Sitting of 1 August 1951

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

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. POPPLEWELL) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that, on the ratification by the Norwegian Government of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Norway) Order, 1951, a copy of which was presented on the 4th July, an Order may be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament.
  I will comply with your request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  CANADIAN SOFTWOOD (PURCHASE)
  Mr. Hurdasked the Lord Privy Seal if, in view of the desirability of reestablishing normal trading relations with Canada, he will consult with timber importers on the appropriate date for restoring the free enterprise purchase of softwood in Canada.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Stokes): The reasons which decided the Government to maintain public buying of softwood from Canada still exist, and until I am satisfied that they have changed in such a way as to make private purchase desirable there would be no purpose in the suggested consultations.
  Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply his business mind to this matter and break the ice? Apart from the feelings of the Canadians, the rigid system of State purchasing of timber in
  1420
  Canada is delaying a fall in timber prices in Scandinavia and elsewhere.
  Mr. Stokes: Yes, that may be, but there are other considerations, not the least important of which is the necessity for an adequate stockpile.

  FESTIVAL GARDENS (CONTINUANCE)
  Mr. Henry Brookeasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has yet received the views of the local authorities concerned and is in a position to make any further statement about the future of the Festival Gardens and Fun Fair in Battersea Park.
  Lieut.-Colonel, Liptonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the Chelsea Borough Council's opposition, the Battersea Festival Gardens and Fun Fair will be continued after this year.
  Mr. Stokes: I have now received the views of the London County Council, who have themselves consulted other authorities concerned. As the text of the London County Council's resolution, which I have received only this morning, is rather long and the gist of it appears in today's newspapers, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT; I will only say now that it is quite consistent with the Government's attitude as already stated in my answer to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 24th July. Discussions will accordingly be opened at once with the London County Council with a view to getting an acceptable scheme in shape.
  Mr. Brooke: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, when these detailed examinations to which the London County Council has agreed take place, will representatives of the two borough councils concerned be associated with them? Second, when the examination is completed, will a report on it be made to all three local authorities concerned, and will they be given a further opportunity of expressing any views they may have?
  Mr. Stokes: My discussions, of course, are with the London County Council. It is its responsibility to deal with the other councils, and the hon. Gentleman's question should be addressed to the London County Council.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of Londoners will back him up solidly if he decides to disregard the churlish misery-mongers of Chelsea? Furthermore, is he aware that by a strange coincidence these councillors and their friends at County Hall who also hate the Fun Fair seem to be members of one political party?
  Mr. Stokes: Well, the substance of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is probably correct, but there are always two views in this matter. Without any doubt, there are a minority who disagree with the decision arrived at.
  Commander Noble: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to give the other view. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement he has just made means that originally the use of Battersea Park was obtained under false pretences? He will not deny that the present Foreign Secretary categorically said in this House— [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—that the original demand, five or seven years, had been modified to one because of local opinion, and he did not wish to break faith. That is exactly what the Lord Privy Seal is doing now.
  Mr. Stokes: That really is not so. This is not a static world, thank goodness. People's opinions change. I am fully appreciative of the point of view which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has expressed, and I can only say in reply that we are going to make such arrangements as will ensure the opening of the river side walk and roadway, and to make as much as possible of the Pleasure Gardens available to the public, even though the Fun Fair is shut.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: In considering future possibilities, will my right hon. Friend give sympathetic consideration to the suggestion of the London County Council that in future years there might be a reduction in the charge for admission, and a remission in the case of old age pensioners?
  Mr. Stokes: All that will be looked at.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Why does the right hon. Gentleman assume that the L.C.C. are entitled to speak for the two borough councils concerned? Is he not
  1422
  aware that they have an entirely separate mandate from the electorate?
  Mr. Stokes: I have had consultations with the L.C.C., and the L.C.C. discussed matters with the other bodies. That is what has happened. I have had no direct discussions with those bodies, and I am sure it is better that it should be dealt with in that way.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are other people interested in this besides the London people; that this park has given great satisfaction to thousands of people from all over the country, and that it is their desire that people from all over the country should come down to enjoy it?
  Mr. Stokes: It is quite clear from the enormous attendances and the general popular favour with which they have been received that the Pleasure Gardens are a very great success.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning, as the latter is such an expert on "fun"?
  Mr. Dodds: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the evidence shows that the heaviest purchases of season tickets have been in the Chelsea districts; that many thousands of Chelsea people have found Battersea Park for the first time, and love it?
  Mr. Stokes: I can assure my hon. Friend that never, in any of my statements or replies, have I suggested that Chelsea is full of dismal Jimmies. I have always thought that there were some people there with a large capacity for enjoyment and amusement.
  Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite his cosmological views—
  Sir Waldron Smithers: What views?
  Mr. Johnson: —despite his cosmological views about the world being static, we on these benches are convinced that there are still many "flat earthers" on the benches opposite?
  Mr. Henry Strauss: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are probably hon. Members in every quarter of the House who attach some importance

  1423
  to the fact that the 1949 Measure received the unanimous approval of this House on express assurances given by His Majesty's Government; and will he give the most careful attention to see that those assurances are not disregarded?
  Mr. Dodds: What about common sense?
  Mr. Stokes: I have already dealt with that matter in answer to a supplementary question the hon. and learned Gentleman put to me on another occasion, in which I said quite clearly that this was a matter which the House would themselves have to decide by passing, I suppose, further legislation, which is the time to protest. The fact that certain promises were given at the time surely must be modified by general popular opinion, and general popular opinion indicates that a change should be made.
  Sir H. Williams: What about Persia?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is what Dr. Mossadeq said.
  Following is the text of the resolution:

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION

    TAKEN ON 31ST JULY, 1951
    That the Council shares the view of the Lord Privy Seal that the present widespread popularity of the Festival Gardens in Battersea Park coupled with the possibility that their continued operation might enable some, if not all, of the cost of their construction to be met from revenue, constitutes a case for the detailed examination of the question of their continuance after 1951; that if, as a result of such examination, a continuance should be decided upon, the Council would not raise objection to enabling legislation permitting an extension of not more than five years; but considers that there should he an experimental period of two years after the conclusion of the Festival before any decision is taken for or against a permanent continuance and that the consent of the Council should he required to any extension beyond two years; but during that experimental period there should he no change in the present limitation of £40,000 of the Council's total liability of loss; and that in the course of the proposed detailed examination the possibilities should he explored:

    (a) of providing in Royal parks the games facilities which could otherwise be provided in the Festival Gardens area;

    (b) of making a reduction in the price of admission in future years; and

    (c) of remitting the admission charge of old age pensioners.

  COLOUR DISCRIMINATION (HOTELS)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is taken by his Welfare Department, in conjunction with the British Travel and Holidays Association or otherwise, to deal with complaints by colonial citizens in Britain of colour discrimination in hotels and other catering establishments; and how many such complaints have been received in the past year.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): Any complaints received in my Department are investigated and taken up in the appropriate quarter. Only one complaint has been brought to my attention during the past year. This was satisfactorily dealt with by the British Travel and Holidays Association.

  MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

    Labour Advisory Board
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the constitution of the Labour Advisory Board of Malaya; how it is elected; how many times it has met; when the last meeting took place; and who is the independent chairman.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The Malayan Labour Advisory Board, as appointed annually from 1947 to 1950, consisted of four Government representatives and four representatives each of employers and workers, appointed by the High Commissioner after consultation with the employers' and workers' organisations. The Commissioner of Labour, one of the Government representatives, was Chairman. There have been 19 meetings since 1947, the last in October, 1950. The composition of the Board is now under review, and it is hoped to announce its reconstitution shortly.
    Mr. Awbery: In view of the fact that the last meeting took place in February of this year, does the Secretary of State not think that the Board is ineffective when it meets so infrequently; and would he also consider appointing an independent Chairman other than the Commissioner of Labour, to create greater confidence among the workers in Singapore?
    Mr. Griffiths: The constitution of the Board is now under consideration by the Government, and I note the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Awbery: When it has been considered, will my right hon. Friend also consider giving the trade unions the opportunity of electing direct representatives to the Board?
    Mr. Griffiths: All that can be considered, and I am sure it will be by the Government.

    Medical Plan
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what part of the programme of the Medical Plan of Singapore was carried out in 1948, 1949 and 1950, and what is scheduled for 1951; and to what extent it is the intention of the Government of Singapore to expand the Kerbau Maternity Hospital and establish clinics in the rural areas.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: During 1948 and 1949, 205,000 dollars and 126,000 dollars, respectively, were spent on improving hospital facilities. The formal Medical Plan began in 1950, when 278,000 dollars was spent. Projected expenditure this year is 1,456,000 dollars. The plan provides for doubling the facilities at the Kerbau hospital, and for 16 new permanent maternity and child welfare clinics. Thirty-eight clinics already exist.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Director of Medical Services has stated that the medical need in Singapore and Malaya is desperate; that there is a great need for nurses and for training schools; that there is a dearth of clinics, particularly in the rural areas; and does he not think that the provision of these would do more to retard the progress of Communism than the use of arms?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am deeply conscious of the need for extending the social services in Singapore, and both I and the local government will do everything we possibly can to speed up the development of these essential services.

    Emergency Newspaper Regulations
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that emergency newspaper regulations have
    1426
    been made in Singapore; that they reduce the freedom of the Press and give powers to the legislature to suspend a newspaper for offences not stated; and if he will delay implementing these regulations until he has had consultation with all interests concerned.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the new restrictions on Press freedom in Singapore.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Emergency (News paper) Regulations were published on 5th July and were approved 10 days later by the Legislative Council, with two dissentients. I am in correspondence with the Governor on certain aspects of this matter, and I would therefore prefer not to make a statement at this stage.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Secretary of State aware that the new regulations give power to suppress not only newspapers but also newsprint; and should he not take action through the courts rather than using arbitrary powers to suppress newspapers and newsprint?
    Mr. Griffiths: As I have said, I prefer not to make any statement on this matter. I am discussing the matter with the Governor.
    Mr. Driberg: Since that means that my right hon. Friend cannot make a statement to this House until October, if he finds on examination that the allegations contained in my hon. Friend's supplementary question are correct, will he take immediate action during the Recess?
    Mr. Griffiths: I will discuss the matter very fully with the Governor, and will consult with him about what action will be taken. I would ask my hon. Friends to bear in mind that this is in Singapore, in the heart of an area where there is an emergency.
    Mr. Niall Macpherson: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the emergency as being in progress for some considerable time. Can he tell the House what then has now caused these regulations to be made?
    Mr. Griffiths: As I have said, I am in correspondence with the Governor on this matter, and I should prefer to leave the matter where it is until our consultations are complete.
    Mr. Awbery: In view of the fact that the regulations are due to become operative today, will the Minister hold them up until an inquiry has been held?
    Mr. Griffiths: I do not think I ought to hold up regulations which have been approved by the Legislative Council. I am consulting with the Governor, but I could not hold them up because this has been decided by the local government.

    Alex Josey (Broadcasts)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has studied information sent to him about subversive broadcasts in Malaya by Alex Josey, and in view of the unsettled state of that country, if he will take steps to end such broadcasts; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Mr. Josey is a member of the staff of Radio Malaya, whose duties have included the making of regular commentaries on the news. These broadcasts have been subject to prior scrutiny, although in practice latitude has been allowed. They have been given weekly for the last two years and are, of course, in no sense subversive.
    Sir W. Smithers: When will the Government take some effective action against Communism?
    Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these broadcasts are extremely effective anti-Communist propaganda, and will he consider putting into the Library of the House the booklets in which they have been reprinted, so that hon. Members may judge for themselves how completely untrue and unfair this question is?
    Mr. Griffiths

    Special Constables
    Mr. Gilbert Longdenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provisions exist for training men who are serving as special constables in Malaya so as to facilitate their ultimate resettlement in civil life.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) on 11th July. I will also write to the hon. Member when the report for which I have asked is received.
    Mr. Longden: I am afraid that I am not aware of the answer to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Will he not agree that this will help to recruit the best types of men for this very vital work upon which the lives of fellow countrymen depend, that is, if they can feel that steps are being taken to reinstate them in civil life later?
    Mr. Griffiths: The answer which I gave previously was that I had set up a committee to study this problem and when I see their report I will communicate with the hon. Member.

    Call-Up (Evasion)
    Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are taken to prevent young men in Malaya from evading their National Service obligations by taking up temporary residence in Singapore.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Since movement between the Federation and Singapore is uncontrolled there are serious practical difficulties in dealing with this matter, but the question is under active consideration by both Governments.
    Mr. Macpherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea of the extent of this trouble?
    Mr. Griffiths: No. I think that the hon. Member has been to Singapore and Malaya, and I am sure that he will appreciate that it is very difficult to give any estimate on that question. It is a very serious problem, and it is being carefully and urgently examined.
    Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these people escaped to the Turtle and Mangsee Islands which have been transferred from the British Empire to the Philippine Republic?

  TANGANYIKA

    Overseas Food Corporation (Crops)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can make a statement on the harvest of groundnut, and other crops grown this season by the Overseas Food Corporation in Tanganyika; and if he can now give an indication of the cropping and cattle grazing plans for the coming year.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Harvesting is still in full operation in all three of the Corporation's areas in Tanganyika and only tentative estimates of the eventual yields can now be given. The Corporation hope to harvest 8,500 tons of groundnuts, 9,500 tons of maize and 4,500 tons of sorghum. Plans for the 1951–52 agricultural year have not yet been settled.
    Mr. Hurd: After meeting the food requirements of the local population, will there be any substantial quantity of groundnuts and maize available for shipment here; and will the right hon. Gentleman make a further statement about future plans as soon as he has anything definite in view?
    Mr. Griffiths: With regard to the second part of that supplementary question, Mr. Gillett, the new chairman, has now gone out to East Africa. I saw him before he went, and I have arranged that as soon as everything is settled he will report, and I will make a full statement here. I should prefer not to commit myself about the detailed figures. Perhaps I could send them to the hon. Gentleman after I have made further inquiries.
    Mr. Hurd: Will there be something available for this country after local requirements have been met?
    Mr. Griffiths: There will be, but I should not like to commit myself as to the amount.

    Corn Storage Department
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement upon the scheme of the Tanganyika Government to establish a grain storage department, including silos with conditioning plants, at selected centres.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: As the reply is necessarily lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    In 1949 a Department of Grain Storage was set up in the territory and a start was made upon a building programme to provide storage on a territorial scale. The programme is now nearing completion and will provide storage for some 52,000 tons of grain sited at 13 strategic centres throughout the country. In addition, the storage programme provides for conditioning plants at Moshi, Korogwe and Kilosa; the Kilosa Plant is already working and the other two are now undergoing trials. The plants are for experimental purposes in the first instance.
    1430
    The programme described above is designed to meet the major part of the territory's short term requirements. In 1952, it is proposed to follow this up with smaller supplementary programmes to provide further storage in the light of experience to be gained. In supplement of this major territorial project, native authorities throughout the territory are being encouraged and assisted by Government to provide local storage facilities. These are necessarily on a proportionately smaller scale than those included in the territorial programme.
    Thus, in the Handeni District, 10 Chiefdom grain stores, each of a capacity of 150 tons are to he constructed; in the Lake Province a total capacity of 7,000 tons storage is to be provided on the basis of small cylindrical stores in groups of 100 to 150 tons in capacity and also experimental underground storage pits of 100 to 250 tons capacity. The Central Province has had its own system of native authority grain storage for some years now with capacity of approximately 8,000 tons. On a smaller scale, the Southern Highlands and the Northern Province have had similar systems of native authority storage for several years.

  COLONIAL STUDENTS, U.K. (ACCOMMODATION)
  Sir Richard Aclandasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the circumstances leading up to the writing of a letter from the Director of Colonial Scholars on 19th July telling certain colonial students in Hans Crescent that their positions as scholarship students would have to be reconsidered if they did not vacate the accommodation they were occupying; and what is the latest position arising from this letter.
  Mr. Wedgwood Bennasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the dispute between the British Council and the colonial students at present in the Hans Crescent hostel, in view of the letter written by his Department to these students on 19th July;
  (2) whether he will request the British Council to stay the eviction order made by them against the colonial students at present in the Hans Crescent hostel, pending a general reconsideration of all welfare and accommodation problems affecting colonial students in Great Britain.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Owing to the length of the answer, I will, with permission, give it at the end of Questions.
  Mr. Peter Smithers: Can the Secretary of State say whether he proposes to publish any target figure which he hopes to reach for the accommodation of these students in hostels? This is extremely important.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am making a full statement at the end of Questions.
  Mr. Smithers: Is the information for which I have asked in that statement?
  Hon. Members: Wait and see.
  At the end of Questions:
  Mr. J. Griffiths: I am concerned and anxious to make the best provision I can for students from the Colonies who are staying in this country. There are now about 5,000 students from the Colonies in the United Kingdom, about half of whom are in London. Unfortunately, the problem of accommodation for students is more difficult in London than anywhere else in the country, but many students want to come to London for special reasons, such as studying law.
  The House will realise that in existing circumstances the provision of hostel accommodation for all colonial students is not practicable, even if it were desirable. Apart from any question of cost, there is the difficulty of building, or of finding any conveniently placed buildings suitable for adaptation in the inner London area.
  It has therefore been my policy to reserve the available hostel accommodation mainly for newly arriving students who are in particular need of such accommodation while they are getting used to English conditions, and also during vacation for students who are visiting London.
  Of the 167 students who had been accepted for residence at Hans Crescent for the 1950–51 academic year, 112 were asked to leave to make room for new students. I may say that more than a thousand new students will be coming here during the next few months.
  All the students who were asked to leave were offered alternative accommodation by the British Council, and the majority accepted this offer. A little over 40, however, have refused offers of alternative accommodation and have been staying on in Hans Crescent without the Council's permission. Included among these latter are four colonial scholars to
  1432
  whom the Director of Colonial Scholars wrote saying that if they continued to occupy accommodation to which they were not entitled, their position as scholarship holders would have to be reviewed. I have not, however, caused 'any deductions to be made from the allowances paid to them.
  At the same time, I must repeat that these students are retaining accommodation to which they are not entitled and which is required for others who need it more. I have arranged that the Under-Secretary shall meet the students in Hans Crescent this evening to discuss their position with them and I hope that it will be possible to arrive at some amicable settlement.
  As regards the general position, I think that with the continuing growth of the student population more hostel accommodation is needed, and to help meet the influx of new students this summer I have already arranged with the British Council for Moray Lodge, Campden Hill, to be opened as a temporary hostel. It will accommodate 60 students at one time. I am also discussing with the Council the permanent provision of extra hostel accommodation, and I hope that it will be found possible to add as much as 200 beds to the present capacity.
  I must, however, repeat that there is no question of His Majesty's Government providing hostel accommodation for all colonial students. Most students must continue to rely upon lodgings, and it is not true that suitable lodgings are impossible for them to obtain. The British Council have done a great deal in helping students to find suitable lodgings and now have on their books many hundred addresses of good lodgings where colonial students are welcome. This service is at the disposal of any colonial student. In addition, the Council get valuable help from voluntary societies in providing accommodation for colonial students.
  Sir R. Acland: As regards the letter about the scholarship grants, as this was sent without any consultation with the colonial Governments who actually paid money for the scholarships, and as it has caused more bitterness than any other question in this story, would the Minister consider the advisability of withdrawing it, as it was a mistake to have sent such a letter at that time?
  Mr. Griffiths: I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that, by arrangement with the Colonial Governments, the care and welfare of these students, about which we are deeply concerned, particularly in London, is left by them to myself and to the Colonial Office. I have not acted beyond that. When we provide scholarships for students, it is not unreasonable to ask them to accept the regulations and rules which we make in the interests of the students here, of whom there are 5,000. We are glad to welcome them, we are doing our best for them and, with their co-operation, we can make a big success of this.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that with regard to the 40 students at present in the Hans Crescent hostel there was not at any rate a misunderstanding, if not an actual breach of faith, by the British Council in regard to the length of time that they understood they were to be allowed to stay in that hostel?
  Mr. Griffiths: I am sure there was no breach of faith. There may have been misunderstanding by those men about the term "academic year." As I have said, the Under-Secretary is this evening meeting the students concerned and, if I may appeal to hon. Members, I think it would be better if we leave him to discuss this matter with them in the hope that there will be a settlement.
  Mr. Gammans: Does the last part of the statement mean that the British Council has available more lodgings on its books than there are students who may want that accommodation? And would it be true to say that no colonial student in this country who has registered for accommodation through the British Council cannot find it?
  Mr. Griffiths: It is true that the British Council have now a list of accommodation which they investigated personally to make sure that it is satisfactory. That accommodation is not occupied at present, and therefore it is available to the colonial students.
  Mrs. Middleton: Will my right hon Friend say when these students are made aware of the fact that the accommodation in the hostel will be limited to one year only? Is it made before they come to this country, or after their arrival here.
  1434
  and who is entrusted with the task of conveying the information to them?
  Mr. Griffiths: The task is entrusted to the British Council, and they are made aware of that. Also, the policy has been made known collectively that, since there is limited accommodation with regard to these hostels, we think—and I am sure I will carry the House with me here—that it is better to confine this at present to as many new students as possible in order to give them 12 months in which to accommodate themselves to conditions here. After 12 months we hope and believe they will be able to fit into the available accommodation in lodgings. That is much better than young people having to do so when they come here for the first time.
  Sir R. Acland: Will my right hon. Friend ask his hon. Friend this evening and subsequently, to pay special attention to the possibility of the personal relations between the students and their representative, on the one side, and the representatives of the British Council, on the other, being a little better in the future by being more tactfully managed than in the past?
  Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend will meet them and will discuss the problem fully with them. I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me that cordial relations are a two-way traffic.
  Sir Edward Boyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that accusations of that kind, however unjustified, can spread like wildfire in the Colonies from which these students come. Would he, therefore, on this tricky matter, assure us that he is keeping constantly in touch with the respective governments?
  Mr. Griffiths: Yes. I am deeply conscious of the fact that among the many thousands of young students who come here are the future leaders of their countries in five or 10 years time in an important developing stage of the Colonial Empire. I am, therefore, deeply anxious about any rumours that may spread.
  That is why I sought the permission of you, Mr. Speaker, and of the House, to make a full statement so that this can reach people in the Colonial Territories. I have asked my hon. Friend to meet the students this evening, because I do not want any misunderstanding of this kind

  1435
  to spread in the form of rumours that might misrepresent the position and cause ill feeling between us and the people of the Colonies.
  Mr. Wedgwood Bennasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will receive a deputation from the Consultative Committee of Colonial students' unions to discuss the general problems of welfare and accommodation of colonial students in Great Britain.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: I am very ready to receive a deputation from representative student bodies and will arrange to do so at an early date.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this statement will give great satisfaction among the students who have hitherto felt that they have been prevented from getting to the Department which is responsible for the administration of hostel accommodation?
  Mr. Griffiths: I do not think that they have been prevented. I am always ready and anxious to receive deputations and to discuss problems with them.
  Commander Noble: Has there been any question of the Minister refusing to see such a deputation?
  Mr. Griffiths: No, I have not refused to see any deputation.
  Mr. Peter Smithers: Did not the right hon. Gentleman refuse to receive a deputation from West Indian students about this matter recently?
  Mr. Griffiths: I think that the Minister ought to receive deputations upon problems of this kind from those who are directly responsible for the administration and those directly concerned.

  WEST AFRICA

    Cameroons (British Administration)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Russian allegations in the Trusteeship Council on 6th July against the British administration in the Cameroons; and what steps he has taken to rebut them.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. These allegations were effectively rebutted by
    1436
    the United Kingdom representatives in the Council. A copy of the relevant verbatim record has been placed in the Library of the House, and, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT an extract from the speech of Brigadier Gibbons, the United Kingdom spokesman.
    Mr. Johnson: Can the Minister assure the House that the African people in the Cameroons enjoy the right of habeas corpus as much as any cockney in London?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. I hope that hon. Members who may have heard these charges made against the administration in this area will read the statement which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT and look at the copy of the verbatim record which I am placing in the Library.
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Will my right hon. Friend agree to investigate the standard of administration in the Cameroon Development Corporation, in view of the fact that over the last three years more than one-third of the European staff have left the Corporation and feel very bitter that opportunities to make their complaints heard have not been given to them?
    Mr. Griffiths: That supplementary question does not arise on this Question and answer.
    Following is the extract:
    "The first of these astonishing suggestions was that, under the present Administration, the people of the Territory are deprived of all civic rights. Now let us simply ask ourselves what in fact is this machinery of tyranny which is supposed to exist. There are no troops stationed in the Territory. There is, of course, no secret police. In a population of over one million there are three—only three—British police officers and 497 government and native administration police recruited from the people of the Territory themselves, none of whom carries arms on normal duty. Thus, there is only one policeman to over two thousand of the inhabitants. In fact, even in these early stages of our educational expansion, there are considerably more than twice as many teachers in the schools as there are policemen. The inhabitants enjoy the same freedom from arbitrary arrest which was won by the English people centuries ago. The writ of habeas corpus runs in this Territory as surely as it runs in London and throughout the British Commonwealth.
    " I must now mention in passing what appeared to me to be the most bizarre of the

    1437
    misconceptions expressed, namely, that the Administering Authority is pursuing a policy of capacious exploitation in alienating the lands of the people in order to produce raw materials for the profit of the United Kingdom. The Council is, of course, already fully aware that the exact opposite is the case. The policy of the present Administration, which has been generously commended by this Council, has in fact been to restore to the people of this Territory lands previously alienated from them and to ensure to the inhabitants of the Trust Territory exclusively the enjoyment of all the benefits derived from their operation, whether in the shape of trading profits or of tax accruing to government, of which, as the Council well knows, not one penny is appropriated either by the Nigerian Government or by the United Kingdom."

    Nigeria (Education for Citizenship)
    Mr. G. Cooperasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reports he has received from the Nigerian Government on the results of the new experimental courses in education for citizenship conducted at Man O' War Bay; and whether plans are being considered for the development of this training in the Cameroons or its extension elsewhere in West Africa.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: None, Sir. Only two courses have so far been held and it is too early yet to judge the success of this interesting experiment. I am not aware of any plans for the development of this particular form of training in the Cameroons, or for its extension elsewhere in West Africa.
    Mr. Cooper: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the results achieved so far at Man O' War Bay are sufficiently encouraging to justify this scheme being continued and developed with a view to extending it to other parts of West Africa?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is certainly a very interesting experiment, but I should have thought it was too early yet to pass a final judgment upon it.

  WEST INDIES

    Jamaica (Crime)
    Mr. G. Cooperasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what way he has decided to take action, with a view to help to stem the prevalence of crime in Jamaica, especially the corruption in the Jamaican-controlled parochial
    1438
    councils, and to deal with the question of the drug, known as ganja, which contributes to political and trade union violence.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: These are matters within the competence of the Government of Jamaica. The Governor is concerned at the amount of crime, particularly in Kingston, but he has reported that the police are doing much excellent work both generally and in a successful campaign against those who grow, use and traffic in ganja. Sir Hugh Foot does not accept the sweeping suggestion of corruption in the parochial boards.
    Mr. Cooper: Will my right hon. Friend agree that this increase in crime may indicate that the Constitution, which was brought into being in 1944, requires to be looked at again, in view of the fact that it has brought into the Assembly some irresponsible sections of the community, and this is perhaps the cause of this increase in crime?
    Mr. Griffiths: I do not think that I can accept the view that the people on the boards are irresponsible.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Will my right hon. Friend consider putting some ganja in the Library of the House so that hon. Members may decide for themselves whether this drug has the effects attributed to it?
    Mr. Griffiths: I will see what I can do during the Recess.

    British Guiana (Rice Prices)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what answer he is sending to the resolution sent him by the rice growers of British Guiana asking for his assistance in getting more favourable prices.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The price of rice supplied by British Guiana to other West Indian territories is governed by a contract. It has been agreed that the price to be paid during the period 1952–54 should be referred to arbitration under the terms of that contract.
    Mr. Hynd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern in British Guiana at the possibility of the present prices being renewed over a further period of years, and in view of the need for more encouragement to bring

    1439
    the social services to something like a decent level, will he do what he can to help in this matter?
    Mr. Griffiths: As I have already stated, they have agreed now to refer this question to arbitration.

  UNDER-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (U.N. REPORT)
  Sir R. Aclandasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to the proposal made in the United Nations Report on Measures for the Economic Development of Under-developed Countries for the establishment of an Economic Commission for Africa; and, particularly, on the question of securing direct representation on such a Commission for the non-self-governing territories in Africa.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: As stated last February by the United Kingdom delegate to the Economic and Social Council, we consider that the objectives of an Economic Commission for Africa can be fully achieved by existing machinery, which is described in paragraphs 459–463 and 853–855 of my Report to Parliament for 1950–51, and we agree with the other countries in or concerned with Africa in seeing no advantage in setting up another organisation for this purpose.
  Sir R. Acland: Would the Minister consider with the Leader of the House the desirability of having a discussion in this House about this question, as a most authoritative United Nations Report makes this one of its major recommendations, and similar Commissions in regard to South-East Asia have succeeded in rendering very considerable service.
  Mr. Griffiths: That is a matter which my hon. Friend should take up with the Leader of the House.

  CENTRAL AFRICAN TERRITORIES (CLOSER ASSOCIATION)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what views have so far been expressed on the proposals for closer association of the Central African Territories by African District and Provincial Councils in Northern Rhodesia
  1440
  and Nyasaland and by the Nyasaland African Protectorate Council and the Northern Rhodesian African Representative Council.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: So far as I am aware, the District and Provincial Councils and the Protectorate and Representative Councils have not formally considered the proposals contained in the Report. As my hon. Friend is aware, I propose to make a visit to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland later in this month, and I shall have personal discussions with representatives of the bodies referred to in this Question.

  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (LOCAL CO-OPERATION)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what qualifications must be possessed by the members of the committees which are to be appointed to secure closer co-operation between the Colonial Development Corporation and the peoples of the territories in which they operate; and when these committees will be appointed.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: The qualifications necessary for membership of these committees are laid down in Section 7 (1) of the Overseas Resources Development Act. A committee appointed is to include persons having knowledge of the circumstances and requirements of the inhabitants of the territory obtained by their being or having been themselves inhabitants thereof or residents therein. It is for the Corporation to judge whether the appointment of such committees is needed and this matter is, I understand, being considered as part of the general review of the question of association with local peoples, to which I referred in my reply to my right hon. Friend's question on 18th July.
  Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the powers constituting these committees have been in existence for four years since the Act came into operation and that there is widespread disappointment that the Corporation have been so slow in appointing people to fill these positions?
  Mr. Griffiths: The Board are anxious to set up these committees, and I am anxious that they should be set up as soon as possible.
  Mr. Peter Smithers: Is this the organisation of which Mr. Dumpleton is in charge?
  Mr. Griffiths: This is the work in which Mr. Dumpleton is engaged.
  Sir H. Williams: I again ask the right hon. Gentleman, who represents the Turtle and Mangsee Islands on this committee?
  Mr. Griffiths: I will answer that question if the hon. Gentleman will put it on the Order Paper.

  H.M. SUBMARINE "AFFRAY" (DIVERS' EXAMINATION)
  Commander Maitlandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will make a public statement about the loss of H.M.S. "Affray" before the House rises.
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomasasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what progress has been made by the Naval Board of Inquiry into the loss of H.M.S. "Affray."
  Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what further news he has of the inquiries into the loss of His Majesty's Submarine "Affray"; whether he will consider salving the wreck as a useful exercise, if the risks are not excessive; and whether he will release all facts that may come to light, other than those that are needlessly distressing or contraindicated on grounds of security.
  The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): As the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, answer these Questions at the end of Questions.
  At the end of Questions—
  Mr. Callaghan: In the 47 days since the wreck of H.M. Submarine "Affray" was found, diving has been possible only on 15 days. Suited divers, who can be used for only one hour in 24 at this depth and in these tides, have made six descents, and 26 dives have been made by observation chamber. Diving was suspended for a short time because the submarine became unstable. She is now lying at an angle of at least 50 degrees and seems to have settled there.
  1442
  With great determination, the divers have made an examination of the whole length of the submarine, but apart from her snort, they have found no other damage to her superstructure, hydroplanes, propellers, rudder or asdic dome. Her fore hatch is securely shut, and so is the after escape hatch. Her internal tube caps are closed. The hydroplanes are set to rise. Her bridge telegraphs are at stop, but as she was on a war patrol they may have been disconnected at the start of the exercise.
  The Naval Board of Inquiry has presented an Interim Report, and before final conclusions are drawn, the diving ship H.M.S. Reclaim is trying to get further evidence. This is proving difficult, mainly due to the list of the submarine. Work has been restricted recently because of bad weather.
  As the House will know, the broken snort has been recovered and subjected to a series of metallurgical tests. These show that the metallurgical condition of some of its members is below standard and that some of the welding is not good. A critical examination is therefore being made of the snort tubes of the A Class submarines, and the same sort of defects have been revealed in the snort tubes of two other submarines. It has therefore been decided to replace the snort tubes of all A Class submarines, and the present ban on snorting will remain until this has been done and the submarines re-equipped. Opportunity is being taken to re-examine the design of the snort tubes to see whether improvements can be made.
  As to salvage, the House will have concluded from what I said at the beginning of this answer, that diving conditions are hazardous and that it is extremely difficult to work at these depths. The effective weight of a flooded submarine is nearly 1,000 tons, and the prospects of successfully lifting that weight in stages through nearly 300 feet are not at all good. No final decision on salvage has yet been taken.
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The House will agree that the Parliamentary Secretary has made a most serious statement with regard to the deficiency in the snort apparatus. May I therefore ask him two questions? Can he give us an assurance that those responsible for examining all the vital equipment of this kind have available to

  1443
  them the most modern methods for detecting faults? May I ask him to promise the House that the Admiralty will conduct the most rigorous investigations into all possible causes of the defects in the snort tube? I am sure the House would wish me to express—this, I am sure, must be felt in all quarters—our admiration for the divers, and to pay our tribute to them for their gallantry and devotion to duty in what has been a very hazardous task?
  Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, the best equipment is available for purposes of inspection, but inspection is not applied to 100 per cent.; otherwise, we would have as many inspectors as workmen doing a particular job. As far as the second part of the question is concerned, certainly the Admiralty are now pursuing the whole history of the fabrication and manufacture of these snorts.
  Commander Noble: In view of the fact that the Minister told us earlier this afternoon that we were going to transfer four submarines to France, can he say whether the fact that so many officers under training were on this occasion sent out in one submarine was due to shortage of submarines? If so, is this transfer really desirable?
  Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir, it was not due to shortage of submarines. It is the normal practice to send that number of officers forming a complete team, out on a job of this sort.
  Commander Maitland: Although the hon. Gentleman has told us that there is a defect in the snort metal, does his answer mean that no decision has been reached as to how the accident occurred? Can he assure the House that every effort will be made, quite irrespective of the defects in the metal, to find out how the accident occurred?
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and gallant Member is quite right. I was careful not to conclude that the accident had been caused by a defect in the snort, as, I think, a perusal of my answer will show. It is the most obvious theory, but the reason why H.M.S. Reclaim is now trying to get further evidence is in order to confirm that theory or, alternatively, to open up a fresh series of thoughts on the subject.
  Captain Ryder: Arising out of the hon. Gentleman's reply about the testing
  1444
  of this apparatus, may I ask whether, in cases where welding is used for very vital structure, it is not the practice to have these subjected to an X-ray test? Will the hon. Gentleman insist on the other snorts in future being subjected to this very vital and important test?
  Mr. Callaghan: X-ray photography is used to test welds, but, as I have said, it is not applied 100 per cent. It has not been applied 100 per cent. in the past. Whether it should be so in the future in relation to snorts or any other parts of a ship's superstructure, is now a matter for consideration.
  Sir Ian Fraser: As, judging from the hon. Gentleman's answer, no final decision has yet been taken as to whether an attempt is to be made to lift the submarine, will the Admiralty take into account not merely the interest in the lifting of the submarine to ascertain the full reason for the accident and to prevent its recurrence, but also the value of such a highly complicated technical exercise to all the skilled men who would be engaged in it? Having regard to the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks that there would be 1,000 tons weight, would that not be modified if it were possible to pump out the water?
  Mr. Callaghan: The considerations which the hon. Member mentions are, of course, very much in our minds, but there are considerations on the other side also, as he will appreciate. I would rather not go into technicalities as to what the weight to be lifted would be if water were pumped out. I imagine that it would be less, for obvious reasons, but the difficulty of pumping the water out is one of the reasons, which I think, might lead to the reaching of the conclusion not to raise the submarine.
  Mr. John Arbuthnot: Is there not a valve at the bottom of the snort tube so as to prevent damage to the snort tube alone causing a disaster such as this? Does the answer which the hon. Gentleman has given mean that the valve has gone wrong at the same time as the defect in the snort tube occurred?
  Mr. Callaghan: The snort induction valve is there precisely for the purpose which the hon. Member indicates. That is one reason why H.M.S. Reclaim is now

  1445
  trying to get further evidence in order to confirm the theory that has been put forward.

  SUBMARINES (LOAN TO FRANCE)
  Mr. Pagetasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many submarines it is intended to transfer to the French Navy.
  Mr. Callaghan: His Majesty's Government have agreed to lend four submarines to the French Navy for a period of four years. They are the Statesman, Satyr, Spiteful and Sportsman. They are now being refitted in this country under Admiralty supervision and at the expense of the French Government, and will be transferred on the satisfactory completion of refits and trials.

  TELEVISION

    Motor Car Suppressors
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Postmaster-General if he will request his advisory committee to consider forthwith and advise him in an interim report as to the terms of a specific draft regulation to require suppressors to be fitted to motor cars for the reduction of interference on television sets in order that this may not be subject to further delay.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): The Committee considering ignition systems has now submitted a report. When I have fully considered the advice given to me in the report, I will make a statement about the action I propose to take with regard to regulations. I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library and for a brief Summary of its main recommendations to be given to the Press.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been badgering him about this for years and that I shall continue to do so? Will he give us some indication when he expects to arrive at some decision on this comparatively simple matter?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is too retrospective. The main problems I have to face in making a statement is whether or not to have sup-
    1446
    pressors on new cars only, whether to limit those suppressors to the parts of the country where we have television, to arrange for the production of testing equipment, to test them afterwards, and all those sorts of things which are involved. I think we must have some time to look into it.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the reasons which he has given are reasons which seem to indicate that a decision could be comparatively quickly arrived at?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That will depend upon the technical committee.

    Pontop Pike
    Miss Irene Wardasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the grave dissatisfaction that is felt on the North-East Coast at the decision to defer the television low-power transmitter at Pontop Pike, which was to serve that part of the country; and whether he will reconsider his decision.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: With permission, I will answer this Question and Question No. 55 together.
    Miss Ward: On a point of order. I am not satisfied that these Questions should be answered together and would like them answered separately.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I accept the hon. Lady's request. I recognise that the decision has caused disappointment and I regret its necessity, but the postponement of work on this and other low-powered television stations was decided only after a careful review of the requirements of the defence programme. I would add that the Select Committee on Estimates endorsed this decision in the light of the evidence before them. The B.B.C.'s station at Kirk o'Shotts and the radio link were well advanced when it was decided to postpone the low-powered stations.
    Miss Ward: In view of the fact that the North-East Coast is not satisfied with that kind of answer, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation after the Recess to discuss this very important matter?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have already received a very substantial deputation from

    1447
    North-East Coast Members and have let them have a considered reply on the matter.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Whilst regretting the necessity of this decision about the low-power station programme due to the claims of the defence programme, can my right hon. Friend give us two assurances—that when the programme can be resumed, priority will be given in this matter to the North-East Coast area; and that the southern parts of the area will receive satisfactory television reception from the new station at Holme Moss?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I think I can give the assurance that the area will get priority in the low power programme, when it is operated. With regard to the second part of the question, there will be a lot of fringe reception in the southern part of this area.
    Miss Ward: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not received a deputation from the local authorities and that there has been no disclosure of what passed at the deputation between Socialist Members and himself, will the right hon. Gentleman consider receiving a deputation from the local authorities?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have no objection to receiving a deputation on behalf of the local authorities, but I understand that considerable publicity has been given to the reply which I gave to the North-East Coast Members.
    Miss Ward: But I am a North-East Coast Member.
    Miss Wardasked the Postmaster-General why it has been decided to continue with the scheme to provide television for Scotland by way of the relay station at Pontop Pike and eliminate an addition to Pontop Pike which would serve the North-East Coast; and if he will ensure equal treatment for both regions.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: My answer to this Question is the same as the one I gave to Question No. 44.
    Miss Ward: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refer to a deputation of North-East Coast hon. Members received by him when I am a North-East hon. Member and had no notice of the deputation?
    1448
    Will he kindly let me know what was the subject of discussion, what his speech was and what really was the case put forward on behalf of myself as well as of other hon. Members, so that I may send the information on to the local authorities concerned?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I should be glad to let the hon. Lady have a copy, but I should have thought that she would have read all about this in her own newspapers.
    Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was not present at the deputation because I was not invited? Is he also aware that what would be in the newspapers would be an inspired Press report and not the secret information which he gave to my political opponents?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Lady should not be so suspicious.
    Mr. J. Johnson: In view of the hon. Lady's earlier allegations that the deputation consisted wholly of Socialist hon. Members, will my right hon. Friend define what he meant when he spoke about a substantial delegation?
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not a fact that there are not sufficient Conservative hon. Members for the North-East to make a deputation?
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: This is rather important as a matter of principle. When the Minister tells the House that he received a substantial delegation of hon. Members from the North-East Coast, are we to understand that he meant that it was a party delegation or are we to take it that it was an all-party delegation?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I was not attempting to mislead the House. I was asked to receive a deputation. If the hon. Lady had asked me to receive one, I should have had very great pleasure in doing so.
    Mr. Nicholson: Would it not have been more straightforward if the right hon. Gentleman had said "party delegation"?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: It is not for me to arrange delegations.

    Colour Transmissions
    Mr. Gammansasked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to provide this country with television in colour.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The B.B.C. informs me that it is carrying out long-term investigations into fundamental problems of colour television; much research work will have to be done before a system suitable for public service is evolved. The Post Office is keeping in touch with technical developments, at home and abroad, so that it will be in a position to provide appropriate facilities for transmitting colour television signals from point to point.
    Mr. Gammans: Is not the United States on the verge of having colour television? Why should we not have it here? Is it because we are saddled with a State monopoly and the Americans are not?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman should know that there is very great controversy in America about the sort of colour television that they have.

    Holme Moss
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Postmaster-General whether the Holme Moss Television Station will relay only the Alexandra Palace programmes or whether it will be provided with an outside television recording unit and television studios in Yorkshire and Lancashire, so that the North of England can make its contribution to the national television programme.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The B.B.C. intends that the North of England shall contribute outside broadcasts and newsreel items to television programmes. The Corporation does not propose to provide television studios outside London at present.
    Sir I. Fraser: How can that be done when there is no co-axial cable up there?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: There is a coaxial cable up there.
    Sir I. Fraser: In the North-West?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir.
    Sir I. Fraser: Where does it go to?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to an earlier question he would have known that it is already there.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Why cannot Lancashire and Yorkshire have television studios? Is it not most important that the rest of England should be able to hear
    1450
    and see what we in Yorkshire and Lancashire are saying and doing so that they can do the same tomorrow?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I should have thought that it was more important that some persons should first get a programme before others get two programmes.
    Miss Ward: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refer to the North of England and leave out Northumberland and Durham which are not covered at all by his answer to the Question?

    Wenvoe
    Mr. Llewellynasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement concerning the progress made in the erection of the television station a Wenvoe; what shortage of materials or labour has been encountered; and whether it is anticipated that shortages will adversely affect existing plans.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The B.B.C. informs me that progress with the television station at Wenvoe is so far proceeding according to schedule; no shortages of consequence either of material or labour have been encountered as yet, but I cannot forecast the future.
    Mr. Llewellyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for what date the completion of this station is planned, unless unfortunate shortages intervene in the meantime?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I think we gave a rough date of mid-1952. I do not think it will be any later on present performance, but one cannot tell the future position of labour and materials.

  POST OFFICE

    Stoke-on-Trent
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Postmaster-General when it is intended to provide the new central post office for the city of Stoke-on-Trent; and the site upon which it is to be built.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: It is proposed to provide for certain rebuilding in Stoke in next year's Estimates.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the new central

    1451
    post office we were promised before the war? In view of the fact that it has now been decided to put this in the Estimates, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that the building is constructed as soon as possible?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: There are five lots of building going on in Stoke for the Post Office. It seems to me that Stoke is getting its fair share.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Postmaster-General when it is intended to improve the postal facilities in the Meir, Blurton, Fenton and Longton areas, respectively, in the city of Stoke-on-Trent.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: If my hon. Friend will specify what postal facilities he has in mind, I will look into the matter.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Delivery of letters, etc.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have looked into that, and I find that Stoke gets the standard national deliveries and collections.

    Damaged Parcels (Repacking)
    Commander Nobleasked the Postmaster-General why a copy of the Bucharest organ of the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers Parties, dated 15th June, 1951, was received in London in a damaged parcel from New Zealand incorrectly addressed, and forwarded by his Mount Pleasant branch on 5th July, reference X10258; and what action he has taken.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Newspapers found to be undeliverable in the post have been used to a limited extent as protective material when damaged parcels have been re-packed. The use of the journal referred to in this case for this purpose was entirely fortuitous. Since, however, it is not practicable to discriminate in the selection of newspapers used for packing purposes, and the amount of ordinary packing material which would be required is small, I have arranged for the present practice to cease.
    Commander Noble: Does the Minister's answer really mean that he went into the matter and found out exactly who put this paper into this parcel?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir, we were unable to discover which sorter did this.

    Registration Service
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Postmaster-General what is the net operating profit arising from registration fees on the parcel and letter service.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The inland letter and parcel registration service is operating at a loss.
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the increasing cost of commodities, he will consider extending the cover now granted under the letter and parcel registration service.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I regret that I cannot agree to extend the limits of compensation payable.
    Mr. Shepherd: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile this registered service operating at a loss with the fact that the private insurance companies will insure a parcel for ld. to cover a £2 claim, whereas he charges 4d.?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This is a national amenity and is available all over the country. I have taken the advice of the Post Office Advisory Council, on which sit hon. Members from both sides of the House, and they were agreed that I should not extend the rate of compensation.

    Christmas Cards (Postage)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider granting the concession of allowing greetings cards to be sent for ld. instead of 1½. during the Christmas period.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir; it would be impracticable to single out Christmas greeting cards for such a concession.
    Mr. Crouch: Would it not be practicable to permit all mail to be sent at the 1d. rate in the 14 days before Christmas? The amount of commercial mail in that period is exceedingly small, and this would be a concession to the old-age pensioners who cannot afford to send cards to all their friends at the present rate.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I should like to make a gesture of that sort, but I must point out to the House that the 1½. rate is already un-remunerative, and I do not think I ought to single out Christmas greeting cards for special treatment.

    Savings Bank (Secrecy)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Postmaster-General whether he now proposes to remove the words Strict Secrecy Observed from the first page of future issues of Post Office Savings Bank books; and to amend existing books accordingly.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as the result of Section 24 of this year's Finance Act this state of affairs is no longer accurate? Is it not a somewhat serious matter to ask for subscriptions from the public under conditions which are no longer applicable?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that it is now Section 27 which is concerned. If these words were removed there might be room for unauthorised disclosures. I think the public is well aware as a result of the words now used that no unauthorised disclosures will take place.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Will my right hon. Friend resist the persistent pressure from the Opposition to protect tax dodging?
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: Would it not be better to alter the words to "No unauthorised disclosures will take place"?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: It would mean reprinting all the books. I will certainly consider the suggestion when a reprint is due.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Stoke-on-Trent
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Postmaster-General if people resident in the City of Stoke-on-Trent have been allowed, since 1945, the increased telephone facilities, as provided for other parts.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. Since 1st July, 1945, 2,455 telephones have been added in the Stoke area. Further extensions of equipment are in progress and should become available in about 12 months.
    Dr. Barnett Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increased demand, which is very considerable, is due in part at least to the fact that in this area there is increasing prosperity and industrial
    1454
    activity, and will he give special consideration to this in view of the fact that we expect this to continue?
    Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the provision of telephone facilities of the South Bank and the Festival Gardens has affected telephone facilities in Stoke-on-Trent?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The telephone facilities provided at the South Bank are very remunerative.

    Overcharging
    Mr. Llewellynasked the Postmaster-General what redress a telephone subscriber has when he is charged for a call which he did not make, or for a longer period of conversation than actually took place, in cases in which the Post Office authorities do not concede the accuracy of his contentions resisting the imposition of a charge.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am satisfied that the subscriber is safeguarded by the practice described in my reply of 4th July to the hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison).

  BROADCASTING (VERY HIGH FREQUENCY)
  Mr. Profumoasked the Postmaster-General the names of the members of the special scientific committee which has been examining the problem of very high frequency; and on what recommendations he has been advised not to come to any conclusion until he has had further reports about the recently-discovered new developments.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I would refer the hon. Member to my answers to the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), on 25th of July.
  Mr. Profumo: But those answers do not say anything. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that nobody in the B.B.C. or in the radio industry has the slightest idea what these developments could possibly be, and they are extremely sceptical indeed. Does he not think that although he has come to the conclusion that he must make no further advance in V.H.F. until the facts of development have been worked out—
  Mr. Ness Edwards
  Mr. Profumo: That is what the right hon. Gentleman said the other day. Does he not think it would be worth while at this stage to let the radio industry know what the developments are, so that development and research can be speeded up more than if he holds it in his own hands?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I feel that I ought not to be pressed further. There are commercial interests of one system as against another, and in this matter there is considerable commercial rivalry. I must try to find what is the best system for this country.
  Mr. Profumo: How can there be commercial rivalry when nobody in the industry seems to have any idea of these developments? They do not know; neither do the B.B.C.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman knows the commercial rivalry between amplitude modulation and frequency modulation, and in this field there is great rivalry on the part of two great combines. I am trying to find the best system for this country?
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Would my right hon. Friend consider making some general announcement before we debate the Charter of the B.B.C., as development of this kind is bound to influence the opinion of the House on the future of broadcasting?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: A very full statement will be made about this matter in the annual report of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
  Mr. Profumo: I have no desire to press the right hon. Gentleman, but I should like to quote his own words, when he said:
  " Research has discovered an entirely new consequence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1951; Vol. 490; c. 1547.]
  That can have nothing to do with commercial rivalry, and what is the new consequence which has led him to believe that he should go no further in the development of V.H.F.? Will he tell the radio industry what the new consequences are so that it can go ahead with V.H.F.?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: V.H.F. will go forward. What I said was against a
  1456
  declaration on the part of the Post Office as to whether or not amplitude modulation should have preference over frequency modulation. A certain matter has arisen and, because of that, I want to give further consideration to it.
  Mr. Snow: Will my right hon. Friend resist demands from Members opposite to disclose commercial secrets?
  Mr. Profumo: In view of the muddled thinking—[Interruption.]—and of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment, after the Recess, if there is a Government in office with whom to raise it.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gammans.
  Air Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? On 26th July I handed in at the Table Question No. 72. It was addressed to the Prime Minister. As the Question affects three Ministries—the Treasury, the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Civil Aviation—and involves something like £15 million of taxpayers' money, is it right that this Question should have been relegated from the Prime Minister to a junior Minister? I was notified from 10, Downing Street, only yesterday that this Question had been so transferred.
  Mr. Speaker: It has nothing to do with me. I have no power whatsoever. I cannot help it.

  BRITISH OFFICERS, PAKISTAN
  Mr. Gammansasked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive a reply to the protest which he has made to Pandit Nehru regarding the allegations made against British officers in the service of Pakistan; and if he will undertake to publish in due course the whole correspondence.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): On instructions from the Government, the Acting High Commissioner for the United Kingdom at Delhi made strong representations about the views which Mr. Nehru expressed in the course of a speech on 16th July. I greatly regret that Mr. Nehru should have lent the weight of his authority to such unfounded allegations.

  1457
  I have no doubt that British advisers and officers at present in the employment of the Pakistan Government are loyally serving that Government, just as their colleagues in India are loyally serving the Government of India. I am satisfied that there is no truth in suggestions which have been made that certain senior British ex-officers who have recently visited Pakistan on private business have taken part in military planning discussions or similar military activities.
  As to the last part of the Question, it would be contrary to established practice to publish the details of communications exchanged with another Commonwealth Prime Minister.
  Mr. Gammans: Would it not have been more appropriate if the Prime Minister had made a public defence of these officers as soon as that allegation was made, and not wait until a Question was put on the Order Paper?

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Queensland Scheme (Crops)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Food if he can make a further statement on the harvest of sorghum and other crops grown this season by the Queensland-British Food Corporation; if he is satisfied that all is going well with the pig and cattle departments; and if he has yet had further consultations with the Queensland Government about the future of the whole enterprise.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): The sorghum harvest is expected to yield about 10,000 tons, of which 9,800 tons had been harvested when the Corporation sent their last report. The yield of sunflowers on the small acreage sown has not been encouraging. I know of nothing to suggest that there is anything unsatisfactory about the pig and cattle departments.
    I have had no recent consultations with the Queensland Government about the future of the enterprise; but the Corporation is, of course, in constant contact with the two Governments concerned. I should add that I am in touch with the Chairman of the Board, and I shall
    1458
    shortly be having detailed talks with him about some aspects of the future of this undertaking.
    Mr. Hurd: Does not the Minister think it would be prudent to prepare the mind of the Queensland Government with our desire to withdraw from this unnecessary state enterprise while there is still something in the kitty?
    Mr. Webb: That is a much wider question. We are certainly not thinking of withdrawing.

    Condemned Pork, Smithfield
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Minister of Food how much fresh pork was condemned as unfit for human consumption at Smithfield during the week ended 21st July; if he will outline the circumstances which led to this condemnation; and what steps have been taken to prevent a repetition of this waste of food.
    Mr. Webb: I think that the hon. Member is referring to the condemnation of about seven and a half tons of pork out of two consignments sent to Smithfield from the West of England on 20th July. Transfers from producing to consuming areas are, of course, quite normal and, so far, the precautions taken to keep meat sent from the West of England in good condition have proved satisfactory. On this occasion, however, the weather was exceptionally and unexpectedly hot. Following inquiry into the incident, arrangements have been made for all pork for London from the west to be cold stored for at least 48 hours before being despatched.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does not the Minister agree that the pork was loaded at Chippenham into vans on the morning of 19th July and was not unloaded at Smithfield until the morning of 20th July, when it was quite unusable? Is not this the sort of thing that happens when there is an absence of the profit and loss motive?
    Mr. Webb: Even with the profit and loss motive, English weather in the end always gets its own reward.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Which surprises the right hon. Gentleman more, a hot summer or a cold winter?

  DIVIDEND LIMITATION
  Mr. Arbuthnotasked the Prime Minister whether the speech on 28th July by the Minister of Local Government and Planning on the effect of the freezing of dividends represents Government policy.
  The Prime Minister: I did not understand my right hon. Friend's observation to be a statement of policy.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: When an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer makes this statement:
  " My friend Gaitskell's speech, whatever else it has done, has thrown the Stock Exchange into complete disorder, and that's good fun, anyhow,"
  what interpretation does the Prime Minister put upon it other than that the Government regard it as good fun deliberately to throw the Stock Exchange into complete disorder? Does not the Prime Minister think that this Government cynicism betrays a careless disregard for the thousands of small investors who have been so badly affected by it?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity of publicly dissociating himself from the observations made by his colleague?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  The Prime Minister: I am quite willing to answer, but I gathered that other hon. Members opposite wanted to put further questions. I was asked whether this was a statement of policy. It is not a statement of policy. It is a remark made, I should gather, in the way of a humorous observation.
  Mr. Donnelly: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the statement of the Chairman of the Penguins, published in this morning's newspapers? Will he take steps to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the letter that the Chairman of the Stock Exchange has published so that hon. Members have some light reading in the Summer Recess?
  Mr. R. A. Butler: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that in whatever vein of humour this observation may have been cast—and that we find very difficult to accept—the observation has caused
  1460
  great upset in very important financial circles and is creating the impression that the Government treat these matters of the financial integrity of the City of London and other places with levity? Will he take this opportunity of making a responsible statement on this subject?
  The Prime Minister: I really cannot believe that people have so little sense of humour as to take a remark, which was obviously thrown out by way of a joke, as a serious matter at all. I really think, judging from what I know of the members of the Stock Exchange, that they have a more vivid sense of humour than that.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: If the Prime Minister thought that that remark of his right hon. Friend was funny, does he not think that the remark was sufficiently disgraceful to win promotion for the right hon. Gentleman in His Majesty's present Government?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the miners in my constituency could not sleep last night because of this?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Does the Prime Minister himself regard his right hon. Friend's remark as funny?
  Mr. Jennings: Is the Prime Minister aware that the most successful part of is Majesty's Government's policy is the nationalisation of poverty in this country?
  Mr. R. A. Butler(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fall of share values amounting to many millions as a result of the recent announcement of Government policy, and how he proposes to restore confidence,
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): I understand that the industrial ordinary share index has declined since Thursday by six points, or about 4½ per cent. I cannot agree that from the point of internal financial stability this decline, following as it did upon a rise of 17 points—or over 12 per cent.—in the last three and a half months is undesirable. Both the rise in share values and the sharp increases in dividends which gave rise to it had inflationary consequences. The proposal to limit dividends during the period of re-armament, which I announced last Thursday, is in-

  1461
  tended to check these consequences, which would clearly have become even more serious had they continued, and will thus help to maintain confidence in our ability to win the battle against inflation.
  Mr. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many people of modest means—pensioners, widows, and others—[Interruption.] I say this partly in answer to an observation made about his mining constituents by the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—there are many people of these modest means whose holdings have been very much reduced as a result of both the manner and the method of the Chancellor's announcement of Government policy a few days ago? What psychological value does the right hon. Gentleman think he has so far gained from the nature of his operation?
  Mr. Gaitskell: From the figures I have given, it is clear that the decline in values is only about one-third of the rise in values that had taken place beforehand. I cannot agree that persons who invest their money over a long term need necessarily suffer any damage from the decision we have made.
  It is, after all, only a proposal that dividends should be maintained, and not increased, over the period of re-armament. Those who are prepared to hold their shares for that time clearly need suffer no disadvantage so far as the value of the shares is concerned. As for speculators, I do not think we need worry too much about them. As to the further part of the supplementary question, I certainly think that the decline in stock market values, which, as I have said, is of a relatively modest character, has already had valuable disinflationary consequences on the economy.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can the Chancellor tell us how his first reply would affect the well-known firm of Courtauld's?
  Mr. Butcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman publicly dissociate himself from the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning?
  Mr. Gaitskell: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt very adequately with that.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the right hon. Gentleman realised that the directors of Scotch whisky companies are so disgusted about this that they are threatening to sell their shares and go to work in the coal mines?
  Mr. Jennings: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that his action was obviously put forward as a sop to the T.U.C. and will have no disinflationary effect on the country at all?
  Mr. Albu: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the return to ordinary shareholders in public companies in recent years, together with the capital increment due to the increase of share values, has been greatly in excess of either the interest or risk involved in the holdings?
  Sir John Mellor: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the companies which have been most adversely affected by his statement are those which have been most moderate in their dividend declarations during the last few years?
  Mr. Gaitskell: The fall in share values, of course, on the whole has been greater in respect of those companies which increased their dividends most.
  Sir J. Mellor: Is that not very unfair?
  Sir Richard Acland: Will my right hon. Friend take note that the rise in share values which took place until his announcement, at a time when many people were suffering an enormous diminution of income owing to re-armament, is something the Opposition seemed to think was quite all right and about which they would have done nothing?
  Sir Ian Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion that only rich people are affected is quite untrue and that within the last year Parliament has given powers to many bodies, including the Miners' Superannuation Fund and other workmen's funds, to invest in equity shares, and that, therefore, an action of this kind affects the interests of all classes, including the working class and miners?
  Mr. Gaitskell: These figures of the distribution of property do not bear out any suggestion that ordinary shares are held in large quantities by the poorer sections of the community.
  Brigadier Clarke: How much money was lost to the Treasury in Death Duties due to the fall caused by the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and will he look into it?

SLAUGHTERHOUSES (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the House what plans the Government have for slaughterhouses.
The House is aware that to meet the urgent need for more slaughterhouses, we have decided to build seven new ones in addition to the two experimental ones at Fareham and Guildford. We shall extend this emergency building programme as fast as we can, but, as will be realised, our building resources will not let us do all we want.
In any case, these new slaughterhouses must be of the right sort and in the right places. I have, therefore, during the past few weeks consulted the organisations concerned to see if it would be possible to prepare a national plan for slaughterhouses which could fit into any of the alternative long-term schemes for the distribution of meat and livestock, which are now being considered by the Government.
There is the one extreme of a few factory-type abattoirs of the kind used in North and South America, and there is the other extreme of a return to the pre-war system of slaughtering in thousands of places, some with good conditions and some with very bad. Having considered all the views put to us, the Government have decided that the requirements of hygiene, meat inspection, humane slaughtering and economy, will best be met by a plan that lies between these extremes. Such a policy, which we might call one of moderate concentration, will require some central regulation of slaughtering, and a national plan for siting the slaughterhouses.
While the Ministry of Food continues to control livestock and meat distribution, as at present, it will remain the authority for regulating slaughtering, and in conjunction with other Departments and interested organisations will immediately establish machinery for considering the
1464
location and general administration of the necessary slaughterhouses. Separate arrangements will be made for dealing with the special needs of Scotland.
Many slaughterhouses are owned and managed by local authorities, Co-operative Societies and private traders. The Government hope that this will continue, and will do what they can to encourage the building of new ones by local authorities, or by any suitable organisations of producers or traders who may be prepared to build provided they do so in accordance with the general scheme.
These arrangements, of course, apply to slaughterhouses used mainly for sheep and cattle. There will also be a need to expand our capacity for dealing with pigs, and my Department is now discussing with the organisations concerned how we can best meet this and relate it to the general plan.
The Government are not committed to any particular number of slaughterhouses or to any particular size, design, or siting. These will be left to be determined as the plan is worked out to suit the different needs of different areas. The House must not expect any sudden revolution in this matter. With our present limited resources the plan will take some years to put into operation. I hope, however, that it will be agreed that we are proceeding as fast as we can on the right lines.
Mr. W. J. Taylor: With regard to the type and standard of slaughterhouses the Government propose to erect, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the advice of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has been taken in this matter, as distinct from any advice his Department may have received from professional veterinary surgeons?
Mr. Webb: I could not say whether it has been taken so far, but I should be quite happy to take it in the later stages of the operation.
Mr. Hurd: Will the slaughterhouses for the time being be operated by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and is he making emergency arrangements for this immediate autumn to have slaughter arrangements for cattle coming off grass?
Mr. Webb: For the time being, they will be operated by my Department, as they must while rationing continues, but we are making emergency arrangements to deal with the exceptional difficulties of this autumn.
Mr. Mitchison: Does my right hon. Friend's statement mean that he will now entertain applications from local authorities who happen to be in need of additional slaughtering facilities and that such applications can and should be made with promptitude?
Mr. Webb: We are constantly entertaining them and will entertain more. It does not necessarily mean we shall accept every one of them. We shall have to consider all these competing claims in relation to this general plan, but it would be a good thing if any local authority which has ideas about this would put in a plan.
Mr. W. J. Taylor: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to take the advice of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons?
Mr. Webb: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Taylor: At the same time, will he take advice on the conditions in existing slaughterhouses, where there is very much room for improvement?
Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend sure that the up-to-date slaughterhouses under the control of local authorities are being fully used, because Liverpool has been making complaints for some time that its facilities have not been properly and fully used, although there is a very modern and up-to-date slaughterhouse?
Mr. Webb: It is true that quite a number of modern slaughterhouses are not being used because of the absence of labour. That is one of the difficulties— [An HON. MEMBER: "Absence of meat."] Oh no; we have had the meat, but not the labour to process it in certain areas. Having announced this new policy, what we want to work out is where Liverpool or any other area fits best into the new siting plan we are going to carry out.
Commander Maitland: I understood the Minister to refer to expanding our capacity to deal with pigs. Does that mean more bacon factories? Would he elaborate that statement? I was not quite clear.
Mr. Webb: We are in discussion with the two boards concerned, the Bacon Marketing Board and the Pig Marketing Board, about their ideas on the way we can expand their capacity to handle what we hope will be an improvement in the supply of pigs in this country.
Mr. R. V. Grimston: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that local authorities should put in their suggestions. Should that be to the committee which is being set up or to the Ministry?
Mr. Webb: To the Ministry.
Mr. J. T. Price: Will my right hon. Friend give special consideration to the need for much greater safety in respect of the workmen engaged, if not the animals? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is still great doubt among authorities whether or not the Factory Acts apply to slaughterhouse premises, and is he aware that there is a great deal of laxity in slaughterhouses in the operation of overhead railways, steam winches and other apparatus, which is often used in a most careless fashion?
Mr. Webb: On that matter the unions constantly make representations and are able to do so. The new slaughterhouses that we are building take account of the need to protect the workers from any undue damage in this rather hazardous occupation. I think that we shall learn a good deal as we go along. We should like to have the unions co-operating with us in any aspect of this problem.
Mr. Crouch: Can the Minister state where it is suggested there shall be additional slaughterhouses. He mentioned Guildford and Fareham as two centres. Is he in a position to say where any of the others are likely to be?
Mr. Webb: I cannot say offhand. They are listed and available, and I will let the hon. Member know. They are on record.
Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Has consideration also been given to the allocation of slaughterhouses for horses which are at present rather over-concentrated in my own constituency, to the distaste of the population?
Mr. Webb: I am afraid that that does not arise on this question.
Sir Herbert Williams: Is the Minister aware that if his Department had resisted the efforts of the R.S.P.C.A. and the Labour Party about undue centralisation, this problem would never have arisen?
Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while the Opposition are calling for more slaughterhouses, as they have on many occasions called for other things that could have been done previously, this matter could have been dealt with over a number of years before the war by the Opposition, when labour and materials were available?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. R. A. Butler: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on business?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the summer Recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 16TH OCTOBER—Debate on the new Valuation Lists.
WEDNESDAY, 17TH OCTOBER—Debate on Fuel Production.
It is expected that Prorogation will take place on Thursday, 18th October, and that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday, 23rd October.
I would remind the House that power already exists for Mr. Speaker, on representations being made by the Government, to call the House together at an earlier date, if such a course should be necessary in the public interest.
Sir Ian Fraser: Could the Home Secretary give us an assurance that if there is a General Election this House will meet for Prorogation preceding the Dissolution? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the precedents suggest that Parliament should meet and that Dissolution should not take place without Prorogation preceding it?
Mr. Ede: Parliament will meet if such an event 'should occur—and this is not to be taken as a prophecy. If such an event should occur Parliament will meet to prorogue.
Proceedings on the Motions standing in the name of Mr. Clement Davies relating to the Report from the Committee of Privileges [26th July] and on the Motions standing in the name of Mr. Secretary Ede relating to the Report from the Committee of Privileges [18th July] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Ede.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock; and at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Ede.]
ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)
House, at its rising Tomorrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 16th October.— [Mr. Ede.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment: read the Third time, and passed.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (EQUIPMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Whiteley.]
  4.7 p.m.
  Air Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield): The Opposition is glad to have an opportunity to debate equipment in the Royal Air Force. We had a lengthy debate earlier in the year dealing with the Air Estimates, but many of us felt that a number of questions were not adequately or sufficiently answered on that occasion. The Minister of Defence, in his speech, said that air strength was to be given first priority in our defence system. We welcomed that statement We think it is right that if we are to rearm it is essential for air defence to be given the main priorities of production and scientific equipment.
  We are concerned at certain deficiencies that exist in the equipment in the Air Force. In the remarks I shall make, particularly in regard to the Hastings aircraft, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not think me in any way biased because of my connection with the aircraft industry, because I have held similar views for many years.
  We believe that there are insufficient transport aircraft in the Royal Air Force. In the spring of last year, the Government thought fit to cancel the orders for transport aircraft with Handley Page and Vickers aviation as a means of economy. We did not agree because we felt that for a country with a comparatively small number of men under arms it is vital to be able to move them, if necessary, to all parts of the world at the quickest possible speed. The Korean war started in July, 1950, and the Government went back on their previous decision and replaced the orders for that type of transport in the autumn of that year. Much
  1470
  time was lost. Men were paid off, certainly in one of the factories, and drifted into other industries.
  I cannot stress to much the question of mobility. It is very important, I believe, to move men at the greatest possible speed. Only recently, when the Airborne Brigade were moved to Cyprus, they travelled in an aircraft carrier or two. I wonder what the Russians and the Persians really thought of that manœuvre. This great Power, Britain, wanted to move a comparatively small number of men to the Eastern Mediterranean, and took 10 days to do so.
  If we are to maintain our industrial position, we recognise that not all the obligations to the Services can be carried out. But we have a duty in the British Commonwealth of Nations and in the world to play a lead, and not always to tag on to our United States friends for their assistance. We cannot afford to allow soldiers, sailors and airmen to spend weeks and weeks aboard troopships in carrying out their postings and travels to the Far East and other countries.
  Many men are only in the Services for two years. Approximately three months of that time could be saved either for service or for additional training, were they to travel by air on all occasions. We ought to have learned our lesson in the early years of the war. It is well known that in 1939 when we moved the fighter squadrons of the Expeditionary Air Force to France—and I had the honour to command one of them—we had a few transport aircraft from Imperial Airways and a really mixed bag quite incapable of doing the job required of them.
  We went through the war, or the biggest part of it, without a proper Transport Command. We never really caught up in that sphere. There was no alternative during the war but to accept American transport aircraft. The Americans concentrated on large transport aircraft, and we concentrated on fighters and bombers. We played our part in the war. Nevertheless, when hostilities ceased, this country was at a disadvantage. We lacked that knowledge which is required to build a large aeroplane. We had not got the knowledge in the industry. We had to start almost from scratch in design and manufacture.
  Building a successful large aircraft is not just a question of designing an aeroplane and saying that in two or three

  1471
  years it will be in service. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend know perfectly well that a great deal of work is involved in the ancillary gear which goes into an aeroplane. It is the hydraulics and the electrical work which complicate the problem. It has taken five or six years to educate the subcontractors to play their part in the industry so that we can build our own transports. In fact, it is only at this stage that the industries are working together to carry out this important rôle. Are we know to throw all this knowledge and know-how overboard? Are we to throw it away and cease to build any military transports at all?
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman told me recently that at a future date we might have four-engined jet transport aircraft. We have tried to get an elucidation of that statement from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, but we have made no progress at all. It was a vague statement to make to the House. It did not make any impression at all on those of us who are concerned about the lack of transport aeroplanes.
  Work on the Vickers Valetta and the Handley Page Hastings is almost completed. It is only a question of weeks before the jigs will be dismantled. If we are to have aircraft quickly, it is essential to place contracts reasonably soon, even for existing types. We were told months ago that we should have a number of auxiliary transport squadrons. So far we know of one. The others are under consideration. But why is that matter taking so long to consider when we need these squadrons desperately?
  We are confronted with the possibility of another airlift out of Berlin. Britain will again be unable to play its proper part in that operation, should it unfortunately come about, because we have insufficient aircraft. We should like to know why this branch of the Service has been, and continues to be, neglected. We recognise that fighters have to come first; but if the Government had had a clearer policy two or three years ago on all these matters, men would not have been dispersed into other parts of the industry and into different industries altogether.
  We should like the Minister to clarify the position about the suggestion that we may obtain some Fairchild Packets, which
  1472
  are large transport aircraft, from the United States. That may be a good move as an interim measure. The information I have about this American aircraft is that its all-up weight is 64,000 lb., but it is allowed to fly with a special overload weight of 74,000 lb.; that is, with a payload of 18,400 lb., for 500 miles.
  It will readily be seen that this is not a long-distance aircraft. It is really a close-support transport aircraft. The Hastings with a pay load of 18,330 lb.— only 70 lb. less—has double the range of 1,000 miles. I recognise that the Packet has got rear loading, and that was undoubtedly one of the specifications of the Air Ministry. But a Hastings specification was submitted to the Government over 12 months ago offering rear loading and the raising of the tail plane of an aeroplane which had been tried and was already in production. I understand, however, that very little interest was shown in this project in the last 12 months. A mock-up was made, and this aircraft could undoubtedly have done the job for which we are now considering other aircraft. On 27th July, "The Times" said:
  "In consequence of the Persian crisis the R.A.F. ambulance aircraft service between Korea and Britain has been cancelled. Since all available transport aircraft were concentrated at Middle East airfields to evacuate British subjects from Persia no ambulance aircraft has completed the flight. At present there are 86 wounded British, South African,. French, Belgian, and Dutch troops at the R.A.F. hospital, Changi, and the British military hospital, Singapore. It is understood that more British Commonwealth and European casualties are awaiting evacuation in hospitals in Japan. The transport aircraft which arrived there today and is returning tomorrow will take 28 men, but there is little hope of the regular service being resumed in the near future."
  When we read a statement of that kind, we consider that our men who are fighting gallantly in Korea are suffering unduly because their transportation to Britain is delayed, as we have not got the aircraft, and maybe the crews, to bring them here. Therefore, I think that the Opposition are fully justified in raising this question today.
  We think that Transport Command is an important part of the Royal Air Force. Through the generosity of the Americans, we have the B.29 heavy bomber known as the Washington. I understand that all 70 or 75 of these aircraft are in service, but I should like to know whether the

  1473
  Service is equipped with adequate spares to maintain these aircraft. Is the Service getting the requisite number of hours' flying duty from these aircraft which the Minister thought would be obtained?
  These are points of real concern, because we have not got a heavy bomber of our own manufacture. We in this small island will be in a very dangerous position if hostilities occur, and the Royal Air Force will be the first Service to throw its weight into our defence. The other Services have to be adequately armed, but they will follow at a later date. The Air Force must be armed if we are to defend this island properly.
  I should like the Minister to tell us something about United States jet fighters. The only information I have is from the "New York Times" of 29th July. I will quote only one paragraph which was written by Mr. Benjamin Welles, the London correspondent. Referring to the American Sabre fighter, he writes:
  " Britain has been seeking for months to obtain about 400 Sabre fighters to tide over the Royal Air Force until its own two new jets, the Supermarine F.1 and the Swift and Hawker F.3, can come into production. Both of these planes are rated highly, but neither will be available in strength before 1953."
  We all know that newspaper correspondents can be inaccurate, and we should like to hear what the Minister has to say on this subject. We were told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the end of last year that the Chief of Air Staff, Sir John Slessor, was going to Washington to discuss the problem of the R.A.F. obtaining Sabre fighters. Here we are at 1st August, and still the country knows nothing about this project at all. It just is not good enough. The taxpayers are voting large sums of money for the Government, and, though I imagine that it is being spent, we do not see the equipment forthcoming in sufficient quantity. I hope the Minister will give us some more information on that subject.
  I recognise, as we all do, that the R.A.F., which was run down just as much as were the other Services after the war, has built itself up into a fine machine. The morale is high and, if they were called upon, I am quite certain that the pilots and aircrews would acquit themselves admirably. I have no doubt about that, provided that they have equipment which is comparable to that of the other side.
  1474
  We have discussed in this House at Question time and at other times the subject of accidents in the R.A.F. In my view, there have been far too many in Fighter Command. We read of them almost daily, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman took me up on one occasion when he said that, as far as he knew, the details of accidents had never been published. I do not know whether he has had time to go into it or not, but I can assure him that, up to the beginning of the last war, details were published in the daily Press of all accidents in the R.A.F., and I do not see why the country should be denied that information today. The people are able to read about the accidents in the newspapers, but they do not see the tabulated statistics. It is far better to tell the country what is going on, because parents may become very sceptical, and that is one of the reasons why they may withhold their consent from their sons who wish to make the R.A.F. a career.
  We understand from the Press that a statement has been made by General Vandenberg that neither this country nor America has a fighter aircraft in service which is comparable to the MIG.15. General Vandenberg said, a few weeks ago:
  " The Russian jet fighter MIG.15 is far superior to American fighters, and the engines in them are better than anything the United States has at present. American and British experts are collaborating to produce something better and are doing everything possible. The engine in the MIG.15 is a very marked improvement on the Nene, which the British had sold to them."
  I shall not go into this question of the sale of jet engines to Russia, because that is past history and we have to make the best of it, but we are concerned as to what the performance of the MIG.15 really is. We read of these comments by an American general, and we read details in the technical papers and in the daily Press. Why cannot we be told? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said quite recently that it is because of security reasons. If he tells us about the MIG.15, is he telling us anything that the Russians do not know? I cannot for the life of me see why we should not be told, and why the country cannot be told, more details about the performance of these fighter aircraft.
  We were told in the Press last week that the Hawker P.1067 had successfully

  1475
  carried out its first flight. We are delighted to know that, and we congratulate both the makers and the test pilot on this fine achievement, but when will they be in the squadrons? When will the fighter squadrons be equipped with these machines, because the Meteors and Vampires which have given excellent service are not new aircraft in design, but are rapidly becoming out-of-date, so far as performance is concerned. We should also like to know, concerning the Sabre aircraft, whether the armament is satisfactory, because it is no good having an aircraft that can climb to 45,000 feet in a very short time if it has not got sufficient armament to do the job when it gets there. Is it intended to fit British armament, or to re-design that part of the aircraft?
  Another subject which we have discussed in this House is in regard to intermediate trainers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas), if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, will enlarge on that subject. He has had great experience in the Royal Air Force, and I am quite sure he will make a useful contribution as far as intermediate trainers are concerned. This is an important matter, because, if pilots are to receive a proper training, they cannot go straight on to Vampires and Meteors from basic training aircraft. We should also like to know whether the Vampire two-seater is being considered as an intermediate trainer, because, if so, we think that would be an admirable step forward.
  We are also concerned about electronics in the Service, but I will leave that subject to my hon. Friend, and I would only ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied that the radar chain on the East Coast is progressing. Is he satisfied that the North-East Coast is now covered, and, if not, can he say when it will be covered by radar?
  Parliament is going into Recess tomorrow until the middle of October, which is a tricky time of the year, and we would like to be assured by the right hon. and learned Gentleman on all these various points. We do not ask for details where security considerations arise, but we consider that the country is entitled to know, and I think the Debate will have been well worth while if the right
  1476
  hon. and learned Gentleman can give some more information to the House on these subjects.
  4.26 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has put his case very thoroughly and very properly, because all those who are interested in the Royal Air Force would agree that, whatever view we may take of the progress that is being made, there is certainly no cause for complacency on the part of any of us. With a technical service like the Royal Air Force, and considering all the difficulties encountered in the design and development of any modern type of aeroplane, we are always a little behind in seeking perfection, and I am not going to suggest for a moment that the R.A.F. today has attained anything like perfection.
  I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the position is very much better than it was three, four or five years ago. We have got out of the run-down period, and entered into what I ventured, on one occasion in this House, to call the building up of the third Air Force, without in any way seeking to divorce that from the first or the second Air Force. There is nothing to be complacent about at the present moment, but at the same time I do not suggest that we have not got a number of problems still to deal with.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt, in the first place, with Transport Command. He said that we had an insufficient number of transport aircraft. I suppose it would be very difficult to say what would be a sufficient number. Certainly those who advise me would not agree that in peace-time we should maintain a vast armada of air transports, especially during a period when we are seeking to build up to the fullest possible extent the aircraft of Fighter, Bomber and Coastal Commands. That may be wrong, but that is the view that is taken.
  I am not going to suggest that we have a large number of transport squadrons. It would be wrong for me to do so. It was only last year that I informed the House that, for reasons of the economy which was prevalent at that time, it had been decided that, rather than restrict

  1477
  the building up of Fighter, Bomber and Coastal Commands, to some extent we should accept a lower Transport Command. Then we had the development as the result of the expansion programme. It may be that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not agree with me when I say that the orders which we have placed have been related to the maximum production capacity of the aircraft industry of the country. I may say that we have already placed orders for aircraft and ancillary equipment for an amount exceeding £500 million.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that we should concentrate upon utilising the aircraft industry of this country to the fullest possible extent for the production of modern fighters, bombers and land-based sea reconnaissance machines like the Shackleton, and he supported his argument by reference to the fact that we have reduced Transport Command very considerably. But when we fixed the number of squadrons in relation to Transport Command, we bore in mind the reserve potential that we can obtain from civil aviation.
  Therefore, in an emergency we would look upon the available transport resources as comprising not only the front long-range and medium-range transport squadrons of the Royal Air Force, but also the aircraft of the Corporation and the various charter companies. It is quite untrue to say that the Parachute Brigade were sent to Cyprus in an aircraft carrier because the Royal Air Force were unable to move them by air. We were not asked to do so.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Does not the Minister agree that had they been transported by air instead of by ship it would have made a far greater impression in Persia?
  Mr. Henderson: In the light of subsequent events, I do not think so. Had it been a matter of hours, or, possibly, of two or three days, I have no doubt those responsible for moving the troops would have taken that point into consideration.
  Major Legge-Bourke: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Air Ministry were not asked to move the Parachute Brigade to Cyprus. Will he say whether, had they been asked to do so, they would have been able to do so? That is the point.
  Mr. Henderson: My answer to that is "Yes, Sir."
  Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: The Minister's argument does not seem very convincing. If we have plenty of transport aircraft, why cannot we continue to operate the ambulance service for evacuating wounded from Korea?
  Mr. Henderson: I did not say that we had plenty of aircraft. Incidentally, the reduction in Transport Command only affects the squadrons in this country. There has been no reduction in the number of squadrons in the Far and Middle East; they remain as they were a year ago. The hon. Gentleman's point is quite a fair one, but I believe that the ambulance service has, in fact, been resumed today. It is a matter of great regret that for some reason or another it was decided to take off the aircraft operating that ambulance service. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they were carrying out their work on the scheduled routes. The stopping of that service was not really essential, and, as I have said, it is now being resumed.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman then went on to say that we ought not always to be dependent upon our American friends for assistance in the matter of aircraft. He applied that remark, I think, not only to the possibility of obtaining transport aircraft from the United States, but also to obtaining the F.86's, and he wanted to know why all this delay was taking place. I hope he is not suggesting that, if we are able to obtain aircraft from the United States under military aid we should be reluctant to accept them, especially in view of the fact that we are now spending 13 per cent. of our national income on a vast three-year re-armament programme. We have done that in the past, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman possibly knows. In 1938 we obtained large numbers of Harvards and Hudsons from the United States Government, and there was never any suggestion at that time that it was detrimental to the aircraft industry of this country.
  Air Commodore Harvey: What I was suggesting was that if transport aircraft are not built in this country and we obtain them from America instead, this country would lose valuable technical knowledge which it has taken at least six years to acquire. We might have heavy bombers

  1479
  such as the B.29's and transport and fighter aircraft, which would mean three different types of engines and would be very confusing from the servicing point of view. That is my real concern.
  Mr. Henderson: What we should like to do is to replace the long-range aircraft, such as the Hastings, with jet aircraft.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman then said that he had asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply whether any orders had actually been placed for these replacement transport aircraft and that the answer was "No." He seemed to think there was some inconsistency there. I never suggested that an order had been placed. We have not yet reached that stage. I do not wish to commit either the Department or myself, but it might be that one of the new four-jet bombers would be the type of plane which could be developed for transport purposes. It might be that something on the lines of the Comet would meet the case.
  But we have not yet made up our minds, and the experts at the Air Ministry are at the moment considering what would be the best type of four-jet aircraft to replace the Hastings. In our view, we have sufficient reserves of Hastings for some years to come, but we cannot use those aircraft for some purposes owing to the fact that tail loading facilities do not exist in them. If we have to obtain—as we might well do—a number of the American C-119's, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, it would be because those aircraft have the facilities we require immediately, possibly as an interim measure, for the conveyance of troops.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Will they be a gift?
  Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir, no charge would be made for them, as in the case of the F.86's.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to attribute some measure of blame to the Government for not having been able to conclude the discussions which I indicated were taking place with the Americans regarding the supply of F.86's. I can only repeat that that is the present position. We cannot compel them to do anything in the matter. They are themselves
  1480
  launched on a great re-armament programme, and I can only say what I said before, that we are having these discussions with them, but that they have not yet indicated whether or not they will provide these aircraft. If they do, they will be additional to the vast orders for aircraft which we have placed in this country. In other words, they will not be in substitution for any aircraft ordered over here. Indeed, had there been no possibility of obtaining these machines from America, not a single additional aircraft would have been added to the vast orders placed during the last six months.
  I should like to say a word or two about bombers. I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member did not consider it a mistake to have taken over the Washing-tons. It has been made clear in various speeches on Estimates, both by my predecessors and myself, why, in 1945, the Air Ministry decided not to follow up the Lincoln with another piston-engined bomber but to concentrate upon the design and long-term development of a four jet-engined bomber which would be in its performance, range, altitude and load carrying capacity superior, as they hope, to anything that might come along from any other country.
  I think that we have been justified in the policy we have followed, both as regards the light and the heavy bomber. The Canberra is recognised as the outstanding light jet bomber in the world today. Although it is always a matter for suspicion to hon. Members opposite because I cannot give the actual numbers of squadrons, I can say, as I said a few months ago, that the first squadron has now been formed. A large number of squadrons—I cannot say what number but it is quite a respectable number—will be formed during the next 12 months, including a number of P.R. squadrons.
  According to the information supplied to me, the Valiant, the new four jetengined bomber now flying, will be superior to the Canberra in range, speed, altitude and load carrying capacity, and it is believed it will give our country the lead in the field of heavy jet bombers. As regards the new fighter to which the hon. and gallant Member referred—the new Hawker interceptor type—which has successfully carried out its first flight, this aircraft is designed not only to deal with any bomber likely to be in service for

  1481
  some time to come but to be faster and have a higher performance than the Russian MIG.15 or the American F.86.
  The hon. and gallant Member asked why I did not tell him the exact speed of flight of the MIG.15. I do not see how that will help him. I have been quite frank and have said that, according to the information we have, it is probably the second fastest fighter in level flight in the world today, second to the F.86; and I acknowledged that it was faster than the Meteor VII or the Vampire V, just as I equally assert that the new Hawker interceptor fighter will be faster in level flight than either the MIG.15 or the F.86.
  The hon. and gallant Member referred to a jet intermediate trainer. If I may, I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) because I think I misled him the other day. I said we had ordered the Vampire trainer in a context which seemed to indicate that I regarded that trainer as an intermediate trainer. We do not look upon it officially as an intermediate trainer. The question arises whether we should have an intermediate trainer. Just as do members of my own profession, the law, so do experts in air matters all differ one from the other. Experts always do, and I find that there is a difference of opinion with regard to the provision of an intermediate jet trainer.
  The flying instructors do not accept the view that it is desirable, if it is possible, to introduce a slow flying jet trainer. By all means, of course, we should improve the basic trainer or the more advanced trainer. The Balliol is faster than the Harvard, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, although its speed is well below anything at which the Vampire can fly. I am told that for the beginner it is possible to moderate the speed of the Meteor, for example, to very little more than the maximum speed of the Balliol. But there is a difference of opinion whether we should have an intermediate trainer at all.
  I think the hon. and gallant Member was concerned also about the absence of the Chipmunk. We are not satisfied; we have not the number we would like; but if there had been no expansion programme the number we ordered two years ago would have been adequate for present-day requirements. They are not sufficient today because we have had to
  1482
  increase our training commitments and therefore that has led to a shortage. There are 118 Chipmunks in service in the Reserve flying schools today. There are 105 in the university air squadrons and 70 in the new schools provided for National Service trainees who are being trained as aircrew.
  The reason we have had to send some away to training schools in Rhodesia is that they had been using the Tiger Moth, and just as the hon. and gallant Member objects to Tiger Moths being used in flying schools, so there was objection to their being used in Rhodesia. I think the House will agree with the importance of giving priority to Regular flying schools as against Reserve flying schools. But we have placed a very large order and, as I said in reply to a Question, next year we shall have more than sufficient Chipmunks for the requirements of the 20 flying schools operating today.
  I know that other hon. Members want to raise other matters, but I thought it right to follow the speech of the hon. and gallant Member immediately. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be ready to reply to any other points made subsequently in this debate.
  Mr. W. J. Taylor: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, do I understand from his last statement about trainers for the Reserve Command that he is now able to modify the statement he made in this House on 11th July to the effect that sufficient Chipmunks would be available by the end of 1953 and not before?
  Mr. Henderson: I said next year, 1952.
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. Profumo: I think it is appropriate that we should have found time before going away for the Recess to discuss the urgent problem of equipment for the Royal Air Force. Having listened to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman I think it is all the more important that we should have this discussion this afternoon because, with all due respect, I do not think that what he has said—I appreciate he was trying to be brief so that other hon. Members could speak—has eased the worries of my hon. and gallant Friends.

  1483
  It does not need any words of mine to emphasise the significance of these problems to the whole of our defence scheme. I believe that the Minister is among the foremost Members of the House who are ready at any time to discuss any problems of the Royal Air Force. We on this side of the House recognise his devotion to the gallant Service for which he has the honour to be responsible to Parliament. But, on the other hand, the fact that he holds that privileged office carries with it the obligation of bearing the brunt of attack from hon. Members when things go wrong in the Air Force, or at least when they appear to have gone wrong. This afternoon the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that we have to direct our attacks at him, though personally we realise that he is trying to do what he can to help his Service.
  One of the great difficulties which we are always up against when discussing equipment for the Royal Air Force is that this matter does not concern only the Air Ministry. It concerns also the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Defence. We would obviously not expect to have a whole line of right hon. Gentlement sitting on the Front Bench opposite representing all these various Ministries this afternoon, like a lot of war criminals ready to be cross-examined by us, but. on the other hand, I hope that the charges which I shall make will be followed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and will be communicated to his right hon. Friends in the various Ministries which are concerned in these matters.
  The problems which I want to raise do not affect only the Ministries I have mentioned. They also affect the Treasury, the War Office and, to some extent, the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I hope that the result of this debate will be that we shall not only get a stereotyped answer from the Under-Secretary but that my hon. Friends and I will feel that we have made some sincere contribution towards the solution of these problems and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will disseminate the information and will see whether he can work out the answers with his colleagues.
  My charges are threefold. I charge the Air Ministry, first of all, with being guilty of seeking to fob off the Army with a second-rate tactical transport air-
  1484
  craft. Second, I accuse them of being guilty of jeopardising the future of the British aircraft industry; and, third, I accuse them of following a policy which will tend to make us dangerously dependent on the United States of America. Here, I want to follow the point which was made so excellently by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey).
  The Army requires two classes of transport aircraft. It requires the strategic type, which has already been referred to—a long-range aircraft which is able to carry troops, light stores and equipment over really considerable distances, and also what one might call the tactical type from which men and equipment can be parachuted, and which will operate over shorter distances to and from—and this is the important point—makeshift landing strips and which, therefore, requires low take-off and landing speeds.
  The strategic requirements have already been discussed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that we have a certain number of these strategic troop-carrying aircraft. My hon. and gallant Friend says we have not got enough. There must be some truth somewhere, and, personally, I back my hon. and gallant Friend. I fully realise that we have got this sort of aeroplane in some numbers, but we have not nearly enough. We have the Hastings and the Valetta, and those aeroplanes are backed up strategically by the airliner type of aeroplanes which fly for the civil air Corporations and also for the air charter companies, not forgetting, also, the Brabazon, which I believe might very well come in useful for those purposes. Just as in the last war the great "Queens" of the sea were brought into commission to carry our troops all over the world, so, in another war, the great "Queens" of the air could be mobilised.
  Where I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has unintentionally misled the House, is in suggesting that we have enough to have done the job of carrying the airborne brigade out to Cyprus. Anybody can say "yes" to the question which my hon. and gallant Friend asked, whether the Air Force would have been capable of carrying this concentration of troops. So long as we have one aeroplane, and so long as we do not mind taking 10 years, naturally the

  1485
  job can be done. But what I should like to know is how long the Royal Air Force would have taken to have carried out this commitment. I believe it would have taken longer than it took them by aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy.
  Mr. A. Henderson Mr. A. Henderson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Profumo: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head; I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to disillusion us in this matter when he winds up the debate.
  What I especially want to talk about is the tactical type of transport aeroplane, because the Royal Air Force has, at the moment, no aircraft designed to do that sort of job at all. This is through no fault of the British aircraft industry. They have constantly offered the Air Ministry suitable types of aeroplanes, some of which have been mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. For example, there are the Bristol Freighter, the Blackburn Universal Freighter, the Airspeed A.S.67 and a modified Hastings with rear ramp loading.
  I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that ramp loading is of the utmost importance, and in this case we must have an aeroplane the floor of which is sufficiently level and sufficiently close to the ground for it to be able to let down its own ramp in order to assemble and disembark large pieces of machinery and vehicles and equipment which the Army wants to move about. All the aeroplanes I have just mentioned have, in fact, got ramp loading of one sort or another.
  Hon. Members can imagine my concern when, in reply to a supplementary question of mine on 11th July, the Secretary of State said—and these are his words:
  "I say, quite frankly, and at once, that we have not ordered the aircraft to which the hon. Member is referring. We are, however, already in touch with the Ministry of Supply on this matter, and the matter is under the active consideration of the Air Staff and of the Air Councils."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1951; Vol. 490, c. 399.]
  Not only were we on this side of the House staggered by the appalling frankness of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his admission that no order had even been placed, but we were also very worried by the self-satisfied way in which he said:
  1486
  " We are, however, already in touch with the Ministry of Supply on this matter "—
  as if this was some new and unexpected problem which had suddenly cropped up, and as if, with remarkable and commendable foresight, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had displayed such knowledge of the matter that he had jumped the gun and was already taking action.
  It is all very well for him to say that he is already in touch with the Ministry of Supply. It is already too late by far. Because of his inertia it will now be several years before these aeroplanes are able to operate and be in service with the Army.
  Although the Minister was more restrained and guarded than I have been in this matter, he admitted it himself in a further reply when he said:
  " I cannot just wave a wand and do something about it. The production of aircraft is not something which can be done by merely placing an order, as the hon. Member knows." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1951; Vol. 490, c. 400.]
  That is quite true. Nobody suggested that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could wave a wand, but we do expect him to make a plan. During the last six years we have continually heard of the Government vaunting their planning potentialities. We have been told that this is a Government of planners. But it is the plans that we want to see. Some plans must be made without delay.
  The Minister said:
  " The production of aircraft is not something which can be done by merely placing an order."
  That is perfectly true, but it is equally true to say that until an order is placed we shall not get the aircraft. I do not think there is any excuse for the Government on this occasion, because all the aircraft I have just referred to have either been flying or have been in advanced stages of design from one to three years. Yet the Air Ministry has done nothing about this.
  The Minister disturbed me, and also amused me, when he said:
  "… the matter is under the active consideration of the Air Staff and of the Air Council."
  and that he was in touch with the Ministry of Supply. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what that means? Nowadays, when we read in HANSARD statements by Ministers of the

  1487
  Crown, we find them constantly repeating the phrase that something "is under active consideration" or else it is "under continuous review," to such an extent that one feels that one is reading an advertisement for the Windmill Theatre. I ask the Minister this sincerely and seriously: to meet our long-term requirements for these aircraft, have any aircraft of this type been ordered by the Air Ministry from the Ministry of Supply? Has an order been placed? If an order has been place, we must try to tackle the Minister of Supply.
  Mr. A. Henderson: I do not want to intervene unnecessarily, but this is rather an important point. The Air Ministry are not prepared to give an order. involving perhaps many millions of pounds, except in a very grave emergency —such as we did in the case of the Canberra and the F.3 and the B.9.
  In the case of the transport aircraft to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the Blackburn Aircraft Company—the firm in question—which has produced the Universal Freighter, has a prototype flying and trials are now being carried out. We are not prepared to place an order until we know the results of those trials. The hon. Gentleman may have his joke about "under active consideration," but I think this is the right policy for the Air Council to follow. We must, therefore, wait until the trials are nearer completion than they are at the moment.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Profumo: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to his colleagues who supported him in that answer. But perhaps I may develop the point a little further because I think he may have misunderstood me. I am certainly not making a joke of this. It may be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought I was being flippant. We think the Government are carrying these matters as far as a joke and we are very seriously concerned with the fact that nothing has been ordered. I will develop the point a little further and then perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman may take it a little better.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has answered the question: no order has been placed. Are we, therefore, permanently to depend on the United
  1488
  States of America to supply this sort of aircraft—the tactical, troop-carrying aircraft, the only type with which I am dealing at the moment? When the Minister was dealing with this matter the other day he gave no indication whatsoever that the Government are trying to obtain the United States Fairchild Packet under M.D.P.A. My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the point and the right hon. and learned Gentleman slithered over it rather neatly, in accordance with his profession.
  Mr. A. Henderson Mr. A. Henderson indicated dissent
  Mr. Profumo: We want to get the truth of this problem, however, from the debate. With all respect, I think he did slither over it. The other day, I think it was on 18th July, in another place, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, speaking for the Government said:
  " We are so conscious of the need for transport aircraft at the present time that steps are being taken in order to try and obtain them from elsewhere."
  If my information is correct, it is over 12 months since the first approach was made by His Majesty's Government to the United States in order to get the Fairchild Packets for this job. If the House will forgive me for a moment. I will explain that there are two types of Fairchild Packets: there is one called the C-82, which has an all-up weight of 54,000 lb. and there is the rather more modern C-119, which I think has an all-up weight of 74,000 lb., as no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend could confirm.
  In my opinion it is very unlikely that we shall get any of these C-119's in the foreseeable future because, as far as I can gather, the United States are ordering them as fast as they come off the production lines for their own Air Force. It is much more likely that we shall be offered the older type, the C-82, from reserve stocks as and when they are rendered surplus by delivery of the C-119 to the United States Air Force.
  I agree that the C-82 is better than nothing, particularly in the position in which we find ourselves today. But we must be quite certain about this point— that aeroplane does not to any appreciable extent meet the requirements of the Army, which is where the War Office comes into the picture. It cannot be landed on most grass fields and it needs a long runway

  1489
  both for landing and taking off. I wonder whether I may make a short explanation by reading a report which has disturbed me very much. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may not have seen it. It deals with the comparison between the Fairchild Packet and our British type of aircraft.
  The report is called "Aviation Report"—in order that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not think I have written it myself—and it says:
  " If ever there was an acid test of aircraft practicability it was there for all to see at Abingdon."
  There was a demonstration to the Staff College at Abingdon the other day:
  " Three different types of military transport aircraft were lined up for the Army—the Fairchild C-82 Packet, the Handley Page Hastings and the Blackburn General Universal Freighter. The Army produced a load of heavy equipment."
  That was quite natural. The report continues that they
  " wanted to see how each of them would take it to Watchfield, un-load it, then re-load it and fly it back. Watchfield is a small grass field,"
  as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows.
  "The Hastings and Packet did not attempt the operation. The freighter sailed gently into Watchfield with its load, sat down in 300 yards and disgorged it. In due course it flew the load out and back to Abingdon."
  It seems to me that the report alone shows that the British aircraft is superior to the American type. The Army has, quite naturally, a large list of equipment which it wants to be able to have carried by air. The Fairchild Packet is unable to load a considerable proportion of these, whereas the Blackburn Universal Freighter can carry nearly all these articles. The all-up weight of the Fairchild Packet is less than half that of the British Freighter. Let us consider what that means. It means that for every one British aeroplane we have to have two American aeroplanes. That means double crews, a double lot of pilots, double maintenance and double spare parts—and let us not forget that the spare parts have to be brought here all the way across the Atlantic.
  Beggars cannot be choosers, however, and in our present position we shall have to put up with these troubles, if the Americans will give the aircraft to us for an interim period, but I ask the Minister
  1490
  this: assuming that the United States agree to supply the Fairchild Packets, which type are we to be offered? Shall we be offered the C-82 or shall we be offered the C-119? Perhaps even more important, on this side of the House we should like to know whether there is any estimate of a delivery date.
  Can we be certain as to how long it will take, because if it is to take two or three years we might as well put our own aeroplane on order now and have the British aircraft. How long will it take? After all, the United States Air Force are needing more and more of the products of their own aircraft industry to equip themselves—at any rate as far as combat aircraft are concerned. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman let us know how certain he is about delivery?
  In a recent article—and this seems to be very ominous indeed from the point of view of our relying too closely on deliveries from the United States— General Spaatz said:
  "True, it has been announced that America is aiming at a 95-Group Air Force by the end of 1952, and by pulling planes out of mothballs she would have enough to equip, in numbers, a 95-Group Air Force by that date. But this would be providing an Air Force half-equipped with obsolescent planes."
  That is the view of General Spaaz. His view indicates that they will need their own aircraft industry to supply their own Air Force. In those circumstances, for goodness sake let us order our own British aeroplanes.
  May I take a look for a moment at the financial aspect of this problem? It is quite understandable for the air staff and the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself to take the view that they want to get the maximum number of combat aircraft out of the budget which has been allocated to them, and although they accept the responsibility for providing transport aircraft for the Army they feel that if they can get these free, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman calls it, under M.D.A.P., it will not appear on Vote VII of the Air Estimate.
  But when we talk about getting things free we should look at the matter very carefully indeed from a long-term view. That is the view which the Cabinet should take. If we look at it from that view, it is obvious that other items which are scheduled under M.D.A.P. will probably

  1491
  have to be scaled down in proportion— and this is the crucial point and the point which has not been sufficiently carefully considered by His Majesty's Government before these schemes were adopted.
  I think it may be that in order to get the Fairchild Packets we may have to accept fewer raw materials and machine tools. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about getting things free but, as he knows, we cannot get everything from the United States. Up to a point we can get what we want, but somebody ought to be deciding which is more important. Is it more important to get these freighter aircraft or is it more important that we should get machine tools and raw materials and such things?
  I believe that in this case we can have the best of both worlds. My information is that the Universal Freighter is so good that within the last four months the United States authorities have been making inquiries about it for their own Services. Here is an aeroplane which might easily accompany the Canberra into production for the U.S.A.F., but the Ministry of Supply has stopped work on the second prototype and no production order has been placed at all. Very strange—very strange indeed. We might sell the manufacturing rights to the United States, and in that case we could achieve not only standardisation of a first-class aeroplane, but we could also earn dollars, very vitally required, with which to offset the purchase of the military type aeroplanes which we must have as an interim measure. It does seem to me to warrant internally a large allocation of our defence budget.
  I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman this. What snags is he running up against? What snags are there? What are the technical difficulties? Who is standing in the way? Is it the War Office? I do not think it can be, because I have just shown the House that the Army are not getting a bad deal out of this. It cannot be the War Office. Is it the Minister of Defence?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member for Aryshire, South, knows about these matters. This is his subject. I am much flattered that he should be sitting here
  1492
  during my speech in this debate. He has an intimate knowledge of the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps later on he will be good enough to inform us how it could be the Minister of Defence. I do not think it can be. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may remember that the Minister of Defence made a statement about the defence budget in which he said that the Royal Air Force would have absolute priority in our defence programme. If that is to be carried out it is a little inconsistent that he should say that there shall not be enough money to make the necessary aeroplanes. It cannot be he.
  Can it be the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Really, I wonder. I hope not, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer on many occasions—not recently, but on many occasions—has shown a certain amount of forethought. If he really considered this matter he might realise that this was one problem—perhaps the only one—easily disposed of. We could spend a part of this vast expenditure which is extorted from the taxpayers and use it to make more money. It could be used to invest in the manufacture of British aircraft Which might be sold abroad if, fortunately as we all hope, there is not going to be war at all. I do not think it can be he.
  If the sole object of our re-armament programme were to prepare for imminent war, we should not bother in this House where we were getting the aircraft from so long as we were getting them. It is not the case, however, thank goodness. The Government have said, and we agree, that war is not inevitable. The preparations are being made rather for the purpose of enabling us to negotiate from strength. If that policy is successful, or partially successful, I think we must expect to find a quite long period, an indeterminate period, of a whole series of what one might call Koreas, Berlin airlifts, and Abadans.
  If we are going to keep our heads above water, far less than maintain our standard of life, then it is of paramount importance that we should keep alive and increase our export markets. In British transport aircraft we have got some to offer the world which are superior to and far less expensive than the United States of America have. It would be a major economic tragedy to the nation if we

  1493
  ignored those world markets which will present themselves. But if more stable international relations should be established and the pressure of re-armament should be relaxed, as it easily may be, the British aircraft industry is going to find itself in a very difficult position in recapturing lost markets once they are lost, and that will be particularly so in the transport field.
  At the present time, as the Secretary of State knows full well, civil airlines in the world are all in the process of re-equipping. If they do it with imported aeroplanes those markets will be lost to us for an indefinite period. Already certain overseas markets are being denied to us, like Egypt, and so on, from the point of view of military aeroplanes. It makes it all the more important that we should jump as quickly as possible with any types required into other markets.
  I think that I have made my case. I yield to nobody—to nobody—in my gratitude to the Americans for the help with which they are providing us, but let us, remember that a permanent dependence upon such help will have very serious consequences indeed. It means that we must depend for delivery of all our vital equipment on the United States President and the United States Congress. Can we be certain—and this is the point —can we be certain that we can depend on the present scale of generosity, even if they run into a major economic slump in the United States? At this very moment we are awaiting from the United States a decision about Sabres.
  The Secretary of State for War himself said the other day that we did not control the United States Government, and that the only thing we could do was to wait until we got agreement from them. So that is the situation. We have become far too dependent upon resources from the other side of the Atlantic for far too much equipment for our own British Air Force —fighters, bombers, and now transport aircraft. This means that Parliament has no longer really any control over our defences.
  I notice from the Press that the party opposite to which the Minister of Defence belongs is due to have a conference in the autumn, and I see that some—indeed, quite a lot of—resolutions have been put down for this conference which deplore
  1494
  the Government's subservience to Washington. We do not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to get into hot water if we can help it. So we warn him that this is just the sort of thing for which he and the Government will be attacked by certain of their supporters who are not here today—some of their comrades.
  I want to say in conclusion that if we continue to depend on the supply of aeroplanes from America, it can only lead to the entire termination of our sovereign rights, and, indeed, to our becoming the 49th State of America.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. Shackleton: I was fascinated by the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo), as I always am. It is always a mystery to me whether he is in deadly earnest or whether he is someone else doing an after dinner imitation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stratford. He did, I think, rather exaggerate in the indignation he displayed against the Government in their difficult decisions that have to be taken when we are spending so much on and developing our re-armament programme.
  I do not think it is possible for anyone to put particular blame on the Government for the course of action they are taking. We know perfectly well—and my right hon. and learned Friend did not attempt and has never attempted to suggest that we can be—we know perfectly well that we cannot be satisfied with the state of our air defences. We are trying now to equip ourselves with the equipment that is immediately available and to develop the equipment, and the Government are having to decide priorities as they go along, and having to decide whether they should order more of equipment that is available or some new equipment which may be better. These are difficult decisions inherent in our present situation.
  I believe that we may get into serious difficulty in this matter of Air Force equipment if we try ourselves to balance too heavily the claims of that branch or that of the Royal Air Force in which we ourselves are specially interested. The hon. Member for Stratford is undoubtedly very interested in transport aircraft. I happen to be interested in Coastal Command. The House knows that when we have these agreeable occasions such as

  1495
  this every year I make a speech on behalf of Coastal Command, demanding more aircraft for it, in just the same way as other hon. Gentlemen favour Transport Command. I am afraid I may get into trouble through my own criticism if I favour Coastal Command, but I must just mention that Command again today, because the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) rather attacked me the last time we had a debate like this by saying that I was running down the Shackleton aircraft.
  Since then I have had an opportunity to find out more about that aircraft. I must say straight away it was not then my intention to run it down, and certainly Coastal Command is very anxious for it. It is very pleased with what it knows of it, and the Under-Secretary of State has flown in it, and has very good experience of its three-engined performance, of which, no doubt, he will be able to tell the House. It is an aircraft which we need, and need abundantly.
  Having said that, and having stressed the claims of Coastal Command, in view of all the possibilities of what may happen in a future war, and in view of the dangers of the submarine menace, whether the old type of attack on shipping communications or the delivery of atom bombs through long-range torpedoes, and so on, I still think that we need to look at our over-all strategy and consider whether we are balancing up the supplies of equipment and available resources between a number of different competing vested interests and competing minor "empires."
  I am wondering whether, perhaps, we are not still following the old line too much, and whether we should not have a wider conception of the possibility of a future war. If we were faced with the possibility of an atom bomb attack, then I am sorry to say that I do not believe purely defence forces will protect this country. We must consider whether we should not, as a purely defensive measure, put the greater part of our resources into offensive weapons as the only possible type of protection against an atom bomb attack.
  Everybody knows that there is not the slightest danger of this country itself initiating the use of such offensive weapons, but, with the development of
  1496
  modern war and the atom bomb, I believe that we should seriously consider whether there should be the same diversion of resources into purely old-fashioned defence measures, particularly Anti-Aircraft Command—which is not, of course, part of the equipment of the Royal Air Force, but it is related to air defence—and whether we should not concentrate our resources much more in the one field which I believe might prevent another war, and might bring protection to this country, namely, the counter attack, should it be necessary. I say that with all seriousness and all sincerity.
  When we urge the claims of radar, of Bomber Command, Transport Command and Coastal Command we do not really help; we do not help the Government in the very difficult decisions they have to take. Those decisions must be taken, or we shall go along too much on the old pattern, and we shall come off worse through finding that too much of our resources have been tied up in something which is not of decisive importance, and will not make the major effect at the time that we need it.
  Whereas I believe it is right that the Air Force should be given the highest priority in our defence, we should at the same time be prepared for the danger of the vested interest and the "empires" within the Air Force, each demanding its share, when for lack of effort and bold and brave enough decisions there may be a tendency to give in, instead of taking what I believe may be an unpleasant but none the less right decision, that in the long-run the only possibility of defence for this country if a war should come is in the counter offensive.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. W. J. Taylor: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) referred to trainer aircraft, and reference was also made to that subject in the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I took them both to be referring to trainer aircraft in the Regular service, and not to trainer aircraft used in the Reserve or Home Command, and I want this afternoon to put in a modest plea for aircraft for a very important scheme that has been introduced by the Air Ministry during the past 12 months, namely, the Flying Scholarship Scheme, which is sponsored by the Association of British Aero Clubs.

  1497
  This year, 300 flying scholarships have been allotted to enable cadets of the Air Training Corps to take their elementary training as pilots. The cost is not inconsiderable, but if this scheme is considered to be a good one the Air Ministry should take steps to provide the equipment to enable it to be carried out properly.
  The plan is for a cadet to be trained up to the civil pilot licence standard, and it is hoped that the number of flying scholarships next year will be increased to 500. Today, however, these flying clubs are working to the limit of their capacity in aeroplanes, and there is no prospect of any additional aircraft being made available to enable training to be carried out for the present numbers, let alone for any increase in number that might come along. According to my information, one of the main aircraft in use, the Anson, is in short supply due to this aircraft being used for navigational training. If that is so, we must look to some other type.
  Claims have been made this afternoon from both sides of the House for new aircraft in large numbers from America and from British manufacturers. I ask the Secretary of State for something he has already got, and that is the Tiger Moth aircraft, which is at present being used in the Reserve training schools. I want him, if he will, to make that aircraft available to the flying clubs. I should prefer him to make it available free of cost, but if that cannot be done at least to make it available at a nominal charge, and to make arrangements with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to put that into effect.
  The present procedure is that these aircraft are put on the market for sale by tender, and the flying clubs often have no opportunity of bidding for them. The flying clubs are voluntary organisations, and I suppose they do not feel able to send an official to the Ministry of Supply sales to bid for these machines. It is true to say that a machine which is worth a few pounds for the scrap yard, and which is often sold in that way, would be worth a great deal more if it were reconditioned and made available to flying clubs to enable cadets to receive their elementary flying training.
  The Association of British Aero Clubs state that they are capable of training 750
  1498
  cadet pilots a year. I submit that it is not much use having expensive aircraft in increasing numbers if we have not the men to fly them. Those men have to start at the beginning, with glider training, going on to elementary flying training and so on, and we must have these machines at the starting point in order that the scheme can work smoothly and well. If the supply of aircraft is made available, that will be of the greatest value to the Service, which would have this reserve of trained pilots. When these pilots have completed their elementary training they go on to the Volunteer Reserve, and after, or even before, their compulsory training will provide some solid service to their country.
  There is no source of supply available to the flying clubs than the one I have mentioned, namely, from the Reserve flying schools, and I ask that consideration be given to this matter. I notice that in a speech which he made at Glasgow the Under-Secretary said:
  " Anyone who has a stake of any kind in the future of this country must want the best of our young men to take to the air and must do all he can to encourage them."
  He went on to say:
  " The Government is doing its best through A.T.C. scholarships and in the help that it gives to flying clubs and gliding clubs to reduce the expense and make things easier. But the Government will be able to do much more if pressure is put upon it from every quarter."
  I could not have said that better myself. I think that pressure should be put on the Government to provide increased training facilities, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make these Tiger Moths available to the A.T.C. for this purpose.
  5.31 p.m.
  Wing Commander Bullus: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor), because we know the work that he has done and is doing on behalf of the Air Cadets. I hope in a few remarks to support him in asking for aircraft for training purposes.
  It is just a year ago that I referred in the other Chamber, which was then our quarters, to the deplorable state of our air defences. That brought a mild rebuke from the Secretary of State for Air. I confess that it was a mild one, because I can never see the right hon. and learned

  1499
  Gentleman giving more than a mild rebuke. We all respect him, and our attacks today are not necessarily directed at him. He was not at that time prepared to describe the state of our air defences.
  In retrospect, I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that I was not very far from the mark at that time. I would, therefore, ask him a pertinent question today. Is he now able to describe our air defences as entirely satisfactory? A year ago, the Minister definitely stated that he was not satisfied with the number and calibre of aircrew entrants. Is he satisfied today with the intake? No advance training aircraft was provided for the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve at that time. Does the Minister consider the position any more satisfactory today? He said 12 months ago:
  " I agree that as soon as circumstances permit we ought to introduce more modern types."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2232.]
  He indicated at that time that the latest type of training aircraft were coming off the production lines "in a trickle." Since that 12 months'-old statement, the Minister of Defence has expressed the view that air strength has first priority in our defence system, and that it would be developed with all possible speed. I think that it is a very pertinent question to ask: Is the Air Force getting that priority over the other Services? There are many hon. and gallant Gentlemen on this side of the House who doubt whether the Air Force is getting that priority which was promised by the Minister of Defence.
  What, then, is the position in regard to training aircraft? Harvards which were in use in 1939 are still in use and no single Balliol has yet been in service in our training schools. I am aware that a small number are in use in Fighter Command for air-firing training. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the air training schools will have Balliols this year? And in what numbers shall we receive them? Will it be a trickle? It has taken the Minister's Department some time to recognise that the step from the less-than-200 miles per hour Harvards to the near-600 miles per hour Meteors is far too steep. He has indicated today that there is some division of opinion among experts and
  1500
  suggested that the jets might be flown at a lesser speed. But is this to be recommended? The enterprise of the De Havilland Aircraft Company in developing the side-by-side seating dual Vampire should be acknowledged by the Minister. If these were brought into general use, it would mean economy of effort in the Royal Air Force and also economy of production in industry.
  In regard to the Reserve Command, the Government have been constantly pressed for the past three years to provide an advanced trainer. When will these reserve schools have adequate aircraft? I think that the Minister ought to tell us that. If more Vampires could be provided for advanced regular training, then Balliols could be made available for the Reserve schools. This would mean that we should get more ex-war service pilots to join the Volunteer Reserve because flying practice would then be well worth while, and we could form from them, I hope, a pool of instructors for use in time of need. The work of the reserve schools would also become very much more interesting. Why has this most important question of equipment for the Reserve Command been so consistently shelved by the Minister?
  Because of this lack of foresight, it is not possible at the present time to give adequate training to the R.A.F. Reserve. I think that the Minister must admit that because of the shortage of equipment it is not possible to give adequate training for the Reserve. I think that he must also admit that the position is far from satisfactory. The same dilatoriness on the part of his Department has been shown towards Transport Command, which has been allowed to run down to an uncomfortable—nay, an almost dangerously low-level. Why have we not ordered British tactical transport, and why, when contemplating such purchases, do we appear always to give the Americans the preference?
  I agree with the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo) when he says, do not let us become too dependent upon our American friends. Our own construction companies must be encouraged, for when peace is assured we shall require the export values of British transport aircraft. I was one of those delighted and privileged to go to the

  1501
  "Daily Express" flying display, and I also attended the display at Farnborough last year. I was confirmed in my own mind that our constructors and designers were the finest in the world. Why not give them every encouragement? Why have always this apparent preference for American aircraft?
  Mr. A. Henderson Mr. A. Henderson indicated dissent.
  Wing Commander Bullus: The Minister shakes his head; apparently he does not agree.
  Mr. Henderson: I said in my remarks that we have already given orders for hundreds of millions of pounds to aircraft manufacturers.
  Wing Commander Bullus: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that in recent years British manufacturers have been discouraged. They are probably getting a little more encouragement now, but we still appear to show a preference for ordering American aircraft.
  At this point, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what is to become of the Bristol-Brabazon I? Is it likely that this aircraft and the Brabazon II will be taken over for trooping? We could have well done with such aircraft when our paratroopers were moved to Cyprus. In spite of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about their being sufficient aircraft available at that time, we could have well done with these two large aircraft for trooping. If such aircraft is used, then the question of availability of airfields and landing grounds arises.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and, having returned—
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Finance Act, 1951.

  2. Appropriation Act, 1951.

  3. Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1951.

  4. Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act, 1951.

  5. Festival of Britain (Additional Loans) Act, 1951.

  1502

  6. Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951.

  7. Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1951.

  8. Consolidated Fund (Civil List Provisions) Act, 1951.

  9. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1951.

  10. Telephone Act, 1951.

  11. Midwives Act, 1951.

  12. Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1951.

  13. Nurses (Scotland) Act, 1951.

  14. Guardianship and Maintenance of Infants Act, 1951.

  15. National Assistance (Amendment) Act, 1951.

  16. Fireworks Act, 1951.

  17. Price Control and other Orders (Indemnity) Act, 1951.

  18. Mineral Workings Act, 1951.

  19. Forestry Act, 1951.

  20. Tithe Act, 1951.

  21. Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act, 1951.

  22. Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951.

  23. Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act, 1951.

  24. Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951.

  25. Sir William Turner's Hospital at Kirkleatham Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1951.

  26. British Transport Commission Order Confirmation Act, 1951.

  27. Walsall Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1951.

  28. Pier and Harbour Order (Lymington) Confirmation Act, 1951.

  29. Saint Benet Gracechurch Act, 1951.

  30. Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Act, 1951.

  31. London County Council (Crystal Palace) Act, 1951.

  32. Brighton Extension Act, 1951.

  33. Abingdon Corporation Act. 1951.

  34. Nottingham City and County Boundaries Act, 1951.

  35. Bristol Corporation Act, 1951.

  36. Dartmouth Harbour Act, 1951.

  37. Bournemouth and District Water Act, 1951.

  38. Lancashire County Council (General Powers) Act, 1951.

  39. Sunderland Corporation Act, 1951.

  40. Faversham Navigation Act, 1951.

  41. Sutton and Cheam Corporation Act, 1951.

  1503

  42. British Transport Commission Act, 1951.

  43. Swindon Corporation Act, 1951.

  44. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1951.

  45. Trent River Board Act, 1951.

  46. West Riding County Council (General Powers) Act, 1951.

  47. Worcester Corporation Act, 1951.

  48. Nottinghamshire County Council Act, 1951.

  49. Liverpool Extension Act, 1951.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (EQUIPMENT)
  Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  5.55 p.m.
  Wing Commander Bullus: I was inquiring as to the future of Brabazon aircraft and whether they were to be taken over by the R.A.F. That led me to pertinent questions as to the condition of some of our airfields in all parts of the world. I confess that I have been balloting unsuccessfully during recent weeks to try to get an Adjournment debate to call attention to the state of our airfields in all parts of the world, particularly in the Far East.
  At the end of the war we had many excellent airfields. What is the position today? In the unhappy event of war in the Far East, how many airfields could we count upon? I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Air will have something to say on that point when he replies to the debate. I hope he will tell us their state of repair. Have we learned anything from the trouble at Changi, in connection with which nearly £500,000 was lost. What have we learned from the investigations which have taken place into the matter?
  That leads me finally to a point in connection with intelligence and research. Would the Minister tell us whether we have a British intelligence unit in Korea or whether we have to depend, as we do for so much, upon American information? If there is such a unit in Korea, has it been given full authority to carry out an independent examination of all captured enemy aircraft, for information which would be of real value to us? In connection with photographic intelligence are the squadrons now equipped with aircraft capable of penetrating deeply into
  1504
  enemy territory? Have they the necessary long range, and are they equipped with cameras capable of registering the necessary detail at great height?
  On all these points we desire to know more. Hon. and gallant Members on this side of the House have asked a series of pertinent questions. It depends upon the result of the answers that we get to them whether we can decide that the Royal Air Force today is even adequate.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) will be disappointed if I do not take part in this debate. On the last occasion that be spoke I ventured to interrupt, and he retorted:
  "the voice of Moscow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd July, 1951; Vol. 490, c. 1772.]
  I felt complimented at the thought that I occupied such an important position in the universe, but I can imagine no greater embarrassment being caused in Moscow than if they thought that I was putting the Moscow point of view. So far from putting the Moscow point of view am I, that I cannot even get a visa to go to Moscow, and I hardly think my chances are improved as I go along.
  I understand that this debate so far has mostly been an argument among very experienced hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have had enormous experience in the Air Force and who are all advocating different kinds of aircraft. It has been a technicians' debate, a specialists' debate. They are all advocating their different types of aircraft and, like the cobbler, they all think that there is nothing like leather.
  I understand from the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield that there is a possibility of so much trouble in the world that we are required to have an increase in the number of transport aircraft, which are at present insufficient, and that the Government should build more transport aircraft in order to convey troops to all parts of the world. I hope that I have not misunderstood the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If not, I can understand how it arises. If action is taken in the different parts of the world in which action has been demanded by the Opposition, we certainly will need a very large number of transport aircraft.
  Air Commodore Harvey: I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to misrepresent what I said. What I said was that even the recent operation of moving troops to Cyprus ought to have been carried out by air instead of the time of our men being wasted by sitting in aircraft carriers and steamers for weeks on end.
  Mr. Hughes: That puts the argument more concisely. I do not want to go into what we are doing in Cyprus, except to say that I understand that Cyprus is to be one of the bombing bases for the defensive action against the U.S.S.R. Cyprus is another instance. I have a list of places in regard to which the Opposition has demanded military action in recent months. In addition to sending transport aircraft to Cyprus, we have presumably to have sufficient to enable us to send them to Persia, Malaya, Hong Kong, Korea, Egypt and also the Antarctic.
  Earl Winterton: Surely the hon. Member is not suggesting that the suggestion to send aircraft to Malaya and Korea is exclusive to the Opposition. No doubt he has noticed that his own Government are fighting a war in Korea.
  Mr. Hughes: I am indebted to the noble Lord for the assistance which he always renders in these debates. I must correct him and say that it is the United Nations and not our Government which is supposed to be fighting in Korea.
  I have mentioned six theatres of war to which we are called upon to send our troops in transport aircraft. If we are to be urged to have in readiness sufficient transport aircraft for all the military expeditions which are being advocated by the Opposition, we shall need a very large number, and we are entitled to know how the Opposition can justify their demand for expenditure upon aircraft which are getting more and more expensive, in view of the fact that during the last three months the Opposition's argument in debate has invariably been that the Government should decrease their expenditure. If all the demands for aircraft were accepted, we should have an astronomical increase in the expenditure upon the Royal Air Force.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Surely the hon. Member does not wish to misrepre
  1506
  sent the point of view of the Opposition. We have made no case at all for wars in these different places. Two of these places, Hong Kong and Malaya, happen to be British Colonies. Surely it is out of order to represent that the Opposition are demanding that troops should be sent to six different places to fight wars. All we are suggesting is that aircraft be used for ambulance work and other things in order to save the time of our troops, who would otherwise have to travel by steamer, and thus get them home as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Hughes: I did not misrepresent the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There are at least six places where the Opposition are in favour of military operations. They are places to which troops have to be moved, and presumably the demand will be that they shall be moved by transport aircraft. I do not know how many transport aircraft the hon. and gallant Gentleman considers necessary, but if we are to have enough to cover these enormous geographical areas we shall need 100 or even 1,000, which will involve a very large sum. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we were recently discussing the Report of the Select Committee on Expenditure in which we were told about the very large increase in the cost of military aircraft.
  Sir Arthur Salter: Does the hon. Gentleman really mean that because, when considering our air preparations, we assume that there must be British soldiers in a Colony like Hong Kong, we are therefore advocating military operations in Hong Kong?
  Mr. Hughes: I will put it this way. En Hong Kong there are British troops—
  Earl Winterton Earl Winterton rose—
  Mr. Hughes: I cannot answer two points at once. I shall be very glad to answer all the questions put to me and I will give way in turn to every hon. Member opposite who wishes to ask a question. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk (Sir A. Salter), the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield is that transport planes are needed to convey troops in a more economical way to places where we have military forces. I want to look at the cost of this. I am not sure that here I shall not have some

  1507
  support from the right hon. Member for Ormskirk, who has delivered so many statements about public economy during the last few months. The cost of one of these transport aircraft in 1945 was £45,250 and the Select Committee recently reported that the price has now risen to £91,000.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Which one?
  Mr. Hughes: It was a transport aircraft as stated in the Report of the Select Committee. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to drag me into technicalities, the debate will be lengthened. I will not be diverted from my argument. We must face the fact that hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite are advocating at least 100 or even 1,000 transport aircraft at an approximate cost of £100,000 each. The argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield is that in one short debate about £10 million shall be added to the national expenditure. That is enough to set the right hon. Member for Ormskirk going about the terrible nightmare of inflation.
  Earl Winterton: Perhaps the hon. Member will now give way. He said that he would welcome a question. I wish to put to him a question which he will perhaps regard as a serious one. He is a pacifist. He is entitled to his views. He attacks his own Government. When any hon. Member on this side of the House states that it would be better for the troops, including wounded men from Malaya and Korea and others who have been kept in camps in great discomfort. to be flown to a place where there are already troops, he is not entitled to treat that as a laughing matter. It is an humanitarian matter. It is a matter of caring for the welfare of the troops. His own side, to do them justice, and the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the debate, are as keen on this matter as any of us are. The hon. Member stands alone in treating the matter as one for laughter and derision.
  Mr. Hughes: I started arguing seriously but I was subjected to persistent interruption from the Opposition and I reply in my own way. I deny the right of the noble Lord to say that I am not interested in humanitarian matters. There would not have been troops in Korea if I had had my way and so we should not have needed to send ambulances to bring them
  1508
  home. That applies to all these various theatres of operations. The noble Lord calls me a pacifist. Of course I am a pacifist. Pacifists do not believe in war at all, and if there were no wars at all we should not have these extensive military operations in all parts of the world.
  However, the Opposition must face up to the economic and financial consequences of their demand. From that point of view, we are asked to spend another £10 million on one item alone. We are entitled to demand that we should not assent to this as easily as apparently does the noble Lord, who drifts in here casually—
  Earl Winterton: I care for the troops, which is more than the hon. Member does.
  Mr. Hughes: The noble Lord can put himself on that high pinnacle if he likes. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there will be a persistent attempt to barrack me, but it will not work. A pacifist may be a peaceful individual in international affairs but, when it comes to a debate in this House, then I shall hold my own. if the noble Lord does not like it, he can go out and amuse himself elsewhere. He is taking up the time of other hon. Members. I shall conclude my argument. I do not care whether the noble Lord behaves as a juvenile delinquent or not. I have only just begun.
  Now let me come to the argument used in this debate, that the more we spend on the Air Force, the greater the security of this country. I challenge that view, whether it is put from Macclesfield or Moscow or anywhere else. I challenge the idea that the more money spent on aircraft, the greater the security of any country. Recently we have had figures from both sides of the House.
  One argument used for the expenditure of public money on the Air Force is tint Moscow has so many modern planes that we have to build up our Air Force to meet that. It has been said over and over again in this House that Russia has 19,000 modern planes. If that is so, it means that under Communism they have managed to build up an enormous aircraft industry because there must be an immense technical organisation behind that number of planes. I am alarmed at the way these figures are growing. We have been given a figure of 19,000—
  Air Commodore Harvey: By whom?
  Mr. Hughes: By the Minister of Defence. Mr. Acheson has estimated 20,000 and if these aircraft figures increase in the same way as the number of divisions has multiplied during the last month, what will they be? Is Russia any safer because she has 19,000 aircraft? I deny it. Moscow has argued that there must be strength to meet strength, and that the only way to protect Russia is to have all these planes. That is the identical argument used here. If Moscow has 20,000 modern planes—jet fighters and bombers —presumably we have to build up a great force in order to destroy their bases.
  Now let us come to the argument advanced by the Leader of the Opposition. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke in the defence debate, he pointed out that far from this country having any greater safety than it had 10 or 20 years ago, we are now in a state of great peril because of the American bombing base in East Anglia. In many respects in this controversy the Leader of the Opposition is a realist, not a mediaeval illusionist like the noble Lord. In the defence debate the right hon. Gentleman said that we are in a position of immense danger as a result of having those bombing bases in this country. He has repeated that three times, and in his last speech he talked about dispersing our strength to bases in the Mediterranean.
  Supposing Russia has 19,000 or 20,000 planes, the Leader of the Opposition argued that if the Russians had 50 atom bombs and dropped them here, the position would be very serious for this country.
  Air Commodore Harvey: And for the hon. Gentleman too.
  Mr. Hughes: Even if Russia had only a small number of atom bombs and 20,000 aeroplanes, there would be a serious possibility that a dozen or so of those planes would come through. If so, what is the purpose of gigantic expenditure on aircraft which cannot possibly keep out the rocket or the atom bomb? My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), discarded the theory that fighters and aircraft were really defensive. His argument was that we would have to take the offensive. That is precisely the Moscow argument. So, as a result of this theory, we have the world divided into two great camps, each
  1510
  of which has enormous destructive power and against which the defensive is very weak.
  So I challenge the idea that by spending huge sums in this way we are increasing the safety of the people. I believe, with the Leader of the Opposition, that we are in a state of great danger as a result of these enormous military preparations. If Russia has increased her military and aircraft and defensive-offensive potential so much during the last five years, is she not likely to increase it during the next five years? And if we are fortunate enough to escape war for another five years, as a result of both hemispheres having built up enormous destructive power which can destroy the civilisation of either East or West, in five years' time we shall be faced with the fact that we have this enormous potentially destructive power in the world.
  So I challenge the idea that by piling up these armaments we are getting this nation into a state of security. We may make America more secure, but we shall not make this country more secure with its closely congested industrial population. When I give these warnings periodically, although I meet with criticism and opposition from that side of the House whenever I rise, yet I am taking the realistic view. And if the people of this country knew what they were doing, they would bring their enormous public opinion to bear, not upon increasing armaments but upon facing the cold fact that this country has nothing to gain by proceeding with the armament race; that our security depends upon negotiation and upon a diplomatic initiative which will face the fact of the modern world that, in the atom age, war has become an anachronism and does not bring security or safety to anybody.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. P. B. Lucas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman in the course of his remarks referred to the question of an intermediate jet trainer. In the short time I shall detain the House, I shall endeavour to expand some of the more serious and important arguments which exist for the introduction of this most necessary item of equipment. In spite of the strictures of the Secretary of State upon this subject, I honestly think that some of the accidents now occurring among jet pilots in Fighter

  1511
  Command and Training Command are the result of pilots having unsuitable aircraft on which to learn to fly.
  What is the case for an intermediate jet trainer? For the few months immediately following the war, I was privileged to command a station in Fighter Command on which were based three of the first jet squadrons in the Royal Air Force. Thus I was able to obtain in a small and humble way some first-hand experience, not only of the flying characteristics of these aircraft, but also of the difficulties which are presented in converting pilots from the conventional piston engine to this later, more simple, and more ingenious method of jet propulsion.
  I do not hesitate to say that for an experienced pilot, with a high total of flying hours, it is an easy matter to convert him from piston-engined to jetengined aircraft, for in many ways these aircraft are much simpler to fly. But with the inexperienced pilot this is quite another matter, for in his vulnerable and uninitiated state he is required to contend with three prime factors.
  First, he is faced with speeds of 400 and 500 miles an hour and more. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that a pilot can fly a Vampire or a Meteor at half speed. He can, but that is not my experience of Pilot Officer Prune. At these speeds, all sorts of navigational difficulties are presented, particularly in bad weather. In the second place, the pilot finds himself flying an aircraft which at low altitudes may run out of fuel in, perhaps, 50 minutes, whereas he may have been accustomed to flying an aeroplane with an endurance of one and a half or two hours. Third, and most disconcerting of all, he is conscious of controlling an aircraft which, on account of its high wing-loading—and this is the important factor—allows him little latitude for handling errors which are expected at that stage of a pilot's training.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated that the Vampire is to be modified to take side-by-side dual control and will be introduced into the Service as a trainer. I am very glad to hear that. It is a step in the right direction, and is a further tribute to the genius, initiative and enterprise of the great British De Havilland Aircraft Company.
  1512
  But I do not think that merely by taking out of the squadrons front-line aircraft such as the Vampire or the Meteor —aircraft which, although inferior in performance to their Russian counterparts, are still our first line of defence in a supreme emergency—and fitting them with two seats instead of one, we shall get an intermediate jet trainer, of an adequate type.
  In the course of the next few years, we shall witness the advent of faster, higher-powered and more complicated aircraft into the Royal Air Force squadrons. The F.3, the F.4 and B.9 will far surpass in performance—and, incidentally, in expense—any comparable aircraft with which the squadrons are now equipped. I do not believe that we shall be able to afford, either in terms of money or in man-hours in the aircraft industry, avoidable accidents to such valuable equipment, particularly from pilot errors which in themselves may be the result of inadequate experience upon a suitable type of intermediate jet trainer.
  As I see it, we are now preparing to equip the Royal Air Force squadrons with these exceptional aeroplanes without first providing adequate training aircraft on which pilots may gain knowledge, proficiency and confidence. This is a very curious way of setting about it. The Dutch, on the other hand, seem to me to be acting wisely and with foresight, for in the production of their advanced trainer—the Fokker S.14—with its lower wing-loading and longer endurance, they are showing an imaginative trend. It is not, in my belief, the complete answer, but it goes some of the distance.
  I am thinking tonight in terms of an easy intermediate trainer, of lower wing-loading and of longer endurance, to which a pilot might be converted after only 20 or 30 hours of basic training on a light aeroplane. After 180 or 200 hours or so on such an aircraft, a pilot would be better equipped to tackle the more difficult and more powerful Vampires and Meteors, with all their many perplexities.
  In these days, when military aircraft approach and pass the speed of sound, the method by which a pilot may be ejected from his aircraft in emergency, assumes an importance without previous parallel. As a result of the courageous planning and pioneering in this field, the ejection

  1513
  seat manufactured by the Martin-Baker Aircraft Company, which, so far as I am aware, is the only make to be supplied to the Royal Air Force, affords a very much wider measure of safety to the pilot.
  But the recent tragic and irreparable loss of Squadron Leader Wade in the Hawker P.1081 experimental aircraft, which, I am sure, hon. Members on both sides will regret, has again riveted our attention on this type of equipment. The evidence would seem to suggest—I put it no higher than that—that when the emergency arose before his crash, Squadron Leader Wade operated his ejection seat in a final attempt to save his life. What was not made public at the time was that the seat employed in this experimental aircraft, which, naturally, had been undergoing experimental tests of a most hazardous character, was not of Martin-Baker manufacture but of a type never before subjected to live testing.
  The 30 or more live-test ejections which have been undertaken by the Martin-Baker Company have directly resulted in the incorporation into this seat of two essential modifications which are now considered imperative for a pilot's safety. My information is that these vital modifications were not, and are not, embodied in the type of seat which was fitted to Squadron Leader Wade's aircraft.
  When, on 30th April, my hon. Friends and I questioned the Minister of Supply upon this matter, he replied that live testing of ejection seats was not a requirement of his Department. The fact that six days after raising this matter in the House—namely, on 6th May—a seat similar to that used by Squadron Leader Wade was removed from an experimental Westland Wyvern aircraft at Farnborough and a Martin-Baker seat substituted in its place, is to my way of thinking a sufficient testimony to the value attributed in certain quarters to live testing.
  I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Under-Secretary, in the interests of pilots' lives and safety, to impress upon the Minister of Supply that live testing of ejection seats is a definite Service requirement. Further, I ask the Minister to give tonight an undertaking that no ejection seat will ever be accepted by the Royal Air Force which has not first been subjected to a series of prolonged and searching tests such as those
  1514
  which have been undertaken with such infinite resolution by Mr. Lynch, the parachutist of the Martin-Baker Aircraft Company.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. George Ward: One of the main objects of a winding up speech is to provide an opportunity to reply to some of the arguments which have been put forward during the debate by hon. Members on the other side of the House, but that task is made somewhat difficult for me this evening because, apart from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we have had only two back bench speeches from hon. Members opposite. One of the speeches we have heard so often before that it has been replied to, to my certain knowledge, after every Service and defence debate since I have been in the House of Commons.
  There is one point about the speech of the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), which I think I must make quite clear. When we on the Opposition side of the House talk about offensive aircraft, we do not mean aircraft with which we are going to take the first, initial offensive. That is an idea the hon. Member seems to have got into his head. The word "offensive" is almost synonomous with defence because, with speeds as high as they are, the interception of enemy aircraft is becoming so difficult that the best way to stop them coming is to go and bomb them before they ever get off the ground. That is what we mean by offence; it is purely a defensive measure.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) was very much on the same point, but he was emphasising the importance of having a strong striking force and the importance of offence for defence. His point was that it was important that we should concentrate on that and not disperse our efforts by building too many types of aircraft. There is quite a lot in that, but the difficulty is that if we believe we ought to have a balanced force of our own—I firmly believe we should—we cannot rely on any foreign power, however friendly, to provide us exclusively with any one type of aircraft.
  I believe that we should have our own British made, balanced Air Force, with British aircraft performing every duty in

  1515
  it, whether it is a large or a small force —whatever the shape of it may be. Whether the offensive side of it is bigger than the defensive side or the transport side is a matter for the air staff but I do not think that we should hand over any single command to the Americans, or anyone else. This policy is very much that of the Secretary of State for Air, because in March, 1950, he said:
  "I am clear that it must be our aim to build up a compact, balanced and mobile force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 1769.]
  I am sure we all agree about that. What we are arguing about today is not his policy to build up a compact, mobile and balanced force; we are arguing that he is not doing enough about it, and that he has been putting it off much too long, long before he made that statement.
  We have now got into a position where we have to call on the Americans to help us out—I agree temporarily. We are in the position where the Americans have to help us out in almost every branch of the Royal Air Force. We do not think that is at all healthy or desirable. There seems to be no sense of urgency about getting on with this plan of building up a balanced force. If there were a sense of urgency about it, I feel quite sure that we should not only be seeing more aicraft coming out of the factories, but we should be hearing that orders had been placed, in which case I think that the benches on both sides of the House—particularly the benches opposite—would have been very much fuller than they have been all the afternoon.
  Let us look at one or two of the points which have been mentioned. Take Fighter Command first. It was our proud boast not so very long ago that we have the best fighters in the world. It was certainly our proud boast that we were furthest ahead of any nation with the development of jet engines. But only today the Secretary of State for Air has said at the Despatch Box that the fastest jet fighter in the world today is the American Sabre and the second fastest the MIG.15. He has admitted that. Incidentally, it was strange to hear him say that so soon after the Air Estimates debate of March this year, when the Under-Secretary of State for Air said this:
  " Regarding the MIG.15, I have no doubt whatever that our fighters—the type we are
  1516
  now using—will give a very adequate account of themselves against the MIG.15 or any other aircraft. I am not going to indulge in a lot of speculation about the performance of the MIG.15. Some of the very interesting figures given by the hon. Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) and by others cannot be described as anything more than an estimate and a speculation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 379.]
  But it is the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick who has been proved to be right—it has not been a speculation at all. It is very worrying when back bench Members of the Opposition have to tell the Under-Secretary things he ought to know and the Secretary of State for Air admits them at the Despatch Box so soon afterwards.
  Mr. A. Henderson: May I correct that statement? I admitted it about three hours before the statement to which the hon. Member is referring, in reply to the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden).
  Mr. Ward: I am afraid that is something I shall have to leave the right hon. and learned Gentleman to sort out with his Under-Secretary, but there seems to have been a complete contradiction between the two.
  Mr. Henderson: There is no contradiction.
  Mr. Ward: The fact remains that we have now taken at least third place; but, for all we know, the Americans may have the third place and the Russians may have the fourth. That is very bad considering the start we had, and I blame His Majesty's Government very largely for this. Not only have they delayed giving orders to the British aircraft industry so that they can get on with development of these new prototypes, but they have handed to the Russians on a silver platter much of the know-how which we developed through years of extremely hard work by selling them these Rolls-Royce Nene engines.
  What is the position today? The position is that while we have no suitable fighters—by that I mean no very fast modern fighters—in our squadrons, we are begging the United States to come to our help with some Sabres, and nothing seems to be happening. What does the Secretary of State do? He throws up his hands in despair and says, "We do not control the United States Government.

  1517
  We can only wait until we can get agreement on it." But if these fighters had been ordered in plenty of time and were coming out—the Swifts and Deltas mentioned this afternoon—it would be quite unnecessary for us to be begging the United States to help us out.
  In Bomber Command once again we find ourselves relying on the Americans for Washingtons. I am not saying that the policy of the Government not to build more piston-engined bombers is necessarily wrong. Indeed, I believe that the policy of trying to produce a new jet bomber instead of a new stop-gap pistonengined bomber is right. But if we accept that policy—as we do—surely the next step to take is to say, "These things cannot be built overnight; therefore, we must apply a sense of urgency to them as we have never applied a sense of urgency before."
  We have to get a move on quickly, because there is bound to be a gap. But we have not applied urgency or, if we have, how is it that we have ordered only 20 or so of the new Vickers 660? The Handley Page has not yet flown, and neither has the Avro. Why are we so far behind the Russians in this matter? Once again we have had to fill the gap by begging the Americans to help us out with Washingtons, which are not very satisfactory, because many of them are often kept on the ground through want of spares.
  I cannot emphasise too much the importance of the striking force. As I have already said, our best form of defence is to strike at the enemy's strength. I hope that the Government are really treating this question of Bomber Command with the urgency that it deserves. We really must build up a bomber striking force.
  I turn to Coastal Command, on which we rely very largely to keep our vital sea routes open in war. We have heard of these 300 fast modern submarines possessed by the Russians. What are we doing about that? We are waiting hopefully for the United States to give us Neptunes. That is the third Command of the Air Force which is now relying, it may be only temporarily, on the United States.
  I am not quite sure of the position of the Shackleton, but so far as I know there there are not any in Coastal Command.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Oh, yes.
  Mr. Ward: Not very many. To rely on the United States for Neptunes cannot possibly be the right policy. We should have our own aircraft.
  We have had an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick about Training Command. Let us not forget that Reserve training schools are today still using an aircraft which was designed over a quarter of a century ago. If we are really serious about this matter, if we really mean that we want to maintain peace through strength, how on earth are we to do it if we expect our pilots to train themselves on aircraft that are 25 years old?
  Is this force which I have rapidly outlined really a compact, balanced and mobile force? That is very difficult to believe. What does the Secretary of State say when we complain about Transport Command, when we complain that no transports have been ordered, that we are short of transports to carry the Army to the Middle East? He says, "I cannot just wave a wand and do something about it." He says, "We are in touch with the Ministry of Supply. The matter is under active consideration," and that sort of thing. Once more the answer is that he is hoping that the United States will come forward and give us some Packets. If that is not true, I shall be very glad to hear what else we are doing about it.
  He himself admitted that we have not ordered any new transports. I do not want to be unfair, but the fact is that I have before me the answer in HANSARD that we have not ordered any transports of our own. If we are to have any transports we must be relying on the Americans to give us Packets. The Secretary of State said that our civilian types of aircraft would be suitable for certain types of transport operations in war provided that they were, I think he said, modified with certain types of double doors etc.
  If that is what we are very largely relying upon, I hope we shall be told what steps have been taken to get these modifications ready. These big aeroplanes cannot be modified overnight with new equipment, the doors altered and that sort of thing. Is any preparation being made about that if that is what we are hoping for to help us out?

  1519
  I hope that we shall be told a great deal about the Blackburn Universal Freighter. The Secretary of State in an intervention, in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) said that the Blackburn Freighter was still doing trials and that they were not yet prepared to order any of them. But that is very weak indeed. The first prototype of the Blackburn Freighter has been flying for over a year; they must know something about it by now.
  The second prototype has been cancelled altogether. Why is that? Why was it cancelled? I hope that we shall hear about that. It is a much better aeroplane than the Packet, and it suits Army requirements much better. Even the United States think it is a good aeroplane, because they have been making inquiries about it and are obviously interested in it. I should have thought that there was an ideal opportunity to let the Americans build some of them under licence, if they wished to do so, as in the case of the Canberra. If, as we hope and pray, we do not have to use these machines in a warlike way, we shall have an ideal potential export for peacetime use.
  The Secretary of State said that we did not need "a vast armada of transport aircraft." Nobody on this side of the House suggested that we should have a vast armada. He went on to say that the ambulance service in Korea had been taken off for some reason or another, and he thought it was a great pity. But he is the Secretary of State for Air. Does he not know why it was taken off? What does "some reason or another" mean.
  Mr. A. Henderson: It was because we were concentrating all the four-engined long-range transports for purposes connected with the situation in the Middle East. There was one four-engined transport in use each week which was taken off that particular service. I say again that I regret that it was, but I accept responsibility for it having been taken off.
  Mr. Ward: I beg the pardon of the right hon. and learned Gentleman if I misunderstood him. I thought he said, "for some reason or another." I accept what he says, but it merely strengthens
  1520
  my argument that we have not got enough transport aircraft and that the sooner we get more the better it will be for everybody.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield mentioned the radar chain on the East Coast. That is obviously part of our air equipment, and a very important part indeed. My hon. and gallant Friend was anxious about it, as we all are. I should like the Under-Secretary of State, when referring to this subject, to go a step further and tell us a little more about the warning system on the Continent of Europe.
  I was one of the fortunate ones who recently had an opportunity to go and observe the exercise "Ombrelle." I think that all of us who saw it agreed that the warning system was by no means perfect, that there was a great deal still to be done, particularly in the interception of low-flying aircraft.
  The other thing we noticed was that there were no G.C.A. facilities whatever to get pilots down in thick weather. We had to orbit in a York over Holland for well over an hour because there was not a single aerodrome in that part of Europe where we could get down by G.C.A. If there are no such facilities, it means that our fighter defences in North Europe are absolutely useless in any sort of thick weather.
  I am very glad indeed that we are able to part before the Recess on the note that we have given almost our last thoughts to the defence of this country in an emergency should it occur. I wish that there had been more hon. Members here to leave the impression with the public that we go away for our holidays, the last thought in our mind being the defence of the country. If this debate has achieved that, and if the public have been made conscious that a few of us, at any rate, have been trying to get up to date with what is going on in air defence before we go for our holidays, I think that it will have been worth while.
  6.50 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Crawley): I should like to begin by agreeing entirely with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) at the end of his speech. The air defence of this country is the most vital factor in our

  1521
  defence. It is admirable not only that we should have had this debate just before the Recess, but that we should, much more regularly than is possible merely on Estimates debates, inquire into the state of our defences. We certainly welcome the whole debate.
  There have been some most objective speeches in which I think there have been two main themes. The first has been the tendency, which has run through most of the speeches of hon. Members opposite, to criticise the fact of American assistance—the fact that we need it and that we have it. The second, and I think the most general, theme has been a tendency to deplore that we have not got a larger Transport Command.
  Before going into detailed points, I should like to say something about these two themes. First, on the question of American help, I should like to put this matter in its present background. The air threat to this country is very severe. There was a speech in this House recently by an hon. Member who questioned whether we were not exaggerating all our ideas of the threat which exists. I would only say that, having read his speech and taking all his figures of Russian production and so on, I think that everything he said still justifies all that I and others have said on this question. On all his figures, the estimates we give of the threat to this country are very possible.
  I have said elsewhere that the present Russian air force would be capable, from its present bases, of delivering an attack on this country which would be heavier than the Germans were able to deliver at their peak. Of course, if those bases were moved nearer to this country, that threat would be heavier still.
  One other factor which everybody thinking about air defence ought to bear in mind is that, when one is trying to plan an air defence, the first information which one wants is what the threat of the enemy is. Then one has to try to make an estimate of what sort of casualty rates can be inflicted on the enemy to prevent him from maintaining a sustained attack. Certain casualty rates seemed to achieve that object in the last war on both sides. If casualties above a certain level were reached, it became impossible for either side to maintain an attack for very long.
  1522
  Of course, air defence today is based in many ways on the same principle. But there has been one significant change, and that is in the emergence of the atom bomb. Whereas when aircraft might be supposed only to be carrying orthodox bombs a certain casualty rate might give adequate defence, it is plain to anybody who thinks about the matter that, if aircraft may be carrying atomic bombs, it is necessary to have a much higher casualty rate before one can feel in any way secure.
  One has to take the air threat which exists to this country as something which is most severe. I do not say that it would be impossible to meet that threat alone. I do not say that it would be impossible for this country to meet it without any help from the Americans; but I do say that it would be impossible to do that unless we went on to a full war footing and remained on that basis. The sooner the people of this country, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, recognise that, the better. Not only would it mean doing that but, by doing that—by putting the country on a full war footing and keeping it there—we should be throwing away all the advantages of collective security and all the advantages of alliances. It would give the people a standard of living which might prove intolerable and which might undermine all that we are trying to do.
  On this question of American help, hon. Members opposite are suffering from a form of schizophrenia which, in some ways, calls to mind that of the bad baron in "Ruddigore." Their intelligence forces them to admit that they need American help but every time they admit it, some ghost gets down from one of their ancestor's photographs and says, "In our day Britain had most of the best of everything, and it is a surprising thing that Britain cannot have most of the best of everything now." It is time they realised that the world has moved on a little, and that they really cannot face any of these problems without realising that this must be a joint undertaking.
  Air Commodore Harvey: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is clear about what we have been trying to put over this afternoon. Our main criticism has been that we are accepting assistance —I say that we should accept that assistance—in penny packets. We are taking

  1523
  various types of aircraft and engines instead of planning ahead and marking out where real assistance will be required in one sphere, rather than spreading it over the whole.
  Mr. Crawley: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can even sustain that criticism. The fact is that in one very large sphere—that of strategic bombing—we have planned that, for the present, the Americans should undertake almost the whole of it.
  For the rest, obviously there are two requirements—intelligent co-operation and two-way co-operation. I should like to point out that at present we have both ways of co-operation with the Americans. I think our co-operation is intelligent, because it is sufficiently flexible to enable us to fill in each others' gaps wherever they occur, and it is two-way, and I doubt if the balance is so wholly one-sided as some people seem to think. The fact that the Americans have accepted and adopted the Canberra and are going to produce very large numbers of them, and that they have adopted and are producing a very large number of Saphire engines and are trying various other types of equipment, engines and aircraft, shows that they are prepared to fill in gaps to a very large extent with anything we can produce. That shows that this is a thoroughly two-way and reciprocal proceeding.
  Surely, what we want is not less but more of that. We want to pool both planning and productive resources and to get the best out of both. I wish, therefore, that when hon. Members opposite talk about this question, they would leave aside the general attitude of criticism of the mere fact that we welcome, at this or that time, the addition of some American aircraft to our Air Force, just in the same way as they welcome our aircraft. I hope that in the future they will see that that is the right sort of co-operation. I hope that they will appreciate that in any air force there will always be gaps of some kind which, if one is lucky, one may find that one's friends may be able to fill. Let us be only too thankful if they can.
  Mr. C. I. On-Ewing: A second point made from these benches was that on Government policy, with which we agree,
  1524
  it is most important to pay great attention to exports. We said that transport aircraft should make a real contribution to our export trade immediately and in the future. Will the hon. Gentleman deal with that point?
  Mr. Crawley: I am just about to deal with that. I said that the second theme was Transport Command. Again, I think that there is a measure of irresponsibility in the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is really no good pretending that we can have all the forms of aircraft in Transport Command, or in any other command, that we should like to have. Nor is it any good supposing that we can have the sort of expansion that we are now producing in the Royal Air Force, plus all the forms of transport aircraft that we should like to have, and still allow neither element to have any appreciable effect on our economy.
  The fact is that there are limits within which we must operate, and we have to be very careful about our priorities. The thing that matters about Transport Command is to try to decide on the principles on which to plan. The most important consideration is not to have a Transport Command in which there are a lot of aircraft of different types which spend a lot of time on the ground doing nothing because they are only designed for special operations. There is no country in the world which can afford that type of Transport Command.
  I think that the only principle on which we can plan Transport Command in peace-time is to see that we are meeting as many of the demands as we possibly can which allow us to have a command which can be kept busy, and that, above that, we have a reserve partly in civil aircraft. It would be quite beyond our scope to have any specially designed aircraft. Instead, we shall have as large a variety as possible for emergency jobs which would also be required for general purposes. We must recognise that fact.
  I am not pretending that we have got everything we want now. The fact is that demands are going up, and we are, therefore, planning a larger Transport Command. We have not got all we want, but we feel that this is only a temporary phase, and we are planning and ordering larger and more various Transport Command aircraft for the future.
  We have not yet, in fact, ordered the freighter because the tests are not com-

  1525
  plete, and I want to say one particular thing about this business of ordering aircraft off the drawing-board. Because it succeeds once or twice, and because we hope it will succeed once or twice more, it would he a very great mistake to think that ordering aircraft off the drawing-board is an economical proposition. It is not. It might very well result in delaying what we want to get much longer than if we had gone through full trials.
  That is one of the reasons why, with an aircraft as important as the heavy freighter, which is a very vital part of the transport force, we do not want to order it off the drawing-board, especially as this aircraft has been flying for some time. We want it to complete its tests, so as to give a complete order and not to have a second series of tests and troubles. I cannot emphasise this point too much. By ordering off the drawing-board, we are apt to run into development difficulties at a later stage which might well delay production far longer than would otherwise have been the case.
  I should like to deal with a number of points which have been mentioned in the debate. First of all, there is the accusation of one hon. Member about the MIG.15. I repeat what I have said and sustain it. I said that our aircraft would give a very good account of themselves if they met any other aircraft. All the evidence we have had—and it is American evidence—shows that that is likely to be perfectly true. I gave some figures in the House the other day, but I will not quote them as I have not got them with me, and I might be wrong.
  Such experience as we have had in Korea has shown that fighter aircraft comparable with those of the Russians have acquitted themselves well against the MIG.15, and have shown themselves, in the hands of better trained pilots, to be superior to them. That is only a limited experience, and it would be wrong to deduce too much from it, but it justifies me in the contention that our aircraft and pilots are capable of giving a good account of themselves against any of these aircraft.
  We are just on the point of writing to three more charter companies to ask them to form three more auxiliary squadrons, and that will bring the number of reserve transport squadrons—and this supplements what I was saying about Transport Command and the necessity for a ready
  1526
  reserve which could be kept busy in other ways on civil work—up to four reserve transport squadrons in the near future.
  I was also asked about Moths for the A.T.C. At the moment we have a Service use for all the Moths we have, but, as the Chipmunks come into use, we may have some available and it will be possible for people to bid for them at reasonable prices. I was asked about the first photographic reconnaissance squadron to be equipped with modern aircraft, and I can say that I think it will be equipped by next spring with the Canberra, which we hope will be the ideal aircraft for the job, since it has a more than adequate range.
  Finally, I want to deal with the question of the accident rate. It has been suggested in speeches by hon. Gentlemen opposite today that the rate of accidents in the Royal Air Force is increasing alarmingly. The facts are otherwise. With the amount of flying increasing enormously, the fact is that the accident rate per number of hours flown is staying almost exactly the same. In regard to jet aircraft, it is steadily going down. The number of accidents per hours flown on jet aircraft is not only going down, but is well below what it was with Spitfires. This is a most interesting fact, and has a bearing on what was said by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) in his very-informed speech about training.
  I have no time to go into the question of what is the correct advanced training for jet flying, but I think the facts that I have given concerning the development side show that there is nothing very radically wrong with our present methods.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Could the hon. Gentleman perhaps tells us, since he has said that he is creating extra transport squadrons, whether he is making plans for the fitting of double doors and cargo floors, which is a point to which we referred concerning existing squadrons and commercial aircraft?
  Mr. Crawley: There are complete plans modifying aircraft in an emergency, but how far it is possible to do that without interfering with their civil use before the emergency is another matter.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.—[Mr.Bowden.]

  ACCESS TO HOUSE (COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE)
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Report [26th July] from the Committee of Privileges be now considered"—[Mr. Clement Davies]—put, and agreed to.
  Report considered accordingly.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Report."
  Mr. John Lewis: I propose to make a very short statement in view of the Motion which has been moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), and I would ask the indulgence of the House in this matter.
  I would ask the House to accept that whatever occurred on the night of the 3rd July arose out of my natural anxiety to get to the House for what I thought was to be a critical Division. I think, on reflection, that it was unwise to have reported this matter to you, Sir, at the time. I believed at the time that it was the proper course to take. Whatever action was taken subsequently, I want to assure the House that it was on the best advice that was available to me.
  At the time the incident occurred, I was extremely agitated because I thought I would not get to the House in time. When one is in a state of nervous anxiety, tempers are inclined to get frayed, and if this condition contributed in any way to the difficulties which arose I can only express my regret to the House.
  I do not propose to say anything on the evidence submitted to the Committee of Privileges, except to say that the evidence which I gave to the Committee was the truth.
  7.9 p.m.
  Mr. Paget: I feel that we have had some useful guidance from the Committee on the difficult questions of Privilege. As I understand the situation, as a result of their Report, anyone anywhere who deliberately obstructs an hon. Member travelling to this House offends against the Privilege of Parliament. The privilege of unobstructed passage is not co-extensive with the Sessional Order.
  1528
  On the one hand, the privilege is without geographical limitation; on the other hand, failure to comply with the Sessional Order will not necessarily, or indeed usually, involve breach of Privilege. The privilege is the negative one of not being obstructed. The Sessional Order imposes on the police the positive duty to facilitate progress, but failure to facilitate may be a breach of the instructions of the constable. Only in exceptional circumstances would it involve a breach of Privilege.
  The second point, which seems to be of importance, is that it is an offence against Privilege to take steps to bring before a court of law, either as a civil wrong or by the Executive as a crime, an act which is within the Privilege of Parliament. Equally, it is not an offence against Privilege to bring before the courts, as in this case, an act which is not within the Privilege of Parliament, and if the act is not within Privilege, then it does not matter whether a Motion has been set down or whether any other means are taken to bring it before Parliament.
  This case seems to be somewhat different from the Sandys case, but on this, for what it is worth, I agree with the Committee. Nevertheless—and I think this is important—both Parliament and the Executive should be careful to avoid conflict and not to impinge on the functions of the court, for when a claim of Privilege by whatever means has been raised, I think the police would be well advised —I put it no higher than that—to leave Parliament reasonable time in which to deal with the matter before they set the court in motion.
  I rather gather from the Report that in this case the Committee were under the illusion that the summonses had to be issued within 14 days. That is not the law. So long as the warning is issued within 14 days there is no limit on when the summons is issued, and I believe the police would have been better advised to have left a little more time to see what action Parliament would take than merely to chance that the claim of Privilege would prove to be ill-founded. Equally, I think that Parliament should be careful not to impinge on the function of the courts, and it is here that I think the Committee of Privileges have gone wrong. I believe that their Report would have

  1529
  been a far better Report had they accepted the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks).
  The Committee of Privileges is not a police court. It is not its job to try an issue, and it was not its job to try the issue between the hon. Member and the police. It has not the machinery to do so. The hon. Member does not have the opportunity to present his case. He does not have an opportunity to cross-examine. He does not even have the opportunity to hear the evidence which other witnesses are giving. There is not the machinery to try an issue, and yet that is what I feel the Committee of Privileges did here. Their job, as I understand it, is to report to us whether a breach of Privileges has occurred. They investigated the facts, and it was clear when the facts were investigated that this was not a complaint of obstruction, but a complaint of failure to facilitate, and that there would be no breach of Privilege.
  It seems that the Committee went quite outside their functions in trying the issue, rejecting the hon. Member's evidence in certain matters and accepting the police evidence when those matters were outside what it was necessary to find as to whether Privilege had or had not been established, and that in so doing they have impinged on the function of the law and have prejudiced the trial. I would refer particularly to two paragraphs in the Report. They are paragraphs 9 and 10, which the hon. Member for Broxtowe proposed should have been left out. They state:
  " When the hon. Member reached the gate (through which only one car can pass at a time), there were in front of him some cars at a standstill—waiting to be allowed to proceed to the right towards Kensington, but unable to do so as their route was blocked by cars which were also at a standstill which had come from the direction of Marble Arch and desired to turn right through the Gate into Bayswater Road. It was this congestion which the policeman had seen from his point in Bayswater Road.
  " The congestion had been caused by two cars coming together and getting their bumpers inter-locked. One of these cars came from the direction of Marble Arch and the other from the direction of Kensington. Both were going to go through the Gate into Bayswater Road. Both had passed the policeman on point duty in the Park…when they became interlocked. Before the policeman could intervene to stop them, cars had come up behind these two cars from the direction of Marble Arch and from that of Kensington. The traffic could
  1530
  not move until these cars were separated and freed. In the meantime the cars which had entered through the Gate into the Park which wanted to proceed towards Kensington were held up between the Gate and the congested traffic above described."
  In making that point, the Committee accepted the evidence of the police and rejected the evidence of the hon. Member, who said that there was no traffic there to obstruct. Frankly, I find it a little difficult to understand how this obstruction could have occurred. It is quite easy to see how a car coming from Marble Arch and turning right into the gate could become interlocked with a car coming from the Serpentine on a converging course. That is understandable.
  But unless those cars blocked the gate, I find it very difficult to see how they could have blocked the left-hand turn towards Marble Arch. This is a narrow gate through which only one car can go, but it is the end of a funnel, and unless it is blocked it is very hard indeed to see how one can block the left-hand turn. That was my impression, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Broxstowe was that those paragraphs should be left out as it was not the function of the Committee to try the issue between the hon. Member and the police.
  Today I had an interview with a gentleman who was driving his car along Bayswater Road when this incident happened. He told me he had no sympathy with the Labour Party—of that he was a bad judge—that he held the view that Members of Parliament ought not to have privileges over the rest of the community, and that the traffic should not he upset for their convenience. But he also told me that he approved of the police on these occasions giving accurate evidence and for that reason he had, when he read the Report of this Committee, telephoned to Mr. Lewis. He had seen the incident and he had got out of his car. Throughout the incident the whole of his sympathy was with the police, but when he read this evidence he felt that he had to come forward and say that he had got out of his car to look at it and that there was no traffic obstruction whatever in the Park at any time.
  I feel that if the Committee had had the advantage of that evidence—not that they would have rejected the police evidence: as I understand it that is not their job—they would have seen the wisdom of the

  1531
  hon. Member for Broxtowe in saying that they ought not to decide between two stories when they have not the machinery to test them one against the other.
  Sir Peter Macdonald: The hon. and learned Member said somebody rang up the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis), to give him a certain statement. Did he give his name, and has he confirmed his statement by letter?
  Mr. Paget: He rang up my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend brought him to see me in the House this afternoon. I took down a statement which he signed and which I have in my pocket. He was most anxious not to have his picture in the newspaper and that sort of thing, so I am not going to give his name, but I have the statement in my pocket. It may come up at a later time. I am saying no more than there was more in this question than the Committee had opportunity to see or means to decide and that they misconceived their functions when they converted themselves into a police court. That is all I am saying.
  One final point with regard to this question of Privilege in general. There was an article in "The Times" today deploring frivolous complaints of Privilege. With that article I cordially agree. I believe that this House has been bothered by a number of quite frivolous complaints of Privilege and that hon. Members should be very careful indeed not to be too particular. [An HON. MEMBER: "Touchy."] I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Hon. Members should not be too touchy about their rights. They should not be assertive and they should not bother this House unless the business of this House and its functioning have been seriously interfered with.
  Having said that, one must also mention the effect that this must have on the restraint of individual Members, and the very worst way of getting restraint is by attempting to obstruct the exercise of rights by Members. I believe this has been the experience of Whips, of the Leader of the House and perhaps even of the Chair. In this case, I feel that both in the Committee of Privileges and in this House there was absolute unanimity on one thing, and that was that my hon. Friend's complaint raised an issue of Privilege.
  1532
  That complaint did not turn out to have been well founded, but it did raise an issue of Privilege, and my hon. Friend was entitled to and did raise it. It was my hon. Friend's right to have that issue brought before the House, and I would respectfully say that I think a great deal of confusion has been caused by the use of the words prima facie.What I understand is the function of the Chair—and it arose when this was used by Irish Members for obstruction—is to rule whether the complaint, if well founded, raises the question of Privilege. If the matter raised by the complaint does not affect Privilege, then it does not have priority. If it does raise Privilege, it ought to have priority and be dealt with right away.
  I would suggest two other things. The first is that hon. Members should come to you, Mr. Speaker, for advice and should be advised as to whether you think and will rule that the question which they propose to raise affects Privilege or does not affect Privilege. I feel that if hon. Members were told that you would rule that it did not affect Privilege many of these matters might not be raised at all, which would be all for the best.
  I would suggest further that they should be advised, even when it does raise Privilege, whether you feel it is sufficiently important to bring before the House. I feel that by the restraint of hon. Members and with the assistance of your advice, which I know will always be available to them, the somewhat frivolous complaints of Privilege from which the House has been suffering will cease.
  7.26 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I shall detain the House for only a very few minutes, but I think a few things should be said having regard to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). The first thing I would say—and I say it with the greater sense of duty because I think it very likely that no member of the Committee of Privileges will himself speak—is that this House is very much indebted to the Committee for the great speed with which they have produced this Report. It cannot have been easy to sift so much evidence and to go through so much investigation in such a short time, and on my behalf, and I think on behalf of many hon. Members on both sides of the House,

  1533
  I should like to convey my appreciation of the efficiency with which they have acted.
  There is one word I should like to say, so that there may be no misunderstanding, about the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis). I completely agree with the statement that the question whether he is guilty or not guilty of the offences for which he will shortly stand his trial is a matter for the courts and is in no way determined by any findings of the Committee of Privileges.
  The two points on which I wish to reply to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton are these. The first was that he still thought apparently that some criticism should be advanced against the police. He said they would be well advised in such a case if they delayed the issue of summonses in criminal proceedings. I want to say in the clearest possible terms—I have already expressed this view in my speech on 24th July and I say it with renewed emphasis after reading the Report of the Committee of Privileges—that no complaint of any kind whatsoever can be made against the police for issuing summonses in this case.
  That brings me to the only other matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton on which I am respectfully going to differ from him entirely. He complains that the Committee of Privileges found various facts, and he pointed out that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) would have preferred fewer findings of fact to appear in the Report. I am certain of the complete good faith of the hon. Member for Broxtowe and I can understand that there may have been a difference of opinion between the majority of the Committee and the hon. Member for Broxtowe on how many facts it was necessary to find.
  The point on which the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton very much puzzled me was this—that never, I think, has a speech made it more necessary for the Committee of Privileges to find various facts than the speech he himself delivered on 24th July. I will not quote passage after passage but I would remind the House of the whole point of the submission that he, and I think the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), made in opposition to me when I was stating that matters of criminal law were wholly
  1534
  excluded from the Privileges of this House—that is to say, that this House does not claim any Privilege for its Members to be exempt from the ordinary process of criminal justice for acts done outside this House.
  His whole point in answer to me was that the facts in the present case were so bound up with the question of Privilege that they must be investigated by the Committee. The very facts claimed as constituting Privilege were the facts which the police were claiming constituted crimes. He did not hesitate on the last occasion to mention a whole number of facts relating to the summonses and other matters which were not known to the House from any other source. That having been done in debate in this House, it seems to me that the Committee of Privileges were bound, when we remitted the matter to them, to make findings of facts.
  I can quite see that there may be a genuine difference between the majority of the Members of the Committee and the hon. Member for Broxtowe as to how many facts it was necessary to find. I can see the difficulty, but not having served on that Committee myself I would not venture—and I think it would be improper to venture—on any decision between them. But I really do not think that we should ourselves say that the Committee of Privileges have done anything wrong at all in finding a series of facts.
  Mr. Paget: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman point out a single fact which I opined on 24th July and which was in issue before the Committee? They were all accepted.
  Mr. Strauss: It is all very well to say that they were not in issue and were accepted. What the hon. and learned Gentleman did was to make a statement of all sorts of facts, and he said that the facts which he was alleging constituted both the assertion of Privilege and the offences which were the subject of the summonses.
  Mr. Paget Mr. Paget rose—
  Mr. Strauss: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point. The House will judge whether my reply is a good one or not. It is essential that the Committee of Privileges should find a series of facts. The Committee of

  1535
  Privileges seems to me to have discharged their function bona fide and well, and I do not think that they should be subject to the criticism that has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman of finding too many facts.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas): Perhaps it would be desirable that this point which has been raised should be cleared up. I should like to refer to Question 85 on page 7 of the Report, when I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis):
  " I would like to be completely clear about this. The complaint is that the Police did not hold up the traffic to let you through at the moment you got to the head of the queue? "
  That is the whole gist of the complaint. The answer was:
  " Not at that moment. If there was any intention of doing that, then I would not have regarded it as being an obstruction "—
  and now come the vital words—
  " if conditions were such that it was not possible to let me through."
  In view of that answer, it was, in my view, inescapable that the Committee should decide whether the conditions were, in fact, such that it was not possible for the police to let the hon. Member through.
  Mr. Strauss: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his intervention which bears out that the Committee acted with complete propriety in finding a whole series of facts. I do not think that anybody who did not attend the Committee would have any inclination to criticise it.
  Reference was made to the Amendments of the hon. Member for Broxtowe. He challenged five paragraphs of the Report—paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 15 —not in toto,but certain passages in them which he would have preferred to be different. I should like hon. Members to glance at the Amendment which the hon. Member for Broxtowe moved to paragraph 15. They will find it at the foot of page xi. This was the final sentence of the Amendment:
  " There is no evidence that in this case the two police officers concerned did not act otherwise than reasonably and in good faith."
  He meant, of course, precisely the opposite. He has got one too many negatives
  1536
  in that sentence, which made his Amendment complete nonsense.
  Mr. Cocks Mr. Cocks (Broxtowe)indicated assent.
  Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member for Broxtowe, with his usual good humour and honesty, nods his assent. I dare say he did the drafting hurriedly. I only mention it because I think that, since we are being asked to prefer the Amendments of the hon. Member for Broxtowe to the considered views of the Committee, that might make us hesitate—
  Mr. Cocks: I would point out that this Amendment was written very hurriedly, and I never saw a proof of it. The word "acted" should be substituted for the words "did not act."
  Mr. Strauss: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I do not want to exaggerate the point. There is no cause for criticism of the Committee of Privileges for this Report. On the contrary, we are indebted to them—and when I say that, I mean all of them. I say further that there is no complaint of any sort that can be made against the police, and I would finally say that it was necessary for the Committee of Privileges to find a whole series of facts, and I do not think that any criticism could be levelled against them because they discharged that duty.
  7.37 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): In the four or five discussions which, in the course of the last 100 years or so, have taken place on occasions of this kind when questions with regard to the obstruction of Members coming to the House have been raised, the Home Secretary of the day has intervened to give his assurances to the House as to the attitude which the Commissioner of Police adopts towards the Sessional Order.
  I only wish to say this evening that the moment the Commissioner receives the Order each year he inserts in the Police Orders of the Day a paragraph drawing the attention of the chief superintendents particularly to the Order of the House and tells them that they are to instruct
  " the constables at all times to prevent or remove any cause of obstruction and afford every facility for the free passage of Members to and from the House at all times."
  As far as my observation goes, I think that the rank and file of the Police Force

  1537
  endeavour to carry out that very difficult duty with courtesy, tact and promptitude. I wish to assure the House that I am certain that that is the attitude of all ranks of the force.
  I should like to draw the attention of the House to the answers to Questions 228 to 231, inclusive, at the foot of page 13, where Constable Cordingley was being examined, and he was asked by the right hon. and learned Chairman of the Committee:
  "…have you any instructions at all with regard to Members of Parliament in your Division?—Yes, Sir.
  " Are they written instructions or verbal instructions?—We were told at the Training School."
  I want to bring home to Members of the House the importance that this particular point has in the training of a policeman, and that every man as he goes through the Training School has this particular duty brought to his attention.
  At previous meetings of the Committee I have been called to the Chair. On this occasion, as I am responsible to the House for some parts of the police duty in the Metropolis, it would have been wrong for me to take the Chair or to attend the Committee. I did not, therefore, attend, in order that there should be no feeling that the Committee had been improperly influenced by any bias which I might have.
  May I say this? During the course of the preliminary discussions before this matter was sent to the Committee of Privileges, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said that I gave orders to the police about issuing a summons. May I say that that is entirely wrong? No police authority may instruct a constable to issue a summons or to refrain from issuing a summons. That is a matter which the constable has to decide on his own responsibility. Of course, in the organised police force he makes his report, which is considered by the legal advisers to the force, and they decide whether or not a summons shall be issued.
  Sir Herbert Williams: On the rare occasions on which I have had a summons it has always been signed by a magistrate and not by a police constable.
  Mr. Ede: Undoubtedly the summons is signed by a magistrate, but the information upon which the summons is based is laid by a constable.
  Mr. Pannell: Is my right hon. Friend saying that a summons is issued on the authority of the constable? Is it not a fact that the information is laid by the constable before some superior officer—some officer very much above the rank of constable?
  Mr. Ede: That is exactly what I was saying when I was interrupted—that the constable reports and then the legal advisers to the police or a superior officer decide that information shall be laid and a summons applied for. Of course, it is within the discretion of a magistrate whether the summons is issued or not. I want to make it quite plain that the Home Secretary has not and never has had the power either to order the issue of a summons or to order that a summons shall not be issued.
  May I say this in conclusion? I do not want to deal with the merits of this case at all, but I am quite certain that we must all recognise this: that the problem of London traffic is a very heavy one for the police, and that it is only by their efficient regulation of the traffic that in many parts of London the traffic can move at all; and that when a policeman, in the due exercise of his duty, bona fide has to hold up a line of traffic so that another line may proceed, he cannot, I think, be held to be guilty of obstruction for, if he was not there to regulate the traffic, the probability is that neither line of traffic would be able to move at all.
  I am quite certain that we have to apply the Sessional Order of the House in accordance with the facts and circumstances of our time. I desire to assure the House that the police of the Metropolis will at all times do what they can to see that the Sessional Order is carried out, not merely in letter but in spirit.
  7.46 p.m.
  Sir Herbert Williams: I should not have taken part in the debate but for the state of confusion in which the Home Secretary was on the subject of who issues a summons. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Home Secretary quite definitely said that it was the policeman who issues the summons, but

  1539
  that is not in the faintest degree true. That is why I raised the point.
  There is one satisfactory feature about this Report which at least should be put on record. These privileges do not arise out of the Sessional Orders. If hon. Members will read through them they will see that they apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. The Sessional Order has no significance at all; it is merely a reminder to the Commissioner of the Police in a particular area which affects us more than other areas. The Sessional Order has no importance; the Report makes it quite clear.
  We have not solved this problem, that we have two sets of law operating. One law makes it an offence for a policeman to take certain actions. I have no complaint at all here; on any occasion on which I have wanted to get to the House I have been given every facility. I drove in solitary state down Whitehall recently when it had been cleared for a Royal procession. I have no complaint at all. I just said where I wanted to go and the barrier was raised, and I drove in great state down Whitehall. The taxi man was much impressed.
  But let us take the serious point which the Committee did not face. We declare that privileges are not personal to us. They are the privileges of our constituents; that is the fundamental thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They are the privileges of our constituents in the sense that we cannot discharge our duty to our constituents—that is the fundamental basis—without what are called the Privileges of Parliament. I notice that the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) laughs, but he has only to dig back into history, to which he belongs—
  Earl Winterton: I hope my hon. Friend will not mind my making the observation that it is sometimes rather difficult to avoid laughing at his remarks. I hope he will not mind my laughing. I know I ought to take him seriously.
  Sir H. Williams: On this occasion, as far as I could make it out, the bulk of hon. Members laughed with me. [HON. MEMBERS: "No; laughed at you."] We are in this conflict.
  1540
  We have over many years proclaimed that Members have a certain privilege of access to this House. Circumstances might arise, when an hon. Member is making use of the privilege which this House has conferred upon him, in which he is obstructed. The question is this: in which order do the two crimes occur? Because if the policeman obstructs me, he has committed the first crime; and if. later, I exercise my rights against him and he charges me with a crime, we have the problem of which crime occurred first. [Laughter.] This is a perfectly serious point; I wish hon. Members would sometimes apply their minds to the fundamental problem at issue, a problem which the Committee have not faced and have not answered.
  The present position is that in future no hon. Member approaching this House will know what his rights are and no constable will know what are his rights in relation to an hon. Member. Although the Committee have taken infinite trouble, I do not think they have solved the problem which hon. Members and the policeman would have liked to have had solved.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  " That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Report."

  LADY MELLOR (COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE)
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Report [18th July] from the Committee of Privileges be now considered—[Mr. Ede]—put, and agreed to.
  Report considered accordingly.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Report."—[Mr. Ede.]
  7.49 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: I apologise for troubling the House, and I will try to keep my speech as short as possible. I rise in order to put a point of view concerning what may be described as the minority report to the Committee's Report. I use the term not in its technical sense because, as the House is aware, there can be no minority report to the Report of the Committee of Privileges as there can be in the case of a Royal Commission.

  1541
  At the outset, I want to emphasise certain facts. First of all, I should like to say that I am speaking only for myself and that I rise only for the purpose of supporting the principle and the contention which, as I have already said, is embodied in my Amendment to the Report which I will presently read. I shall not ask the House to divide against the Report, because my desire is to cause the minimum of controversy and friction. One can see that the Committee was not united in its view, and I should like to make it clear that it was purely accidental that the vote on my Amendment happened to be defeated on party lines, for I am sure that neither side was actuated by party motives.
  Before I come to the gist of the proposal, I should like to make this further observation. Anything that I say is not intended to reflect in any way upon the Chairman of Committees. It will not be improper in the circumstances for me to say that his dignity, confidence and fairness in the Chair I personally greatly admire. I should like to say also that in a sense I am not concerned with the position of the Chairman of Committees or Lady Mellor, because I want to put forward a view which was only defeated in the Committee by a narrow majority, and which seeks to establish at least in general terms the rights and privileges of the Chair, and also of its criticis outside the House.
  Assuming that the principle of my Amendment were accepted, I should regard it as a minor point whether Lady Mellor did or did not infringe that principle, especially as the Committee recommended that no action be taken against her. I admit that someone in that case might ask, "How can the principle be accepted if no Division is called?" I would reply that my purpose would be to secure a discussion for a rather complicated reason, for which I ask the leniency of the House if I do not explain it very clearly because it is very complicated.
  It is not an improper disclosure of the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges, of which I happen to be the senior member in point of service, to say that the Committee bases its Report on submissions to the House of precedents, views of Erskine May, decisions by, or debates in, the House and what one might
  1542
  almost call the obiter dictum of Mr. Speaker. These precedents, decisions and statements by Mr. Speaker stretch back literally for hundreds of years. For example, a matter was quoted in a Report of the Committee of Privileges at the time which was given to us by one of the former officials of the House, which stretched back to the 17th century. For all those reasons and because of the manner in which the Committee based its decision, I think it is useful to have a discussion on a point, even if it were a minority one, which seeks to modernise the relations between us and those outside bodies or individuals who might comment adversely on its judgment.
  I am afraid at this point I must trouble the Committee to read the Amendment which I moved to the Report. It is on page 6 of the Report and it says:
  " Your Committee are of opinion that adverse comments on Rulings given by or actions of Occupants of the Higher or Lower Chair, whether implicit or direct, do not necessarily constitute a breach of privilege. If they did, whenever a Motion criticising the action of the Chair is discussed in the House, as has often happened in the past, the Press would be procluded from expressing sympathy with the supporters of the Motion because, by so doing, they would be criticising the Chair. Such a curtailment of public comment on the proceedings of this House would be contrary to the whole spirit of the modern relationship' between Parliament and the Nation. On the other hand, a criticism, whether by a Newspaper or an Individual, charging the Occupant of the Chair with a partiality or venality or unfitness for his Office should, in your Committee's opinion, be treated as a breach of privilege."
  I then go on to say that we did not consider that Lady Mellor came within that category, and then I added:
  " We think it right to add that the considerations urged in the first four paragraphs of this Report are confined to the position of outside Bodies and Individuals who are not members of this House and do not apply to Members of this House."
  My contention, which I will put in the most succinct form—we have plenty of time tonight and I would invite discussion on them—is that the Amendment protects the Chair against charges which would deprive it of its due authority to perform its duties and high functions.
  I should like to go on to the next point, and here I imagine I would receive assenting cheers from both sides of the House. The House has never accepted

  1543
  the doctrine of infallibility for Mr. Speaker when in the Chair, or the Chairman of Committees, the Deputy-Chairman or any temporary Chairman. The power to criticise any of these functionaries or remove them by Resolution of the House is completely incompatible with such a doctrine. It is open, as the House knows, at any time to put down a Motion criticising any of the occupants of the Chair, and it is open to the House to remove a Chairman by a Motion of the House. The doctrine of infallibility—and I do not use that phrase in any way offensively to Members of a certain religion—has never been applied to occupants of the Chair of this House.
  To come to this immediate case, I suggest that the matter at issue is, did Lady Mellor charge the Chairman with lack of faith, unworthy motives or partiality? I submit to the House that she could not have been guilty of a breach of Privilege unless this House asserts what I claim to be an entirely new principal—that no one outside may support a Motion on the Paper criticising the action of the Chair or a Motion about the discussion on Clauses 1 and 2 of the Finance Bill. If anyone takes a contrary view to that, it would be impossible for any person or any newspaper to comment at all by way of support of any such Motion on the Paper. I do not think that that would be tolerated by public opinion.
  In the previous discussion we heard a great many things about Privilege, and, speaking as the senior Member of this House, I say that it is all very well to assert the Privileges of this House, but there are such things as the privileges of the public. We have to consider them, and it would be a great breach of the rights of the public to say that in no circumstances could they support any Motion which criticised the Chair.
  To support my case, I say that the Committee by a small majority were wrong in holding that Lady Mellor had committed a breach of Privilege, and I should like to refer to certain of the findings and to the evidence. First of all, I should like to draw the attention of the House to two cases which it was suggested were precedents. They are on page 3 where it says:
  "The words which have been so held have however usually been of a stronger character
  1544
  than the words now under consideration. The nearest precedents appear to be the word 'disgraceful' used of a ruling from the Chair in 1938 by 'The Daily Worker,' and the words 'Nothing short of a public scandal' applied to a ruling from the Chair in 1888 by Mr. Conybeare."
  In the case of the "Daily Worker." it was described as
  "a gross breach of the privileges of the House."
  I will come in a moment to the action which which the House took, which was exactly nil. The House took no action. They merely recorded their opinion.
  My contention is that I cannot see any real and justifiable link between the charge against the Chair of giving a "disgraceful" ruling, or one "nothing short of a public scandal," and the comment made by Lady Mellor that a ruling of the Chair was "very deplorable." Lady Mellor qualified that statement by saying that it was a Ruling within the rights of the Chair.
  I will be very frank and be entirely non-party, and will say that I admit that one sentence at the end of Lady Mellor's statement which formed the subject of the reference to our Committee might have been taken as meaning that the Government improperly influenced the Chair's decision. The sentence to which I refer is that in which she was reported as saying:
  " It seemed a particularly bad thing when a government with such a small majority was in power refused to admit full and free discussion."
  It might equally be taken as meaning that in the circumstances the Government themselves should have made it clear that they wished for the fullest and freest discussion by supporting the points of order asking that the Amendments be called.
  Here I want to say something which I hope will not cause any perturbation. It is quite a useful thing to bring out facts which are normally concealed from the eyes of the public. It is a fact, as most hon. Members of the House know—whether we like to recognise it or not—that the Government and the Opposition can, through the usual channels, usually induce the Chairman to give more latitude to particular Motions than the strict interpretation of the Standing Orders sanctions. We know, again and again that Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Logan: Do I understand the noble Lord to mean that influence can be brought to bear upon the Chair?
  Earl Winterton: If the hon. Gentleman would listen—
  Mr. Logan: I did listen to the noble Lord.
  Earl Winterton: I say that it is a fact, whether we like to recognise it or not—I will put the matter in a different form, a more simple form—that by general agreement in the House and if representations have been made through the usual channels, discussion is frequently allowed on resolutions, Amendments or Bills which is perhaps not strictly within the Rules of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Again and again we have heard Mr. Speaker say words to this effect: "I think it will be for the advantage of the House if such and such a thing is done." We know that it has happened again and again. I turn from that point to the next—
  Mr. Logan: An imputation on the Chair.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Will not the noble Lord admit the great distinction between allowing latitude in a debate and the Chairman allowing discussion on Amendments when it is out of order?
  Earl Winterton: That is not the case—but if the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the matter which, as I say is non-controversial—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not."] Well, non-party—I am perfectly prepared to follow it further. I would say this, that in my experience—I do not think anyone would deny it—the Chair does have regard to the feelings both of the Government and of the Opposition in respect of certain matters. It may be only coincidence, but in fact, after the Resolution to which reference was made, there were, both on the Committee stage and on the Report stage, very many more Amendments called than I remember on most Bills in the past. It is quite proper that the Chairman should have regard to the feelings of parties.
  Mr. Logan Mr. Logan rose—
  Earl Winterton: Whether or not Lady Mellor—
  Dr. Morgan: On a point of order. This is a very serious matter,
  1546
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This is a definite charge that, when the Government and the Opposition are agreed, certain things are allowed by the Chair which would not be allowed to an ordinary Private Member. I really must confess that I ask for your Ruling.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I listened to the noble Lord, and since I was appointed Deputy-Chairman nothing of that character has come to my notice. [Interruption.]
  Earl Winterton: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway who just said: "The noble Lord is telling the truth." The real point is—I am sure that both sides of the House will wish to approach this matter with the utmost frankness, and I hope to have some influence on the minds of those who may have had a different view previous to the discussion—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan). wish to make a speech?
  Dr. Morgan: I am qualifying the noble Lord's speech.
  Earl Winterton: In all the years I have been in this House, I have never asked anyone to qualify my speech, and if I wanted help the last quarter I would look to would be the hon. Member for Warrington, and that would apply to most of his colleagues as well.
  The point with which we are concerned in this discussion is whether or not Lady Mellor said anything which she intended to be a charge of non-impartiality against the Chair. I will ask the House to look at the answers which she gave on the subject in answer to a question which she was asked. On page 2 of the Minutes of Evidence, it will be seen that one of the witnesses said:
  " At the conclusion of speech by Lady Mellor, several questions were asked, but I did not take shorthand notes of those, or answers. I recall, however, one question was asked and that, in reply, Lady Mellor emphasised the fact that when Major Milner was in charge of the conduct of proceedings in the House of Commons, he always showed himself to be scrupulously fair and completely without bias."
  It is right, in justice to Lady Mellor, to quote what she said in evidence on Monday, 16th July. She said:
  " I wish to make it quite clear that in my opinion Major Milner is always impartial in his conduct of the Chair."

  1547
  She said again:
  " I did question Major Milner's judgment but, never his impartiality."
  She repeated that she emphasised once again that Major Milner's judgment was the one particular thing that she criticised, and not his impartiality.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: Would the noble Lord make it clear that these remarks were not reported?
  Earl Winterton: These are the answers she gave to a question put to her on 16th July. She had already said, long before there was any Motion before this House, when asked a question at the meeting, that she did not intend to impugn Major Milner's judgment. I quote again:
  " I recall, however, one question was asked and that, in reply, Lady Mellor emphasised the fact that when Major Milner was in charge of the conduct of proceedings in the House of Commons, he always showed himself to be scrupulously fair and completely without bias."
  That was said at the time of the meeting. It was quite understood that whether Lady Mellor committed an error of judgment in making her comment upon the Deputy Speaker or not, she did not intend to question his impartiality.
  In the light of the statements Lady Mellor made both at the time and subsequently in reply to the questions of the Committee, I find it impossible to believe that. Lady Mellor did comment on the judgment of the Chair but she did not criticise the impartiality of the Chair, but I hope that hon. Members will agree with me that those outside this House have a perfect right to make comments adverse to the Chair provided that they do not infringe the principles which I have already enunciated. I am glad to see assent from some hon. Members opposite. If this House thinks that it can at this time of day assert rights which it really has never asserted in the past in respect of the Chair or anything else, it will get itself very much wrong with public opinion outside.
  Mr. George Wigg\: I find myself in considerable agreement with what the noble Lord has said, but he ought in fairness to the Committee of Privileges to point out that the claims he is making for Lady Mellor cannot be substantiated by any evidence. Those statements were not reported.
  Earl Winterton: Yes, they were. All I have read out is to be found in the evidence.
  Mr. Wigg: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. What I meant was that none of this is supported by reports in the newspaper. They are all things that Lady Mellor might well have thought up afterwards. I am not saying that she did so but that she could have done. We ought to draw a distinction between reports of what she said supported by the reports in the newspaper and what Lady Mellor may have thought up afterwards.
  Earl Winterton: Perhaps I have not made myself clear. The hon. Member is in error. The first of my quotations was from a statement made by one of the witnesses, and I will read it once more. The witness was Mr. William Strange, and this is what he said:
  "At the conclusion of speech by Lady Mellor, several questions were asked but I did not take shorthand notes of those, or answers. I recall, however, one question was asked and that, in reply, Lady Mellor emphasised the fact that when Major Milner was in charge of the conduct of proceedings in the House of Commons, he always showed himself to be scrupulously fair and completely without bias."
  I remember "scrupulously" in some reference to "bias."
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: That was not inserted in the newspaper. That is the point.
  Earl Winterton: I have never heard a more extraordinary argument than that. This is the statement of a witness. The witness said he was convinced that Lady Mellor had used these words, which showed that she did not intend to reflect upon the partiality of the Chair.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: The noble Lord does not follow my point. This does not derogate from the credibility or the strength of the statement. What was put to the noble Lord was that the statement was not in the newspaper. He rather led the House to believe that it was.
  Earl Winterton: Nothing of the sort. Lady Mellor or any other person whose statement is complained of cannot be held responsible for what appears or does not appear in a newspaper. What she is responsible for, and what every person against whom a complaint of Privilege has

  1549
  been made is responsible for, is the statement made. I claim that on all the evidence—I am sure that I have all my colleagues with me—after the most careful examination of the witness we were convinced that Lady Mellor did give this answer to the question. I hope I may leave the matter there.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: On a point of order. On a number of occasions the noble Lord has admitted that it is not in order in this House to discuss proceedings in the Committee of Privileges except in so far as they appear in the Report. The noble Lord is going quite outside what I have always understood to be the rules of Order, for he is asserting that every Member of the Committee accepted the evidence.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Earl Winterton: To save the time of the hon. Gentleman and the House, I will put it in a different form and then the hon. Member will not wish to raise a point of order. It would appear to be obvious from the questions asked of this witness by the Members of the Committee that particular pains were taken to find out if his recollection was right and that the Committee accepted it. There is no breach of order in saying that.
  Mr. Fletcher: Will not the noble Lord agree that there is nothing in the Report of the Committee to suggest that they necessarily accepted that evidence?
  Earl Winterton: There is nothing to the contrary. What I am advocating to the House is that my Amendment, which was supported—
  Mr. Wigg: Will the noble Lord give way?
  Earl Winterton: I think I might be permitted to continue. I have never known more interruptions in a single speech.
  Mr. Wigg: This is a very important point. If the noble Lord will turn to paragraph 105 on page 6 of the Report he will find that Mr. Strange's evidence on this point was prompted by a telephone call from Lady Mellor to the editor of the newspaper asking the editor to see —I am not complaining of this—if Mr. Strange could remember a question that was asked of Lady Mellor at the end of
  1550
  her meeting because there was no record of it. I find myself in some difficulty in accepting the noble Lord's point of view that Lady Mellor is supported by what Mr. Strange said.
  Earl Winterton: I gather that the hon. Gentleman means that he doubts the credibility of Mr. Strange. He is entitled to do so if he wishes, and I accept it. As he made a very friendly reference to the rest of my speech, I hope he will now permit me to continue. I accepted the witness's evidence, and I believe that my colleagues did, but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, I am not entitled to say that. If they had not accepted the credibility of the witness they would have put other and more searching questions.
  Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Does not the noble Lord agree that a distinction may properly be drawn between a qualification extorted by perhaps an indignant questioner—we do not know the nature of the question—and the content of the main body of the speech? It seems to me, looking at the Report of the main body of the speech, that the juxtaposition of the last sentence and the penultimate sentence can only indicate a direct reflection upon the partiality of the Chair.
  Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a perfectly fair question. However, never before in my 47 years in this House have I known what it was to stand in the witness box. Nevertheless, I will answer the hon. Gentleman's cross-examination question to the best of my ability by saying that I do not think he is right. For one thing it is unlikely that it would have been a hostile question, for it was delivered at a small garden meeting at which some 30 Conservatives were present. I believe the reply was given in all good faith by Lady Mellor, and I believe that Mr. Strange, the reporter, whose memory some hon. Members seem to doubt, was correct.
  I want to conclude by asking some questions. I hope that some of the vociferous—I will not say that, because the House has been very good to me—some of the more persistent questioners opposite, when they address, the House will answer the points which I now propose to put.
  What purpose is served by saying that a breach of Privilege has been committed

  1551
  if no action is taken? It is true that we have a precedent for it. It is true that in the case of the "Daily Worker," which described the attitude of the Speaker as disgraceful—which I should have thought any fair-minded person would agree was a breach of Privilege—a more serious charge could have been brought than in respect of anything Lady Mellor has said, but no action was taken. What is the purpose of this? Is it intended as a warning or to enhance the dignity of the Chair? I should have thought that the failure in 1938 to take any action against the "Daily Worker" did not impress either the public or that paper.
  Now I shall say something which will cause universal dissent on all sides I entirely agree with the attitude of many newspapers and individuals outside this House in regard to Privilege questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am astonished, delighted and heartened beyond belief to get those cheers and I am most grateful. I think the House is getting far too Privilege minded—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and if any person wishes to guy our proceedings, all they have to do is to get up every time after Questions and say, "Mr. Speaker, I desire to raise a question of Privilege."
  There are at the present time up there in the Press Gallery 30 or 40 persons who are taking down the proceedings of the House. That is contrary to the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker would presumably say that it is a prima facie case of Privilege and it must go to the Committee. It could be done day after day.. In this matter the House could quite easily make itself supremely ridiculous and, far from enhancing the dignity of the Chair or of anyone in the House, it would have exactly the opposite effect.
  I know the House generally dislikes a story, but I cannot resist telling this one because I once broke a convention. It was solemnly impressed on me by my Whips when I first got into the House that it was the right and privilege of hon. Members of this House to wear a hat. Without it, they would get into trouble. The only place where they need not wear hats was in the dining room. Every hon. Member had to walk into the House with his hat in hand and put it on immediately he sat down. Some of us decided
  1552
  that it was out of date and fantastic and we decided to break it. People shouted when we came into the Chamber, "Hat, hat." We said it was ridiculous to say that this was either a right or a Privilege. I suggest that some of these cases of Privilege are equally as ridiculous as the idea of wearing a hat.
  If I were to get on to the subject of procedure, Sir, you would properly call me up. However, I must just call attention to the comic opera arrangement by which one can only raise a point of order during a Division by putting on a hat. Anything more childish can hardly be imagined. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] I must add this, too, that it is awfully funny, with a Left wing Government in power for the last six years, that the House should have had more cases of alleged breach of Privilege than at any time in its history. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is not here, because he is the principal protagonist in the matter.
  I beg the House not to be too sensitive in the case under discussion. I do not ask hon. Members to reject it, but I ask them not to be too sensitive now or on future occasions. Because there is a danger that they might create ridicule or resentment against the House as an institution by the effect on public opinion outside, to whom in the end, in our democracy, we must always be responsible.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: I find myself in almost complete agreement with the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for the first time since I have been in this House. I think we shall lay ourselves open to damaging repercussions of public opinion if we go on raising questions of Privilege like some of those we have had during the last few months. I have questioned the noble Lord on some of the points he has put before the House, not because I have doubted what he said—I did not have the advantage of hearing the evidence—and I am quite prepared to accept what the Committee of Privileges say in their Report. I merely wanted to draw a distinction between the point at which I agree with the noble Lord and the point at which I would require further evidence before going as far as he went.

  1553
  I think the question of Lady Mellor should not come before the House of Commons because I do not think that what she says is as tremendously important as all that. I do not say that in an offensive way. If Lady Mellor wants to criticise Parliament, it is a good thing for Parliament, and I do not think that the Chairman of Ways and Means suffers very much if Lady Mellor says unkind things about him.
  I have said some unkind things to the noble Lord, and he has said some to me. I do not regret anything I have said, and I am sure that he does not regret what he has said. It is quite likely that the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord may be the last speech of his we shall hear in this House. I hope he will not misunderstand me if I say that I hope it is. I understand he is retiring from this Parliament, and I hope we are going to have a General Election before the end of September so that we can give the Government a larger majority than we have at present.
  If, however, the noble Lord is going to leave us, I should like to say that so far as I am concerned he will go with every expression of good will. I regard him as a completely honest and honourable man. Like myself—(Laughter.] There should be a full-stop after man. Like me, when he hits he does not mind whether he hits above or below the belt. I understand that in the last Parliament the noble Lord was sometimes confused with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). One of them was called "Arsenic" and the other "Old Lace." I know the right hon. Member for Easington better than I know the noble Lord, and I am not quite sure who is "Arsenic" and who is "Old Lace."
  I am quite certain, however, that the noble Lord tonight, in his last speech in this House, has done great service to the House of Commons, particularly if we listened with care to the advice he gave us. If we have a new Parliament, as I hope we shall in the course of the next few weeks, the new Parliament will add to its dignity and to its lustre if every hon. Member reads what the noble Lord has said and takes it to his heart. With those words, I wish the noble Lord the best of luck in the future.
  8.29 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). The House is indeed indebted to the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for his assistance in these matters on so many occasions, and particularly on this occasion. His speech divided itself into three parts: first, the question of what is the Privilege of the House and its extent, and what would constitute a breach of it; second, what were the effect of the words used by Lady Mellor, and whether they constituted a breach of Privilege as we understand it. His last point was, what is the purpose of having found that there was a breach and then to say that we advised that the House should take no action?
  With regard to the first point—that is the one where the noble Lord has done a real service in bringing it to the attention of the House—there is, quite obviously, practically no difference between any of us. Too many questions of Privilege have been raised in this House. Members are getting much too sensitive, much too ready to claim Privilege when really the question of Privilege does not arise.
  In the last Report of the Committee of Privileges which was before the House prior to this one, we pointed out that the Privilege of individual Members is really only the Privilege of the House itself, and that we only derive any rights we have in as much as we are part of the House, and nothing more. The same, then, applies to you, Sir, and to the other Officers of the House. What we are anxious about is that we should maintain the position of the House and its dignity, and that you should be protected in your position.
  The noble Lord put before the Committee the Amendments to which he has already referred. May I again refer to them and say that with the statement he then made, I think we were all in agreement? This is what appears on page vi of the Report from the Committee of Privileges:
  " Your Committee are of opinion that adverse comments on Rulings given by or actions of Occupants of the Higher or Lower Chair, whether implicit or direct, do not necessarily constitute a breach of privilege.' "

  1555
  They do not constitute such a breach. Comments can be made upon you, Sir, and your colleagues. They might be a breach of Privilege, but are not necessarily a breach of Privilege. With that statement of the noble Lord, I think we are all in agreement.
  Page vi of the Report continues:
  " If they did, whenever a motion criticising the action of the Chair is discussed in the House, as has often happened in the past, the Press would be precluded from expressing sympathy with the supporters of the motion because, by so doing, they would be criticising the Chair.' "
  That is quite a fair comment upon the noble Lord's prior statement.
  "'Such a curtailment of public comment on the proceedings of this House would be contrary to the whole spirit of the modern relationship between Parliament and the Nation.'"
  I do not think it was necessary to add even the word "modern."
  Earl Winterton: No.
  Mr. Davies: I repeat:
  " 'Such a curtailment of public comment on the proceedings of this House would be contrary to the whole spirit of the modern relationship between Parliament and the Nation.' "
  Again, I absolutely agree. Then we come to the noble Lord's next remarks:
  " On the other hand, a criticism, whether by a Newspaper or an Individual, charging the Occupant of the Chair with partiality or venality or unfitness for his Office, should, in your Committee's opinion, be treated as a breach of privilege.' "
  Quite right. Does the comment go to this extent: that it charges the occupant of the Chair with partiality? If it does, then it is a breach of Privilege. If it charges the Chair with incompetence—that the occupant is not fit to be there—it is a breach of Privilege. It is the duty of the House to protect its Officers against such complaints which are made outside the House.
  Now, I turn to the finding of the Committee—that is to say, of the majority. I quote now from paragraph 7 on page iv:
  "Your Committee had to consider whether the words which Lady Mellor admitted using and which she stated were correctly reported in the 'Sutton Coldfield News' constituted a breach of privilege. While Your Committee are not prepared to go so far as to say that any comment made upon the Chairman in his conduct of the business of the House, even though such comment be adverse, is necessarily a breach of the Privileges of the House…"
  1556
  That is exactly the same point as the noble Lord made. I am not at all sure that his words were not better than ours.
  "…undoubtedly a comment upon the conduct of the Chairman with regard to the business of the House which would be construed reasonably by those who hear or read such comment as charging him with partiality is a breach of the Privileges of the House."
  There we are again in complete agreement in trying to state the law in regard to the action of the Chair and comments upon it. On that point I think we were in complete agreement with the noble Lord and others. Where did we differ? It was in applying our minds to the subject of the charge of breach of Privilege.
  The noble Lord has referred to the evidence that was given by Lady Mellor. I will come to that in a moment. What was before us? If the House will turn to page 3 they will read:
  " The Committee of Privileges, to whom the Matter of Complaint made upon the 18th day of June last, of the speech of Lady Mellor reported in the Sutton Coldfield News newspaper of the 16th day of June last, was referred "—
  That was all that was before us, what was reported in that newspaper, and it will be found that the words are there set out in paragraph 2:
  " The other day Major Milner (Deputy-Speaker) made a ruling and though he was within his rights Lady Mellor thought that, in the present circumstances, it was a deplorable one. He refused to permit certain amendments to the proposals to increase certain taxes to be discussed which normally would have been discussed. It seemed a particularly bad thing when a government with such a small majority was in power refused to admit a full and free discussion."
  That was what we had to apply our minds to, and the question we had to put to ourselves was, in our opinion, was there a charge of partiality against the Chairman and would that be regarded by any reasonable person giving it a reasonable construction as a charge of partiality in his office? To anyone who reads it reasonably, what construction would he put on it? We came to the conclusion, as a matter of fact, that anyone reading that and giving it a reasonable construction would say that it in effect came to a charge of partiality on the part of the Chairman, and that was why the majority of the Committee came to its conclusion.
  Having come to that conclusion, then comes the question of what we should report to the House should be the penalty.

  1557
  A penalty might be a very grave one for a breach of Privilege, a very grave one indeed. The House has, for example, sent for a person who has committed a breach to stand at the Bar to be reproved from the Chair. When we come to consider it, we had to consider the question of the wrong and what had really happened.
  As the noble Lord said, this was a small meeting, and the report was also in a rather small local paper. Then Lady Mellor, at the meeting itself, which unfortunately was not reported—the readers of the paper did not know that—when the question was put to her, said quite definitely, "I am making no charges"—I cannot remember the exact words" against the Chairman, he has always been completely impartial," or something of that sort.
  We bore that in mind, and she came before us and repeated that. Under those circumstances, we said that this case could best be met by reporting to the House that no further action should be taken. That is why that was done. We had to consider, was there a breach of Privilege? Was there a real charge here against an Officer of the House with a duty to the House to protect it? Giving the best construction we could we came to the conclusion that there was. Having come to that conclusion, we then said that, taking everything into consideration, we did not think anything further should be done.
  It was only on the question of that construction, of what would a reasonable person think in reading that, that we differed from the noble Lord. I am perfectly sure the noble Lord and his colleagues were just as conscientious in coming to their conclusions as we in coming to ours. It is a matter entirely for the House. We thought that we had given the one and only construction that any reasonable man would. That really is the whole position.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Pannell: The first thing which ought to be said by anyone representing the City of Leeds in this House is the pleasure we feel at the confidence of the Committee of Privileges, and indeed of the whole House, in the conduct of Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It seems to me a trifle ungracious that all those people who have spoken on behalf
  1558
  of the Committee of Privileges have not make that remark before now.
  It seems to me that the noble Lord, in addressing the House, and indeed the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) seemed far more keen to acquit Lady Mellor than they did—
  Earl Winterton: The hon. Member has just made an attack on me.
  Mr. Pannell: I will give way if the noble Lord will let me finish my sentence. It was characteristic that he did not give way to me when I wanted to intervene on this point previously, so he might wait a minute.
  Earl Winterton: Now will the hon. Member allow me?
  Mr. Pannell: The noble Lord was making a great plea that anyone should be allowed to attack the Chair, that there was nothing infallible about the Chair. The only person in this House that is infallible is its Father.
  Earl Winterton: The hon. Member has made a most uncalled-for attack on me. It is obvious that he has not listened to what I said. He said that I paid no tribute to Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I quote my words to him—I read them textually from my notes—that nothing I said was intended to reflect in any way upon the Chairman of Committees, whose
  "dignity, competence and fairness in the Chair I personally greatly admire."
  I call on the hon. Member to withdraw, from a sense of fairness, the quite unwarranted statement he has made.
  Mr. Pannell: I can only say that the noble Lord's statement was rather over-larded with special pleading for Lady Mellor rather than with any praise for Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Earl Winterton: The hon. Member said that I paid no tribute to Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Mr. Pannell: Anyone who knows—I am speaking here as one who is not a member of the Committee of Privileges—the feeling occasioned in the House after Mr. Deputy-Speaker had ruled in the way he did on the Finance Bill will know full well that there was a good deal of feeling on the other side of the Chamber. No

  1559
  one doubts that, nor has the Committee of Privileges held otherwise.
  We at least—I hope I carry the House with me—should express our confidence in the Chairman of Ways and Means. He had a considerable record before he came to this House, and he has been the occupant of the junior Chair for many years. I think that a colleague of his from the same city should say these things, and they should be said in emphatic terms at the beginning of his speech.
  I am not one of those people who ever raise the issue of Privilege here; therefore I am not under the strictures of the noble Lord in that regard. This matter of raising matters of Privilege seems to be confined to one or two Members on either side. I do not think that the question raised by matters of Privilege is popular with the whole House.
  Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Is that really fair? Can my hon. Friend mention a single instance of an hon. Member in this Parliament having raised two points of Privilege? It is true that in the course of debates there are one or two outstanding spokesmen upon these issues, but my hon. Friend has done less than justice to his colleagues by saying that there are some of them who consistently initiate questions of Privilege.
  Mr. Pannell: I accept the statement that there are one or two outstanding protagonists and leave it at that.
  It is proposed to say that we have found that there is a breach of Privilege and that we intend to do nothing about it. The noble Lord asked what purpose was served by a decision of that sort. I think that a certain purpose is served. It is noteworthy that some people, especially the Communist Party, like to refer to places such as this, and to this place, in derogatory terms, referring to it as the "gas chamber." It is that sort of general contemptuous allusion that can easily be shared and easily taken up. Some of us felt even the other day on a much deeper matter of Privilege which was brought to an end rather peremptorily that the purpose of the House was not well served, because there was not an adequate debate upon it.
  It is rather remarkable that throughout the Report of the Committee of Privileges there is shown a marked party line. I
  1560
  wish to refer to page 11, paragraph 197. Here we can see the sharp distinction which arises between something said by Lady Mellor at that meeting and what was talked about afterwards. Lady Mellor made a flat statement which reflected upon the Chair. The Committee of Privileges agreed upon that.
  Taking that with the fact that it is joined to a reference to the narrow majority of the present Labour Government, it indicates that it had a political connotation. But she suggested that she qualified that statement. She remembered that there was a question asked of her later on, and in her reply she paid tribute to the Chairman of Ways and Means. I will read what she said. I think that this refers to a conversation between Mr. William Strange and his editor. Apparently, Lady Mellor telephoned on the morning after the publication of the paper and said that it was a fair report. She was not blaming the newspaper. Then:
  " I think he said, 'I am glad to tell you' "—
  this is the editor speaking to the reporter—
  "'that Lady Mellor does not question the accuracy of the words that have been reported. The words were correctly reported.' "
  Then the witness says:
  " Yes, I remember that. Then did he say anything else to you about her wishing to know about anything else?"
  This was a prompting as to whether she asked any question.
  " Yes, he did say again, I think: Are you quite sure "—
  this is the editor jogging the reporter's memory.
  " Are you quite sure that you have not got any shorthand notes of remarks in which she said (at least she thought she said) that the Deputy-Speaker was quite impartial in the position of Deputy-Speaker? Yes. Now, after he said that to you, what did you do?"
  And here comes the priceless thing.
  Earl Winterton: This is the Home Secretary asking questions.
  Mr. Pannell: That is right. I am assuming that hon. Members are following the Report. Now we come to the priceless thing. This is the reporter answering:
  " I think I then thought that over, and I drafted in my mind some words that I thought were what she might have used, and what I thought I heard."

  1561
  I suggest that that is a masterpiece, and I think we are reasonable to think that possibly some questions were thought up after the event.
  Mr. Pickthorn: This is not a part of the business in which I was interested, but since the suggestion is being made, not for the first time, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read out the last sentence of the Committee's Report in which the Committee who had the advantage of seeing and examining, cross-examining and re-examining the witnesses, came to a perfectly definite conclusion in this matter. I hope that if the hon. Gentleman wishes his argument, as I am sure he does, to be fair, he will now read the last sentence on page iv.
  Mr. Pannell: I cannot withdraw what I have said. I have quoted the evidence, and I ask all hon. Members here who have taken sufficient interest to read the Report to agree that whether we accept the Report or not is a matter for the House. The Committee has reported, but surely we have a right to judge the evidence in our own way. I say that that evidence indicates that there were considerable second thoughts on the part of Lady Mellor about what she had said. If hon. Members read the evidence, they will find that no copy had been produced of the letter which is referred to in the evidence, and that this sort of thing came up subsequently.
  I think our opinion on this matter would be the opinion that would have been given by the readers of the newspaper when they first read the Report, and that was that an attack had been made upon the Chairman of Ways and Means for a political motive, and that it was part of an attack on the Labour Party.
  Earl Winterton: How terrible.
  Mr. Pannell: It is not terrible at all. After all, why bother about the fact and suggest that the lady had a high opinion of Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Why suggest at all that she had a high opinion of him? I think she expressed contempt for him, and in terms with which many hon. Members opposite agreed. As a matter of fact, she expressed that view in a way which was followed up by hon. Members of the Committee when they took up sharp party divisions in the Committee itself following
  1562
  the Ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  Earl Winterton: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has made a charge against members of the Select Committee on both sides of taking sharp party decisions. That is what I understood him to say, although, perhaps. I am wrong It is known that members of a Select Committee vote according to their judgment and not on party lines, and I think that what the hon. Gentleman has said will be resented as much by those who sit on his side of the House as it is by those who sit here.
  Mr. Logan: Further to that point of order. Is it quite right for the noble Lord to get up because he finds fault. [Interruption.] This was an extraordinary thing. I am putting it to the Chair. You are not competent to judge, because you laughed.
  Earl Winterton: I would call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that the hon. Member, after I put a point of order to you, has made an attack upon you and says that you are not competent.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With regard to the noble Lord's point of order, I do not think the hon. Gentleman was imputing any motives.
  Mr. Logan: I was making no attack on you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My remarks were addressed to the noble Lord.
  Mr. Pannell: We have only to turn to the proceedings of the Committee to see that a remarkable coincidence—
  Earl Winterton: I think you are a bit cracked.
  Mr. Logan: On a point of order. It would appear to me that an alienist is required here. I do not want to dispute the merits of the mug that is cracked, but I want the noble Lord to withdraw his remark "You are cracked."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have no objection.
  Mr. Logan: I want the noble Lord to withdraw it; otherwise, I will remark that you are barmy.
  Earl Winterton: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman overheard a sotto voce remark of mine. If he chooses to make offensive attacks on hon. Members on this side of the House, he must not be too sensitive if he gets a smack in the jaw back.
  Mr. Pannell: As I understood the noble Lord, he objected because I said that members of the Committee of Privileges appeared to vote according to their party affiliations. I am sorry, but that is a matter of fact, and not one of argument. Every vote appeared to find hon. Members in exactly opposite camps according to their party affiliations. I do not think there is any point in boggling about this. I think it adds considerable weight to what the noble Lord said on this matter of Privilege. It is being thought of less and less in an objective way. It gets responses across the Chamber dependent upon the persons raising the matter and upon the individuals concerned. I think that the whole matter of Privilege, together with many other things in this House, wants looking at again and wants to be re-codified.
  I do not want to refer to the matter we debated earlier this evening, and it would be out of order if I did, but nobody would say that the approach to this House and such other Privileges was the same as when the first Speaker asked for right of access to it. All we have to do in a case like this is to decide whether the House has confidence in the occupant of the Chair. The noble Lord would have us believe that it is quite a simple matter to move the Chairman from the Chair. I do not think it is. I, of course, have not had his experience of that sort of thing, but obviously once we put anyone in the Chair he speaks in our name in every sense, and consequently he is vested with an authority and a prestige which we have to concede to him as we concede it to chairmen of other bodies, corporate or otherwise.
  The value of this Report of the Committee of Privileges has surely been that it has exonerated the Chairman of Ways and Means and has not called his conduct into question. He did not effect the debate or precipitate it. It was the party opposite which challenged those Rulings. People in the country would not attack the Chair unless they were encouraged to do so by the speeches of hon. Members opposite, who argued all one afternoon on the Deputy-Chairman's interpretation of the Amendment, which they did not even carry to a vote.
  Therefore, I think that many of us on this side will take this incident at its face value. I do not quarrel with the fact that Lady Mellor is a good Conservative, like
  1564
  her husband, and expresses her point of view. I only say that we have got to be very sure that in doing that she does not give the impression that the Deputy-Chairman is the tool of this party.
  It so happens, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you, if I may say so with respect—though I understand the antecedents of the occupants of the Chair, however lurid, should not be referred to at all—have a political past and a political present, just as has my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Major Milner). But we bring you both to the Chair as men of honour to advise us, and that is all we are concerned with. The charge here today is that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East, did not act in accordance with the traditions of his office. The Committee has exonerated him from such a charge, and I do not think that anyone in the House would challenge the fact that he is a man of honour and acts with integrity and probity in discharging his duty.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I should like if I may to ask one or two questions about this Report, because in some respects I do not think it is as plain as it might be. The fist one may seem perhaps very technical. I do not know which right hon. Gentleman is going to give us his guidance later on but, whoever it is, I should like him to say whether on reflection a "breach of Privilege" is the right expression to use here.
  I do not assert the opposite, but I should have been inclined to have thought that upon the premises and findings of the majority, and therefore of the Select Committee, I should have been inclined to think upon those premises and findings it ought to have been not "…constitute a breach of Privilege" but "constitute a contempt." I should have thought that that would have been the more accurate phrase. In all this matter accuracy is of so great importance that if upon reflection it is conceded there is something in this view I am very tentatively and I hope modestly putting forward, I hope that may be considered.
  As my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said earlier in the evening, Privilege depends always on an immense string of precedents, none of them ever quite accurate, because, as the

  1565
  hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) reminded us, the things to which the words apply always change between one generation and another; and that being so it is very important to get clarity where we can. With respect to another thing the hon. Member for Leeds, West, said, I think he was under a misunderstanding when he spoke of re-codification. There has never been codification of Privilege; in my understanding of Privilege—though I do not claim to have any learning in it now—I had some learning in it once—it is in essence incapable of codification, and we ought not to think of that as one of the possibilities. But it is not always incapable of clarity, and should have all the clarity it can. This, what seems to be a pedantic point, of what is a case of Privilege and what is contempt, is important if, as I think, clarity is what we ought to seek.
  The second, perhaps smaller, point is the question of finding whether there is a breach of contempt and then recommending to the House that nothing should follow from that finding. I have not refreshed even the remains of my own learning. I have not even searched Erskine May or still less looked at my own notes or at other books. I hope this is right, but I shall not be ashamed if it is wrong. The Solicitor-General will correct me if I give a false impression, that the "Daily Worker" case was the first case of deciding there had been a breach of contempt but no action was to follow.
  I am inclined to think that is true, but what I am certain is that both in weight and number the precedents both of action and argument in the past were on the whole on the side that the House ought not to find a breach or contempt unless it meant to go on to consequent action.
  Mr. Clement Davies Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Pickthorn: It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) to shake his head, but if he will look it up I think he will find that is so. Certainly Mr. Gladstone, certainly Mr. Pitt, and I think it may fairly be said all the most respectable of the great figures of Parliamentary history who have talked on this, have talked in the sense I have indicated. I am laying my flanks open rather,
  1566
  because I have not provided myself with references, but the House will do me the justice that I do not generally assert these things without being reasonably certain.
  Here I come to a matter in which we are in very great difficulty. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery said what was before the Committee, and all that was before the Committee, was the paragraph printed, I think, the fourth down, on page iii.He said that upon any constructions that paragraph must be taken to be, to put it roughly, so offensive that notice must be had of it. I think I am putting his argument correctly. My trouble with that last sentence is that there is not any possible construction of it. I have read it upside down and inside out.
  Dr. Morgan: What about right way up?
  Mr. Pickthorn: And right way up first. I generally begin that way, unlike my compatriot, my slightly overdressed, compatriot. But finding no way of construing it that way, I set it on its head, and inside out, and still could not construe it. I say this in praise of the ingenuity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery, that when he read it out he found an entirely new way of reading it that had not occurred to me at all. He read it, as far as I can imitate his intonation, and the whole argument turns on intonation so it is going to be rather difficult for HANSARD, as follows:
  " It seemed a particularly had thing when a Government with such a small majority was, in power, refused to admit full and free discussion."
  I never thought of reading it in that way.
  Mr. C. Davies: Nor did I.
  Mr. Pickthorn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly does not listen to himself as carefully as I listened to him. That really is the way in which he did read it, and I appeal to such hon. Members as were here when he spoke to say whether or not that is the way in which he read it. It almost seems to make sense if it is read like that. In no other way that I read it can I make any sense out of it at all.
  This is admitted by Lady Mellor to be a fair report of what she said, and

  1567
  I think it is very modest of her, because I can hardly believe that it is exactly what she said. We all in fact utter sentences which are not grammatical or construable at the time and which, if written down exactly, cannot be construed afterwards. Perhaps I have done it myself in the last five minutes or so; if not, I am sure to do so if I go on for another five minutes—no doubt, because I am not such a good speaker as hon. Members opposite. That may happen to anybody.
  But we are then told that only these words were before the Committee, and also that the effect upon the audience must be determined not only from these words but from the other words, the answer to the question. I think that on reflection hon. Members opposite may agree that a great deal of doubt has been thrown not quite fairly upon the other words. I do not know whether the other words were exactly reported, but this I do know, that the Committee apparently unanimously found that they were. They say quite plainly that "Lady Mellor paid a tribute to the Chairman," and so on. There is no doubt at all that we cannot conduct this argument except upon some agreed view of the facts, and I do not see how we can have any agreed view of the facts which is not the agreed view of the Committee.
  It may be unfortunate that the second part was not reported, but it seems to me quite certain that anybody who says that the effect upon the readers of the paper depends upon the failure to report that, is really rather estopped by holding the printed words against the speaker, using the first part of the words only, and against the speaker; especially when the first part of the words are not construable. I defy anybody to find exactly what were the words said from what the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery says were the only things they had to consider.
  I understand the noble Lord does not propose to divide the House, and I do not know that I propose to divide the House. I think the whole matter was a very small matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "I think it was a small matter. I am entitled to think that.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)indicated assent.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I am very glad to see that I have the agreement of the right hon. Gentleman who leads the House. Other hon. Members are entitled to opposite opinions. I think that the whole thing was a very small matter. It is a misunderstanding to suppose that the words put the Chairman of Ways and Means in the dock, so to speak, and that the Chairman has been exonerated by this Report. I think that is nonsense. That point of view was put by the hon. Member for Leeds, West, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman needed exonerating, nor do I think this the appropriate way in which to exonerate him. That was not in question. It seems to me a misunderstanding of the matter.
  I think it was a very small affair. I do not think in strict language it was a breach of Privilege. If it was anything, and if the House is doing anything by reprobating it, it seems to me that what it is doing is exercising the right which, I think we may now say it quite illegally and unhistorically usurps, of acting like a court and punishing for contempt. I think that is what the House is doing now, if it is doing anything.
  For all these considerations I could have wished that this Report had not been presented to us in this form, and although perhaps it is not worth the bother of a Division, I think it is rather regrettable and not very accurate and, I do not say it is disreputable, but not carrying conviction. Lastly—and this is my very last sentence—the immediate point is that the effect of the sentence as reported is not construable.
  Mr. Logan Mr. Logan rose—
  Mr. Pickthorn: I cannot give way now. That fact seems to me to make the general tenor of the Report, if it is not a breach of Privilege to say so, rather meaningless. Now I shall sit down.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Home Secretary.
  Mr. Logan: I wanted to ask a question of the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn).
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I called the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Logan: The hon. Member for Carlton gave way to me.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I called the Home Secretary.
  9.12 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I think the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) has focused effectively some of the essential points in this discussion. I shall try to reply to the three points which I think he endeavoured to put before us clearly. On the first point, whether the word "privilege" is the proper word, may I say that I was inclined to agree with him in drafting the Report in the first place that the proper phrase was that it was contempt? Erskine May, however, says this—and I would listen to an argument from the hon. Member for Carlton against Erskine May, but I should not venture to advance one myself:
  " Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege."
  That is page 235, and it gives a reference back to page 126, where he lists the breaches of Privilege, and that confirms that point of view. If I could have the hon. Member's attention—
  Mr. Pickthorn: The right hon. Gentleman has it.
  Mr. Ede: As far as the wording of the Report was concerned, I think on the authority which is generally quoted we took a sound line. The second point was, why did we do nothing? I am bound to say that there are more precedents than that which the hon. Member quoted for doing nothing, and I have one here which was raised by Mr. Grenfell, who was at that time Member for the City of London, who called attention to some comments by the "Evening News" on a ruling of Mr. Fitzalan Hope, afterwards Lord Rankeillour, who was Chairman of Ways and Means:
  " That the passage in the 'Evening News' newspaper of Friday last constitutes a libel on the Chairman of Ways and Means and is a gross breach of the privileges of this House."
  After a short discussion the Motion was carried and no further action was taken. I can quote another case within my own recollection. Towards the end of the last House, the hon. Member who now represents the Northfield Division of Birmingham (Mr. Blackburn), raised a question of Privilege with regard to the "Daily Worker," which he alleged had misreported him. The present Foreign Secretary up to that time had been a member of the Committee of Privileges.
  1570
  He suggested that there was really nothing in this, and he did not think it was a subject for the Committee of Privileges. However, the House decided that it should go to the Committee, and I eventually replaced my right hon. Friend and took the Chair at the Committee.
  We had to report then that any report of the proceedings of the House was a breach of Privilege, but I am quite sure that a great many hon. Members would be very disappointed if the newspapers took fright at that and declined to report the speeches of hon. Members on the ground that they might get into trouble for publishing a report of the proceedings of Parliament. We could not but report to the House that this was a breach of Privilege, but I am sure that even the persons most opposed to the "Daily Worker" did not want to bring the editor to the Bar of the House and reprove him or decide on some more dreadful punishment. Therefore, we had to recommend to the House that no action should be taken.
  I agree with what has been said from both sides of the House, that there has been too much sensitiveness on this question of breach of Privilege. The trouble is that when there is a technical breach of Privilege and the Committee charged with the duty of examining a statement to see if it is a breach of Privilege finds on technical grounds that it is, the Committee is then confronted with the problem of what we can do in modern circumstances to the person who has been guilty of it.
  That is one reason why I think individual Members should be somewhat chary about raising breaches of Privilege which are recognised from the first as not being too serious, because they land the Committee of Privileges with a difficulty of recommending to the House what effective action should be taken. In this case the Committee came to the conclusion that there was a breach of Privilege by an imputation on the impartiality of the Chair. They had, therefore, to report accordingly to protect an officer whom we have placed in a very difficult and responsible position.
  It is admitted that if a reflection on the Chair for being partial could be allowed and found not to be a breach

  1571
  of Privilege, one might then get a wearing away of the protection of the Chair, and people who were guilty of doing something more serious would then say, "But in the Lady Mellor case you found there was no breach of Privilege. Therefore, since we only did a little worse than that, we also ought not to be found guilty of breach of Privilege." That, of course, is on the assumption that the Committee was right in finding that there was a breach of Privilege.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I could see the whole of that argument if the case were proceeding against the printer and publisher, but if it be held, as it is held by the Committee, that Lady Mellor subsequently, though not in the course of the same speech but in the course of the same proceedings, used words that showed she did not intend to reflect upon the Chair, I do not see how on that argument it could be found that Lady Mellor was guilty of a breach of Privilege.
  Mr. Ede: I was going to deal with the point, but I did want to emphasise first of all the point with which I had been dealing, that it is perfectly justifiable to find—and there are plenty of precedents for it—that there is technically a breach of Privilege but that it is not anything that the House should visit with any penalty or any greater expression of displeasure than the mere finding that there is a breach of Privilege.
  The hon. Member also said that he could find no sense in the final sentence of the quotation. Hon. Members who have read carefully the evidence will know that, in fact, the reporter had to explain to us that it was not a correct rendering into oratio obliqua of the words actually used by the speaker. I think that the words actually used by the speaker and that were heard by the audience and the reporter were a little stronger in criticism and linked the matter up with the Chair more effectively than the words which were printed in the paper.
  Mr. Pickthorn Mr. Pickthorn rose—
  Mr. Ede: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I do not try to dodge any part of the argument. I am coming to the other part.
  I think, therefore, that we must assume that at that stage of the meeting, at any
  1572
  rate, what the hearers had heard was something that, in the view of the Committee—which was reinforced by our getting the actual words that were spoken, which the reporter read out to us from his notes—was a reflection on the Chair.
  I am bound to say—here I think I speak for the Committee—that we did not think that the final statement made by the lady did remove entirely from the minds of the hearers any impression that they might have formed, and that was one reason why we came to the finding that we did. I do not accept the suggestion that there is some bad faith about this matter, and that this was an afterthought.
  The reporter, if I may say so, was a very unsatisfactory witness because, at one stage, he told us he had taken no notes of Lady Mellor's answer to the question and then, at a later stage, said he got the first part. Then the wind was blowing, and I understand that some birds were singing —it was apparently a very enjoyable garden party—and the reporter did not go on taking his notes apart from these sentences in the speech. He was not a very satisfactory witness, and at the end of the day he did not understand that he had altered the sense of the speech by the correction he made in transcribing it into oratio obliqua.
  I have tried to deal with three distinct points that were raised by the hon. Member for Carlton. I think that the House would be ill-advised to attempt to do anything more than declare this to be a breach of Privilege. I hold very strongly that we do not want to have brought before us here extempore speeches made by unpractised orators—I hope I am doing the lady no injustice by saying that: she was a very pleasant witness—at small meetings, and reported in obscure local papers. I do not think I am saying anything unkind to the speaker in saying that.
  This House is a very great place—it can be a very great place—and we ought to be very careful about how far we allow speeches of the kind that I have just tried to describe to be made the subject of questions in this House. It is unfortunate that in order to protect ourselves and the House—perhaps it would be better to say "protect the House and the future"—when a technical breach of Privilege is brought to our attention we have to take notice of it.

  1573
  We have to declare as breaches of Privileges things which I am sure were not uttered with any thought of the dignity of the House in the mind of the speaker. If we took down the reports of speeches made in certain places in the county of London and the City of Westminster at week-ends and went through them to find out whether or not there was a breach of Privilege in them, I wonder how many we should find were quite clear of that charge?
  I presided over the Committee, and they gave great attention to this matter. I think the noble Lord was rather nearer right than he was given credit for when he disputed the fact that the division on the Committee was on real party lines. I hope I am not saying anything to which my colleagues would object. There was a long discussion on the Committee before we passed the Resolution which was moved, as the Report reveals, by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), to which the noble Lord moved the Amendment which he read to us. If in the end the division took place so as to put the Members of two parties on one side and the Members of another party on the other, we did not at any rate start off or conduct the discussion on any party lines; there was a genuine effort to get to the sense of this sentence, to the obscurity of which the hon. Member for Carlton has directed our attention.
  Dr. King: Will my right hon. Friend explain why there was even a party division in the Committee on paragraphs 2 and 3, which are mere statements of fact.
  Mr. Ede: I do not know why the division occurred there. Perhaps I ought to say, in explanation, that I was placed in a very difficult position. On the first day when we passed the Resolution there was a clear majority, and the Chairman did not have to vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) suffered a bereavement, and the consequence was that he was unable to turn up the next day. I then took advice as to my duty as Chairman, and I was told that the Report must not stultify the decision that the Committee had already reached. I think I should probably have voted the same way as I did, whether I had received that advice
  1574
  or not, but it was clearly my duty to see that the Report did not stultify a decision which had been reached.
  I agree with several hon. Members on both sides of the House who have suggested that this is not a large case. I am quite certain that there was no real malice or attempt to bring the House into derision in the speech that was made. But I am quite certain that the effect on the minds of the hearers of the passage referred to us must have been to make them think that the conduct of the Chair in this matter was not one of impartiality. That being the case, the Committee came to the conclusion they did, and they regarded all the surrounding circumstances as warranting them in suggesting to the House that, although a breach of Privilege had been committed, we might very well leave the matter with that declaration.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames) rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is the House not ready to come to a decision? [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.
  An Hon. Member: Leave it where it is.
  9.31 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: An hon. Member below the Gangway says, "Leave it where it is." May I explain why I cannot? At the moment the House is engaged in a kind of judicial process. We are being asked to approve a report of the Committee of Privileges finding that a certain person outside has been guilty of a breach of Privilege.
  Those of us who, having listened to the whole debate so far, are not convinced that any breach of Privilege has been committed, are bound to say so because we are concerned [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I do wish hon. Members opposite could get the idea of Divisions out of their minds for one moment when they are performing a judicial duty. It is our duty to the dignity of this House to make quite sure that we do not do an injustice to any individual outside, and it is a serious thing to find that any person has committed a breach of the privileges of this House.
  Secondly, if we are, as I believe, creating a new precedent in the law of the Privilege of this House, we have to

  1575
  be careful about the creation of a new precedent which may lead to untold consequences in the future. Therefore, may I say as briefly as I can why I do not agree with the very fair and reasonable speech of the Home Secretary? First, I entirely agree with him, as against my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), that there are precedents for finding a breach of Privilege coupled with a decision to take no further action. On that point I think my hon. Friend is wrong.
  Mr. Logan: On a point of order, Sir, I should like your Ruling. It is now being argued by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that the decision reached by the Committee is not an accurate one or one that ought to be accepted. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in dealing with the case?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes. I have not heard the debate, but one is entitled to disagree with the Report of the Committee.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I may respectfully say so, Sir, the Motion before the House is "That this House approves the Report of the Committee." It is surely material, if one does not approve of the Report of the Committee, to say why. Indeed, I know no other purpose for the House being in Session at this moment.
  I agree with the Home Secretary on this point. Of course, I agree with his second general proposition, that reflections upon the Chair may—and I stress the may—be punished as a breach of Privilege or, as my hon. Friend more accurately put it, as a contempt of this House. But of course the point, and the point where we are creating a precedent, is the degree of reflection upon the Chair which can or cannot constitute such a breach of Privilege. Where I thought the right hon. Gentleman left the House, in deciding aye or no whether to approve the Report of the Committee, in a wholly unsatisfactory position, was when he referred to those words in the newspaper report, which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, are so difficult to construe as they are set out in the Report of the Committee.
  What the right hon. Gentleman said was this: that in fact he believed that the words used on the particular occasion were a little more severe than the
  1576
  words set out in the Report. That leaves the House in a wholly unsatisfactory position. The words set out in the Report were the words which were referred to the Committee on, I think, 18th June. They are the words which the Committee themselves quote in their Report to the House. Surely, we must judge—it is the only thing on which we can judge—whether we think there is here a breach of Privilege, not on some unspecified words which in the Home Secretary's opinion were a little more severe, but on the words which the Committee have themselves reported to the House.
  The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, referring to the page in the reporter's evidence in which the reporter—I did not have the advantage of hearing him as the right hon. Gentleman did—very fairly indicated some doubt as to the phraseology used. But if the Committee of Privileges came to the conclusion that the words used were other than those set out in the Report, they should have inserted them in the Report. That would have made the task of the House, in deciding the infinitely delicate matter as to whether there is here a breach of Privilege, a good deal more easy than it is now.
  I agree also with the Home Secretary that this is a very small matter. Like every hon. Member who has spoken, except the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), I think it is a great pity that this matter was ever raised as a question of Privilege, and I think so for two reasons. Any hurt that these words may have done to the House or to the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means has been infinitely increased by transferring words spoken to 35 women in a garden, and reported in a newspaper which is not, perhaps, one of the colossi of Fleet Street, into what has become front page news in every national newspaper. That has been the direct consequence of raising this matter as a question of Privilege, and I regret it.
  I regret it, secondly, because I feel, like most hon. Members, that most people outside feel that it does not add to their respect for this House that the House, against the sombre background of world affairs at present should be concerning itself at all with Privilege matters of this kind.

  1577
  I think that our responsibility in this quasi-judicial function of ours is in this case heavier than in any other Privilege case in this Parliament or the last, and for this reason. Here we have a case in which that much respected Committee the Committee of Privileges only decided that there was a breach of Privilege by five votes to four, and in which every Clause of their Report, except the purely formal one, was carried solely on the casting vote of the Chairman. That must impose on the House in its examination of this matter a much bigger responsibility than when the Committee which is entrusted with these matters comes with their unanimous report to the House.
  We are bound to respect the views of the four right hon. Gentlemen who found themselves in the minority in this issue and who voted for a minority report, finding that there was no breach of Privilege. We are bound to take this into consideration, and we cannot therefore give to this Report the more or less tacit acceptance which, I hope, we generally will give to Reports from the Committee of Privileges when they find themselves able to come to a unanimous or nearly unanimous conclusion.
  If there is here a breach of Privilege, we are forced to consider what comments upon the actions of the Chair are permissible and what are not. I am not sure that I altogether like the words in the Report by which the Committee do not appear to have come to a conclusion aye or no, as to whether any words spoken in criticism of decisions of the Chair would necessarily be free from the imputation of Privilege. The words are used in the second sentence of the seventh paragraph and seem to leave it apparent that in the minds of the Committee it is at least possible that any criticism, however temperate and well expressed, of a decision of the Chair might constitute a breach of Privilege.
  Mr. Logan: I want to know, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. Member is putting forward. Is he arguing that if there is not a unanimous agreement there should be no decision of the House?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will want to know, and I shall want to know.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I may respectfully say so, the hon. Member for the
  1578
  Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) would have a better chance of knowing what I was about to argue if he would allow me to argue it.
  Mr. Manuel: I would be grateful—
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry that I cannot give way at this point. The House will recall that I generally give way, but I have been submitted to two attempts in the guise of a point of order in the course of what I hope will be a brief but must necessarily be a closely knit argument. I intend no discourtesy to the hon. Member, but I cannot be continually distracted from it.
  The rightness or wrongness of this decision bears on the degree of criticism of the Chair which is committed. We have here a case in which the lady herself in evidence to the Committee summed up her intention. It is at Question No. 223 in the Report—
  " May I just emphasise that I did question Major Milner's judgment, but never his impartiality."
  It is my submission that it is open to persons outside in respectful and courteous terms to question the judgment of decisions of the Chair so long as no motive is imputed. It is important that that view should be expressed and put as fully on record as possible.
  I do not think it is necessary to argue at great length why that should be so, but I am bound to remind the House how much more touchy we seem to be getting in these days than we used to be. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a precedent in 1928, or 1929. I have one here from 1st March, 1929, when it so happened that the person concerned was a lady—now, unfortunately, no longer with us—who as a right hon. Lady sat on the Front Bench opposite in the early part of the last Parliament—Miss Ellen Wilkinson. She wrote an article, an extract of which appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 1st March, 1929, on the subject of the then Chairman of Ways and Means, in which she said:
  " This contempt for the Constitution of the House of Commons was shown in a marked way by the Chairman of Ways and Means in a ruling of so partisan a character that it would take one's breath away, if the Tory Government had not, by this time, almost exhausted one's capacity for indignation."

  1579
  She went on to say:
  " What kind of ruling is this? What possible respect can be left for a Chairman who so completely flouts the Rules of Order? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1929; Vol. 225, c. 2334.]
  The House may be interested to know what happened. A Motion that this was a contempt of the House was moved by Mr. Grotrian. As the right hon. Lady—then the hon. Lady—was not present, the matter was adjourned to the 4th March, when the hon. Lady said that she desired to express her regret that she had made the criticism outside the House, instead of according to the established custom of the House. She made no withdrawal of the substance of her words, and regretted only their occasion. The Motion was withdrawn and no action taken.
  The words were wildly beyond anything attributed to Lady Mellor. I quote that as showing that this extreme touchiness —in this case in respect of the Chair and, in others, in respect of hon. Members —for which there is no authority in precedent is in itself a lamentable tendency. How far is it to go? If there is not to be a reasoned criticism of the Chairman of Ways and Means, can it be made of the Chairman of a Standing Committee, or of a Chairman of a Select Committee and so on? How far does this kind of thing go? If it is to go so far are we not derogating very considerably from the rights of the public to comment on matters of public controversy?
  One is bound to recall that the particular criticism made was not so irrelevant to political controversy at the time as to give any indication of malice. The criticism was made in a speech on the very day that the particular decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means referred to was the subject matter of a Motion placed upon the Order Paper of this House by the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot go into the merits of that, but all I am concerned to say is that it was a matter then of public interest, public concern and public controversy to which reference was made.
  The House must be consistent on this matter. The words used—the first part of the alleged breach of Privilege—were "very deplorable." It so happens that in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 24th July, c. 2065—it was in point of fact in the
  1580
  early hours of 25th July—the hon. Member for Oldham West (Mr. Leslie Hale) referred to a Ruling of yours, Mr. Speaker, as an "unfortunate observation." Although on the point being taken up, the Chairman of Ways and Means ruled that out of order, the hon. Member for Oldham, West, was neither called upon to nor did he in fact withdraw those words. The words are very similar, "unfortunate" and "deplorable," in connection with a Ruling of the Chair.
  It really would be highly inconsistent for this House to allow one of its own Members, on the Floor of the House, so to criticise a Ruling of the Chair while it punished as a breach of Privilege somewhat similar words spoken by somebody outside this House. Really the House must apply, in its power to punish strangers for breaches of its Privileges, rules at any rate no more arbitrary than it applies to punish its own Members who use similar expressions about the occupants of the Chair.
  I do not need to repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) said about the other words alleged to constitute a breach of Privilege. I tried to construe them. I think that they could reasonably bear two constructions. They could bear the construction that the Government had refused full discussion or they could bear the construction that the Chairman ought, in the selection of Amendments, to have taken into account the narrowness of the Government's majority. Either of those interpretations is, in my respectful submission, consistent only with those words not amounting to a breach of Privilege or anything of the sort.
  I hope that we are not going to use this immense engine of Privilege—a vital instrument in great matters for the defence of this House and of its ancient rights —about words of this sort; that we shall not suggest that the occupants of the Chair of this House are so vulnerable to criticism that they cannot discharge their functions—their highly important functions—if criticisms of this sort are permitted by outside persons.
  I believe that all occupants of the Chair are too far above such weakness to be upset or perturbed by words of this sort. The only justification this House has for Privilege, the only basis of Privilege, is the right to protect the

  1581
  efficacy and proper conduct of our own proceedings.
  No one outside a madhouse would suggest that these words affected or could possible affect the Chairman of Ways and Means or any other occupant of the Chair in the discharge of their duties. For that reason it seems wrong to find that this is a breach of Privilege, and I should like to see this Report rejected.
  9.49 p.m.
  Mr. A. Edward Davies: In four years' service on the Committee of Privileges, I have never previously intervened in a debate, but I think that after the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) some reply is called for, because a considerable attack has been made after the explanation of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  We are all most anxious that matters of trivial or seemingly trivial importance should not have the attention of this House and the publicity of this great institution if in the event it serves no useful purpose. We all agree that there may be something in the present position and in the suggestion that hon. Members are becoming increasingly sensitive to criticism, and so on. But the subject we are discussing tonight is not a trivial matter. It is a matter which involves the occupant of the Chair.
  Under Standing Order 31, we invest the occupant of the Chair—Mr. Speaker himself or the Chairman of Ways and Means —with the great honour and the great responsibility of directing our affairs. As I understand the Standing Order, it lies within the power of the Chair to select certain Amendments which may be put on the Order Paper, and no question can be asked of the occupant of the Chair. We need not go into the whole background, but I suggest that the words used by Lady Mellor in this case undoubtedly cast a reflection upon the Chair.
  I think that they must be related to the last few words in the report which seem to identify the Chairman with the Government—with a party Government. They seem to show conclusively that he was in the pocket of a certain party and that he was in fact showing partiality. This is not a small matter. Once the impartiality of the Chair is called into question, the whole process of democratic
  1582
  Government and discussion is brought into disrepute.
  I suggest that this is something more than the report in an obscure newspaper of a small meeting in a garden. From our point of view, it is a matter of definite duty to say that, from our experience, the Chair has operated impartially. I cannot take the view which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames seemed to take. He quoted the words of Miss Ellen Wilkinson in 1929, but I think that the circumstances there were very different.
  We will take the definition of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). He sought to move an Amendment to the findings of the Committee. That Amendment was not accepted. He said that unless there can be shown to be partiality, unless there is something venal and there is some unfitness for office, in some circumstances it is not a breach of Privilege to criticise the Chair.
  When we carefully study the words contained in the newspaper report, there can be no doubt in our minds, or in the minds of anybody reading the report impartially, that there was a reflection on the Chair to the extent that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to take a partial and deliberate course to satisfy some faction in the House. It was nothing less than that. Therefore, this falls within the noble Lord's definition that there was partiality.
  If, on the other hand, it is argued that these words do not convey that meaning, it means that the occupant of the Chair was unfit for the job. So, on the second count, the occupant of the Chair is called to account. I suggest that there was no evidence at all that on this occasion the occupant of the Chair exceeded his duty, or acted impartially, or in any way showed that he was unfit to occupy the Chair.
  I confess that, after hearing all the arguments, I was greatly surprised that there should have been this narrow division in the final vote. It is not for me to go into all the transactions which took place within the Committee, but, from listening to the arguments and hearing the witnesses, I thought that we all, with the exception of the noble Lord, took the view that there was undoubtedly a technical breach of Privilege. It was as clear

  1583
  as the sun rising in the morning, but, when the vote came, we found that what happened was as has been reported for us all to see.
  I hope I have not unduly wearied the House, but I think this matter is of some importance to the House and is not a trivial matter. We must take our own views whether Lady Mellor wished to be malicious, or whether it does this House any good to give all this "puff" to this case, but I do not think that it is the simple matter which the hon. Gentleman tried to make out.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  " That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Report."

  NORTH CIRCULAR ROAD, WILLESDEN
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]
  9.57 p.m.
  Mr. Orbach: I wish to raise a matter which has concerned my constituents for a number of years, and particularly in the last few months. It is a matter which is not unfamiliar to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, because not only have representations been made to him by the local authority, the Willesden Borough Council, and the residents concerned through their local Neasden Residents' Association, but I myself have raised the issue at Question time on two occasions in the last few months.
  In the Road Traffic Acts of 1930 and 1934, the Minister was given authority to make regulations with regard to the speed limit on vehicles on the roads, with regard to traffic signs and pedestrian crossings, and, in the Act of 1934, the speed limit was reintroduced. The Minister was given power to limit the speed of cars and lorries in built-up areas.
  On the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister, the late lamented Mr. Oliver Stanley, defined a built-up area as a place where a street lighting system is in force. He went on, after making this statement, to clarify his definition by ruling out new by-pass roads where lighting had been arranged by a benevolent
  1584
  local authority, but where no houses or shops existed. He laid down that, in his opinion, a built-up area where a speed limit ought to be in force included even a village street if, in fact, there were houses or shops on both sides of the road.
  The stretch of the North Circular Road which is in my constituency and about which I am concerned tonight was designed as a dual carriageway on which traffic could move unimpeded from east to west or west to east north of London. The first point I want to make is that the phrase "north of London" is out of date. The boroughs of Wembley, Edgware and Finchley are all to the north of the North Circular Road at this point. The North Circular Road from Staples Corner to the Neasden Circus must be included within the Central London Traffic Area, and it must be included for another reason.
  The Minister will be aware that the volume of traffic on the road between the two points which I have mentioned is equal to the traffic passing at any particular time along one of the main thoroughfares of this country—Oxford Street. The original intention of the planners may well have been to make this a through road, but today it has other functions which the Minister ought to bear in mind when considering the needs—
  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. Orbach: —both of motorists and of pedestrians. Even at the time of its creation in 1937, shops and houses had existed for 10 years on both sides of the road. There were scores of semi-detached homes and shops from which it was convenient for people to purchase the products they required.
  If we pass down this road from east to west we find that on the other side there are playing fields leading down to the Welsh Harp where our local Polytechnic find it convenient to play football in the winter and cricket in the summer. Close to this is a sports ground provided by the local borough council, and on a corner of the street further west is the public library. When one comes to the Neasden Circus itself there are scores of small semidetached houses. On the south side of

  1585
  the road we find many large modern factories, a school in which nearly 1,000 children are accommodated, more homes, shopping parades, bus stops, and a further shopping parade at Neasden Circus itself. I should also have said that on the north side of the road there is a further school available to infants, juniors and seniors where almost another 1,000 children are accommodated.
  It is because of these facts and further difficulties with regard to Neasden Circus itself that I ask the Minister to give very serious thought to the wishes of the neighbourhood. At the Neasden Circus traffic roundabout, where up to the present the Minister has refused to install traffic lights, the fast-moving traffic along the North Circular road going from east to west and west to east infiltrates with the slow moving traffic coming from Dudden Hill Lane in the south and Neasden Lane in the north, and both these roads which are almost as wide as the North Circular Road itself are subject to the 30 miles an hour speed limit.
  The Neasden Road Safety Committee has with monotonous regularity described this place as the black spot in the borough for accidents. In response to representation made to the local authorities by the Braintcroft and District Residents' Association, the Minister was kind enough to send his official to look at the spot and to make recommendations to him, and the following sentence appeared in a letter dated 26th May, 1951, which was written to the Residents' Association:
  " Provided that reasonable care is exercised there is no great difficulty in crossing the road in safety."
  I presume that this statement was made following a visit by the official who observed in conversation with members of the Residents' Association that there were gaps of 10 seconds between moving vehicles which should give sufficient time for anyone to cross one carriageway. Perhaps it was also because of that, that the Minister had erected in the centre of the roadway wire fencing to stop people dashing right across the road.
  We consider that the statement of the official was most unfortunate, and I would remind my right hon. Friend of what was said by a predecessor of his to whom I have already referred, Mr. Oliver Stanley, on the Second Reading of the Road Traffic Act, 1934. He said that a built-up area
  1586
  which is all houses is where the unexpected usually happens, and I am sure his remarks would have been emphasised in connection with the road with which I am dealing.
  " It is there "—
  he said—
  " that the errand-boy comes round on his bicycle with both hands crossed in front of him. It is there that the pedestrian with an umbrella over her face suddenly walks on to the middle of the road. If you are going at 20 to 30 miles an hour with your vehicles under control, there is a chance that you will be able to save those people from the consequences of their own mistake. But if you are going at 50 to 60 miles an hour they are dead."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1934; Vol. 288, c. 172.]
  It is because people have been maimed and people are dead that my constituents and myself feel so very strongly on this matter. I hope it is not in bad taste to say that the child of five who was killed within the past six months along that road could not read the letter from the official of the Ministry which was directed to the Braintcroft and District Residents' Association. But the fact is that a distinguished Member of this House who happens to be a constituent of mine will not allow his child to cross this one road of all the roads he permits his nine-year-old child to cross in the Willesden area.
  I am told that when an investigation committee of the Willesden Borough Council visited the site, they were eyewitnesses of a fatal accident. I will not give details of accidents which have occurred there and I will not apportion the blame. Pedestrians are often foolhardy and there are people who never ought to be behind the wheel directing what is a convenient means of locomotion but is also a powerful death-dealing machine.
  I understand the Minister is advised by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and the Metropolitan Police on this matter. After the debate we listened to earlier this evening, it would be remiss of me to say anything about the police. But they can be wrong and their judgment can be wrong, and I think that whenever the Minister has to consider the police or the residents he ought to consider the needs of residents and users first and last.
  To come to an instance of police judgment, each morning I travel to this

  1587
  House through Hampstead Road and I pass from Mornington Crescent to Drummond Street, a distance of 300 to 400 yards. Very properly, because there are houses and shops on both sides of the road, a 30 miles an hour speed limit is strictly enforced. There are traffic lights and within that distance of 400 yards there are nine pedestrian crossings.
  Perhaps it would be more apposite to quote a further stretch of the North Circular Road—at Falloden Way, less than two miles east of the area I am describing. There is a garden suburb there, but there is no school. In the area I am discussing there are two schools. There are no playing fields there but there are shops and for some reason—whether because of the difference in income levels or not, I do not know—there is a 30 miles an hour limit rigidly enforced by signs and there are traffic lights and pedestrian crossings.
  Coming back to the North Circular Road we are dealing with a densely-populated urban development. Children must go to school. They are entitled to recreation. Mothers must shop and adults of both sexes must work. These people who want to cross the road are engaged on lawful business. Perhaps they want to buy a loaf of bread or want to get a meal, and I remind the House that there are two transport cafés along this road and lorries parked outside them impede visibility. People are entitled to play cricket and to borrow books from, and I hope return them to, the library. They are certainly entitled to go to and from their own homes.
  The careful motorist is advised to keep moving quickly. If he dawdles at 40 miles an hour driving a modern motor car and sees a pedestrian crossing in front, if his reaction is good he will be able to pull up within 100 feet if he applies his brakes immediately. If he is moving at the modern cruising speed of 60 miles an hour, which is permitted on this road, he will be able to pull up within three seconds and in that time will have travelled 260 feet.
  With all these facts in mind, and representing the residents of this area, I ask the Minister to help us by reconsidering this matter. We have suggested that the roundabout at Neasden Circus, which,
  1588
  because of traffic jams, frequently employs four policemen and occasionally eight, be removed and that traffic lights be installed until such time as our capital expenditure programme will permit of a fly-over being built. We suggest that the traffic lights which were previously at the dangerous Brook Road point be re-installed.
  If my right hon. Friend will do these things he will certainly help the present situation in the borough. I suggest that he should declare the whole road from Staples' Corner past Neasden Circus to Brentfield Road a 30 miles an hour limit area, and should place at least three pedestrian crossings from Staples' Corner to Neasden Circus. As for the Circus itself, with a branch food office, a post office and a cinema, very special measure must be taken. I ask the Minister to agree to these immediate measures. If he demurs, I would beg him to visit the road with me, and I would ask at the same time that his most agile officials should cross the road while we are there.
  I am supported in my plea for reconsideration of this matter by a petition which I have not yet had the opportunity of presenting to him, but I certainly hope I shall before a few days have passed, with the signatures of 6,749 residents in this area. I hope that the signatures and the statement that I have made will be accepted by the Minister as an earnest of our requests.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. Viant: I wish to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach). It is not my intention to cover the ground which he has already traversed, but I want to impress upon my right hon. Friend the fact that he can no longer afford to make a decision based upon evidence provided by any of his officials. We have to face the fact that since this road was made, there has been a tremendous amount of building on each side.
  When the road was first built it was understood that it would be part of the North Circular Road upon which there would be no speed limit. That would have been all right if we had not permitted ribbon development to take place. But now we have an enormous population on each side of the road, and, as

  1589
  my hon. Friend has already said, mere are two schools, a public library and a recreation ground, and children go to and fro each hour of the day. We, as adults, know how difficult it is to judge when to cross a road and when not to cross it when there is such fast-moving traffic going along. It is utterly impossible for young people or elderly people to judge when and when not to attempt to cross the road.
  There are not sufficient pedestrian crossings, and those which are there are very much misplaced. One has only to go to the roundabout on that road to find the pedestrian crossings almost right up against the roundabout itself. That in itself is evidence of the fact that it is the cause of a great deal of the holding up of traffic going round the roundabout.
  These pedestrian crossings should be put further from the roundabout, but the roundabout itself is no solution to the problem of the fast-moving and slow-moving traffic coming from the four ways. The right hon. Gentleman should at least give earnest consideration to the need for putting traffic lights there in place of the roundabout. I am certain that with the experience he has already had in his office for so many years, he would be convinced, if he went to see this stretch of road, of the need for the steps suggested by my hon. Friend—steps which have been outlined by the Ratepayers' Association and other associations established for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the citizens living in the area.
  I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I should have been remiss had I not stayed this evening and added my few words to the statement made by my hon. Friend. I entreat the Minister, if he possibly can, to go to see this problem for himself. I am certain that he will be convinced of the need for drastic steps to be taken in order that lives may be saved. Lives might have been saved in the past, but we can take steps now only to save possible loss of life in the future. I entreat him to give his earnest consideration to this problem.
  10.18 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): Both my hon. Friends who represent Willesden have invited me to visit this stretch of the North Circular Road. As a matter of fact, in the course of my motoring life I have travelled
  1590
  over this road very frequently. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant), I have observed the character of this road and the surrounding district changing over the course of years, and I frankly admit that it is an exceedingly difficult task to balance the conflicting interests and claims which arise on an issue of this kind.
  Both hon. Members have emphasised that on a matter of this kind I should not take undue notice of the advice I receive from my officials. There is some strength in that, of course, and I do not in any way suggest that a Minister could ride off his responsibility by just following the advice of his officials. Nevertheless, I do not think my hon. Friends gave quite a correct analysis of this situation.
  I am supported in these matters by a considerable volume of expert and knowledgeable opinion. Obviously, no person in my position can know the traffic conditions on all the roads of the country or of a great metropolis like London. That was why Parliament established the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, and it would be very difficult to improve the representative character of that Committee.
  I would remind both my hon. Friends that roughly half the membership of that Advisory Committee consists of people nominated by local authorities in and around London—the London County Council, the Metropolitan boroughs and other local authorities. It would be quite wrong to assume that the advice which the Minister receives on a matter of this kind is circumscribed by the limited views of any person, whether he is an official or not. These local authority representatives, who come from all parts of London, have a knowledge of London traffic conditions and can assist in the problem of determining where the 30 miles restriction should be observed.
  I do not dispute that I should necessarily follow the advice that the police give me on matters of this character, but it does not follow that I should reject the advice of the police. They are exceedingly knowledgeable of these traffic problems and no one can argue, taking the experience of the police in this country and their knowledge of the traffic and accident problem—a most serious aspect of the administration of the Ministry of

  1591
  Transport—that the police do not approach these problems always with a desire to serve the public, facilitate the movement of traffic and protect the citizens of any locality.
  I mention these matters to emphasise to my hon. Friend that it is not a case here of just finally putting in a routine report to the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East, suggested when he put his case so thoroughly and with such force to me. I have considered this on two or three occasions on his representations. I have had the problem examined on two or three occasions. The police and my own divisional road engineers are fairly experienced in these matters, and the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee could not recommend me to impose speed restrictions on this stretch of the North Circular Road.
  The North Circular Road was essentially built for the purpose of facilitating the movement of traffic in and around London and to ease the congestion problem. In this stretch of the North Circular Road, there is a dual carriage way 27 feet wide with a central reservation of 14 feet. There are 9-foot verges with footpaths on each side. As a result of the recommendations that have been made, we have adopted various proposals which we have felt should facilitate and make better the crossing of this particular section. As my hon. Friend has said, we have fenced certain parts of the road and steps are being taken now to improve the lighting of this section.
  I am not able, at this moment, to say whether I can reconsider the matter or give a definite decision here tonight. I know my two hon. Friends sufficiently well to know that if they put up a case of this kind to me it justifies me in once
  1592
  more re-examining the problem. Therefore, the only undertaking I can give them tonight is that I will again have the matter thoroughly examined. I cannot look at it entirely from the point of view of the built-up area. I must consider the character of the North Circular Road and the functions which it has to perform. Nevertheless, I give the assurance that this matter will have my personal consideration to see how far I can meet them, or how I can go further to improve the position.
  In regard to roundabouts and fly-overs, I am afraid that they are out of the question at the present moment. The demands on the Road Fund are so severe and the resources are so restricted that I do not think I could turn my attention to that type of solution at the present moment. My undertaking that I will again look into it must end the matter for the time being.
  Mr. Orbach: May I say one word of thanks to the Minister for giving to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant), and myself the undertaking that he will look at the matter again? I would ask him whether, in doing so, he would give me the pleasure of driving him along the road, with his officials—which will be most desirable—so that, then, on the spot, we can really see the matter and perhaps influence his decision one way or the other. I would like to make it quite clear that I thought I had ruled out the question of a fly-over. There is a roundabout at the moment, but it appears to be causing the police and all concerned a great deal of trouble. I urge the institution of traffic lights at this particular spot.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes past Ten o'Clock.

COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Racial Discrimination
  Racial Discrimination
  Leprosy
  Leprosy
  American Investment
  American Investment
  TANGANYIKA (MUZZLE LOADERS)
  TANGANYIKA (MUZZLE LOADERS)
WEST AFRICA
  Nigerian Constitution
  Nigerian Constitution
  Second-hand Machinery, Gold Coast (Export)
  Second-hand Machinery, Gold Coast (Export)
  Soviet Propaganda
  Soviet Propaganda
SINGAPORE
  Detained Chinese
  Detained Chinese
  Co-operative Marketing
  Co-operative Marketing
  Status
  Status
  COLONIAL STUDENTS U.K. (ACCOMMODATION)
  COLONIAL STUDENTS U.K. (ACCOMMODATION)
MALAYA
  Rubber Planters (Deaths)
  Rubber Planters (Deaths)
  Malayan Ceylonese Association (Pensions)
  Malayan Ceylonese Association (Pensions)
  NORTH BORNEO (RICE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING)
  NORTH BORNEO (RICE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING)
  BARBADOS (ABSENTEE LANDLORDS)
  BARBADOS (ABSENTEE LANDLORDS)
  WESTERN SAMOA (COCOA SEEDLINGS)
  WESTERN SAMOA (COCOA SEEDLINGS)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Short-Wave System
  Short-Wave System
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
POST OFFICE
  Stamp Books
  Stamp Books
  Greetings Telegrams
  Greetings Telegrams
  Overseas Telegrams
  Overseas Telegrams
  Directories
  Directories
  .280 RIFLE (COMMONWEALTH TESTS)
  .280 RIFLE (COMMONWEALTH TESTS)
  COLOUR DISCRIMINATION (HOTELS)
  COLOUR DISCRIMINATION (HOTELS)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Dilutee Workers
  Dilutee Workers
  Pilots (Vision)
  Pilots (Vision)
  Training Aircraft
  Training Aircraft
  Flying Training, Canada
  Flying Training, Canada
  Footwear Repairs
  Footwear Repairs
  Air Crashes (Press Photographers)
  Air Crashes (Press Photographers)
  Airfield, Ely
  Airfield, Ely
  Airfield, Lincolnshire
  Airfield, Lincolnshire
CIVIL AVIATION
  Brabazon Aircraft
  Brabazon Aircraft
  Provincial Services
  Provincial Services
  KOREA (ARMISTICE NEGOTIATIONS)
  KOREA (ARMISTICE NEGOTIATIONS)
  UNITED NATIONS ASSEMBLY (FIFTH SESSION)
  UNITED NATIONS ASSEMBLY (FIFTH SESSION)
  BROADCASTS TO U.S.S.R.
  BROADCASTS TO U.S.S.R.
  ARAB REFUGEES
  ARAB REFUGEES
  WORLD PEACE (SOVIET GOVERNMENT'S STATEMENTS)
  WORLD PEACE (SOVIET GOVERNMENT'S STATEMENTS)
  DR. BURHOP (PASSPORT CANCELLATION)
  DR. BURHOP (PASSPORT CANCELLATION)
  JAPAN (PEACE TREATY)
  JAPAN (PEACE TREATY)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (COMMITTEE MEETING, HOUSE OF COMMONS)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (COMMITTEE MEETING, HOUSE OF COMMONS)
  CHINA (UNITED NATIONS AIRCRAFT)
  CHINA (UNITED NATIONS AIRCRAFT)
  HUNGARY (DEPORTATIONS)
  HUNGARY (DEPORTATIONS)
HOUSING
  Repair Work
  Repair Work
  Heating Appliances
  Heating Appliances
  Dorset
  Dorset
  Farm Cottages
  Farm Cottages
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PLANNING
  School, Ilford (Purchase)
  School, Ilford (Purchase)
  New Schools (Development Charges)
  New Schools (Development Charges)
  Development Charge (Interest)
  Development Charge (Interest)
  Abingdon Street (Name)
  Abingdon Street (Name)
  ROADS (CONSTRUCTION COSTS)
  ROADS (CONSTRUCTION COSTS)
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Old People (Visits)
  Old People (Visits)
  Workmen's Compensation Scheme
  Workmen's Compensation Scheme
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL, BRECONSHIRE)
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL, BRECONSHIRE)
ROYAL NAVY
  H.M. Ships (Commission)
  H.M. Ships (Commission)
  H.M.S. "Affray" (Divers' Examination)
  H.M.S. "Affray" (Divers' Examination)
  HEARING AIDS, CHELTENHAM
  HEARING AIDS, CHELTENHAM
  FOOD SUPPLIES (BACON PIGS)
  FOOD SUPPLIES (BACON PIGS)
  OFFICERS' WIDOWS (PENSIONS)
  OFFICERS' WIDOWS (PENSIONS)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Service Boots (Cost)
  Service Boots (Cost)
  Battle Dress (Cost)
  Battle Dress (Cost)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Canadian Loan
  Canadian Loan
  Colonel Territories (Development)
  Colonel Territories (Development)
  Fiduciary Note Issue (Increase)
  Fiduciary Note Issue (Increase)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Hand-woven Tweeds (Imports)
  Hand-woven Tweeds (Imports)
  Hydro-Electric Schemes
  Hydro-Electric Schemes
  BRADFORD TECHNICAL COLLEGE
  BRADFORD TECHNICAL COLLEGE

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.35 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in order to enable us to take the Appropriation Bill through all its stages and return it to another place in time for the Royal Commission, which is expected to sit at half past five this afternoon, it will be necessary, with your Lordships' permission, to interrupt our proceedings at a convenient time, in order to receive the Commons Message and to deal with it forthwith.

POLICE COLLEGE STUDENTS
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will state (1) the number of students at present at the Police College at Ryton-on-Dunsmore in the age groups 25–30, 31–35, 36–40, 41–45 and over 45 for the junior course of six months and the number at present in each age group for the senior course of three months; (2) What are the total numbers that have passed through the College since it was started in the junior course, and how many of those have been promoted since they left the College.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, 173 students are at present at the Police College at Ryton-on-Dunsmore on the junior course, including 151 men from police forces in England and Wales, in whom, I assume, the noble and gallant Viscount is mainly interested. Of these 151 men, 2 are between 25 and 30 years of age; 35 between 30 and 35; 67 between 36 and 40; 43 between 41 and 45; and 4 over 45 years of age. On the senior course,
156
there are 39 students, including 25 men from police forces in England and Wales. None of these is in the 25–30 age group: one is between 31 and 35; 6 between 36 and 40; 9 between 41 and 45; and 9 over 45 years of age. Up to and including the sixth course, which ended on June 15, 1951, 964 students, including 898 men from police forces in England and Wales had completed the junior course. Promotions are collated annually; at the end of 1950, out of the 747 men from police forces in England and Wales who had then completed the junior course, 498 sergeants had been promoted to inspector, and 22 officers had been promoted to higher rank.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply.

USE OF FREESTONE TN SCOTTISH BUILDING
2.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many public buildings, including bridges, have been erected, or are in the course of construction, in Scotland with Government assistance, involving the use of Freestone (a) in block masonry constructions; (b) as facing material; and whether they can say what is the total tonnage or volume of (a) Freestone; (b) artificial or reconstituted stone used in such buildings; and what proportion of the total natural Freestone used has been imported into Scotland.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, natural stone has been used since the war in ten public buildings erected or in course of erection by the Ministry of Works in Scotland. Block masonry was used in nine cases and facing material in the other one. In other projects, artificial or reconstituted stone has been used. The quantity and extent of stone usage could not be ascertained without detailed examination of bills of quantities. In four of the projects the stone has been obtained from Scottish quarries, but in the others, where stone of close texture in a light uniform cream

157
colour has been required, the stone has come from quarries in Northumberland, the nearest source of supply. Stone has also been used for many other public buildings which have been erected by other authorities in Scotland, with Government assistance, and it is also quite common to use Scottish stone for bridges. The number of cases and the extent of the stone usage are not, however, known, and could not be obtained without considerable inquiry, involving much time and labour.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his reply.

CIVIL DEFENCE AND HOME DEFENCE
2.40 p.m.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government how it is proposed that the primary rôle of that part of the field force which may remain in the United Kingdom during the initial course of operations on the outbreak of war shall not be limited or hampered should air attack develop, assuming that the deployment areas of such forces have no relation to likely targets for air attack, unless:—

(a) The Civil Defence organisation, including mobile columns in being, is fully organised and in sufficient strength to take the first weight of any onslaught from the air; and

(b) The Home Guard is organised and ready to come to the assistance of the Civil Defence organisation in order to ensure that it is not overwhelmed; and

(c) Air raid shelters for the civil population are adequate.]

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH): My Lords, no field force units or formations of the Regular or Territorial Army have been allotted Civil Defence rôles. The responsibility for Civil Defence in the United Kingdom, in the event of hostilities, will rest with the Civil Defence organisation, and the primary rôle of field
158
force formations and units remaining in this country will be defence against invasion. Nevertheless, in the event of an emergency beyond the resources of the Civil Defence Services, certain Army units remaining in the United Kingdom, depending on their location and allotted rôles, would be available to give such assistance as may be practicable.
As regards the Home Guard, planning is proceeding to ensure that a substantial force can be enrolled, organised and armed as soon as the situation requires. With regard to the Civil Defence Services, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, in another place on January 29 last, explained the emphasis placed by His Majesty's Government on the development of the various military and civil aspects of the defence programme. In order not to divert the national resources from more important demands, it is not proposed that there should be any general acceleration of Civil Defence preparations on a scale comparable to the development of the Armed Forces which His Majesty's Government regard as the main object of the defence programme. Civil Defence planning, however, is being pushed ahead; and, in particular, certain Civil Defence projects, whose development would afford support to the Armed Forces, are being undertaken in the current financial year. Among these are the installation of an air raid warning system, and the development of the network of control and communications at regional and lower levels. In short, the Civil Defence organisation is being developed as rapidly as competing demands on our resources permit; but projects which involve the substantial use of labour and materials, including projects for the provision of air raid shelters, cannot, in general, be taken beyond the planning stage in present circumstances.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for his answer. May I ask the following further question: Is it not the case that unless, on the outbreak of war, which we hope will never occur, there is an adequate Civil Defence force available, the possibility that the Regular and Territorial Armies will have to be called in to support the Civil Defence is much greater? Are not the Civil Defence mobile columns of great importance in the structure of Civil Defence, and has any Civil Defence mobile column, experimental or other-

159
wise yet been formed, as was foreshadowed by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, last January.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree that, so far as we can arrange them within the resources at our disposal in this particularly difficult time, Civil Defence provisions of the kind the noble Lord mentioned are highly important. That is why we are recruiting as rapidly as we can and proceeding with such work as we can in that direction. As regards the Civil Defence mobile columns, arrangements are now being made to obtain an effective headquarters site and to begin planning in the direction which the noble Lord desires. I do not think I can say more than that at the present time.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his further information. Are we to understand that no Civil Defence column is yet in being? Was the noble Viscount aware that the purport of my question is the interdependence of Civil Defence and Home Defence, and that if at the appropriate time there is not an adequate Civil Defence organisation in being, tasks will be thrust on the Armed Forces which are not their proper rôle and which will hamper them in their primary task?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I have no information in front of me that there is an actual mobile column in existence, but I will confirm this position and communicate with the noble Lord. Of course, it is important to have as much progress in this direction as possible, but I have laid before the House the difficulties of contending priorities at the present time. The extent to which certain courses have been successful, the result of the recruitment of volunteers for the Civil Defence service and the extent of the actual training courses in Civil Defence—which are far ahead of those of most other countries and are being used as a model by other countries—show that we are giving the subject the most serious, active attention. We shall do the best we can in this matter.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I do not want to delay the House, but I confess frankly that I am perturbed
160
by the noble Viscount's reply, and I shall take an early opportunity of discussing this point again in your Lordships' House.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I beg to move that the Order made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Act to the Rural District of Hemsworth, be approved.
Moved, That the Order made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Act to the Rural District of Hemsworth be approved.—(Lord Haden-Guest.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DRAFT HERRING INDUSTRY SCHEME, 1951
2.47 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Herring Industry Scheme, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved. The main purpose of the draft Scheme is to extend the powers of the Herring Industry Board so as to enable them the better to deal with the problem of the herring industry. The draft Scheme, when made, will replace the Herring Industry Scheme, 1935, from which the Board derive their present powers. Most of these powers are included in the new Scheme, some of them subject to modifications. The Scheme also confers on the Board certain additional powers which experience has shown to be necessary for the proper discharge of their duties and for the development of the herring industry. The industry is faced with serious difficulties, particularly in the marketing of herring, both at home and abroad. The Board are expected by the industry to be able to step in and help to overcome these difficulties. They cannot do so, however, unless they are equipped with adequate powers. It has often been represented, both by the industry and in Parliament, that the powers of the Board should be extended.
There has been full discussion with the industry about the draft Scheme. An

161
earlier version was published in April, and was open to objection until May 31. Thereafter, the objections lodged were discussed with the principal objectors, and a number of modifications were put forward to meet the objections so far as possible. With the exception of relatively few points the objectors expressed themselves as satisfied with the scheme as revised and as presented to the House. It is symptomatic of the desire that the Board should be given wider powers that the draft Scheme was welcomed on both sides in another place by all who spoke and that the Resolution approving the draft was passed in the early hours of this morning without a Division. The draft Scheme will enable the Board to give more effective help to the industry to organise itself to meet the difficulties confronting it, and to secure a measure of stability which, unfortunately, is at present lacking. As a result, the industry should be better able to contribute to the prosperity of the fishing communities which so largely depend on it. There is an important fishing during the autumn off East Anglia, in which the Scottish and English sections both participate and it is most desirable that the Board should be equipped with their new powers before the start of that season.
Moved, That the Herring Industry Scheme, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Morrison.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, there are one or two questions in regard to this Order which I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Morrison. I see that under Article 8 (a), the Board may
"engage in herring fishing and do all things necessary for the prosecution of such fishing."
Does that mean that they are thinking of buying and operating boats? If so, I feel that it is not a good idea. One objection I have to their doing so is that Article 17 of the draft Order says the Board may establish a system of licensing under which they have to license the use of boats in the industry. I believe that the licensing authority should not itself be an operator. That ought to be a basic principle. Otherwise, a fisherman who is deprived of his licence, possibly because of a redundancy of boats, may see Board boats sailing out and taking his waters; and their licence will have been obtained from the licensing authority
162
who are also the owners of the boat. I hope that the Herring Board will not engage in the fishing industry. I do not think that Boards of this kind are very successful in operating, for instance, wage rates. Only to-day we see a new claim reported in the Press—despite dividend limitation. It seems to me that in the fishing industry we should do much better to leave it with the herring fishermen to operate, so far as possible, as the crew owners of the ships, so that they can chase the herring; and even if it means working overtime, they will be able to go on while there are herrings to catch, and will not be restricted to particular hours. I should like the noble Lord, if possible, to give an assurance that the Herring Board will not engage in the fishing industry itself.
Article 17 also provides that the Board may prescribe that no boat except those that have a licence from the Board shall be used for herring fishing. I should not have so much objection to that if the restriction were confined to boats licensed to catch herring for sale. Under the Scheme, the Board can exclude particular classes of boats—I believe those exceeding 20 feet in length. What I do not want to see is that somebody who has gone out in a boat, perhaps on a pleasure cruise, and has dropped a line over the back and caught a few herring, or who goes out in a yacht and catches a few herring to eat for breakfast, is held to have offended against this Order merely because he has not been given a licence for his boat. Incidentally, I would ask the noble Lord what are the penalties for breach of this Order—they do not seem to be set out. I should be obliged if the noble Lord would give the answers to those two questions, because I think it should be made quite clear to the Board that they are not to prevent people not engaged in the trade from occasionally catching herring if they so desire. I certainly feel that the Board should not enter the trade and license their own boats, perhaps to the exclusion of those in the trade.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of what my noble friend Lord Llewellin has said. As I see it, we are extending a system which, in principle, is not acceptable to the great majority of your Lordships—namely, that one person

163
should be judge in his own cause. In effect, that is what is happening here. The Herring Board are to be not only the operator but also the judge as to whether somebody else is to operate. Only yesterday, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, in one of those expressions of high principle which always give great pleasure to the House, said:
"We try not to be judge in our own case, or take execution into our own hands."
As I read it, that is precisely what this draft Order is intended to do. It is intended to put the Herring Board into the invidious position of both operating and deciding whether or not somebody else should operate. That is a system which has caused offence in road transport, and in civil aviation; and it will cause offence as often as it is operated. In that part of the passenger road transport system which has a separate licensing body, I think everybody will agree that the system has worked very smoothly. But that is not what is being done here, and I suggest, with respect, that the principle here is entirely unsound.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I will endeavour to answer the questions put to me. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, did not tell me that he was going to raise this question, which is somewhat legal.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl did not give me notice.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks the principle of ensuring justice is a purely legal expression? I think it is wrong to put it that way.
LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl raised the question of whether the Herring Industry Board were to be judge in their own cause, and he gave illustrations of where, he said, such a system had not been a success. I am unable to give him an answer at the present moment. If I had known he was going to raise the specific point, I would have endeavoured to do so.
LORD LLEWELLIN: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I raised exactly the same point, and I informed the noble Lord that I proposed to do so.
LORD MORRISON: Then I will proceed to endeavour to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I say at once that it is certainly not the intention that the Board should run their own fishing boats in competition with the fishermen. They are being given power to fish so that, when fishermen are no longer willing to take the risks, the Board will be able to do so. For example, they might undertake a search for the very fine shoals of herring which used to frequent the Barra fishing grounds in the Western Islands of Scotland. The power to fish is qualified in two ways. First, the Board must satisfy themselves that it is necessary for them to exercise such power
"in order to secure proper provision for the needs of the herring industry."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: What is the noble Lord reading from? Is he reading from the Order?
LORD MORRISON: The words:
"in order to secure proper provision for the needs of the herring industry"
are from the Order. Secondly, the Board must, so far as practicable, consult with persons or organisations concerned. With regard to the noble Lord's point about licences, I would remind him that licences are necessary in order to secure proper control of the industry, and, for example, improved standards of kippering or processing. The Board are obliged to grant licences on request except in the circumstances set out in Article 19 (2)—namely, to undischarged bankrupts or to persons who have been convicted of a criminal offence involving fraud or dishonesty, or who have contravened any of the provisions of the Scheme or rules or directions made under it. Licences have been required under the Scheme since 1935 for everything except freshing.
The noble Lord also asked whether a licence was required to catch a few herring for personal consumption from a boat over 20 feet in length. I was not quite convinced with the suggestion that it might be necessary to throw a line over the side and catch a few herring for breakfast, because I understand that the only way to catch herring is with a net.
LORD LLEWELLIN: No; I have caught them on a line.
LORD MORRISON: In any case, I can assure the noble Lord that there is certainly no intention to interfere with the

165
practice of catching herring for consumption on board vessels. The construction of the Scheme is, of course, a matter for the courts; but it is thought that, having regard to the Scheme as a whole, the only type of boat which would require a licence is a boat constructed or used for commercial herring fishing. Similar provisions have been in operation since 1935 without giving rise to difficulty on this point. If, nevertheless, there should be any difficulty, the Herring Industry Board could, and probably would, take steps to meet it under Article 17 (1) (b) of the Scheme, which empowers them to exempt any prescribed class of boat or any particular boat from the necessity of obtaining a licence.
With regard to the point which the noble Lord raised about price maintenance, the proviso to Article 22 provides that the Board must not use their powers to give directions for the purpose of price maintenance, but must have regard only to the facilities available for the handling of herring. The object of this is to secure that in regulating operations of catchers under this Article, the Board do not deliberately restrict catchers in order to create artificially high prices for the fishermen. They must limit operations only if they think that more herring will be landed than can be disposed of by the handling facilities available. The final question the noble Lord asked was with regard to information about penalties. By declaring that contravention of certain provisions of the Scheme shall be deemed to be an offence, Article 24 attracts the penalties set out in Section 6 of the Herring Industry Act, 1935. These are, in the case of the first offence, a fine not exceeding £5; and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, a fine not exceeding £20, and in both cases forfeiture of any herring or products of herring concerned in the offence or alternatively, an additional fine not exceeding the value thereof. I hope that these answers satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I hope that I did not misunderstand what the noble Lord said, but he mentioned something about the ordinary fisherman not taking risks. As one who in the past represented a great many sea fishermen in Parliament, I take great exception to anything suggesting that these most courageous men do not go to sea if it involves taking a risk. On occasions when they do not
166
go to sea, it would be very unwise for the Board to do so. I should like the noble Lord to explain what he meant.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, knows perfectly well that I had no intention of casting any reflection of any kind on fishermen. I myself was brought up amongst fishermen in Scotland. The fisherman has to earn his living and, therefore, he cannot spend many days and nights in searching for the fish. If the activities of the Herring Board can assist him to go straight to where fish can be caught, it will be an advantage to him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN HONG KONG
3.5 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the infliction of corporal punishment in Hong Kong, and to ask what steps they propose to take to bring practice in the Colony into line with that in this country. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is not my intention to delay your Lordships very long. The reason why I have not put down a starred Question is that I thought I should give your Lordships a little of the background which is behind the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper to-day. In this matter of corporal punishment, Hong Kong holds a bad pre-eminence. I am glad to say that the figures are very much reduced—that is to say, the figures for 1950 show a substantial reduction over the figures for 1949 so far as the whipping of juveniles is concerned, a reduction from 4,367 to 405, which I welcome most heartily. Unfortunately, the figures for the flogging of adults shows an increase of nearly 100 per cent. as between the same two years. Therefore the improvement is, unfortunately, rather one-sided. In fact, the corporal punishment figures for Hong Kong are the highest for any Colonial territory with the exception of Nigeria, and your Lordships will realise that there is no comparison at all between the populations of the two Colonies.
In official statements—and I hope this will not be repeated by my noble friend when he comes to reply—this punishment is described as "whipping with a light cane." It sounds very much like a school-

167
boy punishment, and I therefore think it worth while to read to your Lordships an extract from a Hong Kong paper which describes exactly what corporal punishment in Hong Kong means. It says:
"… the caning, or flogging as it might more appropriately be termed, is far from being 'light' punishment. The cane used is thick and long, the administrating officer is big and strong, and the weals inflicted are deep and inflamed. … This is not to be compared with schoolboy caning. … To begin with, something about the 'flogger.' There are three or four prison officers trained for this work, and at least two attend each flogging. Generally these two men take alternate strokes. The main reason for this is that caning is exhausting work—especially in hot weather. The officers are chosen for their fitness and strength. They are then trained for several weeks on a dummy before being permitted to cane a corporal-punishment prisoner.
The technique of flogging is to swing the cane like a golf club and to follow through with precision on to the target—in this case the fleshy cheeks of the buttocks. The aim is to strike approximately the same area with each stroke. Strength is useful when the technique has been mastered, but strength alone is ineffective. On the day arranged for the caning the prisoner is brought into the punishment room and examined by the doctor. If pronounced fit he is securely strapped to a heavy wooden rack. The buttocks are then bared and the flogging commences. At one time the exposed buttocks were covered with a damp cloth to prevent the skin from being cut. But … this softening of the punishment has been abolished. During the flogging the Superintendent of Prisons, the Chief Officer and the M.O. are in attendance as well as the European Officer-in-charge of the punishment block. … The condition of the posterior at the conclusion of the flogging is not a sight to be described here. …"
Hong Kong is a Crown colony. Therefore we have a very special responsibility for what goes on in Hong Kong. I think your Lordships must have been shocked by this account. I am sure that all of you will have been surprised and shocked by the figures which I have given. That this little Colony should have such enormous figures for this particular type of punishment seems to me, at any rate, to indicate that something is seriously wrong. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
3.9 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD OGMORE): My Lords, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to secure the complete abolition of corporal punishment as a sanction imposed by the courts, and a despatch has been sent to
168
all Colonial Governments advocating this course. His Majesty's Government are, however, fully cognisant of the position in Hong Kong. By far the largest number of cases of such punishment there in recent years has been in respect of hawking offences by juveniles, for which the penalty was normally three strokes with a light cane—in spite of my noble friend's description of it. For an experimental period, this penalty for such offences has now been suspended.
As your Lordships know, Hong Kong is open to the mainland and there is little let or hindrance to people coming in, and the hawkers, and especially the juvenile hawkers, have constituted a problem in Hong Kong which has caused some embarrassment and worry to the authorities, particularly the police authorities. These hawkers have no licence, and they clutter up the narrow streets with their barrows, baskets, boxes or whatever it may be. There are only certain ways in which one can deal with problems of this kind. One can send boys to reformatories; but, as the minimum period is two years, that would seem far too grave a punishment for this offence. Then, one can fine them, in which case, normally, it is the parent who pays—and in Hong Kong it is not always easy to find the parents of the respective offenders. Finally, there is whipping. Up to 1949 it was the practice to give the juvenile hawkers three strokes on the buttocks with a cane. There was no necessity for the police officers who inflicted the punishment to go into training on a dummy for this purpose: they were quite capable of giving three light strokes without any preparation whatsoever. Since 1949—a fact which I presume the noble Lord knew but did not think fit to acquaint your Lordships with—
LORD FARINGDON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon: I started by giving the figures of the reduction.
LORD OGMORE: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to finish what I was going to say. It has ceased altogether to be the practice to cane juveniles, so that, however many there may have been in previous years, at the present moment there is no caning of juveniles for this offence.
LORD FARINGDON: Then what does the noble Lord say about the 405 cases in 1950?
LORD OGMORE: I said "for this offence."
VISCOUNT SIMON: Will the noble Lord say what the offence is?
LORD OGMORE: The offence is obstruction—obstruction by juvenile hawkers without a licence—and for that offence, which is the one with which I am now dealing (I will deal with others a little later) corporal punishment is not inflicted. That was the main class of case for which juveniles were punished. That accounts for the surprising reduction in the number of cases in which juveniles were punished in this way, and which has already been quoted by my noble friend. Now there are, of course, other offences for which juveniles may receive corporal punishment, and it is in relation to those other offences that the figure given by my noble friend stands: it is not in connection with obstruction. I will give your Lordships the breakdown of the figures of cases of corporal punishment in Hong Kong for 1950. Sexual offences: there were no persons punished corporally; violence: 205; offences against property: 93; prison offences: 1; juvenile offenders: 405. Those were the number of cases making a total of 704, in which corporal punishment was inflicted during the year 1950.
As I say, on the general question the Government are hoping that measures will be taken by all Colonial Governors towards the progressive attainment of the objective of restriction of the use of corporal punishment. But circumstances being what they are in Hong Kong, it means that we must, to a large extent, depend upon the advice of the Governor and his Council as to the rate at which the existing order can be changed and at which the progressive attainment of the Government's objective can be carried out. I think your Lordships will agree that Hong Kong is a special case; that there are circumstances there which are widely different from the circumstances in this country; and that, so far from being censured, both the Governor of Hong Kong and His Majesty's Government should, in fact, receive an unwonted measure of praise both from the noble Lord and from all your Lordships for their action in this field.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Does the noble Lord challenge the description of this punishment in adult cases which was read out by my noble friend?
LORD OGMORE: I can neither affirm nor challenge it, for I have no knowledge of the nature of it; but the Secretary of State for the Colonies will have his attention drawn to the matter and no doubt will look into it in due course.
LORD FARINGDON: In thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I must say I should feel easier if, in fact, he had replied.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!

CENTRAL AFRICAN TERRITORIES
3.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON rose to call attention to the Report of the Conference on Closer Association of Central African Territories, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give the House any further information about the visit to these Territories of the Secretaries of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is agreeable on the "last day of term," so to speak, that we should debate a subject on which I think there is a wide measure of agreement. It is always desirable that in Imperial affairs there should be, if possible, agreement and continuity of policy. Imperial problems should transcend Party political issues, just as in their development and solution they outlast the lives of individual Governments. If Imperial problems can be treated in that way, solutions are likely to be sound and successful. I hope and believe that the closer association of Central African Territories can be so treated. There is certainly a large measure of agreement in what is needed and in the way the matter has been handled.
As the Secretary of State for the Colonies said in another place in June, the Central African Council, which is a purely advisory body, has proved inadequate to its purpose. He went on to say this:
"There is an increasing need for some form of closer association between the three Territories in the interests of their economic development and of the prosperity and well-being of their inhabitants."
With both statements I think that we shall

171
all find ourselves in agreement. Recognising the need and the increasing urgency of the problem, the Government here, and the Governments of Southern and Northern Rhodesia and of Nyasaland, took the wise step of convening a Conference of senior officials of the Commonwealth Relations Office, the Colonial Office and the three African Governments to see whether they could formulate concrete proposals for submission to their respective Governments. I think that was a very wise step. Governments and Governors come and go, but the permanent officials go on for ever—or at any rate they have a corporate existence or succession. They have peculiar qualifications for giving sound and practical advice. They are unprejudiced; they have long-accumulated experience; they know how the machine of government works, or fails to work; and they are the people who have to make it work; and, what is perhaps even more important, they know a great deal about the Africans and their true interests, moral and material. Native opinion is often hard to ascertain—if, indeed the mass of Africans have any definite opinions. The most vocal opinion is not always the most representative or the best informed.
We must never forget that we are trustees, trustees for all, and particularly for the person to-day usually described as the "common man." That is where the opinion of these experienced officials who met in conference is particularly valuable, because their single-minded purpose is the discharge of this trust. Now we have their full and exhaustive Report, with the accompanying surveys on native policy and economics. The remarkable thing is that, on a subject where there has hitherto been much difference of opinion, all are unanimous, and that is a tremendous advance. I shall not deal with the Report in detail. All your Lordships have studied it, and other noble Lords who will speak after me have great knowledge of these Territories and their problems. But there are some aspects to which I should like to draw particular attention.
I would begin by citing a passage from Paragraph 32 of the Report, because it goes to the root of the whole matter. After emphasising the urgency of the problem, the Report—and remember that this is a unanimous Report—reads thus:
172
"We believe strongly that economic and political partnership between Europeans and Africans is the only policy which can succeed in the conditions of Central Africa; this is fully recognised by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom,"—
and, I may add, by His Majesty's Opposition as well—
"and by all three Central African Governments. Closer association between the three Territories, by the economic and political strength which it would bring with it, would in our view provide a surer foundation than exists at present for developing and extending the policy of racial co-operation and partnership, on which all three Territories are agreed, without the fear of influences from outside the borders of British Central Africa."
In this connection, your Lordships will have noted that interesting and very comprehensive annex, Annex II, which the Report gives on "Native policy in the three Territories." It begins with these words:
"The conclusion to be drawn from the Comparative Survey of Native Policy is that the ultimate aim of policy in each Territory is to advance the African to the stage where he is in all respects a full partner, exercising all the rights and accepting all the responsibilities of citizenship."
I quote another passage from the Report. Paragraph 18 says this:
"The most striking conclusion which we draw from our examination of the survey"—
that is, this Comparative Survey of Native Policy—
"is the degree of similarity between the policy and practice of the three Governments rather than the degree of difference."
After mentioning the differences, the Report goes on:
"But we believe that these differences, although important, relate largely to method and timing and that the ultimate objective of all three Governments is broadly the same, namely, the economic, social and political advancement of the Africans in partnership with the Europeans"
These wise men come back again and again to this identity of aim, and they conclude thus:
"We do not believe that the differences in native policy which still exist can now be regarded as a valid argument against closer association, provided that a suitable scheme can be devised. On the contrary, we think that there would be positive advantages in closer association from the point of view of native policy."
When we consider this careful review and conclusion by experienced and unprejudiced officials, whose sole object is

173
to find out what is true and right, it really is nauseating to read some of the false, malicious and bilious propaganda issued by persons who had not taken the trouble even to read the proposals, and whose sole object appears to be to stir up racial hatred. M. Clemenceau once gave this advice to a young politician who afterwards became a great public servant:
"My son, only two things really matter: to love and to be loved; and to be intellectually honest."
Those are principles which these propagandists might take to heart, if that organ is not too diseased to be receptive.
The Report makes out an overwhelming case on economic grounds for closer union. The Territories will not merely be economically stronger if they work and plan together: they are essentially inter-dependent. Common services, such as communications and posts and telegraphs are essential. As the Report points out, the longer the view we take, the more important this closer association is seen to be. At present, all three Territories are prosperous, but their present prosperity owes a great deal to present prices and current demand. A slump in prices or a serious falling off in the demand for particular commodities might have a disastrous effect on the Territories if they were working as isolated economic units. As the Report says:
"Clearly, an economic crisis could be faced more confidently if the units were closely integrated into an area having a widely based economy."
After dealing with the vital need for closer association on the economic side, the Report wisely points out that this association must react favourably on the moral and social welfare of all the population. Your Lordships will find this statement in Paragraph 31:
"Closer association would bring in its train a quickening expansion of the economy of the area as a whole and, therefore, greater prosperity; this would, in turn, lead to an expansion of Government finance and, consequently, even though a particular department might not be brought within any scheme for closer association, to the provision of better facilities for education (including community education), better health services (both curative and preventive), improved water supplies, housing and agricultural services, and improved social standards generally. The need for these improvments is felt by all communities, and
174
in particular by the Africans, who form the great bulk of the population. The moral and social advancement of Africans will march with the economic development of their countries and in our view the pace of such development will be slower if continued on the present basis than if closer association is brought about."
Having proved conclusively the urgent need for closer association, the Conference submit the means by which it should be accomplished. Their proposals are a Federal Constitution, the Federal Government and Parliament being responsible for common services. In so far as native affairs fall within the purview of the Federal Government and Parliament, it is proposed that there should be an African Affairs Board, whose Chairman would be Minister for African Interests. The proposed powers of the Minister and Board are fully dealt with in the Report.
I know that it would be easy to criticise these proposals. I could criticise the tentative division of functions between Federal and Territorial; and it might well be wiser to define the Territorial functions and make the rest Federal. I have never known a Constitution or a draft Constitution which was not open to criticism. Of course, the proposals are a compromise. But, my Lords, compromise is not the least of the British virtues. The better is often the enemy of the good. Moreover, this plan is the only agreed constructive proposal that has been put forward. The experienced officials who have drawn up the plan believe that it will work; and if it is adopted, they will have a large share of the responsibility for seeing that it does work. Nor are Constitutions eternal or immutable—indeed, some, perhaps, change too often. Constitutions evolve in the light of practical experience. Do not let us suppose that if this attempt fails we can just set to work and try again. It is not merely that the architects of closer union will be discouraged. The clock will have been set back, and an opportunity which may not easily recur will have been missed, and missed to the great detriment of all the peoples of these lands. The Secretaries of State will soon start on their journey to these Territories. They will carry with them on their mission all our good will, and we sincerely trust that they will return bringing their sheaves with them. I beg to move for Papers.
3.31 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF LUCAN): My Lords, I must start by thanking the noble Viscount for the very friendly tone of his speech and for letting us know that the proposals, such as they are, have, broadly speaking, the good will of the Opposition. From the careful phrasing of his speech, it is obvious that he realises that this is a matter of some delicacy. These proposals have the most far-reaching possibilities for this part of Africa. They have been put before the public and before Parliament, and therefore it would not be appropriate for me to go further into them or to discuss the merits or the details of the proposals at the present time.
If I may recall to your Lordships the history of the case, it was on June 13 that your Lordships were informed by my noble friend, Lord Ogmore, that neither His Majesty's Government nor the other Governments concerned are at this stage committing themselves to acceptance of any of the particular proposals in the Report, which is published as a basis for consideration and discussion. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, for their part, are giving most careful consideration to the proposals in the Report, as are the other Governments concerned. This consideration cannot, however, be completed until the views of those communities immediately concerned have been ascertained and discussed with them. In these circumstances, the House will appreciate that I am not in a position to-day to do more than repeat what my noble friend said: that the proposals appear to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom
"to embody a constructive approach to the problem which deserves the careful consideration of all the peoples and the Governments concerned."
In that same Statement it was announced that my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Secretary of State for the Colonies were to visit Central Africa during the coming Recess. I am glad to be able to confirm that that visit will take place, and I can give your Lordships some details of the programme. The arrangements are being made in
176
consultation with the Central African Governments, but I cannot give the detailed timing of the programme other than this: that it is proposed that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should leave this country by air, arriving in Nyasaland on August 26. He will leave Nyasaland for Northern Rhodesia on September 3, and he will remain in Northern Rhodesia until September 15. During his stay in the two Territories he will have discussions with the unofficial members of the Legislative Councils, visit all the important centres, and meet for discussions representatives of all sections of the communities, including delegations from such bodies as the chambers of commerce, the African Provincial and Representative Councils, and the Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia African Congresses.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations hopes to leave by air about September 10 for discussions in Southern Rhodesia. My right honourable friend is in communication with the Southern Rhodesian Government, who are aware of his wish to meet representative people of all sections in the Colony. In the light of these discussions, the two Secretaries of State will attend a conference with Southern Rhodesian Ministers and representatives of the Governments and European and African communities of the two Northern Territories. This conference will provide the opportunity for a full exchange of views between all concerned and will be of great value in assisting the Governments at a later date to reach conclusions in regard to the proposals in the Report. The place of the Conference has not been finally fixed, but it is probable that the place chosen will be Victoria Falls.
My Lords, I have said that I cannot elaborate on the statements that have already been made. I can only thank the noble Viscount for his contribution and for his good wishes; and, like him, I commend the proposals as a constructive approach to the problem.
3.37 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, many of us, I think, would have wished that the statement just made by the noble Earl, speaking for the Government, could have been a little more precise. But we understand the difficulties of the Govern-

177
ment in the situation. We completely appreciate the importance of leaving conclusions open until the visits of the respective Secretaries of State. All I can do is to join my noble friend who moved this Motion in congratulating the Government on having convened this Conference of officials, and in trusting that they will find it possible to proceed with the recommendations which the officials have unanimously made.
For my part, like my noble friend I think these proposals offer a chance of establishing the principle of racial partnership in a vital quarter of Africa as no other proposals that have been laid before us or thought of for a long time could have done. As all your Lordships know, there has for long been a conflict between two different schools of thought upon the future of Africa, a conflict which is now becoming a clash of fanatical ideologies, a clash which threatens the peace of Africa throughout its breadth and length. At one extreme there is the nationalism which has been developed in West Africa and at the other pole there is the nationalism which has become so intense and so fanatical in the Union of South Africa, based on the doctrine of absolute separation between the White and the Black races. As I said what I felt about that doctrine, in a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, last year, I do not propose to say any more now, except to repeat that I think it would be a disaster if that ideology were to be allowed to spread further North. As your Lordships know, this clash is at present causing a ferment throughout Africa, and that ferment has reached a critical, if not a dangerous, stage. The Report we are discussing is closely connected with that ferment. Every page and almost every paragraph of the Report stresses the necessity of partnership between the races if conflict is to be avoided.
This danger was already running high thirty years ago, when Southern Rhodesia received responsible government. I would ask your Lordships for just a minute to cast your minds back to that period, because the decision then taken and the results which flowed from it have an intimate bearing on the issue confronting us to-day. Indeed, I think that the bearing will be considered decisive by all who justly appreciate and understand it.
178
By 1920 the Chartered Company—the British South Africa Company; Cecil Rhodes' Company—had ruled for thirty-one years. On the whole, it was a fine achievement, although it had its "ups and downs." When it was initiated, my noble friend Lord Salisbury's grandfather said that he thought the responsibility which was being placed on the Chartered Company was greater than any such company should be asked to bear; but, since he saw no other chance of introducing civilisation into that part of Africa, or of persuading Parliament to bear the expenditure, he thought that the Chartered Company should have the opportunity for which it asked. It took the opportunity and discharged its responsibility very well. There was a clause in the Charter providing for its revocation if ever any Government in this country found it necessary to complain about the administration of the Company. But no suggestion of revocation was ever made by either the, Conservative or the Liberal Governments which held power during that time. In these days, when private enterprise is widely distrusted and condemned, it is perhaps worth suggesting that your Lordships should salute the achievement, unsurpassed in that age in any part of Africa, of shareholders who were content to put their capital into a great undertaking without receiving any interest—indeed, continuing to invest without prospect of interest for a great many years.
By the end of the First World War the time had come for an end to Chartered Company rule. There was, for instance, in the Act of Union of South Africa a provision for the adhesion as Provinces of both Rhodesias to the Union of South Africa, on the presentation of an Address from both Houses of the Union Parliament. That was a provision in the Act which could not be ignored. On the other hand, the settlers were getting restless under Company rule, and at that time were also extremely suspicious of South African nationalism, which, as your Lordships may remember, had caused the rebellion in the First World War; and on that account the majority of settlers at that time were demanding responsible government.
In 1921, a Committee was appointed here in Whitehall. Largely it was an official Committee, very much on the lines of the Conference which has just been convened. The Committee was

179
under the Chairmanship of Lord Buxton who had been Governor-General of the Union of South Africa. I was a member of that Committee and I remember its proceedings very vividly, because Lord Buxton was good enough to entrust me with a good deal of the sifting of the arguments and evidence and with the drafting of conclusions on them.
Early in 1922 that Committee recommended that the population of Southern Rhodesia should be given a free choice by plebiscite between entering the Union of South Africa as a Province or attempting responsible government under their own resources, and with the small European population which it had then of 33,000. A delegation was invited home to consider the Constitution under self-government, and on its way it had a long discussion with General Smuts, who did his utmost to persuade the delegation and those it represented to enter the Union. Afterwards they came here and discussed the Constitution with the authorities in Whitehall. In October, 1922, a plebiscite was held, which resulted in a decisive vote for responsible government and against incorporation in the Union. Self-government was inaugurated a year later, in October, 1923. My Lords, thus was established a great self-governing country, bearing Rhodes' name, dedicated to his great principle of "equal rights for every civilised man," inaugurated as a second step in the realisation of his great dream.
Believe me, the doubts expressed at home in regard to the wisdom of granting self-government at that time were as great as the doubts expressed in many quarters now. As I have said, the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia numbered only 33,000. Could they produce the political quality and the leadership required? Of necessity they were all compelled to earn their own living. Could they make the sacrifice of time necessary to take a responsible part in public work and the business of government? Even Lord Milner was uncertain on that point. I remember his saying what a strain it might prove. But, in the sequel, all doubts have been triumphantly dispelled. That is what I think we ought to remember at the present time. We made then an act of faith which I believe was justified. We are called upon to make an act of faith
180
now, and I believe it will be justified again.
Southern Rhodesia under responsible government achieved a sound and economic administration. It paid its own way and great economic development took place. As a sign of that, the European population has practically quadrupled in eighteen years. It also rendered great service in the two World Wars. More that half the adult male population underwent military service in the First World War, and in the Second World War, as all your Lordships remember. Rhodesia was an essential base in Allied measures for for the defence of Africa.
There are many who say, "All that is true. The settlers have shown that they can look after themselves. But what about the Africans?" No one who has been to Southern Rhodesia can doubt that the Africans are happy. On that matter, I can quote the testimony of Ministers representing the Government who have been there quite recently. There is no doubt that the African population of Southern Rhodesia are a happy population. They have had not only their reserves of land secured to them on a very large scale—it is about one-third of the area of the Colony—but they have also had further land on a large scale appropriated to them for individual purchase, of which only a small part has been taken up by them so far. They are beginning a system of local government, although there it is not so far advanced as in Northern Rhodesia. But, if I may quote the Report upon Southern Rhodesia's record in this matter, I think your Lordships will find this paragraph impressive. It is on page 30 of the Report of the conference; and it runs:
"The Southern Rhodesian Government spends considerably more per head of the African population on such African services as health, education, irrigation and soil conservation than do the Northern Governments …"
I think that is worth remembering, when the question is raised whether the European system of self-government has done justice to the African population in Southern Rhodesia or not. Above all, they have adhered to Rhodes' principle of equal rights for every civilised man and no political colour bar. There are people in this country who doubt the sincerity with which that principle is being applied.

181
But what is the value of such criticism, coming from students, itinerant professors and politicians of various kinds, as compared with the solid testimony of impartial civil servants, whose main interest, after all, is to see that the population of the country as a whole, and more particularly the least vocal part of the population, the African population, is justly attended to? I could quote from the Report many passages to show how highly they esteem the Government of Southern Rhodesia in that respect, and how, despite some differences, they regarded the principle adopted in the Crown Colonies as being exactly the same as the principle pursued in the self-governing Colony of Southern Rhodesia. I do not believe that any better showing is to be found for European leadership in Africa since Europeans first went to that continent.
It is therefore, I think, meet and right that we should pay tribute here to-day to the men responsible for that achievement, and more particularly to the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, Sir Godfrey Huggins. He was not trained to public work. He was, by profession, a doctor, who had his initial training at St. Thomas's Hospital across the river, and afterwards worked at the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital. He emigrated to Rhodesia in 1911, and he served in the First World War very gallantly. He entered Parliament, on pressure by his neighbours, when self-government was first given in 1923. He became Prime Minister in 1933, being then of the same age as, I think, was Cromwell when he entered public affairs in this country. This goes to show that political capacity may be developed unexpectedly and very late. He is, as all who know him will agree, compact of sound principle and profound political sense, and he understands, above all, that progress must be tentative and gradual if justice is to be done to all in a society such as that to be found in Southern Rhodesia.
I should like to pay a tribute also—and I am sure your Lordships will join with me in this—to the Legislature, the Administration and the electorate of Southern Rhodesia. We know that democratic electorates are not always wise in the selection of the leaders to whom to entrust their affairs. I say that without Party prejudice of any kind. But the
182
electorate have certainly been wise in Southern Rhodesia, and their choice reflects great credit not only on Sir Godfrey Huggins but on the electors themselves. I think that these things prove to the hilt that if you give responsibility to British stock in any part of the world, they will show the mettle of their pasture and do honour to the Island from which they spring. Your Lordships will, I think, agree that this record of a great trust which we gave, and which has been justified, has an intimate bearing upon the issue to-day, now that we are called upon to face another decision of even greater scope and weight.
The Report of the Conference, as my noble friend said, emphasises and reiterates not only the necessity but the urgency of closer union between these three Territories in the interests of the Territories themselves, and in the interests of all the races contained therein. That was evident to the Bledisloe Commission which went to Rhodesia before the war, and it has certainly been proved by the experience of the Central Africa Council, a purely advisory body which was established during the war. That Council was fully represented at this Conference, and, therefore, joins in the unanimous advice which the Conference has given. Of course, as my noble friend has said, the Federation scheme is imperfect. What scheme is not? For my part, I feel particularly anxious about the weight and expense of the apparatus of government proposed. I will not go into details, but for a population of 6,000,000 it appears to be a very heavy and complex machine for government and administration, with governors, legislatures, and all. And I think it may be well worth while, when the time comes to study these matters in detail, to consider whether, in the interests of all races, some simplification and some economy, both in money and men, are not possible. Of course, that is only one example. There is an immense amount of detail to be worked out. These proposals are largely headlines, and everyone knows how much work must be done to give them constitutional shape. Details apart, however, I for my part wholeheartedly endorse the general framework which is proposed, and I trust that there will be complete agreement between the Parties upon endorsement of that scheme when the Secretaries of State have been out there and consulted opinion upon the spot.

183
The economic arguments used in the Report are, as my noble friend said, compelling, but they are less important than taking the right course with regard to the most critical of all questions in Africa to-day—human and racial relationships. That is the vital thing. I spoke of the two ideologies which are in conflict now in the African Continent. Both are extremes. Both are counsels of despair, because, under either, racial conflict must be inevitable. With either of those extremes one race or the other goes under, and, naturally, both races will struggle to survive. As I say, I regard both extremes, both ideologies, as counsels of despair. Central Africa stands between these two ideologies, a bastion of sound policy, upholding the principle of racial partnership. But consolidation of Central Africa, that is, of the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland, which is so closely intertwined in its interests with the Rhodesias, is imperative if that bastion is to resist the waves of fanaticism which are going to beat upon it from every side. Remember that the population of Northern Rhodesia is now greater than the population was in Southern Rhodesia when we gave self-government to that country eighteen years ago. The population of Southern Rhodesia then was 33,000 Europeans as against nearly 1,000,000 Africans. The population of Northern Rhodesia now is 35,000 or more. Already that European population has an unofficial majority, and it has been fortunate in finding a remarkable leader in Mr. Welensky, who first proved his capacity as a trade union leader and then showed his powers of leadership in the political field. He is not only the leader of the unofficial majority in the Legislative Council; he is also a member of the Governor's Executive Council. I am sure that many of your Lordships who have followed his speeches, as I have, will agree that they show a grasp of principle on this question of racial relations in which we are entitled to confide.
The issue is crystal clear. Either we trust our own people in Africa or our people in Africa will cease to trust us. And if they cease to trust us, where will they go, where can they go, for support, except to the great Union to the south? If that occurs, Central Africa will have been relegated by our blindness to the hopeless conflict of extremes which seems
184
to be developing elsewhere. As my noble friend said, in this matter there must be compromise. What is needed now is that in some respects we should trust the European population and in other respects the European population should trust us. If only a compromise on these lines can be secured, if only their good will and confidence in us can be maintained, if we make the same act of faith which we made in 1923, then I believe that we shall have created a fabric of racial partnership which will never be overthrown.
4.2 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lorls, probably the general feeling of your Lordships is that those who follow the noble Viscount should speak as shortly as possible because, looking at the following items on the Order Paper, I think (if I may so phrase it) the hearts of many of your Lordships are in the Highlands and not in the Rhodesias. Therefore, I shall do little more than to follow the President of the United States and the preacher who, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, recalled a few days ago, when discussing the nature of sin, confined themselves to saying whether or not they thought well of it. I join the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in admiration at the unanimity of the officials who have dealt with this project. I think that unanimity has been remarkable, and it is very significant. But as we has been reminded by letters in the Press and elsewhere, it is one thing to secure the unanimity of officials who have represented the various units concerned and another thing to secure the good will of Europeans and Africans to this project.
I do not wish to deal with the Report in any detail. I wish to be perfectly realistic about this scheme, and I fear that the unanimity of officials on one point was a little misplaced. I do not agree with them that
"the differences in native policy between Southern Rhodesia and the two Northern Territories are largely those of method and timing."
It may be true that the ultimate objective of all the Governments concerned is the same—namely,
"the economic, social and political advancement of the Africans in partnership with the Europeans."
But if we are to secure the good will of the Africans to this project—and it is not the good will of the Africans in Southern Rhodesia that concerns us so much as

185
the good will of the Africans in the two Northern Territories—we must try to view the native policy of Southern Rhodesia through their eyes. They do not look at the objective; they look at certain concrete and tangible facts. They say that in the policy of native administration they are far more advanced than Southern Rhodesia.
I should like to say how heartily I agree with all that has been said about Sir Godfrey Huggins and the good will of the European community towards Africans, and, on the whole, the general contentment of Africans in Southern Rhodesia. But so far, for example, the Africans in Southern Rhodesia have not been trusted with the trial of criminal cases—I take that as a typical point. All that has been done in regard to the development of the native treasury system is far behind what has been done in the Northern Territories. It is points of this nature that the Africans of the Northern Territories will consider when they are asked for their opinion of any form of union with Southern Rhodesia. They are, again, well aware of what has been done under the industrial Conciliation Act, which amounts to something like a complete colour bar in labour; they are well aware of what has been done by some of the trade unions. And I am afraid that their judgment is likely to be swayed a great deal by the knowledge of these facts.
As for the Europeans, there has been for many years, since Lord Bledisloe's Commission reported, a considerable diversity of feeling on the subject of amalgamation or union. I am well aware that the project that we are now to consider is not amalgamation and that the arguments which apply to amalgamation cannot properly be applied to a scheme of federation, but I am afraid that when the Secretaries of State go out there, they are likely to hear the project attacked from two different points of view. First, I think it will be attacked from the point of view of the Europeans, many of whom feel that federation is a poor substitute for amalgamation, because it does not secure what many Europeans in Southern Rhodesia demand—namely, something like the permanent supremacy of the White population. They are also liable to be attacked on the point referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and
186
the noble Earl, Lord Altrincham—that is, the difficulties in detail likely to occur. For instance, there may be difficulty about the appointment of a Minister in charge of African interests, presumably responsible to a Governor-General, and not to the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia or the local Legislatures; and difficulties may also occur because both federal and local Legislatures have power to impose income tax. They will be able to say that it looks as if in future we shall see a continuing period of tension between local Legislatures and Downing Street and, indeed, between one Department and another of the British Government.
I have already indicated that the scheme is liable to be attacked by Africans from another point of view which particularly appeals to them, partly on account of old prejudices against union with Southern Rhodesia, and partly on account of the difficulties inherent in the present scheme itself. Nevertheless, I am certainly one of those who hope that the scheme will be given its best chance, both here and in Africa. I am convinced that closer association in some form or another is essential. I am not so much swayed by the fear that, if there is no form of union or closer association between these Territories, they may fall within the orbit of the Union. I see more positive grounds for closer union. It is certainly the fact that all these Territories have now arrived at a stage of economic progress when some form of union is necessary between them. I would say equally that they have arrived at a stage when some form of union is necessary which will enable a greater development of the possibilities of co-operation between the White population and the Africans. Most of all, I am swayed by the fact that the history of the British Commonwealth shows that none of the great units of the Commonwealth has attained its present stature save under some form of federation. If ever these large areas of Africa are to take an honoured and useful place in the Commonwealth, then it must be by some form of co-operation between what have been hitherto dispersed, ill-equipped and immature units. It is in that faith that I myself would commend this project, not only to all classes of thinkers here but to those who are concerned for the best interests of the African population.
4.13 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord who has just spoken ended as he did, because in the earlier part of his speech I thought he tended unduly to emphasise what a large number of people are saying—namely, that there has been great diversity of native policy in Africa between Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia. Having often been to those countries, I have not seen that. As a matter of fact, in many respects, I have been more impressed with the progress made in Southern Rhodesia compared with that in either Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia. I agree that that is when one goes reasonably off the beaten track into the native reserves and into the native areas. I know that suspicion against Southern Rhodesia can be used by interested parties who are trying to wreck this idea of federation. I devoutly hope that federation will come about, in the interests of all the three territories, in the interests of resisting the spread of Malanite ideas from South Africa, and in the interests of the whole future destiny of the British relations with East Africa and, indeed, of Africa as a whole.
Whoever was dealing with native affairs in Southern Rhodesia had a very different task in front of him compared with that, say, in Nyasaland. In Southern Rhodesia there remained only the scattered remnants of the Mashona Tribe, after the invasions on one side by the Matabele, who slaughtered them in their thousands, and by the Shona on the other The tribal system of the Shona, which was always very primitive, had never been effectively built up, and they were in fragments. In Nyasaland, however, there were intact, coming down through long ages, some of the most advanced, progressive and indigenous tribal organisations in the whole of Africa. For a long time it was the Nyasaland natives who provided the leading Africans in East Africa, right down to the Cape. Thanks to the Scottish and then the Roman Catholic missions, they have produced many outstanding Africans—and, after all, they are far more numerous in little Nyasaland than in the two Rhodesias combined. It is, of course, vital to any federation or union between the two Rhodesias that Nyasaland should come in: they are dependent on the same thought, and and absolutely interlocked in every way
188
for the purposes of defence and economic development. I am convinced that it is in the major interests of each party that that should be so. After all, the native leaders in Nyasaland know that an ever-increasing number of their people (and remember that they are an overpopulated country, with over fifty people to the square mile, as against three to the square mile of native population in Northern Rhodesia) are going to Northern Rhodesia and to Southern Rhodesia, where, incidentally, I may say they are getting all the best jobs.
I visited these countries first exactly forty years ago, and again in 1924 as chairman of the first Labour Government's mission on closer union between East and Central Africa. I have often been there again since, and I was in all three Territories last year. I believe that it is most important that Sir Godfrey Huggins should not hide his light under a bushel. He has always kept very dark about what he has done on the quiet. I remember one instance, when one of the European municipalities was doing pretty bad native housing in the location. He was very cross about it. The situation was very difficult: it was a European municipality, and he did not want a row about the matter. However, he resumed for a short time, as Prime Minister, the Ministry of Native Affairs, and then went back again. Then he found himself in possession of the Native Land Trust Fund, the basis of which is that any money derived from alienated native land goes into the Trust to buy other native land for natives. He bought up the land alongside the municipal location for the Native Land Trust, and proceeded to show them how to build a native township. I went over it soon after it was finished, and it was among the best native housing that I have seen. I had this surprise however. I said to the manager and the leading native who came down with me: "Who are these people who are occupying these charming places? Look at that nice garden and look at those curtains there. Are they Shona or are they Matabele? "His reply was: "Neither; they are practically all from Nyasaland."
Sir Godfrey Huggins has rendered outstanding medical assistance right away from the European areas. I have been to many of these native clinics deep into

189
the country. I suppose that he has violated every tenet of every British Medical Association branch in the world. Every kind of native who has had some training performs every kind of operation, if it is in the interests of saving life, long before he is qualified. They are rudely and roughly equipped, but extremely well equipped, and they saved untold lives in Southern Rhodesia only last year. There is a low-lying valley of the Sabi, which some day, under irrigation, may be developed. It is very low-lying, and it is not European country. If anybody is going to make good on that it will be the Africans. Already, on Sir Godfrey Huggins' own initiative, Africans are being trained to grow crops under perennial irrigation. The work is tucked away where people do not see it, and it is all done by one white officer in charge, the rest of the workers being Africans. I felt that I must say that, in view of the kind of doubts which the noble Lord, Lord Hailey raised in his speech this afternoon. I deeply regret that he felt called upon to stress them as he did. I know that this scheme, and probably any scheme, wily be full of anomalies: it will satisfy no theoretical Constitution-monger, and may even cost some more money. But I am passionately anxious that the federation of the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland shall go through, and go through now, in some form.
In Southern Rhodesia there has been a new influx since the last war of at least 50,000 new Europeans from this country, and not from South Africa. Periodically, there is the threat of an infiltration by Afrikanders from the Union with, of course, their un-British ideas. I see ever-increasing racial tension in the Union—Boer versus Briton and Briton versus Boer—the whole of the coloured community thrown into the arms of the Africans and the Indians. As a result of the present dogmas at Pretoria I see nothing but racial clashes there. I profoundly regret that, because I love South Africa. Do let us show the Europeans in South Africa, before it is too late, that on British lines and British traditions we can have a strong federal State, where the English tradition of the relations between the British from this Island and the native races of the Empire is once again shown to be liberal, decent and on a really Christian basis.
4.26 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, so much has already been said in such an excellent manner that it is hard to think of much which is different to say. I cannot help feeling that it is a great privilege to be able to join in a debate which may well be a landmark in African history and possibly Imperial history. It is not that we think anything is going to be actually decided on these Reports to-day—because, after all, we are really having a debate on the Reports which are before us—but they may well be the foundation of a great new African State. As has been said already, we, are discussing a very old subject but we are doing so from a new and a fresh angle—the angle provided by this body of servants from the three great African Colonies of Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia, and our own Colonial Office.
Every speaker but the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, has stressed what the Reports themselves stressed—namely, that the great barrier which has always seemed to stand between these three Territories has, in fact, been much exaggerated. The noble Lord who has just sat down stressed the fundamental similarity, in spite of the many differences, between the policies of these different Territories. The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, went further and drew our attention to what is perhaps one of the most important pronouncements in the Report on this question of native affairs, where it says on page 30 that Southern Rhodesia spends considerably more per head on African services than do either Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia. With deference to what the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, said—and we all listen to every word he says to us on these great Imperial questions—the gentlemen who drew up this Report are in even closer touch than he is with what is in fact happening in Africa at the moment. As the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, told us at the beginning, these are men who are nurtured in the principles of trusteeship and of partnership. They are men from the Colonial service and also those from our own Colonial Office who are the very achitects of the West Coast scheme of self-government.
What is the real significance of the problem before us to-day? Surely it is

191
this. We are going to have a chance of seeing what African self-government means in West Africa. We are having the opportunity of watching the development of pure White separation and supremacy in the Union of South Africa. But what Central Africa can offer us is a conception of partnership between two races. And that, as the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said, is essentially the British contribution: the partnership between Black and White, which is by far the greatest hope of African progress—greater than either of the other two extremes.
Let us not discuss this scheme under any sense of illusion. Let us face the fact that the position is not entirely in our own hands. It is in our power to discourage this scheme to the extent that it is postponed, if not actually destroyed. It is not in our power to prevent what some feel to be the inevitable result of taking that action. I do not want to discuss the merits of whether it is a good or a bad thing that Southern Rhodesia should more and more look in a southerly direction. But I feel that it is almost inevitable that that should be so if this scheme is discouraged and turned down, and that this would be of the most profound economic, political, and strategic significance. If that happened, the whole hope of creating this great Central African Territory would vanish. I use the word "Central" not only geographically but in terms of native policy. Moreover, if we do postpone this scheme we shall lose the opportunity of starting the scheme under the leadership of a proved Empire statesman, a man who has also proved himself fundamentally liberal in the finest sense of the word. I know there is a certain amount of disquiet in the minds of some people overseas about the British power of veto over native policy. But it is not only to Our credit here that the veto of the British Parliament has never been applied; it is also to the credit of Sir Godfrey Huggins and his colleagues that it has never been necessary.
There is one thing that I would say to those who are leading African opinion and to those over here who feel that they are defending the African. Are they quite sure that they are taking the best possible steps for the African? If they drive Southern Rhodesia to look more and
192
more to the Union of South Africa—I will not mention Northern Rhodesia, for we cannot see very far as yet in that direction—let them ask themselves whether they are helping the native cause. After all, the same gentlemen, if His Majesty's Government were to propose handing over Bechuanaland and Swaziland to the Union Government, would fight the proposal to the last ditch. Why, then, themselves take action that may well land Southern Rhodesia in that position? I cannot help wishing that some of those persons who were referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and others (there was in The Times this morning an important letter—important in the sense of the harm it could do—signed by one of your Lordships) could have been with me in June when I was in Rhodesia. That was at the time of the publication of the Report. I believe they could not have failed to be most deeply impressed by the sense of responsibility with which that Report was received. After all, this is a very old subject. It has been in the minds of many over there for a long period of years; and yet the Report was received with the greatest calm and quietness. There was some criticism of its limitations—and there are certainly very great limitations—but the Report was received in a spirit of sober responsibility and deep thought. I believe that anybody who had been with me when I was there would have returned with a firm belief that these are essentially a people to be trusted.
And that word "trust" reminds me of the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, to confidence. I believe that confidence by us in the Rhodesians and their confidence in us is absolutely fundamental to a successful solution of this whole problem, especially in regard to native affairs. That is why I am particularly glad that the Secretary of State paid his visit to Kenya. I think it had a tremendous effect in restoring confidence out there. It created a completely different state of mind in the average settler. The confident man can be generous and liberal; the frightened man becomes defensive and illiberal. If a man has dug up his roots from his own country and taken root in the soil of a far country; if he has put his all into it and taken his family and spent his life there, then he is completely committed to it; and

193
then, if some politician makes him feel that the whole basis of his life is going to be destroyed, it is not surprising if the man does or at least says some silly things. It is for these reasons that I am sure that Mr. Griffiths' visit to Kenya did immense good, and that his visit to Central Africa should also do good.
I should like to say a word or two to some of my Rhodesian friends. I speak with a feeling of immense diffidence. It is only recently that I have begun going out, and I visit the country at most only twice a year. My only excuse is that I have learnt to love it deeply. While I was out there I read a letter in the paper by an ex-Minister of Southern Rhodesia, Sir Ernest Guest. In many ways it was a well argued and well conceived letter, but there was one thing in it that seemed to me to be based on a complete fallacy. It was in the last paragraph, where he warned the Rhodesians to beware of accepting a scheme with so many limitations and so many faults; that this scheme would be from now onwards permanently round their necks, and that it could never be amended. I should like anybody in this House or anywhere in the British Empire to put his finger on any British Constitution in any part of the world that in fact has remained static. We all know that there are things in every compromise that we do not like. I think there are some things in this Report that it would be hard for a Rhodesian Prime Minister to stomach—such as having a Minister in his Cabinet not appointed by himself and not responsible to him. There is also the question of expensive and heavy overheads referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. But, for heavens sake, do not let us fix our minds on details which can always be discussed and dealt with at a later stage, but let us concentrate our minds on getting the big scheme going. The principles of federation must be accepted. Get in train the greater confidence of race relations that can grow out of that scheme, and then I am convinced that many of the native fears will be discounted. Let us realise that there are genuine native fears, even though some of us may believe that a great number of them are bogies. But we shall never prove that they are bogies until we have the scheme actually in operation.
The big conception is that the future of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland depends on
194
the putting into operation of a scheme of closer union. The future of a great and immense experiment in relations in Africa depends upon it. There is only one real danger, which is that without a lead from His Majesty's Government things may be allowed to drift and we may lose our opportunity. Or else we may allow ourselves to be confused by a chorus of opinions about details. But there is here a chance of great Imperial statesmanship awaiting the two Secretaries of State on their return from their visit to Africa. Statesmanship will be needed, I believe, on both sides. I close by joining with other noble Lords in wishing the Secretaries of State well in the task that they have undertaken, and in hoping that they will in fact avail themselves of this immense opportunity.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it may be convenient if we now take the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, which must be returned to another place before the Royal Commission is held.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
4.44 p.m.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and read 1a.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 30), Bill read 2a: Committee negatived, Bill read 3a, and passed.

CENTRAL AFRICAN TERRITORIES
Debate resumed.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, what I have to say can be said in a very few minutes. To-morrow, as we all know, this House goes into Recess, but the debate on the issue that we have been discussing to-day will gather in intensity in the three Territories of Central Africa, reaching its climax, I suppose, when the Secretaries of State arrive there in the autumn. I do not often quote from the Daily Herald with very warm approval, but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what I thought was an

195
extremely wise piece of advice in the Daily Herald of June 14. Referring to the Report, it said:
"What is now necessary is that the plan should not be hastily judged, but carefully considered by all the peoples concerned."
That appears to me to be the epitome of good sense. But who are the peoples in Africa? Sometimes we read, and sometimes we hear, sentiments expressed which tend to becloud that issue. Surely the peoples of Central Africa, and of East Africa too, are those who intend it to be the home of their children and their children's children.
About fifty years ago my father was a very junior colleague of Lord Milner. Looking at these Territories of Central Africa with the unclouded eyes of a very young man, he came to a series of conclusions, which he wrote down, about the future pattern that they would assume. Much has happened that he did not foresee; much that he foresaw has not happened, but certainly the fifty years of progress in the three Central African Territories to which this Report pays tribute are a great reality. The pattern of trusteeship and the pattern of partnership in these three Territories is indeed a shining reality. "Trusteeship" is a very old term with us; it is nothing new to the British race. It was first used, in that sense, in a House of Commons Committee as far back as the year 1837. Gradually, and almost entirely within this century, we have seen the growth in Africa of something else—the growth of partnership. Partnership is the pattern of the future. We have in front of us this project for closer association, the pattern of a partnership in Africa on a grand scale. So far-reaching a proposal "should not be hastily judged," wisely commented the Daily Herald. It is, therefore, the more deplorable that immoderate and unreasonable men, with preconceived and misconceived views, should have tried to muddy the pool and thus do such a monstrous disservice to so many people in these Territories.
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, referred to some such propaganda. The trouble, as I think he himself said, is that, when you are assessing African opinion, too often it is the noisiest that assails your ears. This is a policy of moderation, and you can counsel moderation. You may indeed preach it; but
196
you cannot possibly agitate for moderation. So the man who agitates against you gets most of the ear of the crowd. I should like to draw attention to a certain statement—and I do so with an especial feeling of shame that such a statement should have gone out from this country in what is believed to be a responsible journal. For this is the kind of thing which can only do the most unmitigated harm to the cause we all have at heart. The statement comes from the New Statesman of June 23, which said:
"Such is the attitude of the great majority of the settlers in all three Territories, that Federal Union would certainly be used by them to reduce the Africans of the two Protectorates to the status of hopeless servitude which the Africans of Southern Rhodesia now occupy."
I should be most unwilling to believe that that statement was actuated by pure malice. It is the grossest distortion, and if one assumes, charitably, that it proceeds from mere ignorance, it is little the less deplorable for that.
I suppose that it is true to say that not only in the Commonwealth but throughout the world to-day the tendency is towards larger and larger groupings, as the position of the small nation becomes progressively more precarious. In such a grouping as this you broaden the basis of the economy and thus you strengthen it and, to some extent, insulate it against the buffets of booms and slumps. The whole aspect of strategy, which must always be in the forefront of our minds, is strengthened. A well known Victorian statesman speaking on federation once said:
"The justification of any association is that the bundle is stronger than the sticks that compose it."
The justification for the binding up of this bundle is absolutely clear. This Report has been prepared, as many of your Lordships have said, by men whose impartiality was not in question, and to whose expert knowledge all attested; and they reached agreement. I do not suggest for one moment that the Report is perfect as it stands. What I should like to say is this. I hope that those in the three Territories who find themselves in disagreement with the men who prepared the Report, will not just damn the idea of federal union but will address themselves to finding and devising a better form of relationship in closer association.

197
Every possible difficulty can be placed in the way of federation. It is an act of faith, as the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, said. No Federation has ever been easily achieved, and none ever will be. Federation means giving up something of what you have and what you know, in return for something which you have not yet experienced. The oldest Federation in the British Empire and Commonwealth to-day is Canada. Its federation took place in the lifetime of men still alive. It has risen, since it federated, from a small, poor and unimportant series of North American Colonies, to become the fourth biggest manufacturing and exporting nation in the world. I should like to point out, taking Canada as my example, how federation stirs up opinion in the most astonishing way, and how that opinion swings from one extreme to another and, of course, may well swing back again. The Canadian Federation took place in 1867. A year later, in 1868, they had an election in Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotians wished to withdraw from the Federation. In that election, only one Member was returned to Parliament who was in favour of the Federation. However, they were prevailed on to stay, and an election took place four years later on just the same subject, and on that occasion only one person who was not in favour of federation was returned, after four years' experience.
Those who tend to stress the very great difference between Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia should study the even greater difference between Quebec and Ontario, which have existed side by side for so long. I think this plan answers a question which has been, perhaps unspoken, in the minds of the peoples of Central Africa for some time: "Just where are we going?" This plan creates for them a goal to which the people of Central Africa can confidently march; it offers a grouping for strength; it offers some insurance for political stability in the future and, perhaps, the creation of yet another great nation of the Commonwealth. Let those who think that the difficulties in the way are insuperable reflect how those difficulties may accumulate with a terrible momentum in the years to come, until, working perhaps to the worst case one can envisage, a fearful conflict of extremes ensues.
198
In bringing my remarks to a close I would say just this. Perhaps several of your Lordships, besides myself, read a book that came out about two years ago, written by a distinguished American author. I do not quote it for its contents, which are not very convincing, but for its title. That book was called Last Chance in Africa. I do not say that this is the last chance in Central Africa to bring about the closer association we wish to see, but I do say, with my noble friend Lord Swinton, that it may be many years before such an opportunity recurs and that it is doubtful whether it will ever recur in the same form and under these conditions. Mere constitutional change does not by itself solve the problems of plural societies; it solves them only when it is allied to the good will, the good sense and the farsightedness of the people of the Territories concerned. To that we appeal, and on that we rely.
4.56 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, when the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, spoke just now, he said that he counted it a privilege, to join in this debate. On my own behalf I repeat his words. For eight of the last eighteen months I have, been working on the continent of Africa and I have been able to see the situation at first hand. I would say to your Lordships from firm conviction, based on that experience, that His Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on this scheme, and I hope that your Lordships will give it the fullest possible support, so that the terms therein envisaged may be brought into effect at the earliest possible moment. I beg to support the scheme, and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, for raising this vital matter.
4.57 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, at the end of this extremely harmonious debate, which, so far as I know, has produced no serious difference of conclusions, although inevitably there have been some differences of argument, I rise only to support, very shortly, but most sincerely, what has been said by Lord Swinton and other speakers as to the scheme of the White Paper to bring about the closer association of the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland. I believe that this is vital, for many reasons, and I believe that it is extremely important that

199
such a closer association should be achieved at the earliest practicable moment. This was impressed upon me more and more by my experience in the Commonwealth Relations Office (in those days the Dominions Office) and in the Colonial Office during the war.
These three Territories, as I think anyone who knows them will confirm, and as Lord Swinton himself said, are in various respects interdependent. One thinks of the Wankie collieries in Southern Rhodesia which feed the industries of Northern Rhodesia, and the Kariba Gorge hydro-electric scheme, which is now, as your Lordships know, in contemplation and which will have to serve the areas on both sides of the Zambesi. There is, as Lord Harlech said in his speech, a constant flow of labour from one Territory to another. Economically and, I believe, socially, they ought to form a single closely-knit unit. There are those, I know, who criticise the actual details of the constitutional structure of the Federation which has been recommended by the committee of officials, and who, like, I think, Lord Hailey, in the speech he made to your Lordships this afternoon, believe that that portion which deals in particular with native policy will be cumbrous and difficult to work.
As your Lordships, or anyone who has had anything to do with this very longstanding problem, will know, that has always been a stumbling block in earlier schemes for this same purpose, and it is quite possible that the machinery which is proposed by this Committee could be simplified and improved with the passage of time, and in the light of experience. Indeed, I have no doubt that Lord Ogmore will tell us, as Lord Lucan has already told us, that His Majesty's Government will have to study these proposals, and possibly amend them, in the light of the personal visit to the Territories of the two Secretaries of State, which is to take place in the autumn, and the consultations that they are going to hold there. And after that, Parliament (that is to say, all of us) will have to consider the completed scheme that they put forward as a result of those consultations.
As I see it, what really concerns us to-day is this. Here in this White Paper we have a scheme by which that closer association which is so ardently desired by us all can be made an accomplished
200
fact. As Lord Tweedsmuir has said, to damn it because it is not in every way perfect would be an act of very great folly. With all deference to your Lordships, from such experience of politics as I have had—which now, I am afraid, runs back over a good many years—I feel bound to give this serious warning to the House to-day. If this initiative is killed, either here or in the Territories themselves, I believe that the achievement of the closer association is likely to be put off, certainly for years, and possibly for a generation.
In that time a great deal can happen and, as Lord Tweedsmuir has already said, the opportunity may never recur, and certainly not in precisely this form. In any case, whether or not we agree with the scheme as a whole, there is much in this Report of which we can all approve. As has been mentioned by one speaker after another, it is based in particular on the idea of a partnership between Black and White, which is the developing pattern of our whole Colonial Empire.
My Lords, for those reasons, I hope most fervently that the Government will go forward on the basis of this Report. If they think right, let them amend or improve it, in the light of further study and consultations on the spot. I am sure that noble Lords, in all parts of the House, will be very ready to consider sympathetically the completed scheme. But I beg them not to allow it to fall by the way. If, in practice, the scheme proves difficult to work, it can always be amended further by the ordinary processes of evolutionary government—throughout our history that has been the British way. But the scheme must not be allowed to die. That, I am quite certain, would be a disaster, not only to the peoples of the Territories themselves, both African and European, but to the Empire as a whole.
5.4 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will be most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, for raising this Motion, and to the number of noble Lords who have intervened to give us the benefit of their experience and their views on this subject. I am not one who believes in what Mr. Lloyd George used to call "unbounded faith, unsupported by facts." Thus, it is of some significance to me to

201
note the experience that we have had exemplified in the debate. I have made a rough check, and I find that no fewer than three noble Lords who have previously been Secretaries of State to the Colonies have spoken, and, if the noble Marquess will allow me to tie him up with this other category, one noble Lord who has been Secretary of State to the Dominions, one who was Under-Secretary to the Colonies, a former Governor of Kenya, and a former High Commissioner to the Union of South Africa. I do not believe that anywhere else in the world one could have expected such a wealth of experience to be exemplified and to assist us in a debate. Speaking for myself, and I am sure for the Government, I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have taken the time and the trouble to come here and give us the benefit of their advice.
I am sure many of your Lordships feel that in spite of the many difficulties and dangers of the time in which we live there is really no more important subject that we can discuss than this. I believe it was the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, who said that this is a most important subject and one which affects a large and important part of a vast Continent. I do not think he used those words, but I do not suppose I am doing him an injustice in paraphrasing them in that way. I can assure noble Lords that the contributions they have made wi11 be most carefully studied. I hope they will be studied by all who are interested in the subject, and certainly they will be carefully studied by the Government. I make that qualification because I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and with other noble Lords, in deprecating the wild and alarmist statements that have been made in certain places in this country. At a time when, broadly speaking, there has been a considerable measure of agreement, in this House and elsewhere, on the desirability of some such broad plan, and when it has been considered most carefully in Africa, it is most unfortunate that we should have had an attack of this sort, not upon the details but upon the scheme as a whole. I cannot help feeling that a great deal of injustice has been done to our fellow countrymen in Africa.
I do not know why, but for some reason anyone in Eastern or Central Africa who happens to have European blood in his veins seems constantly to be
202
the object not only of criticism but of slander in this country. I remember going out there myself a couple of years ago, and, after seeing some of the work that had been done, particularly in the municipality of Nairobi—for example, in regard to housing, medical arrangements, and that sort of thing for the Africans—I was very impressed. I thought it a great tribute to the people who had gone out there, that they had spent so much thought, time and money on helping their African fellow citizens. To hear these same people castigated by persons who have never been nearer Africa than Southend really makes one feel most upset.
Another point that I want to bring out here is that the Europeans from these Territories have a great regard for the Africans. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and myself were in Africa at the same time. On speaking to the Europeans there I found that they had the greatest sympathy with and love for the African peoples. There is no other phrase that one can use. When in 1949 we had a particularly successful African Conference in London, I remember the pride with which many Europeans from East and Central Africa came to me and expressed their appreciation of the way in which the African members from East and Central Africa had taken part in the discussions. They were most proud of them, and they said: "Is it not wonderful to think that so many of our people can hold their own in a gathering of this kind?" Knowing that fact, it always seems to me to be most unfortunate that we should in any way deprecate what they are doing. I know that when the two Secretaries of Stale go to Africa they will have the sympathy and support of your Lordships and will receive in the Territories a very warm welcome. I believe that all points of view will be put to them.
I am sure that your Lordships will not wish me to-day to go into any details. It would not be proper for me to do so. My noble friend the Earl of Lucan has set out once more the Government's views on the matter. We adhere fully to the policy which we have re-stated on numerous occasions and to which he has referred to-day. I believe that, with statesmen of the calibre of those who are going out to deal with this matter—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and my right hon-

203
ourable friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations—and with statesmen of the calibre of those of all races who are in Africa, we shall come to a proper solution of this difficult question. Mention has been made of two gentlemen who are of great distinction and who would, indeed, be of great distinction in any company—Sir Godfrey Huggins, and Mr. Welensky. I believe Sir Godfrey Huggins has one further distinction beyond those that have been mentioned today—that is, that until quite recently (I do not know whether he still does it) he has performed operations in the morning before going to his office. Therefore he is, I believe, the only man in history who has combined the two active occupations of a consulting surgeon and a Prime Minister. I do not think I need detain your Lordships any longer, except once more to express the Government's gratitude to every noble Lord who has spoken and particularly to the noble Viscount. Lord Swinton, who so ably opened this debate.
5.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, we are all most grateful to the Minister of Civil Aviation for that very sympathetic and understanding reply. He was good enough to say that he was sure that what had been said in this debate would be of value and assistance to the Ministers who are going out to Africa on this mission. That was, indeed, the whole purpose of this debate. I hope and believe that what has been said on both sides of the House—and the speeches have shown, as I hoped they would, how closely we are together in this matter, and how keen we are that this experiment should succeed—will encourage all those who have to deal with these matters in those Territories to come to a wise and practical conclusion. If we have contributed to that, we shall indeed have done well in our generation. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
5.13 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, your Lordships may now find it convenient to adjourn during pleasure for the Royal Commission.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, would it not be possible to allow the debate on Lord Lovat's Motion to begin now? I understand that the Royal Commission is not to sit until half-past five. That will not be for nearly twenty minutes. A number of noble Lords who wish to take part in the debate on Lord Lovat's Motion have to leave London this evening by an early train for Scotland. It will therefore be a great advantage to them if we can have at least a quarter of an hour of the debate before the Royal Commission. If Lord Lovat is here, I think it will meet his convenience greatly if he is allowed to begin his speech immediately.

SLAUGHTER OF WILD DEER
5.14 p.m.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT rose to call attention to the recommendations regarding deer contained in the Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals (Cmd. 8266) and, in particular, to Paragraphs 214 and 215 of that Report; to ask His Majesty's Government whether they accept these recommendations, and if so, what action they propose thereon; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak on a subject which I think is non-controversial and also one on which debate is long overdue. Many of your Lordships, no doubt, have had the pleasure of b stalking the wild red deer on the hill. I think that one's first stag probably stands out in the memory of anyone who is fond of shooting. Possibly, a less happy memory is of the first stag one misses. I remember that, in my own case, I missed a stag standing broadside on, and fairly close, with both barrels of a very heavy rifle—first one barrel and then the other. On this occasion I feel in a rather similar condition, because I have arrived here to address your Lordships' House without my ammunition. My papers were sent down from Scotland and returned to Scotland without my seeing them. However, I will do my best in the circumstances.
I step in, rather rashly, to follow up a Question which has already been asked by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, with reference to the slaughter of, and the infliction of unnecessary cruelty upon, red deer in the United Kingdom, under the present highly unsatisfactory conditions

205
whereby these splendid wild animals come under no suitable legislation to prevent untrammelled poaching and the infliction of unnecessary suffering at the hands of desperadoes and organised gangs of poachers. These people have turned their attention to the destruction of our wild herds after being successfully prevented from carrying on, as they had previously done, an even more profitable method of supplying the black market in food—namely, salmon poaching. I feel that it would be greatly to the credit of the Scottish Office. who recently brought into operation an Act which has had most satisfactory and astonishingly rapid results in checking the unlawful destruction of salmon, if they could now turn and do the same thing for the benefit of these unfortunate deer. The traffic in the car-cakes of these animals, I suggest, has, to a large extent, taken the place in the black market of the traffic in poached salmon.
I do not speak as a land owner, but rather as a farmer, and I have no intention of giving the impression that it is in the interests of sport or with regard to the question of cruelty alone that I speak. I speak also having in mind the importance and the value, from a meat-producing point of view, of the deer stocks of Scotland. We reckon that in the Highlands alone there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100,000 red deer. Every season about 8,000 stags and hinds are shot under lawful conditions, and their flesh goes to the table in the form of first-class venison. Eight thousand deer represent something like 1,000 tons of meat, and I think your Lordships will agree that that is a not inconsiderable contribution to the nation's food supply. But the unfortunate fact emerges that, for a variety of reasons, since the war the conditions under which that meat supply exists have largely changed. I will endeavour, as briefly as possible, to trace the cause and effect.
The blame, I think, does not rest in any one quarter, but the results collectively are extremely unfortunate. You must distinguish between different collections of deer. There are, first, the deer living in a deer forest, under the control of, and supervised by, a competent staff of deerstalkers, who in turn are directed by a proprietor who lives on his land and whose family has, maybe, had the
206
ground for several generations. That class of proprietor is usually extremely well versed in the subject, and by letting his deer forest can maintain it in good order. A great number of estates have been broken up and have changed hands, and though the deer range over an area of some 3,000,000 acres of the Northern Highlands, they are far too often in places where they have no right to be. The Forestry Commissioners have taken over a great deal of valley land, and have bought up estates which have been sold or dispersed. As a result, the deer, who are forest creatures, have entered these woods, and from the protection of the woods have come out and, unquestionably, have done a great deal of damage to crops and small holdings in the vicinity, and have made a nuisance of themselves in enclosed land. In other places, the winter feed in the valleys which the deer must have has been flooded by hydro-electric schemes; and in other cases, where schemes are only in process of completion, the same effect has been caused by great numbers of workmen dynamiting, excavating and putting up heavy constructional works. All this has driven the deer away and sent them where they have no right to be.
But all these things fade into insignificance beside the fact that it is hard to find people who can afford, or are interested in, the pleasure of leasing a forest and stalking stags upon it. I am speaking as one of the younger members of your Lordships' House, and I deplore the fact that young men to-day are incapable of stalking. It is not always due to a lack of money; they prefer to find their pleasures elsewhere. One finds few men of my own age who will go through a forenoon's stalking with the pleasure they ought to enjoy. They like an easy day on the hill, but they seem happier in the lower ground or in the boudoir. I am still talking on cause and effect and I feel that I should add that, during the war, I myself was partly to blame for this. In the Highlands there were mountain warfare training centres, commando training establishments and small boat sections, which did great work in destroying enemy shipping. They were grouped and trained in Argyllshire, Inverness-shire and Wester Ross. Part of their curricula included deer-stalking, to improve their field-craft. A great

207
many soldiers could neither stalk nor shoot— that was another rather surprising state of affairs—and they set a bad example, in that the old traditions of the forest were broken.
In the old days one went out with a tremendous feeling of awe, and one had to take care to behave correctly. One was expected to listen to one's host the evening before, to be up early next morning, to fire one shot and to return either triumphant or disgraced, from one's efforts on the hill. All that gave way to the sort of happy-go-lucky mood of "How many cartridges have you got?" "What shall we get to-day? Shall we fill a lorry?" That sort of attitude reminds me of the story told of one commando who, returning from leave, met a stag on the road. He closed with it and gradually over-powered it. Then he was heard to shout "Bring the bayonet, Geordie!" That is hardly the spirit which makes one free of the forest. Through familiarity, the old tradition of deer-stalking has disappeared, and there is a change in our whole regard to that noble sport.
I am leading up to the fact that there is a puzzling habit of killing deer in large numbers with the minimum amount of exercise and because of the meat shortage, with the maximum amount of profit. I know that many soldiers who were snipers, and who performed fine service in the war, have now come home and kill deer under their own arrangements. If they did it for their own profit, that would be understandable, but it is entirely wrong when they have become earmarked as professional killers of meat, who seek only to fire the maximum number of rounds in the minimum amount of time with the best possible results, regardless of the age or sex of the deer they kill. Where gentlemen of sporting instincts used to take a forest on long lease, we now see well-to-do butchers taking a whole series of deer forests and producing their teams of picked marksmen, who manœuvre the deer into a suitable piece of ground, driving them through a pass or some natural feature which will bring them down to a slow walk, so that they can kill from twenty-five to thirty head of stag in one afternoon and get them home.
I have referred to the meat shortage. Before the war it was quite impossible to convince anybody, even the domestic staff of a shooting lodge, that venison was good to eat. Great reluctance was always shown if it was suggested that someone might be sent a haunch of venison. It was pleaded that he might not be glad to get it. Venison was thought to be "high" because the taste was different from beef or mutton. Perhaps it may be that we do not know what beef or mutton tastes like nowadays, but certainly venison is now at a premium. It is not surprising that last winter, in the shops of London, reindeer meat was being sold at 4s. 6d. a pound. If reindeer meat is worth 4s. 6d. a pound, I should like to suggest, without undue patriotism, that Highland venison is worth at least 5s. a pound. That means that a stag in good condition is worth from £10 to £15, which is a considerable sum. The stag which may weigh 70 stone when clean in August or September will weigh only about 11 stone in spring, when it is a feeble object, scraping an uneasy living at the road side; but he is still good to the dishonest butcher or to the uninformed town dweller who needs a joint for the Christmas dinner, a coming-of-age party, a wedding, or any other celebration where more than half a dozen people are gathered together. That stag's haunch is worth 5s. a pound, in whatever state the animal is. It can be quite first-class at the right season of the year, but for the remaining ten months it commands the same value, although not quite so heavy. The haunch of a stag weighs somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30 1b., and at 5s. a pound your Lordships can see that there is a considerable commercial value in the animal for a man who knows how to go about it. That is what is happening. The demand is there; the supply is there; and, under the present law, there are no means of controlling the fines and penalties that go with this wanton and cruel destruction of the animal about which we are talking.
An excellent White Paper has been printed, which I hope is in your Lordships' possession. I wish to refer to paragraphs 214 and 215 of that White Paper, although I shall not read them. Without wasting your Lordships' time, if you read those paragraphs you will see that the proposals there are threefold. I desire merely to amplify them slightly.

209
The proposals I submit to your Lordships are, first, that there should be a close season for red deer—and the time I suggest is from January 1 to August 1; secondly, that red deer should be promoted to being game animals; and, finally, that no venison should be sold through the market during the close season. Possibly the last recommendation is the most important of the three. There are always unscrupulous people who will sell venison in a close season, with the excuse that it was killed before the season ended and put in a refrigerator. That is simply a matter for investigation and review. There is nothing difficult in my recommendations, and I hope that they can be favourably considered.
My Lords, I understand that I have to close my speech now.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is to be a Royal Commission, but that will only take a certain number of minutes. The noble Lord may then continue his speech from where he has left off.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this may be a convenient time to adjourn for the Royal Commission.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
5.40 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Finance,

Appropriation,

Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage,

Courts-Martial (Appeals),

Festival of Britain (Additional Loans),

Dangerous Drugs,

Slaughter of Animals (Amendment),

Consolidated Fund (Civil List Provisions),

Isle of Man (Customs),

Telephone,

Midwives,

Midwives (Scotland),

Nurses (Scotland),

Guardianship and Maintenance of Infants,

National Assistance (Amendment),

Fireworks,

210

Price Control and Other Orders (Indemnity),

Mineral Workings,

Forestry,

Tithe,

Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials,

Rivers (Prevention of Pollution),

Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests),

Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland),

Sir William Turner's Hospital at Kirkleatham Charity Scheme Confirmation,

British Transport Commission Order Confirmation,

Walsall Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Pier and Harbour Order (Lymington) Confirmation,

Saint Benet Gracechurch,

Great Yarmouth Port and Haven,

London County Council (Crystal Palace),

Brighton Extension,

Abingdon Corporation,

Nottingham City and County Boundaries,

Bristol Corporation,

Dartmouth Harbour,

Bournemouth and District Water,

Lancashire County Council (General Powers),

Sunderland Corporation,

Faversham Navigation,

Sutton and Cheam Corporation,

British Transport Commission,

Swindon Corporation,

London County Council (General Powers),

Trent River Board,

West Riding County Council (General Powers),

Worcester Corporation,

Nottinghamshire County Council,

Liverpool Extension.

House adjourned daring pleasure.
House resumed.

SLAUGHTER OF WILD DEER
5.55 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, it may be as well if I jump one or two fences backwards, so to speak, since I was under the impression that my speech had to be

211
brought to a conclusion whereas it was. I find, only a kind of adjournment. I will briefly re-sketch, if I may, what I have already said. Deer-stalking, from being the sport of the few, has become the uncontrolled sport of a great number, and the commercialisation of deer forests, where no harm was done, has resulted in the wanton destruction of deer by persons who are not capable of dispatching the animals in a sportsmanlike, humane, or correct manner. I have asked the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, to deal with the legal aspect. At the moment I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the awful cruelty of killing large animals at night by the headlights of motor-cars along motoring roads, which is the commonest form of deer poaching to-day.
Whatever is decided in regard to fines and penalties, I respectfully submit that the strongest possible action be taken against these inhuman people who kill deer at night from a car. Between January and April, when the main destruction occurs on the roadsides, the deer are often emaciated and in a starving condition. These unfortunate animals, suffer-as they are from the severity of the winter, are yet seeking protection from human beings—whom in former days they had every reason to trust. Some of your Lordships know that when you were motoring northwards from Blair Atholl you were never out of sight of deer along the roadsides. You could go through the Scottish Lake District into Perthshire and Inverness, from Blair Atholl, where the Boar of Badenoch looks across to the Sow of Atholl and to Cape Wrath, and you would always see deer in the winter time. You would probably see them at any season of the year with glasses or a telescope.
That situation has entirely changed. One evil leads to another, and, although I am not discussing sheep stealing in the Highlands, that is getting progressively worse. It is simply a matter of taking chances and getting away with it, and the sphere of action is being extended. The reply that was given prior to the issue of the Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals was that some of the accounts of cruelty were grossly exaggerated and that such things as tommy guns, sten guns and other automatic
212
weapons had not, in fact, been used. I am leaving another noble Lord to deal with that matter, but I can tell you, as one who lives all the year round amongst deer, that that is not in fact a correct statement. Every form of weapon is being used. I have even known cases of deer being shot at by night with tracer bullets. Surely that is the lowest form of behaviour—shooting up large animals with phosphorus.
I will not speak on that further, I will not multiply instances of large-scale poaching, but I should like to tell your Lordships of a case which is very much in my mind because it happened recently. I think it shows how discipline has slipped, whatever the chief constables of the county police have said in their report—and I gather a report has been asked for by the Government from the chief constables in the Highland or crofter counties. This case concerns a policeman who was caught poaching. He was a sergeant, not in the county police but in the burgh constabulary of a county town with which I am well acquainted. He was caught red-handed shooting deer wantonly and in the early summer, as recently as three weeks ago. When the factor of the estate concerned investigated the case, this police-sergeant first denied all knowledge and made various false statements.
Subsequently, when the matter was referred to the burgh chief constable, he made the excuse that he thought that, as he was in company with a stalker, he was doing no wrong. Since that incident occurred the sergeant has been promoted to an inspector, and the unfortunate stalker has lost his job. I hardly think that is a very happy state of affairs. I can give your Lordships chapter and verse for that case because it happened to occur on my own property. It is a typical example of the lawlessness which exists at the present time, when this can be done by a police-sergeant or anybody else who has a sister who keeps a boarding-house and likes to sell steak diane at 7s. a pound or maybe a halfpound—whatever it is one gets for it on the black market. When the maximum fine which can be imposed is £2, there is bound to be trouble; and there must be cruelty if men try to kill big animals by rifle fire at night, or shoot out of boats, which is a frequent occurrence in the

213
Western Highlands. There deer are caught along the loch side and shot at with little accuracy but with plenty of opportunity, as the animals climb from water level to the higher skylines.
I do not propose to multiply the instances, but I will give your Lordships one more case which occurred this last winter in Glen Affric, which your Lordships know quite well. A lorry was apprehended passing through Glen Urquhart on its way to Loch Ness with no fewer than sixteen carcases on board, all shot at night. Those sixteen carcases on the black market—and there is not even a black market now in one respect, because there is no price control on venison—would have realised anything up to £160. The maximum penalty was confiscation and a £2 fine. If the lorry driver had been found in possession of a rifle and not in possession of a firearms certificate, he might have suffered a further fine, but this £160 haul of meat—and it was quite uneatable, as the month was January or February—could not get him into worse trouble than confiscation of the carcases and a £2 fine because deer are not game. I am not going to multiply the instances. I think your Lordships have probably grasped the trend of what I have to say.
The Motion that stands in my name refers to two paragraphs of this Report. I will not read them out. I am in full agreement, except with one subsection of paragraph 215 of the Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals. It reads:
"Dealers in venison should be required to be licensed as game dealers, and records of all purchases and sales of venison should be kept. Such measures would, however, call for special new legislation, and since deer are likely at any time to do appreciable damage on agricultural land it would be necessary to provide, by way of exception, for the lawful killing of deer that is authorised by the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1945."
I do not agree with that part of the paragraph which says:
"Dealers in venison should be required to be licensed."
I suggest that, as there should be a close season for the killing of deer, there should be, also, a close season for the selling of venison. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, who is to reply will bear that point in mind: a close season for the killing of all deer, both hinds and stags, from
214
January 1 until August 1, and a close season also for the sale of venison. It is particularly important for the sale of venison, otherwise there will be a black market springing up with licensed dealers, which I think is wrong. I think it is wrong that any dealer should have a licence to sell venison in the close season.
I said at the beginning of my speech that I stand here, first and foremost, as an agriculturist and not as a sportsman or a landowner defending the interests of a few. In the paragraph which I have just read there is a reference to the Agriculture (Scotland) Act which was threshed out and agreed to in 1948. There were conflicting interests between agriculture and landed proprietors. It was quite a controversial subject for a time, but it was agreed to and has, in fact, become the law, and in no case—I have investigated this matter fairly thoroughly—have agriculture and the private interests clashed. Where deer are found on enclosed ground, they have to be killed at any season of the year. I hope I make that point clear: that the deer will be killed if they are net in their lawful habitat. What one might call nomad deer or wandering deer, or deer that are out of bounds, if they are invading turnip fields or young corn have to be killed, as the Agriculture (Scotland) Act insists. But the close season and the closing of sales of venison during the close season would mean that these animals, after having been destroyed, would be buried or consumed under the arrangements of the agricultural authorities who shot them. In no case would these carcasses be fit to eat. If them were no sale of this venison of nomadic deer, there would be no chance of it being black-marketed, providing no sale or special licences were allowed to dealers.
I hope your Lordships will not put the clock back by saying: "We must have different close seasons for the hinds and the stags." Many of your Lordships are experienced sportsmen. I should like that to be permitted if the deer forests existed in the old way and could be run and administered in the old style; but if stalking starts on August 1 and the stags are shot from that date until October 15, which is the normal season although it is not laid down in a Statute or in any known law of the land, from October 15 to January 1 is quite long enough a season in which to shoot your hinds.

215
Therefore, I respectfully submit that my Motion is correct in standing firm on that basis. We all know that a law, if it is to be a good law, must be easy to execute, not complicated and not one to cause controversy or the appointment of too many Government officials. Having consulted with owners of deer forests, I am convinced that they are all satisfied that the pursuit of red deer of both types of the species in these Islands would be sufficiently long if there were a close season from January 1 to August 1, and a close season for the sale of venison for the same period.
I will not weary your Lordships longer, but the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, speaking for the rather smaller deer population of the West Country, has asked me to endorse these views. He says there is a very strong suspicion—indeed, there is actual evidence—of the fact that many crippled deer are seen at the present time in the counties of Cornwall and Devon, and that the deer population there has shrunk to the tune of 15 or 20 per cent. since the war. He also says that a carcase on Exmoor is worth £20 more than we can get for the rather smaller specimens that we breed in the Northern Highlands, but he points out, quite rightly, that the pains and penalties are in keeping with the value of the animal. I think I am right in saying that whereas the maximum penalty is £2 in Scotland, in England the penalty is £50 for the first offence and imprisonment on the second occasion. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I am extremely glad that my noble friend has put down this Motion, and has come to speak to it so ably this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Lovat, always speaks with conviction, and, if I may say so, he speaks with authority. He is a Highlander, and lives among the deer where the deer live; and, if he will not mind my saying so, with regard to matters connected with the Highlands he knows what he is talking about; he speaks on this subject with far more authority than myself. In fact, my Lords, when I raised this subject in your Lordships' House some two months ago I felt that it was rather out of the sphere of a Lowlander, because in the Lowlands,
216
of course, we live amongst the roe deer, the other native deer of the British Isles. The roe deer are very plentiful, of course, but they are not poached to the same extent as the red deer. We are not today really concerned with the roe deer because, although they are multiplying very rapidly, the game is not worth the candle for the poacher: in a densely populated district he would much more easily be caught.
I can do little better in my remarks than follow the line on which my noble friend has spoken, because I agree almost entirely with everything he has said. The answer to my original Question which I put to your Lordships' House some two months ago was that we should wait for the Report. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, was quite correct. The Report came out a few days after he made that statement, and whatever we may think of that Report (I may say that I am pretty sure that some of its recommendations will be the matter of severe criticism throughout the country, but I do not wish to draw a red herring across the trail, because we are concerned with deer this afternoon) it condemns in no uncertain terms the depredations of these gangster deer poachers. After describing the methods employed, the Report goes on to say:
"Because of this there is much cruelty which has caused widespread concern on the part of forest owners and proprietors, as well as all those who are only interested in the humanitarian aspect."
I do not wish to harry your feelings on the question of the suffering which is inflicted on deer by organised poaching. I leave it to the imagination of those of your Lordships who have had time to read the contents of this Report. I leave it to your imagination to conceive the dreadful cruelty which wounding can often cause, especially when it is inflicted by automatic weapons. There is direct evidence—we have had it from the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, himself, and we have it in the Report—that automatic weapons are used, and at night; and, of course, by unscrupulous and inexperienced marksmen, whose nerves are probably in a state of jitters all the time. How can they be expected to shoot accurately? We have plenty of evidence of the terrible condition in which deer are seen after such raids have taken place—animals with their entrails hanging out, walking about on the moor, animals hobbling

217
about with broken limbs until they die. This is a ghastly business. This is what has been seen: how much more is there left which remains unseen?
Let us leave the cruelty aspect for a moment, and deal with another aspect. I am told that in some of the wilder districts which are not keepered (and of course the reason why they are not keepered is that the keepers' wages have risen to such a phenomenal height that the proprietors cannot afford to pay them), poaching has been so heavy that the rateable value of these forests has been considerably reduced. In some cases, where there is a road running alongside or through the forest, proprietors have not been able to rent their forests at all, except perhaps, as the noble Lord has said, to the butchers. The butchers, if you please! This is a very serious matter to the economy of the Highlands, because deer-stalking, as the noble Lord has told you, is no longer the domain of the rich only; many hotels offer facilities for deer-stalking, and many owners lease out their forests at so much a day or at so much a head of deer. Of course, as your Lordships will know, this is very much on a parallel with organised salmon poaching, to curb which Parliament has recently passed legislation—and it is most gratifying to me to know that they have done so. Only this week we read in the papers of three men who were convicted in, I think, the Mull of Kintyre of throwing a tin of Cy-mag into a pool of water, killing large numbers of fish and destroying I do not know how many hundreds of parr of salmon. They received thirty days' imprisonment. The legislation was just in time. In exactly the same sort of way we want to curb the activities of the deer poachers. Clearly, it requires speedy and firm action on the part of the Government. Of course we do not know what a salmon feels or what a deer feels, but we must imagine that a deer can suffer far more than a salmon.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long, but I cannot understand why the deer poacher in Scotland is so comparatively immune, compared with his brother in England. The fact is, however, that, in England, for the unlawful killing of deer a man is subject to a penalty of £50 on summary conviction, and for a second offence he is liable to a maximum of two years' imprisonment.
218
In Scotland, on the contrary, as deer are not included in game under the Night Poaching Act, there is no means whereby night poachers can be prosecuted. I imagine that very little poaching takes place by day, because the men would be so easily caught; but by day the maximum penalty is only £2. If five or more persons are engaged in an operation I believe that the fine is extended to £5. That is the position as regards the legal aspect. From what I have said your Lordships will see that in Scotland there is nothing worth calling a law to deal with the deer poacher. The law, then, must clearly be revised, and I would strongly support the recommendations made by the Report on cruelty to wild animals, which include increased penalties, power of search and power of forfeiture. Power of forfeiture means the forfeiture of all equipment, guns, ammunition and vehicles.
I am credibly informed that apart from the forfeiture of vehicles, which I understand must be dealt with by separate legislation, the other provisions could be given effect to merely by bringing deer into the definition of "game" under the two Night Poaching Acts of 1828 and 1844 respectively, and the Poaching Prevention Act of 1862. It seems to me that this would not require a great deal of legislation. It is something that could be done quickly, and quick action is what we want. I really do not know why deer have been excluded from the definition of "game." But that is the main reason why the law is so powerless to deal with the poachers. I would make it illegal for any deer to be shot at night. I think that is important. Nobody can be accurate in shooting a deer at night.
I would also beg the Government to pay great attention to what my noble friend has said about a close season. At present there is no close season for deer in Scotland. I believe this is a controversial point, on the score that adequate powers must remain to control deer on enclosed land. As I understand it, that is the whole point at issue with the Department of Agriculture. Of course, we all know that, if left to themselves, deer multiply very rapidly. Now that wolves and bears—the natural predators of the deer—are extinct, deer must be controlled by human hands; and, incidentally, that is probably the most humane way of doing it. I must remind Lord Morrison, how-

219
ever, that under the Agriculture (Scotland) Act of 1948 adequate powers already exist to deal with the control of deer. The occupiers of these agricultural holdings can control the deer if they do damage to their crops or trees. It seems to me that there is no need to interfere at all with the Agriculture Act. Let it go on as it is. On the score of humanity alone I feel that it is a disgrace to our country that there should be no statutory close season for the noblest of our native animals. For example, hinds can be shot when they are in calf, and calves can be left to die of starvation on the hill. I think that is an indictment on our country, and will remain so until this matter is put right. The Report recommends that there should be a close season, not only for killing deer but also for the sale of venison, and these dates could be fixed after consultation with experts.
A further point that I think would help in checking the activities of these poachers, although it is not popular with the Government and is not one with which the noble Lord who moved this Motion is in agreement, is the compulsory registration and licensing of those who want to sell venison. I think this would be a very important check on this evil. This was a recommendation of the Scott Henderson Report on cruelty to animals. It was also a recommendation of the Maconochie Report which dealt with fishing. I know that it was not given effect to in the legislation dealing with salmon—I believe that it was considered too controversial, and that it was felt that it would be difficult to establish proof of the illegality of consignments. But it seems to me that, if two separate Committees both recommend the same thing—namely, that there should be compulsory registration and licensing, and that dealers should be compelled to keep records of all transactions in venison—then the weight of evidence must be so great and the argument so strong that it ought to override other obstacles. However, I do not wish to press this point. My noble friend has not recommended it in his Motion and I know the Government are very much against it. But I cannot help feeling that it would be an important factor in attaining the object which we have in mind.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer. In conclusion, I would say
220
that this is such an important matter that it should not have to wait to be included in any comprehensive legislation which the Government want to make in regard to the Report on cruelty to animals. It seems to me that cruelty to deer stands out in the Report as calling for immediate steps to be taken. I hope and believe that the noble Lord's reply will satisfy many of your Lordships who want to see this wicked and cruel practice stopped as quickly as possible.
6.26 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, my noble friend has asked me to say a few words on the point of humanity. I remember as a boy the unwritten but unbroken and extremely humane laws that governed deer stalking in Scotland, and when I contrast them with the situation shown in this Report I am completely horrified. I will not lay too much emphasis on the Sten gun; but shooting at night, shooting from boats, from lorries and at impossible range and awkward angles, with tracer bullets and all those things, simply horrifies me. And the suffering that this must inflict on the deer is beyond description. The evidence one gets on this subject from Dr. Fraser Darling is particularly to be respected, because I think he knows more about deer than any man in Britain today. It is a great pity that we have not his book in the Library. I understand it is practically impossible to obtain. Shakespeare says that
"… the poor bettle, that we tread upon.
In corporal sufferance finds a pang as great
As when a giant dies."—
which may be poetry but I do not think it is true. The higher the organism, the greater the suffering. My noble friend and other noble Lords know from the experience of two wars what it is to suffer from gunshot wounds, and one wonders what the wretched deer have done that such suffering should be inflicted upon them. I think we must do something quickly to prevent the continuation of this condition of things. Therefore I hope that my noble friend opposite will have something to give us in his reply.
6.29 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this all too brief discussion has been to me and, I think, to the House both interesting and valuable. I am sure we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, not only

221
for putting down the Motion but for the practical knowledge which he brings to your Lordships' House. I have only one complaint to make against the noble Lord and I am sure all members of the House will support me in making it. My complaint is that the noble Lord does not address the House as frequently as we should like. I understand that he is returning to the North very soon. I hope to follow him in the course of an hour or two. While I am spending a few days' vacation in that country where the noble Lord's activities are chiefly carried on, I hope to gain some further information about the problem with which he has dealt this afternoon.
It is often said that history repeats itself, and it is repeating itself now inasmuch as a demand is being made for speedy legislation which is, in effect, a similar demand to that made when I sat in another place for legislation in regard to salmon. There were difficulties then, but by good will on the part of all Parties and all the interests concerned, we were able to get an agreed Bill on salmon poaching through both Houses of Parliament. It is now in operation and, as the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, has said, by virtue of it offenders are now being sent to prison. I hope that, as the result of the operation of that Act, fewer people will commit that particular crime. The difficulty in this case, as it was in the case of salmon poaching, is to reduce all the valuable suggestions that are made to terms of a Parliamentary Bill—in other words, to legislation which can be enforced. I am not going to detain the House at this hour, and I know that noble Lords will forgive me if I make a general reply covering the main points which they have made.
First of all, a great deal has been said about the extent of the problem. When the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, put his original question to me a matter of two months ago, as he will remember, in answer to a supplementary question I said that one chief constable in Scotland had reported that such poaching was fairly widespread, but most of the other chief contables knew of only occasional cases. I must say that there is no reference in police reports—and I have read them all—to the use of automatic weapons, such as tommy-guns or Sten guns. I am not saying that no automatic weapons are being used; I am only saying that all the poaching of which the police say they
222
have knowledge seems to be carried out by means of rifles. I should also like to say, before I state the case generally, that I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, that a fine of £2 is a ridiculous penalty for an offence of this nature.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, has said, the recommendations of the Scott-Henderson Committee can be boiled down. I boil them down—and I do not think noble Lords will disagree with this—into four groups. The first group suggests that deer should be included within the category of "game." The second (I am not putting them in order of priority) is to the effect that powers should be given to the courts to order the confiscation of vehicles used for the purpose of deer poaching. The third group of recommendations propose that there should be a close season for the killing of deer and for the sale of venison, the duration of which should be decided after discussion with experts on the subject. The fourth group of recommendations suggests that dealers in venison should be licensed and should have to keep records of purchases and sales. If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment or two, I should like to deal with these groups of recommendations in a little more detail.
First, let me take the proposal for the inclusion of deer within the category of "game." Let us see what the Report actually says. I quote from page 58:
"Most of these recommendations could, we think, be given legislative effect by a simple provision bringing deer within the scope of the Night Poaching Act, 1828, the Night Poaching Act, 1844, and the Poaching Prevention Act, 1862."
The Committee describe this as "a simple provision," but if you investigate it a little closer it shows many complications. The first is that to amend an Act passed 123 years age is by no means simple. Many of the provisions of these old Acts are completely out of date. The Night Poaching Act of 1828 refers to crossbows. The penalties authorised by the Acts are not related to modern conditions at all. For instance, the Night Poaching Act of 1828 provides that any person unlawfully taking or destroying any game or rabbits by night, or who shall by night unlawfully enter any lane, whether open or enclosed, with any gun, net or other instrument for the purpose

223
of taking or destroying game shall, on conviction, be committed to the common gaol or house of correction for any period not exceeding three calendar months. Upon a second offence, the period of detention is increased to any period not exceeding six calendar months and, upon a third offence, the penalty was transportation for seven years. Today the maximum penalty for day poaching is a fine of £5. A fine of £5, I agree, is not likely to prove a serious deterrent: perhaps transportation for seven years would be a little more effective.
The Acts distinguish between day and night poaching and for the latter they provide a heavier penalty. It seems pretty clear from a preliminary study and from consultations which have been taking place with the criminal authorities and the police that, if legislation were to be introduced, it would not be possible just to apply the existing Acts to deer as the Committee seem to have contemplated. I need not add that this, of course, is not a reason for not legislating, but it does mean that legislation is not necessarily so simple and straightforward as the Committee's Report implies. The second point I would take is that with regard to the recommendation for confiscation of vehicles. Your Lordships will remember that under the recent Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act of this Session the power of confiscation is exercisable only where an offender has been convicted after trial by sheriff and jury or in the High Court. Whether this extreme penalty should be applied in a case of deer poaching requires examination in consultation with the appropriate authorities.
Now I come to what I think Lord Lovat will agree is his most important point, and the most important point that arises out of this Report so far as deer poaching is concerned—the question of a close season. The proposal to institute a close season is, I am advised, a particularly difficult and controversial one, upon which consultations with experts and agricultural opinion are proceeding as the Committee recommended. There has, in the past, been much argument about it between sporting and agricultural interests, and up to now no agreed solution has been found. It seems to be clear that the agricultural repercussions of a close season may be considerable and that their nature
224
and extent may vary according to the period which may be adopted. It would, of course, be possible for the agricultural executive committees to direct the killing of deer during the close season, as the noble Lord indicated, under the Agricultural Act of 1948. But I think it will probably be agreed that no one wants to create a situation in which deer forest owners have to be served with directions by the agricultural executive committees.
LORD LOVAT: If I might interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, I should like to draw a rather clearer line of distinction between deer forest owners. The term "deer forest" indicates a place where the deer are controlled. There are also other deer which are not true forest deer in enclosed land. They are nomadic and are marauders. There would be no opposition from the neighbourhood when such deer, destroying crops, were themselves exterminated. That has, in fact, been going on since 1948. There is no "rift in the lute" as between deer forest proprietors and agricultural interests on this matter.
LORD MORRISON: I am very happy to hear that. I just suggest that that is another reason why a perfectly simple Bill is quite impossible. This question of the effect upon agriculture and upon agricultural opinion of the institution of a close season is, I am advised, controversial. I am happy to hear that the noble Lord thinks that a great deal of the controversy has already been resolved. That is a most encouraging thing to say, and when I go to Scotland to-morrow I will make special inquiries in order to check up. I hope to find that what the noble Lord has said is correct. It is clear, however, that no final view can be reached by the Government regarding the imposition of statutory close seasons, or as to the periods over which such close seasons should extend, until there has been the fullest consultation with all interests concerned. Apart from the experts suggested by the Committee, I will mention a number of organisations which I believe may be in a position to make a useful contribution to the examination of the various problems involved, and which are being, or will be, consulted. First, there is the Scottish Landowners Federation; secondly, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland; thirdly, the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society;

225
fourthly, the Black-faced Sheep Breeders' Association, and fifthly, the agricultural executive committees in the deer forest areas.
That brings me to the fourth point, on which I need not spend much time, because the noble Lord himself is not in favour of it. That is, the licensing of dealers in venison and the keeping of records. The Committee's proposal that dealers in venison should have to be licensed and to keep records is rather in line with a similar recommendation on salmon poaching. In relation to salmon, the recommendation was exhaustively considered and fully debated in another place. It was finally decided not to adopt it, because it was not felt that the advantages which would result from doing so would be commensurate with the amount of work which the system would impose on people dealing in salmon. The same consideration seems to me to apply in the case of deer. It would be an onerous business if all dealers had to keep precise records of all their transactions, and it is more than doubtful, even if this burden were placed upon them, whether it would be of material assistance in detecting and suppressing poaching. The system of record-keeping would have to apply throughout Great Britain, and from the investigations made in connection with salmon, it is clear that in the normal case it would be a matter of difficulty to trace an offence or to base a prosecution upon a dealer's record of his transactions. It would be wrong, therefore, for me to hold out any hope that this recommendation will be accepted.
Finally, may I say a word about the application of the Report to England and Wales? When the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, asked a Question on this subject on June 13, the noble Marquess, Lord Willingdon, inquired whether any legislatior would apply to England and Wales. This point has been carefully considered, and the balance of advantage seems to favour a purely Scottish Bill. First, the problem of deer poaching, at any rate in the sense in which it is now before the House, seems to be almost entirely a Scottish problem. The Scott Henderson Committee did not refer to any such cases occurring in England. Secondly, the present law of England, as the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, has said, would seem to give the police adequate
226
powers to deal with any poaching that may occur. The Larceny Act of 1861 provides penalties of £50 upon summary conviction in England on a charge of unlawfully hunting, snaring, taking, killing or wounding of deer on unenclosed ground, and a second offence is made a felony, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment, while any instruments used are liable to confiscation. Obviously, it will be necessary to consult wider interests if the Bill is to be a United Kingdom one, and therefore the Government incline to the view that a purely Scottish Bill is preferable.
I hope that what I have said may be enough to illustrate the complexities of this whole subject, and to explain why I am unable to-day to give a definite undertaking about immediate legislation. There will be questions of policy and many technical questions of some complexity to be decided. All I can say to-day, therefore, is that there will be no unavoidable delay in completing the examination of this subject which is at present in progress. We are all anxious to stop cruelty, but to introduce a Bill without full consultation and, if possible, agreement with the organisations I have mentioned, is much more likely to delay legislation reaching the Statute Book than it is to advance it. The Scottish Department will welcome any help your Lordships may give in securing the co-operation of the bodies I have mentioned and at least a measure of agreement sufficient to ensure that the Bill, when drafted, will have a friendly reception in Scotland and a speedy passage to the Statute Book. After that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply for the noble Lord, Lord Lovat (who has been unable to stay, as he hopes to catch a train which goes soon after seven), will see fit to withdraw this Motion.
6.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has said, my noble friend Lord Lovat has had to catch a train for Scotland, and he has asked me to reply on his behalf. He has asked me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, for his reply which, while it may not be altogether encouraging, at least leaves some promise that something will be done—and that in the not very distant future. I am sure we appreciate the difficulties that are inherent in intro-

227
ducing any fresh legislation, but we hope they may not be insurmountable. My noble friend has asked me to put this question to the noble Lord: In the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, would it expedite matters if a Private Member's Bill were introduced?
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I think I can say to the noble Lord that if any Member of the House cared to draft a Private Member's Bill, that would be an excellent idea. It would give the House an opportunity of getting their teeth into some of the difficulties that I indicated in my reply. The Government would welcome a Private Member's Bill.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I am glad to hear that assurance. One further point my noble friend has asked me to make is that, when the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, is in Scotland, he extends to him an invitation to a day with him on the hill, an invitation which I hope the noble Lord will accept. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PREFERENTIAL DUTY ON JAMAICAN CIGARS
6.47 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in the event of agreement being reached to purchase Cuban cigars for sale in the U.K., they will lay the matter before the contracting parties to G.A.T.T. with a view to obtaining a higher preference margin for Jamaican cigars entering the U.K.; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, although the hour is late, I am sure your Lordships will forgive me for proceeding with this Motion, because I believe that it is a matter of considerable importance at this time. I shall be very brief. The object of the Motion is twofold: to draw your Lordships' attention, first, to the increasing unemployment in the Jamaican cigar industry, and secondly, to the effect on the industry of Cuban competition and of any encroachment on the United Kingdom market of Cuban cigars. I would remind your Lordships that the United Kingdom has a double responsibility towards Jamaica in this matter. Jamaica
228
is a Colonial dependency, and we have a responsibility for her well-being and prosperity. Secondly, the United Kingdom provides practically the only market of any size and importance for Jamaican cigars. According to how we manipulate our trade policy towards Jamaica, we can either cause great misery to the people employed in the cigar industry or we can give them a measure of prosperity.
Unfortunately, the attitude of His Majesty's Government during the last few years has not been wholly favourable to the Jamaican cigar industry. Tariffs on the import of cigars have been increased, and there has, at the same time, been a fairly substantial increase in unemployment in the cigar industry. I am not saying that the increase of tariffs necessarily caused the unemployment in the industry, but I think it is significant that unemployment grew from the time the tariffs were increased. In 1939, there was a duty of 14s. 2¼d. per lb. on Jamaican cigars coming into this country. That represented a preference of 22 per cent. over other cigars imported. That was quite a good preference. Subsequently, that duty, still a preferential one, was increased to 41s. 1⅝d. per 1b. Under the influence of those tariffs and those preferences; the Jamaican cigar industry grew from practically nothing, so that it was sending abroad each year 25,750,000 cigars, which was quite a good achievement. Since then, however, the duty has been raised fairly considerably, and it now stands at 64s. 9⅝ per lb. The preference margin has now gone down from 22 per cent. to 4 per cent., which is a big fall, and it does not leave very much preference. The effect of this has been that the export of Jamaican cigars has fallen from 25,000,000 to 10,000,000 a year. At the same time, since, I think, 1947, the number of people employed in the industry has fallen by 8,000, representing over half of those employed in the industry. And that, in a poor country like Jamaica, is a serious matter.
What is so extraordinary is that these duties were presumably raised to increase revenue to the British Treasury, but that revenue, has fallen by half—on the law, I suppose, of diminishing returns. It has not benefited the Exchequer in this country, nor has it benefited the Jamaicans in any way. That seems bad from everyone's point of view. I cannot help feeling that, if there were an

229
equal percentage fall in employment in an industry in this country, His Majesty's Government and everyone else would be much more concerned than they are about the fall in the employed in the Jamaican cigar industry. If it were at home, I believe that this matter would have received much more active attention. Yet the fact that it has occurred in a Colony, which has no direct Parliamentary representation, is no reason why we should be indifferent to this state of affairs. In the event of agreement being reached with Cuba, it is not difficult to imagine the effect of importing Cuban cigars into this country on the Jamaican cigar industry, if it is not given some protection. Any Cuban cigars coming into this country would take a large slice out of the Jamaican market, and this would be a direct loss to the Jamaican cigar industry, which is already badly hit. Not only that: the Cuban cigar industry is strong—it has the whole of the American market—and no doubt could afford to sell cigars on the United Kingdom market at a cost with which the Jamaican cigar industry could not possibly compete—and, moreover, keep up the sales at such prices long enough to force out the Jamaicans.
There has been no indication from His Majesty's Government that, in the event of agreement being reached with Cuba, they will take steps to protect the Jamaican cigar industry. I do not blame them for not having given any indication yet, because obviously it is too early. But I sincerely hope that, in the event of agreement being reached with Cuba, the Government will take steps to protect the Jamaican industry. I very much hope that we may receive an assurance about that to-day. I hope not only that we shall receive an assurance that the Jamaican cigar industry will be protected, so that it retains a market not smaller than its present size, but also that the Government will say that they will take steps to increase the size of the market available to that industry. His Majesty's Government are unable to alter preference rates—we dealt with that the other day in the Motion by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. By giving away their right to alter preference rates, they have put themselves in the position of being less able to protect Colonial industries. The case of Jamaica is an
230
example of that. To protect Colonial industries, such as the Jamaican cigar industry, is surely an important duty of an Imperial Power such as we are. Whether or not His Majesty's Government have signed the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, the duty still remains on them to protect the Jamaican cigar industry.
As to the means by which this can be accomplished, it is open to His Majesty's Government, to approach the General Agreement countries and ask them whether we may increase our preference. I do not suppose that would be at all popular; in fact, it would be a most awkward situation for Great Britain to be in, and one which we do not particularly want. However, it is the only way in which the Government can increase the preference. At the moment, the preference is too small and the tariff too high. As an alternative, His Majesty's Government could lower the general duty, which would, of course, slightly increase the preference. But that would not be so satisfactory. I feel, however, that the Government should seriously consider either going to the General Agreement countries and asking for an increase in preference, or the lowering of general duties. At the same time, I believe that if agreement is reached with Cuba to import cigars into this country, those, cigars should be limited by quota to about 20 per cent. of the Jamaican cigar imports. But limiting by quota is not in itself sufficient protection for the Jamaican cigar industry, because even the 20 per cent. limitation on the existing market is a large amount by which to hit the Jamaicans.
I do not intend to detain your Lordships longer, except to say that, when we were unable to buy Cuban cigars during and since the war, Jamaica extended her industry and came to our help—and everyone will agree they served us very well indeed. I am sure that the Government, now that we are in a better financial position, would not wish to perform a shabby trick on Jamaica by saying: "You can take your cigars: we do not want them." But unless protection is given to Jamaica, in the event of agreement being reached with Cuba, that, in effect, will be what the Government will be saying. I beg to move for Papers.
6.59 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Fairfax has performed a great service in bringing up this matter in your Lordships' House before Parliament disappears into the country for some considerable period. There are no more loyal citizens of the Empire than the subjects of the West Indies, and it is only right that Parliament should hear their grievances. The situation that has arisen over the course of years is quite an absurd one. When I was a small boy the object of a Cockney on his Saturday evening out was to take his "missus" to the music hall, to the accompaniment of a fourpenny cigar. A four-penny cigar was considered quite a decent smoke in those days. The British working man was able to buy cigars at seven for a shilling. They were on the counter of every public-house, and the duty in those days was 5s. a pound. To-day, the duty is 65s. Successive Chancellors of the Exchequer—chiefly Coalition and Labour Chancellors—have first taken the cigar out of the British workman's mouth and left it for the middle classes, and then for the well-to-do; and, finally, the latest turn of the screw reserves it entirely for the rich. But the policy of His Majesty's Government is now to eliminate the rich and, therefore, they are in the process of eliminating the last market in this country for these Jamaican cigars.
As my noble friend has said, the revenue has gone down from £1,250,000 to £500,000. How much of that revenue is real, genuine revenue? If your Lordships go into some of the great caravanserais in this City at lunch time, and see the smoke curling up to the ceiling, how many people smoking those cigars have paid for them out of their own pocket? I suggest that three-quarters of them have come out of expense accounts in one form or another and, therefore, have already been paid for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD HAWKE: Yes, the Prime Minister has one. The paltry remains of that £500,000 is, I venture to think, not real revenue at all—perhaps only two-thirds of it is revenue. That is truly an absurd situation. How are we to explain that sort of thing to the West Indies, loyal subjects of the King and our fellow
232
citizens? So far as I am aware, this is the first time that this sort of thing has happened. From time to time, changes of fashion and changes of taste have eliminated an Empire industry. Ostrich feathers is an example. But here is a very important industry, in a small part of the Commonwealth, which is being deliberately extinguished by the fiscal whims and fancies of His Majesty's Government. This Cuban Agreement cannot fail to make the matter still worse, because there will now come into the very restricted and diminishing market an ancient and strong competitor. At the best, we are asking His Majesty's Government to impose a quota, but even then Jamaica will be assured only of a certain percentage of an already declining and shrinking market. As a preliminary, of course, there must be a quota, but there must be some way of finding a way round this fiscal absurdity. It is an absurdity, and I will give your Lordships an example. You pay 1s. 3d. duty to smoke approximately forty-five minutes of cigar. You would pay 4d. duty to smoke approximately the same length of time a pipe of tobacco. The rates are out of proportion. The cigar has been "dutied" off the market.
The whole question of anything to do with Excise and Customs is most appallingly complicated, and it is quite impossible for the uninitiated layman to suggest anything intelligent. It must rest with the Minister to send for his officials, to point out the absurdities and say that this problem must be solved before the next Budget. We cannot remain the heart of the Commonwealth and, at the same time, go on, by fiscal policies, imposing unemployment in the far-flung periphery of the commonwealth. Once before we lost an Empire through our fiscal policies. Let us pay heed to the past.
7.6 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long, but I speak on this question with a certain amount of knowledge and from an entirley different attitude. So far as cigars are concerned, the tobacco trade in this country, as the noble Lord has already said, has been carried through during the last few years entirely by the Jamaican manufacturer. I know perfectly well, and it has been made painfully clear to us during the past week, that the present

233
Government do not care about any reward for private endeavour. I suggest that when it comes to dealing with our Colonies they cannot adopt that attitude. Private endeavour has to receive its reward.
Now the Jamaican cigar manufacturers have done a wonderful job of work in improving the quality of their cigars. That quality has been raised from something which nobody ranked very highly to something which to-day is distinguishable from that of a Cuban cigar only by an expert. They have brought Cuban operatives into Jamaica, and the result is that the Jamaican cigar to-day is so similar to the Cuban that the only thing which kills it is what I might call "snob value." Now that is not something which I should expect the Government to encourage, but they are encouraging it unless they give preferential treatment. The Jamaican cigar is a very good cigar, on which a great deal of local money has been spent. Are we going to kill it? Are we going to do away with the results of private effort in Jamaica? Are we going to cause unemployment in Jamaica after all they have done to turn their cigar from a third-rate article into a first-rate article? I say, quite frankly, that the Jamaican cigar to-day is a first-class cigar. I am certain that I shall have no difficulty in walking into my premises and producing a cigar which any member of the Bench opposite would be very glad to smoke after his dinner to-night; and it would be a Jamaican cigar and not a Cuban. The Jamaican people have built up their trade arid have risked their money. Are we to destroy it simply to satisfy "snob value"?
7.9 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, after the agreeable and eloquent manner in which the noble Lord moved this Motion, I am afraid that he will be very disappointed with my reply because, in the shortest terms which I can use, it is "No." His Majesty's Government have no intention whatsoever of approaching the G.A.T.T. countries to increase the preference on Jamaican cigars. That is putting the matter very baldly. But I feel the noble Lord's disappointment may be mitigated if I give him the reason—and it has nothing whatsoever to do with G.A.T.T. We have an international
234
Agreement of great importance, the United Kingdom-Cuba Commercial Agreement of 1937. If my memory serves me aright, it was not made when a Socialist Government, or even a Coalition Government, were in power. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, will correct me if I am wrong in saying that. The salient Article of the Agreement is Article 7, which I will read to your Lordships. It says:
"The Government of Cuba reserve the right, notwithstanding anything in paragraph 3 above, to terminate the present agreement on three months' notice at any time, should the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland increase the differences which existed on the 1st May, 1936, between the tariff rates applicable in the United Kingdom to sugar and tobacco, the produce of Cuba, on the one hand, and to sugar and tobacco, the produce of any territory under the Sovereignty … or protection or mandate of His Majesty the King …"
That Commercial Agreement between ourselves and Cuba has been a very valuable one. It has brought us in, on insurance alone, £2,000,000 a year. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote another article, Article 4:
"The Government of Cuba agree not to subject British insurance enterprises to legislation imposing conditions which are in any respect more onerous than those already applying to the conduct of their Cuban business."
British insurance has called in aid that Article on many occasions.
LORD HAWKE: That was the Agreement made in 1937. Have the Cuban Government fulfilled those conditions? Is there anything about their treatment of the railways?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That Agreement, old though it may be, has proved, and is proving, of the utmost value to commercial interests in this country. We are not going to do anything in breach of it which will injure our relationship with Cuba, which has proved of so much profit to the interests I have just named.
But there are other interests—the level of Cuban import duties on our main exports to Cuba. Our exports of linens and woollens accounted in 1950 for over £500,000 worth of trade. These are all substantial things, ant we would not for one moment risk doing anything which would be in breach of Article 7. If we did, this Agreement between ourselves and Cuba might be terminated. I am sure

235
that the noble Lord would be averse to anything of that kind. That is the short answer to the noble Lord as to why we do not intend to go to the G.A.T.T. countries and ask them to agree to an increase in the preference on Jamaican tobacco.
There are other points which the noble Lord raised but which, of course, do not now arise. I might be considered churlish, however, if I did not give some answer, because I can see what is agitating the mind of the noble Lord. While giving him these answers, I would not for a moment like him, or any other noble Lords, to think that His Majesty's Government are at all unsympathetic to any interests in Jamaica. But, as I say, there are other interests too—and, incidentally, our own. The noble Lords, Lord Fairfax, Lord Hawke, and Lord Sandhurst, talked about unemployment in Jamaica being caused by the high tariffs, and suggested that if the tariff were brought down the unemployment situation would be improved. But if we reduced the tariffs, even if there were no other obstacle in the way, we should also have to reduce the rates on the imported leaf from which British cigars are made. I suppose noble Lords would not like to see discrimination against British workmen in favour of Jamaican workmen. We are being pressed frequently by the home industry to the effect that if any alteration were made in the duty on imported cigars they would desire similar protection; and British manufactured cigars made from imported leaf represent the greater proportion of cigars smoked in this country. I sympathise with the noble Lord's desire to be tender to the interests of Jamaican employment. But let us not forget that we have people in this country employed in the cigar-making industry; and they are usually elderly people, people who might, perhaps, be unable to find suitable employment elsewhere than in that industry.
But I am going on to suggest to the noble Lord that an increase in the preference or a reduction in the duty would not help Jamaica. Let me give him the figures. The present rate of duty is 67s. 9d. per lb. on imported cigars. The preferential rate is 64s. 9⅝d. per lb. That is about 1s. or 1s. 2d. on an average-sized cigar selling at about 3s. The preference
236
margin of 2s. 11⅜d. represents about ½or ¾d. per cigar. If the duty were to be reduced, unless the reduction in duty were very sizable, it would make no appreciable impact on the consumption of cigars. The noble Lord mentioned the 1947 figure—
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I suggested that it should be below the 1947 figure—perhaps at the 1939 mark.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Let us take the figure for 1945 to 1947. The preferential rate at the beginning of 1947 was 41s. 1⅝d. per 1b. A reduction to this level would be equivalent to a reduction of 4d. or 5d. on the 3s. cigar. Let us suppose that, if we made such a reduction, it would stimulate the consumption of Jamaican cigars by 10 per cent.—I doubt very much whether it would, but let us put it at 10 per cent. That would cost the revenue of this country £750,000 and would benefit the Jamaican cigar industry by £50,000. It just does not add up to a commercial proposition.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I cannot understand his statement about the cost to the British Treasury. As I understand it—I know the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—the total annual revenue to the British Treasury from duty on imported Jamaican cigars is about £500,000.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am talking about the whole, because we could not reduce the duty on Jamaican cigars alone. I have just told the noble Lord that if you reduce the duty at all, you reduce it on leaf tobacco as well, because you cannot pick out only imported cigars and say you are not going to reduce the duty on leaf from which British cigars are made. So we should lose £750,000 and it would benefit the Jamaicans, at a very wild exaggeration of figures, even if the Jamaican imports were increased by 10 per cent., by £50,000. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is completely in error—
LORD HAWKE: Did the noble Lord say "inaccurate"?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: "In error." not "inaccurate," when he says that cigars have been "dutied off" the market (which was the phrase I think he used), because the duty on an aver-

237
age 3s. 6d. cigar is only 1s. to 1s. 2d., whereas the duty on a packet of twenty cigarettes costing 3s. 6d. is 2s. 10d. Why do not people smoke cigars in preference to cigarettes? The noble Lord made some humorous remark, which had a great deal of truth in it, to the effect that the cigar had become a luxury "smoke." Years ago I used to buy cigars; then the time came when I had to rely upon those of my wealthy friend, perhaps those included in the category mentioned by the noble Lord; they used to send them to me. Now, I can neither afford them nor are they sent.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: No friends?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No friends with those large expensive cigars. The trouble with cigar consumption is that it is a luxury. Therefore, the importation of cigars into this country, if the noble Lord would examine these figures—
LORD HAWKE: There is one point that so far both sides have omitted. I could not teach the noble Lord to suck eggs, because he knows all about it. My point is that if you knock off the duty by a certain amount, the price of the final article may come down by anything up to double the amount that you knock off.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not know whether the noble Lord means that I know all about sucking eggs or smoking cigars. What the noble Lord suggests is pure theory. It does not happen in practice, because I am not at all certain what would be the result if we did reduce the duty as the noble Lord wants. There are in this country today many stacks of cigars upon which the higher duty has been paid. Do you think their price would be reduced by the amount of the reduction? Of course it would not.
LORD HAWKE: They would wait until those cigars were finished.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, but it would take a little time to finish them.
LORD SANDHURST: I think the noble Lord is wrong in that statement. One finds that when duty goes down, every seller at once reduces his prices by the amount that the duty has gone down. That applies not only to cigars but to any other article you like to take.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord's experience of trade and industry has been entirely different from mine, because I have found that when anything has been taken off an article, such as duty and tax, the price to the consumer is kept up as long as possible to cover cuts that have been previously incurred.
LORD SANDHURST: That is a completely inaccurate statement.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That, of course, is a matter of opinion. While I have every sympathy with the noble Lord in his endeavour, we cannot think about reducing the duty. Noble Lords well know that, when Sir Stafford Cripps was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the tobacco duty was increased very heavily for one reason—an attempt to cut down smoking. It has cut down luxury smoking. I cannot agree to the proposition the noble Lord unfolded in his original Question for the reason I have explained—the 1937 Anglo-Cuban Agreement. I cannot discuss, and the noble Lord will not expect me to discuss, any Agreement which is being negotiated now with Cuba, but I can assure him that if all the difficulties which stand in the way were removed, a quota scheme would not be worth anything to Jamaica and would not be worth anything to us because it could not be anchored to anything. There is no embargo upon the import of Jamaican cigars. We do not want to anchor it to any quota. Jamaica is perfectly free to export to this country as many cigars as she can find a commercial sale for. Therefore, it would be impossible to have a quota, unless, of course, the noble Lord wishes to encourage the Government to go in for bulk buying of Jamaican cigars, and to go into the cigar business in a big way. I do not know whether that is in his mind.
LORD HAWKE: And buy a bigger box then.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should not have thought he would venture to make that suggestion; so a quota scheme is useless. The 1937 Anglo-Cuban Agreement forbids us, while we place value, and while the insurance interests and the textile manufacturers place the value they do, upon the Cuban Agreement. Therefore, as I said before,

239
I regret very much that I cannot accept the noble Lord's Motion.
7.26 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, I am going to say only a few words, because the hour is late. However, since the noble Lord opposite seems satisfied with his own reply, I feel bound to say that we on this side are entirely dissatisfied with it. We are not prepared to accept most of the propositions which he put forward. Of course the Cuban Treaty exists, but when treaties cause difficulty, and particularly when they have been in existence for a number of years, responsible statesmen try to renegotiate them. Apparently this Government are unable to approach the Cuban Government to consider whether any modification in this particular direction is possible. After all, this is a valuable market to Cuba, just as Cuba is a valuable market to us, and ancient trading treaties have to be discussed frequently from time to time. Therefore the noble Lord's argument on that point made no impression whatever upon me. Still less did his contention that when you reduce the duty on an article you do not reduce its price. There may be stocks in this country, but I am sure my noble friend behind me is right in saying that, when the duty is reduced, prices have to be reduced.
Finally, I would say that I agree that the general idea in this country is that cigar-smoking is luxury smoking. It is, in fact, a much more wholesome form of smoking than cigarette-smoking. It is most important to undermine the idea that the cigar is only a luxury "smoke." If you go to Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden or Norway, you can get exceedingly good "smokes" for very little indeed. That is how it should be in this country. I should regret it if it involved us in more dollar expenditure for Havana cigars. I think that particular point ought to be re-negotiated. I am absolutely convinced that, in due course, it will be of great benefit to this country if the duty on all forms of cigar and also imported leaf is brought down.
7.29 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, the noble Lord who replied talked about the 1937 Commercial Agreement
240
with Cuba, and said that there was a clause in that Agreement which prevented the alteration of preference rates. The preference rates given to Jamaican cigars have been altered from 22 per cent. in 1939 to approximately 4 per cent. That is an alteration in value; the actual money rate is the same. Presumably, if we had been trading with Cuba during that same period, that alteration in value would have applied there. So I really cannot understand what the noble Lord means when he says that the alteration in preference rates is forbidden under that Agreement. I am quite certain, on the basis of the alteration in preferences to Jamaica, that if we had carried on cigar trade with Cuba the alteration in value there since before the war would have been considerable. The noble Lord gave me the impression, also, that he was far more concerned about carrying on trade with Cuba than about carrying on trade with Jamaica, and that he had far more fear, perhaps awe, of the Cubans than he had sympathetic feeling for the welfare of the Jamaicans. I think that is a very great pity.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, I do not think that is quite a fair thing to say. I prefaced my remarks by saying that nothing I said was to be taken as meaning that His Majesty's Government were lacking in sympathy for Jamaica.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: All I can say is that I find it very difficult indeed to line up the content of the noble Lord's speech with that statement, because the impression it made upon me was quite the opposite. It seems also that His Majesty's Government have got themselves tied up so much in a series of Agreements, and have so far committed themselves to this, that and the other, that they are now entirely unable to help a British Colony. That is a most deplorable situation, and one of which I feel His Majesty's Government should be heartily ashamed. The Jamaicans will have very little reason to be proud of us, and I consider that the reply of the noble Lord who spoke for the Government is quite unworthy of this country, which has been a great Imperial Power in the past. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
7.31 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the House adjourns. I have a special announcement to make. The House will reassemble for Public Business on Tuesday, October 16. It is expected that Parliament will be prorogued on Thursday, October 18, and that the new Session of Parliament will be opened on Tuesday, October 23. This announcement has also been made in another place to-day.

  TUBERCULOSIS BEDS IN SCOTLAND
  TUBERCULOSIS BEDS IN SCOTLAND
  CAREER PROSPECTS FOR NAVAL AVIATORS
  CAREER PROSPECTS FOR NAVAL AVIATORS
  ROYAL CORPS OF NAVAL CONSTRUCTORS
  ROYAL CORPS OF NAVAL CONSTRUCTORS
  SALARIES OF SHERIFFS AND SHERIFFS-SUBSTITUTE
  SALARIES OF SHERIFFS AND SHERIFFS-SUBSTITUTE
  COASTAL FORCES CRAFT
  COASTAL FORCES CRAFT
  STATISTICS OF NATIONAL PERSONAL INCOME
  STATISTICS OF NATIONAL PERSONAL INCOME