. H.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Bartley, P.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Ewart, R.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Fairhurst, F.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Benson, G.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Beswick, F.

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

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

  Finch, H. J.

  Keenan, W.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Kenyon, C.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Follick, M.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Foot, M. M.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Boardman, H.

  Forman, J. C.

  Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.

  Booth, A.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Kinley, J.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D

  Bowden, H. W.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Lang, Gordon

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Gilzean, A.

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Glanville, James (Consett)

  Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Burke, W. A.

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

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Burton, Miss E.

  Granville, Edgar (Eye)

  Logan, D. G.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  McAllister, G.

  Carmichael, J.

  Grey, C. F.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)

  Champion, A. J.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  McGovern, J.

  Clunie, J.

  Gunter, R. J.

  McInnes, J.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Mack, J. D.

  Coldrick, W.

  Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Collick, P.

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  McLeavy, F.

  Collindridge, F.

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Cook, T. F.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Cooper, John (Deptford)

  Hannan, W.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)

  Hardman, D. R.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Cove, W. G.

  Hardy, E. A.

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

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hargreaves, A

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Crawley, A.

  Harrison, J.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Hastings, S.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mathers, Rt. Hon G.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Dairies, P.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Messer, F.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Homian, P.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

  Houghton, D.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (M'ntg'mery)

  Hoy, J.

  Moeran, E. W.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hubbard, T.

  Monslow, W.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Moody, A. S.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B

  Deer, G.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Motley, R.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.

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

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Usborne, H.

  Mort, D. L.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Vernon, W. F.

  Moyle, A.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Viant, S. P.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Mulvey, A.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Murray, J. T.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

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

  Nally, W.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Weitzman, D.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

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

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  O'Brien, T.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  West, D. G.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

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

  Padley, W. E.

  Simmons, C. J.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Paget, R. T.

  Slater, J.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

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

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Wigg, G.

  Pannell, T. C.

  Snow, J. W.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wilkes, L.

  Parker, J.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Paton, J.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)

  Pearson, A.

  Steele, T.

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Peart, T. F.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Poole, C.

  Stokes, Rt Hon. R. R.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Popplewell, E.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Porter, G.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don Valley)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire W.)

  Stross, Dr. Barnett

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

  Proctor, W. T.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Rankin, J.

  Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

  Wise, F. J.

  Rees, Mrs. D.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.

  Reeves, J.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Woods, Rev. G. S.

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Timmons, J.

  Yates, V. F.

  Rhodes, H.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G.

  Younger, Hon. K.

  Richards, R.

  Tomney, F.

  Robens, A.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Royle and Mr. Delargy.

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Gates, Maj. E. E

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)

  Glyn, Sir Ralph

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Arbuthnot, John

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

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

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

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Astor, Hon. M. L.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M.

  Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

  Banks, Col C.

  Cundiff, F. W.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Baxter, A. B.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Bell, R. M.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hay, John

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Davies, Nigel (Epping)

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

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  de Chair, Somerset

  Heald, Lionel

  Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

  De la Bère, R.

  Heath, Edward

  Birch, Nigel

  Deedes, W. F.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Digby, S. W.

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Black, C. W.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

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

  Donner, P. W.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Boothby, R.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Braine, B. R.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Hope, Lord John

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Gurney

  Eccles, D. M.

  Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon Florence

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Erroll, F. J.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Fort, R.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)

  Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.

  Foster, John

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

  Butcher, H. W.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (SaffronWalden)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Channon, H.

  Gage, C. H.

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Hutchison, Colonel James (Glasgow)

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Clyde, J. L.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B.

  Colegate, A.

  Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

  Jeffreys, General Sir George

  1834

  1835

  Jennings, R.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

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

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

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

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Kaberry, D.

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

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

  Keeling, E. H.

  Nabarro, G.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Nicholls, Harmar

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

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Nicholson, G.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Storey, S.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Odey, G. W.

  Studholme, H. G.

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

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Summers, G. S.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Linstead, H. N.

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

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Llewellyn, D.

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

  Teeling, W.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)

  Osborne, C.

  Teevan, T. L.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Peto, Brig C. H. M.

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

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

  Pickthorn, K.

  Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)

  Low, A. R. W.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Prescott, S.

  Tilney, John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Touche, G. C.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  McAdden, S. J.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Turton, R. H.

  McCallum, Major D.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  Redmayne, M.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  McKibbin, A.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Vosper, D. F.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Maclay, Hon. John

  Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  MacPherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Watkinson, H.

  Maitland, Cmdr, J. W.

  Russell, R. S.

  Webbe, Sir H. (London)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Marples, A. E.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Williams, Charles (Torquay)

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Scott, Donald

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Maude, Angus (Eating, S.)

  Shepherd, William

  Wills, G.

  Maude, John (Exeter)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Maudling, R.

  Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Mellor, Sir John

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  York, C.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Monckton, Sir Waller

  Snadden, W. McN.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Drewe and Brigadier Mackeson.

  Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

  Fourth Resolution—Entertainments (Excise)—read a Second time.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 289.

  Division No. 74]

  AYES

  [3.50 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Bins, G. H. C.

  Carmichael, J.

  Adams, H. R.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Albu, A. H.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Champion, A. J.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Boardman, H.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Booth, A.

  Clunie, J.

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Coldrick, W.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Collick, P.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Collindridge, F.

  Baird, J.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Cook, T. F.

  Balfour, A.

  Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

  Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Cooper, John (Deptford)

  Bartley, P.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Cove, W. G.

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Burke, W. A.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Benson, G.

  Burton, Miss E.

  Crawley, A.

  Beswick, F.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Crosland, C. A. R.

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

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Jenkins, R. H.

  Rankin, J.

  Darnel, P.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Rees, Mrs. D.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Reeves, J.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Davies, Rt. Hn Clement (Montgomery)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Rhodes, H.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

  Richards, R.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Keenan, W.

  Robens, A.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Kenyon, C.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Deer, G.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Diamond, J.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, )

  Donnelly, D.

  Kinley, J.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)

  Lang, Gordon

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Dye, S.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Edelman, M.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)

  Simmons C. J.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Slater, J.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Ewart, R.

  Logan, D. G.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Fairhurst, F.

  Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

  Snow, J. W.

  Fernyhough, E.

  McAllister, G.

  Sorensen R. W.

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Finch, H. J.

  Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Steele, T.

  Follick, M.

  McGovern, J.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Foot, M. M.

  McInnes, J.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mack, J. D.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  McLeavy, F.

  Stross, Dr. Barnett

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

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

  McNeil, Rt. Hon H.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Gilzean, A.

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

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Glanville, James (Consett)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Thurtle, Ernest

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

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Timmons, J.

  Granville, Edgar (Eye)

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Tomney, F.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Messer, F.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Grey, C. F.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Usborne, H.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Vernon, W. F.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

  Moeran, E. W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Gunter, R. J.

  Monslow, W.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Moody, A. S.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

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

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Morley, R.

  Weitzman, D.

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Mort, D. L.

  West, D. G.

  Hannan, W.

  Moyle, A.

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

  Hardman, D. R.

  Mulley, F. W.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Mulvey, A.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Hargreaves, A.

  Murray, J. D.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Harrison, J.

  Nally, W.

  Wigg, G.

  Hastings, S.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Hayman, F. H.

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

  Wilkes, L.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)

  O'Brien, T.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Holman, P.

  Padley, W. E.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Paget, R. T.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Houghton, D.

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

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Hoy, J.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)

  Hubbard, T.

  Pannell, T. C.

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

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Parker, J.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Paton, J.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)

  Pearson, A.

  Wise, F. J.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Peart, T. F.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Poole, C.

  Woods, Rev. G. S.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Popplewell, E.

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Porter, G.

  Yates, V. F.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Younger, Hon. K.

  Janner, B.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Younger, Hon. K.

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Proctor, W. T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Pryde, D. J.

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

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Mr. Royle and Mr. Delargy.

  1838

  1839

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Gage, C. H.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Alport, C. J. M

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Maclay, Hon, John

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Maclean, Filzroy

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Gammans, L. D.

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarly)

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)

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

  Glyn, Sir Ralph

  Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)

  Astor, Hon. M. L.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

  Marples, A. E.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Baxter, A. B.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Bell, R. M.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Maude, John (Exeter)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

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

  Maudling R.

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

  Harvie-Walt, Sir George

  Mellor, Sir John

  Birch, Nigel

  Hay, John

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Monckton, Sir Walter

  Black, C. W.

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

  Moore, Lt.-Col., Sir Thomas

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

  Heald, Lionel

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Boothby, R.

  Heath, Edward

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

  Bossom, A. C.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Nabarro, G.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Nicholson, G.

  Braine, B. R.

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Gurney

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Nutting, Anthony

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Hollis, M. C.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Odey, G. W.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hope, Lord John

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

  Ormby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

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

  Butcher, H. W.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

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

  Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Osborne, C.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O

  Channon, H.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

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

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Clyde, J. L.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Colegate, A.

  Hulchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

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

  Prescott, S.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)

  Hutchison, Colonel James

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col H. M.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)

  Hylton-Foster, H. B.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Jeffreys, General Sir George

  Raikes, H. V.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jennings, R.

  Rayner, Brig. R

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

  Johnson, Major Howard (Kemptown)

  Redmayne, M.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Remnant, Hon. P

  Crouch, R. F.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)

  Kaberry, D.

  Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)

  Keeling, E. H.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)

  Cundiff, F. W.

  Kerr. H. W. (Cambridge)

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Darting, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Ropner, Col. L

  Davies, Nigel (Epping)

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Russell, R. S.

  de Chair, Somerset

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  De la Bère, R.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Deedes, W. F.

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

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D

  Digby, S. W.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Scott, Donald

  Donner, P. W.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Shepherd, William

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Llewellyn, D.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)

  Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Dunglass, Lord

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Soames, Capt. C

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

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

  Erroll, F. J.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

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

  Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

  Low, A. R. W.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Fort, R.

  McAdden, S. J.

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

  Foster, John

  McCallum, Major D.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  Storey, S.

  Fyfa, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  McKibbin, A.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  1840

  1841

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Tilney, John

  Watkinson, H.

  Studholme, H. G

  Touche, G. C.

  Webbe, Sir Harold

  Summers, G. S.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Turton, R. H.

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Williams, Charles (Torquay)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Teeling, W.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Teevan, T. L.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Wills, G.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

  Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  York, C.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Drewe and Brigadier Mackeson

  Resolution agreed to.

  FINANCE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the sum of five hundred and thirty-five million pounds for the permanent annual charge for the National Debt for the current financial year, instead of the sum of three hundred and fifty-five million pounds.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  [16th April]
  Resolution reported:
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt (including the sinking funds therefor), Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), with or without amendment of the law relating to purchase tax of the following descriptions:—

  (a) amendments to exempt from tax, or charge with tax at the first or second rate (instead of a higher rate), goods comprised in Group 4, 11, 12 or 31 and now chargeable at the first rate, or goods comprised in Group 5 or 6 and now chargeable at the first or second rate, or goods comprised in Group 23 and now chargeable at the first, second or third rate, but so as not to prejudice the power of the Treasury to make orders under section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1948:

  1842

  (b) amendments to make provision for the giving to the Treasury of advice and assistance in the exercise of the said power by a body to be constituted for the purpose, and for the powers and duties in that behalf of that body and other subordinate matters.

  Resolution read a Second time.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the other Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and the Resolution reported from the Committee on Finance [Money], and agreed to this day, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Edwards and Mr. Douglas Jay.

  FINANCE BILL
  "to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law with respect to the National Debt (including the Sinking Funds therefor), Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise)," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

  REVEREND J. G. MacMANAWAY'S INDEMNITY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.11 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, "That this Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is intended to indemnify Mr. J. G. MacManaway for the fact that he sat in this House and in the House of Commons of Northern Ireland as a Member of this House and of that House, whereas in truth and in fact he was not a Member at all. I feel that I ought rather to appear in a white sheet about this Bill. Although I did advise the House that the matter was so doubtful that it ought to go to the Privy Council for advice, I expressed the tentative view that Mr. MacManaway was qualified to sit as a Member of the House. If I had been right on that, there would have been no need to occupy the time of Parliament with this Bill. But on applying to the department of white sheets, I found that demand had already been so great that there were none left.
  For instance, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) had already acquired his. So had the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The truth is that there were only four lawyers who, as the result shows, were right about this case; and here I disagree with what the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby said on a previous occasion. It is no use for a lawyer to say that "the man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." It is the result which counts, whether it is in a case where all the members of the Privy Council agree about something, or where all the members of a jury disagree about something.
  Judged by that standard there were only four lawyers in this House who were right about this matter. The first of them was my right hon. Friend who now holds the office of Foreign Secretary. He always took a robust view about this matter.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: He is not a lawyer.
  The Attorney-General: I have described him deliberately as a lawyer. I have come to the conclusion that he is
  1844
  one of the best lawyers in the House. I do not say that he enjoys the professional qualifications which the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby and I possess, but he showed on this occasion that he had the instincts of a lawyer—of a kind. He took the view that the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, 1801, meant what it said. That, I agree with the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), is a very unorthodox view for any lawyer to take. But that is the view that the right hon. Gentleman took.
  Then I must say—and it is right that I should say so, and I say it seriously—that the learned Clerk of the House took the same view although, quite properly, he did not fully advise the Committee on the matter. I think it is only right to say that he indicated quite clearly what his view was when he assisted the Committee which was dealing with the matter. Then, of course, there was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) for whom the eventual result of all this has been, as I said on a previous occasion, a considerable personal triumph. These hon. and right hon. Gentlemen did not require any white sheets at all.
  On the other hand, the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby took exactly the opposite view. He took the robust legal view that the words in the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act meant exactly the opposite of what they said. I am afraid that I took, and expressed, a more timid, and perhaps typical, legal opinion by saying that I really did not know what the words meant. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition characteristically took up the position, in effect, that whatever the words meant, Mr. MacManaway ought to sit here. In the end, the House took my advice, and the matter was referred to the Privy Council which heard argument, including argument by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch.
  The Privy Council decided, on reasoning which with great respect I thought quite unanswerable, that Mr. MacManaway was disqualified from sitting as a Member because he was an ordained clergyman. He sat for a time in this House. One cannot accuse him of having sat in bad faith, because, after

  1845
  all, there was a great deal of doubt, to say the least, about what the position was. If we lawyers in the House were not sure about it perhaps we cannot blame him for not having been certain. At all events, he sat for a time in this House and for a longer period in the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, and he discharged the duties of a Member until the time came when the matter was referred to the Privy Council. Their advice was given to this House, and this House accepted that advice.
  In those circumstances, we think it right—as we said at the time of the reference to the Privy Council we would think it right if the Privy Council came to the view which eventually it reached—to move this Bill whereby he should be indemnified against any legal actions, if any be brought against him. So far as I know, no such action has been brought against him and, to some extent, therefore, the Bill is merely for the sake of caution.
  Some question was raised about the fact that, at a time when the matter was pending in the Privy Council, Mr. MacManaway came back and voted here in a Division. I must confess that I took the view at that time that it was most improper, and perhaps illegal, for him to do so; but on further research into the matter—and I want to say this with great respect—I came to the conclusion that the advice given to Mr. Speaker about it was perfectly right and that Mr. MacManaway was legally entitled to sit until a decision of this House had been given. Whether he should sit or not is a matter of taste, and we do not deal with matters of taste in Indemnity Bills.
  I think it right to mention that, because this Bill extends to cover the occasion on which he sat and voted on that day. Accordingly, I ask the House to say that this is a proper case in which Mr. MacManaway should be indemnified against any possible legal consequence by way of common informer's action, either in our courts or in those of Northern Ireland, for the penal consequences which follow from sitting as a Member when in fact one is not a Member at all.
  4.20 p.m.
  Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: The only reason why I do not join in the frenzied search for laundry wear in which the learned Attorney-General has indulged is that I have already done so on a previous occasion, and, if I were to flaunt the same white sheet, there might be some remarks about whether its whiteness was still unstained. I must confess that my legal pride has been duly humbled, and that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) was entitled to the verbal ballet over my erroneous opinions in which he amicably indulged on the last occasion when we discussed this matter. However, the Bill which is before us today is really the consequence of the decision taken by the House on 19th October, 1950, and the statements made by right hon. Gentlemen on that occasion. Of course, we shall naturally and gracefully give every facility to assist its passage.
  There is only one matter, which I hope the House will not think is technical, but which seems to me to be worthy of bringing to the attention of the House, and that is with regard to the recitals of the Bill. This Bill contains a rather unusual feature in a modern public Bill, and one sees the reasons for it, but it will be noted that, after reciting that Mr. MacManaway was declared elected, the second recital goes on to state that
  "on the seventeenth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty, the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council, upon a reference made by Order in Council pursuant to an Address presented by the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, advised His Majesty that the said James Godfrey MacManaway, having been ordained as a priest"
  was disabled. It did give me some concern that the recital stopped there, and did not go on to state that there was a Resolution of this House by which Mr. MacManaway was declared to be disabled from sitting. The reason why I mention that—and I will not, of course, place reliance on words of my own used in that debate—is because the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in his speech, said this:
  "May I say how much I agree with the first resonant sentence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), when he pointed out that this House has always preserved for itself the right to say who shall and who shall not be

  1847
  a Member of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 2272.]
  Therefore, I think there is something to be said, and I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider it.
  There is obviously no party significance or any significance at all in our legal arguments on the point whether it would not be better to include the Resolution of this House in order to make it quite clear that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cannot say who is to be a Member of this House, and also to prevent anyone in the future suggesting that as a precedent for this House being required to consult the Judicial Committee before deciding who shall be a Member. The Government draftsmen may have felt that, as we were going to deal with the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, there was an argument the other way, but I feel that it is of much importance, because the learned Attorney-General will know how these precedents are built up by looking up and trying to read a significance into things that have happened in the past.
  I hope that the Government will consider interposing another recital after the second one and before coming to the question of Northern Ireland. That would meet the point, and would not show any disrespect to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. I therefore hope that the House will think that that is a point worthy of consideration, because that control by the House of its own membership is something of which we are all very jealous and proud.
  I do not want to light up the ashes of our ancient fires, if I may slightly change the quotation, but I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch will be reassured on one point. As I understood his speech to which I listened with great attention, on 19th October, 1950, the hon. and learned Gentleman was rather afraid that the position in the Church which Mr. MacManaway had held had been a matter which had influenced the election in the Division, apart from any political differences. I think he will now be reassured on that point, since the election which took place afterwards secured the return of a Member of the same party, and, so far as I know, there were no ecclesiastical connections in his case.
  Mr. Bing: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but, surely, he will agree that there was a most substantial drop in the majority?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to that, but I hope that he will allow us the same point when we discuss any other by-elections that have taken place in the last three months. However, I think that point is a matter on which the electors have given their decision and which they have solved.
  There is only one other point to which I think everyone in the House would expect me to make reference and which should be kept in mind, and that is the question of an inquiry into the position of clerics, which point I developed, I am afraid at some length, in addressing the House on 19th October. I hasten to assure the House that I am not going to take up any of those points of ecclesiastical history, on which the hon. and learned Gentleman enlarged, or give any interesting examples of anomalies outside ecclesiastical spheres which existed and which undoubtedly still exist. The position was left in this way. Going through the usual motions preparatory to the withdrawal of an Amendment, I said, referring to the Home Secretary:
  "If the right hon. Gentleman will give us the undertaking that a body will be established—I am not asking him to tie himself to the body"—
  and that was, of course, a body to inquire into these anomalies—
  "then I should ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment. I must, however, ask the Home Secretary to go as far as that, because otherwise—"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 2276.]
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do not see what all this has to do with this Bill. It is quite another subject, which could be discussed at some other time. Even the question, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred before, concerning the by-election in West Belfast, has not, as far as I can see, anything to do with this Bill.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry if I have appeared to trespass, but may I just put this point to you, Mr. Speaker, with all deference? I assure you that I shall not attempt to press it. What I was going to submit was that this Bill is, of

  1849
  course, in consequence of that debate, in which an undertaking was given that the matter would be inquired into. It was on that undertaking that we agreed to the course that was taken. I only wanted to point out—and I assure you that I shall not go beyond that—that our acceptance of the position today is in the hope, and, indeed, the expectation, that the undertaking which I have quoted will be carried out. I do not want to go any further than that, but I think the whole House felt, irrespective of their view on the individual gentleman who has been discussed, that the continuance of these anomalies would be a regrettable matter, and that, with all the difficulties of the international and domestic situation today, this problem of our own, and, as I said, the problem of seeing that the Mother of Parliaments is not the foster mother of anomalies, would not be forgotten, but would be considered by the Government.
  Mr. Snow: With reference to the guidance which you have just given us, Mr. Speaker, on the conduct of debate, are we to understand from what you have said that we are prohibited in this debate from considering the circumstances in which Mr. MacManaway was selected as a candidate, and whether he should be indemnified in those circumstances?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes, most certainly. That is quite outside the scope of this debate. We have only to be satisfied that he was properly elected a Member here. We are not entitled to inquire into the circumstances, and that I must rule completely out of order.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: May I seriously present this point, which is important? When the matter was discussed in the House, we were told that we could have a fuller discussion of it on Second Reading. What we are discussing today is a Bill which proposes to indemnify the Reverend Mr. MacManaway for a series of votes in this House, both before and after the matter was referred to the Judicial Committee, and for a series of votes in the Northern Ireland House of Commons extending over a period of four years. With respect, Sir, I submit that the position in the Northern Ireland House is wholly different from that in this House, and that this House
  1850
  must control it. The Northern Ireland Parliament has not followed the rule of this House and disqualified Mr. MacManaway. In the circumstances, therefore, I think it eminently relevant and important that we should have a full opportunity of discussing the whole of the circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker: I think not. I must rule against that. We are, after all, only concerned with this gentleman who had already been elected. How he was elected is nothing to do with us. We are satisfied that he was properly elected and became a Member. We have decided he is not a Member. We are only concerned with what is in this Bill.
  Mr. Hale: I am respectfully submitting that, in view of the fact that the Northern Ireland House of Commons have not followed our decision and have not declared Mr. MacManaway disqualified, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18 (2) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which clearly indicates, and has been accepted as indicating, that any disqualification to this House automatically applies to the Northern Ireland House, there are very difficult circumstances which follow the passage of this Bill which ought to be discussed on Second Reading and on the Committee stage, and which, in the interest of Mr. MacManaway himself, ought to be clarified in this debate. I submit that this is a very important matter.
  Mr. Speaker: The Northern Ireland Parliament is a self-governing body. We are not entitled to discuss what it does. I believe that the Reverend Mr. MacManaway resigned—he was told to resign. That is a decision of a body which is powerful by itself, and in whose decision we have no right to interfere. I must rule all reference to the Northern Ireland Parliament out of order.
  Mr. Hale: With great respect, Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Speaker: I have ruled it out of order, and, therefore, it must be out of order. I have considered the matter beforehand, and I say that any discussions on the conduct of the Northern Ireland Parliament are not in order on this Bill. That is my Ruling. If hon. Members do not like it, let them put down a Motion challenging my Ruling. There it is.
  Mr. Snow: I would never challenge your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but there are some who are new to this House and do not know the niceties of debate. We are discussing whether Mr. MacManaway should be indemnified or not, and we ought to know whether or not he deliberately flouted the constitutional procedure of this Parliament. Some of us think he did. Should we not, therefore, discuss the circumstances in which he was nominated.
  Mr. Speaker: I should have thought not; I should have thought we ought to discuss his conduct here about voting after being warned. As regards his flouting the House, and so on, as the right hon. and learned Attorney-General said, he was no doubt advised one way and another. It was a genuine mistake on his part, which we must accept.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: There is just one aspect of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on which I personally would be grateful for a little further guidance. It is this. In so far as your Ruling applied to the Reverend Mr. MacManaway's conduct in this House and his indemnification against any consequences of that, I find it, with respect, very easy to follow what you have said. But the Bill deals with more than that; the Bill extends to indemnify him not only against penalties which otherwise he would have incurred by reason of his votes in this House, but extends also to his conduct in the House of Northern Ireland. Therefore, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, I find it a little difficult to follow your Ruling that we are concerned here only with what he did here. The Bill, quite plainly, is not concerned only with what he did here, or with penalties arising from that alone.
  Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that was fairly clear. One could, of course, quite legitimately object to his being indemnified in the Northern Ireland Parliament, but that does not necessarily mean that one has to discuss the decision of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Such an objection might be good grounds for objecting to this Bill.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: There is very little more with which I want to trouble the House. I only want to say one word on the question of Mr. MacManaway's position and on the suggestion that he
  1852
  was flouting the House. One can only say that he received advice after careful consideration of the point, and that that advice, after attracting a considerable amount of legal support, was rejected. That is the reason for his present position. One can only say that he is in the position of litigants who are unfortunate enough to receive advice which is given to them after serious consideration, but which is proved to be wrong. In those circumstances, as I have already indicated, the Opposition support the Government on this Bill.
  4.38 p.m.
  Mr. Bing: Before I starts on the few remarks I want to make to the House, I think it proper that I should declare, so to speak, my interest in this matter. I was employed on behalf of the Treasury Solicitor to argue the matter before the Privy Council, and I have also given certain advice in regard to what might be possible consequences in Northern Ireland in regard to the position there.
  I am sure the House will excuse me if I do not, like the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), express any of my own views as to the decision of the Privy Council, and if, when I come to support him on the point which he made, and with which I thoroughly agree, I merely make this point, without trespassing on the Northern Ireland position, that if we declare in this House that we have come to a conclusion, as I understand the Government of Northern Ireland have, which clarifies the qualifications of Members of the Northern Ireland House, that will automatically govern the Members there.
  I think it is very desirable that this House should follow the usual tradition of generosity in this matter. There are 145 Acts against which anyone might easily offend—one Scottish, 10 Irish, and so on. Therefore, I am very glad that the Government have decided not to follow the precedent set by the Conservative Opposition on the occasion of the last reference to the Privy Council, because on that occasion, when a case was referred to the Privy Council and a Bill of Indemnity was brought in, the Conservative Opposition put before the welfare of the Member concerned the rights of the common informer, and set

  1853
  down a Motion to the effect that a common informer should not be deprived of his just rewards. In consequence of that Motion the Bill of Indemnity was never passed on any occasion. The fact that we have departed from that is a matter upon which His Majesty's Government may be congratulated.
  But I am sure the House would be wrong were we to depart from the standards of indemnity laid down by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), among others, when we were discussing the Camberwell, Bristol and Nottingham Elections (Validation) Bill. With great respect, that Measure was entirely parallel with this one and, therefore, how we approach this Measure depends on the rules we adopted in dealing with the other Measure.
  Earl Winterton: I cannot follow the hon. Member's description. It may be correct. When was that occasion when the Conservative Party are alleged to have acted in the way the hon. Member has just described?
  Mr. Bing: In 1913 there was a member of the Liberal Party, Sir Stuart Samuel, who committed a purely technical offence. The bank of which he happened to be a director was not a limited company and as it had some slight dealings with the Government, he was disqualified, after he had been advised by the Attorney-General of the day that he was in the right. On behalf of the Conservative Party someone whom I think we all respect for his moral rectitude, Lord Hugh Cecil—Lord Quickswood as he now is—put down a Motion on behalf of the Conservative Party saying—I have not the exact words with me—that the right of the common informer must come first. Such was the position that they were not able to go further, and I am glad we have not followed that precedent. Perhaps I may leave it at that, because I have a number of points I wish to make.
  The noble Lord the Member for Horsham when discussing the Camberwell, Bristol and Nottingham Elections (Validation) Bill in 1946, laid down certain rules, one of which was that on no occasion must a member vote when he knows he is disqualified. What is more, with all the assurance of a former Deputy-Speaker
  1854
  of this House, the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) suggested that even though a Member had voted inadvertently, not knowing he was disqualified, it was his duty to apologise. When it was pointed out to the hon. Member for Torquay that the man was not a Member and could not attend, he said his proper course was to write to Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Charles Williams: When did I make that statement?
  Mr. Bing: The hon. Member will find it in Volume 420 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate on that Bill.
  Mr. Williams: Surely that case was rather a long while ago, was it not?
  Mr. Bing: There were some very serious speeches made from the other side of the House condemning the actions of hon. Members on this side. These are immutable principles and not ones that applied in 1946 and do not apply now.
  Earl Winterton: I am afraid the hon. Member is putting you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the House in some difficulty about this. If he is quoting the instance of the Camberwell, Bristol and Nottingham Elections (Validation) Bill procedure, I submit we are entitled to debate that. As far as I recollect, the matters at issue there were completely different from the matters at issue here. Mr. Speaker has just ruled that this must be a very narrow debate. Possibly if the hon. Member is going to deal with that matter, I shall ask permission later on—as I was brought into it—to deal with it. I should have thought it was clearly outside the ambit of this Bill.
  Mr. Bing: Obviously nobody in the House wants the debate to go too wide. The point I make is that on the previous Bill we made a decision upon the principle whether we should indemnify an hon. Member or not, and we should follow that principle in this Bill. The House should be consistent and not indemnify Labour Members under one strict principle and Conservative Members under another principle. This Indemnity Bill differs from any Indemnity Bill in the last 300 years. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General or the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby will correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is the

  1855
  first time this House has ever been invited to indemnify a Member who voted in a debate when his case was under consideration by order of the House.
  If we are to agree—and I hope some of my hon. Friends will agree—to pass this Bill, if we are to agree to indemnify Mr. MacManaway, we are entitled to a statement from hon. Members opposite on how he came to vote. If one reads Press reports of the circumstances in which he came to vote, Mr. MacManaway said that he had received a telegram from someone asking him to come and vote. I will give way to any hon. Gentleman who says he sent it. We had a long debate once about who put their names to a telegram. The point is whether he just said, "I do not mind what the House has done, I am going to vote," or whether he voted under pressure. In my view he voted under pressure, and it is for that reason that I advise such of my hon. Friends as follow me in this matter to vote for the Bill. If no hon. Member opposite is going to get up and say, "I did this," the House will have to form its own judgment as to what steps it should take.
  I think the second point we ought to consider is the conduct which has taken place since the date when we originally dealt with this question because that, of course, is a highly material point in relation to whether or not we should pass this Bill. Originally we understood this Bill would be introduced within a very short space of time after we had dealt with the original Motion. The Bill was held up for some reason. It would be interesting to know whether, for instance, it was held up on behalf of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland.
  The main point is that in that interval of time Mr. MacManaway himself made a number of pronouncements on the conduct of this House. If we are to indemnify a Member—[Interruption.]—I remember the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) saying that it was always valuable to fortify the Treasury. It is not possible for me to do that for the moment, but I do not see why, if I am a little hoarse, I should not drink some water and make myself audible even to an hon. Member who represents Northern Ireland.
  1856
  The conduct of Mr. Macmanaway in that interval is a most important matter, because if he were himself in contempt of us, it would be very doubtful whether this House ought to pass a Bill of indemnity. Let me put the argument in another form. Mr. MacManaway has alleged—and so, indeed, has the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland—that he was treated most unjustly by this House.
  Mr. Gage: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Can it be in order for the hon. and learned Member to discuss what happened alter Mr. MacManaway vacated his seat and which the hon. and learned Member alleges was a contempt of this House. If it was a contempt of this House after he had vacated his seat, it should then have been raised as a matter of Privilege. It cannot affect the question now.
  Mr. Bing: I do not want to get out of order or to take unfair advantage of hon. Members opposite, but if there is a suggestion by Mr. Macmanaway that this House acted grossly unjustly towards him, then we ought to look at the Bill very closely to make certain that we have made up for all that injustice.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): A point of order has been addressed to me. It seems to me that the House is entitled to consider the conduct of the gentleman concerned while he was sitting in this House.
  Mr. Gage: I understood you to say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it appeared to you that we could discuss the conduct of this gentleman while he was a Member of the House. As I understood it, however, the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is seeking to discuss his conduct after he ceased to be a Member of the House.
  Earl Winterton: The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch said he was going to prove that Mr. MacManaway was in contempt of this House. That is a technical phrase; it means that he had committed, or in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member had committed, a breach of Privilege. I submit that it is impossible to discuss such a matter except on a substantive Motion. In other words, if the hon. Member wishes to bring such a

  1857
  charge, he must raise the matter with the Chair, and if the Chair decides that there is not a prima facie case, then he is entitled to put down a Motion. He has no right to say that a Member is in contempt of the House except on a substantive Motion.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Lord's submission.
  Mr. Bing: We are on difficult ground here, because the gentleman we are discussing was never a Member of this House, and if one looks at Mr. Speaker's Ruling on the Camberwell, Bristol and Nottingham Bill—on which I am basing myself very carefully in what I say—one will see that Mr. Speaker was careful to point out, after some discussion, that the hon. Members who were concerned should be referred to by name and not as hon. Members, because, in fact, they were not Members of the House. We are thus discussing someone who was never a Member of this House but has some relation to it.
  It is, therefore, proper that we should look into this Bill to see that he is properly compensated if a gross injustice has been done to him, which is, after all, alleged by very responsible people like the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland. I do not know, for example, whether my right hon. and learned Friend has considered the question of Mr. MacManaway's salary when he was a Member of this House. I hope the House will see that he draws his salary. It is an odd fact that while Mr. MacManaway is being paid a salary for never having been a Member of this House, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Mulvey) who, through over-conscientious scruples, stays away, is not entitled to one. But that is by the way.
  I was proposing to examine, with the respect that one ought to give to the views of any Attorney-General or any ex-Attorney-General, the charges which have been made against this House in regard to Mr. MacManaway by the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, and by Mr. MacManaway himself, so as to see whether they are justified and, if they are justified, to make certain that this Bill has made up for the injustice we have done to Mr. MacManaway.
  Mr. Logan: Can we discuss the question of a
  1858
  non-Member and say that we should give him compensation for services that he has never rendered, or that he is entitled to salary?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is going too wide. The Bill is really a very simple one and it seems to me that, while the House is fully entitled to discuss the conduct of the Member concerned in so far as it affects whether or not he should be given an indemnity, all these other matters are very remote from that question.
  Mr. Bing: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think the position is otherwise. What we are doing here is giving a Second Reading to a Bill. What we are concerned with is whether the Bill contains sufficient provisions for the indemnification of Mr. MacManaway? Whether or not the Bill should contain a Clause which would provide for indemnifying those who have paid him his salary, seems to be a very material question which we should consider when we come to the later stages of the Bill, and we might ask whether you would be good enough, if you were then the occupant of the Chair, to accept a manuscript Amendment to that effect.
  At the moment I want only to examine the question whether Mr. MacManaway was justly or unjustly treated, and if the House does not wish me to refer to what was said by the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, then I will leave it. I want to remind the House only of this: he, of course, spoke in those measured tones and reasoned terms which one would expect of an Attorney-General. He was really putting forward the arguments which had been adduced by a great many other persons in Northern Ireland, including Mr. MacManaway, in much less measured terms.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order! I cannot see that the remarks of the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland can have any effect on the Bill.
  Mr. Bing: If you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, take the same view of his legal views as I do, then I will not put them before the House. I will turn immediately to what Mr. MacManaway himself said on the matter, but I would remind the House that on 23rd November, some five days before the election, to say that proceedings in his case had been unjust or grossly

  1859
  unjust, had been condemned by this House without any opposition as a contempt. Mr. MacManaway said, in a letter which was printed in the election address of the hon. Member who now sits for Belfast, West (Mr. Teevan):
  "This is a great personal sorrow to me and I feel a gross injustice to the Loyalists of West Belfast."
  I shall not read the whole of this letter, for it deals with general Christian principles which are perhaps out of place in this debate, but he then invited the electors of West Belfast to do something "to avenge the injustice which has been perpetrated on myself."
  It would be very wrong if we were to condemn Mr. MacManaway because a letter was circulated without his authority by somebody else at the period of the election with the purpose of influencing the election. We all take as favourable a view as we can of the character of anybody who has been associated with this House, for however short a time, and I believe Mr. MacManaway himself asked, as soon as he knew that such a statement had been condemned, for this letter to be withdrawn. I think we ought to hear from the hon. Member for Belfast, West, whether, in fact, that was so.
  Mr. Teevan: Before I comment on this, I should like to say I have never heard such a disgraceful performance. Imputations have been cast not only against myself—after all, that is legitimate; I am a Member of this House and can defend myself—but also against people who have no right of audience here. That is not the action of a Christian gentleman, as the hon. and learned Member poses to be. At no time did Mr. MacManaway withdraw that letter.
  Mr. Bing: In that case we are faced with this situation—that we ought to consider—
  Sir Hugh O'Neill: You ruled just now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Teevan), that it would not be in order to discuss anything Mr. MacManaway said or did after he ceased to be a Member of this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was not a Member."] That is what Mr. Deputy-Speaker said. I submit that what you obviously meant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—was,
  1860
  whether he was a Member of the House or not, nothing should be mentioned here regarding what he said or did after the decision of the House that he was not a Member. Now the hon. and learned Member is bringing up a whole lot of matters about what Mr. MacManaway is supposed to have said after the House decided he was disqualified. It seems to me contrary to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Bill proposes to give an indemnity to this gentleman for his action in sitting and voting as a Member of this House. That is the question before the House. Unless one laid down some rule it would be impossible to draw a line anywhere, and we could go back to the earliest days of this gentleman. Therefore, I think the matter must be limited to the period during which Mr. MacManaway sat in the House.
  Mr. Bing: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there are two questions before the House. Surely, one is whether or not Mr. MacManaway has been treated unjustly, because that is the question which the House sincerely ought to resolve. If, in fact, he has been treated unjustly we may have to put more in the Bill, and certainly we must pass it.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The question is not whether this gentleman was treated unjustly. The question is whether the House and this Parliament should give him indemnity for sitting and voting in the House. That is the position.
  Mr. S. Silverman: May I submit this for your consideration, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? The House is being asked—and, maybe, quite properly—to relieve this gentleman from heavy penalties which he has, by law, incurred. Before I give my vote as to whether he should be so indemnified am I not bound to consider all his conduct in relation to that matter—provided it is in relation to that matter—whenever it occurred? Otherwise, how can I possibly come to a proper judgment on the question I am being invited to judge?
  Mr. Bing: Naturally I accept the formulation which you put, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and bow at once to your Ruling, and the only thing I regret is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) is not

  1861
  here to profit by my example in that. Of course, we must not decide absolutely whether he was treated justly or unjustly, but if I may repeat again the argument put before the House by the Father of the House, the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), I would recall that he said—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. These matters are really quite remote—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—from the Bill. Mr. Speaker has given certain Rulings. It is my duty to follow them as far as I can. I have indicated that the Bill is a comparatively simple one, and that all these other matters are very remote, and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman must confine himself to the justification, or otherwise, of giving an indemnity to this gentleman.
  Mr. Bing: Having accepted your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what I was going to do was to quote—naturally, paying a very proper tribute to the Father of the House—the argument which was used first by him in the Camberwell, Bristol and Nottingham case.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we have really heard enough about that.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Earl Winterton: I should be ready to discuss it in a two-day debate if the Government would give us time to discuss the Camberwell, Bristol case; but it is out of order to discuss it now.
  Mr. Bing: With very great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if the noble Lord did not make his interjections, I should be less induced to introduce anything irrelevant. However, leaving all that aside, and leaving aside what was enunciated in a Bill or in a debate, I suggest that the House should remember that the principle it adopts in dealing with a Bill of this nature is taking to itself the privilege to exempt from the conditions of the law, the operation of the law, what is done by those who are associated with us. That is a liberty that is not given to the ordinary man in the street. The ordinary man who commits a crime cannot say, "There are very special circumstances in my case. Would the Attorney-General please introduce an indemnity Bill?"
  In those circumstances we should be very careful that those in whose favour
  1862
  we exercise this privilege and introduce these Bills—we ought to be quite certain that those to whom we give this right—are pepole who are deserving of that right. Unless the House takes that view then we are merely saying that anything that is done wrong, any offence by any Member of the House or anyone associated with the House, however exaggerated at a later stage, must never be taken into consideration in passing an Act of Indemnity. That would be a monstrous principle for the House to adopt, and we must, therefore, strictly regard the right when we are dealing with these matters.
  In my respectful submission that does not absolve us from the duty of deciding whether or not Mr. MacManaway was treated justly or unjustly. If, for example, he came here knowing full well that he was disqualified, that would be an argument for not passing the Bill; if, on the other hand, he came here fully believing that he was qualified, that would be an argument for passing it. Therefore, we must weigh all these arguments side by side.
  We do not know, of course, what advice Mr. MacManaway was given as to his qualifications or his disqualification. There is one fact which is perfectly apparent—that he could not have been advised by anybody when he stood for election that he was bound to be disqualified. Because if there is one place that any lawyer goes to look for the law about disqualification, it is to the draft Bill which was prepared by order of the predecessor to Mr. Speaker's counsel, Mr. Pulling, then Editor of the Revised Statutes, and that draft Bill, which was described by Lord Simon, when Lord Chancellor, as a marvel of ingenuity and exactness, sets out that a clergyman of the Church of Ireland is disqualified, Mr. Pulling may very well have been wrong. We may argue on that. But it is quite certain that Mr. MacManaway must have known, when he went forward to his election, that he might be disqualified; and that is a very relevant point that we ought to bear in mind in dealing with this matter.
  I hope I shall have your indulgence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the indulgence of the House in this matter. During the election that took place all sorts of personal charges were made against me of ill faith and of bad faith. Out of respect

  1863
  for this House and the legal situation. I did not answer, but I hope I shall have the indulgence of the House in just saying this, that I hope the House will agree with me that every possible step was taken to bring Mr. MacManaway's position before his eyes before he ever was nominated to stand at all for this House. For that purpose I should just like to refer the House for one moment to a report contained in the "Belfast Telegraph," which sets out the fact, first of all, that Mr. MacManaway had heard from me that he was possibly disqualified. Then it goes on to say this:
  "While it has not been finally decided whether he is eligible to go to Westminster, the probability is that, if successful in the contest, Parliament would pass an Indemnity Act."
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Bing: I hope we shall hear some of the Northern Ireland Members dealing with this suggestion that Mr. MacManaway was going forward irrespective of whether he thought he was disqualified or not, in the hope that the good nature of this party would pass an Act of Indemnity, or that, in the event of the other side coming in, party interest would secure it. I am quite certain that so far as hon. Members opposite are concerned, that is untrue, and that would not be so.
  But we are not concerned with what Mr. MacManaway thought about the morals of his own party. We are concerned with his attitude of mind when he approached this question. In those circumstances, I cannot see how he can possibly say that he was unjustly treated. How was he unjustly treated? I will just add this. Although I hesitate even to refer to another Bill before the House, when there was before the House another Bill dealing with indemnification in July, 1949, when he was adopted as a candidate, I called attention to Mr. MacManaway's case and suggested to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should include a Clause to make it clear that he was qualified. They did not take that opportunity. In fact, when my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) suggested postponing the stages of the Bill in order that an alteration could be made, he found no support at all among hon. Gentlemen
  1864
  opposite. How can Mr. MacManaway say that in those circumstances he was treated unjustly?
  What is the other possibility of his unjust treatment? Is it being said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that we should pass this Bill and indemnify Mr. MacManaway because the laws against clergymen are particularly unfair and unjust? Is that what is being said? I, personally, would like to see clergymen of all denominations in this House. But an Irish clergyman cannot stand for any parish council; he is prohibited by law from being even a parish councillor, let alone an urban district councillor, a county councillor, or anything of that sort.
  Professor Savory: May I point out that that law was imposed upon Ireland by the British Government long before the Parliament of Northern Ireland was set up?
  Mr. Bing: I do not want to answer that interruption, except to say that, were the Ulster Members of the present day in the House at that time, no doubt they would have voted in a different way from that in which their predecessors did, who all supported the Measure in 1925, when we in this Parliament abolished the restriction upon clergymen standing for municipal office—
  Earl Winterton: On a point of order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has now got on to the subject of whether clergy can or cannot stand for local government in Ireland. May I, therefore, ask you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? When some of us come to speak—and it looks to me as if this Bill will not go through today; so many subjects have been introduced and will have to be discussed that the Government will probably have to ask for another day—shall we be in order in arguing the subject of clergymen taking part in local government in Ireland?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman is endeavouring to say that Mr. MacManaway came to this House knowing that he was not entitled to do so, and that one of the factors supporting that view was the fact that he knew he could not be elected similarly to a local authority. I do not think I can say that

  1865
  that is wholly irrelevant, but it is a matter for the House what value they attach to it.
  Earl Winterton: May I say, with respect, that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Major Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) was speaking, when he made a reference to the election, Mr. Speaker said he was sorry to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend, but we could not discuss, on this Bill, the question of the election. I suggest, with respect, that that is exactly what the hon. and learned Gentleman is now doing.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With all respect to the noble Lord, that really is not the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not discussing the circumstances of the election. He is discussing the qualifications for election, which is, at any rate, one of the factors in this matter.
  Mr. Ring: I apologise to the House because—how it is I do not know—I always have a different recollection of what Mr. Speaker says about any matter from that of the noble Lord. Therefore, while I always appreciate that I am wrong in every case. I do try to persuade myself to follow his judgment. I say only this about the noble Lord, that he does make Mr. Speaker a little inconsistent in his Rulings.
  Let me return to the point I was making. There surely can be no injustice in saying that someone is not entitled to come here as a clergyman when the Northern Ireland Parliament—and here I give the answer to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory)—themselves failed to follow the principles laid down by this Parliament and repeal in 1925 the disqualification of clergymen sitting on municipal councils. There can therefore be no injustice, and it must have been known to the gentleman concerned that he could not sit for any local authority. All the time that he was sitting in the Northern Ireland Parliament—without going into the question of how he came to sit in that Parliament—when he was, after all, free to speak, he made no effort whatsoever to correct this injustice, so what injustice is there?
  The third suggestion of injustice is that if only there were in Ireland, as there is here, a Clerical Disability Act, Mr. MacManaway could have shed his clerical garb
  1866
  and could have stood for this House, as did one gentleman, Sir Edmund Brocklebank. But if Sir Edmund Brocklebank were to go to Ireland, though he had shed his clerical character for every other purpose, he would still be ineligible as a clergyman to sit even on a parish council in Ireland. But that is not the real point. The real point, and the gravamen of the attack, and the reason why this House should seriously consider what it should do in regard to this Bill, is that the reverend gentleman made no effort to get rid of his spiritual character. He did not, as the Act provides, resign all his livings, give up all his position, wait six months, and not use his title as reverend gentleman or anything else. He went into the Northern Ireland Parliament and stood as a candidate when he was rector of the constituency where the election was taking place, and in so far as that is concerned, we are asked—
  Professor Savory: Surely that is untrue. He had resigned his living, and he handed in his resignation to the bishop before he stood as a candidate for Londonderry.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In any event, it is clearly irrelevant to this Bill.
  Mr. Bing: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. What you say strengthens the second part of my argument. Irrespective of his formal leaving of the church, what was required by hon. Gentlemen opposite was that a clergyman should come in and fight this fight as a clergyman. I appreciate that that is a serious charge, but the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Teevan) knows very well that at that very time he was urging not only that should clergymen come in and fight that fight, but that they should use the pulpit for inculcating—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. and learned Gentleman must be relevant to the matter before the House. I understand that he is now arguing something with regard to an election for the Northern Ireland Parliament.
  Mr. Bing: No. Perhaps I did not make my point clear, and I apologise to the House for my lapse. The point I am making—and this is what the House ought to decide—is this: Did Mr. MacManaway really think, "I may be

  1867
  qualified or I may not," and was he persuaded to run, despite the fact that hon, Members opposite in his own Northern Ireland party knew that he was, or might be, disqualified, because they felt they could win a seat with a clergyman and could not win a seat without one? Surely it is highly material to examine the sort of political argument that was put up. If the election was to turn on purely political questions, obviously, as the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said, it would not matter whether the candidate was a clergyman or not. If the election was to turn on whether it was a defence of Protestantism or an attack upon the Roman Catholics, then it would be highly material whether Mr. MacManaway was forced to go forward despite his own doubts.
  Earl Winterton: Despite what the hon. and learned Member has said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, did not Mr. Speaker distinctly give a Ruling that we could not discuss the circumstances of the election. This is a matter of great constitutional importance to this House. If Mr. Speaker gave that Ruling—and there is no question about it that he did—I suggest, with respect, that the hon. and learned Gentleman is endeavouring to walk round it by making frivolous observations which have nothing whatever to do with the matter.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must not be taken as necessarily agreeing with the latter part of the noble Lord's remarks. I agree, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot go into the details of the elections for either the Northern Ireland Parliament or of this House.
  Mr. Bing: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but that is not what I was attempting to do.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will now pass to another matter and not deal with that point further.
  Mr. Driberg: With great respect, may I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Are we to take it that an important precedent is being created today and that future Second Reading debates are to be limited as
  1868
  narrowly and as mysteriously as this one is limited?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that it is extremely difficult to draw a line in a matter of this sort. Mr. Speaker has given certain Rulings, and I have, so far as I can, to interpret them, which I have endeavoured to do. It is clear to me that, in any event, Mr. Speaker's Ruling would be disobeyed if I allowed the hon. and learned Gentleman to deal further with the matter with which he is now dealing. Therefore, I must ask him to pass to another matter, and I must ask the House to support me in that decision.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Surely it is strictly relevant to the case, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. and learned Member should show that on the evidence before him, this was a try-on. If in point of fact there was doubt in their minds as to whether Mr. MacManaway was fit to sit or not, then to know whether if it was found that he could not sit he could have a Bill of Indemnity, would make it strictly relevant to find out whether, in fact, it was a try-on.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. In any event, that was not quite the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman was making. I must ask him to pass to some other point.
  Mr. Bing: I feel that it is desirable that in the House, when Mr. MacManaway is not here, we should put his conduct in the most favourable light. To suggest that he was being pressed or pushed by other people to take part in the election when he well knew that he might have been disqualified, is a point in his favour.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman, under the guise of raising a further point of order, or, rather, of giving an explanation, is going into the same matter again. I must ask him not to do that. I shall have to invite the House to take notice of his action if he proceeds to do so further. I hope that he will pass on to another point.
  Mr. Bing: If I may sum up my argument, I would say that if it has not been valuable in one respect it has perhaps been valuable in raising a great many points of order, which, I feel sure, will

  1869
  be of value as precedents at a later date. The argument which I have attempted to address to the House is: Did Mr. MacManaway know that he might be disqualified at the time he stood for the election? Perhaps we shall hear from some other hon. Members what was his view about that. Was it considered, for example, that if he was disqualified the seat could still be won, because a campaign could be run on the ground that he had been unjustly treated?
  It seems to me that these are the sort of questions which are before the House. If I may conclude—I have delayed the House far too long as it is—with one more general observation, may I say that we are, in this Bill, endeavouring to indemnify a clergyman. We are vindicating a law which keeps clergymen of all sorts out of the House of Commons. While it is necessary to do that in passing this Bill, we should not lose sight of the wider issues because it is not, if I may say so with all respect, the presence of clergymen in the House of Commons which introduces religion into politics, which is one of the things that we wish to avoid.
  I notice that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) and the hon. Member for Enfield. West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) took occasion recently to point out that I did not possess the Christian virtues which they made themselves clear to the House as possessing. I accept the rebuke and I hope that the House will accept it from me, as being less than they in these matters of Christian virtue, that when we come to pass a Bill of this sort, we must keep our eyes on the wider issues and prevent the attacking of people and the exploitation or the running of elections on religious issues, because it is that which leads to circumstances in which a Bill of this sort comes to be introduced.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. Gage: The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) began his speech by saying that he hoped that the House would be generous towards Mr. MacManaway and, therefore, it did not altogether surprise me that he spent the rest of his speech in trying to persuade the House not to pass this Bill of Indemnity. The hon and learned Gentleman did, as has been pointed out, achieve victory in this
  1870
  matter in the Privy Council. He was quite right in his interpretation of the law, and the remainder of us were not. It is, as a result of that, that Mr. MacManaway lost his seat and that we are now considering this Bill. In those circumstances, I would have thought that it would have been more becoming if the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch could have shown a little more magnanimity towards Mr. MacManaway.
  Mr. Bing: May I make my position clear? I believe that the House should show the utmost magnanimity towards Mr. MacManaway, whom I regard merely as a tool of persons far cleverer than he. It is those people who, when there was a doubt as to his qualifications, persuaded him to go forward, and it is those who are really worthy of the censorship of the House.
  Mr. Gage: This is a personal Bill. It is to indemnify Mr. MacManaway and not other people.
  I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should follow the advice he has given the House and show a little magnanimity towards this gentleman, after all, the gentleman gave up his living and his pension and all his emoluments to become a politician. It may have been an unwise decision, but that is what he wanted to do. He was in much the same position as a soldier who gives up his Army career and rights to a pension to do the same thing. The only difference between the two is that a soldier can resign his commission but a clergyman cannot renounce his orders. In those circumstances he was disqualified. The human problem became obscured by the various legal issues, and many who sit here will realise what a pang it must have been to give up a political career almost at the outset. I do not think any of us would desire to do anything that might make it more painful to the gentleman concerned.
  The hon. and learned Member put forward his case on three main points. He devoted himself, in the first place, to what had been said by Mr. MacManaway after his election. Those who practise in the law will know that the defeated litigant is rarely pleased with the decision. The hon. and learned Member who has made this particular branch of the law his speciality may perhaps find that when he

  1871
  comes to his next case he is on the losing side and that his client will not accept the decision with equanimity. In these circumstances, people do say foolish things which are much better ignored.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: Does not the hon. Member think it particularly reprehensible and disgraceful that after the House had indicated, with almost unanimous consent, that an act of magnanimity was to be done it was represented throughout the election as a plot by Labour Members, that no one was to issue a writ and no reference was made to the Judicial Committee?
  Mr. Gage: That was not said by Mr. MacManaway. No one would desire to stand up for that type of thing, but we should understand and be magnanimous in our understanding that people who suffer a bitter personal rebuff are often inclined, in the heat of the moment, to say unwise and foolish things which they would not otherwise have said. Are we really going to say that because someone has been stupid and perhaps gone further than he ought that we are not going to pass a Bill of this nature, but will leave Mr. MacManaway open to what would be tremendous penalties? That would be entirely wrong?
  Secondly, it is said that we should not pass this Bill because Mr. MacManaway voted at a time when there was doubt and the matter had been referred to the Privy Council for their decision. It should be remembered that here was a person who was entirely inexperienced and did not know anything of the ways of the House. It was a tremendous dilemma for him to know what was right for him to do. If he voted and was disqualified the kind of things that are now being said might have been said, but if he did not vote and was not disqualified Members and constituents might well have accused him of timidity and cowardice. That was the problem with which he was faced. It was very difficult for him to make up his mind. He decided, since there was so much conflicting advice, that he was going to vote, and he did so on one occasion.
  Mr. McGovern: The hon. Member puts it very simply, but will he cast his mind back to
  1872
  the time when a crucial vote was to be taken in the House and Mr. MacManaway was summoned here by the Conservative Whips and, when interviewed by the Press as to whether he was entitled to vote, said that he was going to vote and that nothing would prevent him from doing so that night?
  Mr. Gage: That is the vote I referred to; and it only points to how very difficult it was for this inexperienced Member. If it had not been a crucial debate it might have been easier. He did not give his views at the interview on whether or not he was entitled to sit, but said that he was going to vote.
  Mr. McGovern: I think this is important. He was asked whether or not he had the right to vote because his case was under consideration, and he said that, independent of anything, he was going to vote and that nothing would prevent him casting his vote that night.
  Mr. Gage: He had, after all, come to that decision. But Members opposite might well consider this. If he had been a Member who was likely to vote on their side, do they not think that they would have been very much more interested? All our views on this matter are coloured by the point of view we take on that particular vote. It was for that reason that I was trying to put the matter in its proper perspective, as seen through the eyes of Mr. MacManaway. Members may talk about pressure being brought on him to vote on that occasion, but there was plenty of pressure brought to bear on him not to vote—a common informer writ was served on him two days before, and there were plenty of views expressed by Members here. Therefore, this unfortunate man was in the middle of conflicting pressures.
  Mr. Snow: Surely the hon. Member is somewhat in conflict with his hon. Friends because, in the discussion on the Bill which the noble Lord has ruled we may not discuss, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) said—
  Earl Winterton: On a point of order. That is a very serious reflection upon the Chair. I rose to a point of order and in reply Mr. Deputy-Speaker ruled that I was correct. The hon. Member has said that the "noble Lord has ruled," suggesting, in other words, that Mr. Deputy-Speaker was influenced by the

  1873
  point I put in my favour. I ask that the hon. Member should be requested to withdraw that.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I was not in the Chair when this took place, so I am rather in a difficulty.
  Earl Winterton: I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you will not give protection both to hon. and right hon. Members against the suggestion that they and not you and Mr. Speaker rule. The hon. Member deliberately used the term "since the noble Lord has ruled," which I regard as a reflection on the Chair.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The noble Lord has no right to rule one way or the other on this matter.
  Earl Winterton: That is exactly the cause of my complaint. The hon. Gentleman used a term which does not affect me in the slightest, but which is a reflection upon the Chair. He stated that I had power to rule and not the Chair. The ruling was given by the Chair. The term the hon. Gentleman used was, "the noble Lord has ruled," and that is clearly a reflection upon the Chair.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know whether it is a reflection on the Chair, but rulings are given from the Chair.
  Mr. Snow: I was about to quote from a speech by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) on the occasion of the Bill which has been the subject of some discussion. He said:
  "The second great difference is this: Any hon. Member who has studied the report of the Commission will, I am sure, agree with the learned Attorney that there can be no question of any implication on the personal honour of either of the two gentlemen or the lady. We are very happy to be able to make that clear. It is perfectly clear that from the moment when they had the least suspicion that they had been guilty of impropriety they did not come to this House or vote in this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 1890.]
  That is a very different attitude from that described by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), and which is now put forward by his other colleagues.
  Mr. Gage: My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) was making a speech on quite a different matter. He
  1874
  was talking on what was a matter of taste, and what I have spoken about is a perfectly different thing. I am trying to get hon. Gentlemen to look at this matter not from this party view or that party view, or what they would have done in the circumstances, but from the point of view of this unfortunate gentleman and the position he was in. In the matter of the vote this was the subject of a great deal of controversy and from all sides there was the greatest pressure. It is not in the slightest degree relevant to say that he was forced to vote by this person or that person, because we are considering only his own conduct here, and whether or not he should be indemnified.
  The other matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch concerned Mr. MacManaway's conduct before he sat in the House. For him it is an inegenuous argument to say, "He should not have put himself up as a candidate, because I advised him not to." In those days the hon. and learned Gentleman was not the specialist in this rather obscure and abstruse branch of the law that he has since become, and I am bound to say that I am pleased to think it is not a particularly lucrative one. I should not imagine that there is likely to be a great number of cases of this nature. The hon. and learned Gentleman has devoted himself for a considerable period to this matter and we have listened to his pronouncement on the legal issue with respect. In those days that was not the case at all. Many hon. Members might have been inclined to say, "The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch says that this man is disentitled to sit; quite clearly, therefore, he is entitled." I really do not think that because that sort of view is put forward and because, it now happens that he has turned out to be right, that is a reason for saying that this unfortunate gentleman should not have put himself forward as a candidate and allowed himself to have been selected.
  As I said at the beginning, this is a simple and a very short issue. Here is a person who, I think, quite unwittingly has committed a number of offences in respect of an old and abstruse statute. In those circumstances I should have thought we would have been less than just if we did not at once pass this very obvious and very proper Bill.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: The House always listens with great respect to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage) who has always spoken with moderation on this matter. I have no desire at all to add any fuel to the fires to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) referred one and a half hours ago. I do not wholly share the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) upon this matter. I have considerable sympathy with Mr. MacManaway. I had some liking for him while he was in the House, and I am bound to say that week after week, I find myself deploring his absence rather more.
  I feel that, although it is necessary before a legal tribunal that we must refer to Acts of Parliament as Acts of Parliament, with due respect, anybody who is interested in the history of the early 19th Century knows perfectly well that the Act of 1801 was never passed to disqualify clergymen at all, was never passed to clarify the law, but was passed for one single purpose—to find a way of getting rid of a gentleman by the name of Mr. John Home Tooke, whom everybody wanted to get rid of for a variety of reasons, some of which were probably good.
  For one thing he was a Radical, and for another it was a little unfortunate that the Speaker in the Chair who shook his hand on his introduction to the House, was the man who previously had prosecuted him unsuccessfully for high treason. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby will probably remember that during the case when Mr. John Horne Tooke was cross-examining the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General from the dock, an unprecedented spectacle was presented to the court and to the jury of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General in tears bemoaning the cruel way in which they had been treated by the wit of the gentleman whom they were seeking to hang, draw and quarter.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to discuss the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, 1801, I do not think that that arises on this Bill.
  Mr. Hale: It was not a point I was going to pursue in that way at all, but I want to follow it up because of what the hon. Member for Belfast, South, said about the comparative merits and the sufferings of Mr. MacManaway, who insisted on resigning his benefices and so on. The only comparison we have got is that of Mr. John Horne Tooke. I will not follow at any great length the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman. He did say quite fairly that this matter was pretty hard on Mr. MacManaway. He came to this House and was left in a state of uncertainty for a long time. He resigned his benefices as rector of Derry before election to the Northern Ireland Parliament. This raised the point that I was making.
  John Horne Tooke, for whom no indemnity Bill was provided, divested himself of his clerical functions 32 years before he entered Parliament. He ceased to practise as a clergyman many years before coming to Westminster. Indeed, the contemporaries of the day reported that he was smothered in tea and muffins in the first year of his ordination, and in the second year he was playing cards in a public window of the rectory every Sunday. Although he had ceased to practise as a clergyman, he suffered great disabilities. He was refused admission to the Bar on the ground that he was still a clergyman, and for a long time he was refused a degree on the grounds that he was a clergyman. But worse was to follow. He was wooing a voluptuous Italian damsel, who contemptuously rejected his embraces when she heard that he was or had been a Protestant cleric. Indeed, so great was her contempt that her brothers declared a vendetta on him and attempted to take his life but shot the wrong Englishman by mistake.
  Although I accept the view that, on the whole, things have been fairly hard on Mr. MacManaway—this was a finely balanced legal argument and might have gone either way—I suggest that other people have been more harshly treated in the past than we propose to treat him today.
  I come now to a matter upon which I want some information from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. This Bill has taken a very remarkable time to produce. It was promised in the first week of the

  1877
  last Session. Six or seven months have now expired before we have been privileged to see it. I know that the Parliamentary draftsmen are very busy and I know it is sometimes difficult to produce even a short Bill, but in the last few days we have had a remarkable example of celerity on the part of His Majesty's Government in producing the Bill giving effect to one part of the Budget. It was printed and distributed seven days after the Budget. One would almost think it was printed before the Budget was announced to the House of Commons, but I do not think that was the case.
  I wonder what negotiations were taking place behind the scenes on this matter. It is important that we should know. I had occasion to bring before the House the conduct of the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland in making comments on this matter. I am not going to refer to the exact comments made, but he occupied a quasi-judicial position and is the same gentleman who has been negotiating with His Majesty's Government about the effects of this Bill in Northern Ireland, all of which are considered of constitutional importance.
  I accept at once what the hon. Member for Belfast, South, says. Let us, in two or three minutes, review the facts in this matter in order to refresh our memories. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch, always brings into any matter with which he deals so much wit and spirit that he always runs the risk of conveying an impression of being slightly ungenerous at times, which entirely belies him, because no one has behaved more generously than he has in this matter. Let me tell the House just what happened. On 12th July, 1949, seven months before the General Election, my hon. and learned Friend called attention to Mr. MacManaway's selection as candidate, and asked for amending legislation. He pressed hon. Gentlemen opposite to take up the matter. No one could have done more than my hon. and learned Friend, and no one could have had a fairer warning than he gave. That was six or seven months before the Election.
  When Mr. MacManaway was in danger of taking his seat and of incurring very heavy penalties, he was warned by my hon. and learned Friend, and when he did take his seat, it was my hon. and learned
  1878
  Friend who suggested the appointment of a Select Committee to which Mr. MacManaway's case could be referred and before which doubts could be resolved. When Mr. MacManaway took his seat and risked having to pay these fantastic sums, my hon. and learned Friend behaved with the greatest propriety. The matter was then referred to the Judicial Council of the Privy Council where my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch argued the matter with conspicuous ability.
  Now comes the vote to which reference has been made, and to which very great importance is attached by some of us. We think it was an instance of a somewhat contemptuous way of treating Parliament when it was attempting to resolve a difficulty. The vote was given not merely after the Judicial Committee had been appointed, but after the Judicial Committee had finished their hearing, when it was their duty to report the findings to His Majesty in Council, and at the moment when they were secret. Yet every barrister who had attended that court had told me—every one with whom I am in close contact—that they knew perfectly well, by the sort of question that had been put, the sort of observation, comment and gesture which had been made, precisely what the position was going to be. It was after that, that Mr. MacManaway acted, not, I think, of his own volition. We ought to be told how, and whether he was wired and told to come. It was after that, that he registered the vote which was intended to bring about a General Election in this country.
  Mr. Gage: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that. The vote was before the hearing at the Judicial Committee, which hearing, in my recollection, was very closely towards the end of July. It was before that.
  Mr. Hale: I think it was in September.
  The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is quite right. My recollection is that the hearing was towards the end of the summer term. The vote was at a special session in September. The Privy Council had not announced their decision.
  Mr. Hale: I am not in a position to challenge what has been said. I agree with the Attorney-General that the vote was in September because the courts were

  1879
  not sitting then. I have put to the House every argument which I believed to be correct. There was some discussion on the matter in October in this House on two occasions. My right hon. Friend who was then the Leader of the House, but who is now the Foreign Secretary, said that the Government were going to bring in a Bill to indemnify Mr. MacManaway, not merely for the trouble that had been caused when the issue was in doubt, but for the final vote passed in September. I think, on the whole, that that was the sense of the House and I have no desire to object to it at all.
  Therefore, it is pretty shocking that Mr. MacManaway, after that, should write those letters attacking the Government for victimising him and depriving West Belfast of its rights to have a Member. He was trying to influence the electors by the letter that was part of the election address of the present Member of Parliament. I say to the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby, who has pleasantly said that there was no clerical qualification to influence the election on this occasion, that there was. There was Mr. MacManaway himself, the former rector of Derry and the former claimant to be a Member of this House, saying to the electors:
  "I have been victimised. Protestants, stand together, and return the hon. Member."
  I do not know whether the hon. Member is a Protestant but he is a Sir Knight of the Black Preceptory, and a member of the Apprentice Boys of Derry. I do not know what theological significance that has.
  Mr. Donnelly: Would my hon. Friend tell us what this "Black Preceptory" is?
  Mr. Hale: I have not a clue.
  I come to the point to which the hon. Member opposite has applied his mind and which is fundamental. We have to know what the effect of the Bill is and how it applies generally. I did raise this point in the House on 17th October, when my right hon. Friend's announcement was made. This is what I said to the Leader of the House:
  "Is it not a fact that the law at present is that where a disqualified candidate, whose disqualification was known at the time of the election, is returned, the runner-up automatically succeeds to the seat?"
  1880
  My right hon. Friend said:
  "There is substance in that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 1888.]
  Then the constitutional expert below the Gangway, whom I am sorry not to see in his seat, the hon. Baronet the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), asked the Lord President to remember the case of William Preston, who was elected Member for Walsall, in 1924, but the observation had no relevance. It was an example that "the Active Back Benchers" are apt to be active physically rather than mentally.
  I know that the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby will agree that this is a point of substance. It is important, and we ought to have it made clear. I am not urging this House very specially to take one line or another, but before we pass this Bill, we have the right to know just what it means. The law was settled perfectly clearly in the Launceston case. There was the case of Beresford Hope v. Lady Sandhurst, which was very strictly inquired into. It was a very strong Court of Appeal with Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, Lord Justice Brett, the Master of the Rolls and others.
  The facts are these: At the local government election for Brixton, shortly after the Act of 1888 was passed, Lady Sandhurst stood for election because some ingenious person had observed that the Local Government Act did not specifically exclude women. Women had a local government vote. She said: "I have a right to stand" and she was declared one of the two elected. After the election, application was made to the court by the runner-up to say that he should be returned as the member because the disqualification of Lady Sandhurst was apparent to the electors from the start. They knew that she was a woman, and that women were disqualified and they had therefore wilfully cast away their votes.
  There were many precedents for that. I do not want to bore the House with a legal argument, but the precedents are perfectly clear. There was the case to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch referred on the previous occasion, the Launceston case, where the Conservative candidate said that anyone could shoot rabbits free on his estate, and made his announcement a

  1881
  few days before the election. Certainly, it was rather an alteration of his habits. [Laughter.] It would be an even more valuable privilege today. It was held to be corruption, and the losing candidate took this step: he wrote and published a letter, which was brought to the notice of the electors, saying, "The candidate is disqualified because of his corruption," before the vote took place. There was considerable argument as to whether that meant that the second man should be returned. There it was held that as the corruption was not fully known, although notice was given, he did not quite come within that category.
  It has been held time after time that if you are disqualified from the start—[Interruption.] I will read the case in full if anybody doubts it, but I do not think anybody does doubt it. No doubt this is precisely what has been discussed with the Government of Northern Ireland in these months while we have been waiting for the Bill. This is the law and there is no doubt about the law. I say that no lawyer in this House will challenge me on this point. The law is that if a candidate stands, who is subsequently found to have been disqualified for a reason which was patent on the face of it, and known to the electors at the time, then those electors have thrown away their votes and there may not be a new election except by the will of Parliament, and that the second person ought properly to be returned. That is the position. If you know a man is a clergyman, it does not matter if you know whether clergymen are disqualified or not. If you know something of him which the law subsequently says is a disqualification, the runner-up comes in.
  Earl Winterton: In the interests of historical accuracy I think the hon. Member will find that the candidate in the Launceston case—I remember it well because the candidate was an old friend of mine—was not disqualified exactly on the grounds mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hale: I think the noble Lord may be falling into the error of confusing two cases. This is the case of Drinkwater v. Deacon and the date is 1874.
  Earl Winterton Earl Winterton indicated assent.
  Mr. Hale: We now come to an important point. I drew the attention of the Leader of the House to this point at once. He said, "Let us be generous, let us issue a new writ, let us call it a day, let them have their election." It is anybody's guess whether that was the right thing to do, but we were trying to be magnanimous, although many of us were conscious at the time that we could have demanded that the second man for West Belfast be elected. That is why, on the whole, I do not think the conduct of the West Belfast election was generous by the sitting Member and his supporters.
  Now look at the position so far as Northern Ireland is concerned. One of the powers that this Parliament has never given to the Parliament of Northern Ireland is the right to decide at all on the qualification of its members. That may have been a wise and prudent decision in view of some of the things that have happened since. Under Section 18 of the Act, the Northern Ireland House of Commons is bound by our decisions on qualification. Whatever is the qualification at the time applies to Northern Ireland. If we alter it, it applies there at once. And from the time the House recorded its decision unanimously that Mr. MacManaway was disqualified from his seat in this House, he was disqualified from his seat in that House, and they had no power in the matter. They could not alter the law, they could not by their motion take the course that we did. They had to summon to that Parliament the runner-up, who was Mr. McCarroll, the candidate for Derry.
  What have they done? They have behaved a little contumeliously to this House in view of the action we took in our discussions with the Attorney-General and in view of the quasi-judicial position of the Attorney-General in dealing with this matter. We behaved a little magnanimously on that occasion. They have permitted the Rev. J. G. MacManaway to resign his seat in the House so that they can fight a new election in West Derry. I want to ask the Attorney-General—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I was under the impression that Mr. Speaker, before he left the Chair, said that we could not discuss anything that the Northern Ireland Parliament did.
  Mr. Hale: But may I refer you to the Act itself, Sir? This is what the Act says in Section 1—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not doubt in the least what the Act says, but Mr. Speaker said we could not discuss the action of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
  Mr. Hale: I am not discussing the actions of the Northern Ireland Parliament, I am discussing the effect of this Bill in the circumstances as they now exist. This is a little different from the point Mr. Speaker was referring to, which was a matter of personal comment. I am asking the Attorney-General a question. This is the Second Reading of a Bill of substantial importance. May I respectfully submit, Sir—because we ought to have it clear—that it has been laid down in Erskine May from time immemorial that we can discuss on Second Reading not merely what is in the Bill but what we think should be in the Bill—the provisions that should be incorporated if the Act is to serve its purpose.
  What I am discussing now is whether there should be in this Bill a provision to deal with the fantastic position which arises under it, which means that nobody knows in Northern Ireland whether they can hold an election for Derry City or not.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think to do that would be quite outside the scope of this Bill. It only indemnifies one man, and to alter the constitution by means of this Bill would be out of order.
  Mr. Hale: I am afraid I have not made myself clear. The position at the moment, so far as Mr. MacManaway is concerned, is that he has purported to resign his seat in the Northern Ireland Parliament. The Speaker of the Northern Ireland Parliament has purported to accept that resignation. Every legal authority is of the view that that is a thing he has no power to do.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That is just the very point which I heard Mr. Speaker say we were not to discuss—the actions of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
  Mr. Bing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Perhaps this would assist us in considering the matter: that obviously one of the acts for which we
  1884
  must indemnify Mr. MacManaway is his act as a Member in giving an act of resignation when he was not a Member. That is one of the things with which this Bill aims to deal. Now it is not as if there were in this Bill a provision affecting the step taken. Therefore we are considering whether we ought not to indemnify him for his act in resigning when he was not a Member. That is a material matter.
  The Attorney-General: May I respectfully submit that that point is really not quite right? There is no possibility of an action for damages being brought against Mr. MacManaway for resigning from a position which, in fact, he never occupied. As, I understand it, if the action of the Parliament of Northern Ireland is illegal, if the action of the Speaker there is illegal, if any action is illegal in causing a new election to be held, that is a matter which will be open to challenge, whatever we do here, in the courts of Northern Ireland and, eventually, in our courts. All we are doing here is to indemnify Mr. MacManaway in respect of votes he cast or occasions on which he sat. I do not agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), which is somewhat different.
  Mr. Bing: It is my respectful submission to you, Sir, despite what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that we are indemnifying Mr. MacManaway against both sitting and voting. When one looks at the technical definition of sitting, we see this involves any action which causes the name to be recorded in Votes and Proceedings. In this particular case, a Member cannot, of course, resign unless the fact is recorded in Votes and Proceedings that he is a Member. Therefore, he would be liable to a fine of £500 before his act of resignation.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member is referring to the Votes and Proceedings of this Parliament, that is so; but we cannot discuss the Votes and Proceedings of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Bing: But we are indemnifying him in regard to his voting and sitting in the Northern Ireland Parliament. We must, therefore, decide the number of occasions on which he has sat and voted.
  Earl Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It has

  1885
  been ruled again and again that we cannot discuss in this House in any circumstances the Votes and Proceedings of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker laid it down today at the beginning of this debate.
  Mr. Hale: Before I deal with the main point, I should like to deal with a subsidiary point of order. On eight or nine occasions now the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has risen and tried to explain to the present occupant of the Chair what his predecessor in the Chair has said. With very great respect, I should have thought that it was an established tradition of the House that when any occupant of the Chair desired to get information about a Ruling by the previous occupant, he would get it from the Clerk and those sitting with him at the Table. If we are to introduce the habit of any hon. Member popping up and saying, "Yes, you may have agreed with Mr. Jones, but Mr. Speaker did not agree with him on a previous occasion—"
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am in no difficulty. I was sitting in the corner and I heard Mr. Speaker's Ruling myself.
  Mr. Hale: I am glad that you agree with me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it was wholly unnecessary for the noble Lord to make such an intervention. This is an important point, and I am not challenging your Ruling. I know that it is a point of some complexity, but I sincerely believe it to be a constitutional point of importance. The Attorney-General has said that he proposes to deal with it in reply, and I do not want to see him inhibited in attempting to deal with such a vital point. The real point is whether the Bill is large enough. Is Mr. MacManaway still a Member of the Northern Ireland House of Commons? He certainly cannot resign. Either he was disqualified from the seat or he was not. If he was disqualified from the seat, he needs an indemnity Bill. If he has purported to resign and has not succeeded, the Bill needs amending to deal with that. Somehow someone has to lay down what the law is.
  It is not correct to say that we cannot deal with what happens in the Northern Ireland Parliament. This is a matter in
  1886
  which this House, under Section 18 (2) of the Government of Ireland Act, reserved all rights and did not delegate any rights whatever to the Northern Ireland Parliament. To complete the point, I have here the very authoritative work which was written by a former Clerk of Parliaments of Northern Ireland which deals with the Act and makes it perfectly clear that Section 18 (2) says this:
  "The law for the time being in force relating to the qualification and disqualification of the Members of the Commons House of Parliament in the United Kingdom and the taking of any oath required to be taken by any Member of that House shall, save as otherwise provided in this Act, apply to Members of the Senate and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland."
  This is a matter on which we are trying to help Northern Ireland, for it is a matter in which they cannot act, and we should consider putting in the necessary provisions to clarify the whole position so that we will not need to have another Bill brought before us. That is all I am trying to say, and I will be very good and try not to go outside that ambit for a moment or two.
  The position is that there is a purported resignation. Everyone is in doubt whether the resignation was right or not. No writ has been issued for Derry. The position in law, as I understand it, is quite clear, that if there had not been this purported resignation to try to stop the effect of the Resolution of this House, it is clear that Mr. MacManaway's seat would be vacant and that Mr. McCarroll, the only other candidate for Derry, must at once have been summoned to take his seat in the Northern Ireland Parliament.
  I have only one observation to make on that. I have come to the conclusion that it may very well be material when the House comes to consider the matter to have the advice of the Attorney-General, and, having heard him explain the matter much more clearly than I have managed to explain it this afternoon, the House may have to decide what is, in the circumstances, an appropriate Clause to introduce into the Bill; whether we ought to have another formal Clause to declare the seat vacant and leave the machinery to take its course, or say that in all the circumstances, Mr. McCarroll should, in these special circumstances, be summoned as the Member for Derry City in the Northern Ireland House of Commons.

  1887
  A relevant consideration is the position of the Derry City constituency and the circumstances of the election. I have here a map. Derry City now exists in this form. There is Derry, which contains 16,000 Catholics and 11,000 Protestants, and all the rest of this vast area outside has been brought in to give the Protestants a majority in Derry City. This is widening—
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Surely we are going too wide now in discussing the election and the electoral prospects of Londonderry. I respectfully submit that that could not be within the scope of the Bill even if we were on the Committee stage and the hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to move an Amendment.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), said that he was coming to an end and I was hoping that he would not pursue this too far. My patience is not inexhaustible.
  Mr. Hale: I regret that phrase, which has an unfortunate historical connotation, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I accept it, and I will quickly come to the end of my points. I was making the point that Derry City constituency had been made too wide when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby made a similar remark with another intention. I thought at first that I was receiving unexpected support for my contention from the Front Bench opposite. It is important that the Attorney-General should be quite clear about the matter and should tell us just what he considers the legal position to be, what steps it is proposed to take, and so on.
  For the rest, I give the Bill my blessing, and always have done. I believe that the House should always be generous. Mr. MacManaway is greatly to be pitied for what happened, even if he is a little to be blamed for what happened afterwards, although I do not desire even to put that too high. I should like the House always to be generous and magnanimous about these things.
  6.16 p.m.
  Professor Savory: I am concerned with the defence of the Reverend Godfrey MacManaway. It has
  1888
  been alleged here in this House that he stood for Derry when he was still Rector of Christchurch. I know for a fact that before he ever stood as a candidate his resignation of that rectory was in the hands of the Bishop of Derry and Raphoe. Not only that; he made inquiries and, had it been possible, he would under the Clerical (Disabilities) Act, 1870, have relinquished Holy Orders, but he was advised that that Act did not apply to Northern Ireland, and, therefore, he was prevented from carrying out the further step of relinquishing Holy Orders as was done by Sir Edmond Brocklebank, a clergyman, who relinquished his Holy Orders and became the very esteemed Member for Liverpool.
  I have been acquainted with this case from the very beginning. I attended every meeting of the Select Committee and heard the whole evidence. I also attended as many sittings as I could of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I want to make it quite clear to this House that Mr. MacManaway acted absolutely bona fide in thinking that he was eligible. Doubts have been thrown upon this matter. He believed that he was eligible. He had the most important opinion given by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General in the year 1869—[Laughter]—it is relevant—that when the Bill to disestablish the Irish Church—
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman must mean "the late" Attorney-General.
  Professor Savory: If I had not been interrupted I should have said "the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General of that date."
  Mr. Moeran: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order to go back over the rights and merits of the proceedings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as the hon. Member seems to be doing?
  Professor Savory: I merely want to show on what grounds Mr. MacManaway believed that he was eligible. He had the very important opinion of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General in 1869 that so soon as the Irish Church was disestablished clergymen would be eligible for Parliament. He therefore believed firmly that that opinion—these eminent lawyers became judges of

  1889
  the High Court—was correct; that consequently, from the moment that the Disestablishment Act came into force on 1st January, 1871, the disability imposed by the Act of 1801 no longer existed. It was largely due to this most important opinion that the Reverend Godfrey MacManaway believed that he was eligible. I have been reproached for going back to 1869, although that was absolutely relevant. But Mr. MacManaway had also a legal opinion in writing from a most distinguished K.C.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—I read it myself, and although I do not profess to be a lawyer I found it absolutely conclusive. He acted on this opinion. After all, if anyone is in doubt on a legal matter, he takes the opinion of the highest lawyer of his acquaintance. Mr. MacManaway had this legal opinion in writing. I read it through most carefully. I certainly thought it was overwhelmingly convincing.
  Mr. George Wigg: What was his name?
  Professor Savory: Therefore, fortified by this very important legal opinion—
  Hon. Members: Who gave it?
  Mr. Bing: Now that the hon. Member has had the advantage of reading this opinion, would he say whether it dealt with the draft Bill as prepared for use in this House, setting out what were disqualifications and what were not? I assume, perhaps wrongly, that that must have been called to the attention of Mr. MacManaway, because it is the one document to which anyone goes when dealing with this matter.
  Professor Savory: The legal opinion insisted on the fact that the law of 1801 could apply only to a State Church. From the moment that the Church of Ireland was disestablished and disendowed, the State had no further control over it; the laws of the State no longer applied to it. Therefore, Mr. MacManaway was perfectly entitled to stand for West Belfast.
  Strictures have been made upon the fact that the reverend gentleman voted on a certain occasion, which is stated to have been in September, after the question of his eligibility had been referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is a fact. The Judicial Committee had not reported; their findings had not
  1890
  come before this House, and therefore the Rev. Godfrey MacManaway was advised—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who by?"]—he was advised—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who by?"]—by the very highest authority, that he was entitled to vote, and he exercised his vote. The proof of that is that when—
  Mr. Manuel: Who sent the telegram?
  Professor Savory: I have listened for hours in absolute silence and without interrupting anybody. As I say, that is proved by the fact that when I brought Mr. MacManaway into the Speaker's Office and obtained permission for him to speak, he was allowed by the Speaker, when the Bill was brought forward accepting the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to take his seat and address this House; he was a Member of this House, and as such—[Interruption.] He had not then been disqualified; no Bill had been passed. An hon. Gentleman called him by his name, but he was still entitled to be called the hon. Member for Belfast, West. He was allowed to speak. Therefore, in the judgment of Mr. Speaker, he was a Member of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—until that Bill had actually been passed. If, therefore, he was allowed to speak, so much more had he the right to vote on the occasion when he did vote, and he was advised that he was legally entitled to do so.
  Mr. Crossman: Take the risk.
  Professor Savory: Injustice has been done today in some of the speeches made with reference to the Rev. Godfrey MacManaway, and I assert that he acted, as I know—I assure the House of this; I am sure hon. Members will take my word—absolutely bona fide when he stood as a candidate believing in all good faith that he was eligible.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Mulvey: I do not feel capable of going into the legal niceties that we have heard throughout the whole debate. Hon. Members may feel that if Mr. MacManaway was a legal Member of the House, he was the only Irishman ever to be disqualified from attendance in the House. When I heard the complaints in Unionist circles in Northern

  1891
  Ireland about the unjust treatment meted out to Mr. MacManaway in depriving him of his seat at Westminster, I was reminded that notable patriotic Irishmen had been debarred from sitting in the House during the last 50 or 60 years, or possibly during the past century. But they were not deprived by virtue of any Act of Parliament. After having been duly and legally elected, they were prevented by Tory Government from sitting here because of political reasons.
  Amongst those Members who were legally elected and entitled to sit in this House were these four, whose names I have: John Mitchel, Smith O'Brien, O'Donovan Rossa and, at one time, Michael Davitt. They were deprived, not by any Act of Parliament, but merely for political reasons, by the Tory Governments ruling the House at the time. Furthermore, I can discover no record that any Member in this House or any representative of the Government at the time ever suggested that an indemnity Bill should be introduced in favour of any of them.
  When I hear these complaints about the treatment meted out to Mr. MacManaway, I am reminded also that a few elected Members of the subordinate Parliament in Northern Ireland, which was set up by a former Government in this House, were debarred by that Parliament from sitting there. These men included Mr. de Valera, who was elected for South Down—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot discuss the actions of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Mr. Speaker has made that quite clear.
  Mr. Bing: Surely it is relevant, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we are excusing Mr. MacManaway for his appearances in the Northern Ireland Parliament, to consider whether any similar indemnities or Acts were passed when persons like Mr. de Valera were imprisoned for trying to take their seats there.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood from Mr. Speaker's Ruling that these were the sort of things we could not discuss.
  Mr. Donnelly: Would it not be in order if my hon. Friend were to say that this House had never been asked to pass an indemnity Bill which
  1892
  prevented Mr. de Valera from sitting in the Northern Ireland Parliament?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a rather hypothetical point of order.
  Mr. James Hudson: Further to that point of order. Is it not the case that Mr. Speaker ruled that it was what took place in the Northern Ireland Parliament that we were to avoid, and that the facts now being adduced by my hon. Friend are what did not take place? Mr. de Valera never had a chance.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not quite the point.
  Mr. Mulvey: I do not wish to depart in any way from the lines of procedure in this House when I say that if Mr. de Valera wished to take his seat in the Northern Ireland Parliament, he could not do so by reason of exclusion orders against him which prohibit him going to Northern Ireland at all. Today there is a democratic Government in this House, democratic in everything except in so far as Governmental affairs in Northern Ireland are concerned.
  The Government are now going to be very generous to Mr. MacManaway. I do not disagree with their action in that respect at all but I wish to point out that Mr. MacManaway has been an uncompromising Tory and that the Tories in Northern Ireland and in this House, if afforded an opportunity, would draw the whole Labour administration in this House, to perdition. The Government here should get themselves disentangled entirely from Irish representation in this House; they should recognise the right of Irish people to be represented in one Parliament in Ireland.
  Mr. Speaker: We must not discuss the constitutional problem between Northern Ireland and Eire in this Parliament.
  Mr. Mulvey: I hope I am not contravening any rule, but I am just reminding the Government here that, if democracy is not to be designated as a sham, they must take action to satisfy the aspirations of the whole Irish people in this respect.
  6.32 p.m.
  Mr. Snow: It will not have passed your observation, Mr. Speaker, that the first five speakers

  1893
  in this debate were members of the legal profession and, indeed, this whole problem must be resolved on a legal basis. As I listened to the debate I began to feel very sorry for Mr. MacManaway. In fact, the people who I think should really bear the blame are those responsible for egging him on in a way which they must have known was thoroughly unconstitutional.
  It has seemed to me that they have based part of their case on the fact that the law, or laws, governing the adoption and return to Parliament of Members of the Church were laws which were somewhat obscure and I think that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), used the word "abstruse." Therefore, we ought to examine just precisely what is the attitude of the Conservative Party about laws which are obscure or abstruse. We ought to determine, as a matter of principle, what we are prepared to concede. I imagine that there are many laws on the Statute Book which appear to be out of date and unjust under modern conditions—
  Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing laws which may or may not be out of date, but whether Mr. MacManaway shall be indemnified or not.
  Mr. Snow: I can appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I am trying very hard to keep within the rules of debate, but, as an inexperienced Member, I find it is not a very easy thing to do. I was trying to demonstrate that we ought to examine how far the laws, which appear to have been contravened, were Obscure or abstruse, and because of which we must now try to decide whether we ought to indemnify Mr. MacManaway or not. I have been looking up past authorities on this subject of laws which are obscure and, whether they should be observed or not I would like to quote an extract from a speech by a speaker who, I think, will command the respect of all quarters of the House. I quote from a copy of "The Times" of 16th March, 1914. It is a relatively short extract and I hope you will not rule me out of order, Sir. This is under the heading, "The Tory Party and Military Force," and the extract reads:
  "They are to select from the Statute Book the laws they will obey and the laws they will resist. They claim to be a party in the State
  1894
  free to use force in all directions, but never to have it applied to themselves. Whether in office or in opposition, as they have very often told us, they are to govern the country. If they cannot do it by the veto of privilege, they will do it by the veto of violence. If constitutional methods serve their ends, they will be Constitutionalists…."
  Mr. Speaker: This is going right outside the Bill. As far as we are concerned Mr. MacManaway was elected properly into this House and into the other House, and we cannot challenge that. They are a self-governing body and we cannot challenge their actions.
  Mr. Snow: May I quote some more lines, Sir, because I am coming to the point which I was trying to demonstrate and I am not trying to get round your Ruling at all? The speaker in this case was the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), who at that time, was of the Liberal persuasion, and he went on:
  "If law suits their purpose, they will be law-abiding, aye, and law-enforcing. When social order means the order of the Tory Party, when social order means the order of the property classes against the wage earner, when social order means the master against the man, or the landlord against the tenant, order is sacred and holy, order is dear to the heart of the Tory Party and order must be maintained by force. But, if it should happen that the Constitution, or the law, or the maintenance of order stand in the path of some Tory project, stand in the path of the realisation of some appetite or ambition which they have conceived, then they vie with the wildest anarchists in the language which they use against the Constitution, against the law, and against all order and all means of maintaining order."
  You have been very patient, Mr. Speaker, and I realise that I should not go on on that point, but that might have been considered a characteristically ebullient sort of speech to which we are used from the right hon. Member for Woodford in whatever political cloak he was then wearing. One would have thought that, possibly, 14 days later he would have had time to think it over and would think, "I went a little too far and I really must back up law and order." But, 14 days later, he said:
  "There are those who say, 'We are Tories. No laws apply to us. Laws are made for the working people, to keep them in their proper places. We are the dominant class. We are the ruling forces of the State. When laws suit us, we will obey them. If they do not suit us, so much the worse for the law'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1914; Vol. LXI, c. 1578.]
  Mr. John Foster: On a point of order. Has this really anything to do with the subject matter of the debate? What the hon. Member is trying to do is to say that the objection against the Bill is that other people at other times have expressed the view that some laws are obsolete. In my respectful submission that has nothing whatever to do with this Bill.
  Mr. Snow: May I ask your protection, Mr. Speaker, against the lawyers? I am not a lawyer and no doubt you and I, Mr. Speaker, do not appreciate legal quibbles. I say that the party opposite will use the law if it suits them.
  Mr. Speaker: I must answer the point of order. I have tried to deal with it once or twice, and I will do so in due course. Meantime, I trust that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) will come back to whether or not we should indemnify Mr. MacManaway.
  Mr. Snow: I take note of that very kind observation. It seemed to me as the debate progressed that, Mr. MacManaway was in danger of incurring a very substantial fine, which I have heard quoted as between £5,000 and £6,000, quite apart from emoluments he receives from an office which I gather he held in the Northern Ireland Parliament. That amount should not be lost to the Exchequer, but should be a fine on the party funds of the party opposite. It seems to me that in all these matters whether we are dealing with Northern Ireland or the other great Commonwealth political problems of the day, the party opposite in this House want to hide the facts from the ordinary people of the country. But what is one to assume from this sort of remark:
  "Watch the candidates who are being adopted to contest your constituency for the General Election. Ask them if they are Roman Catholics."
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. MacManaway was adopted. We cannot dispute that, and I do not think that we should go into the whole dispute which takes place between the two sides in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Snow: I can see that I am prohibited from proceeding with that line of debate.
  What I was trying to demonstrate was that this is not so much a legal matter
  1896
  for the House to consider, as where lies the responsibility for misleading Mr. MacManaway. I say that it lies with the party opposite, because, to quote again from the official publication of the Ulster Tory Party, "The Voice of Ulster." we are told:
  "To vote for a Roman Catholic is to vote for the religion that says our Protestant King is a heretic."
  I will not pursue that because I can see that you are again becoming impatient, Mr. Speaker.
  When the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) was bobbing up and down like a jack-in-the-box he was playing the somewhat dangerous game of trying to put up a smoke screen to defend the behaviour of Mr. MacManaway, who, in spite of warning after warning, did his little bit to try to encompass the defeat of the Government on a most important issue. I will quote from a speech made by the noble Lord in March, 1946, when he said:
  "I think it would be proper for the hon. Member who voted improperly to offer some apology to Mr. Speaker, since he was not a Member at the time. It is not a light thing to vote in this House when one is not entitled to vote. It has never been held to be a light thing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 1911.]
  During the speeches we have heard this afternoon from hon. Members opposite, it has seemed to me that they are doing that very thing rather than that the cause of the Conservative Party should suffer. In spite of the fact that the law might be contravened in so doing, they would apply pressure through the Party Whips' Office to make that man vote. I am sorry for him. The people who should be in the dock are the people opposite.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Donnelly: I wish to go back to some of the words used by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory). He based his argument in defence of Mr. MacManaway on the fact that this unfortunate gentleman had been misled by the lawyers, and he produced evidence to the effect that he had a document by an unknown deity of the law. We do not know who that legal eagle was. We have every reason to ask who he was. It is very material to the question whether or not we indemnify this reverend gentleman. I quite appreciate that the hon. Member for Antrim, South,

  1897
  is a little backward about being forthcoming on this matter. It is important that he should give some thought to it and give some answer before we decide whether we give this Bill a Second Reading.
  I believe, also, that the reverend gentleman was advised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) that he was quite legally entitled to sit. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an ex-Attorney-General. We heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) that another ex-Attorney-General had wrongly advised a previous Member in a previous case, at the turn of the century. In this case we see that the present Attorney-General was only following the tradition of his office by giving the wrong advice. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that while that might be a bit hard on him, I am blaming him only to excuse Mr. MacManaway, and he will agree that it is desirable to do that in order to give the maximum indemnity to this gentleman.
  Perhaps I might now turn to another point which is very relevant to this matter. It was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). He said that he felt that the people who should be in the dock were those who persuaded Mr. MacManaway to vote. Before I decide whether or not to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, I wish to know whether a telegram was sent to Mr. MacManaway urging him to come here and vote. I want a definite answer to that question; it is important. If no telegram was sent, it may well be that we should not give the Bill a Second Reading. It is very relevant because I feel that Mr. MacManaway was more sinned against than sinning. It is important to establish that before we indemnify him.
  Thirdly, I would ask, because it has been strongly rumoured I do not know on what authority and I am, therefore, asking this as a question and am not making any assertion, if it was made known to Mr. MacManaway that if any penalty of any kind were incurred by him voting in that Division on steel nationalisation he would be indemnified out of the Woolton Fund? Is there any truth in that? I want to know? That is a relevant consideration
  1898
  because the Woolton Fund has plenty of money, and why should this House indemnify it?
  Professor Savory: I am the honorary Secretary of the Ulster Party, and this is the first time that I have ever heard any suggestion of that kind. The hon. Member also put a question about whether a telegram was sent. Had any telegram been sent, I should surely have known about it. I have no knowledge of any such telegram being sent, and as secretary of the party I ought to know.
  Mr. Donnelly: I do not wish to cast any doubt on the good faith of the hon. Member—that is the last thing I would wish to do. I was directing my question to someone more responsible, because the Ulster Unionist Party is of poor repute and of little consequence. The Conservative Party are really the people concerned in this matter.
  I wish to say a word in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth said. I am particularly sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is not present today. He was one of those who urged Mr. MacManaway to come to the House and record his vote. He was one of those who gave him his support, and the very least he could have done would be to come to the House to see that his friend was protected from the consequences of his own action. I think it is disgraceful that the right hon. Gentleman is not here today to deal with this matter.
  Subject to satisfactory answers to the two or three questions I have asked, I would make an appeal to my friends on the back benches of the Labour Party. I have a little experience of Northern Ireland. I am not an Irishman, except in name, but I can assure them that the people of Northern Ireland are very decent people indeed, and I ask them not to be misled by the kind of representatives that they have in this House, who are only caricatures of all the best features of the Northern Ireland people.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. McGovern: I think that the House should give unanimous support to this Bill, and regard the episode as passing into the limbo of forgotten things. I believe that Mr. MacManaway took the view that he could stand as a Member of Parliament, that he

  1899
  could be elected and could take his seat. I think that after doubts were created in his mind he was then encouraged by subtler people behind the scenes to do and dare. I have rather a sneaking regard for a man who has a bit of daring in these matters and for a man in that position. I would not wish to condemn him.
  After all, he suffered great penalties, even though he may have been guilty of casting a vote in an illegal way. First, when he took a chance, there was a sporting chance that that night the Government would go down, that a new Government would come in, and the whole matter would be squared up by the party who took the reins of office, following the defeat of the Government with the aid of Mr. MacManaway. Therefore, in taking his courage and daring into his hands, he was to a large extent a gambler. As a gambler he gambled for stakes and he lost. He lost his seat in this House, the right to sit in this House, and the right to sit in the Northern Ireland Parliament. I regret to say that shortly after that. I think, he lost his wife. The man has suffered immense disasters and Parliament never gloats over any person who has suffered because of some act of which he is guilty. I think we should be generous in our acknowledgement of the fact that he has been deprived of these two seats.
  The suggestion was made that there should be a clearing up of the position in regard to clergymen entering politics. If I am allowed to do so, I will say "God forbid that the day should come when this House is full of clergymen." I would kick every clergyman out of this House if he was going to continue to act as a clergyman. That may sound a strange thing to say, but I think there would be no more evil influence in politics than a House filled with clergymen from different Churches, all using pressure and power and terror in the political field. I think the job of clergymen is in the pulpit, saving of lost souls, and also saving of souls of Members of Parliament, outside the House.
  I regret that the Northern Ireland Party have had a total disregard for the law. It has become part of Irish politics to have a complete disregard for the law. I think that is so in the South, too, as is
  1900
  evidenced by the great amount of traffic that goes on between north and south to defeat the Customs and in which both sides participate.
  The Attorney-General, the authorities in this House, the Government have all thought it essential to bring in this Bill of indemnity. I think the Northern Ireland Parliament have also helped to indemnify Mr. MacManaway. I think they have given him a job as Serjeant-at-Arms in the Stormont—
  Mr. Teevan: That is wrong.
  Mr. McGovern: At least that is reported in the public Press—and that the job will not be held until this Bill goes through this House of Commons. Whether it is true or not, if he has got a job at £1,250 a year for four whole months of the year I am glad, because it is giving him some reward for all that the Front Bench of the Tory Party in this House and the Front Bench of the Northern Ireland Parliament have dragged him through in taking this action.
  Professor Savory: Surely the hon. Member will accept my denial that any such post has ever been offered to Mr. MacManaway.
  Mr. McGovern: I should be loath to accept the denial of any person in Irish politics of what is going to happen after the passing of this Bill. At the same time it was reported in the Press, and it has never been denied, either by the Northern Ireland Parliament or by Mr. MacManaway. If he has the job, good luck to him. I am not angry about him getting the job. I would recommend him for it if it is available. Therefore, I say that in my estimation the House should show the utmost humanity and consideration and pass this Bill; and say to Mr. MacManaway, "Although you have lost on this occasion, we wish you the best of luck in the future."
  6.55 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: I should like to subscribe to the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) with the possible exception of his reference to the lawlessness in the North, if not in the South of Ireland. I was surprised at the sentiments of some of the previous speakers,

  1901
  particularly the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly). I was surprised that he considered the Ulster Unionist Party of such little account. I think it only fair to remind him that on his first and unsuccessful attempt to enter this House, he opposed an Ulster candidate who defeated him.
  The hon. Member also referred, as have other hon. Members, to the view of Mr. MacManaway as to whether or not he should put himself forward as a candidate. In common with other Ulster Unionists, I saw something of Mr. MacManaway at that time, and there is no doubt in my mind that Mr. MacManaway did take legal advice. He took the best legal advice he could and came to the conclusion that, quite regardless of whether his election might be challenged or not, he had a good case. I would remind the House of a saying of another Irishman:
  "It is often dangerous to give advice. It is always fatal to give good advice."
  It is because of the good advice which Mr. MacManaway received that we have to consider this Measure today.
  Some rather heavy weather—if I may put it in that way—has been made of the fact that Mr. MacManaway voted in a crucial Division last September. Ulster folk are not the kind who yield very readily to pressure. Certainly pressure was exerted on Mr. MacManaway on one side or the other, but I am certain it was not in response to any pressure from any quarter that he decided to come over and vote as he did last September. He voted because he believed he ought to do it and that it was in accordance with his convictions and conscience.
  Mr. Donnelly: Is the hon. and gallant Member saying that Mr. MacManaway did not receive a three-line whip to come?
  Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: I am not saying he did not. Everyone on this side received it.
  Mr. Donnelly: Is the hon. and gallant Member saying Mr. MacManaway did not receive a telegram?
  Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: I do not know anything about a telegram that he may or he may not—
  Mr. Donnelly: How can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that Mr. MacManaway did not have any pressure put on him?
  Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: I know nothing about any telegram. What I said was that I am certain in my own mind that he voted because he believed it was his duty to do so. Supposing the opinion of the Privy Council which was considering the matter at that time, had gone the other way; then I would say that Mr. MacManaway's constituents, or at least the 33,000 who returned him as their Member, would have been entitled to censure him for not doing his duty and attending here.
  I should like to endorse the sentiments, which have not been very frequently referred to during this debate, of the present Foreign Secretary, who was the Lord President of the Council at the time it was proposed to introduce this Measure. He said that the House should take a generous view. I hope that the House will take such a view and will pass this Bill without dissent.
  6.59 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: I may speak again only with the leave of the House, but if I have that leave, I will take up some of the points raised in the course of the debate.
  We have had a very interesting and at times entertaining debate. I cannot help feeling that a good time has been had by all, except perhaps by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe): and to a lesser degree myself. I cannot, unfortunately, engage in the very pleasant past-time of saying, "I told you so," because I happen to be one of those who took the view that, while the legal position was one of great difficulty and ought to go to the Privy Council for decision, it was probable that my learned predecessor in 1869 had been right in saying that the disestablishment of the Irish Church had removed these clerical disqualifications from the clergy of that church.
  It follows from the white sheet that I ought to be wearing now, that I have to be a bit careful about what I say. But I am sure that nobody on this side of the House, at the end of the day, wishes to gloat over a defeated political opponent, or to glory in a legal triumph, or to be vindictive in pressing home its consequences.
  Having said that, I shall come at once to some of the points of substance raised about this Bill itself. The first one raised

  1903
  was that by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby, who suggested that it was most important that in the recital to the Bill we should make clear that what vacated the seat was not the advice of the Privy Council, but the fact that this House resolved, following that advice, that Mr. MacManaway was disqualified. I appreciate the force of that view, and it had, I think, a good deal of support from this side of the House when the right hon. and learned Gentleman expressed it. Indeed, I agree that it is most important that we should emphasise—and I think that our speeches have emphasised it—that this House has sole control over its constitution and its composition.
  The advice of the Privy Council did not conclude the matter, and the seat was only vacated when this House by Resolution so decided. The difficulty about reciting that in relation to the action of the House of Commons here was that similar action had not been taken by the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. We thought that to recite the Resolution in the case of one House, and not to recite it in the other, might give rise to doubts as to what the true legal position was. The point is important. I have always thought so. I hope that the House is prepared to give us all the stages of this Bill now, but I will undertake to see if we can find a suitable form of words to make the position of the House quite clear in regard to this matter and to make it apparent that it is not the advice—for it was no more than advice—of the Privy Council which concluded the matter, but the Resolution of the House.
  That leads me to the second point, namely that there has never previously been a Bill, it is said, which has indemnified a Member who has voted whilst the question of the qualifications of his membership was sub judice. I have a very strong view myself about the good taste of the advice given to Mr. MacManaway to sit and vote on the occasion of the Steel debate whilst this matter was still sub judice before the Privy Council.
  But, dealing with the matter purely on legal grounds, we cannot have it both ways. If the seat was only vacated by the Resolution of the House then, from a legal point of view, Mr. MacManaway was entitled to sit until the House had
  1904
  resolved that the seat was vacant. That, indeed, was the Ruling which you gave, Mr. Speaker, and I must confess, if I respectfully may, as I indicated in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, that I was rather cross about it at the time. I thought, with great respect, that that Ruling could not be right; but I looked it up subsequently and I was satisfied that legally that Ruling was right.
  In fact, there are many precedents where individuals have voted, although proceedings were pending against them in the election court as to the validity of their election. From the legal point of view, Mr. MacManaway's right having been challenged and having been upheld by Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we can possibly say that he acted wrongly, in point of law. Whether it was a matter of good taste or not is, of course, an entirely different point. I feel, like my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that we ought not to be too hard on Mr. MacManaway about this.
  If one of us had been in a similar position—new back benchers advised and summoned by the Leader of our party and the Chief Whip of our party to sit and to vote on what the party regarded as a critical Division—in fact regarded by Mr. Speaker as being entitled to sit and to vote on that critical Division—I am not sure that we should have been strong-minded enough to assert our own view of the good taste of the matter against the view of the Leader of the party and the Chief Whip of the party, when the consequence of not voting might have resulted in the defeat of our party on something that we regarded as important. I do not know whether we should have been strong-minded enough to say, "Well, as a matter of good taste we are not going to come here and vote on it while this matter is sub judice." I do not think that we should take too harsh a view.
  Mr. Moeran: While my right hon. and learned Friend is on that point, would he deal with a question not of law but of the etiquette and custom of the House? I am sure that we should all welcome his remarks as to whether there was a breach of the established etiquette and custom of the House, apart from a breach of law.
  The Attorney-General: I cannot pretend, in the few years that I have been a Member of this House, to have become

  1905
  an authority on its etiquette and customs. It is right to say that in the previous Parliament we had a number of Bills of indemnity, and the Members concerned did not sit and vote, once it was brought to their notice that they were disqualified, until a Bill indemnifying them had been passed. But, of course, those were cases where there was no doubt whatever about the disqualification. There was a great deal of doubt about disqualification in this case until the Privy Council had given their decision about it. I do not think that I ought to say more about it than that.
  There have been a number of cases in the past—in the more distant past—where Members have sat and voted when there were actual proceedings going on in the courts at the time. I think that it would be better not to sit and vote in those circumstances; but if one were asked to sit and to vote by the leader of one's party and the Chief Whip, are we all prepared to cross our hearts and to say that we should disobey that request? I do not know. Hon. Members must answer that question for themselves.
  There was a point of great substance raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale). He said that the legal position was that if a manifestly disqualified candidate was elected, an election court might declare the next candidate on the poll to be the Member, and might regard the votes given to the manifestly disqualified candidate as having been deliberately thrown away. There certainly is authority for that proposition.
  I would agree with my hon. Friend at once that it is conceivable that if, after the election of Mr. MacManaway to either House—either the Northern Ireland House or this House—the defeated candidate, who in the case of this House was Mr. Beattie, had brought an election petition, he might have persuaded the election court to hold that the votes cast for Mr. MacManaway were thrown away on the ground that everybody ought to have known, indeed must be presumed to have known, that ordained clergymen of the Irish Church were disqualified. That is a singularly artificial presumption, in view of the fact that we did not know that in this House, and that the prevalent legal view at the time was in fact that he was not disqualified at all.
  1906
  It is possible that an election court might have taken that view. Even so, I would think it clearly unreasonable that a person for whom at the time the electors, by a majority, manifestly did not want to vote, should be returned as a Member of this House on a mere technicality. As far as I know, it never occurred to Mr. Beattie, or to anybody else at that time, to bring an election petition or to challenge the validity of Mr. MacManaway's election. The time for bringing an election petition has long since passed, and I know of no way, except by the decision of an election court, by which the seat could properly have been awarded to Mr. Beattie.
  As the jurisdiction of the election court was not invoked, the matter was entirely at large for the House of Commons to do what it thought right. In the circumstances, in my view, the only possible course for the House of Commons of the United Kingdom to adopt was the one which in fact we deliberately decided to adopt. That was the course of declaring the seat vacant and issuing a writ for an election, in order that the constituents of Belfast, West, could decide who they wanted to represent them in a new election.
  That leads me to the second point which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, raised in regard to the question whether this House should have done the same in relation to the seat in the Northern Ireland Parliament. As to that, I have not taken the view—and I feel pretty confident that, in this respect at any rate, I am right—that it would be appropriate for this House to decide whether or not a particular Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament was qualified to sit as a Member of that Parliament or not. It is one thing to say, as the Statute does, that the same law as to qualifications will apply to Northern Ireland as it does in the rest of the United Kingdom; it is quite another thing to say that this House will be the tribunal which will apply that law to the Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
  It is fair, I think, in view of what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, to say that, at one stage in this matter, the Government of Northern Ireland took the view that this House

  1907
  ought by Resolution to declare that the seat in the Northern Ireland Parliament was vacant. I took the opposite view. I think it would lead to very grave misunderstandings, and hon. Members on this side of the House may see at once the kind of misunderstanding to which it would lead if we were to start to interfere in the internal affairs of the Northern Ireland Parliament and to say whether any particular Member was qualified to sit.
  The view which I expressed was that it was the duty of the Northern Ireland Parliament to apply the Statute law as passed by this Parliament and to enforce it in regard to any of their Members disqualified under that law. When I advised that course—and it is fair to say so—the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland agreed with me. I think it is reasonably clear that it was for the Northern Ireland Parliament to issue a writ for a new election, thereby declaring, in effect, that the seat was vacant. I understand that they have either done so or are about to do so. If they do not do it, it is, I suppose, open to any Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament to move for the issue of a new writ.
  What would happen if this House passed Resolutions about the matter? The moment that this Parliament interfered to declare that this constituency in the Northern Ireland Parliament was vacant, it would, no doubt, be represented by ill-disposed persons in Northern Ireland, if any such there be, that what had caused this vacancy was the disgraceful interference of the United Kingdom Parliament in Northern Ireland affairs, and I cannot imagine anything more calculated to influence the votes of the electors or to result in the election being conducted on issues which were not fair and proper issues at all.
  I am satisfied that, as a matter of proper procedure, the House of Commons in Northern Ireland is the sole master of its own constitution and composition in this matter, subject to this—that this House and the Northern Ireland House must apply the Statute law of the land. In the case of Northern Ireland, it has to apply the Statute law passed by the United Kingdom Parliament, but, in applying that law to any particular case and
  1908
  deciding whether a particular Member is qualified or not under that law of the United Kingdom, it is for the House of Commons of each country to decide whether the law applies or not to individuals in their House. That seems to me to be the right position.
  I have no doubt that, if the Parliament of Northern Ireland had taken steps to issue a writ for a new election and cause a new election to be held, that would have been much more in accordance with the democratic practice for each House to control its own composition, subject to the Statute law which binds it. Again, I think it is more in accordance with democratic practice that, where a disqualification of this kind arises, instead of producing an entirely technical result by declaring the next man on the poll to be the elected member, there should be a fresh election.
  Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend, but may I ask if he will be a little more explanatory and specific on this point of the relationship of the Parliament of this country to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, in connection with this case of disqualification, because, as I read the Title and the contents of this Bill, the effect of it will apply to the sitting or voting as a Member of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom or as a Member of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. If it is not intended that this double purpose should be achieved, why is that the specific wording of this Bill?
  The Attorney-General: That is intended. I am drawing a distinction between a Statute passed by this House and deliberately intended to apply to Northern Ireland and a Resolution of this House. We have no power to legislate for Northern Ireland by mere Resolution; indeed, we have generally no power to legislate for this country by mere Resolution. All we can do by Resolution of the House is to decide questions relating to our own composition and status and the qualifications of particular Members of our own House. What we can do, and what we have done, in regard to Northern Ireland, is to say, by the earlier Statute, that Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament must have certain qualifications or that they must not have certain disqualifications. What we have said, in

  1909
  effect, is that Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament should have exactly the same kind of qualifications as for the United Kingdom Parliament, but, having laid that down by Statute in this Parliament, it is for each House separately to decide on the application of that general Statute to the composition of its own Chamber, and I think it would be no more proper for us to pass Resolutions upon the qualifications of a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament than it would be for the Northern Ireland Parliament to pass Resolutions upon the qualifications of particular Members of this House. We can pass Statutes affecting Northern Ireland but not move Resolutions about their House of Commons matters.
  What we have decided to do is to pass a Statute, which we are entitled to do for the Northern Ireland Parliament as for any other part of the United Kingdom, which is a totally different matter. We are here, in agreement with the Northern Ireland Government, providing by Statute indemnification against breaches of the law which Mr. MacManaway may have committed in Northern Ireland, and that is a very different thing from attempting to deal with the question of whether he was qualified or not by a mere Resolution of this House.
  This is an indemnity Bill, and, while we have had a good deal of criticism of Mr. MacManaway and some of his friends—and I must say that some of them have asked for criticism—we can, I think, afford to be generous over this, and I agree with every word of what the hon. Member for Shettleston said about this matter in his moving speech. I think we ought to leave this matter in the limbo of past and forgotten things. I have had so many "bygones" in my career that I am a firm believer in letting bygones be bygones. Moreover, when the Select Committee of this House reported on the question of Mr. MacManaway, they reported that he was entitled to sit, and that any doubt about the law should be cleared up by passing a declaratory Bill. The Government advised the House not to follow that advice. We suggested that this matter should be sent to the Privy Council so that the existing state of the law—
  Mr. Bing: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend, but did he say that the Select Committee suggested a
  1910
  declaratory Bill, because I think that, if he looks at the Minutes of Evidence, he will find that such a proposal was put forward, but was not decided upon?
  The Attorney-General: I have not got the Report before me, but the Select Committee recommended that, if there was this doubt about the matter, it should be cleared up by a declaratory Bill which would result in Mr. MacManaway being entitled to sit.
  Mr. Bing: No. If my right hon and learned Friend will allow me, may I say that the position was that the proposal for such a Bill was withdrawn, as can be seen from the Minutes of Evidence. All that the Committee recommended was that the matter should be cleared up by legislation, but they did not say whether the legislation was to be disqualifying or qualifying.
  Professor Savory: Surely the words are these:
  "Your Committee, therefore, recommend to the House that immediate legislative action be taken to clarify the law."
  The Attorney-General: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would be so kind as to let me have a copy of it?
  Professor Savory: Certainly.
  The Attorney-General: The Committee dealt with the legal views and said that there was a conflict in the matter. They finally agreed:
  "Your Committee feel with the Attorney-General that the arguments on both sides of the question are evenly balanced, and are unable to come to a unanimous conclusion on their merits. Your Committee, therefore, recommend to the House that immediate legislative action be taken to clarify the law."
  My hon. Friend is quite right to that extent, although I do not think there was much doubt at the time that the intention was to clarify the law in an affirmative sense. Certainly, when we considered the Report, we decided to advise the House to take a different view. We thought that the proper course was not to clarify the law by a Bill declaring that the clergy of the Irish Church were not disqualified—and I said so in the clearest terms—but, first, to ascertain what was the law, and then to decide whether we wanted to alter it.
  The House was persuaded to take that view, but it took that view on an express

  1911
  undertaking which I gave that, if the Privy Council came to the conclusion that Mr. MacManaway was disqualified during the interval, we would introduce in this House a Bill to indemnify him from any consequence of it. I think that at that time the whole House agreed that that was a fair course. We were going to submit the matter for the advice of the Privy Council, and it was only right that, as we were taking that view and inviting the House not to accept the view of the Select Committee, we should undertake that if the view of the Privy Council turned out to be contrary to the one canvassed before the Select Committee, a Bill of Indemnity should be introduced. Here is the Bill of Indemnity on the promise of which the matter was sent to the Privy Council. I hope that the House will now feel that it is possible to give it a Second Reading, and, indeed, with the leave of the House, that we may get it through its other stages this evening.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bowden.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  FIRE SERVICES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.25 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a short Bill, and I believe it to be a non-controversial Bill. Its purpose is to amend two Sections of the Fire Services Act, 1947, which relate to firemen's pensions. As the House will remember, the 1947 Act was an interesting example of de-nationalisation. It brought the National Fire Service to an end and placed the fire brigades under the control of the county councils and the councils of county boroughs.
  The general administrative provisions of the 1947 Act have, on the whole, worked well, and whereas there are, of course, some improvements which have
  1912
  been suggested, my right hon. Friend would not have submitted this Bill to the House this evening had it not been for a special difficulty which has arisen, the fact that the pensionable status of some members of fire brigades is in doubt. They believe, and the employing authorities believe, that they are earning pensions when it is probable that they are mistaken.
  I am sure the House will agree that this is a matter which should be put right at once, and that is the main purpose of this Bill. I say "the main purpose," because we have taken the opportunity of the Bill to suggest to the House one or two minor Amendments in the pensions Sections of the Act. I should say at once that the local authority associations have been consulted, and that they agree to the Amendments proposed in this Bill. Two Sections are concerned. Section 26 is the one which empowers my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a Firemen's Pension Scheme by order. Subsection (2) contains a number of paragraphs detailing the various matters which may be covered by the Scheme, and subsection (5) gives power to vary the Scheme by subsequent orders.
  Section 27 is the one which has led to the difficulty to which I have referred. It provides that, as regards members of fire brigades, the Firemen's Pension Scheme shall have effect to the exclusion of any other statutory pension provisions. This provision about exclusion from other pension enactments would cause no difficulty at all if all members of fire brigades were covered by the Firemen's Pension Scheme, but they are not. A fireman's job, as we all know, is an extremely hard and exacting one, and, because of this, his pension arrangements are much more liberal than those of a more sedentary worker.
  For instance, a man of 55 who has had 30 years' service can retire on a full pension of two-thirds of his pay. Because they are so liberal, these pension arrangements are restricted to those members of fire brigades who are, in the words of Article 43 of the Scheme, "appointed on terms under which they are or may be required to engage in fire-fighting." There are, however, some members of fire brigades employed on ancillary duties, for instance, men and women engaged in control duties, who are not liable for fire

  1913
  fighting duties, and are not, therefore, within the general scope of the Scheme.
  In 1948, when the Scheme was made, it was decided not to include in it a separate set of provisions for the non-fire fighting members of brigades. It was so decided for this reason. It was believed that the result would be that, as local government employees, they would come under the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, or the corresponding Scottish Act, or one of the various local Acts, and that, therefore, they would enjoy the same superannuation benefits as other men and women who are employed by local authorities.
  What has happened? In many cases local authorities have acted in the belief that this is the position. As a result the appropriate pension contributions both from the men and women and from the employing authorities have been paid into the superannuation fund.
  It may well be argued that the exclusion provisions in Section 27 (1) of the Fire Services Act, 1947, applies only to men and women who are in fact covered by the Firemen's Pension Scheme and, therefore, that those members of brigades employed on duties not involving any liability to fire fighting are not excluded from other pension enactments.
  I am sure that hon. Members who study the matter carefully will agree that this is not a safe assumption, and that the position of these people in regard to pensions is at best uncertain. Clause 2 of the Bill therefore amends Section 27 of the original Act in such a way as to legalise what was done under the Act and under various local acts which applied to these men and women.
  Clause 2(1) and the first part of Clause 2 (2) deal with the future. The second part of Clause 2 (2) deals with the past. The financial result of the change in the law effected by Clause 2 is that the pension contributions will be payable by the employing local authorities to the superannuation fund. These contributions will be in respect of between 900 and 1,000 men and women—it is difficult to estimate the exact figure—who do not now come under these Acts. As I have already explained, the pension contributions in question have already been paid in a number of cases under a misapprehension. Those
  1914
  contributions include these payments which this Bill legalises. The total local authority liability for contribution to pension funds will be about £20,000 a year and the annual charge on the 25 per cent. Exchequer Grant will, therefore, be about £5,000. The authority for these charges on the Exchequer Grant is in Clause 3.
  I have already explained that since legislation was necessary for the purpose I have just described opportunity has been taken to make one or two minor improvements in the pension provisions in Section 26 of the original Act. These minor amendments are in Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 1 (1) and (2) will give the Home Secretary power, which Section 26 of the 1947 Act does not appear to give at present, to consolidate the order made under the section embodying the Firemen's Pension Scheme and any subsequent orders which have been made amending the Scheme.
  There have been a number of amendments. Hon. Members will appreciate that in 1948 when the new fire brigades came into existence it was to be expected that the earlier careers of the members would vary widely in character. As a result the Firemen's Pension Scheme is complicated, particularly as regards provisions for counting earlier service as pensionable service. In the years since 1948 points have arisen which need amendment.
  Consolidation would simplify the scheme, particularly as a number of points covered in earlier orders were merely transitional and need not be included in any consolidation. Of course, any consolidation under Section 26 (6) of the 1947 Act would have to be approved by the Treasury; and the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales and for Scotland respectively would have to be consulted. Clause 1 (3) is concerned with small drafting amendments to Section 26 (2) of the 1947 Act.
  This is not a very exciting or interesting Bill possibly, but it is important, especially to those men and women covered by Clause 2, and I commend it to the House.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. R. V. Grimston: As the Under-Secretary of State has said, this is not a very exciting Bill, but at first sight it is a very difficult one to understand and I should like to thank him for

  1915
  the way he has explained it. There are two points which arise out of the Bill which I should like him to comment on if he will, later, by leave of the House.
  The Bill appears to provide for two things. One is consolidation. We are all entirely agreed about that. The other is to clear up the anomaly to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I think I am right in saying it was the intention of the 1947 Act that members of fire brigades engaged on ancillary duties should continue their existing pension arrangements as, under that Act, they would be excluded from the Firemen's Pension Scheme.
  As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, under the Scheme which has been introduced, fire fighters alone are embraced and the definition of a fireman in the regulations is someone who is liable to be called upon to be engaged actually in fire-fighting. It appears, therefore, that the ancillary employee in the fire brigade service has fallen completely between two stools. He is not a fire fighter under the regulations and he cannot carry on with his present pension arrangements because doubts have been cast on the legality of that. The Home Secretary, therefore, has introduced these regulations to clear up that point.
  As far as we go, that is all right, but there may be some authorities—the hon. Gentleman will tell us if there are—who, owing to the doubt which has been cast upon the legality of continuing their schemes for non-fire-fighting members of their fire service, may have wound up their schemes. In such a case a man will now be faced with the position that when the scheme is restarted he has to pay back contributions or has to give up certain benefits.
  Clause 2 (3) refers to the fact that any person who would be liable to pay contributions can give one month's notice, presumably, of his intention not to pay. It seems to me that some injustice may arise here. A member of a fire brigade in this position may be suddenly faced with having to pay back contributions for a benefit of which he would never have been deprived had not this mistake arisen in the drafting of the 1947 Act and in the regulations. It seems to me that there is a case for consideration whether, in those circumstances, such a person should be credited with contributions.
  1916
  We have the same psychological approach here as that at the introduction of P.A.Y.E., when it became apparent that it would be very difficult to collect Income Tax at the end of the year. P.A.Y.E. was introduced to deal with the problem so that small contributions could be made at regular intervals. Here, for the same reason, if, through the abrogation of the scheme, anybody is called upon to pay back contributions there is a case of hardship and a case for the Home Secretary to inquire whether those contributions for which the man might now become liable should be credited to him.
  That is the one point of substance I wish to raise on the Bill, but there is another small point I might mention. It concerns our procedure. The introduction of these regulations is subject to the negative Resolution procedure in Parliament and, having regard to the fact that this amending Bill widens the scope of the schemes the Home Secretary might introduce, I suggest that it would be a good thing to see whether an affirmative Resolution should be substituted when future schemes are introduced. Apart from those two points, however, I agree that the Bill is not controversial and is certainly necessary.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. Hylton-Foster: I wish to emphasise a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston). Back contributions are certainly a burden in these days. Every hon. Member knows what a trouble it is for people to pay back contributions of P.A.Y.E. when the Income Tax rates are changed. The reason is that there is nowadays no margin for anybody to save anything. As a consequence, back contributions are a considerable burden.
  I hope the Under-Secretary will consider two problems. First, there is the position of the man who does not elect to be excluded. Not only will he be called upon to pay back contributions, but he will already have paid contributions which he cannot recover. For the privilege of correcting the Secretary of State's errors of drafting, if I may put it that way, and in consequence of the blunders made in drafting the Act, he is mulcted twice: first, in respect of contributions he has paid and cannot recover and, second, in respect of back contributions he will be required to pay to enter the scheme.

  1917
  I hope the Under-Secretary of State will consider that matter so that it may be put right before the Bill goes further. It is, of course, a Bill which everyone supports.
  Would the Under-Secretary also consider whether one month's notice is long enough? Experience so far has been that every period of notice laid down by the statute or the regulations has had to be doubled. That is not surprising. Anybody who has to read and study the masses of small printing in these regulations would have the greatest difficulty in deciding for himself, I suggest, whether it would be to his advantage to elect one way or the other. It is a complicated matter, tiresome even for a professional lawyer. I suggest to the Under-Secretary that it would be much better to give a longer period of notice.
  For my part, I support the Bill. We all agree that the life of the fireman is harsh and uncertain and even if he can obtain a full pension at a relatively early age, who are we to complain about that? We do not have the charming task of climbing long ladders to rescue flaming femininity from the top floor window, or the less gallant but not less difficult task of slipping into one's trousers and sliding down a slippery pole at one and the same time.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. John Hay: Passions will not run high on this Bill, I am sure, and I want to make some further comments on the points made by my hon. Friends. I feel that it is about time something was done to assist the non-professional fireman and I wonder whether the consolidated scheme which it intended to introduce when the Bill is passed will include some kind of provision for the voluntary fireman.
  In many rural towns in the country there are small non-professional bodies of firemen—ordinary citizens, normally engaged in all kinds of other work who, as soon as the bell rings or the siren sounds, are prepared to drop their work to man the fire-engine and to put out the fire often, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) pointed out, at considerable risk to themselves. These people do a first-class job. They are carrying out voluntary service for the community in the very highest
  1918
  sense of the term, and I have not the slightest doubt that if any hon. Member was asked to carry out the same duties for the same remuneration he would show great hesitation before he did so.
  I understand that there are only three types of remuneration which the voluntary fireman receives. The first is an absurdly small retaining fee for the year. The second payment is a sum which he receives if he is called out to attend a fire. Finally, I believe he also receives an additional sum for being at the fire—so much per hour. One might say, as a consequence, that he has a vested interest in the fire continuing as long as possible, although I know that that is not the case.
  In my opinion, therefore, something should be done to safeguard the interests of these people as much as possible. I do not ask the Under-Secretary necessarily to answer me at once, but I hope he will give the matter further consideration and see whether some system of pensions cannot be introduced for these voluntary firemen, who do a first-class job throughout the country at great risk to themselves and for very little pay. Many of these men run a serious risk of personal injury when they carry out these duties. We might have to consider the case of a man who is in highly paid employment. If he is injured, he might be out of employment for a long time and receive very little compensation—nothing at all comparable to what he would have earned in his ordinary employment.
  Apart from those points, I wish the Bill well. I think it is overdue and I hope we shall give it a speedy passage through the House.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. de Freitas: With the permission of the House, I would like to reply, quite briefly. On a small technical Bill like this it is difficult to discuss such points as these without dealing with what are really Committee matters. So far as the point about back contributions is concerned, the Bill allows the fireman to elect to be excluded. No doubt arrangements could be made for him to pay the back contributions in instalments. That does not meet the point put by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster), however, and we shall have to consider that matter.

  1919
  The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston) suggested that there should be an affirmative Resolution. I should not like to answer that at the moment, but should like first to consider it. So far as voluntary firemen are concerned, their case would not, of course, be appropriate for consolidation because it is not covered by the present laws.
  Mr. Hay: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The first clause of the Bill gives the Home Secretary power to introduce a consolidated set of regulations. I was merely asking that when he does so he should also consider whether the regulations ought to contain something to deal with voluntary firemen as well as something to deal with the professional firefighter and the ancillary firefighter.
  Mr. de Freitas: I will study the position of the voluntary fireman. I was distressed to find that he might have a vested interest in the continuation of a fire, although I do not think that is a serious point, nor did the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). I will certainly look into the problem which he explained.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.

  FIRE SERVICES [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees) [King's Recommendation signified].
  [Colonel SIR CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend sections twenty-six and twenty-seven of the Fire Services Act, 1947, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable under any enactment out of moneys so provided which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session amending those sections—

  (i) in respect of employment which is treated for the purposes of the Firemen's Pension Scheme as if it were employment as a member of a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of the said Act of 1947; or

  1920

  (ii) in respect of the exclusion of statutory pension schemes other than the Firemen's Pension Scheme in relation to employment as, or treated as aforesaid as employment as, a member of a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of that Act;

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums required by the said Act of the present Session to be so paid.—[Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas.]

  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS (9th APRIL)

    MINERAL WORKINGS
    Resolution reported:
    That, under any Act of the present Session to establish a fund for financing the restoration of certain land used for working ironstone by opencast operations, and to make provision for certain other purposes:—

    1. There shall be charged any increase in the sums payable by way of development charge under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session;

    2. There shall be paid into the Exchequer any sums required by the said Act of the present Session to be so paid—

    (a) by the Minister of Local Government and Planning out of the Ironstone Restoration Fund established thereunder;

    (b) by the Central Land Board under section sixty-eight of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.

  MINERAL WORKINGS [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a fund for financing the restoration of certain land used for working ironstone by opencast operations, and to make provision for certain other purposes, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) The issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required by the said Act of the present Session to be so issued—

  (a) in respect of contributions payable under the said Act to the Minister of Local Government and Planning out of payments falling to be paid in pursuance of section fifty-eight of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, in respect of certain interests in land, and interest on such contributions;

  (b) in respect of sums paid into the Exchequer by the Central Land Board under section sixty-eight of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, in pursuance of any provision of the said Act of the present Session;

  1921
  and the application of sums paid into the Exchequer as aforesaid in the redemption or repayment of debt or, in so far as they represent interest, in the payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.

  (2) The raising of money by the Treasury, in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, for the purpose of providing sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund as mentioned in paragraph (1) of this resolution, or of providing for the replacement of sums so issued.

  (3) The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any administrative expenses of the Minister of Local Government and Planning under the said Act of the present Session (including remuneration or allowances paid to the members of any committee thereunder) and any other expenses of his under that Act—

  (i) in making advances to the Ironstone Restoration Fund established under that Act;

  (ii) in making contributions to the said Fund at the rate of three farthings for each ton of ironstone in respect of which contributions are payable by operators under that Act;

  (iii) in paying compensation for damage or disturbance caused in the exercise of powers of entry conferred by that Act;

  (b) any administrative expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the said Act of the present Session and any other expenses of his under that Act—

  (i) in acquiring or in managing or farming worked ironstone land;

  (ii) in paying compensation for damage or disturbance caused in the exercise of powers of entry conferred by that Act;

  (c) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport (other than expenses incurred in the construction or improvement of high ways) under the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the temporary stopping up or diversion of highways, and any sums payable into the Road Fund for the purpose of defraying expenses of that Minister which are payable out of that fund by virtue of the said provisions;

  (d) any payments required to be made by the Central Land Board in pursuance of the said Act of the present Session in respect of expenses incurred in complying with conditions of planning permission for the winning and working of minerals, and any payments required by the said Act to be made by the said Board into the Exchequer under section sixty-eight of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947;

  (e) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948.

  LIME SUBSIDY SCHEME
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Turton: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Scheme, dated 22nd March, 1951, entitled the Agricultural Lime (Amendment) Scheme, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 513), a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th March, be annulled.
  The history of this matter, which is of importance to agriculture, is that in 1937 Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, then Minister of Agriculture, brought in a scheme for giving producers a subsidy on the lime they used on their land. That operated throughout the war, and the present Government, when they came into power, very wisely, in my view, continued that scheme; and in 1947 they added to it by giving a subsidy of half of the cost of spreading the lime. We have had that subsidy on spreading lime now for three full years, and it has had very beneficial results. As a result, up to this year more lime has been spread each year, more machines have been used, and more mechanical spreading of lime has been carried out.
  On 22nd February the Minister of Agriculture announced a change of policy. He decided that he must go back to the pre-war plan, merely giving subsidies on lime and transport, and discontinue the subsidy on the spreading of lime. At the same time, he took other similar action with the subsidies on fertilisers for grassland. He compensated for that by agreeing that the effects of the discontinuance of these two subsidies and certain other subsidies should be taken into account during the February price review.
  I think it is quite clear, if hon. Members will study the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, that the discontinuance of these two subsidies was designed to take effect after the end of spring cultivation, in the case of the spreading of lime, and in the case of the grassland fertilisers, from 1st July, so that the summer grass might receive fertilisers this year under subsidy arrangements. The unfortunate thing in this matter, of course, has been the weather. In fact, spring cultivation had not in many places been begun on 31st March, when the discontinuance of subsidy for the spreading of lime operated. The complaint I make to the House is that the Minister should not, in view of these

  1923
  weather conditions, have introduced this subsidy discontinuance on 21st March, but should have delayed it.
  I put down a Question to the Minister on this very subject on 5th April, and I think it is important that the House should study the Minister's answer to my request that this subsidy should remain in being until 31st May in order to allow farmers to carry out the contracts which they had entered into with their merchants and get this lime spread on the land. The Minister, in his reply, said he could not do that, and said, as a reason:
  "Unfortunately, we could not foresee what the weather conditions were likely to be when the Order was made on 23rd March, 1951."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 376.]
  If I may correct the Minister, the Order was, in fact, made on 20th March, 1951. However, I do not think that that is really material to the main point.
  I suggest to the House that it was abundantly clear to the Minister on 20th March that the chosen date, 31st March, was far too early in view of the weather conditions. I should have thought that it would have been sufficiently clear to him by 22nd February when he made his announcement to the House. But in the intervening 30 days there has been a record for March rainfall—a rainfall I believe unparalleled in this century of our history. The position is, going by the statistics that we can collect, that the rainfall in the first three months of this year has been 13.3 inches, compared with 8.8 inches last year and 5 inches, which is the normal rainfall for the first three months of the year, in 1948.
  The effect of the Minister's action in this matter has been disastrous. I believe that the figure of the amount of lime that has been spread up to 31st March—the Minister will, I think, agree—is 500,000 tons less than it was last year. Everybody connected with this branch of agriculture was expecting that the figures would be greater than last year, and, indeed, the Minister had so budgeted in his Budget estimates. Therefore, we have a picture of countryside where no work has been done and where the lime should be put on the land but has not been put on the land, which
  1924
  is going to have, unless remedied, very serious results for agriculture.
  What has happened in the last three weeks? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us greater details. Farmers, owing to the discontinuance of this subsidy, have everywhere been abandoning their contracts. Their contracts are based on figures which took in an element for the subsidy, which is, in fact, usually 5s. per ton on burnt lime and 3s. 6d. per ton on other lime. As a result of the Minister's Order, which, I hope, he will change, these contracts are being thrown over. I know in the East Riding of Yorkshire of one trader alone who has had contracts of 1,000 tons thrown over in the last few weeks—which will, I think, show that 50 per cent. of the contracts for lime in the East Riding outstanding have now been revoked. In the Midland counties 50 per cent. of the contracts for spreading of lime have been cancelled in the last three weeks.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): Contracts for lime or lime spreading?
  Mr. Turton: For spreading lime. In Cumberland, 600 tons have been cancelled in the last few days with one trader. In North-West Yorkshire 100 tons have been cancelled. In the Home Counties the position is rather different. There 5 per cent. of the contracts have been cancelled. I have been working in the last two days finding out that evidence. It is not easy evidence to get, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will give us further details of what is happening in other parts of the country.
  I think what is quite clear is that a very grave situation is developing owing to the fact that this order has been wrongly dated. I am not arguing against 22nd February decision. That is past history. Whether it was right or wrong is not for me to argue tonight, because the effect of it has been taken into account in the February Price Review. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to argue against that.
  I hope the Minister will realise that in that February Price Review it was assumed that this lime would have been spread. In other words, farmers are having to shoulder an extra burden of

  1925
  something like £90,000 as a result of the weather conditions and the early date of this order, but the hardship is not evenly spread throughout the country and I have been at pains to try to find out the position in that respect. I have been put in a little difficulty, because, while, normally, the figures supplied by the Ministry for what lime has been spread in the months always come out on 16th or 17th of each month, for some reason, of which I am not aware, in this particular month it has been varied so that they are not available to the farmers or to the trade today; for a curious reason they are two days late.
  Therefore, I must confine my figures to January and February of this year, the two current months, and compare that with the previous year. In my own district of the six Northern counties of England, in these two months last year 200,000 tons of lime were spread on the land. This year the figure has dropped to 128,000—a shortfall of something like 72,000 tons. But that is very uneven. In my own county the figures have dropped from 26,000 tons to 16,000 tons, yet in a county like Westmorland, which normally enjoys a very heavy rainfall at this and other times of the year, more lime was, in fact, spread in those two months than in the same two months in the previous year. That shows how very uneven has been the effect of the untimely withdrawal of this subsidy. Looking at the position in the other areas, we find in the Eastern area that the drop has been from 124,000 tons spread to 80,000 spread—a drop of about 50 per cent. For a county like the Isle of Ely the drop has been from 8,600 tons to 4,400 tons.
  I believe that the effect of this mistake on the part of the Minister—and I believe it is a mistake—is most clearly seen in the West of England. There, in the county of Somerset, the spreading this year has been only 20 per cent. of what they normally spread in the first two months of the year. Those of us who travel about the country realise that a great deal of this land is waterlogged, and that it is impossible not only to put the lime on the land but to get the lime wagons on to the farm. It is for that reason that I ask the Minister to reconsider this order, which is unfair to agriculture and is causing uneven hardship throughout the country. I ask him to withdraw this Order,
  1926
  and, later, to introduce a new order discontinuing this subsidy, possibly from 31st May, or, as I believe the trade are asking, from 30th June or 31st July.
  8.4 p.m.
  Mr. Hurd: I beg to second the Motion.
  It is the view of many of us who are directly concerned with the farming industry that the Order which the Minister of Agriculture has made withdrawing the subsidy on the spreading of lime is both unseasonable and unreasonable. It has been Government policy right through from the war years until now—and a very wise policy—to encourage farmers to use more lime, and particularly to get economic working at the lime works to encourage farmers to apply this lime to the land during the winter months.
  Obviously, it is desirable to spread the load of getting lime, getting it transported and distributed on to the land. Fortunately, there has sprung up the practice of the suppliers of lime spreading the lime that they bring to the farms for the farmer—a practice well liked, not only by farmers but by farm workers, because lime spreading can be a very uncomfortable and unpleasant job. Therefore, the arrangement of the subsidy covering not only the actual lime but the spreading of it on the ground has suited all sections of the agricultural community, and I would stress that it has been an agreed policy for a good many years that as much of this lime as possible should be put down in the winter.
  In this Order, to which we object, the Minister brings to a sudden end the subsidy on the spreading of lime, and he has chosen a very strange date at which to apply this edict. Our farms, whether in the North or in the South, have been waterlogged from November until March. Indeed, the official rainfall figures show that between November and March in this immediate past winter, we have endured no less than 22 inches of rain as against 16 inches in the winter of 1949–50, and only 11 inches in the winter of 1948–49. It has been an exceptionally wet winter for all of us, and with the land waterlogged, as it has been, it has been impossible to get lime delivered to the farms, and, more particularly, to get it spread on the land.

  1927
  Now, of course, conditions are entirely different. I was at home on the farm this morning and it was a real delight to see everybody busy, and not only doing their cultivating and sowing but also applying lime. But these are jobs which should have been done in February and March, and which the Minister no doubt imagined were being done, and thought that the winter liming season would have been finished at its normal time by the end of March.
  In fact, this year it has happened differently, not through any fault of the farmers but because we have had this exceptional rainfall, and it has just not been possible to get on to the land. We now find that this particular form of assistance, the spreading subsidy, has been removed, and some farmers are put in a difficult position. It is a difficult position also for some merchants who have undertaken contracts to supply and spread lime, who now find that they must break that contract which they have made with their farmer customer because there is no longer this Government subsidy applying to the spreading of lime.
  The Minister of Agriculture told us last Thursday that he could not foresee, on 23rd March, when he said the Order was made, that the Order was so bad. Surely it is a matter of the Order having by that date been already so bad. It was obvious to anyone who had any close contacts with agriculture that the land just would not carry the lorries and distributors to apply the lime. It is very strange that the Minister did not know this. One wonders whether there are any windows in Whitehall out of which he could look to see that it was raining, and so realise what effect that must have on the land.
  Does no one in the Ministry of Agriculture read the reports which the Ministry publishes from time to time on farming conditions? I should like to refresh the Minister's mind on the wording of the report published by his Ministry on 9th April, 1951, under the heading "Weather Conditions." This is what the Ministry said:
  "The weather during March continued cold and wet. Frequent heavy storms, following the abnormal rainfall of the previous months, have resulted in considerable flooding and waterlogging in low-lying land."
  1928
  The Department of Agriculture for Scotland also publishes a monthly report on farming conditions, and no doubt the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland had an opportunity of studying this report. This is what St. Andrew's House said:
  "Weather, Frost, snow, sleet and rain hampered progress with ploughing and other outdoor work, which remained considerably in arrears."
  That is what the official reports said, one from Whitehall and one from St. Andrew's House, but Ministers, both in London and in Edinburgh, seem to have been sublimely unconscious of what was happening on the farms.
  It may be said that the Minister cannot be expected to follow what is happening in the farming world or to recognise the implications of changes in Government policy, and that he must be guided by the advice that is given to him by his officials, or possibly by the officials of the Treasury, who are anxious tidily at the end of the financial year to close this part of the lime subsidy. Surely it is the proper responsibility of the Minister to weigh tidiness, as put forward by his civil servants, backed no doubt by the Treasury, what will be the effect on the land and upon food production. I know that the present Minister has not the benefit of the liaison officers from the counties that the previous Minister of Agriculture had during the war, but he has contact with the county agricultural executive committees, and many other people upon whom he can call for advice.
  For example, the National Farmers' Union are not very far away from Whitehall. They are in Bedford Square. They were very close to Whitehall recently, and I should have thought that the Minister could have called upon Sir James Turner, or someone in close touch with farming conditions, and told him what he proposed. He might have looked though the window and said to Sir James: "It looks to me as though there has been a lot of rain. There are some puddles in Whitehall. Is this going to affect the farms? Will it mean that the lime which should have been applied to the land has not been applied?" He would have got a straight answer from the N.F.U., as he always does to any question he puts to them.
  This kind of practice from the Minister of Agriculture of going about blindfold

  1929
  and simply having regard to what is administratively tidy but not necessarily desirable in practice, brings the Minister into disrepute with farmers and with the merchants who have to supply farmers' requirements. That is unfortunate, because the Ministry of Agriculture earns good marks in comparison with other Ministries with whom farmers and other traders in the rural areas have to deal, but in this case it seems that the Minister did not have any practical advice about the steps that were proposed.
  I am not arguing whether the lime subsidy is good or bad or whether it should be continued indefinitely. I have my own views about farm subsidies generally, but this is not the proper time to expound them. We have to decide tonight, on this Prayer, whether it is reasonable for the Minister to cut off part of the subsidy at a moment when farmers have been unable to complete the lime-spreading operations of the winter season. I woud stress the point to the Parliamentary Secretary that some farmers have had the benefit of the subsidy in spreading their lime because they were in an area, possibly East Anglia, where they did not have the heavy rainfall that we had in the West, in Scotland and in Yorkshire.
  Some farmers have been fortunate. Winter ended earlier for them than for the rest of the country. In my own county of Berkshire we have been middling lucky and middling unlucky, so far as the application of lime is concerned. In February of this year we got 1,450 tons spread and in January 1,418 tons. Those two figures for February and January, 1951, run out at 2,800 tons, compared with 3,500 tons of lime applied to the land in Berkshire in February and January of 1950. So we have not been able to get through as much lime-spreading work in the present winter as we did in the previous winter.
  I would say to the Minister—and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will listen—that he can even now act reasonably. He cannot recover the mistake that he has made in fixing the date for the end of this lime-spreading subsidy, but he can act reasonably by accepting this Prayer and allowing the main Order to run on until the end of May. Then, if he thinks fit, he can bring forward this Order, which we say is unseasonable and
  1930
  unreasonable today. If he brings it forward in May we shall say: "Right. Everybody has had a fair chance to complete his liming operations for the winter season which has been unduly and exceptionally prolonged. We shall have no objection to the lime-spreading subsidy being cut off."
  I hope that the Minister will consider that suggestion. He will get pretty complete agreement on both sides of the House if he will withdraw this Order tonight, agree with us, and bring it forward in May, when we shall say: "We think you are doing quite rightly and reasonably."
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. Snadden: I want to add a word in support of what has been said, particularly with regard to Scotland. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary has just gone out of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I beg his pardon. I hope that he will not use his debating skill in order to exploit the position. He is a very good debater but I hope he is not going to fall back upon telling us that this matter has been taken into account in the price review and that the increased cost of spreading lime is being looked after there. The increased cost is taken into account in the review in respect of the period 1951–52 but the price review for 1950–51 did not include the increased costs which fall upon industry in consequence of the removal of the subsidy for spreading.
  There is another point which should be taken note of. Even if it were a fact that the removal of this subsidy had been taken into account in this year's prices, no account has been taken of the fact that very large schemes of land reclamation are in process at the present moment in Scotland for which for many years there will be no return in the form of prices for the lime that is being applied to the land. Therefore, these people are subject entirely to these increased costs. Although we may differ about this matter in this House, I do not think that any agriculturist would—
  Mr. G. Brown: I am not quite sure about the hon. Member's last point. He said that Scotsmen who have put the lime on and therefore have had the lime-spreading subsidy—which they would not have got if they had not put it on—had

  1931
  borne the whole cost. How can that be? They have had the subsidy, and they can have no complaint?
  Mr. Snadden: What I am saying is that the reclaiming of land which has been broken up and spread with lime will not be reflected in the price review for a considerable number of years.
  Mr. Brown: The farmers have had the subsidy.
  Mr. Snadden: They have not got the subsidy.
  Mr. Brown: Yes, they have.
  Mr. Snadden: It is being taken away because they have not put the lime on their land yet. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has followed my point. We are all agreed about the need for liming from the point of view of soil fertility and putting bone into cattle. Scotland has a very high proportion of marginal and poor land. Some 10 per cent. of our farms are marginal farms, and there is an enormous need for lime to be applied to them. The figures for Scotland reflect a very substantial response to the land fertility scheme of 1937, which was amended in 1947. In 1938–39 we applied 234,000 tons and in 1949–50 the application of lime had increased by 40 per cent. These figures are taken from the Report of the Department of Agriculture for 1950.
  An increased subsidy was made available for spreading in 1947. The main problem of farmers at present is how to keep down the cost of production while at the same time maintaining soil fertility. The figures I have just given show that the assistance given in 1947 has proved a very valuable incentive for the application of large quantities of lime all over the country. We are not asking for the revocation of the Order, but merely for the postponement of its operation. The effect of the removal of the subsidy will be to raise costs and discourage farmers from applying lime, especially to the poorer land; and the marginal areas are the areas from which we expect to receive the major impetus in our expansion programme.
  We are merely asking the hon. Gentleman to postpone the operation of the Order because of the abnormal weather conditions which we have suffered. I
  1932
  have been farming for the best part of 30 years, and, with one exception, I do not remember a year when we have had to put up with more appalling conditions. We had a frightful harvest. In Scotland the hay stood out until well into November. That has, however, proved to be very valuable to the hill farmers, even though it was what we call "badly got," because it could still be sent to the hill farms, and today it is keeping the hill herds in the glens "ticking over" in the middle of blizzards and snow storms. That was followed by one of the worst springs we have ever known.
  It amuses me when I hear people talking about efficiency and saying that our lime should be spread by this time. I thought I was efficient, but I am beginning to think I have been extremely inefficient. I got my lime early, and it is spread on the land, but if I had been sensible I should have held up the spreading because probably hundreds of tons of the lime that I put on my farm have been washed down the drains. If I had waited until now and got my lime delivered direct to my fields and had it spread immediately by a contractor—as the efficient farmer does—I should probably have been a good deal more efficient. If it is true, as the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) says, that agriculture has been "feather-bedded," all I can say is that this year the feather bed is extremely wet.
  This is the crux of the issue. The good farmer spreads by contract. He cannot store his lime for the winter because he requires the space to store ordinary fertilisers like sulphate of ammonia, superphosphates, and so on, and so the majority of farmers have their lime brought to the fields direct and spread immediately. I do not know anyone in my part of the world who has been able to do anything at all on the land since Christmas, and the Order will be extremely hard on many farmers who placed their contracts in the autumn for the delivery of lime but told the contractors to postpone the delivery of the lime as it could not be spread, because they will now lose the subsidy on the spreading which would normally have taken place.
  The removal of the assistance will hit the small man more than anyone else. The small man does not have the machinery to spread lime on his land, and in any event this year no farmer will have

  1933
  the time to do it now because he will have to crowd into one month the work of three months. The small farmers who had arranged a contract for the delivery of the lime to their fields and for its spreading by a contractor will be penalised unless the lime was delivered before 31st March.
  The Minister ought to have realised the effect of the removal of the subsidy. I cannot imagine anybody in his senses not realising months ago that this would be one of the worst seasons we have experienced. The land has remained waterlogged throughout the winter, and if the soil is heavy clay—many acres of our land are—it takes a long time to dry out. I should have thought that the Minister would realise that by bringing forward such an Order he would be penalising producers in many areas of the country who are doing their best.
  I ask him seriously to consider the reasonable plea put forward by my hon. Friend, simply to postpone the operation of this Order. We are not asking for it to be abolished, but for a reasonable chance to be given to men who are attempting to do their best in the national interest and who are today facing ever-increasing costs. Surely it is not impossible even now for the Minister to reverse the decision and so allow these people to get the benefits others have had.
  8.29 p.m.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I will not detain the House long, but I want to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that so far as the Isle of Ely is concerned we have spread only half the lime we spread last year. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) said later, I can assure the House that we have had a winter in East Anglia which has certainly been the worst for a long time, probably within living memory. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), who I see in his place, will bear that out. I am sure.
  To give some indication of how backward we are with the programme this year, only last week I was talking to a senior member of the sugar beet industry who told me that, normally, by this time of the year over 10,000 acres are sown in the district of the Ely factory and that only 600 had been sown by the
  1934
  beginning of last week. Obviously, from the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for the Isle of Ely for January and February, of 8,600 tons last year and only 4,400 this year, we rank for as much consideration as the hon. Member for Newbury who, I thought, was trying to imply that Berkshire had had a worse winter than we had. If he had been to East Anglia, he would have known what a bad time we have had.
  This is not just a plea for the farmer alone. Cancelled contracts affect those industries which are ancillary to agriculture but which are essential to it, without which agriculture could not hope to carry on, and to which the farmers are anxious to play fair. I do not think it is out of spite that these contracts for spreading have been cancelled. It is far more likely that the farmers are so behind that they feel they will not be able to put the work in hand.
  That would have an effect which I should think the hon. Gentleman will want to bear in mind. That is, it would affect the fertility of our land, although probably only to a small degree. Let us not forget, however, that for nearly 10 years now we have been producing from our land as intensively as possible. If we ignore some process of our farming which ought to be done, which is designed to keep up the fertility of our land, we shall be making a great mistake.
  The trouble is that if we let it go for one year we may get into the habit and repeat that another year. We have already seen a tendency to overcrop in East Anglia, particularly in the Fen area, and to rely too much on artificials. However, perhaps this is not the place to debate a subject which Lady Eve Balfour would like to deal with, namely, whether we should dispense with artificials altogether. Most practical farmers would agree that we want a mixture of farm manure, lime and other fertilisers. All have a part to play in heartening the fertility of our land. Lime plays a specially important part and we should make a great mistake if we did not do everything possible to encourage farmers to put lime on their land this year.
  I am not quite certain why this Order has been introduced at this time. Considering the winter, considering the

  1935
  February Price Review, so far as it affects dairy farmers particularly, it can be said that farmers have had a rough winter both financially and physically. This seems to me to be almost adding insult to the injury which the weather had done them.
  It has been said in the House from time to time that one of the reasons why we are wedded to 1st April for so many things in this country is not so much the fact that we tend to be fools, but rather the fact that on one occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer was suffering from influenza on 31st December. Therefore, we have to have our financial year starting on 1st April.
  I cannot help feeling that one of the reasons why the Order has been introduced is because its date of operation happens to tally with the beginning of the financial year. I humbly suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the House that this is a matter which we must be careful not to allow to develop into the position where the convenience of the individual is overridden by the convenience of the State. If it is considered necessary—and I am sure that it is by the Government—that there should be a subsidy or that the subsidy should be taken care of inside the February Price Review, then if, purely for the sake of administrative convenience, we deny the right of any number of persons to take advantage of what is considered to be necessary, we are making the person subsidiary to the State. I still maintain that the State should exist for the convenience of individuals, no matter how few they are.
  I am not prepared even to estimate the number of farmers who are affected, but nevertheless just because it suits the Department better to have the Order introduced on 1st April and to run for a full year, that is no reason why we should not make quite certain that farmers who, through no fault of their own, have been delayed in having lime spread over their land, should be deprived of what other farmers have been allowed to get and which has been considered to be necessary for them.
  I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will agree to the proposal of my hon. Friend simply to delay the operation of the Order. One of these days we shall have to find some way of amending
  1936
  Orders instead of having always to reject the whole of an Order. How much simpler it would be if tonight we could amend merely the date of operation of the Order. As it is, we have to reject the whole thing, which means that the Department have to go through the rigmarole of representing it. In present circumstances, that is the only thing they could do. Let us hope that some day we can make small alterations to Orders, without wasting a great deal of the time of the Department or of the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be conciliatory in this matter and will delay the operation of this Order.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. Dye: I have listened with interest to most of the debate and I am sorry that I missed the opening speech of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). It seems to me that everybody now knows about the weather conditions and that farmers have experienced, perhaps, their worst season in preparing the land for crops for the coming year. This, obviously, will have a very big financial effect upon the incomes of the farming community. Many millions of pounds less will be received because of the smaller crops and the adverse effect also upon stocks.
  Therefore, if we look at the problem from the point of view of weather conditions on the farms, the amount of money that will be saved in the payment for the spreading of lime is infinitesimal and can-not be weighed in the balance. If, therefore, the Minister gave considerable notice that the subsidy on spreading would cease this year, and this was taken into account at the February Price Review, I cannot see where the argument arises.
  Mr. Turton: The hon. Member comes from Norfolk, which has not suffered over the withdrawal of the lime subsidy nearly as much as other counties. Norfolk had a short-fall of only 1,000 tons out of 30,000 tons in the first two months. The answer is that the benefit would go to the waterlogged counties, to people who have really suffered losses by the weather. That is why I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary not to help Norfolk, for instance, where conditions are favourable, but to help counties like Somerset.
  Mr. Dye: I do not know what the hon. Member knows about Norfolk. I came

  1937
  from Norfolk this morning. I was up on my farm at 6 a.m. and did a day's work before I came to the House, so I do know what I am talking about. I did not leave home until the afternoon and I drove all the way here. I know exactly what are the conditions in Norfolk and all the way up by road. It is quite true that adverse weather conditions in Norfolk have been as bad as in any other part of the country.
  Some hon. Members opposite are more used, of course, to adverse weather conditions in parts of Yorkshire and Scotland and they ought not to find it necessary to grumble so much about them. They have been brought up under those conditions and experienced them all their lives. Even under Conservative Governments there have been adverse weather conditions at times but in those days the farmers did not have the privilege of grumbling about a small subsidy being taken off because the subsidy was not there to be taken off.
  Hon. Members are trying to argue that contracts have been broken, and that if this Prayer is successful tonight, and the Order is withdrawn, the contracts will be carried out. The lime will be delivered and spread. If it has been delivered before 1st April it can be spread at any time within three or six months and it makes no difference to the subsidy. But if, now, instead of being delivered by 1st April a date in May is put in the Order by some means or other contracts entered into will be carried out and farmers, already harassed by arrears of work, will add to their work by spreading more lime, or having it spread for them.
  Surely, as soon as the farmer can get on his land he will get on with the essential job of cultivating. [Interruption.] Surely the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) is not going to interrupt. Only a few days ago he told the House that we did not want any more subsidies. He would like to see them all go and the guaranteed prices go with them; let us have a free scramble with high prices.
  To argue that we can alter the whole business and alter the February Price Review to bring it all in line with a new date does not seem to make sense. No one expected this type of subsidy to remain a permanent feature of British agriculture. Quite rightly, such subsidies were introduced as incentives to
  1938
  do the right thing by the land and to produce the crops and stock which the country needs. But we cannot go on for ever with a system of subsidies to induce farmers to do a certain thing. Good farmers ought to do the right thing, whether there is a subsidy or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "And stop it raining?"] Rain has come down, off and on, for centuries, and will do so long after we are dead. It cannot be argued that because of rain a farmer should have a subsidy. At some time in the year the farmer is glad to see rain.
  It is suggested that there should be an incentive to the seller of lime to go to the farmer and say, "If you will only buy 20 tons of lime from me the Government will pay half the price of the lime, and if I come and spread it they will also pay me for spreading it." We cannot go on along those lines because, clearly, it is possible for some of that lime to be wasted. The time should now have arrived when every farmer knows the value of lime and when his fields require it. If he does not he should go to the Agricultural Advisory Service and get them, not the lime merchant, to assist him.
  It is a good thing to remove some of these subsidies and for the Government, when they are removed, to take into account, when prices are being fixed in February, the over-all selling price of cattle and crops.
  Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member is pursuing a false hare. The argument here is not whether or not a subsidy should be taken into account in every price review, because that has already been done for the coming year, but whether those people who were not able to take advantage of the subsidy by the date the subsidy expired should be given an extension. That is the issue. I quite agree that there is a good deal of point in the argument the hon. Member has put forward in relation to the situation as it was before the last February Price Review, but let him not forget that some people have had the advantage of that, and we are trying to protect some who have not been able to have that advantage because of the weather.
  Mr. Dye: I have no false hair, and I am not pursuing a false hare. But as for saying that the weather has prevented

  1939
  some farmers from having their lime delivered, but has enabled others to have theirs delivered and that the latter will, therefore, get a subsidy, that will happen whatever the date may be at which the line is drawn.
  But who will get much advantage this year out of liming his land? Practical farmers—and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will know more about this the further he continues in his farming operations—know that liming is a long-term operation and that if their land is deficient of lime this year's crops will benefit very little if time is wasted in applying lime. Indeed, one will eventually lose in respect of one's crop in a year like this when speed in getting the land cultivated and the crops sown is essential.
  Therefore, I do not admit that there would be any advantage to farming now if this Order were withdrawn, and if more lime was delivered on to the farms and spread this year. I have had a good deal of experience of spreading lime. I have done it myself and have done so when very few others in the district did so. I have found that the best time in the interests of the farmer, is to get lime in the summer or early autumn. That is the time when one gets more lime and less moisture, and when it is more easily spread on the land and mixed in the soil.
  All those who have had a great deal of experience knows that is true. To deliver wet lime and try to mix it with wet soil does no good to the land. The lime cakes like putty and can be ploughed up many years afterwards, having been of no advantage to any crops that have succeeded its application. To take full advantage of lime one needs it as dry as possible and under dry conditions, and to spread it as evenly as possible over the areas which are deficient in lime.
  From a practical point of view, I can see nothing whatever to be gained by the farming community through the postponing of this Order. That being so, I fully support the Government's policy of reducing the number of direct subsidies which are provided as a kind of incentive to do something which ought to be done in the interests of good farming. Farmers should now be able to face up to this, and make full use of the agricultural advisory Service in treating their fields
  1940
  requiring lime. That should be the basis on which all this kind of work is done.
  I hope that we shall pursue a policy which the Minister announced some time ago—I have forgotten the exact date; it might be three months ago—when this spreading subsidy was terminated. Ample notice was given, and it does not seem to me to matter what month it was, because there will be some who got in before the end of the preceding month and some who were left out. I think it fair to take a particular date, and as the date was indicated some time ago I think the Order might stand.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. Fort: The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), comes from a very fortunate farming part of this country if he can look forward to long periods of summer weather dry enough to be able to spread his lime. He does not have to battle with the caggy, heavy conditions which, as the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) knows well, is the frequent misfortune of our farmers in Lancashire.
  Looking at the schedule supplied by the Agricultural Lime Department, it seemed to me that Norfolk had a very much lower requirement of lime per hundred acres—or on any other basis which hon. Members like to choose—than the lime-poor soil of Lancashire, where, along with the West Riding, we have the largest estimated lime requirement of any part of England. Indeed, it was because of the lime deficiency of much of Lancashire's soil that the whole scheme of subsidies for liming originated with the Lancashire branch of the National Farmers' Union, resulting in the first lime land fertility scheme of 1937. For that reason I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity of speaking this evening as one of the Lancashire Members who should certainly be concerned with the application of lime to our land.
  Since that scheme started, Lancashire farmers have taken the fullest possible advantage of it when the season allowed. In the 12 months ending 31st March, 1950, they had the heaviest application of lime of any county in England other than in the West Riding, where the geological and climatic conditions are similar to those in East Lancashire. The result of taking advantage of the subsidies for

  1941
  lime and lime spreading has been, as I think all concerned with Lancashire farming will agree, an extraordinary improvement in our pastures and in the general condition of grass, on which depends the milk production. This is far and away the most important of the agricultural products in East Lancashire. The past appalling winter started with us early in November and has continued until, I was about to say almost this very day—but certainly until last week-end when I was travelling round my constituency during a blizzard. As a result, the spreading of lime has fallen from an average of 18,000 tons for the first two months of 1950 to an average of 13,300 tons in the first two months of 1951, the last date for which I have comparable figures.
  It is by choosing these examples from various parts of England that we may be able to bring home to the Parliamentary Secretary the need for another Order so that for another two months our farmers can enjoy the spreading subsidy and get lime spread on the ground where, on many of the farms I know, it has been ever since last autumn. Despite what the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, says about his part of the world, it would still benefit much of our high grassland if we could get the lime spread even as late as this.
  Mr. Dye: Surely the Order provides for the lime to be delivered on to the farms by the end of March. If it is already on the farms, it could be spread later. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that it was on the farms. Surely, that is possible under this Order?
  Mr. Fort: I am sorry if I misled the hon. Gentleman. Of course, he is right. Where it is already on the ground, the farmer will get the subsidy. But as he will know, or as his hon. Friend the Member for Chorley could tell him, it has been impossible to get the lime up to many of the hill farms, because of the early winter which closed in at the beginning of November. It is to enable the lime to be delivered there now for spreading that I support the request that this subsidy should be enjoyed for another two months.
  It is an important subsidy, especially for small farmers. I am always in favour of subsidies which help to bring our land into better heart and to keep
  1942
  it in a good state of cultivation. The cost of spreading lime in my part of the country is about 5s. per ton. For proper and regular liming of our lime-deficient soils in East Lancashire, probably about 30 cwt. an acre would be needed. It would not be unfair to say that on the average farm of about 40 acres it would cost the farmer an extra £12 or so if he had to pay the full cost of spreading in this difficult year. It is for these reasons that I support the request of my hon. Friends that farmers should have another two months in which to enjoy this subsidy.
  8.59 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): We have had an interesting and not too short discussion, and I hope that the House will agree that it will be convenient if I now give the reasons which led the Government to take this course. Then, perhaps, we might be able to come to a decision. There has been a good deal of lack of perspective in much of the argument we have heard tonight. It is important to remember, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), that this spreading subsidy is a recent innovation and that it is a small part of the whole of the lime subsidy.
  There is no intention of taking off either the whole of the lime subsidy, or indeed the major part of it. I hope to show that the Estimates of my Department this year provide for as much to be spent on the lime subsidy in this year as has ever been spent before. Indeed, that total has only been reached once before and that was in a particularly good year. We are not reducing in the Estimates the total provision for this matter. What we are doing is to limit the provision to a figure of about six million tons and not to allow it to rise thereafter.
  The basic reason for that has not been touched on at all. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are able to play a very amusing Parliamentary game. I do not complain of it; I have no doubt that one day I may be able to play it myself—not in the near future, but some day. What they are able to do is to play the very amusing game of demanding one thing one week through one set of players and putting in a different team the following week in order to demand the opposite. We spent

  1943
  the whole of last week, with a different set of speakers for the Opposition, urging on the Government that they ought to be saving rather more money than they are doing now, and that they ought to be spending less. It will be within the memory of the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) declared that, though we were saving £130 million, we might very well save another £50 million on top of it.
  It is not mere perverseness on the part of the Ministry or the fact that the Minister does not know about the weather, but it is a fact that some economies in Government expenditure must be made by all Government Departments in order to deal with the problem of re-armament and so on. The Ministry of Agriculture, like all the others, has to make economies, and it is because of the importance which my right hon. Friend attaches to agriculture that the economy has been made in this way.
  Mr. Snadden: Surely we do not want to economise at the expense of people who, through no fault of their own, happen to be in particularly wet parts of the country?
  Mr. Brown: I am coming to that, but the whole point is that one does not want to economise at the expense of anybody. It would have been much more to the point if the hon. Gentleman had drawn that fact to the attention of his Front Bench during the Budget debates, when they alleged that we could have made very many more economies than we have done, and in which they said that those economies we have made did not amount to very much.
  What we have tried to do this year is to look at everything and try to pick out the least depressing of all the directions in which we could economise, and we came to the conclusion, having regard to all the circumstances and after having discussed the matter with Bedford Square—the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) did not appreciate how close 55, Whitehall and Bedford Square can be on occasions, and I had it put to me that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish which is which—after discussing this matter with everybody concerned, we came to the conclusion that to remove the spreading subsidy was perhaps the
  1944
  least troublesome—I do not mean in an administrative sense, but in terms of agricultural production and policy—way to do it, and we were fortified, as we so often are, by the words of the hon. Member for Newbury.
  When I cannot find the hon. Member for Newbury to support me, I can often find the Agricultural Correspondent of "The Times." and, in this case, since I cannot find the Agricultural Correspondent of "The Times" as being on record in any useful way, I naturally turn to the hon. Member for Newbury. In HANSARD of 9th February, 1949, the hon. Gentleman delivered himself of a speech on subsidies thus:
  "I would say to the Minister that while subsidies may he justified in order to get farmers to change their ways quickly to meet the needs of the times, the period of such subsidies should be strictly limited. Needs do change…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 409.]
  and so on. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to say that the price structure must be kept right, and that this would call for a good deal of co-operation between the Ministers. Earlier in the same speech, he made the same point:
  "I hope, therefore, that the Minister will set a time limit to the subsidies…When the Minister has once given the first impetus, the price that the farmer will get for his milk or meat should be right to give him the incentive to grow the right crops…in the right way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 406.]
  That was a very excellent speech. The only regret I have is that the hon. Gentleman did not make the same speech tonight and that he so obviously forgot what he said on that occasion.
  Mr. Hurd: Surely if there is a time limit for bringing a subsidy to an end, some regard should be had to the circumstances of the moment? That is our point.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is, on the whole, not making a bad recovery, but there he is on record, and, fortified as we were by the speech of the hon. Gentleman, we thought, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Southwest, so clearly said, that in this respect we had introduced in 1947 a specific and additional incentive to persuade farmers to do what it is in their own clear interest to do, to lime their land, to make up for

  1945
  the past deficiency of lime, and to maintain the current nutrient that is being taken out of the land.
  But, having had four years of this special additional subsidy, we felt that we were probably meeting the dictum of the hon. Member for Newbury by assuming that it had done its job, and that we could revert to the pre-1947 position. That is, in fact, what we are doing, and we are doing it for the reason that some economies in Government expenditure have to be found, as we were told by the Opposition. This is a very modest economy and is not a large part of the total sum spent on agricultural subsidies.
  Mr. Turton: Will the hon. Gentleman explain exactly what he means, because when the Minister announced the subsidy he said it was not an economy, but that it would be fully taken into account in the February Price Review?
  Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend is not too far away from me at the moment, so the hon. Gentleman must be very careful not to get me into any difficulties.
  There is nothing different in what I am saying from what my right hon. Friend then said. It is an economy in Government expenditure. It reduces the total amount of our Vote this year. It became one of the items to be taken into account in the general February Price Review settlement, which is what the hon. Member for Newbury obviously thought it ought to be. Therefore, we have carried out not only the whole of our own undertaking, but have followed very courageously, I should have thought, on this occasion the general request made to us by hon. Gentlemen opposite that that was what we should do.
  I repeat that it is not the major part of the subsidy. Let us get it into perspective, and I will talk about the details later. If, for example, a farmer has an order for 20 tons of lime, how will he be affected if he had it delivered before 1st April and how will he be affected, if he had it delivered after that date? On the figures I have been able to get, if he had it delivered before 1st April, he will get a subsidy of something like £20. On the other hand, if he had it delivered after 1st April, he will get a subsidy of something of the order of £17, so that the difference in subsidy on an order of
  1946
  20 tons of lime will be in the region of £3.
  Mr. Baldwin: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it costs only £3 to spread 20 tons of lime?
  Mr. Brown: I almost despair of the hon. Gentleman. No, what I am suggesting is that half of £6 is £3. We are only subsidising half of it instead of the whole lot. Therefore, if we get the thing into perspective, it is not so enormous, and, quite frankly, will not have the discouraging effect that has been suggested.
  The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) gave some figures. I have no later figures, and I am sorry that those which he thought would be out on 16th March are not yet available. I can assure the House that there is nothing sinister about that. I have made inquiries and am told that it so happens that March being the end of the financial year, the staff engaged on producing these statistics are under particularly heavy pressure at this time of the year. Therefore, I do not know that his figures are wrong, but, quite frankly, I do not think it is true to say that the cancelling of contracts at this moment has anything to do with people being frightened off from applying lime.
  What has happened, I think, is that contracts have been made on one set of prices and on one set of issues which have changed, and that the contracts have been broken. But I have no doubt that they will be mended, as my hon. Friend said, at new prices which take account of the new circumstances.
  I do not doubt that that is in fact what will happen. If one looks at the figures over the years, that is probably borne out. There has been a very considerable increase in the subsidy steadily over the years from 1937–38, when it began, until last year, 1950–51. Each year the subsidy has been about one-sixth of the total cost—in fact, somewhat less than that. I see no reason to think from these figures that there has been any tremendous increase by virtue of paying for the spreading. The sum has mounted through the years from £500,000 in its first year to £800,000 and £900,000 in subsequent years, then to more than £1 million, more than £2 million and more than £3 million, with a slight drop towards the end of the war. After that it went on to £5 million

  1947
  in 1948–49 and £6 million in 1949–50—a good year for spreading—with a slight drop last year to £5½ million.
  There has been a steady progression all the way. There has been nothing special about the lime-spreading year. I have not the slightest doubt that this is proving to be one of the very best subsidies—that is, the general lime subsidy. It does not give an immediate financial return but is designed to improve the land. It pays enormous dividends to the farmer in terms of crops and I have no doubt it will go on doing so in much the same way even with the spreading content of the subsidy withdrawn.
  Had we gone on paying the spreading subsidy as well as the general subsidy, it is reasonable to assume we would have reached something of the order of £7 million as Government expenditure this year. We are limiting it to £6 million and that will allow for something like 6 million tons to be applied this year and to draw the subsidy. We think, on the whole, that is a reasonable provision to make and there is no reason to think it will not be achieved.
  Given that we have to make some economy in our own Departmental expenditure, there are only two ways of doing it. One is to withdraw the spreading subsidy and the other is to reduce the general subsidy slightly—to reduce the rate of subsidy over the whole field. We went into it very carefully and, after consulting the National Farmers' Union, came to the conclusion that the balance was clearly in favour of withdrawing the spreading subsidy and leaving the 50 per cent. as it was. We came to that conclusion for the reason that whereas the subsidy on lime, that is, on acquiring and transporting it to the farm, is 50 per cent. of the farmer's individual cost, the spreading subsidy is not. Although it is roughly 50 per cent. of the total cost, so far as any one farmer is concerned it may not be one half of his individual cost. It is a flat scale. That meant that the farmers who were farthest away, and had to get their lime spread in the most costly way, in fact had less out of this than other people.
  If we remove the spreading contribution, it costs in England something like 6s. 6d. a ton to the farmer through the loss of his subsidy; in Wales it costs
  1948
  6s. 3d., in Scotland 7s. and in Northern Ireland 6s. 4d. If we had not done that but had reduced the general subsidy from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent. over the whole field, it would have cost the English farmer 6s., the Welsh farmer 6s. 11d., the Scottish farmer 9s. 7d., and the Northern Irish man 8s. 4d. We have chosen the method of doing this which confers, incidentally, the greatest benefit on the Scottish farmer and, more important, the greatest benefit on the man who is in the most awkward position and who, as the hon. Member for West Perth put it, probably has the greatest difficulties.
  In another discussion on subsidies we heard a lot about rough justice. We were told by the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale) how much more rough it was than just. I think the same thing applies to the lime spreading subsidy, and I confidently look forward to having him on my side tonight. This was a form of rough justice. In fact, some people got a good deal more out of it than was intended. Others got rather less out of it. If we had to make some provision to pay for re-armament, this seemed a very reasonable place to do so without making very much difference at all to the total amount of money we shall have to pay.
  So far as the timing is concerned, I do not make too much of this. Good notice was given and in no sense was it done at the last minute. We are covering deliveries on to the farm where they were made before 1st April, even though the spreading was done afterwards. So far as increased farmers' costs are concerned, we have tried to do the job properly by taking that into account as one of the factors in the general farm review.
  I would remind hon. Members of another point which has not been taken into account by them. Spreading on farms under the hill farming schemes and the marginal production schemes will still qualify for grants. Some hon. Members have suggested that this Order will affect the very land we want most to develop—the hill land and the marginal land lower down the hills. The answer is that it will not affect them because they are already covered under other schemes.
  I do not think I need say more. We are making provision this year for more lime than has ever been put on the land in any year except in that one very

  1949
  favourable year. We are making provision to spend more money than we have ever spent on the lime subsidy, except in that one very favourable year. It cannot be said, therefore, that we are reducing the State's contribution to liming. We are not. In fact, we shall increase it very considerably over last year if the farmers will put the lime on the land. Having regard to the history of this subsidy and to the fact that we know a good deal about the value of liming, I ask the House not to press this Motion.
  9.17 p.m.
  Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I should like to point out that the Parliamentary Secretary has devoted his speech to defending the Order, whereas my hon. Friends are objecting not to the Order as such but to its timing. It may well be—I hope it will be—that during the time the younger Members are in the House, and before they retire in many years' time, it will be possible to amend this procedure. At the moment we have to vote against an Order so that some amendment can be made. That has been an unsatisfactory method of dealing with matters and obviously it is becoming more unsatisfactory as time goes by.
  The whole point of my hon. Friends' speeches this evening was that the Minister has forgotten the exceptional
  weather we have had—that he did not foresee that a great deal of the lime which should have been spread before 31st March could not be spread on the land by that date because of the weather conditions. That is the whole gravamen of the charge.
  Mr. G. Brown: If I did not deal with that point, I apologise. I did make the point that if we had chosen any other date we should not have achieved the saving we want to achieve, and by not making the saving on this scheme we should have had to find the balance of it from something in which we judged the agricultural values were rather higher. We chose this scheme because we thought it would do the least agricultural damage.
  Sir T. Dugdale: I cannot accept that. If the weather had been fair we should have had lime on the land before 31st March. The only reason we did not was because the weather was foul. We maintain that the Minister could have come to the House and reversed the Order, could have revoked the scheme and have brought in another Order so as to delay the operation of this scheme for two months. That is all we ask and all we intend in raising the subject in this debate.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 258: Noes, 267.

  Division No. 75.]

  AYES

  [9.20 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Channon, H.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Alport, C. J. M

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Erroll, F. J.

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Clyde, J. L.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Arbuthnot, John

  Colegate, A.

  Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Fort, R.

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

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)

  Foster, John

  Astor, Hon. M. L.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Fyfe, fit. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Baldwin, A. E.

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

  Gage, C. H.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Ball, R. M.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)

  Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

  Cundiff, F. W.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Black, C. W.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

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

  Darting, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Davies, Nigel (Epping)

  Harden, J. R. E

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  de Chair, Somerset

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Braine, B. R.

  Digby, S. W.

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr Gurney

  Dormer, P. W.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hay, John

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Drewe, C.

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)

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

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Heald, Lionel

  Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Heath, Edward

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Henderson, John (Catheart)

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Maclay, Hon. John

  Scott, Donald

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Shepherd, William

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  MacPherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Hollis, M. C.

  Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Hope, Lord John

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

  Marples, A. E.

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)

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

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Maudling, R.

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

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

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)

  Mellor, Sir John

  Stevens, G. P.

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

  Monckton, Sir Walter

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

  Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

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

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Storey, S.

  Hutchison, Colonel James (Glasgow)

  Nabarro, G.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Studholme, H. G.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B.

  Nicholson, G.

  Summers, G. S.

  Jeffreys, General Sir George

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Jennings, R.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Teeling, W.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Odey, G. W.

  Teevan, T. L.

  Kaberry, D.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Thompson, Kenneth Pugh Walton)

  Keeling, E. H.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

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

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Orr, Capt, L. P. S.

  Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

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

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

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

  Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Osborne, C.

  Tilney, John

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Touche, G. C.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Turner, H. F. L.

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

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Pitman, I. J.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Vosper, D. F.

  Llewellyn, D.

  Prescott, S.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Profumo, J. D.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

  Redmayne, M.

  Watkinson, H.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)

  While, Baker (Canterbury)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Williams, Charles (Torquay)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Robson-Brown, W

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  McAdden, S. J.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  McCallum, Major D.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Wills, G.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  Russell, R. S.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Salter Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  York, C.

  McKibbin, A.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Savory, Prof D. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Turton and Mr. Hurd.

  NOES

  Albu, A. H.

  Burke, W. A.

  Deer, G.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Burton, Miss E.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Diamond, J.

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Carmichael, J.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Donnelly, D.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Champion, A. J.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Chetwynd, G. R.

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

  Balfour, A.

  Clunie, J.

  Dye, S.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Bartley, P.

  Coldrick, W.

  Edelman, M.

  Bonn, Wedgwood

  Collick, P.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Benson, G.

  Collindridge, F.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Beswick, F.

  Cook, T. F.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Cooper, John (Deptford)

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Ewart, R.

  Boardman, H.

  Crawley, A.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Booth, A.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Fernyhough, E

  Bowden, H. W.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Finch, H. J.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Foot, M. M.

  Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

  Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

  Forman, J. C.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Ganley, Mrs C. S.

  1952

  1953

  Gibson, C. W.

  Logan, D. G.

  Royle, C

  Gilzean, A.

  Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Glanville, James (Consett)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon Sir Hartley

  Gooch, E. G.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

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

  McGovern, J.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  McInnes, J.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Mack, J. D.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Grey, C. F.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Slater, J.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  McLeavy, F.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Snow, J. W.

  Gunter, R. J.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Steels, T.

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

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

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Strachey, Rt. Hon J

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Stross, Dr. Barnett

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon Ednr

  Hannan, W.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Hardman, D. R.

  Messer, F.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

  Hargreaves, A.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Harrison, J.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Hastings, S.

  Moeran, E. W.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Monslow, W.

  Thomas, Ivor Cwen (Wrekin)

  Herbison, Miss M

  Moody, A. S.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Morgan, Dr H. B.

  Timmons, J.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Morley, R.

  Tomlinson, Rt Hon. G.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Tomney, F.

  Houghton, D.

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

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Hoy, J.

  Mort, D. L.

  Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.

  Hubbard, T.

  Moyle, A.

  Usborne, H.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Vernon, W. F.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Mulvey, A.

  Viant, S. P.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Murray, J. T.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Nally, W.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

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

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Weitzman, D.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Janner, B.

  Padley, W. E.

  West, D. G.

  Jay, D. P. T

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

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

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

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Pannell, T. C.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Paton, J.

  Whileley, Rt. Hon. W

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Peart, T. F.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Poole, C.

  Wilkes, L.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Popplewell, E.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

  Porter, G.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)

  Keenan, W.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Kenyon, C.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.

  Rankin, J.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don Valley)

  Kinley, J.

  Rees, Mrs. D.

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

  Lang, Gordon

  Reeves, J.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Raid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Rhodes, H.

  Wise, F. J.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Richards, H.

  Woodburn, Rt, Hon. A.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Woods, Rev. G. S.

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Yates, V. F.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CARPET INDUSTRY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]
  9.33 p.m.
  Mr. Nabarro: I rise tonight with some diffidence to call the attention of the House to a number of the current problems in one of our smaller but most important industries, the carpet industry which, as hon. Members will know, is for the most part centred in the relatively small Worcestershire town of Kidderminster. I am glad to see in their places the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, Eastern (Major G. Lloyd), and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who have smaller carpet interests in their respective constituencies. Something of the order of 37½ per cent. of the carpet industry is in Kidderminster, and the balance is to be found in various Yorkshire towns, and in Scotland.
  Before I deal with the problems of the industry I would like to sketch a few of the facts forming its background. It has had a peculiar history during the past decade because it was one of the only industries in Britain which was completely shut down between 1940 and 1945, when carpet factories were switched over to small-arms and sundry engineering production in connection with the war effort.
  The process of reconstruction from 1946 was thus a particularly difficult one. In 1946, the industry was one of the first in Britain to receive the attention of a working party. The working party consisted partly of trade unionists, partly of employers and of a number of independent persons. In giving a very brief summary of its findings, I cannot do better than quote a paragraph on page 13 in Section II, the "Technical Review." It says:
  "Carpet manufacturing is a highly developed mass production industry. The factories in general are adequately equipped and managements are watchful about introducing improvements in the mechanical devices they employ."
  Since 1946 there has, of course, been a considerable technical advance.
  I mentioned that the industry is a relatively small one. The number employed in it today throughout the whole country is only 28,700, compared with
  1956
  a pre-war figure of 32,000. This shows a decline in manpower of about 13½ per cent., but, notwithstanding that decline, there has been an overall increase in productivity since pre-war, and the industry is now turning out some 3 per cent. more carpets in square yardage than in 1939. The importance of the industry to the export trade cannot be over-emphasised. In 1949, Great Britain's carpet exports amounted to £10,300,000, in 1950 the figure rose to £15,200,000, and the published figures for the first two months of 1951 show an export out-turn of £3,267,000, indicating that the rate for the full year will reach nearly £20 million, or an increase of no less than 100 per cent. upon the figure for 1949.
  It is not unfair to say that the carpet industry is a model for joint consultative organisation. It is one of the few industries in Britain which has a joint advisory council, made up of six trade unionists and six employers with an independent chairman, to deal with general problems, and a joint industrial council to deal with wages. Both the trade union side of the industry and the employers side are highly organised.
  The principal concern, today, of the overwhelming majority of the men and women in the country is the inordinately high prices that carpets have reached. It is no exaggeration to say that the comfort and well-being of all our people are contributed to very largely by carpets in their homes. I hope to see, in the course of the next 10 or 15 years, carpets appearing in every new house erected in Great Britain. But today, when people learn that I am associated with Kidderminster, I hear complaints on all sides about the very high prices of carpets, and inquiries about what measures can be devised to bring them more within the reach of the ordinary wage earner.
  It is difficult to compare pre-war prices with post-war prices in view of the number of variable factors which affect both. The easiest way to do is to relate wages earned pre-war and post-war to the price of a carpet. I can most easily do that by comparing how much, in terms of carpets, the wages of a carpet weaver would buy in 1939 and now. In 1939 the average male carpet weaver earned £5 a week for a standard working week.
  Mr. Tomney: Is that for a male employee?
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman should know that there were no female carpet weavers earning that wage in the industry, in 1939.
  Mr. Jack Jones: There were.
  Mr. Nabarro: The skilled male carpet weaver, earned, in 1939, £5 a week, and it was always boasted in pre-war days that his one week's wages would buy a 12 ft × 9 ft. Axminster A.2 carpet, which, in those days, cost, on an average, very slightly less than £5. Today, the carpet weaver earns approximately £8 10s. per week. The same carpet that cost £4 19s. in 1939 now costs no less than £24 16s., which represents three weeks' wages of a carpet weaver.
  Perhaps I might usefully quote a statement made by the Secretary of the Carpet Weavers' Union, Mr. C. Yarsley, when recently, he attended and waited upon the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in connection with the incidence of Purchase Tax on carpets, for this illustrates my point about the very high prices that carpets have now reached. Mr. Yarsley stated that it appeared that the worker was condemned for all time to the use of linoleum or coconut matting. He considered that in relation to the better housing and other conditions which the worker now enjoyed he should not be debarred from buying a carpet because its price placed it beyond the reach of his pocket. He considered that a small industry such as the carpet industry was being asked to do too much by contributing such large sums to the Treasury by way of Purchase Tax.
  Mr. Yarsley continued by stating that he knew the difficulty manufacturers were experiencing on the question of finance, and that employees were anxious in that any restriction of trade would lead directly to unemployment. In the case of Kidderminster there was no other industry that could absorb any redundancy of labour if unemployment were on any substantial scale.
  That is the measure of the problem today and, of course, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) has been interjecting impatiently for the past few moments, this difficulty arises very largely from the precipitous rise in the cost of raw materials during the last three years. The carpet industry is peculiar in this
  1958
  respect. Today, 80 per cent. of the cost of a carpet is made up of raw materials. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wool."] That means that a carpet has what the President of the Board of Trade referred to in his speech on the Budget as a low conversion value. Eighty per cent. is raw materials; only 20 per cent. is the cost of the labour and of the overheads and gross profit margin which go into the manufacture of the carpet. That is an extreme case of low conversion value in a manufactured commodity. At the other end of the scale, in the engineering industry, it is not unknown for a finished product to have only a 10 per cent. raw material content.
  I stress this point because it means that whenever any substantial alteration in the price of wool or cotton or jute—the three constituent raw materials in a carpet—takes place, then the controlled carpet price arrangements of the Board of Trade are immediately thrown out of gear-Wool is now standing at 16 times the pre-war price. It is standing at approximately six times the 1947 price.
  Mr. Jack Jones: On a free market.
  Mr. Nabarro: I could spend the next two hours arguing the merits and demerits of an international free market for wool, but the subject this evening is the problems of the carpet industry, which certainly spring from wool. I must say to the hon. Member for Rotherham, who is constantly interrupting me, that I have no desire to be controversial about this matter. So far I have only been stating the facts of the case, as can be readily checked by all the available statistics.
  On 1st March, 1951, that is six weeks ago, the President of the Board of Trade remarked in reply to one of my Parliamentary Questions that wool was standing at five to six times the 1st January, 1947, price, jute was standing at 2⅓ times the 1st January, 1947, price, and cotton was standing at 3⅔ the 1st January, 1947, price. Those three constituents together—and in consideration of the fact that the cost of a carpet comprises 80 per cent. raw materials—mean that prices have been forced inordinately high.
  There is no immediate remedy for this situation. I am not expecting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade

  1959
  to be able to respond this evening with a solution to the problem. I am merely drawing attention to it and making a comment upon the hon. Gentleman's price control arrangements. There have been seven advances in the controlled price of carpets since 1st January, 1947. Every time a price advance has taken place, events have overtaken the new prices. The Parliamentary Secretary will recall, for instance, that the last price advance for carpets took place on 5th March, 1951. That price was based upon woollen yarn at 158d. per lb. By the time the carpet price increase had been promulgated it was found that carpet wool had risen to 200d. per lb., so that the negotiating—
  Mr. Dryden Brook Mr. Dryden Brook (Halifax) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is shaking his head. Does he wish to contradict me?
  Mr. Brook: I have spent the whole of my life in the buying and selling of raw wool, including that for the carpet industry. I accept the hon. Member's figures as to the relative increase in the price of wool for the carpet industry, but carpet wools have not reached 200d. per lb., in general, up to now.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Member and will quote him the figures extracted from a carpet manufacturer's accounts in Kidderminster:
  "January, 1948; Carpet Woollen Yarn 54d. per lb.
  1st July, 1950: 90d. per lb.
  1st January, 1951: 152d. per lb.
  1st February, 1951; 162d. per lb.
  1st March, 1951: 178d. per lb.
  31st March, 1951: 201d. per lb."
  Mr. Brook Mr. Brook rose—
  Mr. Nabarro: Let me continue. I telephoned a member of the Wool Exchange this morning to ascertain the level of prices for carpet wool at yesterday's biddings in the market at Liverpool. Mercifully, prices have declined by approximately 20 per cent. during the last 10 to 14 days, and appear to be settling at this lower level.
  I was dealing, when I was interrupted, with the question of the price control arrangements. My plea to the Parliamentary Secretary is simply that he
  1960
  should recognise that events always overtake the Board of Trade. The negotiations for new prices always appear to take too long. The Board of Trade plead that they must allow a certain period for stocks bought at the lower prices to be consumed, but, unfortunately, stocks are not by any means even in every firm in the industry; considerable hardship has been imposed on many firms whose stocks are exhausted and who have to replace those stocks at higher prices before the new carpet controlled prices come into effect. Thus, substantial losses are inevitably incurred.
  A cost investigation of the whole industry is now proceeding. I hope that it may be completed at the earliest possible moment and that the whole machinery for settling controlled prices of carpets, whether up or down—I hope that the next new settlement will be down, in the interests of the consuming public—can be considerably speeded up.
  I pass now to an entirely different field: the question of carpets that are imported into Britain. I will always be a keen supporter of the greatest possible measure of competitive enterprise, provided that circumstances, terms and conditions of competition are fair and equitable. I believe that, in the case of Indian imported carpets, however, the conditions are extremely unfair and inequitable, for two important reasons.
  First, Indian carpets coming into the United Kingdom do so on an open general licence without a tariff, that is without payment of import duty, and the imports of these carpets and rugs from India have been increasing very considerably in the last few years, For instance, in the calendar year 1950 the volume of imports was £2,949,000. In January, 1951, the latest published figure of imports of Indian carpets and rugs was £457,000. That was in one month and in a full year, calculated pro rata, it would be no less than £5,484,000, an increase of 86 per cent. in the rate of imports for 1951 over 1950, and 1950 represented a rate of increase of 66 per cent. over the preceding year.
  While Indian carpets and rugs come into the United Kingdom duty free British carpets going into India—and we have an interest in that market—are subject to an ad valorem import duty

  1961
  of 31¼ per cent., which includes a preferential tariff of 12½ per cent. under the most favoured nation clause. In other words, the normal import duty for carpets going into India is 43¾ per cent. from which is deducted the preferential tariff, reducing the percentage to 31¼ per cent. Moreover, the Pakistan imports are considerable into the United Kingdom and come in duty free. Our British carpets are now subject to an average import duty of 45 per cent. into Pakistan, the preferential tariff of 12½ per cent. having been removed by the Anglo-Pakistan Trade Agreement of 2nd April, 1951.
  Therefore, there is a thoroughly inequitable tariff position. Why should we not have some reciprocity in this matter? My second plea to the Parliamentary Secretary—and I know it is a difficult problem—is to ask him to endeavour to commence administrative action and negotiations to secure that reciprocity. The position is doubly confounded, from the point of view of the British manufacturer, because not only has he these tariffs against him, but also the Indians have decided to put export duties on two of the essential raw materials which the British carpet manufacturer requires for his carpets. There is an export duty of 30 per cent. on East Indian wool and 30 per cent. to 35 per cent. on jute and jute yarn, all of which are bought in considerable quantities by the British carpet manufacturer; thereby twice confounded. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to endeavour to help the British carpet manufacturer in this respect.
  I should also make some passing reference to an aspect of the question which, I believe, Government Departments are losing sight of today. Any member of the consuming public may buy furniture, mattresses, or furnishing fabrics without paying Purchase Tax, but, in the case of carpets every one sold in the United Kingdom is subject to Purchase Tax at 33⅓ per cent., which immediately places carpets in the luxury group. As my trade union leader friend, Mr. Yarsley of the Carpet Weavers' Union in Kidderminster said, this is one of the potent factors in raising the price of carpets so high that they are beyond the purse and paying capacity of the ordinary middle and lower wage earners groups in Britain.
  1962
  I hope that none will deny that carpets are essential to the comfort and well-being of the community. I ask hon. Members to contemplate the harsh and bare conditions we would suffer in this Chamber if the architects had decided that we should have polished oak boarding for the floor. I have constantly deplored the fact that the products of the most famous carpet manufacturing town in the world, Kidderminster, are not represented in this Chamber and that the whole of the carpets in this Chamber were bought from a firm in Glasgow. There is undoubtedly a case for the reduction or elimination of Purchase Tax, and while I should be out of order in pursuing that point now I hope to return to it on the forthcoming Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
  Hon. Members will know that we have succeeded in the last four years in sending to the U.S.A. many important productivity teams which have profitably examined American methods of manufacture. The carpet industry in America is, like ours, well organised. Its rate of production per man-year is certainly slightly higher than ours, due largely to the degree of standardisation and wide looms in America, and the fact that they do not concentrate on design, colour and quality to the same extent that we do in the United Kingdom. Productivity teams have gone to America representing the iron and steel industry, the hosiery and knitwear industry, the carton and box-making industry, the drop-forging industry and many others.
  There appears to have been some resistance either on the part of the Anglo-American Productivity Council or from some unknown source to sending a productivity team for the carpet industry to the United States. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary has some prior knowledge of this matter, and I should like him to tell me, if he can, when he replies, what is the impediment in this matter, and whether it is the policy of the Board of Trade to encourage the sending of such a productivity team to the United States.
  I should like, briefly, to summarise the four commendations I make to the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with this industry. First, there should be a speeding up of the whole machinery for negotiating, within the price control structure, price revisions of the Board of Trade,

  1963
  whether up or down, if such price revisions become necessary in the future, and the cost investigation of the industry which is being conducted should be expedited and its findings published at the earliest possible moment. Second, there should be a measure of reciprocity as between Indian and British carpets and immediate negotiations with the Indians to try to persuade them to relinquish their iniquitous habit of placing an export tax on raw materials which come to this country when we do not see the same principle in respect of the export goods that we send to India. Third, there should be an investigation of the prospects of a productivity team going to the United States of America. Fourth, there should be a reduction or elimination of the iniquitous Purchase Tax on carpets.
  9.59 p.m.
  Mr. Pryde: The English are said to have a very pretty opinion of themselves and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is no exception. I am sorry to inform the hon. Member that some of his statements are not quite facts because facts are true, and that some of his statements were quite inaccurate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. For example the hon. Member said that there were no skilled women weavers. Scotland is not unknown in the carpet weaving industry. Temple-ton's can hold its own with any unit in the industry. Stirling, Ayr, Dundee and Kilmarnock are not unknown, while in Midlothian we have two firms, Messrs. Henry Widnell and Stewart, and a subsidiary, Stewart Brothers, who are the only tapestry weavers in Scotland. My own sister was one of the skilled women weavers of Henry Widnell and Stewart—
  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. Sparks.]
  Mr. Pryde: It is nonsense to say that we have not skilled women weavers—
  Mr. Nabarro: I am very sorry if the hon. Member misunderstood me, or if I was guilty of slipping into error at that point. My point was that the wage I was quoting for 1939 was the wage of a narrow
  1964
  loom Axminster male weaver. I recognise, of course, that there are skilled female weavers within the industry.
  Mr. Pryde: The hon. Member told us that at Kidderminster they were making £5 per week. I am sorry to say that in the town where I stay, and have stayed for over 50 years, the centre of the tapestry weaving industry, such high figures were never attained in the carpet weaving industry. In fact, my late lamented friend the Labour Member for Peebles and South Midlothian and myself had to go to the Ministry of Labour and get a labour exchange put in the town because there was so much unemployment in the weaving industry. In fact, 50s. was more like the average figure for skilled weavers in Eskbank, Bonnyrigg and Roslin. My next-door neighbour was complaining to me quite recently that she would be in a very bad position when her son went to put in his National Service. Hon. Members can judge when I tell them that she told me he was giving her £7 a week. Never before have such wages ruled in the carpet weaving industry in Scotland. Never before has there been such content.
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster is correct when he says that the machinery in the industry is of a very high standard indeed. My late agent, Mr. John Keith, has contributed towards bringing the industry to that pitch. The hon. Member complained about the high price of raw material. Of course, raw materials have risen in price. Wool has risen 1,080 per cent. since 1938, but that is no fault of the present Government. It is no fault of the Government that the price of cotton has gone up. By bulk purchase we have proved that, had we not resorted to it, cotton prices would have risen out of all proportion. There is no use hon. Gentlemen complaining about India producing commodities cheaper than we do. It is true to say that the Indian worker can live at a lower standard than workers in the more temperate zones where we operate. The British financier was responsible for financing the industry in India, because he could get a higher rate of profit in India than from the British workers.
  Mr. Nabarro: What has that to do with Indian carpets?
  Mr. Pryde: The hon. Member has been complaining about competition from

  1965
  India. Hon. Members opposite believe in competition; then why should they grumble about it?
  Mr. Nabarro: Fair competition.
  Mr. Pryde: The Indian worker is not complaining. He is trying to do the same as the British worker has done and build up his organisation in order to reach the same high standard of living as the British worker. Our people in Scotland know perfectly well the benefits which a Labour Government has conferred upon them, and I think that nowhere where weaving operations are carried on will they again resort to being represented by a Tory Member of Parliament.
  10.5 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I must confess that every time I listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I am more amazed than ever at his knowledge, his competence and his fluency. In fact, it makes it most embarrassing for anyone who has to follow him. That is also true for another definite reason—that there is simply nothing left to say. But, representing as I do one of the most distinguished carpet towns in Scotland, I propose to try to place before the House some of the difficulties from which the industry in Scotland is suffering. I suppose that, as far as this House is concerned, Ayrshire is only noted for its Members of Parliament—
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: One of them.
  Sir T. Moore: —but to the outside world I would suggest that our county is chiefly noted for its cows, its carpets and its furniture; although, as a matter of fact, Robert Burns claimed, in a fit of local patriotism, that our fame was based on the possession of honourable men and lovely women, or as he put it honest men and bonny lasses, and of course he was no bad judge. But as this debate is about the fascinating craft and great productive industry of carpet-making, I will limit my remarks to that subject.
  Although my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster advanced many arguments in favour of the town he most efficiently represents, it may truly be said that Kidderminster is probably noted more for the quantity of carpets it produces,
  1966
  whereas we in Ayr like to think that the world looks to us for quality. I remember that when I was a very young soldier I was walking along the streets of Cape Town when suddenly I saw a most beautiful carpet in a window. I was so tickled at its attractiveness that I went into the shop to look at it. I found that on the back of it were the words, "Made by William C. Gray, of Ayr." That shows how far afield carpets from Ayr travel. Indeed, it may surprise the House to know that today half the world is carpeted by Britain, and the best half of it by Ayr.
  Mr. Dryden Brook: No—by Halifax.
  Sir T. Moore: This industry is one of those quiet, happy industries, rarely, if ever, troubled by trade disputes, where proprietors, craftsmen and management all co-operate happily together. I suppose this is really due to the fact that carpet making is primarily a craft; and real craftsmanship always demands personal loyalty from the workers. That saves them from the day-to-day troubles of grasping for money, for a higher standard of wages or whatever it may be.
  The problem with which we are faced is that, as I have already said, in addition to being a craft, it is a great productive industry, even greater than my hon. Friend appeared to represent it. It is constantly growing and constantly demanding more brains and fresh ingenuity in its development. As an example of the way in which this industry is developing, and can be still further developed, I would point out that the production of carpets for export amounted in 1938 to a value of £2 million only; but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the export value today is something over £15 million so wide has the fame of British carpets spread. The demand is ever-increasing. In a few moments I will give the reason why the demand cannot be met.
  In the last year there was, in addition, a home demand for 17 million individual carpets. That is a truly colossal figure. But, and unfortunately there is always a "but," this attractive, exciting, expanding industry, like every other industry, is faced with certain post-war difficulties. I do not say that they are all the fault of the Government, although undoubtedly many of them are. The

  1967
  trouble about the Government is that they only concern themselves with industries that cause trouble, except in the case of the one outstanding example, the steel industry, which is the exception that proves the rule. The Government are like the parents of naughty children; they are always fonder of the naughtier child. The Government have not yet realised—and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain why—what the carpet industry is fighting against, and, although my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster has specified almost every enemy which it has to face in every part of the world, there are certain points that need to be stressed.
  First, practically all the main component parts of carpets have to be imported; that is to say, wool, cotton and jute. The result of that is—and we have seen it especially during the last few weeks and months—an increasing rise, even at times a fantastic rise, in prices, which makes it almost impossible for potential purchasers to contemplate the buying of carpets.
  My hon. Friend stressed the fact that many of our young people are hopefully looking forward to getting married and setting up homes of their own, if they can get houses, and one of the best and first things which they would seek is a carpet. Linoleum is cold and expensive, and carpet is warm, but unfortunately still more expensive. As long as there are these difficulties and this fantastic Purchase Tax, which adds still more to the cost to the housewife, so long will the carpet manufacturer himself be in trouble. The Government have failed entirely in their new proposals to provide sufficient restoration allowances for new plant and machinery which is, as the House must know, constantly changing and improving in the industry.
  Lastly, there is this competition from India, which comes from carpets made by people suffering from even less food and a much lower standard of life than we have here today, and also from a ridiculous scale of wages unrelated to any trade union system. What is to be done about that? A working party which might go to the United States and India would be useful, and it might try to arrange, first of all, reciprocity with India,
  1968
  and secondly, advance the fine quality of our manufactures in America.
  All this would help, but, if this growing industry and this ancient and honourable craft is to be saved and be developed in the way it should be as a very valuable British industry, both for export sales and home consumption as well, the Government have got to do something about it. It is their responsibility; the carpet manufacturers are doing their best in trying to renovate their machinery and introduce new methods and the craftsmen in the industry are also doing their best. [Interruption.] I will take the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. M. MacPherson) round one of the best carpet works in Ayr and show him the developments that are taking place. He will be amazed at the ingenuity displayed by management and workers alike which can be seen there. However, it is the Government's responsibility, and they must act. We want to hear what they propose to do.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Dryden Brook: Unlike the other hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, I have had a close connection with the carpet industry for the last 50 years. My firm is at present engaged in selling raw wool to the carpet industry, so it will be seen that I have some knowledge of the subject. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who opened the debate, based his comparison as to cost on Axminster carpets. I want to repeat what I have already said, that the wools used in Axminster carpet have not yet reached 200d. per lb.
  Mr. Nabarro: Woollen yarn.
  Mr. Brook: HANSARD will confirm that the hon. Gentleman never referred to woollen yarn at all.
  Mr. Nabarro: I mentioned yarn.
  Mr. Brook: I should like to question one or two of the hon. Member's illustrations. When he was talking about the employment in the industry before and after the war, did he take into account the under-employment that existed before the war and the full employment which exists now? Obviously, there would be a good deal of short-time in pre-war days as compared with now. I know that in the first week of the last

  1969
  Summer Recess we sold carpet wool in the raw state at from 54d. to 60d. a lb. The highest price we have made for similar wool since that time has been in the region of just over 180d. a lb.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the time lag between the rise in the value of raw wool and the Government control of prices. Three weeks ago, a Prayer was moved in this House for the annulment of an Order which had been made to help the interests of the carpet industry regarding prices. On that night I listened and looked very carefully for the hon. Member for Kidderminster, but he was not present. I hoped to hear his voice raised in protest—[An HON. MEMBER: "He was wool gathering."]—against that Prayer. As I say, I listened very carefully for a contribution from the hon. Member, because, as a rule, one does not have to wait very long before hearing his resonant voice. If there was ever an occasion when an hon. Member who was interested in an industry should have been in his place and spoken for that industry, it was that night.
  There is another point on which I wish to question him. He claimed that the best carpets in the world were made at Kidderminster. I think it will be universally agreed that the best carpets in the world are still made in Halifax.
  10.18 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes): Everybody seems to have been blowing his own trumpet or the trumpet of the particular section of the industry which happens to be where he lives. Perhaps for a few brief seconds I might be allowed to stake a claim in this industry, because it is just 128 years ago that a progenitor of mine, who was a contemporary of Harvey, O'Connor and Fielding, the Chartists of the day, started a hand-loom weavers' union in my district. Fortunately, we still have his account books, and are able to see that in those early days very considerable subscriptions were sent to the Kidderminster weavers. I hope that the good relations that existed then have had something to do with the good relations that exist today.
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) mentioned the high prices paid for wool. I think his contentions have been adequately answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook), and I will proceed straight away
  1970
  to the question he raised about slowness in investigation. If the hon. Member was complaining of the speed at the time when costs were rising, that means that what he was really asking the Board of Trade to do was to impose a further increase on the price of carpets.
  As he knows, a cost investigation is being held at the moment. A great many of the returns have come in and we expect to receive a report from our accountants on these returns not later than the middle of next month. How long it will take to get the order out depends upon the speed of the negotiations between the trade and us. I hope they will not be protracted. I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is not possible to make an investigation of this description in a few days or even in a few weeks. Accounts have to be prepared properly by the industry and examined properly by the Board of Trade accountants before we can arrive at a decision.
  As to the general need for a price or cost investigation, I think that in view of the high profits made recently in the carpet industry—and the hon. Member for Kidderminster never mentioned this aspect in his consideration of prices—it was only reasonable, and in fact the duty, of the Board of Trade to hold a costs investigation before granting any further price increases. After all, the Board of Trade are the custodians of the consumer as well as the body responsible for the well-being of industry in this country.
  To illustrate this, may I say that the profits recently published by four large firms in the carpet industry show an average increase of some 40 per cent. on their 1950 trading over their 1949 trading, while one company's profits show an increase of 92 per cent. Surely we are entitled to say that we must have a cost investigation before any further price increases are made. The hon. Member for Kidderminster mentioned Dominion imports and reciprocity. I agree that in the latter half of 1950 they were increased considerably. Imports from India and Pakistan went up after the introduction of the open general licence list. I have no doubt that that had an influence on the position.
  But I must remind the hon. Member for Kidderminster that carpets imported from India represented 6 per cent. only of the total supplies to the home market

  1971
  in this country in 1950. On the other hand, United Kingdom exports to India have never constituted a large trade. In 1938–39 Indian figures of imports of British carpets amounted in value to no more than £22,500, which in those days was 10 per cent. of India's total imports.
  As to tariffs, I am sure if he considers it at all, the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is totally impossible to arrange for complete reciprocity of treatment between a product in one country and a similar product in another. It would be quite impossible to arrange it so that there was an equality, a quid pro quo; and when the Government are negotiating a trade agreement they have to think of trade as a whole. They cannot think of the carpet industry in isolation. The agreement with India is very valuable for both countries and it would be hardly right to upset that agreement now just to protect the United Kingdom industry which is doing very well—it has many orders and there is little stock—against Indian carpets. The hon. Member is quite correct in pointing out that the 12½ per cent. preference which we enjoy is not enjoyed by any other foreign country exporting into India. Turning to Pakistan, there will be an opportunity of discussing this matter on the Finance Bill towards the end of May, when provisions relating to it are to be introduced.
  Mr. Garner-Evans Mr. Garner-Evans (Denbigh) rose—
  Mr. Rhodes: I cannot give way. The hon. Member next raised the point of a productivity team going to America. As he knows, this is the job of the Anglo-American Productivity Council; it is not our job. We cannot tell them what to do, but I will say this to the hon. Member: I will bring the points he made
  1972
  to the notice of the Council. I cannot do any more; I cannot direct. With regard to Purchase Tax, I am afraid this is a field into which I cannot enter, nor do I intend to enter it.
  I am greatly obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having raised this topic, because this is a good industry. I visited the firm in Ayrshire to which the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) referred; they were first-class, and they impressed me by the way in which they set about the job of starting the machinery and getting on with the war effort when that was demanded of them. Not only that, but I have been impressed by the way in which they have picked up since and put into their factories the broader looms so that we can sell our goods to the dollar markets.
  The debate has given me the opportunity to say how grateful I am, personally, for a recent example of co-operation with the Federation of British Carpet Manufacturers. I saw their representatives personally when they came up here about the last price increases and I asked them to withdraw their rule requiring their members to sell at prices ruling on the day of delivery. I also had reason to ask their members to give an undertaking not to hold up supplies for higher prices at times when price increases were pending. I am grateful to the Federation for the statesmanlike way in which they acted, because almost at once they asked their members to accede to these requests and, as far as I know, they have been carried out loyally by the Federation.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes past Ten o'Clock.

  WEST INDIES (SUGAR WORKERS' WELFARE)
  WEST INDIES (SUGAR WORKERS' WELFARE)
  BRITISH GUIANA (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
  BRITISH GUIANA (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
  COLOURED WORKERS, LIVERPOOL
  COLOURED WORKERS, LIVERPOOL
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  General Election, 1948
  General Election, 1948
  Legislative Council (African Representation)
  Legislative Council (African Representation)
  Nchanga Mine (Dispute)
  Nchanga Mine (Dispute)
  MALAYA AND SINGAPORE (PRICE CONTROL)
  MALAYA AND SINGAPORE (PRICE CONTROL)
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Cheese
  Cheese
  Meat
  Meat
  Banana Imports
  Banana Imports
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
POST OFFICE
  Government Departments
  Government Departments
  Postage Rates (Printed Matter)
  Postage Rates (Printed Matter)
  Harold Hill Estate, Romford
  Harold Hill Estate, Romford
  Air Mail, Germany
  Air Mail, Germany
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Local Calls (Charges)
  Local Calls (Charges)
  Applications, Wymondham
  Applications, Wymondham
  BROADCASTING (BEVERIDGE REPORT)
  BROADCASTING (BEVERIDGE REPORT)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Reserve Aircraft (Storage)
  Reserve Aircraft (Storage)
  Airfield, Mombasa
  Airfield, Mombasa
  Auxiliary Squadrons (Call-Up)
  Auxiliary Squadrons (Call-Up)
  Flying Scholarships
  Flying Scholarships
  CIVIL AVIATION (AIRWAY BLUE TWO)
  CIVIL AVIATION (AIRWAY BLUE TWO)
  OVERSEAS INFORMATION
  OVERSEAS INFORMATION
  KOREA (REFUGEES)
  KOREA (REFUGEES)
  ARGENTINA (BUENOS AIRES TRANSPORT)
  ARGENTINA (BUENOS AIRES TRANSPORT)
  SUEZ CANAL CONVENTION
  SUEZ CANAL CONVENTION
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (INDUSTRIALISTS)
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (INDUSTRIALISTS)
  EXPORTS TO COMMONWEALTH
  EXPORTS TO COMMONWEALTH
  NEW ZEALAND (NAVAL OFFICERS' CLAIMS)
  NEW ZEALAND (NAVAL OFFICERS' CLAIMS)
  ARMED FORCES (AWARDS)
  ARMED FORCES (AWARDS)
  ROYAL NAVY (MALTESE)
  ROYAL NAVY (MALTESE)
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL UNIFORMS)
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL UNIFORMS)
  ARMY CAMPS (TREE-PLANTING)
  ARMY CAMPS (TREE-PLANTING)
  HOLLESLEY BAY COLONY (ESCAPES)
  HOLLESLEY BAY COLONY (ESCAPES)
  GRAIN SILO, HAUGHLEY
  GRAIN SILO, HAUGHLEY
  SEWERAGE SCHEME, BRECONSHIRE
  SEWERAGE SCHEME, BRECONSHIRE
  ADVERTISEMENT REGULATIONS
  ADVERTISEMENT REGULATIONS
  ANIMAL FEEDING STUFFS
  ANIMAL FEEDING STUFFS
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  H.M. SUBMARINE "AFFRAY"
  2.37 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the following Question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether His Majesty's Government can now make any statement on the subject of H.M. Submarine "Affray."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH): My Lords, I had hoped to be able to make a statement at once, but I am sure the noble Viscount will agree that it would be advisable, when the statement is made, to have the most accurate and up-to-date information possible. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty arrived back from Portsmouth only a few minutes ago, and a statement is now being drawn up. With your Lordships' permission, I will interrupt Business later in order to make a statement.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount. I am sure the House will welcome the course he has proposed.

  CARE OF OLD PEOPLE
  2.38 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN rose to move to resolve, That this House regards with sympathy and concern the difficulties of old people, and calls upon the Government to secure the greatest measure of co-ordination between the Health Services and other social services, with a view to ensuring that adequate personal service and attention are available to such old people. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is rather over a year ago since I drew your Lordships' attention to this important matter. When I did so, the Government questioned my facts, scouted my fears and painted a rosy picture of old age and poverty under the present régime.
  328
  I wish that I could see things through their rosy spectacles. Last year I asked for Papers, and explained that I wanted figures showing the number of cases where, as disclosed by coroners' inquests and inquiries of that kind, there had been neglect of the dying. I was told that the figures could not be procured and that my facts were incorrect. It is not easy for a private person to collect such figures, but over a period of rather more than eight months I have collected cuttings on this and similar subjects from local papers, which is where these things are to be sought. I would remind your Lordships that such a collection must be imperfect. I have made an analysis of the first six months, and as the later months were precisely similar I discontinued a rather depressing task. This analysis fully supports what I am going to say later.
  The number of people found dead, in varying conditions and degrees of horror, over the space of six months, I found to be seventeen; and I have also come to learn privately of other cases which did not appear in the Press. In one case —and I do not think it is so uncommon as one would like to think—the dead man had been gnawed by rats. And there are other cases with similarly unpleasant concomitants. Therefore, I do not think I misled your Lordships very much last year. I do not propose to say again what I said then. I will say merely that I stand by what I said. Do these people die of disease, or do they die of starvation? Is there anybody who can answer that question? So far as I can see, it is part of the new system that these people are nobody's care, and these cases are accepted as normal. I refuse to accept such things as normal. I hope your Lordships will pardon me if, in order that you may follow what I am going to say, I briefly sketch the system of relief—I do not know what else to call it—which is in existence at the present time, and which we have set up.
  The Ministry of Labour and National Insurance deal with old age pensions, sickness and employment benefit. The National Assistance Board deal with rent, clothing and the financial needs of poor people, old or otherwise. The county councils provide hostels for the homeless, and meet the difference between the hostel charge and the scale allowance of the National Assistance Board. They deal with mental cases, through a special duly

  329
  authorised officer; they deal with children, deserted and homeless, through the children's officer; and the education authority comes in through the school health officers. In passing, may I express the hope that some noble Lord who has time for it will look into the question of children? They also deserve some consideration and attention from your Lordships. The Ministry of Health deal with sickness, in particular through the regional hospital board. The local authority, the borough, deals with housing, and a private body, the citizens' advice bureau, deal with general advice on questions about divorce and other matters of that kind. I imagine that the county welfare officer would also act in that capacity, as his predecessor certainly did.
  That is a picture of the machine that is working to-day. Your Lordships will see that nearly all these bodies deal with old age from one angle or another. I want to draw attention to one point in this machine. The National Assistance Board have a very large area to administer and a clearly defined function. Again, the regional hospital board, with a very large and different area, have one definite function. Then there is the county council, covering another large and different area, with a function which I suppose is intended to fill the gaps between the other two services. The point in which these areas, administrations and functions meet is the body of one man or one woman. Knowing as I do how careful public departments are and must be, to clear the ground with all others interested in the same matters, I am bound to say that I should be surprised if of itself this system worked really well. As a matter of fact —and I am going to submit this point to your Lordships to-day—the system does not work well, in spite of the strenuous efforts of all concerned. I want to emphasise that all concerned are making strenuous efforts to make the machine work. In some ways I rather wish that they were not, because then the faults of the machine would be more readily evident and some reform and amendment would be seen to be imperative.
  To start with, I would take, for example, the relations between the regional hospital board and the county council. The hospitals have always been in a difficulty about old people, because
  330
  hospitals, in the first place, are intended to heal the sick and not to serve as homes for chronic and incurable cases. But when the duty of maintaining parents was removed from children, and when also the housing situation became increasingly acute and difficult, families began to refuse to receive back relations who had been cured in hospital, and the hospital was obliged to retain them, to the stultification of its proper function. Last year I made a suggestion, which I will repeat later, for dealing with the evil, though I do not want to argue the case again. I maintain what I said then. I have even heard of a case where the local county welfare officer actually advised a family that they were under no duty to receive back their old parent and they could "plant" him on the hospital, which was done. Such cases do not often get into the Press but, even so, I have one or two in my book, and I have received serious complaints from responsible people on that subject.
  Some hospitals have managed to open a chronic ward, and the Ministry of Health have encouraged them greatly to do so, which is a good thing. They have a chronic ward with a long waiting list, and before they take an old person into the general hospital they obtain from the relatives a promise that they will receive the old person back. But, even so, they sometimes get "landed": last year that happened in numerous cases, and even to-day it still occurs. But the chronic ward has the advantage that it enables the hospital, in the course of time, to transfer there suitable patients, so relieving the hospital for its main task. In other cases, where the hospitals are unable to set up chronic wards, the local authority have been obliged to form their own, in spite of the fact that this is against the policy of the Ministry. I believe it will be found that that is done by the London County Council.
  An important result of the situation which I have described is that hospitals frequently refuse to take an old patient. There have been cases (one of which I know personally) where a hospital has refused to admit an old patient, and where the doctor has threatened to refuse to issue a death certificate if the old patient died and said that he would call the hospital officials as witnesses at the inquest. I have in my book cases where that has

  331
  been done. Surely a system which leads conscientious public servants, in the interest of the public itself, to resort to devices of that kind stands self-condemned. It must require amendment in some particular if that is the result of the system. In six months I have collected details of eleven hospitals that have refused patients, and although such cases get into the Press only when there is something startling or newsworthy about them, I have found in the Press eleven more cases of conspicuously bad liaison between the hospital and the welfare authority. When we read of a case such as that in which an old man was refused admission to hospital because he was not ill enough and to a hostel because he was not well enough, and who died half-way between the two, public indignation is a little apt to seek individual scapegoats. But these things occur through a faulty system and not through individual malice or individual carelessness. That reinforces my argument that there is something wrong which needs to be put right.
  I could also show that there is defective liaison between welfare and housing, but perhaps your Lordships will take this for granted, as our time is limited. The shortage of housing, for which the housing authority cannot properly be blamed, does lead to serious difficulties in the department of welfare, because it accentuates the demand for accommodation in county hostels, and the county are unable to provide that accommodation. I have even read of cases—and I have examples with me—where old people, although quite sane, were sent to mental homes because no room could be found for them in any hostel. Many people think that it is only necessary to provide new hostels and the whole problem is solved. With great respect, I do not hold that opinion at all. My own view is that as few people as possible should be sent to hostels. Seeing that one-eighth of our population to-day is over the age of 65, and that that proportion is steadily increasing, it must be obvious that if all the over-65's go to hostels, the remainder of the population will not be able to support the burden. Moreover, we have to consider that when a man goes into a hostel he tends to become infirm. If he is kept out of the hostel he remains active. I believe it is true that in the L.C.C. hostels between three-fifths and three-quarters of the
  332
  inmates are classified as infirm, which seems to substantiate what I was saying.
  My noble friend Lord Amulree is going to deal further with hostels, and there is nobody better qualified to do so. I wish that more hostels were run on the lines of his own, and I am sure that, as time goes on, more and more will be. Before I leave the subject of hostels, however, I wish to point out to your Lordships, and to the Government, one evil which affects equally private homes and private nursing homes. It is that neither the National Assistance Board nor the welfare authority nor the hospital board pay the cost of maintaining patients in private nursing homes or hostels. In certain cases, they pay part of the cost—I believe up to 45s. a week. I think the condition is that those patients shall have been entered for a hostel or hospital, but in general they do not pay. The ground alleged for this refusal is, I understand, that these places are run for profit—that is, I suppose, that the people who own them expect to live by them. I am told by experts that most of these places are as good as those provided by the public, and that their charges are as low and often lower. I know of cases where these private nursing homes tend their inmates in a way the county homes are too delicate to do. They are all registered and inspected, yet because the owners are so wicked as to expect to live by their work, they are deprived of their due. If private places received fair treatment, their profits would probably still be lower than the salary of an assistant matron in a county home. In addition, they do not have time off or fixed hours. I do not know whether it is true, but I have been told that one motive for this rather unprincipled treatment—I think I am not being unfair in saying that—is to drive them out of business altogether, or to bring them into disrepute by forcing them to put away their old and helpless patients. It has not had this effect, however, and I know of one case where the Government have "sponged upon" one of these homes for hundreds of pounds. I am sorry to use so severe a term, but if any noble Lord or the Government can give me another term I will willingly substitute it. The authorities themselves own that the treatment is all that could be desired, and that sometimes it is given for only one guinea a week—that guinea being made

  333
  up of the 26s. old-age pension, less the 5s. which has to be given to the patient. I call this an enormous, if compulsory, charity; and when there is a dearth of such places, and if a Government cannot provide homes, it seems to me foolish that they should try to extinguish them. It has been insinuated that these places are perhaps not so good, that they are perhaps not so high-class as county homes. Yet, as I have said, some of them may be even better. If I may reply to this insinuation in the manner of our old friend Count Schuksen, I should like to insinuate, in the most delicate manner in the world, that it does not become a man who has not paid his landlady to com-plain of the fare which she provides.
  I was glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer announce the other day that we must adopt a new attitude towards old age. I think that is necessary in all Parties. I suggest that perhaps the Government might like to amend the Companies Act as an earnest of their good intentions. I should have liked to say more about his measure with regard to the old-age pension, but I will say no more than that I think he has missed a great opportunity. If he has enough money to raise the old-age pension to 30s., he has enough to keep it where it is and to relieve the old age pensioner of any deduction because of earnings. In the case of the direct taxpayer, like myself, for example, after giving me my personal allowance and half-rate allowance, he could deduct from my total income and from me the amount of any old-age pension. By making a grant of the pension so received from the revenue to the Insurance Fund, he could put the matter straight. In that way we should be giving the old-age pension to those whom we wish to receive it. But the great point is to keep the people going in their work, and not to make them wonder whether it will affect their pension or not. After all, it does not make a great social difference whether we have an old-age pension of 26s. or 30s. a week. Nobody can live on either sum, and a person dependent only upon the old-age pension for his living must go to the Assistance Board. In the case of old people, that is probably an advantage, because they are then registered and visited. Of course, all the old people are absolutely delighted with the rise. In one
  334
  nursing home I know, all the old ladies are very pleased at the rise to 30s., although as a matter of fact, the effect will be that the nursing home will receive a little more, 25s., and the old ladies will get the 5s. just the same. I know that the political Party to which I am attached have always recommended the course which the Chancellor has adopted, and I suppose they will be pleased. But I know some noble Lords consider this question in much the same light as I do, and I should like the Government to consider whether the other course would not be a better one to adopt.
  In all that I have said about liaison between these different branches of what should be the same service, I want to emphasise again that everybody in them is doing his utmost, and particularly is that true of the National Assistance Board. They have fully realised the necessity for smaller areas and more officers. In fact, where I live the area and the number of officers are what we want to see. But it must be remembered that the National Assistance Board deal only with cases where there have been applications for relief. They do not have to seek out the cases. If I may put it in this way they do not derive cases from the areas but from the office. The general supervision of the area is entrusted to the county welfare officer who covers a far larger area. I submit that here again there is unnecessary division and duplication. The duty of prevention, which requires a minute knowledge of an area and the closest and most delicate social contact, is entrusted to a man with a very large area, while financial assistance is entrusted to a man with a small area. Of course the National Assistance Board officer, who does much more than just deal with purely financial needs, keeps in the friendliest touch with the county welfare officer. But the fact is that, owing to his limited scope, people do fall through holes in the net in a great variety of ways—as this book which I compiled with so much trouble shows. All the same, I am grateful to the Assistance Board, both for the very good part in which they have taken some past criticisms of my own and, far more, for the excellent work they are doing to-day and for the way in which they have, if I may say so, allowed themselves to be taught by the job they do. I think they

  335
  will agree that we all owe a considerable debt to the noble Lord, Lord Soulbury.
  The Assistance Board officers do not deal with prevention of poverty but only with applications for relief: that is, with applications for a supplement. My Lords, it is the depth of grinding poverty to try to live on a supplement. I have a good deal of information about that in this "black book." As your Lordships know from a Question of mine the other day, the Board keep no index of retail prices, so although in theory they have the power to grant what they think right, in practice they cannot stand up to the Treasury auditor and are confined to the scales. To give an example, the last increase was, I believe, one of 2s., given in June last. Since that time, as your Lordships know, coal has gone up in price; it went up last autumn and rose again only a few days ago. I know of old people who walk two or three miles every day to pick up a few pieces of coal or coke at the local gas works. The scale is provided in Orders which are laid before your Lordships. It is no use to say that these Orders should be more frequently varied; a rise in prices may always be followed by a fall, and the Department cannot keep framing new Orders every day; it is natural for a Department to wait a little and see what will happen. But the people who have to buy things and who are trying to live cannot refuse to pay the higher prices pending an adjustment. There ought to be with the Board a real discretion, governed by a proper index figure. I was rather horrified, if the noble Lord in question will forgive my having a "dig" at him, by the apparent satisfaction with which my Question was answered the other day, because this matter means such a lot to these people.
  Ask any welfare officer how he finds out the people who require his services. He will tell you that he could not possibly do it himself, and that the cases are reported to him by the local voluntary committees. That is one reason why, from time to time, there occur these horrible cases to which I have referred. But I beg your Lordships not to think that I blame these committees. On the contrary, I have the greatest admiration and gratitude for what they have done. Indeed, since the breakdown in the Acts
  336
  about eighteen months ago became obvious, their work has been beyond all possible praise—and it is the more praiseworthy because up to that time they had been rather elbowed out by the authorities. It is probably, I think, the greatest output of charity that British people have ever furnished. In particular, I must praise the W.V.S.:
  "Not slothful in business, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord "
  might well be their motto. When one local council were asked to create an old people's welfare committee, they replied, quite truly, that the work was already being excellently done by the W.V.S. and that they saw no reason to duplicate it. But the old people's welfare committees which have been formed everywhere since the breakdown of the system became clear eighteen months ago have done wonderful work as well. They have been keeping in touch with the Assistance Board and with the old people, and their relations with both are of the happiest. They are the eyes and ears of the welfare officers.
  But when this essential work is carried out by volunteers there sometimes arises an undesirable position. In the first instance they have to be continually encouraged. Moreover, there is a tendency to cover up an occasional lapse. Sometimes it is not so much an occasional lapse as a complete lacuna; and concealment, in matters of this kind, is very bad. Then again, supposing that the other day His Majesty's Government had found themselves at war, what would have happened to the members of all these committees? They would all have been away doing work which they thought more essential. We cannot make volunteers do what they do not want to do. Already, in every urban district, there would have been in course of formation a dam of unrelieved misery. In any case, these volunteers will grow old and will disappear, and there will not be very many new ones. But these volunteers, at any rate, give us by their presence an opportunity of preparing to do without them. I maintain that in every properly organised system there is always room for volunteers. My point is that we do not want to be entirely dependent upon volunteers.
  I think it is essential to have a responsible officer with proper powers at a low

  337
  level. I do not say that the officer must be low in rank, but I want him at borough or district level—a level which he can manage and understand. He should be personally responsible for knowing the cases in his area and also, in the first instance, for the action taken. The various services can adjust their mutual obligations afterwards. He should be empowered to arrange for treatment in homes and nursing homes at rates not exceeding the cost of county homes. He should act as a focal point between county, borough, hospital and Assistance Board. After all, the sensitive part of an elephant's trunk is at the tip.
  It should not be a question of, "This is a suitable subject for treatment No. 7a devised by the Ministry." I know this goes contrary to the natural predilection of our governors to keep the authority at the top, and I think that this question is probably at the bottom of the quarrel between the Ministry and the doctors and has something to do with the difficulties that have arisen between the Ministry and the dentists. I sometimes wonder whether the Ministry do not look upon the dentist as a kind of superior carpenter. A similar situation arises in the Ministry of Education where you will find a gentle-man of perhaps forty years of age urging men who have grown grey in education to "interest the children in their work." It is this fetish of interesting the children that has ruined our old British education and turned our character from oak to willow.
  Anyway, I suggest that the man on the spot should be the man who should decide what action to take. I am not going to start an argument by suggesting whose servant he should be but he should be in charge, for example, of home helps. At present, home helps have earned amongst the people they help the title of "Help yourselves." They have a disadvantage, moreover, of not being available at the week-end. This might be a most valuable service, but I am afraid it is beginning to fall into disrepute—and the more so in that no woman whose work is worth her pay is going to be a home help when she can get private employment. This situation could be remedied, and the men I have in mind could do much to correct it. They should be acquainted with the local resources of all the services and, knowing their limits, should use their own influence
  338
  and wisdom to forestall or prevent coming cases.
  There is one other reason. Most of these duties to-day are done by volunteers, and in the main by women. It often happens in this kind of work that, in dealing with the old or not so old, a good deal of personal courage is required. For that reason, I think it is better that in the main the person responsible for this work should be a man, and a man who carries some authority. On the other hand, in dealing with young widows (who, I can assure your Lordships, are a most unscrupulous class) I think it is a good thing that the: officer concerned should be accompanied by a woman.
  That is nearly all that I have to say this afternoon on this subject. I am glad that we have reformed the spirit in which old age and poverty are to be approached. I think we have a very good set-up, if it is reformed in certain ways. The amendments which I recommend are these: first, the appointment of the local officer I have just described; secondly, the enlistment of the co-operation of all who can help us in the task ahead, even if they make profit by doing so. We ought to have power to pay families something for looking after old relatives who would otherwise be a burden on the public. We want to keep old people working and out of hostels as long as possible. In particular, earnings should be disregarded in computing old-age pensions, and old people of any age who are genuinely working should be entitled to sickness benefit. The National Assistance Board should keep an index of retail prices and act upon it. If these measures were adopted, I believe that we should not only do more efficiently what we have to do, but also economise in both staff and money.
  I know that I have the sympathy of many noble Lords on the opposite side of the House. I do not know how I stand with the Government. I should like to put this point to them. Here is a great social code which has been devised, and for which they must have full credit. I have shown your Lordships that it is too costly and that it fails to deal with urgent needs. I have suggested cures—your Lordships may find better ones—but will the Government not do this? I say to them: Will you not now, before you leave office, perfect the work you have begun and not leave it to your successors? It may require a little legislation, but not

  339
  much. If I can help, I shall be proud to do so, but I think you can probably get better helpers than I am. If you are not convinced, I suggest that you try what I have suggested in one or two areas and see how it works. Put the plan into operation, and do something yourselves. I hope very much that the Government will consider carefully what I have suggested. Whether my proposals have met with your Lordships' approval, or not, I am certain of one thing: that all of you sympathise with the difficulties of old age, and I feel that I have given your Lordships ample ground for having some concern. I therefore sincerely hope that the Government will accept my Resolution. I beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, That this House regards with sympathy and concern the difficulties of old people, and calls upon the Government to secure the greatest measure of co-ordination between the Health Services and other social services with a view of ensuring that adequate personal service and attention are available to such old people.—(Lord Saltoun.)

  H.M. SUBMARINE "AFFRAY"
  3.14 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy is now in a position to answer the Question about H.M. Submarine "Affray" which I asked a little earlier.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I must apologise for the delay. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty returned only less than half an hour ago from Portsmouth. I have the following statement to make, which will, of course, be subject to any further detailed information which we may have to report later. I expect noble Lords would like us to report anything later, if it should arrive before the rising of the House.
  H.M. Submarine "Affray" left Portsmouth at 16.30 hours (that is, 4.30 p.m.) on Monday for a practice war patrol designed to give officers of the submarine training course experience at sea in a submarine under war conditions. She has on board her captain and four ship's officers and a crew of forty-six naval ratings, together with twenty officers from the training course and four Royal Marine other ranks of a Marine training course. At
  340
  9.15 on Monday evening, when south of the Isle of Wight, she dived to proceed westwards through the Channel. She was expected to surface and to report between 8 and 9 o'clock yesterday morning, but no report was received. A search was at once organised by the Flag Officer, Submarines, acting on behalf of the Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth. All available ships of the Royal Navy, aircraft of Coastal Command and naval aircraft, including helicopters, took part in the search. I also gratefully acknowledge the assistance given by ships of the United States, French and Belgian navies.
  The "Affray" is fully equipped with the latest type of escape apparatus including sufficient escape suits for all on board. Just before 1 a.m. to-day, H.M. Submarine "Sea Devil" reported that she had heard signals which were definitely from "Affray." She is apparently lying on the sea bed at a depth of about 200 ft., near the place where she dived, but her precise position has not yet been fixed. Sound signals were made at 5.45 over the position where the vessel is believed to be lying. These signals told her crew that surface craft were ready in position to pick up any men who surfaced by means of escape apparatus. Forty-four surface ships and seven submarines are taking part in the search, and have formed a ring covering a wide area of probability, and are ready to proceed to the rescue should any survivors escape and appear on the surface; but none has so far been sighted. Aircraft of 19 Group R.A.F., and formations from five naval air stations are also taking part in the search, while R.A.F. and R.N. helicopters are standing by. Some of the helicopters and aircraft are fitted with airborne lifeboats.
  The next of kin can be assured that everything humanly possible will be done by those who are carrying out the search as long as there is any hope that any of these men can be saved. The Board of Admiralty would like to extend their sincere sympathy to the relatives of the officers and men on board in their very trying ordeal, and I am sure that your Lordships would wish to be associated with the Board of Admiralty's statement.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, we are grateful to the Chancellor of the Duchy for giving us that information. We shall indeed all wish, most sincerely, to

  341
  be associated with the sentiments he has expressed, and the House will be grateful if any further information received before we rise this evening can be communicated to us.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords. noble Lords sitting on these Benches desire to associate themselves with what has been said in the statement. The anxieties and hopes are in our minds. We can only trust that the news which the whole country is eagerly expecting to-day may be good. Pray God that it will be.

  CARE OF OLD PEOPLE
  3.19 p.m.
  Debate resumed.
  LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I am sure we have all listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said, and it may be convenient for me to say at this moment that the Government are prepared to accept the Resolution as it appears on the Order Paper. I must make the reservation, however, that we do not accept all or many of the conclusions to which the noble Lord appears to have come. Perhaps I may be permitted to say at the outset, since the noble Lord has quoted a number of rather sad and distressing cases or incidents, that it might have been better if he had given us an opportunity of looking into them. We should then have been prepared to give whatever information might follow an examination of the particulars and the details.
  We welcome the noble Lord's speech on this subject. He dealt with it at some length about twelve months ago and I could not help feeling that a good part of what he said to-day was said then. While we welcome constructive criticism—and the suggestions made by the noble Lord will be sympathetically considered—the solving of this problem still remains a very real and sometimes distressing matter. We admit that. The main burden of the noble Lord's speech this afternoon is that since the abolition of the relieving officer under the old Poor Law, there is a gap in the services under the various Ministries which now have to deal with these matters. The noble Lord seems to credit the relieving officer with having known, in some mysterious fashion, every
  342
  single case of hardship within his district, so that at the psychological moment he could provide the service or attention which was needed by anybody in that area. Such was not the case. The noble Lord also seems to suppose that the relieving officer was under a duty to ferret out such cases. Again, such was not the case. Broadly speaking, the relieving officer could be aware only of the cases which were brought to his notice, and with which he had occasion to come into contact. I think the figures that I propose to quote, both now and a little later, will show that the noble Lord is quite "at sea" in giving the full credit that he does give to the old system.
  Before the war, of 50,000,000 people, including about 7,000,000 of pensionable age, the number (including the depend-ants) receiving relief was about 1,000,000, of whom fewer than 500,000 were of pensionable age. A mere sum in arithmetic will indicate that that represents about 7 per cent. of the people who were of pensionable age, and under the purview of the relieving officer. Therefore, however good the relieving officers were (and many of them were extremely good and sympathetic), they could not possibly have the comprehensive knowledge that the noble Lord has attributed to them. There is no doubt in our minds that the National Assistance officers are in touch with far more people through the administration of National Assistance and the non-contributory old-age pension, than the old relieving officer ever could be, and in particular a very much larger proportion still of the old people. So that the noble Lord's impression, that in the old days there could not exist a case of hardship and loneliness and distress, without its coming to the knowledge of the relieving officer, is entirely wrong.
  LORD SALTOUN: I do not want to interrupt, but I did not say any of that, did I?
  LORD KERSHAW: I think the noble Lord has said that the absence of a relieving officer of the type which was known under the old Poor Law system was the real reason for some of the cases that he has quoted this afternoon. We deny that. It is true that under the Poor Law some of the recipients had to visit the Poor Law officer once a week; but

  343
  surely no one would suggest that that was a very pleasant matter. Surely the purpose of the visit was to find out whether these people were still in need of relief. I cannot for a moment accept the proposition that those people looked with joy upon those visits, however frequent or infrequent they might have been. On the contrary, they would probably feel considerable anxiety as to whether at the end of the interview they would again receive the money payments that they had been receiving.
  I am not here to condemn the old system, however. There would not be much profit in going into that matter. Let us look at the present system. In 1927 I happened to be associated rather closely with what afterwards became known as the Blanesburgh Committee on Unemployment Insurance, and I remember that at the first meeting of that Committee Lord Blanesburgh called attention to the considerable agitation that was then taking place in the Press about the abuses of the unemployment insurance system. Lord Blanesburgh said, "We must find out whether this is true, because if there is this amount of abuse it may be that we shall have to take note of it, and deal with it in the recommendations in our Report." So a very extensive and intensive study was made. A microcosm of the whole of the claimants at that time was made, and, if my memory is correct, some 300,000 to 400,000 cases were traced right back to the homes and work of these people. As a result it was found (again I am speaking from memory) that the cases which would have warranted any sort of disciplinary action were fewer than the fingers on my hands.
  I remember quite well that at the next meeting of that Committee Lord Blanesburgh, in remarking that this agitation of the Press was not founded on fact. said something like this—I think these were almost his words: "It is our duty as a Committee to frame a scheme of unemployment insurance which will enable the unemployed person to receive his money with the same dignity and self-respect as he would draw out his own savings from the Post Office Savings Bank." That was an entirely new approach to the subject of unemployment insurance, and I remember well that the Blanesburgh
  344
  Committee altered fundamentally the whole basis of that scheme, which previously had been a kind of slate club scheme, a tontine scheme. What happens with regard to these pension and supplementary allowances is this. The case having been decided, the person goes to the Post Office and gets his money, to use the words of Blanesburgh, "with the same dignity as he would draw out his savings from the Post Office Savings Bank." That means a very great deal. I suppose that most noble Lords must know of people who are receiving supplementary assistance and pensions, people who would never have gone to the Poor Law if that had been the place to which they had to go.
  The noble Lord may quite properly hold that the administration of the Poor Law was nothing like so bad as was thought by popular imagination. The National Assistance Board know the qualities of the men who were relieving officers. Many of them are in the service of the Board to-day. They are doing their work with the same humanity and sympathy that they showed before. Moreover, many of us know personally people who were members of boards of guardians in the old days, and whose care and thought for the old and sick was beyond reproach. So there is no purpose in saying that the old system was as bad as it was reckoned to be. But the fact remains—and it is a matter that I cannot emphasise too much, because some of us on this side of the House saw the administration at pretty close quarters—that the fear and the hatred of the old system was a very real thing in the minds of the people. Unemployment and poverty were regarded in those days as a sin and a crime. We have left all that behind now, and I would not dare to claim any Party credit for that new approach to the subject by the whole nation.
  In the light of that fact, can it be wondered at that under the new scheme it was decided to clear out the old system lock, stock and barrel? It was the desire of all that there should be nothing in the new scheme which should even remotely suggest to the people concerned that the relieving officer, or someone like him, was connected with it. Nothing must remain to remind the people of the past, and it is absurd, if I may say so with respect, to pretend that the change from poor relief to supplementary pensions was

  345
  not welcomed by the aged people. I believe that the noble Lord has claimed —I do not think he has done so this afternoon, but he has in the past—that there was an impassioned cry that we were better off under the Poor Law. That —again with great respect—is an absurd statement of the position to-day as com-pared with that which existed previously.
  Let me give the noble Lord another figure—I think it is even more significant than the one I gave a few moments ago. And, perhaps I ought to say here that my noble friend Lord Shepherd will deal a little more closely with figures, when he comes to reply to the debate. I should like noble Lords to notice the figure which I am about to give, because I think that it completely disposes of at least one part of Lord Saltoun's argument. Of the 1,000,000 old people who applied for and received supplementary pensions in August, 1940, when the National Assistance Board began, 700,000 were people who had preferred to "make do" without relief, though the amounts of the supplementary pensions awarded showed without any doubt that many of them must have been in very great distress. They preferred to suffer that distress, rather than apply to the Poor Law at that time. The vast majority of old people neither want nor need to come under official supervision in the way the noble Lord desires. If his idea with regard to local welfare officers is that, in order to avoid an occasional tragedy, such as those which he has quoted to-day, we must have officers snooping to find them out then I say that the people would not tolerate it. And no matter how beneficent the purpose of this officer might be, there is no doubt whatever that the purpose would be misunderstood and the people would be resentful.
  Probably, the most constructive suggestions put forward by the noble Lord are to the effect that there should be better co-ordination between the Government Departments which have to deal with this matter. It would perhaps be too strong to say that he spoke scornfully of voluntary service, but at any rate he was not enthusiastic about it. It would be just as well, I think, for us to realise that we are expecting the greatest possible value from the services of the voluntary agencies that we know. Friends and neighbours, and local old people's welfare centres and clubs, are likely to discover cases of
  346
  the kind of which the noble Lord spoke very much more easily than the officer of any authority. The noble Lord seemed to suggest that since he spoke last year no progress has been made in this direction. Let me tell him and the House that there are at this moment 600 county and local welfare committees at work, and more are continually being formed. The increase has been by 100 since the noble Lord spoke twelve months ago. These committees play an important part in focusing public interest and concern upon the welfare of old people. For many old people, the friendliness and companionship engendered and fostered by these committees and clubs has banished the loneliness which was the bane of their advancing years.
  Good progress has been made in providing small homes for those no longer able to lead independent lives and who need care and attention. If I remember rightly, I expressed my personal view, when I spoke last year on this subject, that this question of segregating old people into homes needed careful watching. I could think of nothing more tragic than the herding of these old people together so that they would have the sorrow of losing colleagues who passed on, as people must when they reach the ages of which we are speaking. But between the end of the war and the present time, 300 local authority homes accommodating 8,000 people have been opened in England and Wales, and about another 300 are in course of preparation. In addition, there are 600 similar homes sustained by voluntary effort, and that number is being added to constantly.
  The shortage of hospital beds is, I suppose, the one feature of this problem that nearly defies solution. There are 50,000 beds for these patients in England and Wales—and that is, of course, considerably short of the total requirements estimated in the surveys of this subject made during the war. But it is extremely difficult at the present time to make any substantial addition to that number. Questions of labour, materials, finance and all the difficulties that exist at the present time, militate against any great advance in that direction. The hospital boards are doing their best to open new chronic sick units, by changing the use of other units no longer required for their original purpose. I may, perhaps,

  347
  interpolate here that I happen to be a governor of one of the hospitals, and I believe that a meeting of doctors and lay people is to be held on Monday next for the express purpose of examining the use of existing bed accommodation.
  Another interesting advance which has-been developing recently is the more-accurate diagnosis of elderly people. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, knows more about this matter than I do. It has been shown, I am advised, that as much as 40 per cent, of the so-called chronic sick can be rendered fit for discharge after rehabilitation ser-vices have been applied. However, at this point, when they are fit to leave the hospital or chronic sick bed, another difficulty arises: there is nowhere to send them. The matter is being examined at this moment, and it is hoped that to some degree the problem may be mitigated by exchanging people who have been in chronic beds and who are certified as fit to be taken out with people in homes who need more medical care and attention.
  Then there have been established bed bureaux, machinery for making sure that over a large area the best possible use is made of the beds in that area. These bed bureaux are being added to constantly. An interesting experiment which is at the moment being made in a few areas is the provision of hospital and specialist services at the homes of the chronic sick persons—for example, domiciliary consultant visits, a full range of out-patient diagnostic and treatment services to which the patient is brought by ambulance or other transport, the ser-vices of medico-social visitors and laundry facilities provided by the hospitals themselves. I admit that there is need for closer co-operation between the various agencies concerned with these people, and I make a present of this to the noble Lord. I have no doubt he will be glad to know that a special committee of the Central Health Service Council, which advises the Minister of Health, have been considering this matter, and my right honourable friend is hoping to receive their recommendations shortly.
  To sum up: no one would claim that the care of the aged does not at the moment present great difficulties. There is severe pressure on the number of beds available in hospitals and welfare homes.
  348
  Home helps and nursing services are not equal to the demands made upon them. But it is claimed, most emphatically—and I think the noble Lord agreed it is so— that the National Health Service, the local authorities and voluntary efforts are all working hard to overcome these difficulties and to make the maximum provision possible for the benefit of the aged. Every endeavour is being made to increase the degree of co-operation between the various forms of service, and it can be said with confidence that throughout the country there is an increasing awareness of the importance of co-operation, not simply to avoid overlapping and waste of effort, important as that is, but with the more positive desire to ensure that the limited resources available are deployed to the fullest advantage of aged persons in need.
  I may be forgiven for saying that I am interested in a survey that is being made throughout the country amongst those who suffer from cancer, mostly old people. We are anxious to know how these sufferers are faring in their own homes. As an example of the value of voluntary ser-vice, it would be an inspiration to every member of your Lordships' House to go to the offices of the survey and see there, night after night, City typists and City-clerks giving their services for hours on end, doing the necessary clerical work. Over 400 young women are giving their spare time to this work. It is all going in the direction the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, desires: to finding out what is really happening to these people. I think the noble Lord. Lord Amulree, is associated with that movement.
  I hope that I have shown that the various departments of public administration are alive to the necessary developments. There is no doubt that improvements are taking place continuously, and I am optimistic enough to say that they all add up to an ultimate solution of the problem which worries the noble Lord. It would be impertinent for me to attempt to discourage him from the task he has set himself, but I would ask him to keep things in a reasonable perspective. The beneficient revolution which has taken place, and which some of us have been trying to bring about for half a century, is something to be proud of, not something that should be decried. I do not say the noble Lord was decrying it. but I could not help feeling that whoever heard his speech or reads it would be given the

  349
  impression that things are pretty bad for these people. As I said twelve months ago, they are infinitely better than when these social services began.
  I would finish on this note. Forty-seven years ago almost to the day I made my first speech in public, and I came across the notes of that speech a year or two ago. It dealt with the horrible conditions under which the people in my Lancashire village were living and with the horror that the unemployed miners had of the Poor Law, and I advocated then, forty-seven years ago, that the Poor Law should be abolished and something more humane put in its place. Our interest in this question did not begin yesterday; it began half a century ago, and some of us have been working all that time to establish the present system. We know there are defects. If, within three years of beginning a vast scheme of this kind, touching every man. woman and child in the kingdom, we did not find that the machinery was running a little tight here and there, it would be a miracle, We welcome the noble Lord's interest in calling attention to any of these weaknesses. We shall continue to improve; we shall not be complacent about the defects. But, and this is my closing word, we are really proud of the services which this nation— I do not say Party, but nation—has pro-vided to help the sick and needy of all ages.
  3.49 p.m.
  LORD AMULREE: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the encouraging speech which the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, replying for the Government, has just made. I agree with a great deal of what he says, but nevertheless I should like to support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I agree that a great deal of work is being done and that people are trying hard to make this new social plan—it is more than an experiment, it is a new social revolution—a success. There are one or two points I should like to bring out which follow on what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, said in introducing his Motion. One point in what he said which I can confirm is that the number of people who may finally appear in that "black book" which he carries about is considerable. That is why I should like to support him in saying that it would be an advantage if somebody could be officially appointed to
  350
  find out about conditions among the sick and infirm poor—I am not talking so much about the poor who can get about by themselves.
  My work has taken place in one metropolitan borough. During the last two years we have come across no fewer than fourteen people whose cases were reported to the local authority by their friends and neighbours and in two instances by their doctors, and who, had they not been so reported, would undoubtedly one day have been found dead in bed—or probably they would not have been found in bed, but only in their apartments. We managed to admit those fourteen people to hospital, but four of them were in so tragic a state that they died within twenty-four hours. It was during the winter; they were frail and old, and death was undoubtedly due to cold and exposure. It was certainly not due to poverty in every case, because one man of about 75 years of age, who lived by himself— he was not a very attractive old man; he had quarrelled with his family, and would not have them near him—certainly was not poor: he had £26 in his pocket, and subsequent inquiries showed that with one pension from his firm and another from the State, he was receiving about £6 a week. We found him in time merely because the local sanitary inspector visited the house where he lived because of an outbreak of infectious disease. This man was not reported by his friends, because he had none, nor by his neighbours, because they obviously did not like him very much.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, that the National Assistance Board officers now see far more people than they did before, although I sometimes wonder whether they are seeing the right people, and whether some of those who should be seen are not seen because it is left to the pensioner to seek out the Board and not to the Board to search out the pensioner. I support the noble Lord in suggesting that somebody might take on that work. I do not want to create more officials—we certain have enough of them—but I should like the Assistance Board officers, if possible, to enlarge their work. They have already increased the scope of their tasks and now take care of the affairs of a larger number of pensioners, but I should like them, so far as possible, to be made

  351
  responsible for all old-age pensioners, whether those pensioners apply for supplementary pensions or not. It would not entail a great deal of investigation among people who do not need looking after, because by making a few inquiries in a street one can usually find out whether persons are living in unfortunate circumstances by themselves.
  When dealing with the question of old age in general, there is one ring which must be broken completely: namely, that which says that if there is no room in the hospital, then there is no room in the institution—call it welfare home, institution, ex-workhouse, or what you will. Prompt admission to hospital will nearly always ensure prompt discharge. That principle is as true for old people as it is for the young. One is told that some of these chronic sick hospitals have long waiting lists up to twelve months. But that is fairly meaningless, because if somebody is sick and has to wait twelve months in his home, the physical and mental deterioration by the time he is admitted is such that either nothing much can be done for him, or a long stay in hospital is entailed. It may seem contrary for me to start with the sick, but I feel that that is the real point at issue. When people grow old there is no sharp dividing line between being sick and being well, and, as I have said, a short spell in hospital at the right time may often lead to many years of comparative health in the person's own home, and that is a state of affairs which we want to encourage.
  The noble Lord said that there are about 50,000 beds available for the old and chronic sick but that a certain number cannot be used at the present time because of the shortage of staff. I entitrely agree that it is impossible to provide any more hospital beds at the present moment, but I would suggest that the number of beds which we have now is probably sufficient for the needs of the aged population. When the surveys were made, it was estimated that something like two beds per thousand (I have not the figures with me) were needed for the chronic sick. That would mean a large increase in the number of beds, from I believe, 50,000 to 100,000. Obviously that is something we cannot expect now and, as I say, I am not at all sure that it is necessary. In some of the hospitals
  352
  where the old and chronic sick patient is properly treated, it has been found that a greatly reduced number of beds can cope with the same population as before. The places which I have in mind have been able in the course of a few years to cut down the number of beds to about one-third, or even one-quarter, of the total, and yet deal with the same population— indeed, with rather a bigger population, because there are probably more people of pensionable age. We need to encourage the proper use of the beds that are avail-able. I venture, very rashly, to prophesy to your Lordships that in five or ten years' time it will be unnecessary to provide more beds, even for a vastly older population than we have now. In talking of the old days, before the appointed day, it is curious to note that most of the new techniques, new methods and new ideas in treating the chronic sick and old came from what were originally Poor Law hospitals. I do not want to stress the point, but it is nevertheless a fact.
  One of the difficulties at present in securing admission to hospital is that they are very full, particularly during the winter months. I found out the other day from the Emergency Bed Service that during the four bad months—namely. November, December. January and February— whereas of people, under 50 years of age about 95 per cent, were admitted to hospital quite quickly, with people between 50 and 60 years of age the figure dropped to about 80 per cent., between 60 and 70 to about 70 per cent., and between 70 and 80 to about 60 per cent. When a man has turned 80 the chances of his admission dropped to 50 per cent. I think that is a very definite statement of the difficulties. They are fairly authentic figures, because they cover the whole of Greater London with a population of several million.
  We have been told in the past—I had not intended to bring up this point—that the National Health Service Act will take care of the old people. It has not done a great deal in that direction so far, as the figures show. There has been an improvement in the last ten years; it is not a very big improvement, but it is enough to show that things are not quite so bad as they were in 1949. It shows, too, that there is a big gap before we come anywhere near solving the problem. I was very surprised to find that there is a proposal in one London hospital to shut down two wards of about sixty beds, used

  353
  at the present time for the chronic sick and the aged people, and to transfer the wards to a nearby hospital. The wards are to be changed into a lecture theatre and laboratories. I should have thought that one would try to encourage the authorities to make every possible bed available for old people. One can see the effects of this difficulty in another way. About a week ago, I visited one of the ex-London workhouses, where they have many able-bodied people and many infirm people. They had been forced to start two wards, totalling fifty-two beds, one for males and one for females, for the acute sick in that institution. It makes me think that the wheel is turning lull circle. It was about a hundred years ago when we first started building infirmaries in the "well-regulated workhouses" of 1834; that was the start of the mixed institution which we do not like, and which we hope we shall not see again. There is another mixed institution starting in the middle of this town. That again is indicative of the shortage of beds; and means that one should do all one possibly can to en-courage the use of these beds to the best advantage.
  There is another point to which the noble Lord referred. It is difficult to gain admission to hospitals, and it is equally difficult to get people out of hospitals. There are several reasons for that. One is that we have not the number of hostels available to which to send them. It may not be possible to build many, because we have not much money in the country, and we have to make use of the existing facilities. I suggest that there should be a certain amount of flexibility between these two very fine Acts of Parliament— the National Assistance Act and the National Health Service Act. I am sure that it was never the intention that they should be driven in parallel lines. As the noble Lord knows, parallel lines never meet, and it was intended that these two Acts should meet from point to point. As a matter of fact the administration of these Acts is too rigid, and I should like to put in a plea for much more flexibility.
  May I refer for one moment to the old system? I know that the noble Lord said that the Poor Law needed to go, and that it had to be cleared out. I entirely agree. The last thing I wish to see is anything approaching Poor Law. But there were one or two principles in the
  354
  Poor Law which were not too bad. There was the mixed institution, with its workhouse on one side and its infirmary on the other. They were run by the same authority. The medical superintendent of the infirmary was generally the medical officer to the workhouse. It was possible, if a person was sick or became a bit frail, to remove him without bother into the infirmary. If he recovered he could be moved back to the workhouse. During the winter months, a large number of people moved from the workhouse to the infirmary and back again. I do not want to suggest the use again of mixed institutions, but I think they embodied a very fine principle. There was no administrative difficulty about transferring persons to the infirmary when they were sick, and back again when they recovered. That is what I mean when I say that there is a lack of flexibility.
  It is largely, I believe, a financial difficulty, because if patients are sick they are paid under the National Health Act. and if they are well by the local authority. There is a certain amount of trouble in finding the finance, but I imagine that difficulty could largely be met by a little firm encouragement from the central office. There are one or two rather curious reasons for the present situation. At the present time, children have no obligation to support their parents—though I do not want to go into the moral side of that. At present, we have several old patients in my hospital; they lived by themselves and they could not carry on alone. They came under our care, and now that they are a good deal better they could leave. They are not fit to go and live alone in their one room, but they have families who could take them without great difficulty. The families are not living in one room, but in quite reasonable circumstances and with reasonable accommodation. They refuse to take them. That means that I have four or five people occupying beds who need not be there. That is rather a deplorable thing, and in time it will cause a vast amount of clogging up of beds.
  I should like to put forward the idea that there might be some means of compelling these people to take their parents when they have recovered, in cases where there is nowhere else for them to go. We cannot get them into an institution, and there are not enough

  355
  of these halfway houses. Therefore, they have to occupy an expensive hospital bed. It is much more expensive to keep them in hospital than in some kind of institution or home. The noble Lord may have seen in The Times about a fortnight ago an article on halfway houses. These have just been started by the King Edward's Hospital Fund, and they are meant for people who do not need to be treated in hospital but who are not well enough to go to their homes. In these places they can live a more or less normal life, and yet remain under the medical umbrella and receive their treatment. There are now about four or five of these halfway houses now open, and I think that they are quite comfort-able places. When the patients go there they receive their 16s. a week for the first year. When they are well enough to be transferred to a home under the National Assistance. Act, then 21s. of their pension is given up for their maintenance, and they receive only 5s. Nobody is going to be very eager to change a comfortable residence and 16s. a week for a residence where he gets only 5s. That is another thing which makes it more difficult to get patients to go out under the regional board.
  There is one other point that I should like to raise. There have been suggestions that, pending the time when the hospital service can take in these people and the beds are free, there should be some means of securing, subject to a medical certificate, compulsory admission to a hospital for a short period. That proposal has a certain amount to be said for it. There should also be compulsory admission to an institution or home. We cannot place the whole of the burden on the hospitals, or they will get clogged up. Nurses and doctors are already run off their feet, and the patient would suffer. I was going to say a word about the way of preventing people from becoming ill, but that may arise more properly when we are talking about the new pension rates. I would add a tribute to the extremely fine work which the voluntary organisations are doing in visiting the old people's homes, clubs, and so on. One of the prime causes of mental and spiritual decay is having nothing to do. and continued employment is good for both body and mind.
  4.12 p.m.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I shall, I suppose, pass as one of the old people. Happily, I am still at work and I have the utmost sympathy and concern for the old people, who in many instances are living in poverty and loneliness, without any real interest in life. I am therefore very grateful to the noble Lord who has introduced this subject. He showed great knowledge of the subject, and great sympathy with the old people; and the result of his initiative is that we are having an extremely interesting and sympathetic discussion about some of the matters which concern old people. I agree with the noble Lord who spoke from the Government Front Bench that the position has improved very greatly, compared to what it was many years ago. The old age pension, for one thing, has improved the position; and, as has already been said, there is a large number of voluntary societies which are doing very good work indeed in connection with old people. The old have nothing to look forward to. I can remember how, as a curate, I used to visit the workhouses, which were full of old people, crowded together, gloomy, unhappy and querulous. They had little relief in their lives, and of all the visits that I used to make those were the ones I dreaded most. I am speaking of some-thing like fifty years ago. Things have improved enormously since then; and the Act to which reference has already-been made has brought about a great advance.
  The noble Lord who initiated the debate was right in stressing that the problem is still a great one, and one which is tending to increase, for we are becoming an older nation. The elderly may be a burden on the younger generation. In one great town in the North, I am told, there are over 60,000 people over the age of sixty. I am told that in another town 10 per cent, of the population consist of aged people. In another city the proportion is something like 12 per cent. These figures will increase in the future. Therefore, this is a matter which requires the most serious consideration. Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, to the fact that young people sometimes evade their responsibility towards their parents. Many of the younger people now go out to work, however, and are no longer able

  357
  to look after the old people as in the past. We therefore have before us a great problem, one which will require most careful consideration.
  There are three lines of approach. The first is perhaps rather different from anything which has been said so far in this debate. I think it is most important that a large number of small houses should be built for the older people—in the country especially. One frequently finds an old man and his wife living alone in the cottage in which they have brought up a large family. That cottage could probably hold a larger number of people than these two. But it would be cruel indeed to move the old couple out of the cottage and away from the neighbourhood in which they have lived for many years. Many of these couples themselves feel that the house is too large for them, and they would like to move to a smaller place in the district in which they have all their friends. In a lesser degree, this is also the position in the towns. In the past, many local authorities did set aside a certain number of their houses for older people, but in many cases, owing to the great pressure of the housing problem, that policy has been suspended. It might help the housing problem, and the old people too, if more small houses could be built for old people. as I have suggested, so that they may still have a home of their own.
  The next point to which I wish to refer has already been touched upon. There are many old people who like to live by themselves; they do not wish to mix with other people; they do not wish to enter an institution. They are rather lonely people. When their health is good and the weather favourable, all is well. But when they are laid up and the weather is bad, they may easily find themselves in a position of great difficulty. Some of the cases of old persons dying, to which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun referred, may well have been due purely to such circumstances as these. When the weather is good, an old person is able to go and fetch his or her rations, coal, and so forth; but in case of illness or very bad weather trouble arises. Unless some systematic arrangement is made, some of these old people may be in a position of great suffering. A great deal has been done already by local authorities, and also by private organisations, in the way
  358
  of home helps, and this scheme has been very good so far as it has gone; but it has not been anything like sufficient. For instance, in one big city arrangements are made to take warm meals to these old men and women on one or two days of the week. I am told by some of the voluntary organisations which undertake this work that a whole fleet of cars is required to take these meals round, instead of the few cars which serve at present. That side of the work seems to need a great deal of developing and strengthening.
  My third point is one which has been touched upon so much already that I need not spend more than a moment or two on it. I am thinking of the people who are not ill enough for a hospital, but who are certainly not well enough to take care of themselves beyond a certain point. They are unreliable; they are subject to giddiness or to weakness in some form or other; and they cannot always be regarded as responsible if left to themselves. On the other hand, as I say, they are certainly not cases for the hospital. It is therefore a matter of urgency that more of these halfway houses should be pro-vided. The Times, in the excellent article already referred to, used the expression "halfway houses" in rather a different connection. The article, I think, was referring to a place to which a patient could go after discharge from the hospital, and when in need of a few weeks' further treatment before going to a welfare hostel. I think something more than that is meant by "halfway house," something rather more permanent, where the people can go and have a certain amount of supervision, possibly for the rest of their lives.
  There is one further point that I wish to make, partly arising from something which has already been said—that is, the importance of older people having some interest in life. It was remarkable to hear that something like 40 per cent, of those who have been rehabilitated (I dislike that word) and have been through that kind of treatment have been restored to normal health. But there is a deeper problem. May I illustrate it in this way? When I was a curate and vicar in Portsmouth, where there is a large dockyard, it always used to be said that the best workers would die shortly after they retired. Often that proved perfectly true: in many cases

  359
  they died a few months or a year or two after their retirement. But after a time (I was living in the same place for a great many years) I noticed a difference. The men who had some other interest in life besides their work—it might be religion or politics, or pigeons or rabbits, or something like that, so long as they had some other interest which they could carry over to the time of retirement—retained their vitality and, to a large extent, their physical vigour. I wish that the voluntary societies, who do so well, could do more to prepare people for the period of old age, so that when they give up their ordinary work they may be able to carry into their retirement some interest which will keep them alive and give them a real interest in life. I am sure that we all feel a profound concern for, and the greatest sympathy with, these old people in retirement, who are often in consider-able mental and physical difficulties, and who in the past have done useful service for their country. We are all most anxious to help them in any way we can.
  4.23 p.m.
  LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I can speak only of what I find in the North of England. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. has mentioned that there is need for greater flexibility with the hospital boards. In my own home town, there are 150 aged people with chronic ailments waiting for beds, whilst only ten are acute cases of the aged sick. I appeal to the Front Bench to urge upon the new Minister of Health that there should be an inquiry into the co-ordination of some of these local, ex-municipal hospitals. The medical officer of health feels frustrated when the hospital which he has seen grow up is taken over by a regional board with palatial offices in, say, Harrogate. He has 150 aged people chronically sick and he cannot do anything for them. One medical officer of health only last Friday said: "Many medical officers of health are feeling a sense of frustration in the new set-up." It is not too late for such an inquiry to be made.
  Mention has been made of housing schemes by the most reverend Primate. Again I speak only for the North of England, but I can say that in every housing scheme for the last six years provision has been made for small bungalow
  360
  houses for the aged, because we want these old people to carry on in their own homes. Going back to the days of the old Board and Commission, I always remember with pride an enlightened board of guardians building a little community where there was even a seat facing another seat for the next-door neighbour, so that the old folk could sit and have a good gossip. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is a little too pessimistic: we have been making great progress. With regard, for instance, to hostels, a certain type of person with gregarious instincts does not like to be herded in the old workhouse. I notice that in the city of Leeds eight hostels are already in being and working. Six hundred aged people are being catered for in mansions which were the mansions of the rich until a few years ago. The rich people have gone; they have migrated to better places, I hope. Similar arrangements have been made by the West Riding County Council. The Bradford council, again an authority with vision, has been able to do the same. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, need not be too pessimistic that all is lost, because this country does more for the aged than does any other nation upon the face of the earth. That is the reason why the population of persons aged sixty-five and upwards has doubled during the last decade. In one sense it is a tragedy but. on the other hand, it is a living testimony to the public-spiritedness of the people of this country.
  It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that now that the descendants of the aged are not legally responsible for them (which is true) there is a falling off in observing one of the Ten Commandments:
  "Thou shalt honour thy father and thy mother."
  These young folk cannot make the excuse that they are short of money. Indeed, their parents themselves have bigger pensions, and are going to have bigger pensions still. On that point, again I would request the Front Bench to ask His Majesty's Government, when they are implementing the scheme for larger pensions on October 1, to make those pensions retrospective to September 1, so that the old people can purchase a few bags of coal before the winter sets in.

  361
  Then there is a sort of frustration between the regional boards, with their 100 per cent, grants of cash, bucketsful of money and every social service, and the local authority, which receives only 50 per cent. The local Chancellor of the Exchequer says: "I am not going to view with any enthusiasm an extension of your work, because it means that the rates will go up." He is to be excused for that. I think the Minister of Health should in-crease the 50 per cent, health services grant to local authorities. One or two social services have actually been shut down—but those are connected with child welfare, and therefore I will not digress by mentioning them in this speech. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. emphasised the lack of contact in visits. I remember the tough old relieving officer; he had to be tough with some of the people with whom he had to deal. As a small boy I myself had a narrow escape from coming into his clutches. I have in my hand a postcard which is stamped and sent to every person over 65 years of age in the city of Leeds. Fifteen thousand of these cards have been sent out, and the idea could be copied all over the countryside.
  LORD SALTOUN: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I should like to point out to him that in the whole of my remarks I never used the phrases "Poor Law" or "relieving officer." I never referred to the old Poor Law.
  LORD CALVERLEY: I do not want to be unkind to the noble Lord, but that was the idea he gave to some of us. However, I want to go on to deal with the positive side—what is being done in our great progressive cities. Each pensioner has thirteen voluntary agencies to choose from in regard to the darning of socks, the cleaning of a house, making a bed or doing a bit of washing. These old people have only to ask for a welfare officer to call. They put their name and address on the card, and put it in the postbox. By this scheme great work is being done. Along with the postcard is sent a nice human letter telling these aged people that there is a message to all old-age pensioners from a very human welfare service officer. The noble Lord wants more welfare service officers. The local Chancellor of the Exchequer, however. says that if he "sets them on," he will get only a 50 per cent, grant, though if
  362
  the matter comes under the hospital board, which has money to burn, he will receive a grant of 100 per cent. I want to bring that point to the attention of the new Minister of Health, in order to see whether he can do anything.
  My only other point is this. So far as I have found out, the average woman over sixty loves making a little cake; it occupies her mind. I wish the Minister of Food, instead of deluging the countryside with 1 lb 6 oz. of sweets each month to every man, woman and child, would give an extra 4 oz. of fat to the aged. Some of us have a sweet tooth, and would like a nice home-baked cake. My Lords, I have scrapped most of my notes, because there are one or two other noble Lords to speak, and I will close with, I trust, the not altogether vain hope that the Front Bench will take notice of this debate, and even of the cautionary stories of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I am glad that he did not read out of his ''black book," otherwise he would have taken a long time. But I should like at some time to have a look at his "black book" and then, if it is very cautionary, we will send it to give nightmares to the new Minister of Health.
  4.34 p.m.
  LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I wish to comment only on one particular point that has been raised by two or three speakers to-day—namely, the feeling of apprehension that the bed accommodation formerly open in hospitals to the aged poor is being filled up by surgical and medical cases, and that the improvement which is claimed in our health services is being achieved partly at the expense of the old people. A good deal has been said on this subject to-day, but I happen to have come across a case which called the matter vividly to my attention. I am the chairman of the Assistance Board advisory committee in Manchester. A few weeks ago, in my ex-officio office as chairman, I was attending one of the sub-committees, and the most extraordinary case came to our notice. Usually, most of the cases coming before these advisory sub-committees are cases of human wreckage, with which the officers of the Assistance Board, with all their energy and devotion, have been unable to deal; and often the committee themselves cannot decide what to do, though I am pleased to say that in some cases they succeed in finding a way out

  363
  of the difficulty. On this occasion, however, we heard of a most extraordinary case. A young man with a good working record was brought before the subcommittee. We were informed—in fact, he told us so himself later—that he refused to go out and work because his mother was sick and he had to attend to her.
  This was a very distressing case, the sort of thing that unfortunately does occur with a number of old people; it was a case of the utter physical and functional breakdown of the body. It was a case which it was hard and disagreeable to nurse, and one in which it would be impossible to get a neighbour to look after the patient. We were informed by the officer of the Board that no room could be found for this woman in any institution; that the doctor and the Assistance Board officer had done their best, and still the woman was left in the same position. The son was quite willing, indeed anxious, that his mother should go into an institution; but as a good son, he felt that he could not leave her to exist in the filthy conditions in which, if she did not receive attention, she would have to live. In this case there seems to have been a complete lack of liaison between the Assistance Board and the hospital authorities. In many ways, that is the reason why this Motion has been brought forward. This case was so interesting that I thought I should bring it to your Lordships' attention. I have no great knowledge of the officer who dealt with the case, but I think he could not have failed to do all he could, because it would have been greatly against his interests to bring into publicity, and to the knowledge of the sub-committee, a case in which he himself had not per-formed his part.
  Having spent twenty years as a Poor Law guardian, and while I am on my feet, I should like to thank Lord Kershaw publicly, although he is absent at the moment, for the kind words that he used in regard to those of us who have been guardians and relieving officers. I do not hanker for the return of the Poor Law, and I realise that any new system must be faulty in some respects; but in a case like the one I have mentioned, I think that under the old Poor Law there would have been immediate admission to a Poor Law infirmary. In this particular
  364
  district, the City of Salford, there was a big institution, and in the old days this woman would have been sent straight there. I know that there has been improvement in a number of directions, but I think that it is urgently necessary to do something to avoid cases of this nature occurring.
  4.40 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken in your Lordships' House, and I know that you will grant me your indulgence. It is not such a formidable occasion as it might have been, coming as it does towards the end of the debate, when your Lordships, I am sure, will not wish much more to be said. But I feel that it is right, after my experience, extending since my early days in East London and embracing pastoral work in a county so greatly concerned with the care of old people, to say one or two things, even though they may be almost entirely to support, or rather to express my agreement with, the speech of the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York. Quite shortly, there are three general observations that I would put before your Lordships.
  First, I should like to record in the House not only our sympathy with many old people but also our admiration for the very great contribution which they, by their courage and patience, bring to the whole of our national life. If I may speak simply from personal experience, I find that again and again. It has been my custom during the last few years on nearly every Sunday in spring and summer to go to a country parish in the evening, and to visit six or seven homes —simple homes, where old people who cannot get about are to be found. If only I had recorded from the beginning the wisdom that I have learned and received, it would have been a most valuable record. This is an age of statistics and information and memoranda, but I believe that it is still, as it has always been, among old people in the simple homes, where there has been steadfast rectitude of character, that that kind of wisdom, which makes all the difference to a small community, is to be found. I should like to give my record of witness to that.
  Secondly, I wish to emphasise what I think has already been said as to the need for co-ordinating the various social

  365
  services. Great as is the assistance which the State and the local authorities can give, nothing can take the place of the understanding, the pastoral and sympathetic personal friendliness and wise counsel which is given voluntarily, again and again, particularly in the country parishes, by the country clergy and the ministers and members of the congregations. Among all forms of voluntary service an important part is that great pastoral work of the Christian Church which I believe is being discharged in these very difficult days as conscientiously as ever it has been. Of course, the conditions in the towns are entirely different from those in the villages. With the immense population of a modern parish in a great city, it becomes almost impossible, with the best will in the world, for the few clergy and their helpers to supply that kind of visitation and friendship which they wish to do, and which is so much welcomed where it can be given. That must always be a first duty of the Christian Church, and I am sure that the clergy for whom I should like to speak would be glad to feel that this subject is being so sympathetically considered in this House to-day.
  My third point—and it is one which has already been touched upon by the most reverent Primate the Lord Archbishop of York—is this. Those of us who come into contact with the old people's clubs—for example, the Evergreen Clubs, of which we have sixteen in Leicester, with a very large membership of old-age pensioners—can bear witness to the fact that that kind of voluntary organisation seems to be supplying exactly what old people need at the present time. They look forward to coming out from their loneliness and their boredom to meet with their friends. At these clubs, perhaps sixty, eighty or a hundred men or women, or men and women together, meet on one afternoon of the week; and the voluntary effort of supplying that kind of social friendship and contact with the wider world which is to be found in the clubs is something by which I am certain old people benefit, and which they welcome very much. That is all I wish to say; I just wanted to bear witness to those facts.
  4.46 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this debate has covered the ground so well that more speeches are hardly needed.
  366
  The subject, however, is one of such importance that perhaps the debate ought not to close without a brief and modest contribution from this Front Bench. At any rate, it gives me the opportunity of congratulating most sincerely the right reverend Prelate on a model maiden speech. I think we can say of the speech of my noble friend who introduced this Motion that it was sympathetic, informed, and balanced—and it lost nothing by being balanced. But I think we shall all agree that the problems which he raised in his moving speech ought to be considered—greatly as we all sympathise with him—not only in the light of the present economic situation, but also, even more, in relation to the changing agestructure of the population. I think that some word ought to be said about that in this debate, because I do not feel that the extraordinary change which is taking place is really appreciated in the country. A hundred years ago, for every person over 65 years of age there were thirteen people of working age. To-day, the figure I believe is one to six. and the statisticians tell us that in twenty-five years' time, with the present expectation of life, it will be one to four. And the position is even more serious than those figures show, because what we call the working population includes all housewives, who have a great deal to do looking after their homes and families, and it also includes women over 60 years of age who have opted to retire.
  It is a physical and a financial problem. On the pre-Budget rate of pension, I think I am right in saying (Lord Shepherd will correct me if I am wrong) that the cost of retirement pensions was in the region of £300,000,000 a year, and the estimate which I have had is that even on the pre-Budget rate those pensions would rise to something like £500,000,000 a year in 1975. The Budget has—quite rightly, I think—added £39,000,000 in a full year. These are formidable figures, and they do not make hard cases any less hard; but they do, I think, show the importance of confining our proposals to cases of real need. And that was where Lord Saltoun's speech, I felt, was realistic and responsible. Those figures also emphasise how very important it is that those who can should remain at work and increase the national output. I think we are all better for remainins at work. As the most reverend

  367
  Primate said, when some of the best workers retire, they soon die unless they have a hobby or something to do. A great many people would be both happier and better in health if, like some of us who are getting on, they still continued in harness. Everything should be done by employers and workers to encourage the older people in every way they can. I am sure it is possible. I was given an example the other day of an engineering firm where the postal department, which a few years ago was run almost entirely by juveniles, has now become the grandfathers' department. The average age is 67, and I am told that the efficiency is higher than it was before. Those of us round about that age can well understand that being so.
  We have also to see what can be done, within our means, to help. It came out in one aspect or another in speech after speech in this debate, that the care of the aged and the partially infirm aged is a peculiarly personal service. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said, about finding that the younger generation, who could quite well do so, were unwilling to take their aged relatives into their homes. While I am sure there are cases of that kind, I have, on the other hand, been impressed, particularly in the country, by the readiness of young people to take into their homes parents who are not only aged but aged and very infirm, though they make more work than the whole of the rest of the family. It would be an evil day, morally as well as financially, if we tried to detract from or discourage the personal service given by children to their parents and old relatives.
  I am sure we can do a tremendous amount by helping and encouraging voluntary organisations, to which a de-served tribute has been paid. Help to these organisations may be both effective and economical. With them a little money goes a long way. As with the voluntary services, in the case of the public authorities personal knowledge and the personal touch are all important. I am not going to enter into a controversy over the old and the modern. What we have to do is to keep the best of the old while bringing in what is good in the new. In work of this sort we do not want centralisation and a sealed pattern. This is not the occasion, certainly not the hour, on which to debate the reform of
  368
  local government, but I will say this: the more humane the service, the more local should be the administration. Whether the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, was right about his local officer or not, I do not know, and I am not going to argue about that; but in principle I am sure he was right. It is local knowledge and sympathy that count. I want to add my plea about housing. I hope that housing will always include, and increasingly include, small houses for old people. It is true, as the most reverend Primate said, that in many country districts, by building a few small houses we could enable old people to vacate the large ones which they are occupying now. We should not be building these little houses at the expense of young married couples beginning family life. In many cases the two programmes will be complementary, and we shall be making it possible for the old people and the young couples to live in the kind of houses in which they ought to live.
  I would touch on only one other subject. I am told that the functions of a number of charitable trusts, founded to assist old people in some way or another, are now obsolete. If a trust is exhausted, the trustees can go to the Charity Commission and have a scheme to apply the trust to what lawyers call cy-pres. But that may be too narrow. In the interests of the whole community it would be much the better course to give wider discretion in applying these trusts. It might be much more effective, if the number of trusts which are wholly or partly exhausted is substantial, to amalgamate several of them so that in a fairly wide district they could make the best use of their funds. It might be that certain almshouses could be converted into half-way houses or into hostels to relieve the pressure on the hospitals. I do not know how much there is in that suggestion, but I think it is worth following up. I am sure we cannot deal with this matter in any sealed-pattern way. We want to use such resources as we have and can scrape together and associate them with all the voluntary service that can be undertaken. Then, without a great deal of expenditure, we might achieve a great reform. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for having initiated this debate. Although the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, was a little critical of some of the things

  369
  Lord Saltoun said, I think the Government were sympathetic, on the whole, to the general tenor of his proposals and were—for them—unusually open-minded in their approach to the subject. Well, the noble Lord has had that effect on the Government: he has done more than many of us have been able to do.
  5.0 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before I embark on the few remarks that I intend to make, I feel that I should make a brief reply to the point just raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, about charitable trusts. At this moment an inter-Departmental Committee, sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Nathan, are studying the question of charitable trusts, and I believe that the matter of obsolete trusts is amongst them. If that is the case, then the noble Viscount's point will undoubtedly be borne in mind. I want to give my meed of praise to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for the speech which he made in the House to-day, and for the careful preparation of which it gave evidence; and I do not wish to call into question the motives that prompted him 1o make it. I do not agree entirely with the suggestions that he has made, but on the whole there is not a great distance separating us one from the other. I should also like to add my word of welcome to the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Leicester, who to-day made his first speech in your Lordships' House. I sincerely trust that it will not be the last speech that we may hear from him, and that he may be encouraged to come amongst us more often, if that be possible.
  I do not think a lengthy speech is required from me, because only a few points call for mention in a winding-up speech. I should first of all like to deal with what the noble Lord said about hard cases, in order that I may put into proper perspective the position of the National Assistance Board, and, secondly, to deal with the matter of co-ordination, which is the real subject that we are supposed to be discussing to-day, but of which, I am afraid, we have heard too little. The few figures that I am about to give on the National Assistance Board are not too many, but they will be sufficient: to give your Lordships a real impression of the activities of that Board. In 1948 the number of allowances made weekly was
  370
  (in round figures) 842,000; in March of this year the number of such allowances was 1,383,000, again in round figures— that is to say, there was an increase in that short period of more than 500,000. The proportion of old people to be found amongst those receiving those weekly allowances is very high indeed. In 1948, out of a total of under 1,000,000 payments, old people received 628,000. Since that time, there has been an enormous increase, and the number of old people now in receipt of weekly allowances is 812,000, rising to 850,000. Therefore, the National Assistance Board, by the very nature of the work they are carrying on, are having a great contact—far greater than ever existed before—with the elderly people in our country.
  Of the 850,000 old people who are in receipt of allowances, the following figures apply: 700,000 arc persons in receipt of retirement pensions; 100,000 more are in receipt of non-contributory pensions; and 50,000 of the allowances are accounted for by people who have not qualified for either kind of pension. In addition the National Assistance Board have the responsibility of administering the noncontributory pensions scheme. There is, of course, a certain amount of overlapping between the two great functions relating to old people, probably reckoned at 100,000, but if due allowance is made for that, and the two allowances are added together, the Assistance Board, it will be found, are in contact with 1,150,000 aged persons. I suggest to noble Lords, with those figures in mind, that the work of the National Assistance Board is infinitely greater than that which the Poor Law authorities ever had to face, and that their experience of the problems of the aged must for that reason be infinitely greater, too.
  It may interest noble Lords to know that every person who applies to the Public Assistance Board for assistance is visited at the address which the applicant gives. Whether he is visited on a number of occasions depends entirely on the case. Where the person is naturally healthy, and able to go to the Post Office for his pension or allowance without difficulty, there is every reason in the world why he should do so. But where the person is infirm, other visits may be made by members of the staff of the Ministry. Last year the total of such visits was in the neighbour-

  371
  hood of 5,000,000. That figure has to be remembered in relation to any suggestion that may be made that the Board are falling down on their task, and are not carrying out work originally intended. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has not suggested that, and I do not accuse him of doing so; but I am afraid that if we allow these bad cases of his to cloud the field of publicity we may be doing an injustice to the Board.
  I now come to points raised by Lord Saltoun concerning administration; of inquiries to be made by members of the staff of the Board, whether authority ought to be vested in one man or whether we ought to depend, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has suggested, on voluntary services. Personally, I do not think it would be possible at the moment, in view of the labour situation in the country, to find sufficient extra staff to carry out the suggestion first mentioned by the noble Lord. He might make, for consideration by the Ministry, a suggestion that I have had made to me elsewhere, that the staff of the Board should be divided up on a parish basis, and that, that having been done, some member of the staff should be placed in charge of each parish. But even if it were possible to do that, there would still be great need of the services of the voluntary worker.
  Noble Lords may think it strange that in these days a Labour Minister should be asking for a continuation and development of voluntary services, because it is sometimes suggested that we have never been in favour of it. That, however, is entirely wrong. What we have said in former days is that in continuous matters of this kind one cannot leave everything to voluntary service, because voluntary service is moved by apathy and enthusiasm alternately.
  LORD SALTOUN: That is just what I was saying.
  LORD SHEPHERD: But if there is the skeleton of the organisation, clothed in authority and blessed with voluntary service, then it is possible to provide the close network for that which needs to be attended to in the community. We are doing everything we can by co-operation to make use of voluntary workers in finding out the cases which
  372
  need treatment. There is another reason why we should depend as much as we can on voluntary service for discovering applicants for assistance. The noble Lord will understand that the members of the Assistance Board and their employees are not only representatives of the community; they are also representatives of Parliament. They have to administer the law, and in that respect they have to give decisions. If, therefore, the applicants can be brought to them for judgment—a judgment benevolent and sympathetic—it might be the best way of dealing with the responsibilities of the Board.
  Now I want to say something about co-ordination. Co-ordination, I take it, is to involve not merely the services rendered by the National Assistance Board but also those given by the local health authorities and the hospitals. May I say here, in parenthesis, that the local health authorities are now finding increasing numbers to employ in connection with their own services? Noble Lords might like to know that at the end of 1949 the number of health visitors employed was 5,852, the number of home nurses employed was 8,283, and the number of domestic helps—which has shown a great increase—totalled 18,655. Co-ordination must relate to the activities of all these bodies, including the hospital services. I am not sure where the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, stands in this respect. He has suggested the appointment of an officer with authority. I cannot see how that could be accomplished and carried out with success. Surely, it would be better that we should seek the co-ordination of the authorities responsible for policy and functions, and if that can be secured it will then be for the co-ordinated authority, or the co-ordinated bodies resulting, to decide what their servants are going to be. But the noble Lord may rest assured that on this subject, although we are not entirely clear what he wants, and although we may not eventually agree with him, we are now convinced of the need for co-ordination.
  I have here a note which I should like to read for purposes of clarity. The Central Health Services Council are still considering the question of co-operation, and it is therefore impossible to give any indication at all of what their recommendations to the Minister will be. It is known that a number of committees,

  373
  with varying structures and functions, have already been set up in various parts of the country, for the purpose of securing greater co-ordination within the Health Service. Pending the recommendations of the Central Council, the Minister of Health does not wish to take any definite line on what form the machinery for co-operation should best take, but generally he is strongly in favour of all efforts directed to this end. Noble Lords may therefore rest assured that if there is a favourable report, action will be taken in order to bring about, if need be from the top, the co-ordination which seems to be essential.
  In order to indicate to your Lordships what the Minister has in mind when he gives a welcome to the action which has taken place in various localities, perhaps I may quote from a recent meeting of which I had cognisance, where the subject before the meeting had some bearing on this matter. The Hendon Group Hospital Management Committee found themselves in very great difficulty with the chronic sick. What beds they had at their disposal for this purpose were filled, and there was a waiting list of more than 200 needing treatment. The Committee therefore sought consultation with other bodies around, in order to find out whether, by helping one another, they could get rid of the immediate difficulty and give more attention to those who sought entry. Let me give your Lordships a description of the meeting which was called. There were representatives of the Middlesex County Council: there was the county welfare officer, representatives from the health committee of the council, the assistant county treasurer, and representatives from the welfare committee of the county. In addition, the medical officers of health for Harrow, Hendon, and Wembley attended, and the National Assistance Board Regional Office also sent a representative. Further, a number of voluntary organisations who have been co-operating locally also sent people. The point to be considered was how to get more people into the hospital by getting more people out. That was the difficulty.
  When the meeting was brought together and considered the great problem involved, it branched out in all kinds of subjects—the meals-on-wheels service; county homes; home helps; home nurs-
  374
  ing; short- and long-stay beds; the supply of bed linen to chronic cases at their own homes and the establishment of a liaison committee. There was some difficulty as to whether that liaison committee was to be on a borough or a county basis. The question of a transport service, the question of payment for taking old people into other people's homes, and for financial aid to voluntary organisations, were also discussed. This conference appointed a committee of officers to go into the points which had been raised and a meeting of that body has been held. The agenda is of interest and covered (a) what additional facilities are required; (b) who should provide such facilities; (c) what assistance voluntary organisations could give; (d) what financial assistance could be afforded to the voluntary organisations, and (e) what additional facilities might be necessary, and by whom they should be supplied. The agenda also dealt with district nurses, home helps, sitters-in, meals-on-wheels, supplies of linen and the washing of linen. That is the kind of development that the Minister is regarding with pleasure and expectancy, because he realises that conditions in the country vary from area to area. A cast-iron scheme of co-ordination from the centre might not always fit; and the Minister is looking for lines on which future co-ordination may be both suitable and possible.
  I have only one other point, I think, to which to reply, and that is a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, respecting the payments of three or four guineas, which he mentioned on the last occasion, as a payment to the sons and daughters of elderly people for keeping the old people in their care. That is a suggestion on which the Minister does not look with approval. There are several reasons for that. First, it would be a higher rate of payment than that which would be given to an old couple who had to keep house for themselves. Secondly, it might have to be given in cases where the home was not a desirable one—the noble Lord knows that we could not trust all cases of that kind. It was also felt not to be proper, in cases of sons and daughters, that in these times of great financial stringency for the country there should be a profit made out of the keeping of old people. But in other ways,

  375
  where it can be done, the allowances, which now have the force of law in this country, will be forthcoming. In addition, in proper cases a rent allowance is payable. I do not think I need say more. We have had a good, harmonious, and agreeable debate. Once again I thank the noble Lord for having raised the subject, and assure him that the work which he has done will not be lost sight of in the discussions now taking place.
  5.23 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I wish to express very deep gratitude to those noble Lords who have helped and supported me and, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, whose knowledge and experience are so profound, and to the most reverend Primate. I should also like to thank the right reverend Prelate for making his maiden speech in support of my Motion, and in doing so in such a handsome and competent manner, if he will allow me to say so. I also wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, for his blessing, which I receive with gratitude.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, however, made some points which I think ought to be answered. He gave a very pretty exhibition of how he would have knocked me down if I had put myself in the position which he expected me to. He, like any other noble Lord who is interested in this matter, has had the opportunity of reading this book, and no doubt he has read a number of reports in which coroners engaged in some particularly unpleasant cases have said roundly that things were better under the old Poor Law. I was careful not to mention the old Poor Law or the old relieving officer, because I did not wish it said that I wanted the old Poor Law back. I do not think it is a good defence for His Majesty's Government, when this system which we are all anxious to improve is under question, to say that I want the old Poor Law back. I wish to make it clear that I am not trying to achieve that object. The noble Lord said that local officers could not be empowered to find out these cases without there being "snooping," and that the work should be done by volunteers. But how are volunteers going to do it, except by "snooping"—by finding out? I have had one
  376
  of the best Poor Law officers to take me round and show me how he works. If the noble Lord wants to know how the work is done I can tell him, and how a district is kept clean and sweet by personal work.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was right in what he said about the changing structure of the population. I did not touch on that aspect of the matter because I was afraid of detaining your Lordships. I may add that what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said on that subject gave me a great deal of pleasure. The reason why I said that Assistance Board officers have not quite the same experience is simply because they have a more limited function. Expand their function and their ability will grow with experience. The Assistance Board have all the staff needed at present to do the work. What I am proposing is an economy of staff. County welfare committees can reduce their staffs, for some of the work can be done at headquarters. With regard to what the noble Lord said about authority to appoint local officers who are able to deal with all the departments, that is a case in which I think legislation may be necessary. With these comments, and in view of the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has given me that this matter is receiving the serious attention of the Government, and that what we have said this afternoon will not go unnoticed, I once more tender my thanks to all noble Lords concerned.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  BRITISH COMMERCIAL INTERESTS IN BARBADOS
  5.27 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to call attention to the grave position of the British Union Oil Company Limited in Barbados, arising from the preferential treatment given by the Barbados Government to a foreign company, and to ask His Majesty's Government for protection and adequate compensation for the confiscation of their property; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for bringing this very important matter before you at this late hour, but I found on inquiry that there was no other date for a long time on which I could bring this matter before you, and I hope, therefore, that you will bear with

  377
  me this afternoon. As is customary for one who has any interest at all in any matter one raises in this House, I must say that I have a small interest in the British Union Oil Company. This is a somewhat unusual matter to bring before your Lordships and, before doing so, I took steps to find out whether it was a proper matter to raise. With your Lordships' leave I will read this short letter from the Colonial Office. It says:
  "… there is no reason why a question on the subject of British commercial interests in Barbados should not be asked in Parliament.
  "Barbados has a Legislative Assembly of its own but is still administered through the Colonial Office and consequently is not independent of Parliament in the same way as the Dominions are…."
  Therefore, I thought that in the circumstances, and as it was so important, I should be in order from every point of view in raising this matter in your Lordships' House.
  Before moving the Motion, I should like to give a short history of the British Union Oil Company and its operations in Barbados. This company is entirely British, and was registered as long ago as 1914 with a capital of £6,000,000, its main object being to acquire oil and petroleum-bearing lands and to explore, work, exercise, and develop them. In the year 1919 the company obtained leases over 78 per cent. of the available drillable area of Barbados. I would mention, in passing, that no one else had explored this area for oil; it was an entirely new venture. These leases were granted by the owners of over 340 estates and a number of peasant proprietors holding ten acres or less. Between the years 1919 and 1940, the company drilled no fewer than fifty-two wells, the greatest depth reached being 4,015 feet. The production amounted to only 137,000 barrels, which, while not a commercial quantity, nevertheless confirmed the opinion of eminent geologists that the island had great potentialities as a source of commercial oil once deep drilling had been carried out. In addition, nineteen exploratory boreholes were drilled and a vast amount of geological survey work carried out.
  The total expenditure by the British Union Oil Company was roughly £1,000,000, and the evidence obtained for the expenditure of this sum and the great amount of work it entailed proved that oil in commercial quantities was not available at shallow depths, and it would
  378
  be necessary to drill deep down to 10,000 or 12,000 feet. The company had this in mind when war broke out in 1939—and the outbreak of war, of course, seriously interrupted its plans. It was not possible to obtain essential equipment. In fact, permission to acquire it was refused. A full report by the company's geologist, the late Dr. Senn, dated January, 1941, was given by the company to Sir Frank Stockdale, Controller of the West Indian Development and Welfare Commission, and forwarded by him to the Colonial Office here with a strong plea for action.
  In June and July, 1941, the company made an application to His Majesty's Government for United States dollar ex-change for the purpose of carrying out a geophysical survey in Barbados, but this was refused, and the company, therefore, had to break off its negotiations with the United States geophysical survey contractors. In 1945, the company called for estimates from drilling contractors in the United States of America, and also approached a contractor operating in Haiti. It was evident that deep drilling was going to be a costly business, amounting, roughly speaking, to somewhere between £250,000 and £300,000 for each well, and a minimum of three deep wells was necessary. The company felt that it was not justified in incurring such expense unless it could be certain that it would be protected against pirate competitors who would not have borne any share of the expense of the discovery.
  In March, 1946, the Colonial Secretary in Barbados told the British Union Oil Company's manager there that the Government proposed to take over all under-ground rights and that they would give the company a prospecting licence over the whole island. On July 28, 1947, the company's manager in Barbados inter-viewed the Governor, Sir Hilary Blood, who read extracts from a dispatch to him from the Colonial Office in London, which document suggested that the Barbados Government might give the British Union Oil Company a prospecting licence over the whole island in return for leases they held. The Governor further staled that the Executive Commit-tee had agreed to this proposal. On December 21, 1950, the Colonial Secretary was advised regarding the above, and on January 19, 1951. I requested that a

  379
  copy of the document quoted by Sir Hilary Blood might be cited by me. On January 29, the Colonial Secretary, the right honourable James Griffiths, refused my request on the grounds that the document in question was a dispatch, but he confirmed that his predecessor (Mr. Creech Jones) had suggested to Sir Hilary Blood that the British Union Oil Company might be given an oil prospecting licence over the whole island.
  A very firm understanding existed and, relying on the promises made to the effect that the British Union Oil Company would receive a prospecting licence over the whole island, the company entered into negotiations with Trinidad Leaseholds Limited, who are the principal oil operators in Trinidad and own one of the largest refineries in the British Empire. This company have vast experience of deep drilling, and they undertook to do deep drilling in Barbados by arrangement with the British Union Oil Company. They had waiting all the equipment required to begin work at once. In October, 1948, the Colonial Office appointed the late Mr. G. M. Lepper, a highly qualified mining engineer and petroleum geologist and technical adviser on oil exploration developments to His Majesty's Ministry of Fuel and Power from 1936 to 1946. What I am going to tell your Lordships now is of great importance. Mr. Lepper's terms of reference were
  "to advise the Governor of Barbados on the subject of oil mining legislation and on the subsequent issue of licences, and to furnish a report."
  That report, which is dated January, 1949, definitely recommended, in Paragraph 122, that the British Union Oil Company, which had secured a first-class operating partner in Trinidad Leaseholds Limited, should be given the sole prospecting licence over the whole island. Mr. Lepper stated—I am reading his words from his report—
  "In my opinion all that is known to-day about the oil prospects of Barbados has been due to the drilling operations of the British Union Oil Company and the researches of its geologists."
  On May 17, 1949, the Acting Governor of Barbados confirmed to the British Union Oil Company's manager there that his Government did not intend to deviate from the Lepper Report. As late as September 30, 1949, this gentleman advised
  380
  the company's manager that he had cabled to the Colonial Office in London an assurance that the Barbados Government would not depart in any way from the Lepper Report. Relying upon the assurance given, the company gave up their leases to the Government and did not oppose the Petroleum Bill introduced into the Legislature of Barbados. This became law on January 5, 1950. The Bill provides compensation for land owners for loss of rights, but contains no provision for compensation for loss of rights to explore for oil, et cetera. This means that the company's leases, which gave them the right to explore for oil, et cetera, were rendered valueless without compensation for the loss of their rights. Such a provision is quite unknown under British administration anywhere in the world.
  I would refer your Lordships to the measures governing the nationalisation of various industries in this country, all of which have provided for compensation, however inadequate, for the owners of rights taken over by the Government. I would also refer your Lordships to the case of the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company Limited, which was taken over by the Government of Burma, when compensation was paid. I would also refer to the nationalisation measures in Jugoslavia and Czechoslovakia which took place after the war, and to the strong diplomatic action taken by the British Government which resulted in securing compensation amounting to many millions of pounds—I believe in the case of Czechoslovakia the figure was £8,000,000—for British interests which were affected by the nationalisation measures. There-fore, it seems that British interests behind the Iron Curtain can obtain some measure of support and protection from the British Government for their properties, while a company operating in a British Colony can get nothing.
  Immediately the Petroleum Act was passed in Barbados the company applied for a prospecting licence, and also re-quested that a provisional licence be granted as a drilling rig was ready at Trinidad to proceed to Barbados to commence deep drilling. To the company's astonishment, this was refused, although the Governor, then Mr. (now Sir) Arthur Savage, stated, among other comments, that he fully appreciated that

  381
  the company had a strong moral claim for first consideration for an island-wide concession. However, the Barbados Government invited Mr. Tanner, the Minister of Mines in Alberta, to come to Barbados to advise them on the preparation of petroleum regulations under the Petroleum Act. Apparently the Government had already decided to grant a prospecting licence to more than one company. A Mr. Bishop, who had been in the island some time and was in close touch with the Government, filed an application on behalf of the Gulf Oil Corporation, an American concern. The Government decided to adopt Mr. Tanner's suggestions for working to plan, which meant applying the same conditions to the small island of Barbados as applied to the vast territories of Alberta, a decision which, in all the circumstances, was manifestly absurd. As a result of this decision the company were offered what amounted finally to only 22 per cent. of the drillable area of the island. Of course, this was declined. Prior to this offer to the B.U.O.C, the Gulf Corporation were made an offer on much the same terms and accepted, over land already explored by the B.U.O.C. and on the very spots where they would have commenced deep drilling had they been protected.
  I know that it has been said that the B.U.O.C. started with 78 per cent. of the drillable area, and I also know that they had an offer of 55 per cent. Let us just study that offer for a moment and see whether that does not boil itself down to 22 per cent. The offer was for 55 per cent. of the whole island, less strips of one mile wide, dividing the island into four quarters, these strips including drillable land. The offer was only for licence. If exploratory work had been successful, lease would have been granted of half the area licensed—that is to say, 27½ per cent. of that area, which equals 22 per cent. of the whole island. The offer was presented as a last word, and in the shape of an ultimatum. In fact, the Gulf Corporation subsequently succeeded in securing several important alterations in the conditions of their arrangements. As I have said, Mr. Tanner was called in and the matter was going to be dealt with on the Alberta system. In our view, for a small island like Barbados, that was ridiculous.
  Since then, the terms to the Gulf Company have been greatly modified, as will be seen from the licence, a copy of which I have here. We have other evidence of favouritism being displayed towards the American Corporation, and it should be emphasised that the Gulf Corporation had done nothing in the island: they had made no surveys, and had bought no equipment, whereas the B.U.O.C., during the thirty-two years they had been working in the island, have done a great deal of valuable work and, as I have already stated, have incurred heavy expenditure. Put simply, the Government of Barbados went back on their promise to the B.U.O.C. to grant them a prospecting licence over the whole island, which, be it noted, under the usual Colonial legislation, calls for a selection of half the area, and therefore does not constitute a monopoly. In its place they offered the B.U.O.C. a licence giving them first choice on only one quarter of the island, on terms which were so unworkable that they were consequently relaxed in the case of the Gulf Corporation after the B.U.O.C. had withdrawn.
  In addition to oil research work, the work of the company's geologists has resulted in the provision of a first-class water supply, and the report on the geological investigations of the underground water resources in Barbados drawn up by the company's geologist, the late Dr. Senn, is regarded as a model work. The B.U.O.C. have also provided employment for many of the inhabitants of Barbados and, by importing the necessary supplies of oil, have enabled the electricity works and waterworks to operate. The discovery and harnessing of natural gas has also proved a great boon to all in the island. However, so far as we can see, all this has counted for nothing, and the company's rights have been confiscated.
  On June 7, 1950, the company's representative saw the Permanent Undersecretary for the Colonies in London, but he could make no practical suggestions, beyond saying that if the company would prepare a claim against the Barbados Government the Colonial Office would forward it to Barbados, with comments on questions of fact only. At the same time, the Minister must have known of the altered instructions which were sent to Barbados, and which were

  383
  most certainly not in the interests of this country. I have exchanged a number of letters with the Colonial Secretary, but have been unable to ascertain exactly what is meant by the offer in question. It seems to me—and I am sure your Lordships will agree—a waste of time to put forward any claim to the Barbados Government unless it is backed by a directive from the Colonial Secretary. In this connection, I may say that I have made the fullest inquiries, and have been informed that, while Barbados has a Legislative Assembly of its own, it is still administered through the Colonial Office and. consequently, is not independent of Parliament. Incidentally, in one letter I received from the Colonial Secretary he referred to Barbados as virtually a self-governing Colony, which entirely substantiates the letter that I read out to your Lordships at the beginning of my speech. If I correctly interpret this reference, it means that a directive from the Secretary of State would have to be obeyed by the Legislation in Barbados, but to put forward a claim as suggested would surely be a waste of time.
  The last letter I received from the Colonial Secretary, dated March 2, 1951, in effect admitted that the B.U.O.C. were promised the sole prospecting licence when the Government decided to nationalise the underground rights in Barbados. It was further stated by the Secretary of State that the Colonial Secretary in Barbados went so far as to inform one of the local representatives of the B.U.O.C. that the Petroleum Bill then before the Legislature was based on the Lepper Report, and that he would consider himself bound by it unless and until he received contrary instructions from the Secretary of State. As the Lepper Report was departed from, I have asked the Secretary of State whether instructions were given to this effect from London. His reply, however, is evasive, and does not state definitely what was done. I now ask for a reply to that question. I hope that the noble Lord who is going to answer on behalf of His Majesty's Government will be able to give me some information as to what was said. It was, I think, the Colonial Secretary in Barbados. Mr. Perowne, who made that statement.
  Summarising the position, the B.U.O.C.'s case is quite simple. For many years they held leases giving full mining
  384
  rights over the greater part of the drillable area of Barbados. During this period they spent lavishly, and carried out exploratory work which, in the words of the expert appointed by the Colonial Office, the late Mr. Lepper, has resulted in the discovery of all that is known about the oil prospects of Barbados. Just before the B.U.O.C. had completed arrangements with Trinidad Leaseholds, Limited, to carry out deep drilling, the Government of Barbados passed the Petroleum Act, 1950, which vested in the Governor in Executive Committee the property in petroleum existing in its natural condition within the island. That Bill would never have been thought of at all had it not been for the tremendous work and exploration carried out by the B.U.O.C. The Government broke the promise given to the B.U.O.C, that the Lepper Report would be put into operation and that the B.U.O.C. would be given mining rights over the whole island. Instead, they put forward conditions for the granting of a licence to explore which were so impossible that the company had no option but to reject them. An American company, so eager to get into the island that apparently they were prepared to take any terms, did accept, but the B.U.O.C.'s attitude was fully justified, as the terms originally put forward by the Government proved so unworkable that they have since had to be greatly relaxed.
  The Barbados Petroleum Act, 1950, provides for payments by way of royalty to land owners in areas where oil may be found, and also for compensation to land owners for the taking over of ancillary rights, such as the right to enter on land to search for and take petroleum, or to use and occupy land for the erection of buildings, tanks and the like. People receiving royalties from an existing well, or the lessee of an existing well, are en-titled to compensation, but no compensation whatsoever is provided for the loss of the right to drill for oil, such as was possessed by the B.U.O.C. before the passing of this Act. In other words, so far as the B.U.O.C. are concerned, the measure has resulted in complete confiscation of their rights, without compensation, and this, as your Lordships must be aware, is completely contrary to all practice in areas under British influence. That these mining rights are extremely valuable is clearly proved by the willingness of Trinidad Leaseholds, Limited, to under-

  385
  take deep drilling, and by the eagerness of the Gulf Oil Corporation to get into the island at almost any price and to incur the great expense of deep drilling. All the B.U.O.C. now ask for is justice and a fair deal.
  As further evidence of the arbitrary methods of the Barbados Government, I would mention that the gas well operated by B.U.O.C. was taken over under the Petroleum Act, but compensation will be payable and a claim has been filed. However, although the gas was taken over, the pipeline and accessories necessary to operate the gas were not taken by the Act. The company, in the course of business, naturally declined to part with their property, the pipeline and so on, until the compensation claim was settled. The Barbados Government's answer to this was to pass the Natural Gas Corporation Act, 1950. Under Section 18 of this Act, natural gas plant is transferred to the corporation set up by the Government. This, I am sure your Lordships will agree, is more worthy of action in a totalitarian State than in a democracy. In conclusion, I would call your Lordships' attention to the recent happenings in Persia, and to the statement made in this House and in another place. This is the statement:
  "It is both the right and the duty of the British Government to take all possible measures to protect the legitimate interests of a British commercial undertaking overseas."
  This is, of course, a fundamental fact, and it will be appreciated that if a member of the Colonial Empire, such as Barbados, is allowed to confiscate, without compensation, rights acquired by a British company, such as the B.U.O.C, then, to say the least, it will be extremely difficult for the British Government to object to similar action being taken against a British company by a foreign Government. I feel confident that the position held by this country over centuries for honest and fair dealing will be upheld by the members of the present Government, and that they will see that the necessary steps are taken to ensure that full and adequate compensation is paid to the B.U.O.C. for the compulsory taking away of their drilling rights by the Government in Barbados. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
  5.57 p.m.
  LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I wish to offer a few brief remarks on this
  386
  Motion, largely because I view it from a slightly different angle from that of the noble Lord who has moved it. I have no personal interest in the British Union Oil Company, but I have a considerable personal interest in Colonial policy and in the reputation of the British Government. I may also, perhaps, say that I have had personal experience in two or three Colonies of the introduction of this model oil ordinance. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, it is, and has for long been, the policy of the British Government to vest oil rights in various Colonies in the Crown. That is largely to ensure efficient commercial exploitation of oil. And may I say that I have never seen any proceedings in a Colony with which I have been associated which would compare with the way in which this matter has been dealt with in Barbados.
  I do not wish to go again into the facts of the case, which, I understand, are not in dispute and which have been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, but I should like to underline the absurdity of going to the Mines Department of Alberta for advice on how to deal with oil concessions in Barbados. As your Lordships possibly know, the Alberta Government works on what is known as the "chequer-board system." Under that system, when oil is found in commercial quantities the area is divided up into sections. The prospector gets alternate sections and the Government the other alternate sections, which are sold by auction. However well that kind of system may work in Alberta, which is, I understand, about 255,000 square miles in area, it obviously does not make any kind of sense in the island of Barbados, which has an area of 166 square miles, or, in other words, is 21 miles in length by 14 miles at the broadest point. It is clear, I should have thought, that in that particular island oil can be worked efficiently and commercially only by one concessionaire.
  Having said that on the facts—and the action of the Barbados Government reflects no credit on them or on their reputation for fair dealing—I should like, if your Lordships will bear with me, to say a few words on the contention that it was not open to the British Government to intervene in this matter, on the ground that they cannot intervene in the domestic affairs of Barbados. May I glance, for a moment, at the Constitution

  387
  of Barbados? As your Lordships may know, it consists of a Legislature, which is the Governor, the Legislative Council of fifteen members, and a House of Assembly of twenty-four members. The Governor has a negative voice in the making and passing of laws and, in the normal phraseology, laws are passed with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and General Assembly of the island, who may make all such laws as may from time to time be required for the peace and good government of the island.
  So much for legislation. But, you may ask, who has executive power in the island? The answer is, the Governor, his Executive Council and, in a wide sphere, a body called the Executive Committee. The Executive Council consists of the Governor, the Colonial Secretary and the Attorney-General, ex officio, and such others as His Majesty may appoint—at the present moment, three others. The Executive Committee was created by local Statute and consists of all members of the Executive Council ex officio, plus one member of the Legislative Council, plus four members of the House of Assembly who are appointed by the Government at the beginning of each session of the Legislature. This Committee is, in fact, the principal instrument of government, and introduces all money votes, prepares Estimates and initiates all Government measures. It is responsible for Government works and for the management of Government property. The four members who come to the Executive Committee from the House of Assembly are responsible for the conduct of public business in that House. But in spite of their acceptance of collective responsibility for policy, the Executive Committee would not resign if defeated in the House, in that they are responsible to the Governor and not to the House. There are other details I could give to make the point clear, but I do not think it is necessary. The last Colonial Office List says of Barbados:
  "This Colony possesses representative institutions but not responsible Government."
  The Crown possesses a veto over legislation and the Secretary of State retains power of appointment and control of public officers, except, strangely enough, of the Treasurer, who is nominated by the House of Assembly.
  388
  I suggest that one word of advice from His Majesty's Government to the Governor, through the Secretary of State, would have the desired effect. Indeed, why not? It may be. and I do not doubt that it is, the policy of His Majesty's Government not to interfere in the domestic affairs of such Colonies as Barbados, but surely there is equally no doubt that they can interfere, if only by authoritative advice to the Governor, when a scandal, such as this seems to be, occurs. As I see it, this transaction transcends the domestic scene, affects the reputation of His Majesty's Government and makes a mockery of the principles of British justice. Will it not be suggested, perhaps, that Justice has lost her blindness, once the symbol of her impartiality, and is now able to see, though perhaps only through her left eye?
  Let me take one or two instances. Suppose an injustice, such as I conceive this to be, had been done in Barbados to a group of smallholders, is it conceivable that His Majesty's Government would have said that it was powerless to intervene? Suppose, if you like, it was a more authoritative body, something like the Co-operative Wholesale Society, a capitalist organisation which has seen the light, if only the red light: would they not have the means of making their views heard? Or let me turn to the other side, and suppose the position had been reversed; that it was the American company which had been in the position of the British Union Oil Company over those twenty years, and they had been treated in this manner; and suppose, as undoubtedly would have happened, that the American Government had made representations about such treatment: is it conceivable that His Majesty's would have said that they were not able to do anything in the matter? I suggest that the answer is plain.
  So we come to this: a delicate squeamishness against interference at all with Colonies whose Governments have wide powers of managing their own affairs. That is to me an altogether strange detachment. Are the principles of British justice and fair dealing being disregarded by the Barbados Government? "Well," say His Majesty's Government, "they have the right to do so, if they wish." And what is the melancholy moral of all this? Surely it

  389
  is that if British investors want the protection of His Majesty's Government they must go outside the British Empire. It is a curious contradiction, based perhaps on popular appeal, that the protection given in a foreign country is denied in a small British Colony—patriotism, in the first place, and, in the second, more of the incense which has been offered to the great idol of self-government. My Lords, the British Government are not really impotent. In these matters, "where there's a will, there's a way." They must accept responsibility for their wards, and surely they must curb such unhealthy manifestations of self-expression. There is a grave side to the case we are considering. It is only one symptom of many, a symptom of our lack of any real and positive colonial policy: that divorce between words and deeds to which the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition in this House has drawn attention before.
  Let me turn from Barbados and this question of principle to the West Indies in general. There is a growing feeling there that they stand friendless and impotent amid the economic rivalries of the Metropolitan Powers, and they dread what may be happening behind the closed doors of the Cuban negotiations. I gather that, as in photography a darkened room is necessary for development, and the intrusion of a little light may ruin the picture, so they wait, dreading lest they are to be sacrificed, butchered to make a Cuban holiday. Let us leave the West Indies and go to East Africa, where the settlers of our own race await with deepest apprehension the dogmatic pronouncements of Whitehall doctrinaires. They, too, fear lest all they stand for may be sold for a slogan—"Quantity, not quality"—the miscarriage of democracy.
  And so on. One could go round the Empire, but there is no time, showing the inconsistencies which arise from lack of consistent purpose and lack of consistent principles. We seem to be getting the worst of both worlds. We discourage the British investor, on the one hand, and we undermine the confidence of nascent Dominions, on the other. I repeat that the case before us is not creditable to the Barbados Government and merits the intervention of His Majesty's Government. I claim that that is so because it is their
  390
  duty to try and preserve traditional morality in Government business in Colonies still under their control and influence. In conclusion, I say that I am loth to look on and see, as it seems, the British Government in the rôle of Gallio. I do not think that Gallio was really a prototype of a Socialist Government, asked to defend the principles of public honesty, and I hope that they will yet relent from the attitude which they have taken up.
  6.12 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COM-MONWEALTH RELATIONS (LORD OGMORE): My Lords, I must first express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for consenting to adjourn this de-bate from its original date until to-day, in order to meet my convenience. I think your Lordships will agree with me when I say that the speeches of the two noble Lords who have so far taken part in the debate show that behind this case is a constitutional issue of some importance. The case, so far as the company is concerned, is a matter of deep concern, but it is also a matter of concern to us in this House, and to many outside. There is a constitutional issue here. Therefore, before coming to the actual events as given by the noble Lord, with many of which I agree, I should prefer to say something of the background, because in this case the background is of great importance. In the first place, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has told us, Barbados is a small island. I can never picture what "so many miles by so many miles" means, and perhaps it is easier if we bear in mind that the island is a little larger than the Isle of Wight. It has a long association with this country, and particularly with your Lordships' House, as I will show in a moment.
  The island was first discovered by the Portuguese in the sixteenth century, and it was called Los Barbados after the bearded fig tree. That is a curious specimen which I admit I have never discovered myself, but apparently there are bearded fig trees on the island, and from those the name derives. It was first discovered for this country by Captain Cataline, of the good ship "Olive Blossom," in 1625, and it was claimed by him for "James, King of England and

  391
  of this island." A succession of adventurers went to the Caribbean. The thirst for gold, enmity towards Spain, jealousy of her rich conquests, love of adventure, the desire for freedom of religion and hostility towards the reigning powers in England all played their part in actuating the people who went to Barbados, and to other of our possessions in the Caribbean. But, in fact, this small island, which had been bypassed by the Spaniards in their search for gold, was first developed by a London merchant. Sir William Courteen, who was a protégé of the Earl of Marlborough. Since that day many members of your Lordships' House have been connected with this island—the Earls of Marlborough. Carlisle, Pembroke, Harewood and Lord Willoughby. I regret to have to inform your Lordships that on one occasion there was a pitched battle between the supporters of two members of your Lordships' House for possession of the island, or of part of it.
  Many famous and colourful characters have been associated with this island. There was Sir Henry Morgan, who started, as we know, as a buccaneer, and who ended up in an aura of sanctity as Governor of Jamaica, as a predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, whose career started in somewhat different circumstances. There were Admiral Benbow, Admiral Nelson, and George Washington, and as it is the custom to-day to take note of the views of United States citizens I should like to say that George Washington enjoyed himself in the island. He was made a member of the Beefsteak and Tripe Club, which I understand was an aristocratic organisation, and noted in his diary:
  "Hospitality and genteel behaviour is shown to every Gentleman stranger by the inhabitants."
  With its connection with this country and your Lordships' House, one can well imagine that the dominant party in the island were people of some character and some independence of mind: in fact, they raised the issue of "No taxation without representation" over a hundred years before the Boston Tea Party. The constitution, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, indicated, is an ancient one. The House of Assembly was constituted in 1639, and it is the second oldest colonial
  392
  legislative body in the whole Colonial Empire, being second only to Bermuda. It possesses representative institutions, but not completely responsible Government, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said, the Crown has a veto on legislation.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Has it a power of certification?
  LORD OGMORE: I am not certain on that point, but I will find out. This Executive Committee, which is of comparatively recent date, and whose constitution has been described by Lord Milverton, is the controlling organism in Barbados. So we find that this Colony is virtually self-governing in domestic matters, although on matters of foreign policy and the like, and on any relations which are not purely domestic, His Majesty's Government are the controlling authority. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that ultimately, through the Secretary of State, Parliament has a responsibility for Barbados. I do not for a moment attempt to waive any responsibility, nor do I want it to be thought that we do not believe we should answer for events in Barbados, although, as I say, Parliament and the Secretary of State nowadays have certain limitations to the power which they had originally. I will deal with that point in a moment.
  The issue which is presented by this case is one of the most important in the modern Colonial Empire. For years past, successive Governments in the United Kingdom, of whatever Party colour they have been, have supported the movement for self-government. That has not been sought by one Party alone, but by all Parties. It may be that one Party may think the movement is going a little faster than it would desire, but that is a question of degree. The principle has been agreed upon by all Parties. This necessarily entails a relinquishment of power on the part of the Government of this country. It means that the Barbados Government may do things which we do not like. It also means that we cannot intervene except in cases of great constitutional importance. In other words, we cannot give a very great degree of self-government and, at the same time, interfere in what the other Government do. It is an extraordinary thing, but during the time

  393
  I was at the Colonial Office I noticed one curious fact. The very same people who endeavoured to persuade the Government to give more and more power to colonial peoples, at a pace which the Government did not always think was advisable, were those who, when anything happened, wanted the Government to make the maximum interference. This sort of case came up on more than one occasion during that period. We had to decide whether we thought it wise to interfere in a case where the Government had made a decision with which we did not agree. In other words, could we risk a constitutional crisis over what might be a comparatively small matter, although a very important matter to those directly concerned?
  On the history of this particular dispute there is not very much difference between us. I agree very largely with what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has said, although there are one or two differences which perhaps I should mention. The company first applied for an allocation of steel and dollars in 1941—as the noble Lord has said—and that was refused. In 1946 they applied for protection. They took the view that they were unable to incur heavy expenditure on deep drilling, without protection against competitive drilling in areas over which they had not a licence. I expect the noble Lord would agree with that. This request necessarily implied, from the company's point of view, nationalisation of the mineral rights. One point which the noble Lord did not bring out, but which I now want to bring out, was that the whole of this affair developed from this application by the company to be protected against heavy expenditure on drilling in areas over which they had no control.
  LORD TEVIOT: The whole matter arose for a very simple reason, which I am sure every noble Lord in this House who has any knowledge of business will appreciate. It was that a company proposing to spend about a million pounds in preliminary prospecting, wants to be quite certain that it has protection against other people tapping its sources.
  LORD OGMORE: I am not objecting, and I am not saying that the company were unreasonable at all in that view. I am saying merely that this was not, as one might have thought from the speech
  394
  of the noble Lord, a sudden desire on the part of the Government for nationalisation. It was an attempt, in the beginning at all events—although we shall see that there was a slight slide away towards the end—to meet the legitimate requirements of the company to be protected when they desired to do this extra deep drilling. I think the noble Lord will agree with me there. This request implied nationalisation of the mineral rights, because there was no other way in which the Government could protect the company against competition. The company felt that, unless they could get this monopoly, when they got down to very great depths they would be at the mercy of land owners over whose land they had not been granted leases. The noble Lord may shake his head, but I do not understand otherwise why they applied for protection in this way. I thought it was common ground between us that they did want protection. I do not blame them, and I should feel the same way myself; but that was the origin of this attempt by the Government to meet the company's wishes.
  LORD TEVIOT: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord unnecessarily, but let me just make this matter clear. We had 78 per cent. of the drillable area. Outside that 78 per cent., there was no available drillable area—it was mountains, or land upon which there could be no oil. Therefore over the island we had a complete licence to prospect, and the noble Lord will see what Mr. Lepper said.
  LORD OGMORE: I really do not understand why the company applied to the Government in respect of these other lands if they were satisfied with what they had. I do not understand why they should go to the Government and say: "We want protection." I do not agree with the noble Lord on this point. I should have thought that the company, from their own limited point of view, were entitled to make a request at a time when they were expending large sums of money. I am not blaming the company; I am only trying to explain how this thing arose. I hope the noble Lord will find that I am fair to him when I try to explain what happened.
  In 1946, the acting Governor informed the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the situation, and after some talk be-

  395
  tween them, in April, 1947, the Secretary of State for the Colonies replied to the Governor suggesting that the company might be given an oil-prospecting licence over the whole of Barbados. So far as His Majesty's Government here were concerned, they thought that the company should have this prospecting licence over the whole of the island—that is common ground between us. The Barbados Government reconsidered the question of the vesting of the mineral oil in the Crown, which had been in abeyance since 1938, and the Secretary of State suggested that they should follow the example of the United Kingdom Act, 1934, which vests in the Crown property in mineral oil in the United Kingdom, and provides for no compensation to land owners. The Government published the Bill on the lines of the United Kingdom Act, offering no compensation, and this, quite naturally, aroused some hostile criticism from land owners. The Government invited an oil expert from the United Kingdom to advise. When Mr. Lepper went there, he was not advising merely on the question of the B.U.O.C.'s leases and their managerial operations, but also, I understand, on the question of the rights or otherwise of land owners under the Act.
  LORD TEVIOT: But he did refer to it.
  LORD OGMORE: I am coming to that. In the meantime, the Governor informed Mr. MacIntyre, of the company, that they had decided to introduce legislation. On May 5, 1948, the Governor informed Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. MacIntyre that no formal decision with regard to the prospective licence had been reached, and that it was impossible for him to say how the Committee would react. Mr. Lepper went to Barbados towards the end of 1948, having been appointed by the Barbados Government but on the recommendation of the Colonial Office. After full examination of the position, he recommended the vesting of mineral oil in the Crown and the grant of a prospecting licence over the whole island to the company in recognition of the amount of money that had been spent. In January, 1948, a representative of the Gulf Corporation appeared in the picture, and he also applied for a prospecting licence. He said that the Corporation would be satisfied with a licence over half the island. The Gulf Corporation, as your
  396
  Lordships know, is a big American corporation. There is another issue involved here, other than that exposed by the noble Lord. Before deciding, the Executive Committee asked Mr. Tanner, the Minister of Mines of Alberta, to advise, and he formed the opinion that it was in the best interests of the island that two companies should have prospecting licences. He felt, however, that the Government should first take the decision on the claim of B.U.O.C. to be granted an island-wide licence on account of past operations. In other words, Mr. Tanner decided, on oil grounds, so to speak, that it would be better to have the two companies operating, but he said that as there was a political matter involved—namely, the existing leases of B.U.O.C.—it would be better for the Government to decide rather than that he should advise.
  The Petroleum Act of 1950 was passed, whereby the property in petroleum in its natural condition in strata was vested in the Governor in the Executive Committee. As a result, no person may now search for or get petroleum except in pursuance of a licence. This Act also made provision for the grant of compensation to the company for their two producing wells previously mentioned—the only two wells producing in Barbados—or, alternatively, for the grant to the company of a lease of the wells. The B.U.O.C, of course, took some exception to this proposal, and they presented their case before the Executive Committee. After hearing them the Executive Committee decided to divide the island for oil prospecting purposes into two parts—55 per cent. to B.U.O.C.— and they proposed to give rights to prospect to both B.U.O.C. and the Gulf Corporation. So they definitely departed there from the recommendation of Mr. Lepper. The Government also resolved that, in recognition of the part played by B.U.O.C, they would give them a licence over 55 per cent. of the island, with a right to lease half this area for twenty-one years, with a renewal for a further twenty-one years if the lessees desired. They were allowed to select this area: they were given the choice of four sub-divisions of the island for oil prospecting purposes. The Government also offered B.U.O.C. 50 per cent. of certain territorial waters surrounding the island, with similar rights as regards the licensing. The Gulf Corporation were offered a licence over

  397
  the remainder of the island and the remainder of the territorial waters. They were not offered this licence prior to the offer to B.U.O.C.: it occurred simultaneously.
  The working conditions to which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, referred were rather onerous. But there is no doubt that these would have been relaxed if B.U.O.C. had proceeded with their lease. The reception of this offer by the Government fell on stony ground, so far as B.U.O.C. were concerned. They stated in their interview with the Attorney-General that the offer was unacceptable, and after a number of somewhat hostile references to their competitors they rose abruptly and left the room. This broke up the discussions. The Government decided to continue the discussions with the Gulf Corporation, on the basis of a prospecting licence for half the island, leaving the remaining half as a Crown reserve. Eventually, the Gulf Corporation were granted an oil prospecting licence over half the island and certain of the territorial waters, the Corporation paying a royalty on crude oil produced and a rental for land held under lease—the normal basis for Colonial leases. In an interview at the Colonial Office in June last, B.U.O.C. urged a claim for compensation against the Barbados Government on moral grounds. They were informed that this was a matter for decision by the Barbados Government, but that the Secretary of State would forward written representations. The company have not taken advantage of this offer—in fact, as the correspondence, a copy of which Lord Teviot has kindly sent me, shows, six months went by before the next approach to the Colonial Office was made by the noble Lord. Until then, the Company had not accepted the offer of the Secretary of State or his representative to send written representations through the Colonial Office to the Barbados Government.
  There is one other item that I must mention here, because the noble Lord made reference to it, and it would be con-fusing if I did not touch on it. In addition to the Petroleum Act of 1950, another Act was passed—namely, the Barbados Natural Gas Corporation Act of 1950. The Barbados Government opened negotiations with B.U.O.C. in April, 1950, for the grant to them, in lieu of cash compensation, of a lease of
  398
  the two wells producing natural gas. The company made certain stipulations. They wanted certain qualifications to the offer: first, that during the term of the lease no other person should be allowed to get or supply natural gas and, secondly, that they should have the right to open new wells in substitution for existing wells, if these ceased to produce. The Government could not accede to this suggestion, which might have been in contradiction of the Gulf Corporation's licence and lease. The Gulf's prospecting licence specifically excludes B.U.O.C.'s gas wells. B.U.O.C. did not agree that this was sufficient protection, and they wanted further protection. The Government were unable to grant their request, as it was not unlikely that the two wells could have been tapped from Gulf land. As regards the natural gas, in this case again, as in the case of petroleum, the Government were not prepared to give B.U.O.C. a monopoly of natural gas; and as a result they passed the Gas Act which I have mentioned, and have entered into negotiations to purchase the company's pipelines and equip them. The company created difficulties about the basis of compensation, but they have not submitted a claim under this Act, as they are entitled to do.
  The noble Lord, and also the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, commented on the fact that the Gulf Corporation is an American concern. In fact, since 1936, it has been the policy of His Majesty's Government to grant reciprocal rights to foreign subjects—that is to say, where their Governments give certain rights to our subjects; and in 1938, this policy was extended to Colonial territories. We, therefore, have no ground for discrimination—even if we wished to exercise any —against the Gulf Corporation. I am sorry that the noble Lord made a reference to Persia, which is a very delicate subject at the moment. Apart from the passing of the Natural Gas Corporation Act, which gives them the right to take over the two gas wells, all that the Barbados Government have done is to nationalise mineral oil rights, and it was done on more handsome and favourable terms to the land owners than in this country under a Conservative Government. So I do not think one can say that there has been any question of bringing in a totalitarian State. I am sure noble

  399
  Lords opposite would reject such an allegation. Harsher measures were passed in 1934 than those passed by the Barbados Government.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not here to argue about that. The analogy does not seem to me to be exact, because, so far as I understand the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, he is not complaining about the terms on which mineral was nationalised. What he says is that, since the company had rights granted by a leasehold, when the State nationalised the mineral which was under lease or under prospecting licence, the State ought to take them over subject to those rights. I should have thought that that was a tenable proposition, and was not at all inconsistent with the Act we passed on nationalising British oil. I think I am right in saying that, in our dealing with oil here, the State took over subject to any rights which had been granted. Is that not so?
  LORD OGMORE: That is not at all, of course, what the B.U.O.C. wanted. They did not want the State to take over the rights to the oil subject to existing rights, because they were not satisfied with the rights they already possessed. They wanted more rights than they had.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: And ended by getting less.
  LORD OGMORE: And ended by getting less. I am sorry for them, but that is what happened. In Persia, as we know, the mineral oil rights have been owned by the Persian Government for some considerable time —but I do not want to go into that, because it is a delicate subject. Then there was a reference to the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company: they were paid compensation under nationalisation by the Burma Government, but not by His Majesty's Government.
  LORD TEVIOT: No, I did not say that.
  LORD OGMORE: I do not want to weary the House. I will come now to my series of conclusions, and try to sum up the position as fairly as I can. As I see it, in the first place, the company have no legal right to compensation under the Petroleum Act, 1950, for their expropriated leases. It is unfortunate, but I think it is agreed that that is so. In the second
  400
  place, the company have a legal right to compensation under the Petroleum Act, 1950, in respect of two wells, and under the Natural Gas Corporation Act, 1950, in respect of their pipeline. Thirdly, the company have broken off negotiations with the Government. If I may say so, I think they have been hasty in doing so. Also, they have been dilatory in presenting their request for compensation under the Petroleum Act, and under the Natural Gas Corporation Act. They started this whole manœuvre with the intention of obtaining a monopoly, because they were not satisfied. I do not know why they started it at all, unless they were not satisfied with their existing rights. The Colonial Secretary made representations to the Barbados Government to grant a prospecting licence for the whole island to the Company, but the Barbados Government did not agree, and decided to grant them only 55 per cent. of the area under prospecting licence.
  There has been no preferential treatment of a foreign company. Under the constitution and by practice, the Government and the Legislature have wide powers in internal affairs. For the Colonial Secretary to have enforced his wishes, overriding the Executive Committee, would have been incompatible with modern trends in colonial administration. I was rather surprised to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, a view which from my experience of him (I was not in office when he was a Governor, so I can say this; I was a private Member of Parliament) is quite incompatible with what he would have thought of this matter if he were the Governor of Barbados. He would be a bold Secretary of State who would have overridden the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and his Executive Committee during his period as a Governor. I think his change of scene from the West Indies here has also changed his views greatly in a matter of this kind.
  It is true that on occasion, in matters of great constitutional importance, a course such as has been suggested to us by two noble Lords would have to be taken, but I do not think one can be expected to take such a course on matters of other than great constitutional importance. In my view the company would be well advised to accept the suggestions that I am about to make.

  401
  I suggest, first of all, that the company should reopen negotiations with the Barbados Government for the grant of a prospecting licence over the remainder of the island. I suggest, secondly, that they put in their claim for compensation under the Petroleum Act and the Natural Gas Corporation Act, because it seems to me that to charge the Government of Barbados with harsh treatment, and to describe them in the. way in which they have been described by the two noble Lords who have spoken, is somewhat extreme when one remembers that it is the company who have broken off negotiations. I would suggest that they re-enter negotiations on both the matters to which I have referred, and I am sure that the Colonial Office will assist them so far as possible. I realise the disappointment that the company must necessarily have felt over this matter, but I think that in their own interests, and in the interests of good relationships between the business world of this country and of the West Indies, they should reopen negotiations on these matters, in order to see what decision the Barbados Government will in fact come to. It may be that in the course of negotiations the company will be able to obtain a more liberal offer than has so far been the case. As we who have had any dealings with business all know, once you break off negotiations, the other party does nothing at all about reopening them. Whilst negotiations are on, there is always a possibility of good treatment from the other side.
  6.48 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord for his answer to my Motion, but I fear I am not at all satisfied with it. For a few moments I should like to refer to some of the things that the noble Lord has said. To begin with, I cannot believe that it was wrong for a British company to go into a British Colony like Barbados and prospect for oil. In order to do so, we had definite property, in that, as I have already told your Lordships, we obtained from land owners leases over 300-odd properties. We have given up that property. We were induced to give it up by the assurances which, as the noble Lord will admit, we received through the Lepper Report. If we had anticipated that this sort of thing was going to happen, we would not have given up
  402
  those leases and we would have objected to the Petroleum Bill, but we did not do so because we had every confidence in the assurance of the Governor and his Executive Committee at that time. We gave up our property in view of the assurances which were given here and over there. The Colonial Secretary has said he was bound by the Lepper Report, and we thought that we were quite safe in giving up those leases. The noble Lord may say that we broke off negotiations: but what is the good of talking to people who do not stand by their bargains? You cannot go on doing it.
  I should like to correct the noble Lord on his remarks regarding gas. The gas question is still the subject of negotiation. Nothing has been broken off there. I will tell the noble Lord the reason why we wished to be careful about gas. As I understand it, the gas comes through a fault, and we wanted to be quite certain that a certain area round the fault could not be tapped by somebody else. If it were tapped, they would get the gas which otherwise would come through to us. That was quite a reasonable view, and one which any business man would have taken. It was quite a reasonable thing for which to ask. It is all very well to say that we may have been a little tire-some about this matter, but we never had the offer that the Gulf Corporation have now obtained. We received an offer which, from a business point of view, was perfectly hopeless. The Gulf Corporation accepted the offer and subsequently obtained a very much better one.
  LORD OGMORE: My point was that in the first place the British Union Oil Company had a slightly better offer than the Gulf Corporation were given—55 per cent. as against 45 per cent. In the second place, through negotiation the Gulf Corporation managed to get much better terms, and it was rather foolish of the British Union Oil Company not to have entered into further negotiations, instead of breaking them off, in order to obtain the same result.
  LORD TEVIOT: The noble Lord will remember that we held leases over 78 per cent. of the area and we were cut down to 22 per cent. I thought I explained very clearly that the 55 per cent. merely meant 22 per cent. The noble Lord will see that that is so.
  LORD OGMORE: I know.
  LORD TEVIOT: That is a fact, and this is something you cannot pass over as being a fair deal. I am not throwing any stones at the Gulf Corporation. They were perfectly right. They went in and Mr. Bishop negotiated for them. We knew all about that. They managed to complete a deal which has proved very much to their advantage. I think that Lord Milverton made an excellent point. I wonder what the Government would have done if the Barbados Government had treated the Gulf Corporation as they have treated us. It would have been a very different matter. I can see the United States representative here making a great song and dance about it, if they had received the treatment we have.
  The noble Lord concentrated on the question of protection. In the early part of my life I was a miner in Canada, America and South Africa, and I know all about "pegging out" and getting a preliminary licence to prospect. But immediately you get on to anything that is of value, then you want to get protection. You want to see that you get what you have found and that somebody else is not going to tap what you have discovered. Sir Hilary Blood with his Executive Committee endorsed the Lepper report: Mr. Perowne said he was bound by it. We have reached a most
  404
  unfortunate state, if a British undertaking in any part of the Empire is not going to be protected by the home Government where it is possible under the Constitution for it to be protected. I am afraid that, as the noble Lord has told us, we can entertain no hope of receiving any assistance from the Colonial Office here in regard to what I consider to be our outstanding claim for compensation. That is all I have to say. It appears that we shall receive no help, and we must re-consider our position. I thank the noble Lord for the suggestion at the end of his speech. We will seriously consider it; but it does mean that, whatever happens, unless the Gulf Corporation are out of our way, we shall get a very raw deal after the expenditure of a large amount of money. I am not going to ask the House to divide, but I am not going to withdraw the Motion.
  On Question, Motion disagreed to.

  CITY OF LONDON (CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT) BILL [H.L.] OXFORD MOTOR SERVICES BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.