Sitting of 1 March 1951

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at Seven o'Clock.
LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  SHEFFIELD EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
Read a Second time, and committed.

HUMBER CONSERVANCY BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Statistics of Trade Act (Prosecutions)
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the inconvenience caused to persons carrying on business in the provinces by his Department's practice of instituting in the Metropolitan Courts of Summary Jurisdiction all proceedings in respect of offences alleged under the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947; and whether he will review the position.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): No question of inconvenience to any trader can arise if he completes the census form and returns it in accordance with the directions given, but I am considering the point raised by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it a rather remarkable implication of his answer that nobody is ever prosecuted unless he afterwards turns out to be guilty, and is he satisfied that there is no concurrent jurisdiction in regard to prosecutions under this Act?
    Mr. Wilson: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I am in discussion with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General about this whole question.

    Trading Services (Accounts)
    Mr. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade why there are no adequate reports on many of his trading services to enable the Comptroller and Auditor General to form any opinion as to the state of the store accounts of these services; and what steps he is taking to put these accounts on a proper basis.
    Mr. H. Wilson: While all the Board's trading accounts were sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General by the due date, it was not possible for the Board's examiners to complete their audit by that time, because of the scale and complexity of the accounts concerned. Any discrepancies in the unaudited accounts are corrected in the accounts for the year following. Every effort is being made to secure that future reports will be made available punctually.
    Mr. Osborne: How great was the delay in getting these accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and how can the right hon. Gentleman be sure that his trading accounts are showing a profit or a loss if the store accounts are not adequate?
    Mr. Wilson: In 1947 the time lag was 12 months. It was reduced to 5½ months in 1950, and we are trying to reduce it still further.

    Paper Supplies
    Mr. Vaughan-Morganasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the great shortage of paper used by jobbing printers for the use of business and commerce, particularly ranges such as banks, bonds, writings and printings, both white and tinted; and what steps he is taking to remedy the position.
    Captain Ryderasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of paper supplies: and what action he is taking to ensure the best distribution.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir. I announced in the debate on paper and board on 24th November last that I had asked the manufacturers, distributors and printers to operate a voluntary priorities scheme, which will give preference to essential needs as well as fair treatment to the small user. I am watching the position to see if any further steps will be necessary.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: As my Question related to a small part of the paper shortage, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that any shortage will be shared equally by private and by public businesses?
    Mr. Wilson: The particular small part to which the hon. Member referred has been discussed specifically with the suppliers. I cannot give an assurance or guarantee of supplies without the re-imposition of statutory control.
    Captain Ryder: Does the President of the Board of Trade recall the letter I sent him, which indicated that the present scheme was not working and that a number of firms are at present going out of business owing to the shortage of supplies? Will he look into this matter?
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. I recall the letter, and I am reviewing the whole situation, in the light of other complaints from other industries, to see whether the present scheme can be relied upon to give the desired results.

    Carpets (Prices)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade the number and aggregate of advances in the controlled prices of carpets, authorised by his Department since 1st January, 1947, and the current price index relative to a basic figure of 100 on that date; and the current carpet manufacturers' average cost of wool, cotton and jute, respectively, relative to a basic figure of 100 for each commodity on 1st January, 1947.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Since 1st January, 1947, and including the increase which takes effect next Monday, the maximum prices of carpets have been increased on
    2266
    seven occasions. The Board of Trade does not publish an index of wholesale prices of carpets; but such an index for home-produced carpets, using as a base prices in May, 1947, when control was first placed on manufacturers' prices, would be about 200. Of the various grades of raw wool used, prices of some are five times and of others up to six and a half times the January, 1947, figures: the raw cotton component of the Board of Trade Index of Wholesale Prices stood in January this year at 367 on the same base, and raw jute at 235.
    Mr. Nabarro: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his comprehensive reply, may I ask him if he could arrange for the Treasury to have a copy of these figures in view of the thoroughly inflationary effect of Purchase Tax due to the exorbitant rise of wholesale prices, and the grave threat to the carpet industry which is now inherent in the fact that prices are far too high?
    Mr. Wilson: That seems to be an entirely different question.
    Mr. Osborne: Are these seven increased prices reflected in the cost-of-living index?
    Mr. Wilson: I should want notice of that question.

    Waste Paper (Collection)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the aggregate tonnage of waste paper consigned to the mills in each of the months of November, 1950, December, 1950, and January, 1951, was at a rate commensurate with the national requirement of 1,000,000 tons for the year 1951; and the tonnages of waste paper consigned to the mills in each of the three months ended 31st January. 1951.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Mills' receipts for waste paper amounted approximately to 70,000 tons in the four weeks 4th November to 2nd December, 1950; 77,000 tons in the five weeks 2nd December, 1950, to 6th January, 1951; and 73,000 tons in the four weeks 6th January to 2nd February, 1951. These figures represent an annual rate of 907,000 tons, 802,000 tons and 946,000 tons respectively, as compared with an estimated requirement of some 1,000.000 tons a year.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 20 per cent. of the board-making capacity of the United Kingdom is at present standing idle due to waste paper shortage, which is causing a chronic shortage of packaging materials for the defence programme and essential export trade? Can he tell the House what further steps he is taking to stimulate waste paper recovery through local authorities and others?
    Mr. Wilson: I am aware of the shortage of waste paper. The total collected last year was, in fact, the highest ever collected and I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that there are now some 1,130 local authorities who have come into the scheme—an increase of 400 over the past few months—and that 879 have entered for the salvage contest.

    Wholesale Price Index
    Major Guy Lloydasked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds a rebate paid to butchers produces a change in the wholesale price index for meat published by his Department.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Surcharges and rebates represent changes in the effective wholesale prices paid by butchers and are, therefore, taken into account in compiling the wholesale price index.
    Major Lloyd: Does this mean that this is an ingenious idea to avoid raising the cost-of-living index figure?
    Mr. Wilson: I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Member does not know the difference between the wholesale price index and the cost-of-living index.
    Major Lloyd: It was just because I do know that that I asked the Question. The housewife perhaps might not know that, and I was trying to enlighten the housewife as to the difference.

    Census of Distribution (Forms)
    Mr. Redmayneasked the President of the Board of Trade what number of forms relating to the Census of Distribution have been despatched; and what number have so far been returned as unwanted duplicates.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The number of forms issued up to 1st February, 1951, is
    2268
    946,955. The large number of names and addresses in the mailing list were obtained from various sources, the list contained a proportion of duplicate registrations, most of which were eliminated in time to prevent the despatch of more than one form. Subsequently, 1,400 more cases of duplication were identified and letters of apology were sent. The number of other duplicate forms returned to date is fewer than 100.
    Mr. Redmayne: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these forms were sent to the sub-depots of coal and corn merchants, who have no possible separate commercial existence? Is it not an extraordinary waste of effort in launching this census?
    Mr. Wilson: It is the first time that this census has been taken. It would be surprising if there were not a few errors out of 947,000 forms, but to avoid them would have meant a greatly increased effort and staff.

    Timber
    Mr. Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade what profits his Department made on the resale of imported timber in 1948, 1949 and 1950; and how much of the total sum is being reserved to offset the higher market prices now ruling.
    Mr. Marplesasked the President of the Board of Trade what profits the Timber Control made in the years 1948, 1949 and 1950.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Trading accounts of the Timber Control are not compiled for calendar years. They are prepared for the year to 31st March, and are included in the annual publication "Trading Accounts and Balance Sheets" of Government Departments. The profits of the Timber Control, as shown by the published accounts for the years ended 31st March, were as follows: 1947–48, £3,901,744; 1948–49, £4,011,826; 1949–50, £8,875,938.
    I estimate that some £2 million of the profit reserve accumulated by the Timber Control has been used to maintain the selling price of softwood at the levels fixed by the Imported Softwood Prices Order (SI 1950, No. 399) and the balance of post-war profits is maintained as a reserve for possible losses on continuing trading and on terminal stocks.
    Mr. Hurd: Do we understand that the Minister is pursuing the prudent commercial policy of setting aside some of the surplus which has accumulated to meet present day very high costs of the softwood timber he is buying?
    Mr. Wilson: I have been pursuing that prudent policy now for some three years, more particularly with regard to any possible losses when the price of timber falls.
    Mr. Marples: Do the prices or Timber Control charges cover the cost of replacing stocks?
    Mr. Wilson: I would ask the hon. Member to await the arrangements we are making to announce the new prices which are coming into effect.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the profit-making of the right hon. Gentleman's Department approved by the T.U.C.?
    Mr. Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the current imports of softwood are purchased by his Department.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Privately imported softwood did not begin to arrive in this country until 1st January and accounts for about 15 per cent. of total imports during that month, the remaining 85 per cent. being Government purchases. Government purchases will probably represent about 70 per cent. of our imports in the first half of the year, though the actual proportion will, of course, depend on contracts that may yet be made and the fulfilment of contracts already made both by Timber Control and private traders.
    Mr. Hurd: When deciding the price level, will the right hon. Gentleman remember the very dominating influence that these purchases must have over the market and ensure that prices are kept at the most reasonable level?
    Mr. Wilson: I will bear that in mind, but the hon. Member will recollect that private imports will account for a higher proportion when the freezing of the Baltic comes to an end next spring.
    Mr. Keenan: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that his Department is able to safeguard the supplies of timber in this country so that someone does not get away with something for nothing, as
    2270
    has been thought to be the case for a long time?
    Mr. Wilson: If my hon. Friend will give particulars of someone getting away with something for nothing in the timber trade, I shall be delighted to look into the matter.
    Mr. Oakshoft: In view of the fact that Government imports will be far greater than those of the private trader, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be quite wrong to attribute to the private trader the rise in prices?
    Mr. Wilson: I do not know why the hon. Member is so touchy. No one has talked about attributing the increase to the private trader.
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the President of the Board of Trade what additional allocation of dollars has been made available to purchase timber from Canada; and what extra quantity is expected to be delivered in Britain this year.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Dollars were allocated which enabled contracts for 490,000 standards of softwood to be placed in Canada in 1950, mainly for delivery this year. The corresponding figure for 1949 was 122,000 standards. I hope that arrivals of Canadian softwood during 1951 will be higher than in any year since the war. I am unable to say in advance what contracts will be placed in Canada this year.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there will be no delay in the arrival of these shipments'? Is he not aware of the fact that a large amount of timber is waiting in Canada to be shipped, and that it cannot be done because shipping is being used for the transport of coal?
    Mr. Wilson: I have already answered Questions about the delay; I have said that there has been some delay. I am glad.to be able to inform the noble Lady that shipping has now been chartered for practically all the timber which we have bought on the Pacific coast.
    Mr. Nabarro: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the 490,000 standards due for arrival this year will be for ordinary commercial and industrial distribution and how much for stockpiling?
    Mr. Wilson: No. It is not possible to say that until I have a better idea of how much is being bought on private account in Europe.
    Mr. Marplesasked the President of the Board of Trade when he is to announce the prices at which he is to sell to the timber trade the imported softwoods his Department has purchased.
    Mr. H. Wilson: From today onwards, the new prices will be sent to timber traders who have signified their willingness to buy from Timber Control on the basis which has been approved.
    Mr. Marples: Are the prices being charged greater or less than the replacement cost of the timber, and, if so, by how much?
    Mr. Wilson: They are calculated on what is considered to be the normal market price of new timber coming into the country. I should not like to say how they compare with replacement costs in the markets, whether in North America or Europe, but they are supposed to average out on a fair market basis.
    Miss Irene Ward: When announcing the new timber prices, would the right hon. Gentleman state how much of the increase is due to devaluation, so that the country can see what the position is?
    Mr. Wilson: I am not sure what is the object of the hon. Lady. The increase in timber prices has been of the order of some 50 or 60 per cent. since September last. So far as I am aware, devaluation occurred 12 months before that.

    Filament Yarn (Exports)
    Mr. Fortasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the policy of allowing exports of rayon filament from the United Kingdom when supplies are inadequate here.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The producers of rayon filament yarn have restricted deliveries for export since the beginning of the year when output began to be affected by the shortage of sulphur. The position is being examined in detail in consultation with the producers of filament yarn to see what further reductions in exports may be justified.
    Mr. Fort: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the percentage reduction made by the producers was earlier this year, and whether that is beginning favourably to affect the supplies of filament yarn to the home market?
    Mr. Wilson: Exports of yarn in January were 891,000 lb. against an average of about 2 million lb. last year and that is already having an effect on home supplies.

    Scarce Materials
    Mr. Edelmanasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to prevent the hoarding of scarce materials.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I am watching the position, but am not aware of any significant hoarding. Where there are Government operated controls, stocks are taken into account in making allocation of new supplies. In cases where a material is subject to consumption licence, hoarding is virtually impossible. Where distribution is effected by industry in co-operation with the Board of Trade, stocks are normally taken into account in making new supplies available to consumers. If I were to receive evidence of hoarding on a significant scale in cases where there are neither Government operated controls nor informal arrangements with industry, I should be prepared to consider appropriate action.
    Mr. Edelman: While welcoming any future action my right hon. Friend may take, may I ask whether he will bear in mind that private hoarding has the effect of still further raising prices and interfering with current production?
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, I am aware of it, but I am still waiting to see if there is evidence that it is taking place on a substantial scale.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would have been better if the Government had done a bit of hoarding of raw materials all last year?
    Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman knows we are to debate that tomorrow, when I shall be delighted to answer any questions he puts to me.

    Manila Fibre (Fishing Industry)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure, in his discussions with the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, that the inshore fishing industry will be allocated sufficient manila rope.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I am now discussing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries arrangements for the distribution of the manila fibre specifically authorised for the manufacture of fishing gear for use by the home fishing industry. In these discussions the interests of the inshore fishing industry are being fully taken into account.
    Mr. Edward Evans: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the interests of the near-water fishermen, having regard to the fact that the long distance section of the industry have declared that they require no financial assistance under the Sea Fish Industry Bill?
    Mr. Wilson: As my hon. Friend is aware, an allocation of dollars has been made available to bring in these supplies and my right hon. Friends and I are discussing the allocation among the different sections of the fishing industry.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what quantity of manila rope is likely to be made available under this scheme to the fishing industry?
    Mr. Wilson: I cannot announce that; it will not be clear until the contract has been completed.
    Mr. Marshall: When discussions have been concluded, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement about the matter?
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir.

    Nylon Stockings
    Mr. Jannerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with the announcement of cheaper nylon stockings, there is any possibility of more of these stockings being available for the home market.
    Mr. H. Wilson: There has already been a very large growth in supplies of nylon
    2274
    stockings to the home market—from an annual rate of 18 millions pairs in the first quarter of 1950 to an annual rate of 39 million pairs in the last quarter—and in present circumstances I see no prospect of increasing supplies further for some time to come.
    Mr. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that many women who are working all day have no opportunity of buying these stockings, and that in areas where these stockings are made there is considerable dissatisfaction because they cannot be purchased by the workers themselves?
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in spite of his repeated statements about there being more and more nylons available there appear to be fewer and fewer? Can my right hon. Friend tell us where they are all going, and how a woman purchaser can check whether she is really getting the benefit of any price reduction which he is making?
    Mr. Wilson: I have no personal knowledge of where these 39 million pairs are going, but supplies have increased and my impression is that the distribution system has also somewhat improved. I will go into the question raised by my hon. Friend about price control.
    Mr. Osborne: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the demands of various kinds of re-armament will take away from the production of stockings some of the nylon filament which is already going into the industry, and, therefore, tend to reduce the numbers of stockings available?
    Mr. Wilson: It is certainly the case that re-armament will mean an increasing demand for filament of certain kinds of nylon. That is why I said that I could see no prospect of an increase.
    Mr. Wyatt: Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of these stockings are sold in a regularly recognised way by the shops and what proportion through irregular vendors?
    Mr. Wilson: A very high proportion is sold by shops. My impression is that the numbers being sold through irregular channels are now decreasing.

    Gold Rings
    Mr. Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, as a result of his order operating from 1st March, relatively cheap nine carat gold wedding rings will cease to be manufactured; and if he will give sympathetic consideration to the representations made to him by the Jewellery and Silverware Council.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir. I will shortly make an amending order excluding nine carat and 14 carat gold from the prohibition of manufacture in the Copper and Zinc Prohibited Uses (Board of Trade) Order. Meantime, my Department will, on application, grant any licences needed to permit manufacture of nine carat gold rings to continue.
    Mr. Dodds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this information will be received with pleasure by many people who are contemplating holy matrimony?
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider also making other amendments of a common-sense nature in respect of other consumer goods?
    Mr. Wilson: We are, at the moment, going into the question of exemptions for export, but I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman and I would necessarily agree on what are amendments of a common-sense nature.
    Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the manufacturers of this cheap jewellery manufacture for export purposes and that if he stops the supply of raw materials we shall lose dollars.
    Mr. Wilson: We are making special adjustments for the export industry.
    Mr. Redmayne: Is the right hon. Gentleman smiling at the description of "relatively cheap" being applied to the jewellery when the jewellery and silversmiths' trade bears an enormous burden of Purchase Tax?
    Mr. Wilson: No, I was not smiling.

    Spain (Trade Negotiations)
    Mr. Nigel Fisherasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement following the discussions recently concluded between his
    2276
    Department and the trade delegation from Spain.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Discussions on the progress of Anglo-Spanish trade and payments have just been concluded between representatives of the Treasury and the Board of Trade and a Spanish trade and financial delegation. It is expected that Spain will be able to maintain and possibly to increase the existing rate of supply of important raw materials. Prospects for United Kingdom exports were also reviewed and I trust that, while the increased claims on our resources must mean a reduction in our exports to Spain, special regard will be paid by the Spanish authorities to the interests of our traditional trades.
    Mr. Fisher: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that despite the political policy of the Government towards Spain it is undeniable that the interests of both countries would be served by increased commercial relations? Could he not give the House a little more detail about the scope and character of the recent negotiations?
    Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that apart from strategic considerations we have never allowed political considerations to stand in the way of our commercial trade—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that that point has not always been understood by hon. Members opposite in connection with trade with Eastern Europe. As for the request for fuller particulars of these arrangements. I will see if something can be put in the Board of Trade Journal.
    Major Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Foreign Secretary to avoid political considerations entering into the question of our relations with Spain?

    Hessian
    Mr. Asshetonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the shortage of hessian has now reached serious proportions and is threatening the employment of people in Blackburn; and if he will give permission for hessian to be imported otherwise than through the Jute Control.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I am well aware that shortage of hessian has reached serious proportions, but can hold out no hope of any improvement in the situation until

    2277
    there is a substantial increase in supplies from India. The Jute Control is importing all the hessian that is available from any source, and, if purchases were on private account, the total, therefore, would not be increased. It is also essential for all imports to be regulated by the Control in order that the limited supplies available may be directed where they are most needed.
    Mr. Assheton: Will the right hon. Gentleman have any further information to give before long on this very important matter, which is causing great anxiety to those whose employment is threatened?
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir; I am aware of that anxiety, and I very much hope that the recently concluded trade agreement between India and Pakistan may, before long, have the effect of improving the supplies of jute to this country.

    Film Finance Corporation (Funds)
    Mr. Wyattasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any statement to make on the new arrangements proposed by the Film Finance Corporation.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the plans recently announced by the National Film Finance Corporation for the use of a portion of the funds still available to them by three new production groups. These proposals are described in an exchange of letters between the right hon. Lord Reith, Chairman of the Corporation and myself, which were published by the Corporation on 25th January; copies are available in the Library of the House. As I said in my letter to Lord Reith, these proposals were approved by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself.
    Mr. Wyatt: In view of the fact that these new arrangements are a disguised subsidy for the Rank organisation and the A.B.C. organisation, could my right hon. Friend say how independent producers who do not wish to be forced to make their films in studios belonging to those organisations can be helped from the funds of the Corporation?
    Mr. Wilson: I do not accept in the slightest the suggestion that this is a dis-
    2278
    guised subsidy to either of those organisations. My hon. Friend will be aware of the third group scheme, which is specifically designed for independent producers. In any event, these arrangements do not prevent the Corporation from lending direct to independent producers outside the three group scheme.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE
  Mr. Blackasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present deficiency in numbers of the Metropolitan Police Force; and whether the recruiting campaign is proving successful.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The Metropolitan Police are at present 3,906 men and five women short of establishment. I am far from being satisfied with the present rate of male recruiting and the matter continues to receive my close attention.
  Earl Winterton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the extent to which the recruiting campaign is interfered with or rendered infructuous by the continuing absence of proper accommodation for married police officers? Could he also state what have been the results of his discussions with the various Metropolitan boroughs to try to provide more houses?
  Mr. Ede: The housing position has improved and, I am glad to say, shows signs of improving still further The Commissioner is himself having approximately 500 houses built during the current housing year, and although I am not yet satisfied with the response made by councils generally in the Metropolitan police area, or by the Metropolitan borough councils there has been a slow improvement.
  Mr. Assheton: Will these be tied houses?
  Mr. Ede: These are houses for the police.
  Mr. Angus Maude: Would the right hon. Gentleman look again at the possibility of extending recruitment to suitable ex-Service men who are slightly over the present maximum age?
  Mr. Ede: I have sent a circular on that matter to chief constables throughout the country. In view of the extension of military service, which is one of the things which causes a temporary depression in the number of recruits, reasonable cases recommended by chief constables or by the Commissioner will be most sympathetically considered.

  PRISONS (BIRTHS)
  Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children were born in His Majesty's prisons since the order relating to such cases came into force on 27th December, 1948; how many women prisoners have asked that confinement should take place outside the prison; and if he can give an assurance that suitable arrangements were made in all cases.
  Mr. Ede: Since the date in question, 15 children have been born in His Majesty's prisons and Borstals in England and Wales and 92 women have been confined in outside hospitals. It is the practice for every woman to be asked, well before her confinement, whether she prefers to be removed to an outside hospital for the confinement, and, if she does, suitable arrangements are made. In a few cases, for instance, where labour was precipitate, it has not been possible to effect the removal in time.

  EXPLOSIVE FIREWORKS
  Mr. Sidney Marshallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the disquieting position disclosed in the 1949 Report of His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives regarding the manufacture of dangerous explosive fireworks, he will immediately take steps to introduce legislation designed to inflict severe penalties on the manufacturers of these fireworks.
  Mr. Ede: I hope that the House will shortly have an opportunity of discussing this matter, when the Fireworks Bill, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), the Second Reading of which is put down for 9th March, is considered.
  Mr. Marshall: Is it the intention of the Government to support the Bill? If
  2280
  so, will the penalties proposed in the Bill be vastly increased over what is now suggested?
  Mr. Ede: Before I announce my support of a Bill I should like to hear the view of the House on it. I think the penalties are adequate, but, there again, I shall listen to the view of the House.

  PRISONERS (POSTAL VOTING)
  Mr. Vosperasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds his Department based its ruling given at the time of the last General Election that detention in prison could be regarded as residence for the purpose of claiming a postal vote.
  Mr. Ede: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The ground on which a registered elector who is detained in prison may apply to vote by post, under Section 12 (1, e) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, is that he no longer resides at his qualifying address. It is for the registration officer to whom the application is made, or the courts on appeal from his decision, to determine whether such an application is valid, and I have no authority to give any ruling on the matter.
  Mr. Vosper: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Act gives rise to a peculiar situation whereby if a man is sent to prison in his home area he cannot vote, but if he is sent to prison outside his home area he can vote by post?
  Mr. Ede: I have previously dealt with that, but I must say that no prisoner has yet made any complaint about being confined in a prison near his home.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is absurd that enclosed religious orders are not allowed to vote but that enclosed criminals are, and would he put the matter right?
  Mr. Ede: That is a matter for an Act of Parliament, and I have already promised that when the opportunity occurs I will bear it in mind.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the Home Secretary say

  2281
  whether, as the Act now stands, remission of sentence on grounds of good conduct constitutes a disqualification and cancellation of the postal vote in view of the possibility of a prisoner being released before the register is completed?
  Mr. Ede: I would like to see that question on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Keeling: Is not it a fact that but for the rule that if you go to prison in your own electoral area you cannot have a vote, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department might have got a clear majority over his opponents?
  Mr. Ede: I do not know why it should be suggested that you. Mr. Speaker. should go to prison.

  YOUNG OFFENDERS
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many male and female young persons and children were in remand homes and approved schools, respectively, in 1950; how many were in approved probation hostels; and how many were absconders who either returned voluntarily or were apprehended.
  Mr. Ede: At one time or another during 1950, about 13,600 boys and girls under the age of 17 at the date of committal were in approved schools, and about 800 between the ages of 15 and 18 on admission were in approved probation hostels, which, do not cater for persons under the age1of 15. Figures showing the number of boys and girls who were in remand homes during 1950 are not yet available, but the number in 1949 was about 14,200. The number of absconders in 1950 who either returned voluntarily or were apprehended was 1,373 from approved schools and 745 from remand homes. Particulars of the number in approved probation hostels who absconded and returned during the year are not available.
  Mr. Sorensen: Do those figures show an increase or a decrease compared with previous comparable periods?
  Mr. Ede: I think they are about static.

  REMAND HOMES AND APPROVED SCHOOLS (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases and for what offences 12 strokes were administered for corporal punishment during 1950 in approved schools; in approximately how many cases and for what type of offences more than six strokes were inflicted during this period; in how many cases girls were so punished; and why no regulations exist in respect of the type of offence for which corporal punishment can he imposed.
  Mr. Ede: Under the Approved School Rules, 12 strokes may be administered only in exceptional cases to boys aged 15 or over, with the special approval of the school managers. There were 16 such cases in 1950. The offences in these cases included absconding, stealing, persistent unruliness, gross insolence and indecency. More than six strokes were given to boys aged 15 or over in 540 other cases in 1950, for similar offences. Apart from cases in which it was given for minor offences in the schoolroom, corporal punishment for girls in approved schools, which is restricted to girls under 15 and to a maximum of three strokes on each hand, was given in 42 cases in 1950. It is considered right that, subject to the requirements and safeguards of the Approved School Rules, the heads of approved schools should have discretion to decide whether corporal punishment is necessary in the individual circumstances.
  Mr. Sorensen: Does not the Home Secretary feel a certain disquiet about this matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Unfortunately, the answer of the Minister was supplied by hon. Members on the other side of the House rather than by himself. May I, therefore, ask him whether he does not feel a certain disquiet, first, at the absence of proper regulations, and second, at the fact that 12 strokes is surely an excessive number of strokes to be administered—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—for a complaint which obviously must be pathological?
  Mr. Ede: No, Sir, but I do feel a great sense of responsibility for the administration of these particular requirements. I think that the fact that in only 16 cases out of a very large number, 12 strokes were ordered indicates that the persons

  2283
  who have the responsibility of actually deciding the cases view them with a due sense of responsibility.
  Brigadier Head: Is the Home Secretary aware that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hopkinson) gave me 10 strokes without reference to anybody?
  Mr. Ede: Perhaps if the 12 strokes had been given the result might have been better.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation with psychologists, specialists in juvenile delinquency and other authorities has taken place in his Department during recent years in respect of appropriate discipline and punishment in remand homes and approved schools; whether particular attention has been given to the incidence of corporal punishment both as a deterrent and with regard to its alleged remedial effect on individual characters; and to what extent the experience and example of other countries in regard to this problem and the fact that corporal punishment is not administered in similar institutions in many countries has been examined in relationship to modifications of our own practice.
  Mr. Ede: Methods of discipline and punishment, including corporal punishment, in remand homes and approved schools are kept under constant review, as regards their suitability and the extent of their use, by the inspectorate of the Home Office Children's Department, which includes psychiatrists, in consultation as necessary with the managers and staff of the homes and schools, who have extensive knowledge and experience of the problems presented by young offenders. A psychiatrist, and persons with wide experience of dealing with delinquents, are among the members of the committee which I appointed in November, 1948, to review punishments in prisons, Borstal institutions, approved schools and remand homes. The committee's report dealing with approved schools and remand homes is expected to be available shortly.
  Mr. Sorensen: In spite of the strange levities regarding flagellation on the other side of the House, are not there numbers of psychiatrists and others who deprecate excessive corporal punishment such as that indicated in the previous answer?
  2284
  In these circumstances, was punishment of that character brought to the attention of the committee to which my right hon. Friend referred?
  Mr. Ede: That committee, which was appointed as a result of an undertaking I gave during the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, has been very fully investigating this matter. Psychiatrists differ even more than doctors.
  Mr. Sorensen: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity, and make some reference to the strange behaviour in this respect of hon. Members opposite.

  PRISONERS (INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS)
  Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that prisoners are informed of the fact that National Insurance contributions which they may make on release as non-employed persons, if they so wish, will preserve their pension rights only and do not count towards sickness or unemployment benefit.
  Mr. Ede: Prisoners are provided with a card which sets out fully and clearly the special arrangements made for prisoners for National Insurance purposes. Entitlement to sickness and unemployment benefit is among the matters dealt with.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a good many men who have recently been released seem to be unaware of this and that they think that by paying contributions they will be completely covered? Could not something be done to bring this information home to them?
  Mr. Ede: I have seen a copy of the card which is handed to every man. It sets out this information with great clarity and in very simple language.
  Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that a man who loses sickness and unemployment benefit because, having been in prison, he has not had stamps on his card, is penalised and punished a second time for one offence?
  Mr. Ede: That subject is one which should be taken up with my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance.

  CIVIL DEFENCE

    Instruction Courses
    Mr. MacCollasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department which countries have been represented among the students on the courses held during the last 12 months at the Civil Defence Staff College and at the Civil Defence training schools.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): Including Crown Colonies, 14 countries outside the British Isles. have been represented among the students on courses at the Civil Defence Staff College and seven at the Civil Defence training schools. In addition, visitors from nine countries have been to the College and from 13 to the schools. I will circulate particulars in HANSARD.
    Mr. MacColl: Do those particulars include students from some countries in Western Europe?
    Mr. de Freitas: Yes, Sir. Most of the countries in Western Europe are included in the list.
    Following are the particulars:

    (a)STUDENTS

    (b)VISITORS

    Staff-College

    Schools

    Staff College

    Schools

    Australia

    —

    —

    Australia

    Canada

    Canada

    Canada

    Canada

    New Zealand

    —

    —

    —

    Pakistan

    Pakistan

    Pakistan

    Pakistan

    Malaya

    Malaya

    Malta

    —

    —

    Malta

    —

    Hong Kong

    —

    Hong Kong

    Irish Republic

    Irish Republic

    Irish Republic

    Irish Republic

    Belgium

    Belgium

    Belgium

    Belgium

    Denmark

    —

    Denmark

    Denmark

    Egypt

    Egypt

    —

    —

    —

    —

    France

    France

    —

    —

    Greece

    Greece

    —

    Jordan

    —

    —

    Netherlands

    —

    Netherlands

    Netherlands

    Norway

    —

    —

    —

    Sweden

    —

    —

    —

    Switzerland

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Thailand

    Thailand

    U.S.A.

    U.S.A.

    U.S.A.

    U.S.A.

    Mr. MacCollasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long are the courses of instruction, respectively, at the Civil Defence Staff College and at the Civil Defence training schools at Falfield and Easingwold.
    Mr. de Freitas: Courses at the Staff College at present last for either one week or five weeks, and those at the training schools for five days, one week, or 31 weeks, according to the nature of the course.

    Business Premises
    Brigadier Prior-Palmerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions have been issued to industry with regard to the organisation of Civil Defence for factories and offices.
    Mr. de Freitas: As I have already stated, plans for the Civil Defence organisation in business premises are being worked out with representatives of both sides of industry and commerce and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement shortly after Easter.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that industry does not seem to be aware of this, and would it not be a good thing to inform them of what is happening, because they are getting very restive?
    Mr. de Freitas: I have not noticed a restive spirit in industry in this connection, but I will look into the matter. The statement itself will be made soon after Easter.

    FIRE BRIGADES (EFFICIENCY)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ensure that, since fire brigades have been handed back to local authorities, they have maintained the standard of efficiency found in the National Fire Service.
    Mr. de Freitas: All brigades are periodically inspected and reported upon by His Majesty's Inspectors of Fire Services. I would refer my hon. Friend for more detailed information to the annual reports of the Chief Inspector for the years 1948 and 1949, which have been presented to Parliament, and copies of which I am arranging to send to him.

    TAXICABS, LONDON (REPORT)
    Mr. Deedesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet received the report of the working party on London taxicabs; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ede: I have received an interim report dealing with the limitation of the number of cabs and drivers in London, and I understand that a further report covering the whole field of hackney carriage law is well advanced and that it is hoped to let me have it shortly.
    Mr. Deedes: Will the Committee report on the subject of taximeters, because it is eight months since taxi fares went up and most drivers are finding that the present system leads to very bad business?
    Mr. Ede: I had hoped by now to be able to give instructions that taximeters should be altered; but I received certain representations from the owners to which I have had to give some consideration.
    Mr. Gibson: When my right hon. Friend uses the word "shortly," does he mean Within, say, the next 12 to 14 days?
    Mr. Ede: No, I do not think that it will be quite as soon as that.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does my right hon. Friend propose to publish the interim report without waiting for the final report?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I have not undertaken to publish either report.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

    Chemists (Payment)
    Mr. Blackasked the Minister of Health what is the total sum under the National Health Service Act now owing to chemists; and whether the new procedure is resulting in quicker settlements.
    Mr. Butcherasked the Minister of Health how far his Department is in arrear in the pricing and paying of chemists' accounts.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): The amount due at 31st January last in respect of prescriptions dispensed to the end of December, 1950, is estimated at about £3,500,000. The current procedure is accelerating the rate of pricing, but I am afraid that final settlements are not yet made more quickly. They are now about nine months in arrears. but substantial payments on account are, of course, made monthly.
    Mr. Butcher: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us of any private business which is nine months behind in checking its accounts and paying them?
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I ought to make it clear that, because of the very large amounts that are paid out. on account, chemists are not in any worse position then they would be in if the accounts were up to date.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is not this highly discreditable to the Ministry of Health? What is to happen to those who have recently set up in business as chemists, as opposed to those who have more ample resources behind them?
    Mr. Blenkinsop: As I have already said, we make very substantial payments on account and that ensures that the chemists are not in any acute difficulty.

    Hospital Costs
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Health if, with a view to stimulating efficiency and economy in the hospital services, he is preparing a detailed analysis of hospital costs under the National Health Service.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, Sir. A uniform system for analysing hospital costs in some detail has been introduced for the first time this year and will relate to the year 1950–51 as a whole.
    Colonel Ropner: Will the return be in the same form as that issued by the Department of Health for Scotland, which is a valuable contribution to knowledge of costs in hospitals?
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Broadly, it is on a similar basis. We are still discussing with the Treasury the best way in which this information can be made available to the House and the public at a suitable time.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can my hon. Friend say whether these figures will show details of comparative costs between one hospital and another?
    Mr. Blenkinsop: That would be very difficult as anyone who knows anything about the subject will agree. It is difficult to secure any fair comparison between one hospital and another. The House had better wait until we are able to publish the details.

  GAMBIA (NUTRITIONAL RESEARCH)
  Mr. Hurdasked the Lord President of the Council to what extent the investigations of the Medical Research Council into malnutrition problems in the Gambia have yielded valuable results; and the amounts of the funds made available for this work last year and in the current year.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The work of the Field Research Station in the Gambia has yielded valuable preliminary results in demonstrating the effect of diets deficient in protein and other constituents on the health and efficiency of the population. Special investigations have been undertaken on the nutritional values of locally grown foodstuffs and on improved methods for their processing. The funds available for this work in 1949–50 amounted to £26,368 and in the current year to £25,768.
  Mr. Hurd: Has the knowledge gained by the Medical Research Council about feeding human beings in the Gambia been made available to the Colonial Development Corporation who, close by, are in grave difficulties about feeding their hens?
  Mr. Morrison: I think that that question had better be put on the Order Paper.
  Major Lloyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the malnutrition value of addled eggs?

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  Mr. J. Enoch Powellasked the Lord President of the Council why paragraph 15 was included in the form of application for employment issued by the Festival of Britain Office.
  Mr. H. Morrison: This paragraph was included because it is standing instructions to all Government Departments to require candidates for employment to give particulars of any serious offences for which they have been convicted. A candidate who has been convicted is not in all cases debarred from employment.
  Mr. Powell: Can the Lord President tell the House how many persons with previous convictions have been employed by the Festival of Britain?
  Mr. Morrison: I could not say, Sir.

  AGRICULTURE

    Fowl Pest
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Agriculture how many outbreaks of fowl pest have occurred in Cornwall in recent months; how many birds were destroyed; and how much has been paid as compensation.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): There have been four outbreaks of fowl pest in Cornwall in recent months, all of which occurred in January. One thousand one hundred birds have been slaughtered, involving compensation of about £2,100.
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Agriculture what assurances he has been given that dead poultry at present being imported from countries where fowl pest is endemic have not suffered from the disease or been in contact with birds that have died from it.
    Mr. T. Williams: Arrangements have been made with the Polish Government that should ensure so far as it is practicable to do this, that infected poultry carcases are not sent to this country, and an assurance has been given that these arrangements are being complied with. Similar arrangements were made with the Hungarian Government, though at present poultry is not being imported from that country.
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the import of dead poultry from countries where fowl pest disease is endemic.
    Mr. J. H. Hareasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the latest

    2291
    figures of the incidence of fowl pest since his last statement; and if he is now in a position to give a decision as to whether an embargo will be placed on poultry imports from foreign countries where the disease is known to exist.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the large number of protests he has now received from branches of the National Farmers' Union, he will ban the import of poultry carcases from countries known to be affected by fowl pest.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table, giving the number of outbreaks of fowl pest confirmed since 25th January, 1951. I am glad to say that the latest figures show a marked decrease in the number of outbreaks. As regards imports, I regret that I cannot at present add to recent statements on this subject.
    Mr. Hare: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that, if the incidence of this disease increases in the future, he will keep an open mind on the question of an embargo on imports from those countries where the disease is known to be endemic?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, certainly.
    Mr. Alport: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any protest to the Minister of Food about the continued importation of dressed poultry direct to American Service camps in Norfolk?
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Member had better ask the Minister of Food whether I have made any protest or not.
    Following is the table:

    Number of outbreaks of fowl pest

    England and Wales

    Scotland

    Total

    Week ended:

    1st February

    45

    2

    47

    8th February

    51

    9

    60

    15th February

    31

    9

    40

    22nd February

    31

    6

    37

    4 days to 26th

    February

    5

    3

    8

    163

    29

    192

    Production
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture what is the estimated percentage increase in agricultural output for the United Kingdom for each year of the years from 1939–40 to 1950–51, taking the pre-war index figure of 100.
    Mr. T. Williams: As the reply comprises a table of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:

    Volume of net output in the United Kingdom as a percentage of the average of 1936–37 to 1938–39

    1939–40

    …

    …

    …

    …

    108

    1940–41

    …

    …

    …

    …

    111

    1941–42

    …

    …

    …

    …

    105

    1942–43

    …

    …

    …

    …

    120

    1943–44

    …

    …

    …

    …

    125

    1944–45

    …

    …

    …

    …

    120

    1945–46

    …

    …

    …

    …

    121

    1946–47

    …

    …

    …

    …

    116

    1947–48

    …

    …

    …

    …

    122

    1948–49

    …

    …

    …

    …

    134

    1949–50

    …

    …

    …

    …

    139

    Figures for 1950–51 are not yet available. All these figures relate to the volume of gross output less imports of feedingstuffs, livestock and seeds, and to the output from agricultural holdings over 1 acre (or over ¼ acre in Northern Ireland). The inclusion of holdings under 1 acre (or ¼ acre) such as gardens, allotments, pig clubs, etc., would raise the 1949–50 index number to 141 per cent. of pre-war.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement upon agricultural production in 1951–52, in view of the reduction of farm subsidies on 1st May, 1951, and 1st July, 1951, the increased acreage of agricultural land to be used for open-cast coal mining, the call-up of agricultural workers for His Majesty's Forces and the shortage of tinplate and packaging materials for the horticultural industry.
    Mr. T. Williams: The factors referred to by the hon. Member comprise four out of a number which may influence the volume of agricultural production in 1951–52. While not minimising their potential effect I see no reason to expect any significant check during 1951–52 to the continued progress towards achievement of the agricultural expansion programme begun in 1947.
    Mr. Nabarro: How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his exhortations for higher production with the continuous aggravation to the farming community which is inherent in the matters referred to in the Question?
    Mr. Williams: On the basis of experience, because output goes up and up and up.
    Mr. Turton: Now that these special measures are being done away with, will the right hon. Gentleman work out his plans to give proper consideration to men working in difficult conditions in marginal areas?
    Mr. Williams: We are always working out plans, and generally, the plans have been effective.
    Mr. De la Bère: But never a word of thanks.

    Common Land
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Agriculture how much common land is still held by his Department in the county of Hereford and in England and Wales, respectively; when will this land be handed back to the commoners; and, when it is handed back, what steps he proposes to take to prevent this land again reverting to its pre-war condition.
    Mr. T. Williams: Seven hundred and forty-seven acres in Herefordshire and 10,500 acres in England and Wales. Most of this common land will not be released from requisition at least until 1952. Once it is handed back it will be for the commoners to see that the grazing is maintained in good condition.
    Mr. Baldwin: While the country is being slowly starved for want of fresh food, will the Minister take into account the need for pressing forward with legislation to bring into cultivation hundreds of thousands of acres of common land not being used at present?
    Mr. Williams: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have a look at the Livestock Rearing Bill, which passed through the House a few days ago.
    Mr. Llewellyn: Is the Minister aware that the information required is for England and Wales respectively, and, since it is St. David's Day, will he give the information in respect of Wales?
    Earl Winterton: In view of the great importance of this question, may we have placed in the Library a statement showing how much common land has been taken over in different counties, because my impression is that, in some counties, nothing whatever has been done to take over huge areas of waste common land?
    Mr. Williams: I will see if that is possible.

    Sugar Beet Pulp (Prices)
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Agriculture on what grounds it was decided to increase the charge next season to sugar beet growers of dried pulp, in view of the important part it takes in livestock feeding on their farms.
    Mr. T. Williams: Prices of dried sugar beet pulp have always been related to the prices of other comparable feeding-stuffs. The increase in future prices of sugar beet pulp, of which I gave warning on 24th January in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger), will, therefore, be in line with the increase in the general level of feeding-stuffs prices, which, as I stated on 15th February in reply to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), will be inevitable in the next few months.

    Vegetables (Virus Disease)
    Mr. Percy Wellsasked the Minister of Agriculture what has been the result of the experiments carried out in Thanet by the National Agricultural Advisory Service in reference to virus diseases of cauliflower and broccoli.
    Mr. T. Williams: The experiments are still in progress. As soon as useful and reliable results are available they will be given the widest publicity.

    Orchards, Kent
    Mr. Percy Wellsasked the Minister of Agriculture what is the amount of additional acreage of orchards planted in Kent since 1945.
    Mr. T. Williams: The orchard area in Kent was 69,700 acres in June, 1945, and 76,300 acres in June, 1950, a net increase of 6,600 acres.
    Mr. Wells: Can the Minister explain this increase, in view of the complaints from growers that they cannot profitably market their production?
    Mr. Williams: There has been a good deal of encouragement from my Department to farmers in Kent and elsewhere to increase their production of high-quality food.
    Mr. Deedes: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Minister of Food to these figures, when it comes to thinking of imports of canned and fresh fruits?

    Hay Supplies
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that there is sufficient hay in the country to meet all reasonable demands before the coming season's crop is available; and what steps he proposes to take.
    Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. I should like to take this opportunity of acknowledging the great assistance which my Department has had from the hay trade and from the National Farmers' Union in recent months in directing supplies of hay to the areas where they are most needed. I am satisfied that, unless the weather is abnormally bad, there should be no serious difficulty in meeting reasonable demands for hay for the remainder of the winter.
    Mr. Vane: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the hay is actually in the country, and not just waiting to be imported? Secondly, is he satisfied that, in case of bad weather, it could be distributed sufficiently quickly to be of use?
    Mr. Williams: My answer referred only to hay grown in this country.

    Gowers Committee (Report)
    Mr. Goochasked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made with the consideration of the Gowers Committee's report on health, welfare and safety in non-industrial employment so far as the committee's recommendations relate to agriculture; and whether it is intended to promote legislation in respect of those workers not yet covered by the Factories Act.
    Mr. T. Williams: Substantial progress has been made with the examination of
    2296
    the Committee's recommendations in regard to agriculture, but I cannot at present make any statement regarding legislation.
    Mr. Gooch: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that, with the increase of mechanisation in farming, this matter becomes increasingly urgent and will he hasten to act upon the Committee's recommendations?
    Mr. Williams: I quite appreciate the urgency of the matter; that is why it is under very active consideration.

    Farm Produce (Transport Charges)
    Mr. Lambertasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give an assurance that, in fixing prices for farm produce, he will take into consideration the increase in railway and other transport charges.
    Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir, so far as information of any recent or prospective changes is available at the time of the review.
    Mr. Lambert: In view of the fact that constant increases in prices, resulting in increases in costs of production, make the guaranteed prices out of date almost before they are published, will the Minister consider instituting a sliding scale to keep costs and prices in line?
    Mr. Williams: That, of course, would involve amendment of the 1947 Act. which is not contemplated.

  FORESTRY (ADVISORY COMMITTEE)
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffeasked the Minister of Agriculture upon what statutory authority the Regional Advisory Committee of the Forestry Commission and the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee have been set up.
  Mr. T. Williams: The Regional Advisory Committees were set up by the Forestry Commissioners in pursuance of the general duty, laid on them by the Forestry Acts, 1919–1947, of promoting the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation, and the production and supply of timber. The Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee was

  2297
  originally set up under the Timber Control, but now functions under the Forestry Commission in pursuance of the same general duty.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the interests of all those concerned in the industry are adequately represented on these two bodies?
  Mr. Williams: I think they are very fairly represented.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Industrial Investment
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual capital investment in industry in Great Britain per head of the population for the past year; and how this compares with 1939.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): Gross fixed investment in industry in Great Britain in 1949 was approximately £21 per head of the total population. Estimates for 1950 will appear in the next Economic Survey. No reliable estimates are available for prewar years, but in real terms investment in 1949 and 1950 was probably higher than in 1939.
    Captain Duncan: When are we likely to have the Economic Survey?

    War Damage Repairs (Cost)
    Mr. Asshetonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can estimate the approximate total cost of war damage repairs not yet executed.
    Mr. Jay: As the cost met by the War Damage Commission is the cost when the repairs are done, and much repair work must be deferred for some time owing to building licence restrictions, it is impracticable at this date to give a reliable estimate.
    Mr. Assheton: Will the hon. Gentleman consider making some reference to this in the annual financial statement, for without some reference to it the statement of the nation's liabilities is incomplete?
    Mr. Jay: It is not practicable to give an estimate of future liabilities, though we shall, of course, give past liabilities.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the Financial Secretary give an estimate of the cost of war damage repairs for which the War Damage Commission have repudiated liability because the claims were not made in time?
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: Can the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 5TH MARCH—Remaining stages of the Overseas Resources Development Bill.
Committee and remaining stages of the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Bill.
As the House is aware, we hope today to complete the Committee stage, and, if possible, the remaining stages of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Bill. In the event, however, of the Bill not being completed, we shall ask the House to resume consideration of it as first Order on Monday next.
TUESDAY, 6TH MARCH—Supply (5th Allotted Day).
It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Air Estimates, 1951–52, and to consider Votes A, 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in Committee.
WEDNESDAY, 7TH MARCH—Committee and remaining stages of the Supplies and Services (Defence Purposes) Bill.
THURSDAY, 8TH MARCH—The business for this day will be announced tomorrow, Friday.
FRIDAY, 9TH MARCH—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Eden: While I think we are agreed about the business for Monday, I want to be quite sure that we are agreed about the first item, the remaining stages of the Overseas Resources Development Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Committee stage was not finished yesterday, and that, therefore, the remaining stages in this case are not merely Report and Third Reading, but also part of the Committee stage.
Mr. Morrison: Yes, I do appreciate that. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Crosland: Can my right hon. Friend tell us when we may expect to have a debate on the Second Report of the Board of Trade Monopolies Commission?
Mr. Morrison: I am not sure that the Second Report has been published; I could not say. I am not quite sure whether it directly arises out of this, or whether it is a question which should be put to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Crosland: But it is out.
Mr. Morrison: I will make inquiries and see that my hon. Friend is informed.
Brigadier Head: Although I fully realise that the recent defence debate takes the place of the usual defence debate before the Service Estimates, nevertheless, in the past, we have always had a Defence White Paper giving the general policy and the allocation of resources for the three Services, and the recent White Paper of the Prime Minister does not really supplant that usual document. Is it to be issued before the Service Estimates are debated?
Mr. Morrison: I shall have to make inquiries. We were a little bit complicated this year by the fact that a heavy defence debate did take place last week, and the procedure has been rather abnormal. But I shall look into the point and see whether we can do anything to meet it.
Mr. Snow: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the Motion on the Order Paper standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister), the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) and four other hon. Members on both sides of the House for the purpose of considering the amending of the United Nations' Charter in order to secure effective world government?
[That this House accepting the urgent need for strengthening the Nation's defences, but believing that since defence is the corollary of the enforcement of law and since the United Nations as at present constituted is structurally powerless to enforce World Law for which purpose
2300
it was created, calls upon His Majesty's Government to propose under Article 109 an amendment to the Charter so that the United Nations Òrganisation shall have the structure and powers of an authority able to enact laws and enforce them.]
Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, I have seen that Motion, but I am afraid I do not see the opportunity at the moment of providing facilities for its debate. However, I shall keep the point in mind. There may be other ways in which to do it.
Mr. Eden: I am sorry to return to the business for Monday, but I think there is a general complication which we ought to bear in mind. I understand that during the Committee stage a number of points were reserved for further consideration, the suggestion being that Amendments might be put down on the Report stage. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, one cannot put down Amendments for the Report stage until the Committee stage is complete, so that, with the best will in the world, I do not see how we can take take the Bill, in the way proposed.
Mr. Morrison: I follow the right hon. Gentleman's point and will look into it.
Mr. Peter Thorneyeroft: I may be misinformed, but I did understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means had put down the British Transport Commission Bill for 7 o'clock on Wednesday. If that is so, is it intended to interrupt the debate on the Supplies and Services Bill at 7 o'clock on that day?
Mr. Morrison: That may be so, but I am not the Chairman of Ways and Means, and therefore it would not be appropriate that I should make an announcement on business settled by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Mr. Donnelly: Can my right hon. Friend say when we are going to hear anything more about the MacManaway Indemnity Bill, as many of us feel that this unfortunate gentleman has been kept in suspense a long time?
Mr. Morrison: That sounds rather awful. I think my hon. Friend will be hearing something about it fairly soon.
Sir Ronald Ross: The Government did give a pledge that it would be promptly passed, and therefore I hope it has not passed out of the Government's thoughts.
Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. On the contrary, it has been in our thoughts for weeks past, but it has been in some other people's thoughts, too.
Sir Richard Acland: As the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is expected back very shortly, can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be a day's debate on general Commonwealth and Colonial policy before Easter?
Mr. Morrison: I should be doubtful about that. We had better wait until my right hon. Friend is back. It sounds as if it might be Supply business, but perhaps I had better not dogmatise about that.
Brigadier Medlicott: Will the Lord President convey to the Prime Minister the fact that in the discussion of Foreign Affairs the House is being increasingly handicapped by the absence of the Foreign Secretary, and that while fully sympathising with the reasons for his absence, we feel that the House is entitled to ask that the interests of the Foreign Office now should be more adequately represented?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Speaker: It is not a question referring to the business of next week.
Mr. Morrison: I was going to say that if that kind of point is to be raised, I do not think it ought to be raised as a byproduct of the announcement of the business of the House.
Mr. Leslie Hale: Has my right hon. Friend now had an opportunity of considering the request I made to him last week that he should consider giving time to the Motion standing in the name of other hon. Members and myself on the question of world peace? In view of the news from Colombo this morning, and the fact that the world has now been at war for 37 years, is it not vital that we should discuss the problem of world peace and co-operation in this House as soon as possible?
[That this House affirms its earnest desire that His Majesty's Government should continue to seek to secure the peace of the world, and in particular to spare no effort to prevent a widening of the conflict in Asia; should maintain its policy of preserving democracy with a view to resisting the resurgence of totali-
2302
tarianism in Western Germany and, following their initiative at the Colombo Conference, should make a forthright reaffirmation of their desire in consultation with the great Powers to lead in a policy of world co-operation for the development of those vast areas, whose inhabitants suffer from poverty, malnutrition and disease, so that the resources of the world now being so tragically expended in an arms race may be devoted, without distinction of race, colour or religious or political creed, to the raising of the standard of living of all mankind.]
Mr. Morrison: There is a special aspect about the Motion which my hon. Friend and some other hon. Members have put down. I shall have a look at it, and if I can do anything about it, I will, but we have our work cut out to get through our business by Easter.
Air Commodore Harvey: As the Air Estimates are to be debated next Tuesday, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any information can be given to enable this matter to be considered beforehand?
Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Could my right hon. Friend say whether there will be a chance to consider Colonial affairs as distinct from Colonial and Commonwealth affairs, perhaps before Easter?
Mr. Morrison: I cannot be sure about that. We have not very long to go, I understand.
Mr. Eden: If it would help the hon. Gentleman, I would say that we propose to raise one aspect of it, and I mentioned that at Ouestion Time yesterday.
Mr. Snow: Thanks a lot.
Mr. Peter Freeman: As this is St. David's Day, could my right hon. Friend give us any indication when we could have another debate on Wales?
Mr. Morrison: We have had one fairly recently, and I have given no guarantee about a two-day debate on Wales. I am not unsympathetic about it, but we have not done badly concerning Wales. If we can do any more, we will.
Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Could the Leader of the House tell us two things —first, the date of the Budget, and, secondly, the dates of the Easter Recess?
Mr. Morrison: I hope to be able to give that information next week.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) regarding information about the Air Estimates, I think that if hon. Members will consult the Votes relating to these Estimates, and so on, they will find memoranda which give them a great deal of information.
Brigadier Head: There are, indeed, memoranda, which most of us have read, but my point was that in the past the Defence White Paper covered our general defence policy and allocation as between the three Services, which were not the subject of the Prime Minister's statement. I am only asking if we are to have a repetition of the normal custom of issuing a White Paper before the defence debate.
Mr. Morrison: But there was a White Paper in connection with the general defence debate. That is so. The statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was pretty comprehensive. There is no statutory obligation to have the same White Paper every year. I think the ground was reasonably covered for this purpose this year, and, therefore, it is not proposed to publish another White Paper.
Mr. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the need for a debate at the earliest possible moment on the desirability of having a General Election?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (TRAINING) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to make temporary provision for the calling up of certain members of His Majesty's military and air forces for the purposes of training, and to make provision for other matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under section fifty-five of the National Service Act, 1948, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

  (a) relating to medical boards, consultant examiners, and the payment of travelling and other allowances to persons called for medical examination, and

  (b) applying Part 11 of the said Act of 1948,

  and to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums required for the reimbursement by the Army Council or the Air Council of expenses of the Minister of Labour and National Service under the provisions of the said Act of the present Session specified in paragraph (a) of this Resolution.
  Resolution agreed to.

RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (TRAINING) BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CALLING UP OF RESERVES AND AUXILIARIES FOR TRAINING AND INSTRUCTOR DUTIES.)
3.41 p.m.
The Chairman: The first Amendment I propose to call is that in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. ManninghamBuller).
Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order, Major Milner. I wonder whether, as a convenience to the Committee, you would think it appropriate to indicate which of the Amendments you propose to call.
The Chairman: I do not think I can undertake to indicate at this stage all the Amendments that are to be called, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to inquire at the Table, some indication can be given to him as to the Amendments which, up to a certain point, I have decided to select.
Mr. Manningham-Buller (Northants, South): I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out
"whether legally enforceable or not."
As I understand you have given notice that you have selected this Amendment, Major Milner, I hope to be able to put the points fairly shortly. I can say straightaway that this Amendment is tabled not in any hostile fashion but with a view to seeking an explanation. One sees in subsection (5, b) on page 4, the following statement:
"references to a liability to undergo training are references to any obligation, howsoever arising and whether legally enforceable or not,…"
Those are rather unusual words to find in a Bill particularly dealing with an obligation in respect of training. I should be interested to know from the Government what is the object of inserting those words. It appears that this definition in subsection (5, b) relates back to subsection (3) of the Clause, which deals with liability for periodical training. I think that is so, and perhaps I have said enough already to apprise the hon. Gentleman of the point on which we desire an explanation. I hope that explanation will be now forthcoming.
The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): I think I shall be able to satisfy the hon. and learned Member that there are good grounds for keeping these words in the Clause. Some Reserve officers, both from the Army and Air Force, have a liability which is not legally enforceable to come up for training. There are certain sanctions attaching to that liability, for example bounty might be withheld or an officer might be required to relinquish his commission, but the liability itself is not legally enforceable, whereas such officers enjoy the exemptions referred to in Clause 1 (3) and paragraph 2 (a) of the table to Clause 1. The Committee will notice that in both cases men who have-liability to train have benefits or exemptions conferred upon them.
3.45 p.m.
In no case does any reference to a person's liability to a period of training impose any further liabilities on anyone. Our object, therefore, is to make sure, and to put it beyond doubt, that these benefits and exemptions attach to officers
2306
who have liability to training which is not legally enforceable. I hope, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I trust the Committee, will be prepared to agree that it is reasonable to keep those words in the Bill.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the explanation, which is satisfactory for once and satisfies me that these words should remain in the Bill. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, at the end, to add:
(7) The powers confirmed by this section do not extend to the calling up of persons serving in agriculture and fishing, mining, building or the textile industry, or any other industry which the Minister of Labour shall certify is of urgent importance to the national interest.
I believe it is recognised in the Quiz that has been circulated that the mining industry is not affected by this Clause and that miners will not be liable to Z call-up. I do not see why the same should not apply to the various industries which I have enumerated in the Amendment, and also why the Minister of Labour should not be given power to certify that certain industries indispensable to national welfare should not suffer as a result of this call-up.
I think the case of agriculture does not need any further stressing and I wish to deal mainly with the question of the calling up of building trade workers. I suggest that the principle of the Z call-up applies at present to the building industry and that the Minister of Labour should have special power to exempt the building trade workers from the Z call-up. I believe that at present every building trade worker is urgently needed on the home front. It is indispensable to the continuation of the housing programme, especially in Scotland, that there should not be withdrawn from the building trade force the workers we urgently require for the fulfilment of the building programme.
I do not think that requires any further argument, except to say that in a recent letter I received from the Minister of Labour he attempted to reply to the question that I put to him as to how many building trade workers were called up for

2307
National Service from 1st January to 31st October, 1950. The reply from the Ministry of Labour stated that the number is about 20,000. For several reasons I submit that the building trade operatives are more necessary at present in the building industry than in His Majesty's Forces.
I want to state another reason in support of this Amendment which may appeal to hon. Members opposite. I should like to know whether the building trade will be a reserved occupation in the event of war. I submit that we shall then need all the building trade operatives on the home front in order to repair the damage to buildings resulting from destruction by air raids. If, as was suggested recently by the Leader of the Opposition, we may receive 50 atom bombs in this country, the most urgent need will be for the building trade operatives to be on the home front and nowhere else. For those reasons, and for others which I will not enumerate, I submit that this is a reasonable Amendment.
The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I regret that it is not possible to accept this Amendment. We prefer to deal with this kind of problem by administration and not by legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has referred to one of the industries mentioned in this Amendment, namely the coal mining industry. We have already announced in Parliament that we do not propose to call up underground coal mining workers for 15 days' training this summer. We have also indicated that fishermen in general will not be called up either to the Army or the Royal Air Force, and I understand that the Navy are not recalling any of their fishermen reservists for 15 days' training this summer.
The position of those who are engaged in industry is at this moment under consideration by an inter-departmental working party under Ministry of Labour chairmanship. On this basis the Ministry of Labour have indicated which of those reservists whom the Service Departments might wish to recall would be available for early recall in the event of an emergency. It is from among these lists, which are at present being screened, that the War Office and Air Ministry have decided to
2308
select those whom they desire to recall for service this year. In short, we feel that the position will be amply safeguarded by administrative action which is being taken under the ægis of the Ministry of Labour and that there is no reason to embody any such provision in this Bill.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: I should like to ask one question about the industries scheduled in the Amendment. Will agriculture be dealt with administratively rather than by legislation? If we are to deal with all these industries administratively what are the administrative proposals which are intended?
Mr. Henderson: As I say, the matter is under consideration by this inter-departmental working party under the chairmanship of a representative of the Ministry of Labour who will formulate their proposals which can be implemented administratively. Agriculture, or course, will not be excluded from their review.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: Will it be included?
Mr. Henderson: I could not say. I imagine that if it is not excluded it may well be included. In view of the recent announcement, I do not think it is likely that the Government will reverse the decision about the call-up of workers in agriculture.
Mr. James Hudson: I support this Amendment, and I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. My right hon. and learned Friend has referred at some length to the desirability of administrative action rather than legislative action. He has supported his case mainly by reference to the miners and fishermen, and now, after an intervention from the Liberal benches, by reference to the agricultural workers. My hon. Friend, however, devoted the main part of his speech to the question of builders.
I rise mainly to express disappointment at the attitude of the Conservative Opposition. On the Tory Benches there is great enthusiasm for a building target of 300,000 houses a year, which, long after the dangers on the international horizon had presented themselves, that party still thought possible. Now that they know the Socialist programme is 200.000 houses per annum, I cannot understand how they can possibly risk leaving this building question in its present state. My hon.

2309
Friend has pressed, as I still press, for more information about what action is to be taken on this question of building labour. I am sure that my hon. Friend is justified in pressing this Amendment further.
Mr. Edgar Granville: I shall not try to answer the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), nor shall I incur the displeasure of the Chair by arguing whether we can have this wholesale call-up and build 300,000 or even 200,000 houses a year. But, as the hon. Gentleman said when he moved the Amendment, the fact remains that there will be a tremendous building programme, requiring a large number of building operatives, if the Government carry out this large re-armament programme involving the construction of factories for armaments and so on.
Therefore, like the hon. Member for Ealing, North, I am rather disappointed by the vagueness of the reply of the Secretary of State for Air to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris). He said he thought that agricultural workers would be included in the inter-departmental working party's review, but he seemed certain that they would not be excluded. I hope he will bear in mind that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has categorically stated that the blanket would be removed from agricultural workers and that they would be called up. I hope he will refresh his memory by reading the speech of the Minister of Labour on this subject, which is directly related to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that the most important thing is our civilian technique in our war potential and certainly in our industrial war potential. I am very worried that the Government under this Bill, by calling up those artisans referred to in this Amendment, are making it impossible for these various building jobs to be done.
On the question of food, the Secretary of State for Air must have seen the resolution which has been sent forward by the National Farmers' Union county branches and by the central branch in Bedford Square, saying that if the Government go ahead with this scheme it will be impossible to get a harvest this year or to get any food reserves at all.
2310
I hope the Government will learn the lessons of the past and will have another think about this problem. Wars are not always won by khaki; it is the vital war potential, the shells and food, which also count.
The Government are going too far and calling up far too many of these men. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consult his advisers and see whether something can be done, not administratively but legislatively, if not by this Amendment by some other Amendment, to provide a larger number of agricultural workers who will not be called up under this Bill.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) also referred, in moving his Amendment, to textile workers, and I did not hear anything at all in reply to that from the Front Bench. Nor have I been able to gather, in my researches on the subject, any very clear idea as to how this scheme will work at all. Quite apart from the powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, there are other difficulties. No answer whatever has been given, for instance, about the difficulty created through taking key men out of industry.
Anybody who knows the textile industry realises that it employs a very small number of men in a very large space, and in each department there is the key man. If we were to take two or three men from a spinning mill, for instance, that mill would have to close down. I do not profess to be an expert on building, but I think the same applies to many building schemes. If the comparatively small builder loses one or two bricklayers he might as well close down the firm for a fortnight as try to find something else for the labourers or plasters to do.
I think we are entitled at this stage of the proceedings, before we pass from consideration of this Amendment and of this important Clause, to have a very clear idea put before us of the Government's proposals, as to how representations are to be made—that is a special difficulty—as to who can make them, as to whether a man himself can make an application to say that he is a key worker and it

2311
will do harm to call him up or whether the employer must do it; or, if the employer makes the application and the man still wants to go, whether he has to go; or what happens if a man establishes his case and is not supported in it by his employer.
I feel that it is unreasonable for the Government to come to the House and say that they require us to give them a complete mandate. What are the proposals which have been brought before the House upon what has certainly proved to be a great controversial issue —and in respect of which I say, quite frankly, that I should be very glad to see the whole Bill withdrawn. I feel it will create much more difficulty than it will give help. Before we pass from this Clause we must press the Front Bench to give us much fuller information as to how they propose to work this scheme, and what rights of representation there will be on behalf of industry, on behalf of employees and on behalf of trade unions. I urge that that information should be given.
Brigadier Prior-Palmer: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), must realise that this is a selective call-up, which largely makes the Amendment unnecessary. Those who are being selected are people who will very largely follow their civilian occupation in their military role. I can assure the hon. Member that there are not many bricklayers used as such in the tail services of a division or corps. If we could find out the actual number of bricklayers being called up we should find it was infinitesimal. Another point which I dislike about the Amendment is that it mentions the whole building industry not only the bricklayers, but also the people who make the tea and those who work in the offices. The Amendment is in my view, therefore, far too wide.
I think this is an example of the sort of difficulties into which the Government are running because they will not face the problem of deciding what are to be the reserved occupations and of making an announcement on the subject. Many of their problems about volunteers and many of the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), would be solved if the country and
2312
individuals knew exactly where they were. I implore the Government to realise the vital importance of this matter from the whole aspect of call-up and defence.
Mr. Yates: I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) that because this happens to be a selective call-up we ought not to object, for example, to building trade workers being called up. The vital question is whether they are to continue with their work for civilian purposes or whether they are to work for war purposes. I realise the difficulties involved in an Amendment of this kind, which is rather wide, but I should like the Government to consider the effect upon the housing programme of any further interference with the labour used on that programme.
We appreciate, of course, the problems of mining and agriculture, but I can think of no problem more grave for the nation than that involved in the housing of the people, following two world wars. In some parts of the country the situation is impossible. The most amazing thing is that hon. Members opposite have sat back this afternoon and shown no desire to protect the civilians from any further encroachment upon the labour available for the building of houses. I cannot understand that, after all the fuss we have heard during the past few weeks.
Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I do not think the hon. Gentleman heard me say that, if the figures were available, I was sure we should find that the number of bricklayers to be called up would be found to be infinitesimal.
Mr. Yates: It is not only a question of bricklayers but of building trade workers. I understand, for example, that one building trade worker can build a house in a year. Look at the problem which we have in a large city like Birmingham, where we cannot build more than 2,000-odd houses a year, whereas we need 10,000 a year if we are to deal satisfactorily with the problem. I am not prepared to agree that it is right and proper to make any serious interference with the work of the civilian housing programme in the country, and I ask the Government or the Minister to consider what kind of administrative action he is prepared to take to deal with the problem

2313
of the building industry and the building of houses.
A further problem arises in a city like Birmingham, which has to contribute to the re-armament programme. We have been told, for instance, that we shall require something like half-a-million more men on armaments. They will have to be taken from other industries. Many of these people—I do not know how many, but probably one-third of them—will go to the Midlands and a great number will have to go to Birmingham. But we just cannot accommodate them. We have no hostels to accommodate further workers. In fact, the population of the city has increased by 60,000 over the last two years.
How are we to deal with this enormous problem if we are prepared constantly to interfere with the building programme? I hope the Government will give further consideration to the Amendment and certainly will give us some hope that the housing programme will not be held up by an interference with the manpower in the industry.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: The disturbing part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer to this Amendment was that in which he referred to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour about the position of agriculture. The object of the Bill is to ensure the defence of the country. If war breaks out two classes of those mentioned in the Amendment will become of major importance. The miners may be of major importance to the defence of the Realm, and so may agricultural workers. It is absolutely important that they should be kept where they are. There is no purpose in calling them up under the Bill; that will merely disturb the industry for no purpose whatsoever.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave us no assurance that this matter will be dealt with administratively, let alone dealt with by statute. To disturb these people would do nothing at all to secure the defence of the realm should a crisis arise. We should have from the Government a definite undertaking, not to put agricultural in a privileged position—that is not what we are seeking—not to put the miners in a privileged position, but to put them in the position where they will be needed for the defence
2314
of the Realm, which is the object of the Bill.
Mr. Chetwynd: If we were dealing with general mobilisation or a large scale call-up then, I think, there would be some point in discussing an Amendment of this nature, but I would ask my hon. Friends and the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) to have a sense of proportion in this matter, for we are dealing only with roughly 230,000 people for a period of a fortnight spread over a long period. The number of key people involved, I think, can easily be dealt with by administration, and that would be, in my view, the best way of dealing with the problem of key people if the call-up of any of them were likely to dislocate an industry or a section of an industry. However, I think we ought to get some undertaking from the Government that they do mean business administratively
I would suggest that where an employer can make out a case against the calling up of a man who has received a warning that he will be called up, the employer —it ought to be the employer, I feel, and not the man—should be able to make an approach to the Ministry of Labour about the matter.
Mr. Leslie Hale: The question is whether an employer will be able to foresee the difficulties arising on vital work because he may be faced with the simultaneous absence of a number of employees. In the Quiz there is a question:
"If an employer foresees serious difficulties arising on vital work because of the simultaneous absence of a number of employees, will it he possible for the call-up dates to be adjusted?"
And the answer virtually is that it will not. The answer states:
"It will be difficult to make adjustments but the Services are willing to do their best to meet exceptional circumstances. It will be specially difficult to adjust the call-up dates of Class Z Reservists…"
Mr. Chetwynd: I agree with my hon. Friend, but that deals with the case where a large number of men are being called up from the same place. The case we have to bear in mind is that of a key man. As I understand the Quiz, no provision is made for an employer to make an appeal against a man's call-up. In previous call-ups it has always been possible for an

2315
employer to make an appeal for a man to be released from Service on the grounds of his being a key man.
While I am certain that the Government must ask us to reject the Amendment, for the reasons I have given I do hope they will look far more sympathetically than they have up to now at the question of allowing employers to specify men whom they wish to retain, and I suggest that there should be some kind of tribunal in the machinery of the Ministry of Labour for the investigation of these cases.
Brigadier Thorp (Berwick-on-Tweed): The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) has reiterated some remarks I made in my Second Reading speech, and I am very glad to have his support for my case that an employer should be allowed to apply for a man's exemption. However, the main point I want to make about this Amendment is that it has brought out some interesting views. We have certain hon. Members opposite who, quite honestly and sincerely, I am sure, voted for re-armament, and yet here they are quite obviously bringing forward Amendments to the Bill to try to wreck re-armament in its first stages —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—which, I am sure, is not what the Government want, although I am quite certain that it is what the pacifists want.
We have another interesting point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), who said that one of the reasons for putting down the Amendment was that there seemed to be such a muddle in the Government's mind that it was not clear what was to happen. I am very glad to see that now at last even the Government's own supporters are realising how much muddle there is in the mind of the Government. This Amendment is doing some good, apparently.
Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made two statements about me both of which are completely inaccurate. One was that I voted for rearmament. Quite probably I should have done if forced into that position, although very reluctantly; but the Opposition put down a darn silly Amendment to the Motion approving the Government's defence policy, thus enabling me to vote—against that Amendment—without any qualms of conscience at all. The second was that I used some inelegant expression about
2316
some "collective mind" of the Government. There are moments when I would not venture to psychiatrise any such thing as a "collective mind." What I did say was that there was a lack of clarity in the information we had, and that we ought to have clearer information before the Clause is finished with, and I still say that.
Brigadier Thorp: That is very interesting indeed. I think the Committee will take full note that the hon. Gentleman went into the Lobby against our Amendment, which obviously meant that he approved of re-armament. I am sorry if I did not use the precise words that the hon. Gentleman used. I know that he is a great artist in words, and he uses more words to the gallon than anybody else I know. However, I think his case was clear, and I think I fairly interpreted his words. I do see the point of this Amendment, but I think that my hon. and gallant Friend has stated the case very well. This is a selective call-up, and, of course, as the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees said, it is a call-up of certain men for a short time. Therefore, I cannot feel that this Amendment is really anything more than a wrecking Amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Hamilton: I am bound to support the Amendment and I feel that the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp) is totally wrong when he says it would wreck the re-armament programme. I think it would help us to understand the matter better if we had more information about the actual numbers involved, but, in any case, I do not think that there can be any doubt at all that we are already in such a national emergency in coal, and that the housing situation is so bad, that we simply cannot afford to take into the Forces a single miner or a single building worker. I do not think there can be any doubt that those two industries, at any rate, should be left alone. The agricultural and fishing industries, perhaps, can be dealt with by administrative action, but I suggest that, at any rate, the coal mining industry and the building industry should be dealt with by legislation.
Mr. Michael Astor: The hon. Gentleman who put down this Amendment has, in my opinion, one great

2317
merit, and that is that he does introduce a quaint sense of humour in matters of debate, which is more than one can say of some of his colleagues. I see that 100 or more of the hon. Gentleman's Friends, according to this morning's paper, had to apologise to the Italian Prime Minister because it had been suggested that the Minister of Defence was considered fit to speak to the Italian people.
The Chairman: Order! That matter cannot possibly arise now.
Mr. Astor: I quite agree, and I apologise. However, there is one thing I would ask about the matter of the call-up of agricultural workers. Is the call-up of agricultural workers to be used to get at men who have shifted their jobs? The hon. Gentleman did suggest so, and it will be difficult to discuss this aspect of this particular Amendment, and aspects of other Amendments, until we know more clearly the Government's exact intentions behind the call-up of these categories of men.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee): I do hope the Committee will not get this question out of perspective. One would think from hearing the discussion that the Government were unmindful of the necessity of preserving manpower in each industry to the maximum extent compatible with the requirements of the Services. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) said we were in some way trying to alter the basis of legislation laid down in the war period. As a matter of fact, there was no such legislation during the war period. This was done entirely administratively. I hope that the Committee will realise that that, in fact, was the case. The classes of men reserved have to be altered considerably from time to time.
My hon. Friend, in the Amendment, mentions a list of industries. At the end he gives power to the Minister of Labour to certify which industries are of urgent importance to the national interest. In these days, I just do not know any industry in Britain that is not vitally important. No matter what industry we think of, certainly amongst those mentioned in the Amendment, we find that it depends on transport. Why, then, should we not have transport mentioned in the
2318
Amendment as well? So one could go on throughout the whole range of British industry. We could suggest that each industry should be treated in the way my hon. Friend wants us to treat those particular industries he has mentioned.
It is as though my hon. Friends said, "We agree that it is necessary to get the men for training," and then proceeded to do everything in their power to stop the Government from getting the men for training. I do not think that that is an unfair way of describing it. Let me put this to my hon. Friends. In the past we have tended to believe that engineering, because of the very nature of the job, would naturally carry exemption for all those in the industry, but during the war we realised that we had reached a situation in which engineers had to be called up to the Forces because of the very skill they possessed as engineers. I mention that to show that from month to month industry can change in its relevance and importance to military matters.
Do I take it from my hon. Friends who have supported this Amendment that a person engaged in digging out foundations is necessarily a building worker? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Not at all. That same man may be employed in the building industry for only two weeks. There are many classes of people in an industry who are not necessarily tradesmen skilled in that industry. There is a huge turnover of people who constantly move from one industry to another, who at one time may be employed in agriculture and at another time in the building industry. What are we to do about all this?
Mr. W. J. Taylor: Surely a worker is classified at the Ministry of Labour in a particular category, and that should be the basis upon which this matter is considered.
Mr. Lee: Let us keep this in perspective. We are asking for a total of some 240,000 men for 15 days each, spread over five months. That is approximately 1 per cent. of those engaged in industry, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will keep that basic fact in mind. We are not asking for a huge call-up which will disrupt industry. We are asking for 1 per cent. of the employable males for 15 days each spread over five months, and I suggest that against the background

2319
of what we are asking this Amendment is out of focus and out of perspective.
I assure my hon. Friends who have put down this Amendment that the Ministry of Labour, in conjunction with the Service Departments, will do everything possible to ensure that the call-up for 15 days of a key worker of a small employer will not entail disruption in the workshop, or hardship in any way; we shall do everything possible to vary the period of call-up in order to help. It is in that spirit that I ask the Committee to keep in mind the size of the problem, and the fact that the Ministry of Labour, in conjunction with other Departments, will do everything possible to make certain that industry is maintained at its maximum. Because of all those preparations that we are making I ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.
Mr. Leslie Hale: My hon. Friend says he will do everything possible to help an employer. This is what the Quiz says on the subject:
"May employers appeal on the grounds that men recalled could not be spared in an emergency?"
The answer is:
"No."
How do they appeal, to whom do they appeal, and when do they appeal?
Mr. Lee: Machinery is being set up in local departments of the Ministry of Labour and an appeal can be made to the local people. We shall have machinery to do all we can to vary the period of call-up in order to help local employers. We realise how important this sort of thing is to industry. The two sides of industry have been consulted on this problem, but as yet industry has not had sufficient time to assimilate all the small difficulties which can arise. We are keeping in constant touch with both sides of industry, whose advice we are seeking on this matter. The basis is as yet provisional, and a certain amount of security is involved, and any suggestion that the basis of deferment should be made public is, I think, quite wrong.
The Amendment asks for special consideration to apply to mining and fishing. Certain announcements have already been made to that effect. One was that no underground coal mining workers and only a few surface workers required for
2320
work of particular importance to the Services for which they are qualified will be recalled for 15 days' training this summer. For the fishing industry an announcement has been made that fishermen will, in general, not be recalled to the Army or R.A.F. for 15 days' training this summer.
I suggest that, with all those provisions in mind it cannot be seriously suggested that the absence of the relatively small number of men concerned in this call-up could have the slightest effect upon industry.
Mr. W. J. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman mentioned security. What is the position of nuclear physicists engaged in research work in connection with atomic energy? Will they be called up or not.
Mr. Lee: If the hon. Gentleman asks me about that particular industry—
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman mentioned security.
Mr. Lee: —my hon. Friends will be equally entitled to ask about every section of industry. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that all we are asking for is 15 days. If one looks at the amount of absenteeism due to illness, can any of us guarantee that we shall be able to attend this Committee or be at work for a certain two weeks' period of any year? Can we legislate to ensure that 'flu germs do not beset the hon. Gentlemen at any one moment?
Mr. Taylor: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this is the thin end of the wedge?
Mr. Lee: In view of the genuine effort which the Government, in conjunction with both sides of industry, are making and will continue to make, to ensure that hardship does not result from these necessary arrangements, I ask the Committee to agree that the Amendment should be rejected.
Mr. McCorquodale: As one who had some experience of this sort of thing during the war, I hope that on administrative grounds no Amendment on these lines will be accepted. To have a rigid and absolute prohibition of the calling up of certain categories of people in an emergency is the most inefficient

2321
method of handling manpower that one can devise. If that is so, we must ensure that this is handled efficiently, and in any selective call-up of this description I am sure that the Ministry of Labour, from what I know of them, are capable of handling this matter in the interests of all concerned.
On the other hand, this discussion has been of great value in impressing upon the Government the necessity for the closest consultation with industry in this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned inter-departmental committees. I am always rather scared of interdepartmental committees. I would rather have the Ministry concerned going straight to the man, the employer and the industry to find out the facts. In respect of what is said in the Quiz that has been issued, I hope that some method will be devised by which the employer can, in suitable categories, with the approval if necessary of the employee, go to the appropriate tribunal or appropriate section of the machinery established, to have a case for deferment heard. There may be cases in small establishments where one man going off at the same time as another for an extra fortnight might cause acute difficulty. Apart from that, I think the method proposed in this Amendment could not be worsened.
I would also ask the Minister to keep under close consideration the suggestion made by my hon. Friend that he should publish the list of scheduled or reserved occupations, if possible. The Minister in mind, but if at any time he found it possible to publish it, I believe that by said that on security grounds he did not wish to do so, and that must be borne doing so he would add greatly to the smooth running of the scheme.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Donnelly: A number of us are not satisfied about the answers given regarding agriculture. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) made clear the vital importance of agriculture in regard to defence. I think that agriculture is in a completely different category from other types of industrial production. One person taken from a farm is a very much more important factor as a key worker than one person taken from a large factory employing several hundred
2322
people. The complicated administrative machinery to deal with the question of exemptions, deferment and so on, seems to have no elasticity to deal with this kind of individual case. I cannot see what is the use of calling up a man for 15 days if in time of war he is one of the men whom it is vital to have on the home front.
Mr. Niall Macpherson: The right hon. Gentleman said on one occasion that this matter would be dealt with by administrative action. One thing which this debate has brought out is that insufficient co-ordination has taken place so far, and it is upon that point that I think the Committee would wish to have an assurance. How far has regard been had to the occupations that men are in now in the selection for call-up? Have they been selected purely with regard to their fitting into the military machine, because it is obvious that with a selective call-up the men who are wanted most for military purposes are often the men that industry would most like to keep?
It is extremely important, as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) has said, that we should not incur the waste of calling up men just now with a very scant chance, as is quite plain from the Quiz and from what has already been said, of their being able to get off through representations being made. We should not call them up in these circumstances if they are not to be called up. if a real emergency arises. That would be pure waste. The Committee need further explanation on this point. They have not only a right to know the extent of the administrative action which will be taken, but that the administration taken so far has been right. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reply to that point.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I agree that this matter should be dealt with on administrative lines rather than in the way proposed in the Amendment. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up one point in the interesting remarks which he made. He said that if employers would make representations to local officials that the calling up of a particular man would involve hardship to his firm, the officials would be prepared to do everything they could to help. Does that mean that they would be

2323
prepared to alter the date of call-up, or that in certain cases they would be prepared to waive the call-up altogether?
Mr. Emrys Roberts: I think that it is generally agreed that it is preferable for this matter to be dealt with by administrative action. The difficulty to which the speech of the Secretary of State for Air gave rise was that the Government did not seem to be clear in their mind what kind of administrative action they would employ. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale) pointed out, it is very important for the man who receives a call-up notice to know exactly what he must do to take advantage of the administrative machinery provided.
I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary's answer that he should go to the local office of the Ministry of Labour is good enough. I also thought that his remark that the basis of exemption must be kept secret on security grounds was very weak. If there is anything which causes a sense of injustice, it is that some men should receive exemption or postponement and others should not, and that the basis on which that choice is made should be kept secret. I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary's speech was most unworthy, particularly his airy assumption that it did not matter much, because a man might be away ill for a fortnight anyway. The Committee ought not to leave this matter without a far more satisfactory indication that the Government have definite proposals in mind.
Mr. S. Silverman: On this particular point, I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend who has replied for the Government. I can understand that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) would be in favour of the Amendment in precisely the form in which he has put it down, as would other hon. Members who are in principle against this call-up.
I listened with considerable astonishment to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee who are in favour of the principle of the Bill but who are against any practical steps for carrying out that principle. They would like to see the Z Reserve men recalled to serve in this way, but they would leave out all those who are making a solid contribution to more con-
2324
structive activities. That is a laudable desire, but it is not reconcilable with the Bill, because it would apply to 90 per cent. of the men. No one would be in favour of this Bill at all if the only ground of call-up was the greater value productively of the work which a man was doing or the greater value productively of the 15 days' call-up under the Bill.
I thought that the whole principle of the matter was that we felt ourselves compelled to call men away from their productive activities in order to meet a danger in a particular state of international affairs. If that is so, one has to contemplate that one cannot do it effectively without calling up a great many people in this way who would, in other circumstances, be more usefully employed, elsewhere.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: I understand that men employed in mining and agriculture would not, if war came, be called up, and should not those categories therefore be left out?
Mr. Silverman: The miners are not being called up now.
Mr. Hamilton: Within the last quarter of an hour, I have opened a letter from one of my constituents, and perhaps I might refer to part of it. He mentions the difficulties of the call-up and says that a man who is a miner working underground has been called up for 15 days. Can the Minister explain that?
Mr. Silverman: That leads me to my next point. I fully appreciate that, in spite of all the arguments, there may be some basis of discrimination between one productive category and another whereby some are called and some are left. In that case, I would prefer to see the basis of discrimination determined by the Committee and put into the Bill rather than that it should be left to administrative action which leads to the kind of contradiction which my hon. Friend intervened, quite rightly, to point out. If we are to have discrimination, let it be a clear demonstration of principle sanctioned not by administrative action, but by the very Act of Parliament on which the whole matter proceeds.
Mr. Profumo: I am in general agreement that this is a matter which should be dealt with by administrative action. I join issue, however, with

2325
Members opposite on one point, which I think is something they had in mind in putting down the Amendment. This Bill is going to require a Koh-i-noor of administration, but some Members are wondering whether the Government are capable of carrying out these administrative duties.
I personally am very worried. I see that the Minister of Defence is smiling. but he was not here when the question of the Quiz was brought up and it was proved to be wrong. If it has been proved to be wrong at this stage, where do we go from here? Can we have an assurance from the Government that they are going to treat this matter of administrative detail as a matter of the highest priority? I think it was Henry Ford who once said that anyone can think out an idea but it takes a genius to carry it out. My eyes may be faulty, but I cannot see any genius on the Government Front Bench. We must have a guarantee that the Government will take this administrative problem very seriously indeed.
Mr. Keenan: I can think of a good many trades and occupations which could also be included as being of the utmost importance to the nation. There are the dockers, for example, who I am satisfied are most essential. What I am really complaining about is that a lot of the speeches that have been made in favour of the Amendment to limit the call-up have been made by Members who do not want any call-up at all. It is not a question of particular categories, but that they do not want anyone called up. For that reason, I am opposed to the Amendment.
Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: I am very grateful for what the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) has just said. We must stand by the main principle of the Bill, but I cannot help adding that the Government should put more urgency into the matter. The difficulties which have arisen are largely due to the fact that the Secretary of State has unfortunately been unable to give the Committee details of the machinery that has been set up or is to be set up. Is the machinery already in action, or is there no machinery?
This talk about inter-departmental committees worries me a great deal. It should have been possible for the right
2326
hon. Gentleman to come to the Committee and give the details. He should have been able to tell us that he is in touch with those in industry and the whole thing has been worked out. Surely it should have been worked out by now. If he had been able to do that I do not think any of this trouble would have arisen at all. I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister of Labour to get busy on the job and to work at it very fast indeed. If the machinery is fully understood there should be no grave difficulty.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Lee: May I say, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), that I am afraid I have rather misled the Committee in regard to what I said about the local offices. Applications should be made to the War Office and the Air Ministry, and not to the local offices of the Ministry of Labour. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) wanted to know a little more about the arrangements that have already been made between the Service Departments.
Mr. Hollis: The hon. Member said that applications should be made to the Air Ministry or to the War Office. I have a letter in my possession concerning an application made by a farmer in my constituency to the Air Ministry. The Air Ministry have written back to say that they can do nothing about it, giving no indication of the next step that should be taken. Does the hon. Member mean that he will set up this machinery?
Mr. Lee: I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will let me see the letter. If he looks through the questions and answers of the Quiz he will see that most of these points are answered. However, I shall be glad to see the letter.
In regard to the machinery of the Service Departments, the Service Departments have accepted the basis on which the availability of reservists for call-up should be decided, and that has been worked out by the Inter-Departmental Committee, to which my right hon. Friend referred, which is under the chairmanship of a representative of the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour has indicated which of the reservists the Service Departments wish to recall would, so far as can be foreseen, be available in

2327
the event of an emergency. The Air Ministry and the War Office have selected from these those who are to be called up for training this year.
Mr. N. Macpherson: Has the Ministry of Labour consulted the employers concerned?
Mr. Lee: Both sides of industry are being consulted. As far as agriculture is concerned, there can be very few agricultural workers concerned, because for the most part they were reserved during the last war. Therefore, only a comparatively small number can be reservists due for call-up this year. There will not be any great demand on them. But it must not be assumed that all agricultural workers will be reserved in the case of an emergency. For instance, men with previous military experience of very special value who may have gone into agriculture since their release may be needed. A count has already been taken of occupations as well as of service ability in selecting people for this training. I think I have dealt with all the points that have been raised, and I hope that the Committee will now agree to get on with the Bill.
Mr. Hector Hughes rose—
The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Surely we can come to a decision as we have already had a very long debate.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I wish to make a point which might at first seem to be sectional, although it is really one of wide national importance. The training these men will have will be the training of a soldier, and that will be no good to fishermen. No one will deny the great service the fishing community has rendered the country in the past. But the training envisaged under this Bill is training for soldiering purposes and not for naval purposes. It will be agreed, therefore, that those in the fishing industry are in a peculiar position, and that their case for exclusion is unanswerable, whatever may be said about other categories of men.
Mr. Angus Maude: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that the R.A.S.C. would be delighted to have
2328
fishermen in the War Office fleet at any time?
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not think that this Clause should stand part of the Bill, and I hope that hon. Members realise what they are doing if they vote for it. We have had a great many assurances from the Ministry of Labour about the administrative machinery. How does it work? The Minister of Labour recently said in the course of the defence debate.
"…the 'blanket' shall be removed from agriculture."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 15th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 732.]
He also told us that 15,000 agricultural workers were to be called up. That phrase about taking the blanket away is something that will stick in the minds of agricultural workers.
How is this administrative machinery to work? An hon. Member on the Liberal benches asked what consultation took place between industry and the Government. When there are questions of prices or subsidies for cattle, a very elaborate machine comes into operation and there is much consultation. In this case the Farmers' Union and the representatives of the farm workers were not consulted at all, but were told 24 hours before what was going to be done. That is not consultation; that is dictation. The Ministry of Labour have given no assurances at all, but have handed everything over to the Service Departments. They say what they want and the Ministry of Labour agree. I was reading recently a speech by the Minister of Labour to the Fabian Society in which he recalled the effect in his early Nonconformist days—
The Deputy-Chairman: I do not see how that speech can be connected with the Clause.
Mr. Hughes: I am giving an illustration of how the Minister of Labour has surrendered to the Service Departments.
Mr. Lee: Is the hon. Gentleman asking, in the first place, that industrialists who employ people, no matter what the industry is, should, before the Ministry of Labour can call up any people in that industry, be asked, "Please, do you agree to our calling up people from your industry"? They would all say, "No, we

2329
do not." The second point is that there was actual contact with the agricultural industry, and as a result we decided not to begin to call up workers in agriculture until November of this year.
Mr. Hughes: Obviously the contact was good, but contact does not mean consultation. What I say is that when an important key industry like agriculture is being considered, particularly because of its importance to our food supply, the Ministry of Labour should take counsel with the industry in regard to the calling up of such a number of workers as 15,000. How was that number arrived at? It was not by consultation between the farmers, the farm workers and the Government. The industry was told what was going to happen. We are not going to have consultation in the real sense of the word if everything is to be sacrificed to the military machine.
Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend should remember that the 15,000 referred to are National Service men and are not Z reservists, so they do not come within this Clause at all.
Mr. Hughes: That gives us an idea of how the machinery works. Here we are trusting implicitly to this piece of machinery, which hardly appears to be under the control of the people in the Ministry itself, but rather under the control of the military authorities. What is likely to happen is that it is not to the Ministry of Labour that the farmer or small employer will go, but to the Service Departments. What sort of help is he likely to get there? I submit that the assurances which we have had are not assurances at all, and that we are sacrificing the whole problem of labour to the military machine.
Mr. Grimond: We want more information about the procedure, because it appears that the Quiz, as I understand it, is wrong. If a man wants exemption he has now to write to the War Office or the Air Ministry, which appears to me to be rather a heavy responsibility to put on men who are not so accustomed as are Members of Parliament to writing to Ministers about these matters. It will prevent these men from seeing someone who will know something about the difficulties they are in. I should like to know whether what I say is true and whether the Quiz is wrong?
2330
Secondly, we have heard a great deal about the difficulties caused on the farm by the removal of one or two men for a limited period. That is quite true, especially if it happens in midsummer, but I am concerned with another aspect of the matter. Comparatively few men are to be called up under this Bill, and that makes it all the more important that the right men should be called up and the best use made of them. Looking at it from another point of view, what assurances can the Army or Air Force have that if they have these men for 15 days and fit them into their units, they are ever going to see them again? We were told that one of the chief reasons for this call-up was to train men in the units in which they would serve in war. They were to get to know their war units. and comrades. If after the call-up it turns out that these men are to be reserved, then all the arguments about fitting them into war jobs vanish into thin air.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I want to put a very small point, though it is an important one, and it is necessary that we should have a clear answer to it. We have been told by the authorities that 235,000 men are to be called up, and certainly the general principle to be applied on the whole is that of "last out, first in," which is rather a reversal of what was done before, though it seems the fairest thing to do in the circumstances if men have to be called up at all.
I do not want to over-state the matter, but I suppose it is possible for mistakes to occur in the War Office. I was told by a distinguished officer in the last war that certain officers were to be promoted as a result of an examination, but that due to an error those who failed were promoted and, so far as one can gather, no one ever found out. Certainly, mistakes can occur, because constituents of mine who are to be called up under this Clause have told me about them.
I have seen Z men in my area who have approached this matter perhaps with stronger support for the Government than I have, and they have said to me, "We have no objection in general to the principle of the call-up. We do say, however, that the people who have served a long time might now be given a rest in favour of the people who have not served at all." I have been told by others. "I

2331
was called up for six months in 1938, and I was told that I was serving my country but that nothing was likely to happen. There followed six years' service in the army, much of it abroad, some of it as a prisoner of war of the Japanese." I must here add that, while I could quote cases of men in my constituency who have had six years foreign service and are now to be called up, I have not had a case of a prisoner of war of the Japanese who is to be called up.
Mr. Fernyhough: I have.
Mr. Hale: I am much obliged. Apparently my hon. Friend has one. The point I am putting is how one is to know whether a man of 34 who has two children and who has served before is not really being called up by mistake for his younger brother of 26. How is that to be overcome? Surely there must be machinery under which these men can make representations and say, "We have served our country with courage and distinction and we are willing to serve it again, but there are others who should be called first."
I want to make this point, because it arises under this Clause. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to say, "We are only considering a fortnight's service." What does concern these men is that once they have been called up for that service, they are liable to be the first called up if war occurs. That is most important for them, and it is perfectly reasonable that consideration should be given to a man who can say, "I have a wife and five children and a small business. I have already served six years, most of the time, against Japan, but my next-door neighbour has not served at all, and surely he should be available first for call-up."
5.0 p.m.
I want a simple answer. Here is Mr. Brown, of Oldham, who has a wife and family. He was called up in 1938 and he has done six years' service abroad, with distinction. How does he say to me, or to somebody: "I think there is a mistake," when he gets his call-up notice? He wants to say: "This is not in accordance with the Minister's statement. I am sure that nobody intended to call me up. Someone has made a bloomer. I don't think I'm the man intended."
2332
That is point number one. The Parliamentary Secretary has just said something to me privately about technical service. I think I understand his difficulty. It is difficult, if a man served for six years, and if he got down to the technique of a Bofors gun, got a few extra stripes, and became an instructor. He no doubt did a first-class job and he is indefinitely liable to be called up.
It is rather the reverse of the usual principle to say that a man shall be rather severely penalised for his success in a technical rank. There may be some technicians who will want to argue the point. We really must know what is the basis, and how we are to view this matter. In view of the position which will exist under Clause 6 of the Bill, it is imperative that people should know the proper method of making objections and representations. It is important that we should put this question now, and have a clear and unequivocal answer.
Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I want to mention one or two points in connection with the call-up of aircrew. About 1,000 aircrew are to be called up and it is very important to know what sort of training they are to do, where they are to be trained and whether they are to have modern types of machine. That is very important. I want also to know something about flying instructors. The supply of aircrew is always a delicate matter for the Air Force. They must never be taken for granted. They always take time to train, and that entails skilled flying instructors to train them.
I want to consider the position of these instructors who are to be called up. It means considering the whole position of flying instructors in this country. Flying instruction is a skilled and exacting job, not without risk. The instructors are presumably people who have already served their time in the Royal Air Force. They may be older men, aged, say, from 26 to 30. They may have been settled in some kind of civilian job. In the Bill there is provision for reinstatement in civil life, but if we call men up for 18 months it is very difficult for them to settle back into any kind of civilian existence. Some of the people who have received their call-up notices are very

2333
anxious to know whether this provision remains firm, and what provision will be made for them.
The point that we have to bear in mind is that some firms might be unwilling to take on a man from the Royal Air Force if they knew that he was a flying instructor, because he might be called up for 18 months. The whole position of flying instructors ought to be considered here. Some men might want to go on and make a career of flying instruction. There are many branches of instruction—the ab initio training, conversion to advanced types, and top-line flying instruction which is conversion to the latest types of operational aircraft, which always change as time goes on.
We have to consider what these people are to do in the way of a career. This is a highly-skilled job, and the career finishes as a rule at the age of 50. At the present time there is little opportunity for carrying on in civil life. It is not inappropriate to mention that in America one person in every 320 citizens holds some kind of air licence, while in this country that is true of only one in approximately 6,200. In a country like America there is very much more opportunity. If we are to be a nation of airmen, we have to learn to consider our flying instructors' position, which is our insurance for the future. We must ensure that the flying instructors get a square deal.
Mr. M. Stewart: Hon. Members have expressed concern as to the choice of men for this call-up. We should make the machinery clear. A man receives his warning notice. If he wishes to protest against his call-up it is correct, as is stated in the Quiz, that he makes his representation to the Service authority. As I said on the Second Reading, we shall have a branch in the War Office which will deal with these applications. I understand that similar provision is being made in the Air Ministry.
Mr. S. Silverman: When the warning notice goes out, will it contain on the face of it the information which my hon. Friend has now given? If the man upon whom a warning notice is served feels that he has a legitimate objection to raise, does the notice give him the name and address of the authority to whom his representation is to be made?
Mr. Stewart: That is so.
Brigadier Head: I think I am right in saying that at the present time the warning notices have no such information.
Mr. Stewart: I should have said that it will be on the letter going out with the warning notice. The letter indicates that the man can apply, in the case of officers to the War Office branch, or in the case of other ranks to the Record Office. The man concerned gets that information at the same time as he gets the warning notice. Similarly, if he has an objection on the ground of conscience and not on domestic hardship, the information given in the Quiz about what he has to do is correct.
Another point about which hon. Members showed some concern is about the man who feels not so much that he should plead domestic or business hardship, or conscience, but wonders why it should be he rather than somebody else who is called up, with regard to his age group, occupation and so on. I did say, during the Second Reading debate, that the principle of age and service operated only in the second degree, namely, that the first concern was to select those men who would make up the units as required. That means certain types of men. It may be only those who were in the Services towards the end of the war, but for other types we may have to go a good deal farther back to earlier age and service groups.
We are not entitled to assume that because men of earlier age and service groups are called up that has been done in error. It will be open to men to make the same sort of representation on this ground as they would make on grounds of hardship. I think the Committee will appreciate—although it will be unwelcome to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—that in the end it is the Service Departments who must be the judges whether it is necessary to go back to a certain age group or not.
Mr. Leslie Hale: My hon. Friend has stated the doctrine that the service Departments must be the judge. Does he really suggest that the soldier must write to the War Office and say: "I think somebody is making a bloomer in calling up me. I have a younger brother who

2335
would be much more suitable." Are the War Office going to write back and say: "We think you are quite right"?
Mr. Stewart: If we received a case such as my hon. Friend describes we should certainly look at it, and if we had made a mistake we should certainly admit it.
There is another channel the use of which, as I said on Second Reading, we do not wish to encourage. If hon. Members have brought to their notice cases which seem to be really outstanding and for which no possible explanation can be found, there is the recognised process whereby hon. Members may approach my colleague and myself, although I believe the House agreed on Second Reading that it was not desirable to use that channel in every conceivable instance. I believe that we have provided for the various types of objection that may be made to call-up.
In consequence of this, I think it is reasonable to ask the Committee to accept the working of the scheme as applied to the men described in Clause 1 and to allow the Clause to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Collick: I wonder if I understood my hon. Friend aright in conjunction with what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, that in the case of any business hardship or occupational difficulty, or some such problem, the man may make an appeal to the Air Ministry in the case of the Air Force and to the War Office in the case of the Army. Is not there the difficulty that a man who feels himself aggrieved will have his case decided by the Service Departments, and not somebody outside the Departments? Is it not possible to devise some machinery by means of which somebody outside the Service Departments can hear cases of this kind?
Air Commodore Harvey: The Government appear to be in some difficulty over this and I attribute it to the fact that they have not given the matter sufficient thought over the last three years. The Minister of Defence has been most uncomfortable in his seat all the afternoon. I should like to know what he has to say about it. The Government have been warned by the Oppo-
2336
sition time and time again to check up on the reservists and to find out who are the key men, because it is certain that if we are unfortunate enough to become involved in another war, not everyone will be able to fight and that the battle will be won just as much by those who are in the factories producing equipment. The Government ought to have considered the matter in the greatest detail during the last two years and certainly since the Berlin air-lift, because the troubles at that time were a good pointer to the way things were going.
I support what has been said by my noble Friend the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) about the Royal Air Force. There is no doubt that not in numbers but in terms of service, the volunteer reservists and the auxiliaries are taking the brunt of the additional service up to 18 months, and they will be liable again. As my noble Friend said, a flying instructor who is taken back into the Service for 18 months leaves his job and has to specialise in what has become almost a science, teaching other people to fly. I should have thought that it would have been far better if the Government did not call such men up for 18 months but took them on for something like five years, perhaps giving them a super-short service commission.
The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going beyond the scope of the Clause.
Air Commodore Harvey: With the greatest respect to your Ruling, Sir Charles, I am concerned about the future of these men when their term of service is completed.
The Deputy-Chairman: That should be discussed on another Clause.
Air Commodore Harvey: I am very sorry to have gone beyond the Clause, Sir Charles.
The Government should, even at this late hour, nominate the men who will have to stay behind in the key jobs in all industries, including those concerned with re-armament. What is the point of spending all this money on rearmament if key men are to be called up or are uncertain about their future and we have not the equipment with which to train them? The Government have fallen down very badly on this matter.

2337
My advice to the Minister of Defence is to get busy and get some good people to advise him and let these men know where they stand.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Snadden: Those of us who represent agricultural constituencies are puzzled about the effect that this will have on agricultural workers. I agree that not many will be affected under the Bill, and we all know that this is quite separate from the other Measure, but in the case of the key men—in Scotland we are very short of skilled workers such as shepherds and byre-men—who will decide whether a man is or is not a key man? I understood the Minister to say that application would have to be made direct to the War Office. Is there to be no consultation at all with the agricultural executive committees?
Mr. Lee: Consultation is taking place with the Service authorities and with the Ministry of Agriculture, as well.
Mr. Snadden: I take it that when the hon. Gentleman refers to the Minister of Agriculture, he means that the applications will go through the agents of the Minister, the county committees. I only want to clear up the question of who will decide whether or not a man is a key man. I do not want agricultural workers exempted as a class, but I am anxious that key men in remote areas—some Z reservists have become skilled men since the end of the war—will not be at the mercy of the War Office, and that the decision shall be taken only after consultation with the competent technical authority which, locally, would be the agricultural executive committee of the county concerned. May we have an assurance on that?
Mr. Lee: Details of that are now being worked out with both sides of the agricultural industry.
Mr. Hollis: I do not feel that I can let the speech of the Financial Secretary pass without uttering three or four sentences of comment on the important question of appeals. The Financial Secretary sketched the machinery, but, according to all my investigations, the machinery is entirely in cloud cuckoo-land. He gave us the impression that machinery was in existence, but it is not
2338
in the least in existence, as I tried to say in my short intervention when we were discussing an earlier Amendment.
The Financial Secretary tells the people who wish to appeal that they must make their representations to the Service authority, but in certain cases when applications are made to the Air Ministry, instead of the representations receiving consideration, the applicants receive a letter to say that the Air Ministry can take no cognisance of the matter and that it is the business of the Minister of Labour. The whole situation is one of complete and absolute chaos, and we should not part with the Clause without making it more workable.
Mr. Angus Maude: I wish to direct the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for War to a small point in connection with the Territorial Army Reserve of Officers and to ask him one or two questions about it. Officers of the Territorial Army Reserve of Officers are specified in the Clause as persons liable to call-up. These officers fall into two separate and quite distinct classes. There are the T.A.R.O. officers who served in the Territorial Army before the war, were embodied in August, 1939, and went on to T.A.R.O. on their demobilisation after the war, but there are also Territorial Army Officers who were re-commissioned in the Territorial Army on 1st May, 1947, and have since gone on to T.A.R.O. having completed less than four years' engagement. Many of the latter class have been called up under this Bill.
The accompanying letter with the warning notice says clearly, and quite rightly, that the principle which has been followed is that of "last out, first back." I take it, therefore, that quite a large number of those who have gone on to T.A.R.O. in the last few years will have been called up.
That may be convenient, and it may be efficient from the point of view of getting the people with the most recent training back to fill gaps in the Army, but I want to direct the attention of the Under-Secretary of State to the fact that this is precisely the system which will strike those Army Reserve Territorial officers as being the least just that could possibly have been devised. Those who have done two or three years' service voluntarily in the Territorial Army since the war are called up, whereas a substantial number

2339
of people who have not done volunteer service since the war are not being called up. I should be glad, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman could tell us how many people are affected by that, because I know some are so affected.
Mr. Harold Macmillan: I would not have intervened except for some observations which have fallen from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. I think the whole Committee wants this Clause except those who are against the principle of the Bill. We all want it to operate in a way that is most effective in the national need because, after all, except for domestic hardship or conscientious objection, which is an individual claim, the major consideration in any cases of exemption is not the individual need; it is whether the nation is better served by the man staying in his industry or upon his farm. Therefore, it is the national need that is the overriding consideration in every case except that of hardship or conscientious feeling.
On the other hand, the Committee are a little disturbed at what seems to be the stage to which these arrangements either have been formulated or have become known. The Parliamentary Secretary said that this is still being discussed with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, but, as we all know, that is the early stage. It takes some time after these things are worked out for them to become known and for comment to be made on whether or not it is good machinery.
So I hope the Committee will feel that this Clause must stand part, but that on the Report stage, or if it is not possible then, at any rate at an early date, the Government will make a clear statement and publish a clear document as to the precise machinery laid down in order that there shall be no doubt. When these negotiations are finalised, there should be an absolutely clear picture in the minds of everybody as to the system which is, I repeat, brought into being for the purpose of securing the greatest national advantage.
The Deputy-Chairman: The question is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Are we not to have an answer to the appeal of my right hon. Friend, Sir Charles? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say that he will comply with our request for the publication of a statement either before or upon the Report stage, showing exactly what the procedure will be, then we can get on with the Bill, but we should not be left without an answer.
Mr. A. Henderson: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no desire on the part of the Government not to co-operate with hon. Members opposite on a matter like this. I entirely concur with what the right hon. Gentleman said as regards the basis upon which all these men are being called up. As far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, we have to take into account the needs of the Royal Air Force in relation to the strengthening of our air defences. It may well be that a certain skilled worker is an important person in his own industry and, at the same time, extremely useful to the Royal Air Force in our control and reporting organisation. So it is quite evident that the needs of industry and of the Royal Air Force will have to be balanced.
The object of the working party to which I have referred, presided over by the Ministry of Labour, is to try to assess whether key men in certain trades should be retained in industry, or whether they should be made available for call-up by one of the Armed Services. There is no reason why I should not give an undertaking that later on, when we have the information fully before us, we will arrange for some statement to be made on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Angus Maude: Could I have an answer from the Under-Secretary of State for War to the point I raised?
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(PROCEDURE FOR CALLING UP UNDER S. 1.)
Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, at the end, to insert:
Provided that in any proceedings for an offence under this subsection it shall be a reasonable excuse that the person concerned had claimed in the prescribed manner that he should be exempted from the service specified in the notice by reason of conscientious

2341
objection or of exceptional domestic or business hardship and that such claim had not been determined or had been determined in his favour before the day specified in the notice.
This Amendment, which is more or less self-explanatory, is intended to introduce a proviso by which, if there is an appeal or a determination in course of being, that shall be accepted as a reasonable excuse in the case of the absence of the person concerned. I understand from what the Secretary of State has been good enough to inform me, that he intends, perhaps in somewhat different words, to accept the principle of this Amendment, and therefore I shall not delay the Committee further.
Mr. A. Henderson: The object which the framers of this Amendment have in mind is one which meets with the entire sympathy of the Government. For technical reasons, however, I suggest an alternative form of words, to the following effect:
"Provided that in any proceedings for an offence under this subsection it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove that, in accordance with the arrangements in that behalf made by the Service Authority and notified to him before the service of the notice under this section, he had duly applied for exemption from liability to he called up under the foregoing section, either generally or as respects any period including the day specified in the notice under this section served on him, and that he had not before that day been notified that the application had been refused."
This suggested alternative form of words completely covers the desires of the framers of the Amendment, and therefore I ask them to accept it.
Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Do I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend will move this alternative Amendment himself at some later stage, and is asking the right hon. Gentleman opposite to withdraw his Amendment? What is the procedure?
The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) has been moved, and the Secretary of State has made a statement about a new one, but whether it will be moved or not I do not know. It has not been moved yet.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I should like some explanation of the procedure proposed, Sir Charles.
2342
My right hon. and learned Friend has read a form of words which, I understand, is to be an alternative Amendment to that of the right hon. Gentleman. I submit that it is quite impossible for the Committee now to accept this alternative form of words. We have not been able to follow it clearly in listening to it; we do not have it on paper before us. Therefore, if this alternative form of words is to be accepted, it must be brought forward on the Report stage or at a later stage of the Committee in written form.
The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps I should remind the hon. Member that that course would force a Report stage; otherwise, we might not have a Report stage.
Mr. H. Macmillan: It is not we on this side who are trying to make all this haste; it is owing to the long delays that have surrounded this whole affair. It seems to me that the simplest procedure is that I should ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I accept entirely in good faith that the new Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman means the same thing in better drafting. We all know that Ministers never accept Amendments in the words in which they are put down. It is common form to titivate them up a little to show that the Department concerned has got to work on them. If that is agreed and I withdraw the Amendment now, then on Report stage the right hon. and learned Gentleman can put down his Amendment. If by any chance there is disagreement—
The Deputy-Chairman: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman withdraws his Amendment, it will be necessary to have a Report stage to consider the suggested Amendment of the Secretary of State for Air.
Mr. Macmillan: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes now to move his proposal as a manuscript Amendment —that is what it is, although he has had the great courtesy to distribute a number of typescript copies in the short time available—that is acceptable to me if it is acceptable to the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If it is not acceptable, the only procedure is for me to withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that it will be moved at a later date. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee.
The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that without the Amendment of the Secretary of State for Air it is possible that there will not be a Report stage.
Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devon-port): Before the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) withdraws his Amendment, may we have some indication from the Government whether this procedure will arise on any other of the Amendments which have been put down? We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that having put down his Amendment, he was informed by the Government that it was to be accepted in some form or other. We on this side have never been told whether it was to be accepted or not. There has even been a suggestion that some alternative form of words was circulated in typescript to certain Members, but they have not been circulated to us in this part of the Committee. Therefore, could we have an assurance or an indication from my right hon. and learned Friend whether this procedure is to be followed on any other Amendment? His answer might determine the action which we take on the Clause.
Mr. A. Henderson: I reassure my hon. Friend that that procedure certainly will not be followed in respect of Clause 6, if that is the matter about which he is concerned. There will be what is in effect a procedural Amendment on Clause 4.
Mr. H. Macmillan: I agree with you, Sir Charles, that if the Committee would agree, it would really be better that the Amendment should be moved and carried, because in the event of no Amendment being accepted, which is quite possible, there would not be a Report stage. Carrying the Amendment, involves the possibility of a Report stage and any points can be raised at a later date. If the Amendment were merely withdrawn, the point might never again be covered. Therefore, it would be in the interests of the Committee, Sir Charles, to follow what you have suggested. In fairness to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I ought to say that he handed me a piece of paper as I entered the Committee a few moments ago. Although I can understand that the coalition of courtesy between the two Front Benches is very distasteful to the hon. Member for
2344
Devonport (Mr. Foot), we are guilty in this case, and, as the Bill proceeds we may be guiltier yet.
Mr. Leslie Hale: If right hon. Gentlemen are to be guilty again, then I think the time has come when we should know what is our position in the Committee. We have been trying to ascertain the intentions of the Government on this matter. Every Member of the Committee has a right to ascertain the intentions of His Majesty's Government on a Bill which is being presented in such a way that it was being said, "We are trying to take Committee, Report stage and Third Reading on one day"; so that we did not know whether Amendments were to be tabled on the Report stage or whether we should have to submit manuscript Amendments on that stage.
I am in the House of Commons as representing Oldham, West, and I yield to no Member of the House in importance on behalf of my constituents. [Interruption.] I am speaking with sincerity. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for moving the Amendment. I think it is a very good Amendment, and I want it, or the alternative Amendment, which I have not read, understood or followed, to be in the Bill.
This position really is difficult. It is not a small matter for somebody to get up and say, "One or two of us have had a look at the Amendment and think it is right, and we will read it to the Committee. What do the back benchers matter if the two Front Benches agree? Why should we go into this in any detail?" This is a gross discourtesy to those of us who have taken an active interest in the Bill, who are anxious to follow its progress, who have approached Members of the Government and have tried to ascertain in due form and with due propriety what would happen today. We have had no information at all, and are now asked to take a decision on a matter of which we have not heard anything.
The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will acquit me of any desire to enter into the merits of the question, at this stage at any rate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because I do not believe the merits of the question arise at this stage. All that I am concerned with is the procedural

2345
point that has emerged. May I venture to say, without any condescension, that it will be within the recollection of many hon. Members who have been in the House for years that what we are now doing is common form.
Mr. S. Silverman: No.
Mr. Shinwell: I have a longer experience of the House than have some of my hon. Friends—
Mr. Leslie Hale: I have been here for six years.
Mr. Shinwell:—and I am well aware of what the procedure has been over a long period. I assure my hon. Friends that it is quite common form to submit manuscript Amendments on the Committee stage. That has happened over and over again.
Mr. H. Macmillan: Hear, hear.
Mr. Shinwell: I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), with his astute mind and his grasp of procedure in the House of Commons, is in opposition to the point that I now raise.
Mr. Hale: I did not say that at all. I assure my right hon. Friend that I did not say it.
Mr. Shinwell: I shall come to the other point which my hon Friend has raised. The right hon Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillian), quite properly, on behalf of the Opposition, placed an Amendment on the Order Paper, but having been informed—this is again common form—by the Government that we prefer an alternative form of words which we regard as quite consistent with the principle embodied in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, we have asked him to withdraw his Amendment or, alternatively, to have it negatived, which could be done, and then for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Air to present his alternative Amendment to the Committee. That is all. If that alternative Amendment which my right hon. and learned Friend wishes to present is not presented, then obviously it cannot be dealt with on the Report stage. That of course is well known to hon. Members.
In the course of the discussions which would quite properly ensue—this is the
2346
point which may satisfy my hon. Friend —on the presentation of my right hon. and learned Friend's alternative Amendment—
The Deputy-Chairman: I should like to point out, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that as the two Amendments are to the same effect, if the first is negatived, then I cannot call the second because it deals with the same point on which a decision had already been reached.
Mr. Shinwell: I naturally bow to the Ruling of the Chair and to the correct procedure. Perhaps I should have confined myself to saying, "if the right hon. Gentleman withdrew his Amendment." I was about to remark that in the course of the discussion which would ensue on the presentation of the Amendment by my right hon. and learned Friend the point would be clarified, and if my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee felt that further clarification was necessary obviously my right hon. and learned Friend would be only too happy to meet them.
Mr. S. Silverman: I confess at once that my right hon. Friend has been longer in the House than I have—considerably longer—and therefore naturally ought to understand the common form and procedure better than I do and better, if I may say so with respect, than he seems to do. It seems to me that he has completely misconceived the point of the protest that has been made. The protest that was being made was as to the giving of prior information of what the proposed manuscript Amendment was to be to a selected number of hon. Members and not at all to those who were most interested in the point. Obviously it works very unsatisfactorily and the reason why the method adopted by my right hon. Friend is not, as he seems to think, the common form, is because, if it were the common form, it could not work.
It could only work provided the Committee, not the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, were content. In the way my right hon. Friend puts it forward it just could not work. As has been pointed out already by you, Sir Charles, if the Committee negatived the Amendment on the Order Paper then no manuscript Amendment amounting to much the same thing

2347
and differing only verbally could possibly be called. The only way in which my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment could get into the Bill at this stage would be if the Amendment on the Order Paper were withdrawn. [Interruption.] I was about to point out, what I am sure my right hon. Friend has inadvertently forgotten, that it is the Committee which can consent to the withdrawal of an Amendment and not the mover. If any hon. Member were to object to the Amendment on the Order Paper being withdrawn it could not be withdrawn and would either have to be passed, or negatived, and in that case my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment would never come before the Committee.
It is in order to avoid that kind of proceeding that the common form is not to give it to some selected hon. Members because they have the inestimable advantage and preference by the Government of being generally opposed to their policy all the way—that being what an Opposition is for—but communicated also to those who generally support the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] who generally support the Government but on this particular aspect of this particular matter have the same anxieties, very largely, as are shared by some hon. Members opposite. Therefore, convenience as well as common courtesy demand that if there is to be notice of a manuscript Amendment, it shall be given either to no one beforehand, or to all those who might conceivably be deemed to be interested.
Mr. Charles Williams: I wish to say a word as one who very much dislikes manuscript Amendments. A long manuscript Amendment is often hard on the ordinary Private Member and I know of many instances in which even the Chair has taken very strong objection to long manuscript Amendments. There is a very easy way out of this difficulty. The Government could accept this Amendment, which would then be passed on the understanding that the Government will make the verbal amendments to it on Report stage. That is a simple proceeding and it is quite clear in the usual House of Commons procedure. I suggest that because I believe there is a grave difficulty in regard
2348
to a manuscript Amendment. There has been a perfectly fair objection and my suggestion would enable the Government to carry out the wishes of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan).
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Shinwell: That is an alternative method which we could employ if the Committee so desired. We are anxious to meet the views of the Committee and, if that is the general view, we can accept it.
Mr. H. Macmillan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I certainly did not intend any discourtesy to anyone, but I thought it not desirable to waste the time of the Committee in arguing a case when we are forcing an open door. I hope we can pass this Amendment and that the Government will put down their amending words at a later stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, at the end, to insert:
Provided always that no person shall be prosecuted more than once under the provisions of this subsection.
It may serve the convenience of the Committee and save time if it were possible to consider with this Amendment the similar Amendment I have down to Clause 3, page 6, line 15. Both Amendments deal with the same principle.
The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps it would be of help to the hon. Member if I say that I was not purposing to call the later Amendment, so we cannot discuss it now.
Mr. Brockway: As the principle is the same in each case, I can still deliver the speech I have prepared. The purpose of this Amendment is to safeguard conscientious objectors from what is known as "cat and mouse" treatment. I want to acknowledge in this House that this country has gone further in meeting conscientious objection than any country in the world and that I have found in other countries not only admiration but sometimes almost astonishment at the degree to which Parliament in this country has been prepared to consider the genuine conscientious objection of men and women to military service.
In saying that I want to include all parts of the House. I do not forget the

2349
plea which Lord Hugh Cecil made years ago. I do not forget the quite consistent stand which has been made on the Liberal benches, and I do not forget the impression which Mr. Creech Jones made on this matter when he described to the House the repeated punishments which conscientious objectors suffered and which he illustrated from his own experience. I am perfectly sure that it is the desire in all parts of the Committee that if we can safeguard objectors from repeated punishment for what after all is in essence one offence we should try to introduce words into this Bill which will secure that result.
When I raised this matter on Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for War said that he could give no guarantee regarding men whose objection on conscientious grounds was not upheld by a tribunal. I submit to him that it is those very men who are concerned. We have, for example, the statement by Mr. Creech Jones about how he had been refused exemption by a tribunal, how he had been arrested, had been punished once, had been taken back to the Army and had been punished again, and how there was that repetitive punishment. I do not ask the Committee to accept my own experience in this respect, but I believe every Member of the Committee will recognise the sincerity of a man such as Mr. Creech Jones. I am, therefore, asking that even when a man has been refused recognition by the tribunal—and the task of the tribunal in recognising genuineness in this matter is very difficult—he shall be punished only once for an offence which, though it may be repeated, is in essence only one offence.
The case covered by this Amendment is that of a man who, not judged genuine by the tribunal, nevertheless decides that because of his convictions he must disobey orders. The first order he receives is to undergo a medical examination. Very often such a man takes the view, and I respect that view, that even though he might be rejected on medical grounds he does not intend to shirk the issue in that way. He says that he wishes to be judged on conscience as it is to him a matter of principle, and he refuses the order to be medically examined. He is punished for that, and when he has been liberated he may again be asked to report for medical examination or he may be
2350
called up. So the repetition of offences and punishments may continue until the operation of this Bill ends at the end of this year.
My plea to the Government is that they should give an assurance, if this matter is to remain an administrative one, that these repeated punishments shall not take place for what is in essence one offence. My plea also is that if, as I hope, we succeed in securing the acceptance of Amendments to this Bill which give a statutory right of conscientious objection, there shall be included a provision to prevent a repetition of punishment for this one offence. That is my case, which I hope will receive the consideration of the Government.
Mr. Wyatt: I should like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) has said, particularly as I think that one of the most painful duties which those who were officers in the last war had was to know how to treat people who had been brought back time after time and punished once and then again for their refusal to obey orders on the grounds of conscientious objection. It is incredibly difficult for any tribunal to know whether a man is genuinely conscientious about his objection or not.
If, in this case, rather than do 15 days' military training, a man would prefer to go to prison for a month and pay a fine of £25, it must be pretty clear that his objection is a solidly conscientious one; otherwise it would be more convenient to him to do 15 days' military training rather than a month's imprisonment. So far as the Army is concerned a special provision might have been made on the lines which my hon. Friend is suggesting so that no one shall be deemed to be punishable twice if he refuses to comply with the 15-day call-up notice at least, because he can suffer a worse penalty than if he served for the 15 days.
Mr. Gage: This is a difficult problem, but I am not certain that this Amendment would deal with it correctly. I am sure that as the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) spoke, we all remembered difficult cases of the kind to which he referred. I remember that in the Army at least the usual method was to give such men an order to put

2351
on a uniform, which they refused to obey. They were punished for that and were again given an order, and they refused again and again. It is a very difficult problem with which to deal. It was decided that if a man was sentenced to more than six months' imprisonment in a case such as that, he was entitled to go before the tribunal again. It was a peculiar way of dealing with the problem, and I do not think it was the right way.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: Perhaps the hon. Member would permit me to say that I think it was three months, not six months.
Mr. Gage: Yes. I remember quite well—it seemed wrong to me—the attention of officers on courts-martial being called to this position, and they automatically imposed three months' imprisonment, not because they thought the man deserved it, but to enable him to go before a tribunal. It was a peculiarly English and extraordinary way of dealing with the matter.
I do not think that we shall be dealing with the problem by simply saying that such a man is not to be prosecuted again. That would make a difference between people who might commit one offence twice for quite different reasons. My view is that where a person who commits this kind of offence makes it clear that he has committed it for conscientious reasons he ought to be entitled to go before a tribunal again. A provision of that kind would be a better way of dealing with the matter.
One point to be remembered is that this Bill deals only with people who are called back for training, and consequently the percentage of men who have conscientious objections should be very small. I can remember only one such case. The man concerned was a musician, a bandsman in the Brigade of Guards, who had been a soldier for some 18 years. As the manpower shortage was becoming acute he found, unfortunately for himself, that he had to draw a rifle from the magazine in Hyde Park and go on sentry duty. He said that he would not do it. To his astounded superior officer he revealed for the first time that he had conscientious scruples about doing so although perhaps he had no conscientious
2352
scruples about playing a bugle in the band. That was not a very easy case with which to deal, but the Brigade of Guards had their own method of dealing with the matter, which was eventually resolved satisfactorily to all concerned.
I do not think that those cases are very likely to occur. In a Bill such as this, I think that the provision which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) wishes to insert is really unnecessary, though I would entirely agree with him that if this were a general Bill calling up men for National Service there should be included, if not this provision, at least some similar provision to ensure that men who did commit military offences on conscientious grounds would be enabled to go back to the tribunal.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage) really has not been examining the Clause, although I am sure that what he said was sincere. As I understand it, I think it is clear that the decision is taken by a local bench. The man is brought up before his local bench and charged under this Clause in that he did not comply with the direction, and so on. It may be that this has nothing to do with conscientious objection at all. It may be that he has acted from a sense of grievance or defiance. It may be that the man is annoyed with having had his notice, and so on. The only protection is that the notice has to be served by registered post, and we have to rely on the accuracy of the Post Office to ensure that a man does get his notice.
Obviously the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend is designed, because of this special reference, to apply to people who sincerely and conscientiously feel that on religious, ethical or moral grounds they should not be called upon to comply with that notice. The scope of the Bill is limited, of course, to a period of five months. The conscientious objector is to have 21 days' notice before calling him up and we are to have the same delay before his appeal to the tribunal is disposed of. We are, of course, assuming the case of a man who fails to establish to the tribunal in the limited time available that his conscience is not the sort which the tribunal think—and heaven knows how they assess it—disqualifies him from the obligation of military service. Then he gets his notice

2353
and fails to present himself. Then a summons is issued normally about 14 days before the hearing. He is brought before the local bench and is liable to a fine of £25 or imprisonment for a month for that offence.
The only limiting point of this particular Amendment—although I would say at once it is a matter of general principle, and as a matter of general principle ought to be applied to this sort of thing—is that we are saying: Is there really any sense, when this man comes out of prison, in sending him another notice dealing with him in the same way and perhaps sending him to the same place? Is there any sense in bringing him before the petty sessions again and saying, "You are to pay another £25 or do another month"? Does that help our own moral case or that of the authority? Does it help the courts? I can say as one who has practised in them, that courts loathed these cases. The hon. Member for Belfast, South talked about a three months' sentence, but it is the fact that many decent courts imposed a sentence of three months to end the man's misery.
Mr. Iain MacLeod: Will the hon. Member deal with the point that while the majority of the few cases that will arise, will be perfectly genuine, this Amendment will give the right to a man to buy himself out at a cost of £25?
Mr. Hale: It gives him the right to buy himself out of a 15-day holiday. It does not exempt him at all from his final call-up if war comes. Then the matter arises again. It means that he is not one of the people who has to go to a 15-day camp which will be over before he is out of prison anyway. After all, we are dealing with British people in this.
Let us cast our minds back to the war when there was a very small percentage of conscientious objectors. As I think most people would agree, there were very few "scrim-shankers" among them. Most of those whom I met in my career were associated with those people known as Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not think that any one of us would regard such people as insincere, whether we agree with their views or not. There was not any sort of mass absenteeism or mass desire to avoid service.
2354
What the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) is suggesting is that it is possible for a large number to pretend to be conscientious objectors. I do not want to misrepresent him but I suggest it is seriously open to doubt that a large number of men may say, "Rather than do a fortnight's camp in the country, we will take a chance of being prosecuted before the local 'beaks' and doing a month's imprisonment; and even then we would be prepared to go through it again to avoid a 15-day camp in the country." I hope that my hon. Friend will say that this very small Amendment which does affect a deep and heartfelt principle can be accepted.
Mr. Bell (Bucks, South): I have the greatest sympathy with the underlying purpose of this Amendment, but it seems to me to be open to one serious objection. It is a general Amendment and does not apply in many cases where the punishment is received on grounds of conscience. I think that both the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), have overlooked one rather important factor, that the penalty of one month's imprisonment and the fine of £25 are maximum penalties which the courts must not exceed.
One has to consider the case of a man brought before the magistrates who is not a conscientious objector at all, but has disobeyed because he has not found it convenient to attend at the proper time for some reason which the magistrates find inadequate. He may say, "I could not come at the time when I was told to because I had somewhere else to go." If the magistrates decided the reason was unreasonable they would probably impose a fine of 40s. Then, under this Amendment, for 40s. the man would have bought himself out of further liability for the 15 days' training. That is the difficulty I see in this Amendment which simply says that no one shall be prosecuted twice under this subsection.
Mr. Hale: The bench would know he was buying himself out.
Mr. Bell: With respect they would not. He would come before them and try to show that the excuse I have described was a reasonable excuse why he did not turn up at the time he was directed to.

2355
If the bench accepted his excuse as reasonable, he would, of course, not be convicted or punished at all. If they decided hi, excuse was not a reasonable one, they would probably fine him some small sum like 40s. Then he would go away, not perhaps realising at the time, but afterwards he would suddenly realise, "This is not a bad position. I need not go now. They never can call me up again." I should have thought that the number of cases where a man did not turn up, and endeavoured to give a rather inadequate excuse would exceed in number those where he was a conscientious objector. Therefore, though I am not objecting to the principle of the Amendment I do quarrel with it in that respect.
Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the hon. Member think that the answer may be that if this Amendment were accepted, it would discourage the authority from prosecuting a trifling offence under this Clause in the police court?
Mr. Bell: The point made by the hon. Member is a little disingenuous. The authority is placed in this position. The man is sent a notice. He does not turn up and gives a perfectly inadequate explanation. He may say, "Well, my brother was ill," or something like that. He thinks, wrongly, that that is a good reason for not turning up. The authority obviously cannot accept that and they issue a summons against him. The magistrates think he is mistaken about the kind of reason he has given for not turning up and they fine him 40s. For that 40s. he is exempt from all further liability under this Act. That is the position which will apply if we accept this Amendment. I do not deny that it may be possible to draft an Amendment to cover that contingency but I am pointing out that the present Amendment presents that difficulty.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: At first sight, the objections mentioned by the hon. Member for Bucks, South (Mr. Bell) appear to be formidable; but I wonder whether the object which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) has in mind cannot be safeguarded when we consider later Amendments. I should be out of order if I sought to discuss that now. The object of this Amendment is primarily to safeguard the position of conscientious objectors. There are
2356
later Amendments which have the same purpose. If a conscientious objector takes advantage of the provisions which we hope will be incorporated in the Bill, then the position contemplated by the hon. Member for Bucks, South may not arise.
Reference has been made to the person who, without any conscientious ground, is merely trying to dodge his call-up. Even if this Amendment were accepted, the position of such a person could be controlled by serving another notice on him. There is nothing to prevent another notice being served on him and a prosecution being started in respect of that notice.
Mr. Bell: No. I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The Amendment refers to no person being prosecuted twice under this Clause; not twice in respect of a notice served under this Clause.
Mr. Roberts: I should have said that the words meant a prosecution under the Clause in respect of a particular notice.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: Before the Minister replies to the debate, I should like to say that I am not wedded to the words of this Amendment. I think that a large number of hon. Members want the purpose which I have in mind to be put into effect. I am glad that it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air who is to reply. I appreciate his sincerity and his desire to meet the position. I remember particularly the contribution which his father made on this matter. I hope that, even if the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot accept this form of words, he will be prepared to consider the matter and to deal with it in such a way that the danger of "cat and mouse" treatment, to which the whole Committee is opposed, will be dealt with.
Mr. A. Henderson: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be too disappointed. Perhaps he has already anticipated my reply. I do not think that any case has been established for exempting from the consequences of his action a person who refuses to obey a call-up notice which has been properly issued under the provisions of this Bill. Excluding for the moment the conscientious objector, it appears to me to be a most undesirable precedent to establish that when a man has been found guilty of an offence and has been

2357
punished, he is not to incur the sanction of the law if he repeats the offence.
Mr. Leslie Hale: He cannot repeat the offence unless he is called up again.
Mr. Henderson: It may be a matter of opinion whether or not that is desirable, but the fundamental object of this Bill is to ensure that certain categories of reservists shall incur the trouble and accept the duties of 15 or more days training, according to their category. The object of this Clause is to discourage men from refusing to accept that statutory obligation. If a man is given proper notice to which he refuses to respond, and if he is tried, convicted and punished, there is no reason why his next door neighbour who has accepted a notice should carry on in the knowledge that, by reason of his refusal, the other man who has been punished will be excluded for the remainder of the operation of the Act. We could not surrender the right to issue a second notice to any man who has refused and been punished.
6.15 p.m.
I now come to the question of the conscientious objector. I should have thought that there was a good deal in what was said by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts). If the machinery which has been established and which will operate to deal with cases of objectors is functioning properly, and I have no reason to believe that it is not—
Mr. Hale: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking for the party of Keir Hardie and George Lansbury. He is surrounded by people who have had experience of these tribunals and who have suffered under them. Unless he is prepared to tell the Committee that the tribunals are to be differently constituted, are to have some different criteria, and so on, I must say that I am shocked to hear him say that there is no reason to think that the great mass of people, like Jehovah's Witnesses who spent their days in prison, did it because the tribunals had accurately assessed their consciences.
Mr. Henderson: I have to put the case for the Government, and I intend to do that without in any way accepting the view that my hon. Friend is a more devoted adherent of the cause for which Mr. Keir Hardie stood than I am. I am doing this on behalf of the party and the
2358
Government to which the hon. Member belongs. Therefore, I hope that we shall try to keep this question on a practical basis, because I have a practical problem to deal with. It may be that I am entirely wrong, but I had something to do with these tribunals during the last war, and I should have thought that, on the whole, they acted with reasonable impartiality and understanding.
My point is that I do not think that we can exclude the conscientious objector, provided that the offence is a second offence as distinct from a first offence. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will agree with me that in law it is difficult to provide that a man shall be excluded from responsibility for his acts merely on emotional grounds. One has to have the law. If the law is wrong, then of course it must be altered. If it is provided in this Bill that a man who fails to respond to his notice is to be punished, unless he can establish that his refusal to do so was based on conscientious grounds, we can do no more than provide machinery in the form of these tribunals to decide whether or not that person is a conscientious objector.
Though I cannot accept the Amendment, I should be prepared to re-examine the problem between now and Report stage. This is a practical problem. This Bill is to operate for 12 months, unless Parliament decides to the contrary. In a bona fide case, such as one where a man claims to be motivated by conscientious scruples, I cannot believe that, if the man has been tried and convicted, any Service Department would say in the next few months that they proposed to call him up again and put him into prison a second time. I make no promise, but if it is possible to evolve a formula which would cover the case which my hon. Friend has in mind, I would gladly undertake to consider it before the Report stage.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, may I say this? The tribunals which it is proposed should serve under this Bill, administratively, are the same tribunals as those which served during the Second World War. I am not criticising them, because they have an almost impossible task. If they get a stuttering man who cannot express himself, the task which we then

2359
place upon the tribunal—of judging his conscience—is almost impossible of execution. Inevitably, mistakes occur. Even during the Second World War, I represented men at a fifth tribunal, men who, after that fifth tribunal and a fifth sentence, were then recognised to be genuine.
It was because of that failure that the Government introduced the proposal to which reference has been made from the back benches opposite. It is that, the sentence of three months having been given, the man should be sent back to the tribunal. I would be quite happy to accept the proposal made from the opposite benches that, when an order is refused on a claim that the man's actions had been taken on conscientious grounds, instead of the responsibility being placed upon the court-martial, the man should be sent back to the tribunal for reconsideration of his case. If my right hon. and learned Friend gives me an undertaking that he will look at this proposal before the Report stage, I shall be very happy indeed.
Mr. A. R. W. Low: I was not quite certain that I clearly understood something that the Secretary of State said a few moments ago. Was he telling us that if somebody had disobeyed the first notice and had been prosecuted and found guilty, in all probability the Minister, after consideration, would not call up the man or issue another notice to him at all? If that is the case, it seems to me to be a very cheap way of getting out of service under this Bill, because we must remember that service under this Bill is not in every case service for 15 days, but may be service for three months or even 18 months. This seems to be a very cheap way of getting out of 18 months' service by disobeying the notice, being prosecuted, paying a fine of £25 and getting off. I cannot believe that this is in the spirit of the Bill as it was originally drafted, and I should like to have further clarification of the point.
Mr. A. Henderson: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said, because I was speaking of the normal case. Obviously, we should issue a second notice; we would not allow a man to escape the law simply because he was prepared to pay a fine or go to prison.
2360
That is one qualification. Having regard to the case made by my hon. Friend, I said that, if the records of the case showed that there was an element of conscience in the action taken by the man—a refusal by the person concerned—because of the fact that the period was only for 12 months, or perhaps less, because the training period will be over by October, it might well be possible, in those circumstances, that we would not call up that particular individual again.
Mr. Low: I can see difficulties about that, because surely the question of conscience would, first of all, have been before the appropriate tribunal, and if it had already been brought before the appropriate tribunal, why should the Service Department concerned then turn itself into an appeal tribunal on this matter? I do not understand, and I was trying to get the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain the point more clearly. I have not got it more clearly, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to me to be getting into worse difficulties.
Mr. Henderson: I should be guided by the tribunal, because if a conscientious objector had taken his case to the tribunal, assuming that there was a doubt and that a second notice had been issued, the man would then appeal on the second notice.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Low: He can go back to the tribunal on the second notice?
Mr. Henderson Mr. Henderson indicated assent.
Mr. McGovern: I also would make an appeal to the Secretary of State to give more serious consideration to the problem before the Committee. I could understand his attitude in the case of a person who denied that he had received the notice, even though it was sent by a registered letter. Let us remember this. In actual practice amongst ordinary working people, in connection with registered letters sent through the post, there has been a general tendency for sons or daughters to sign receipts for letters sent to other members of the family, and these are invariably accepted. At my own home, any member of the family may sign the receipt for a document sent by registered post, and that receipt has always been accepted by the Post Office. I can see the force

2361
of asking that a second notice shall be served on an individual who denies that he has received the first one or who has failed to obey it, if he is a person who has no real objection to service in the Forces.
In regard to the conscientious objector, there are one or two things that the Secretary of State said which, quite honestly, are contrary to the facts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that the ordinary tribunals have operated quite fairly to the applicant. Well, that is not my experience. I went before a considerable number of tribunals with applicants during the last war, and I would do so again if people who were genuine conscientious objectors needed me in going before these tribunals.
I have seen people insulted in the most abominable fashion. As a matter of fact, the son of the late Mr. John Wheatley, former M.P. for Shettleston, had to go before Sheriff Hunter at a tribunal in Glasgow, and the right hon. Gentleman the present Foreign Secretary delayed carrying out the decision and sent it to the appeal tribunal. There was actually a copy of a case which had been taken down in shorthand, and it was presented to the Minister of Labour. It was abominable to see this individual treated in such a shocking manner.
We must remember that an individual may appeal on religious grounds, but, to begin with, he sets himself against the bench, because the bench is generally composed of people who profess to be Christians. I am not saying that they are not from their own angle, but they see in the individual before them a man claiming that a certain Act of Parliament outrages his religious convictions, and they naturally become antagonistic, and from their first approach they begin to try to wear him down. Tribunals have been very often instruments for attacking a man's conscientious objections by tripping him with questions that have nothing to do with his conscientious objection.
Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman from this angle. He must remember that it is not always the most genuine conscientious objector who gets exempted. Very often it is the mild and meek person, while the person who like the Minister of Defence and myself, is very aggressive, is because of that attitude, turned down. In those circumstances, we often find that a mea-
2362
sure of spleen is put upon such persons, and they are refused the concession to which they are entitled. Tribunals are not all like that, because there was an appeal tribunal in Edinburgh which operated very fairly—as fairly as any I have known—but in the Glasgow area the manner in which these individuals were beaten down was shocking.
To refuse exemption to a man, whose self-confessed conscientious objection is, in many cases, testified to by independent witnesses; to bring him before a court when he refuses to respond to a call-up notice and sentence him to a term of imprisonment, and then, when he comes out of prison, to grill him again, is a shocking thing and something with which, in my estimation, no Labour Government should be associated.
6.30 p.m.
I appeal to the Minister to grant this concession, because we are not dealing here with a large section of the community who are trying to dodge military service. Let us remember that one of the things that prevent the "fly men" of society, the "spivs," from claiming exemption on conscientious grounds is the fact that society has, I think wrongly in some respects, developed an antagonism towards the conscientious objector. It is a label which has been stamped upon them, and which they do not want.
Therefore, I say to the Minister that he should be satisfied with the contents of this Amendment. If it is not satisfactory in its present form, he should redraft it but I think it would be a very bad thing if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to go on with the Bill itself and be prepared to allow conditions in which a man could be punished three, four or five times for the same offence. I have been to detention camps in Liverpool to interview men who were I knew lifelong bona fide conscientious objectors in every sense, but who, nevertheless, were imprisoned time and again for not complying with a direction to join the Armed Forces. I appeal to the Minister not to perpetuate the failings of the past in this respect and to try to be big and generous by acceptting this Amendment.
Mr. Pannell: I wish to say a word or two in support of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member

2363
for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). I remember during the last war attending a tribunal considering cases of conscientious objection at Fulham. Anybody who knows the procedure at such tribunals knows that a statement is usually made by the applicant setting out his case, which can be backed up by three independent testimonials. There were four people sitting on the tribunal that day, and, right from the start, they set out to harass the applicant, so much so, indeed, that in the great majority of the cases they never got beyond the applicant's original statement and therefore never considered the evidence of the independent parties testifying on his behalf. Very often, such testimonials were from ministers of religion, mayors of boroughs, and similar people. They started cross-examining the applicant from the very first sentence of his statement, and it is quite easy—
The Chairman: Order. We must not get into a discussion on this Amendment as to the procedure on tribunals, or the action they take. The question is whether a person should be prosecuted more than once. I have allowed a certain amount of reference to tribunals, but I do not think we can go into matters of detail.
Mr. Pannell: With great respect, Major Milner, I would point out that the Minister stated that we had no grounds for thinking that the tribunals did not operate fairly, and that, I suggest, is the whole kernel of this matter. If from our own personal experience we can sustain the fact that tribunals do not operate fairly—and, after all, the Minister was never himself an applicant before a tribunal—I think it is only fair that we should consider the Amendment of my hon. Friend in that light.
What I am trying to point out, as has already been pointed out by other hon. Members, is that it is a very difficult thing for any tribunal really to assess what is a man's conscience. If we add to that difficulty the tribunal's prejudice, hostility and desire to embarrass the applicant rather than to hear him, then, I think, it is reasonable for us to discuss this matter here. If we are to rely on these tribunals in the future, then I suggest that some far more explicit instructions concerning their procedure should be given to their
2364
members in order to ensure that an applicant is properly heard.
At one tribunal, no fewer than four applications were dismissed in under four minutes each. I suggest that it takes four or five minutes for one to get used to the atmosphere of any judicial proceedings and to find one's legs when appearing before a tribunal. If the Minister's case is to prevail, then I suggest that a code of law or of procedure will have to be laid down for tribunals so as to ensure that a person is properly heard. I state quite emphatically that was not so at the Fulham tribunal in the last war.
Mr. Manningham-Buller (Northants, South): The discussion of this simple Amendment seems to have turned into a general inquest on the operation of tribunals during the last war. But, surely, the Amendment does not really deal with that problem at all. We should surely try to get this matter a little more into perspective. The people who are being recalled are people who have already served, and have had the opportunity of establishing their conscientious scruples. In spite of their past service, they are, as I understand it, now being given another opportunity of satisfying an independent tribunal. From my experience of these tribunals—although, of course, all tribunals vary—I think that in the last war they all did their best in what is, after all, a very difficult investigation.
As I say, the people who are being recalled are being given the opportunity yet again of going before a tribunal. I cannot believe, having regard to the past record of all these individuals, that we shall find there are many bona fide conscientious objectors, who have suddenly developed a conscientious objection, going before the tribunals. But what is, of course, most important is that the tribunals should do their work well. We have to assume, for the purposes of the argument on this Amendment, the case where a man has suddenly developed a conscientious objection after previous service, and who has gone before a tribunal and has had his case rejected. We cannot get away from the issue by saying that sometimes a tribunal makes mistakes. Sometimes it may, but sometimes, again, it does not.
This Amendment not only covers the case of the conscientious objector, but every case. For instance, it covers the

2365
case of the man who is dishonestly trying to avoid the obligation which this House is seeking to put upon him. Therefore, the Amendment is going far too wide, and, indeed, is introducing a novel principle by suggesting that if, when a statute creates a new offence, a man is once convicted of that offence, he can never be convicted of it again. I must say I feel that, so long as the tribunals operate as fairly as they have in the past, and as I am sure they will in the future, and in view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that a man who has been sentenced under this Clause will, if he gets a fresh calling-up notice, be entitled once again to go before the tribunal, that is a very adequate additional safeguard.
I want to put one point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He referred to a man's second "call-up" notice. Would it not be his "warning" notice, because I think the right of going before a tribunal is not given on the call-up notice, but on the warning notice?
Mr. Henderson: I meant warning notice.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Provided that the individual and for this purpose I am confining my observations to the conscientious objector—has that opportunity, then I think there is adequate protection for the very few conscientious objectors who are likely to be in the category of those recalled, and in view of the all-embracing terms of this Amendment, I do not think the Committee could possibly support it in its present form.
Mr. S. Silverman: Whatever one thinks about this Amendment I think everybody appreciates to the full the difficulty to which the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), referred in the last part of his speech, of which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Air also spoke, and which is in the minds of those who have opposed this Amendment. That is the danger of offering someone an easy alternative for avoiding, without conscientious reasons, the obligations laid upon him under this Bill.
In reply to that I earnestly and sincerely invite the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, to this point. In stressing that
2366
difficulty overmuch he is ignoring his own warning to us not to lose our sense of proportion in this matter. I quite agree that there are a few cases under this Bill where the service called for is for a long period, 18 months or so, and I can quite see the substance of objection to an Amendment of this kind in those cases. I dare say that if suitable suggestions were made to him my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) would he quite prepared to alter the Amendment in such a way as to cover that point if it was thought worth while.
I think, however, that we all realise that the number of men who are to be called up for a long period is very small indeed, and what we are really concerned with in perhaps 90 per cent. or more of the cases is a period of training of 15 days in the summer months. That is the only obligation which this Bill lays upon a great majority of the people affected by it, and the temptation to avoid that 15-day period of re-training must be a very small temptation indeed. If anyone, on other than conscientious grounds, were to feel tempted, nevertheless, to avail himself of this Amendment if it becomes law, what would he have to do in order to avoid 15 days' training? He might very well have to spend a month in gaol and pay a fine of £25 as well.
Does anyone really suggest, and does my right hon. and learned Friend really think, that serving a month in gaol and paying a £25 penalty in addition will be a very attractive inducement to people to avoid the 15 days' service that they are called upon to do under this Bill? It is a fantastic suggestion, and I submit that if anyone had the hardihood to compound for 15 days' service 30 days in gaol and a £25 fine, then he would be entitled to his bargain and the Amendment would do no harm. I do not, for that reason, accept the distinction between the conscientious objector in this connection and the evader or the man who refuses to serve for any other reason. It seems to me that the maximum penalty under the Clause is so very much more onerous than the obligation under the Clause that it is really quite unreasonable to suppose that even if one only had it once the alternative is an attractive alternative.
I suggest that my right hon. Friend has failed to appreciate the point that is being made about the conscientious side of

2367
this matter. It is quite true that the law cannot be administered on emotional grounds. Nobody ever said it could, but I think he will agree with me that one of the most important things in all legal matters, certainly under the criminal law and especially in matters of this kind, is that the law should not be made ridiculous or brought into contempt. Nothing in the world brings a law more into contempt with the public than the spectacle of the chasing over and over again of a man who morally, whatever may be the case legally, has established his claim not to be pursued further.
It is not a question of criticising the tribunals. I had no experience of the tribunals in the last war. I had a great deal of experience of tribunals in the First World War. I think there were sometimes cases such as those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), but in most of the cases I think the tribunals honestly tried to do a good and fair job and in the vast majority of cases they succeeded surprisingly well. But the best of these tribunals would be the readiest to admit that they were not infallible. No tribunal even on an ordinary case is infallible. In this particular case the kind of evidence, the criterion to be applied, the test and yardstick to enable the tribunal to know what is going on inside a man's moral conscience are so very difficult indeed that the best tribunal in the world may sometimes be mistaken.
6.45 p.m.
As the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, pointed out, in this particular case conscientious objection would be even harder to establish than it was before, because one would be dealing with men who have accepted service in the past and therefore have that very difficult preliminary hurdle to overcome. If mistakes are made, then in this case they are a little easier to make rather than less easy to make than they were before. It is not enough to say, "Oh, he can apply a second time." There is no guarantee that he would be better judged the second time than the first. When one has regard to the comparison between the obligation imposed and the penalty for refusing that obligation, it seems to me that the only safe course for the Government to take is to accept the Amend-
2368
ment of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough and, for my part, I hope he will stick to it.
Mr. Shinwell: It has been suggested more than once in the course of this discussion that we might put the matter in its proper perspective. I venture to essay that task. What is the actual position? We are proposing to call up a specific category of men for 15 days. I want to make it quite clear that as regards the other categories, the Regular reservists called up it may be for 12 months or 18 months, it is extremely unlikely that any of those will appeal on conscientious grounds for the simple reason that all along they have accepted a, retaining fee from the Government. Therefore, let us exclude that category.
There is another category to which I must refer. It is the category of those men, very small in number, principally members of the Royal Air Force, who are volunteers. Clearly if men are volunteers it is extremely unlikely that they will have conscientious scruples. So they are excluded. What have we left? We are left with a body of Class Z or Class G reservists all of whom, as the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), rightly pointed out, have served in His Majesty's Forces. It may well be that among that comparatively large number—a matter of 200,000 or so—there may be some who, having served in the past, have developed conscientious objections to further service.
Mr. Yates: Quite a number.
Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) interjects to say, "Quite a number." We do not know. We have no evidence of the numbers who have changed their views. If my hon. Friend has a substantial body of evidence which indicates that very large numbers of men who served in the last war have developed genuine conscientious objections—I emphasise "genuine conscientious objections"—that is another matter. But let us not have a dispute about this matter. It is very largely, in the absence of evidence, a matter of opinion. My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood, no doubt, has a number of cases of that kind.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but a practical point seems to arise. It is that the purpose of the Class Z Reserve is to draw into the Forces key men and men who are going to provide the framework of the future organisation, if it should be necessary. Surely, it is very undesirable to have people who have expressed conscientious objections and who are prepared to serve a term of imprisonment rather than serve in the Forces?
Mr. Shinwell: We cannot possibly distinguish between men called up, some of whom may be key technicians, and other men who are just common labourers or, it may be, business men or professional men. We have to decide whether these men, whoever they are, in whatever industrial or professional capacity, have conscientious scruples. How is that to be determined?
Let me give an example. Suppose a man has served during the last war or has been a member of His Majesty's Forces from 1945 to 1947. He comes within the ambit of Clause 1. He receives a warning notice and decides to appeal. He appeals to the tribunal. The tribunal obviously ask him, so I imagine, why he has changed his opinion, and he is able to develop his case and prove conclusively to the tribunal that he is now possessed of genuinely conscientious objections against service. If that is so, no doubt the tribunal release him from his obligations. But it may well be that some members of the tribunal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has alleged, are not fully conscious of the existence of conscientious objections on the part of the individual concerned, and treat him with some severity. Let it not be forgotten that, having been turned down by the tribunal, he has recourse to an appellate tribunal. Nothing has been said about that. That is to say, he has got two tries.
Mr. Brockway: He has got two bites.
Mr. Shinwell: As my hon. Friend says, he has got two bites, one of which may succeed. I ask hon. Members to possess themselves of this fact. Be it noted that all this is to happen in the course of the training period this year. Some of my hon. Friends have forgotten that this is a temporary Measure which can be revived
2370
next year if the House so desires. It can be revived with all its implications. But we are not dealing with what is to happen next year. We are dealing with what will happen this year.
If a man is called up and on conscientious grounds objects to serving he goes to the tribunal, where his case is heard. If his case is rejected, he appeals to the appellate tribunal. I his case is again rejected, he goes, by the action of the military authorities, before a civil court where he is prosecuted and he then receives a fine or is sent to prison. All that has got to happen during the training period. Is it seriously alleged by my hon. Friends that, the case having been dealt with over the course of a few months—it will take a few months before it can be disposed of—there is any question of the man being prosecuted again during that period? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) must restrain himself—
Mr. Brockway rose—
Mr. Shinwell:—and my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) should also restrain himself. Interruptions disturb the thread of my argument, and, as my hon. Friends know, I am easily disturbed. I must present the case in a consecutive form.
Mr. Brockway: Perhaps I may take advantage of my right hon. Friend, and I hope that during the interval he will be able to recover his train of thought. I am very sorry to interrupt him, but the point I want to put is this. He was saying: Is it seriously argued that a man may be sentenced twice, or called up twice, or dealt with twice, or punished twice? My answer is "yes." When a man gets to the court of summary jurisdiction, the general practice is to hand him over to an escort to be taken to the Army, without sentencing him to imprisonment. The first thing that is required of him is a medical examination. If he refuses a medical examination, he can be sentenced to punishment. As soon as he finishes that punishment the escort is at the prison door to take him back into the Army. Then if he disobeys orders he is punished again. Therefore, it is quite obvious that within a very short period the man can be punished twice. I hope my right hon. Friend has restored his train of thought.
Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend has revived it, and I am now refreshed with further arguments. My hon. Friend suggests that the man is taken to the Army by a military escort, is asked to have a medical examination, and that if he objects he is sentenced to imprisonment, after which he is taken to the Army. In fact, the only Army to which he can be sent is the Army which is arranged during the 15 days period. I ask my hon. Friend to note that it is not as if a conscientious objector were subjected to a medical examination, dealt with by the military authority and then put into the Regular Army. All that we can do is to see that he attends the annual training for 15 days. When he is taken by his military escort to the training camp, wherever it may be—it may be in the North of Scotland or in the Highlands or in some other salubrious part of the country—we can only prosecute if he refuses to serve.
Mr. Brockway: A second time.
Mr. Shinwell: No. My hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. He cannot have two prosecutions. There is only one prosecution. The man can only be prosecuted after he has refused either to attend the training or to undergo a medical examination. It seems to me that what my hon. Friend is asking is totally unrealistic and totally academic. If I may venture to offer a word on behalf of hon. Members opposite, I think I can say that in all quarters of the House there is a genuine sympathy for those who have genuine conscientious scruples. There is no desire to inflict hardship on people of that kind.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. J. Hudson: The difficulty is, of course, that there are no conscientious objectors in the view of those who make war or prepare for war.
Mr. Shinwell: I must enter into conflict here with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), who is an old friend of mine and whose views I have always respected.
Mr. Granville rose—
Mr. Shinwell: Perhaps I may deal with my hon. Friend first, then I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville). I could present my hon.
2372
Friends with the figures. In fact, I have some here. [Interruption.] The expedition with which these figures were provided shows the ingenuity and general expedition of the Government. During 1949 the tribunals considered 516 cases. Presumably these were National Service men. They registered 18 unconditionally, 226 conditionally and 122 for non-combatant service, and they rejected 150. That is a pretty good percentage.
Mr. McGovern: Experience of these cases shows that very often the tribunal decides to give a man non-combatant duties which the real conscientious objector refuses to accept.
Mr. Shinwell: As far as this part of my case is concerned, I rest it on the fact that a large number of conscientious objectors have been relieved from active service as a result of the operations of the tribunals. It may be that there have been a number of hard cases and no doubt some injustice has occurred. I will not deny that. But I beg my hon. Friends to realise that we are dealing with a limited period, with a temporary call-up, which obviously can apply to only a limited number, in the very nature of the case, and that it is therefore most unlikely that there will be hardship.
Mr. S. Silverman: Then why not accept the Amendment?
Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend says in his lawyer-like fashion and in the dictatorial attitude which has become characteristic of him, "Why not accept the Amendment?" The reason we decline to accept the Amendment is that we quite genuinely believe it to be unnecessary.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: May I ask the Minister of Defence whether he is now repudiating the assurance given by the Secretary of State for Air that he will reconsider this matter?
Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member is quite entitled to ask that question. What my right hon. and learned Friend had in mind was whether it was possible to provide a form of words which would enable us to deal more reasonably or more humanely with cases of this kind. I am prepared to give the assurance that we shall look at that, but I think it is very largely a matter for human administration. As much can be done in that way as by inserting provisions in the Bill. I

2373
should like to give this assurance on behalf of the three Services—that in this temporary Bill, having regard to all the circumstances and the nature of men who will be called up, they will exercise the utmost care and discretion and humanity in dealing with this matter.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: I have listened to the debate and, if I may say so, I think it is misconceived. This Clause does not seem to me to deal with conscientious objectors at all. It makes no provision for dealing with them. I fully agree that a case may be made, as was made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), with regard to the treatment of conscientious objectors, but I must point out that there can be no second prosecution under this Clause. The service is for 15 days and the notices will have to be specific. The length of the possible prison sentence is a month, which is a longer period than that covered by the notice, so that the man could be prosecuted only once.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: They may serve another notice.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: That is another matter, but the man cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence. The instances which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough gave were those which arose from the same circumstances. What makes the difference is this—that the obligation to serve under the National Service Act was for the duration of the emergency, whereas this is an obligation to serve for 15 days and no more. The resulting punishment is, therefore, different. This does not alter the question of how we should deal with conscientious objectors and that may be raised, if necessary, when the proper Clause is reached. This is not the proper Clause.
Mr. Foot: It seems to me that the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) has missed the point. I should like, however, to return to the speech of the Minister of Defence. In his attempt to put this matter in perspective, the Minister of Defence has proved far too much. First of all, he knocked out his most powerful argument against the Amendment. There can be a powerful argument on grounds concerning those being called up under the Measure for 18 months or three months. It may be
2374
argued—as it was argued by hon. Members opposite—that in that case there is a reasonable risk of a man preferring to go to prison for a month and paying a fine of £25 in order to escape that amount of service.
But the Minister himself knocked out that argument completely by saying that, as these people were receiving pay from His Majesty's Government, then these cases would obviously not arise. He said that straight away we could rule out the whole of that category. He went on to argue that there would be very few people to go to the tribunal and reduced the number of cases which would arise under this Bill to little more than negligible proportions. He concluded his peroration by saying—his real, damning counter-blitz against the Amendment—that it was academic and unnecessary.
But if the Amendment is superfluous, it is also unobjectionable, so why do not the Government accept it? Some hon. Members on this side have given evidence in the debate of cases where people have been prosecuted, two, three, four or five times. As the Minister of Defence has proved that there is no danger in the Amendment, surely he might have shown a little more respect to those on this side of the House who have some knowledge of these matters and who have made this case from the beginning—and this is a ground of principle for the Amendment being accepted by a Labour Government: that it is a disgusting thing that a conscientious objector should be brought up three or four times.
As there is no danger in accepting the Amendment, and as it would involve none of the practical objections which have been raised from the other side of the House—on the evidence of the Minister of Defence himself—why cannot the right hon. Gentleman say, generously, that he agrees with the arguments so cogently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) at the beginning of the debate?
Mr. Grimond: Far be it from me to attempt to defend the Minister of Defence, but I must point out what the right hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks. What the Minister said was that where the man was called up for 18 months he was unlikely to be a conscientious objector. He did not say that such a man

2375
was unlikely to apply to avoid service under the Act. The whole argument on that point rests on the case that a man who is liable to be called up for 18 months might attempt to avoid service under the Act by paying a fine of £25.
Mr. Foot: I was taking up what the Minister of Defence said on what I think was his main argument.
Mr. Grimond: Surely, the hon. Gentleman will agree that if we are to accept the Amendment it must be an Amendment which itself applies to conscientious objectors.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Ian Harvey (Harrow, East): I found myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot)—and I am rather embarrassed by that agreement—in saying that the Minister put forward the very worst possible reason for the rejection of this Amendment, namely, that it was unnecessary. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) put forward the most extraordinary suggestion that if a man gets his bargain he should be allowed to get away with it. I would suggest that on that principle, if a man were sent to prison for having stolen some article, he should be allowed to keep the article.
Mr. S. Silverman: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not really wish to deal with the matter in that way. I was trying to meet the argument that if we were to accept this Amendment we should be offering an attractive inducement to people to evade their obligation under the Bill, and I was pointing out that, since in the case of 90 per cent. of the people the obligation under the Bill was so much more attractive than the penalty, one could afford to disregard the chance that someone might choose the penalty.
Mr. Harvey: I do not see any reason at all why the original intention of the Bill should be set aside in any way at all. By this Bill we are placing an obligation on people to do a national duty, and if we accept it that the tribunals are going to perform their task justly—as we on this side do—there is no reason at all to accept the principle that the duty should not be performed in the long run. Therefore, for that reason, I could not support the Amendment.
Mr. Wyatt: We were appealed to by the Secretary of State for Air earlier to deal with this as a practical problem, but when my hon. Friend tried to treat the matter as a practical problem, he was given an idealistic answer. The situation is, surely, that these members of the Class Z Reserve are being recalled simply for the purpose of providing an Army which can be quickly put into the field—the Territorial part of it—or for providing key men to fill up Regular units.
Both the Secretary of State for Air and the Minister of Defence have clearly said that, of course, a man who refuses to serve for his 15 days on grounds of conscientious objection would not be called up again because there would not be time left for it. By the time he had gone through his punishment and been before the tribunal, and all the rest of it, there would be no time left in any case to fit him in with this scheme. Nobody can possibly imagine a situation, in any case, in which a unit that is likely to be in action should war begin would say, "For goodness' sake, let us have Private Smith, who is a conscientious objector, because he is so valuable in dealing with the enemy." Obviously, he would be the last person to be fitted for a cadre.
Again, hon. Members opposite and my two right hon. Friends seem to think it rather odd that anybody may have changed his mind and become a conscientious objector since leaving his military service. I have found in my own military experience that that is not at all uncommon. I know that it has happened that people, after many years in the Army, because they were thoughtful people, or, at any rate, people who thought differently from most of us, came to the conclusion in the end that they were doing something quite wrong and quite immoral, and ought no longer to do it. I can remember one particular case of an officer who had been in the Army some five or six years who came to that conclusion.
7.15 p.m.
The difficulty about such a case as that is that people are likely to be sceptical about the man because he expresses views he has not expressed before. Somebody who is called up and does his service and then develops scruples is less likely to receive sympathetic consideration by a tribunal precisely because he

2377
comes to express views afterwards which he has not expressed before. A tribunal is quite likely to say, "This is an unplausible story, because you cannot possibly have developed those scruples when you have not had them before." Yet it is possible to develop them. In the case I have particularly in mind, the person concerned was perfectly genuine, but he was court-martialled, and all the rest of it, although he had become a genuine conscientious objector.
As both my right hon. Friends are so convinced that we are now going to have a situation in which anybody who is called up for his 15 days can refuse to go to the Services on conscientious grounds, and in which nobody will be called upon a second time if, having refused service, he has done his punishment, why on earth cannot that be put into the Bill? It really does seem absolutely farcical to say, as my right hon. Friends say, that we cannot include it in the Bill because they are going to do it anyway. Surely it must be possible to provide a simple, one-line Amendment which would deal with the situation of those who would be liable to be called up for 15 days, and who would refuse to do their service on conscientious grounds. It is a highly practical problem, and we were asked to deal with it on a practical basis.
Mr. Yates: I am very disappointed at the statement made by the Minister of Defence on this matter, and I hope that he is going to think again about it. Whenever we have discussed the National Service Acts, this question has been a subject of discussion. It was in the last Parliament. I had a case of one of the "Bevin boys" in my constituency. This was not altogether a case of conscientious objection; but he declined to go down the mines, and was prepared to so into the Army. He was sent to prison three times. I had to raise the question in the House. In spite of what the Minister says about how they will administer this humanely and sympathetically, I must point out that that sort of thing is always said—always. Yet in that case the court decided that here was a man who should be in prison. He spent a Christmas in prison. It was only when I made the strongest possible protest in the House that the then Minister of Labour reviewed even that particular case.
2378
While my right hon. Friend was speaking, I interjected that there were a good number of people who, since doing military service in the war, had become conscientious objectors. I would say to my right hon. Friend that there are a number of these people who have had experience in the Armed Forces and who have changed their minds. We have said before that a boy of 18 has not matured sufficiently to know whether or not he is taking a right course. When, later, he reaches maturity, he may form different opinions.
It is a long time ago now, but there was a group of ex-Service men who signed a peace letter a good many years ago, in which they said they had changed their minds. They said:
"Those who, like ourselves, served on the various battle fronts during the Great War realise more fully than civilians possibly can the bestiality, the agony, and the futility of war, and it should be our especial responsibility to save others from horrors like those through which we passed."
That was a letter which was signed by our present Prime Minister as an ex-Service man. I tell my right hon. Friend and the Government today that I have had letters from people who have decided from experience that military service is wrong, and yet I have not the slightest doubt that they will have the greatest possible difficulty before the tribunals because of the fact that they have actually served. The Front Bench do not seem to be taking this matter as seriously as some of us are. To us this is a vital matter, affecting not only the consciences of people but the life of the community. We think that, whether or not the Government assure us that people will not be prosecuted two or three times, it is not fair to haunt people when they have made a definite stand, and I hope my hon. Friends will strongly support this Amendment, which I trust the Government will accept.
Mr. J. Hudson: I want to make one more appeal to the Minister who in his speech referred to the very old association between himself and myself on this question. He at any rate knows, even though hon. Members opposite do not know, that in these matters I have remained faithful to one line of conviction. I do not think my right hon. Friend understood my interjection during his speech. I was not accepted as a

2379
genuine conscientious objector; I was a fraud, just a shirker, merely a coward not prepared to put up a case based upon conviction. I could not get tribunals to understand that I was in earnest; I experienced the cat-and-mouse process time after time and never established that I had a genuine conscientious conviction.
I do not think my right hon. Friend understood this qualification of my interruption of his speech, that those who are bound on the prosecution of war or the preparation for war cannot, because their minds are honestly and genuinely absorbed with the defence of the country, understand the meaning of these inner voices which continue to prompt men and women to do other than what the majority of their fellows are doing.
Having gone through this experience, I have always admitted that as long as this conscientious objector difficulty confronts us there will recur and recur again the impossibility of many men according to conscientious objection what I think legislation would now like to accord to it. It is better, if Parliament can, to put an end to the injustice which necessarily arises out of the fundamental incapacity of honest men and women to allow to the conscientious objector what they ought to allow. That is what this Amendment tries to do. A man has one sentence and serves a month—longer in this case perhaps than if he is dishonest. We are asking, for the sake of both this Bill and other Bills which may grow out of it in the difficult time in which we live, that an end should be put to the injustice that in the natural order of things falls upon men.
Perhaps I may be permitted to make a personal reference. One of the things that amazes me in this Committee is that, although in the old days when I spoke about these things as a young man I was called a coward and a shirker, now everybody always says of me, "We know that the hon. Gentleman is speaking quite sincerely." The tribunal did not know that, and the point I put to the Minister and to the Committee is that in the nature of things the tribunal so often cannot understand us.
The time has now come to put a limit to the punishments that are imposed upon people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) has so
2380
well said, those who have gone through war and are called up at a later period of their lives can very well honestly arrive at the same sort of convictions as those at which I have arrived, and I am asking for them the same as I claim for myself. I hope that the Ministry will waken up in time to the danger involved in this. We cannot possibly let them get away with this, and I beg the Government to alter their attitude towards this Amendment.
Mr. Keenan: I do not want to detain the Committee long, because I think we have spent rather more time on this Amendment than we ought to have done. I am rather concerned at the fact that, while we are dealing with the recall of men to the Services, we seem to be giving little or no time to those who are likely to be recalled to give their service. If there were the opportunity, I could say a lot about others who might be called up besides the categories with which we are concerned; there are those who have given no service at all.
From what the Minister has said, there seems to be no reason why he should not accept this Amendment, even if not in its present form. I am not a legal man who can find fault in the Amendments which come before us, but from what has been said it would appear that this does not apply merely to those who may be tried for being conscientious objectors. It applies to anybody. It has been said that it might be considered worth while by some, to spend money on dodging service by buying themselves out. While I see the difficulty of providing in the Clause that a person with a conscientious objection shall be tried only once, I think a good case has been made for having only one go at the individual in this connection. Much as I disagree with many of the observations made by those who have pressed this Amendment on the Government, I think that in all reasonableness the Government should accept an Amendment of this sort to meet some of the objections.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I join with my hon. Friends in asking the Government to look again at this Amendment and to accept it. I believe the feeling of the Committee is that nobody wants to protect the ungenuine conscientious objector who has no conviction but wishes merely to escape military service;

2381
but I believe there is also a genuine feeling in the Committee that there should be no persecution of genuinely minded conscientious objectors.
7.30 p.m.
The hon. Member said that there was a case for having only one go at an individual. I speak rather objectively because they had five goes at me. The result was that it did not reform me. Let me submit to the military Members who have spoken in this debate the question: "Do you want perpetually people like me going before your courts-martial, stating a case at very great length, and partially succeeding in converting the officers at the courts-martial?" That takes up the time of the military authorities.
I know that the officers at my second court-martial, if they had had their way, would have kicked me out as a nuisance. I had five courts-martial, and at the end they issued me with a discharge ticket, saying that I was liable to a fine of £100 or three months' imprisonment if I tried to enlist again. I suggest that they should take the reasonable, rational attitude and say, "We do not want people like that clogging up the military machine."
The argument has been made that this sort of thing is not likely to happen. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is a new type of conscientious objector coming along. In the First World War, there were roughly two kinds of conscientious objectors—the Quakers and other religious denominations, and people not considered to have any conscience, like me. Now we have a new development. There was the case, which I quoted in the House recently, of a Conservative candidate, Mr. Douglas-Home, who during the war changed his opinion and became a conscientious objector.
Brigadier Head: I think that we ought to get this right. Mr. Douglas-Home was not a conscientious objector. He had tactical and strategic views, and he considered that the bombardment of a certain town was militarily unnecessary, and therefore he refused to take part, but he was not a conscientious objector.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that he had a tactical and strategic objection. From the point of view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that no doubt carries weight. Imagine
2382
two hon. and gallant Members opposite sitting on a court-martial and having to discuss the objection of a young captain who came along with a tactical and strategic objection. That has proved the very point which I am making, that we are getting a different kind of conscientious objector who should not be subject to persecution. I suggest that the sentence of nine months on Douglas-Home was a gross injustice. That is recognised by the Conservatives, who have adopted him as candidate for Kirkcaldy.
I want to refer to the type of conscientious objector who is now emerging in Scotland. In the last war we had the case of a conscientious objector called Douglas Young, a very eminent scholar and man of letters. He was subjected to the same kind of cat-and-mouse treatment, and spent a considerable time in prison. I suggest that his opinions should receive just as much respect as the opinions of others. Looking back upon it, everyone feels slightly ashamed that because this man had a unique point of view and was prepared to suffer for it, he should have been treated like a common criminal.
In the last war I remember a man coming to see me and saying, "I am going to appeal before the local tribunal." I said "What is the nature of your objection?" He said "I served in Spain in the International Brigade during the Civil War, and that convinced me that war was not a thing in which I could take part in future." He asked, "What do you think my chances are?" I said, "You have no chance at all if you go before that tribunal." I went with him to the tribunal, and, to my surprise, the tribunal agreed that this man was genuine, and the very fact that he had learned the lesson of war in Spain was sufficient to have him registered as an objector and to secure him total exemption.
I want to refer to what the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) said about one of the tribunals. Recently they had a case of a Scottish Nationalist who happened also to be a pacifist. He put his objections on pacifist grounds, and he appeared in court in a kilt. He was the son of a well-known Scottish author named Hugh McDiarmid. He happened to mention that he was a Scottish Nationalist. The tribunal took the view that he could not be genuine, and asked him all sorts of ridiculous questions, such as,

2383
"Have you the Stone of Destiny?" This man is absolutely genuine. He has been turned down by this tribunal, and now he goes through this cat-and-mouse procedure.
Mr. Driberg: I am afraid that was all my fault, because his father consulted me about it, and I advised him that there were now precedents for exemption of political conscientious objectors, which is perfectly true, and which lends substance to what my hon. Friend is saying, and shows how completely illogical these things are.
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Butcher): My predecessor in the Chair advised the Committee not to speak too long on individual cases.
Mr. Hughes: What happens to the Communists? They may be quite genuine, ordinary, working-class Communists. I do not want to refer to the upper hierarchy. I suggest that to take a Communist and shove him into the Army where he sees all the secret weapons, at a time when we are chucking Communists from the doors of the War Office, and to persecute him, is the limit of stupidity. I ask for a little common sense. Do remember that many of these young people have been led to believe in this point of view because of the philosophy and attitude of the pioneers of the Labour movement, and do remember that this House has a record of toleration and is not out for persecution. That is something which ought to be embodied in the legislation of this country.
Mr. Shinwell: I have listened with great care to the arguments presented by my hon. Friends and by hon. Members opposite. All that I have to say is that I remain unconvinced. The record of right hon. Members or hon. Members on this side is not in question, but if it should be questioned I would say for myself that I have never applied to any tribunal for release from service on conscientious grounds. I want to make that point quite clear.
Mr. McGovern: The right hon. Gentleman was exempt.
Mr. Shinwell: On quite different grounds—a form of National Service, undertaking duties on behalf of His
2384
Majesty's Government at the time. Do not let us question the position of Members on this bench, or on the back benches.
The arguments that have been adduced, if there is any logic in them at all, would demonstrate to the Committee that there is no virtue in any tribunal. That was the sustained argument of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). He has demonstrated that tribunals are harsh, that they act unjustly and that they make mistakes. It depends on how making mistakes is interpreted. He has demonstrated, at any rate, that they do not operate to the advantage of some conscientious objectors. That is the argument, and therefore my hon. Friends are against the tribunals. My reply is that unless we are to relieve conscientious objectors on their own showing and declaration, of the obligation to serve in His Majesty's Forces, we must obviously have tribunals. We cannot leave it to the conscientious objector to say that he declines to serve without going to the tribunal to prove his case.
Mr. S. Silverman rose—
Mr. Shinwell: I am not prepared to allow my hon. Friend to interrupt me any more. If he wishes to prolong the debate it is a matter for the Chair and the Committee, but not for me or for him. There has been a prolonged discussion and a repetition of argument all the way through. I repeat that the logical sequence of my hon. Friend's case is that we ought not to have reference to tribunals at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If we are to have reference to tribunals we have either to trust what these tribunals do, or we have to issue instructions with definite provisions upon which they can operate. That is clearly impossible. The conscientious objector can not only apply to a tribunal, but he can apply to an appellate tribunal if he is turned down in the first place.
It has been argued—and this is the most substantial argument that has been adduced so far—that if it is true, as I have ventured to suggest, that the Amendment is unnecessary because it is very unlikely that conscientious objectors will be treated in the manner suggested, then why not accept the Amendment? The reason is that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). He made it quite clear that

2385
this would be a precedent. It would be employed, if accepted, in relation to the National Service men. We can never accept that. I beg my hon. Friends to realise what they are doing.
Mr. Wyatt: It would not be such a precedent if it were specifically stated in Bill that it referred only to those called up for 15 days' training and not to those called up for three or 18 months.
Mr. Shinwell: The answer is that if it applied only to the 15-day period it would be quite unrealistic. We again get the demand that if it is unrealistic, why should we not accept the Amendment? We have given some attention to this. I have considered whether we could provide some formula to meet the objections, but we have come to the conclusion that it would he much too dangerous a precedent to accept. I repeat the assurance, and this is as far as I can go, that we shall exercise in the Service Departments and in the Ministry of Labour the greatest care in order to ensure that the administration will be conducted with the utmost humanity. It may be that this assurance is not enough and it will be said that the tribunal will pay no attention to it: but beyond that I cannot go.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: Does my right hon. Friend mean that he is going back on the undertaking of the Secretary of State for Air given an hour or more ago?
Mr. Shinwell: That undertaking was that we would see if it was possible to find a formula. We have considered that and have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to find a formula. It is better to speak to the Committee with the utmost candour. I must ask the Committee to come to a conclusion on the matter, because we still have a long way to go.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: I should have been prepared to withdraw the Amendment on the undertaking given by the Secretary of State for Air, but with great regret I must say that the speech of the Minister of Defence has made it absolutely impossible for the Amendment to be withdrawn. Therefore, we shall have to divide the Committee.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes. 34: Noes, 295.

Division No. 48.]

AYES

[7.50 p.m.

Ayles, W. H.

Granville, Edgar (Eye)

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Bonn, Wedgwood

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Carmichael, J.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Clunie J.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Cove, W. G

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S)

Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Crcssman, R. H. S

MoGovern, J.

Thomas. David (Aberdare)

Davies, 'Harold (Leek)

Messer, F.

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Davies, Stephen (Merlhyr)

Moeran, E. W.

Yates, V. F.

Donnelly, D.

Padley, W. E.

Fernyhough, E.

Paton, J.

TELLERS FOR IHE AYES:

Forman, J. C

Poole, C.

Mr. Fenner Brockway and

Rankin, J.

Mr. Leslie Hale.

NOES

Albu, A. H.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr, Gurney

Chetwynd, G. R

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Alport, C. J. M.

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmouth, W)

Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

Clyde J. L.

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Broughton, Dr A D. D

Cocks, F S

Arbuthnot, John

Brown, George (Belper)

Colegate, A.

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Collindridge, F.

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

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Astor, Hon. M. L.

Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T

Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W)

Baldwin, A. E.

Bullock, Capt M.

Cooper, John (Deptford)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Bullus, Wing Commander E E

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Bartley, P.

Burden, Squadron Leader F. A

Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)

Bell, R. M.

Burke, W A.

Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

Bishop, F. P.

Burton, Miss E.

Cranborne, Viscount

Blyton, W. R.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E

Boardman, H.

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

Crouch, R. F.

Bower, Norman

Callaghan, L. J.

Cullen, Mrs, A

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Cundiff, F, W

Boyle, Sir Edward

Carson, Hon. E.

Daines, P.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Champion, A. J

Davidson, Viscountess

Braine, B. R

Channon, H.

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Robinson, Roiand (Blackpool, S.)

Davies, Nigel (Epping)

Kinley, J.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

de Chair, Somerset

Lambert, Hon. G.

Roper, Sir Harold

Deedes, W. F.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Roes, William (Kilmarnock)

Deer, G.

Lennox, Boyd, A. T.

Royle, C.

Delargy, H. J.

Llewellyn, D.

RusseLl, R. S.

Diamond, J.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Digby, S. W.

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)

Scott, Donald

Dodds, N. N

Low, A. R. W.

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

Drewe, C.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Dulhie, W. S.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Simmons. C. J.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

McAdden, S. J.

Slater, J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

MacColl, J. E.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Edwards, W. J (Stepney)

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M S

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

McInnes, J.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

McKibbin, A.

Snadden, W. McN

Ewart, R.

Maclay, Hon. John

Snow, J. W.

Finch, H. J.

Maclean, Fitzroy

Soskioe, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Fisher, Nigel

McLeavy, F.

Sparks, J. A.

Follick, M.

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Foster, John

MacLeod John (Ross and Cromarty)

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

Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)

Steele, T.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western, Isles)

Stevens, G. P.

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

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

Gage, C. H.

Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Gibson, C. W.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Gilzean, A.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Studholme, H. G.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

Marples, A. E.

Summers, G. S.

Grey, C. F.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Sutcliffe, H.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanefly)

Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

Mellor, Sir John

Teeling, W.

Gunter, R. J.

Mitchison, G. R.

Teevan, T. L.

Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)

Monckton, Sir Walter

Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W)

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

Moody, A. S.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Hamilton, W. W.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

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

Hannan, W.

Morley, R.

Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)

Harden, J. R. E

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.

Hargreaves, A.

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

Tilney, John

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

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Moyle, A.

Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S.

Tomney, F.

Hastings, S.

Murray, J. D,

Touche, G. C.

Hayman, F. H.

Nabarro, G.

Turner, H. F. L.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Nally, W.

Viant, S. P.

Heald, Lionel

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Vosper, D. F.

Heath, Edward

Nicholls, Harmar

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire. W.)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

Wallace, H. W.

Herbison, Miss M.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

O'Brien, T.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Higgs, J. M. C.

Odey, G. W.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Oldfield, W. H

Watkinson, H.

Hollis, M. C.

Oliver, G. H.

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

Holman, P.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Webbe, Sir Harold

Hope, Lord John

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

Weitzman, D.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

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

Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Pargiter, G. A.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Hubbard, T.

Parker, J.

White, Baker (Canterbury)

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

Pearson, A.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Perkins, W. R. D.

Wigg, G.

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

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Wilkins, W. A.

Hutchison, Colonel James

Pickthorn, K.

Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Porter, G.

Williams, Charles (Torquay)

Hynd, H. (Acerington)

Powell, J. Enoch

Williams, David (Neath)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Jay, D. P. T.

Proctor, W. T.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Jeffreys, General Sir George

Profumo, J. D.

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Johnson, Major Howard (Kemptown)

Pryde, D. J.

Wise, F. J.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Pursey, Cmdr. H

York, C.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Raikes, H. V.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Rayner, Brig. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Keenan, W.

Rees, Mrs. D.

Mr. Bowden and

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Renton, D. L. M

Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Rhodes, H.

Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Janner: I want to raise one short point, to which I hope the Government will give con-

2389
sideration before the next stage is reached. In the Clause the method of serving notices seems to be one which is not fully suitable for the purposes for which this Bill has been introduced. I quite agree that notice by post, provided a person has replied stating he has received it, is in itself satisfactory. As an alternative to that, the notice can be sent by registered post. My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) raised certain matters about this, and I think it should be carried a little further.
If a person can be brought before the courts on a prima facie charge of having committed an offence, in my contention it is not sufficient merely to prove the sending of a registered letter as a receipt of the notice. I know of cases in which registered letters have not been received by the person for whom they were intended. There is, of course, the extreme case of relatives who might very well keep a call-up notice from the person for whom it was intended because they did not want him to go.
Recently I came across a case, which was extremely interesting. A person who received a letter held it back purposely from the person for whom it was intended. It was sent under the old Army Act before it was amended, and it was in respect of service for the person to whom it was addressed. As a result of what happened the person for whom it was intended never got the notice, and the next thing that happened to him was that, to his amazement, he was arrested and brought before a court. It is true that he was eventually released. He was found to be not guilty of the offence with which he was charged, the offence of desertion. He was brought before a court martial and was humiliated, and many people believed that he had done something wrong. although he had not.
8.0 p.m.
It is highly important that we should not put people in peril of being suspected of having done something wrong. I would therefore ask that between now and the final stages of the Bill the Ministers dealing with it should consider this point. In the police courts, an attempt was made some years ago to minimise the cost of serving summonses. A way was found by attempting to serve the summons in the first place by post. If the individual concerned did not turn up,
2390
the summons was served personally upon him. It was not until he had been personally served that he was expected, and today is expected, to appear before the court. There are much smaller matters dealt with in the courts of summary jurisdiction than the one with which I am now concerned.
Protection should be given to the citizen, even though the cases may be few, and an opportunity given to him to be served properly. It should also be known that he has been served properly. If the notice is served by ordinary post and a note is put in for the recipient's reply, saying that he has received the notice, that procedure would probably deal with 99 per cent. of the cases, or even more. Where no reply was received, the procedure adopted could be the same as in courts of summary jurisdiction.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I found the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), intriguing, in two respects. I think he was in this House during our discussions on the National Service Bill, which were protracted and prolonged. His speech intrigued me, because either the arguments which were then advanced from this side of the House have just dawned upon him, or alternatively, he has completely forgotten that the whole of this subject was threshed out on that occasion.
Mr. Janner: Would the hon. and learned Member please remember, or at least look up. the debates that took place on this matter? He would find that I used similar arguments at that time in regard to the Service man.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: It would be interesting to know whether the hon. Gentleman voted in accordance with his speeches, Perhaps he can remember and tell us whether he voted with us in support of improving the conditions in regard to service. I note that his silence is an indication of what is so often the case on the benches opposite, a speech one way and a vote the other way. The hon. Gentleman has not served a very useful purpose by raising this argument, which was threshed out at length on that occasion. I do not think he did it so well as was done then, and I hope we shall not spend a great deal of time covering the ground which was covered on that occasion.

2391
Whatever fears were mentioned at that time, I have heard very little complaint of the machinery of the call-up breaking down, and I do not see any reason to suppose that there will be much break down. If the man satisfies a court that he did not receive the notice, I am sure that the court will have regard to that fact in dealing with the case.
Mr. M. Stewart: I have given careful attention to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) but I think he is asking us to go beyond what is reasonable in the way of precaution. It is possible that when a registered letter is sent to one person some other person may prevent him from getting it, and it may land him with the inconvenience of being brought before a court. That is a grievance not against the Government or against an Act of Parliament, but against the person who intercepted his letter. One cannot protect individuals completely against the act of other private individuals in that manner.
I would confirm what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) that we have every reason to think that the provisions made here, which follow those of the National Service Act, will work adequately and that we can be confident that in the event of a person being brought before a court and being able to show that genuinely, and through no fault of his own, he has not received the notice, the court would not register a conviction. The general principles of the workings of the National Service Act justify us in keeping the provisions of the Clause.
Mr. Janner: Does my hon. Friend realise that the notices will be sent to persons concerned at their last known address, whatever that may mean. Does he think that if we make a mistake we ought not to rectify the position? The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) talks glibly about a person being brought before a court. What he may not appreciate—I do not know why, or perhaps I do; it is that the hon. and learned Member does not understand what happens in these courts—is that persons do not like appearing before a court when they are
2392
not guilty. I hope that this matter may be reconsidered.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS TO BE CALLED UP FOR SHORT-TERM TRAINING.)
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I beg to move, in page 5, line 35, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that the date specified in the notice shall be not less than fourteen days after the day on which the said notice was served."
I hope that this Amendment will not arouse the controversial issues which have been aroused by previous Amendments. It is designed to improve the machinery of the Bill upon a comparatively small point. This is the Clause which provides the machinery for the medical examination of the person to whom the Bill applies. As the Bill stands, a notice can be served upon a person affected by the Bill without there being any specified interval between the service of the notice and the date on which the person has to report to the medical board. The words in the Clause are:
"… a notice requiring him, at such time on such day as may be specified therein."
On Second Reading the Secretary of State for Air stated that seven days' notice would be given to reservists before they were called before a medical board. I have no doubt that it is the intention of the Government to honour that undertaking, but I submit to the Committee that even that underaking is really not quite good enough. The Committee will appreciate that a man who does not comply with one of these notices is subjected to criminal penalties. A subsequent subsection provides for a fine of £25.
When we are dealing with men who are living their ordinary civilian avocations, it may well be that in a certain number of cases so short a notice of a medical board as seven days may cause very considerable hardship. It is easy to think of examples. The commercial traveller who is away from home for days at a stretch, and the proprietor of a small one-man business, who has to make arrangements for somebody else to conduct his business during his absence if he has to attend a medical board, are examples, and other

2393
examples will spring very readily to the minds of hon. Members.
It would make the process less inconvenient to these people if they could be given at least 14 days' notice. The Committee will recall that these medical boards are not necessarily very close to the homes of the men concerned. There are 93 of them in the United Kingdom, and, with travel facilities as they are at the moment, a considerable journey may well be involved in at any rate a certain number of cases.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for War will not resist the Amendment on the ground that it will inconvenience the Ministry of Labour. I am sure that, from the War Office point of view, inconvenience to the Ministry of Labour is not a very powerful factor, and, even if it does involve some inconvenience to the Ministry of Labour, on balance it is better to compel that Department, if necessary, to plan their medical boards a little longer ahead than is intended rather than to have the inconvenience which a short period of notice will impose on the men.
The background of the matter is that we are imposing on some 235,000 of our fellow citizens some degree of inconvenience this summer in the public interest. It is therefore incumbent upon us to prevent any unnecessary inconvenience being added to that unavoidable inconvenience, and if we can smooth the arrangements by securing that really adequate notice is given to these men of the day on which they have to go to their medical board, we shall, in some, perhaps trifling, respect have done something to make this service less inconvenient than it would otherwise be.
Mr. Lee: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) thought that the Ministry of Labour would be inconvenienced if any alterations were made in the present arrangements. I assure him that the Ministry of Labour really do want to make arrangements which are most suitable to the persons concerned. That is the reason why—the hon. Gentleman is quite right—we have not inserted any time limit within which the men should appear before the medical board. We did not specify any period of time in the National Service Act. What happens is
2394
that we notify the man of the day he should attend for the medical examination, and, if he finds the day inconvenient because of business arrangements, we change it.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned commercial travellers, and so on, and I quite agree with him that it would be most stupid to try to force people to deviate from their ordinary life in so many ways because we were being rather pig-headed about a certain day by which a man must appear. We do not do that, and we have not done it with the National Service men, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, -that is a far bigger task than this one will be.
I ask him not to persist with his Amendment. I assure him and the Committee that we try, and shall continue to try, to meet the convenience of people who are to appear for medical examination by saying that if a day is not suitable probably another day would be better. and that we will hold the medical examination then. That is the spirit in which we try to conduct this scheme, and we have had no complaints from the National Service men.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Can he tell me this? Does the notice to be sent to these men requiring them to attend a medical board indicate to them that they have the right to say that the date is inconvenient and tell them what steps to take if it is inconvenient?
Mr. Lee: I cannot answer that. I should like to look into it first. I believe the proof is that in the far bigger task with the National Service men, where we have had the arrangement suggested in this scheme, we have had no problems. Many of the men have asked us to reconsider the date, and we have done so, and things have run very sweetly. I will look at the point which the hon. Member has put—I cannot answer it offhand—and, if it should be necessary, we will take that into consideration.
An additional reason for resisting the Amendment is that, particularly in the case of the first men who are to come for training—those who come at the end of April—there will be only a very short interval between the date when the Ministry of Labour know that the man is to be medically examined and the time when

2395
he is due, if fit, to report for training. We desire to give men as long firm notice as we possibly can whether or not they are to be recalled for 15 days' training. Wherever possible, something more than the 21 days prescribed in the Bill for call-up is our object. Although we accept the principle in the Amendment, that is one of the most important reasons why the Amendment would not be to the advantage of the men. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The last part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman seemed to me to contradict the first part. At the beginning, his argument was that we need not put the Amendment in the Bill because the Government would always give at least 14 days' notice and would change the date if it were inconvenient. Towards the end of his speech he appeared to indicate that they would require on occasions to give less than 14 days' notice. The Amendment is designed to see that the notice shall not be less than 14 days, and the question which we require to have answered carefully is: Is it the intention of the Ministry of Labour to give less than 14 days' notice or not? If it is their intention always to give notice of 14 days or more, there can be no objection to the adoption of the Amendment. If, on the other hand, it is the intention of the Ministry in some cases to give much less than 14 days' notice—if seven or even only three days—at least we ought to be told. That is the case put up by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) which has not really been answered.
While I recognise that the Ministry of Labour do their utmost to avoid inconvenience, I would stress that sometimes people are required to make very inconvenient journeys to get to the centre for the medical examination and sometimes the days selected for the examination are by no means convenient, but, at the same time, there is very little opportunity, as I understand it at the moment, of men being aware of the right to get the day changed. Can the hon. Gentleman answer my question: Is it the intention ever to give less than 14 days' notice? If it is the intention ever to do so, let us understand clearly the circumstances. If he wants more time to think about it, I am sure my hon. Friend will say that he
2396
will withdraw his Amendment provided we are given the assurance that it will be looked at carefully between now and the Report stage.
Mr. Grimond: I think the hon. and learned Member for Kingston-upon-Thames—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Not learned.
Mr. Grimond: Not learned, only honourable?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Never learned. I am still the honourable. I am not a Liberal.
Mr. Grimond: Perhaps if not hon. and learned, he will become so. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has raised a point which, though small, concerns a considerable number of people who may be affected by this Bill. In reply, the Minister gave a fair assurance. I want to ask him two questions. First, I think he will admit that there are some sins of omission, if not of commission, in the Quiz. For instance, I think it is not mentioned that a man can appeal to have his medical examination altered. I understood him to say that was the case if it were inconvenient—
Mr. Lee Mr. Lee indicated assent.
Mr. Grimond: That is a point which might be mentioned in this document. And since we now know that the appeal against being called up lies to the Secretary of State for War or the Secretary of State for Air, that will no doubt also have to be included in the document. Secondly, a point which continues to worry me is that there is a penalty attached to any failure to present oneself. No doubt the Minister will tell me that in previous Acts this penalty is also attached—
Mr. Manningham-Buller: A smaller penalty of £5.
Mr. Grimond: This is a larger penalty. Will the Minister look at subsection (4) and amend this to make it clear that if a man is asked to present himself within less than 14 days, and fails to do so, he shall not be subject to this penalty? It seems to me that we should not penalise a man if we give him less than 14 days and he fails to present himself. If the

2397
Minister will look into that, he will satisfy us to a great extent.
Dr. Barnett Stross: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question on this point? In the first line of the Clause the word used is "may," suggesting that it does not necessarily follow that it will be necessary to examine each and all of these men. I recognise that the process of medical boards is perhaps more effective than it was in the past as a result of the machinery being the same as for national insurance, and therefore it could accept a sudden influx of men. But there is not a great deal of time available and the number of men concerned is considerable.
The argument passing through my mind is this: these were all fit men not long ago. They are not going on active service or leaving this country. The majority are going only for 14 days. We are asking them to be examined when their training is apparently not to be particularly arduous. What is the chance of any mistakes being made if they are not examined for 15 days? The answer I get as a medical man is that there is machinery already to protect them. The men who do not feel fit will go to their own doctors and ask for a certificate stating they are not fit. They will then send it in. Obviously all such cases could easily be examined with despatch by the medical tribunals. Therefore my question is: Will my hon. Friend tell us if it is envisaged that each and every one of these men is to be examined, and does he think the machinery will be able to do the work?
Mr. Ian Harvey: I ask the hon. Gentleman to put himself in the position of the man who receives this instruction. It is awfully easy for the hon. Gentleman to say that we can always make arrangements for these people, and it is also easy for him to say, "We have made successful arrangements," because the only people with whom he has made successful arrangements are the people who have made objections. The majority of people, however, when they receive a communication of an authoritative nature from the Department of the hon. Gentleman are quite alarmed. We know there is no reason for alarm, but they do not, and when they receive a communication saying, "You will come and do this,"
2398
they think they have to go, and they do not know that they can have the satisfactory negotiations which we are assured the hon. Gentleman makes with those who complain. In fact, the hon. Gentleman has implied that his advice applies only to people who have the guts or are sufficiently tiresome to raise the matter.
The Amendment is put from the point of view of the ordinary people who do not normally argue with the Ministry. It is becoming a regrettable fact that very few people feel they ought to argue with Ministries these days. Therefore I see no reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. The hon. Gentleman, as my hon. Friend pointed out, said in so many words that there was no reason as far as he could see why they should not come within 14 days.
What is the case for not accepting 14 days? The best case is that made by the hon. Gentleman on other Clauses this evening, namely, that he is behind-hand with the job, that there will be a rush at the last moment, that people may be called up too hurriedly. But it is to defend those people that this Amendment is framed. Nothing the hon. Gentleman has said convinces me that there is any reason for not accepting this Amendment, and I must support my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.
Mr. George Ward: I intervene only because it is within the memory of this Committee that the hon. Gentleman, in trying to persuade my hon. and learned Friend that everything was really reasonable, said that these people could ring up or write and say, "It is inconvenient for me to come next Tuesday." Surely that in itself is an indication that the hon. Gentleman is thinking in terms of very few names? But there are people who go away for a week quite frequently. They may come back and find their letter waiting for them, it having been pushed through the letter box, with the result that the appointed day has passed. Therefore it is important to know what space the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Is it a week, a fortnight three weeks?—The question of whet this Amendment should be accepted hangs on what the Minister has in mind in the way of notice. We are entitled to a much more satisfactory answer on that than we have so far received., tnerT
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Lee: I thought the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) proved too much. He tended to show that the thing would be impossible of achievement, even if we put in 14 days, because if it is necessary for people to be away from their homes for seven days on business, as I expect they may be, there is no guarantee that they will be back within 14 days. At present no actual period is prescribed in the Bill. In the interests of the very people whom he has in mind, it would be far better to leave the matter as it is. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Harvey) got hot and bothered about what he presumed to believe was the hardhearted attitude of the Ministry of Labour. In fact, we have worked this sort of arrangement on a very wide scale with National Service men, and there has been no complaint from the 200,000 men a year we are now dealing with about hard-heartedness or lack of co-operation.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Perhaps it might be relevant to ask how many prosecutions there have been under the equivalent Section of the 1948 Act.
Mr. Lee: I cannot say offhand.
Mr. Ian Harvey: The hon. Gentleman accused me of being hot and bothered: I am neither. The point is that the National Service man expects to be called up, but, because of the long delay, this scheme is being rushed through and men do not know whether they will be called up or not. The call-up may be inconvenient. Many have arranged holidays and that is why we want to protect them.
Mr. Lee: When I first spoke on this Amendment I said that we want to give as long a firm notice of call-up as we can. If we were to allow 14 days before medical examination, that would not give us adequate time to call up and get into training the early people who must be called up before the end of April. We think that it is important to give firm and adequate notice, of more than 21 days if we can. That would be of more benefit to the men than this question of 14 days before medical examination. It would not be in the best interests of the men to accept this Amendment.
I do not think that we could accept the rather revolutionary suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), that we should
2400
not have medical examinations. If there were no medical examinations and fatalities occurred, I can well imagine that the Government would be in a most invidious position. In fairness to the men themselves, they should have medical examinations. The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. ManninghamBuller), asked whether I was prepared to give an undertaking that in all cases 14 days' notice would be given. I cannot give such an undertaking. That request was merely another way of asking me to accept the Amendment.
The hon. and learned Member also talked about the possibility of there being only three days' notice. There is not. There has been a firm undertaking that seven, or more, days' notice will be given. We do not depart from that. I hope that the Committee will see the point of giving the maximum amount of notice of call up in excess of 21 days if possible, but making certain at the same time that the medical examination and all the preliminaries are disposed of in time for the early batches to be ready for the exercise. That is why I suggest that it would not be in the interest of the men to accept this Amendment.
Dr. Stross: Is not my hon. Friend aware that, normally, when Territorials go to camp they either do not have any examination or only a fairly cursory one? I speak from experience. They do not always have a careful examination. Is there much difference between one type of training and the other?
Mr. Lee: I think that there is. We are dealing with an older type of men than those usually found in the Territorials. They are men who, in most cases, have been out of active service for a while. Because they are of more advanced age it is more necessary that the good offices of the profession which my hon. Friend graces so well should be brought to bear before the men are asked to undertake the new refresher training.
Mr. Pickthorn rose—
Mr. Lee: I think that pretty well covers the point that was put to me by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). We really are concerned to give the maximum amount of time possible. We could not give seven days

2401
but we often try to make an early arrangement with a person who can show that it would be most inconvenient to ask him to attend a medical board on a certain day. We do everything possible to meet him and the obligations which he has on matters of that sort, and I should have thought that that was going as far as any reasonable person could expect us to go.
Mr. Pickthorn: I was only trying to help the hon. Gentleman in his conversation with his supporter behind him. As I understood the Minister's argument, it was that the average age, and the average gap since last service, in the case of these men, would be longer than in the case of the Territorials. I understood that to be his argument, and I therefore ask him if he would be more specific and if he could say what is the average age or the average gap since last service or, if he does not know the average age or the average gap, the maximum or the minimum—the element of the tolerable and tolerability in this matter.
Mr. Lee: I am afraid I could not answer that without notice. In some instances, the people called up will be getting on for 40, and, if we take that as the maximum age, which is what the hon. Gentleman asked for, and accept that as the age which a number of men will have attained, I think it confirms the point I made that it is very necessary, for their own safety, that we should have medical examination of these people before they undertake their service.
I hope the Committee will agree that we are doing everything humanly possible in this respect. I hope they will bear in mind the fact that, so far as the time factor is concerned, it would not be physically possible to accept this Amendment and still have the early batch of men ready for service by the required time. For those reasons, I hope that the Amendment will not be accepted.
Mr. Grimond: What the hon. Gentleman says is quite true. People may have ample opportunity of getting the date shifted, but does anybody know it? If anything goes wrong, if there is a mistake, can we have some assurance that the man will not be prosecuted until he has had 14 days?
Mr. Lee: I come back to the argument which I used previously. The same problem arose in connection with the National Service people, who were numerically greater, and we are proposing to use here the same method which has been used in that case. We have had no complaints whatever that any hardship has been brought about by the use of this system. If there was some point about a man who was away from home on business or on holiday, and had not received his notice asking him to go before a medical board, it would be most improper to think of prosecuting that man because of circumstances over which he had no control.
Mr. Astor: I would seriously suggest that we must legislate, and not be content with. pious governmental aspirations. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will press this matter to a Division.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not maintain his present stonewalling attitude. We are all surely concerned to minimise. to the greatest extent possible, any inconvenience caused by the provisions of this Bill. I must confess that I was a little disquieted when the Parliamentary Secretary, having made a great point. as he thought, of the fact that, if a date proposed for a medical board was, in point of fact, difficult or inconvenient, it could be changed, never said where any indication of that state of affairs was given. We know it is not in the Quiz and we still do not know, because the hon. Gentleman has not told us, whether there is any indication of it on the notice itself.
If there were some such indication, it would have some effect on my mind, but it is no good the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that this is an ordinary matter, and that, in the case of instructions sent from the Department ordering a man to report to a medical board, an ordinary man who receives that document is going to appreciate that it can all be fixed up in a genial way on the telephone, as if it were an appointment for a cocktail party. When the ordinary man receives an official document of that sort, he will no doubt regard it as more than a basis for discussion. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot rely on this point unless he can satisfy the Committee that any adjustment of

2403
dates made on the initiative of his Department is brought specifically to the notice of the man concerned.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was taken by surprise by the point, but he has considerable assistance available to him in the precincts of this Committee, and I was hoping that he would be able to get that information now. That might help to assist the passage of this Bill, because he made a point, which has some validity, about the difficulty of giving 14 days' notice for the first call-up at the end of April. There is force in that argument, and nobody on these benches wants in any way to handicap the making on these arrangements. But we have the duty of looking after the interests of the people on whom we are imposing these burdens.
I was very disturbed when the Parliamentary Secretary appeared to go back on his original statement and to return to the original view of the Secretary of State for Air, that the ordinary period would be seven days. I think it would be quite intolerable if only seven days' notice were given and if a man who did not comply with the notice were prosecuted. I was sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary was not able to give an assurance in reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that if for the. convenience of the Department a short notice were given, at least the hand of prosecution would be stayed.
It is utterly wrong to prosecute in these cases unless there are very exceptional circumstances, including deliberate avoidance. I am sure that no hon. Member on this side of the Committee wants to delay this matter any further, but as I say, we have a duty to our constituents, and I am not satisfied that the Parliamentary Secretary is taking the steps which could be taken to ease the way of these men.
Mr. Lee: To justify our position, I made the point that there was no time limit in the Bill, and that, if we were to impose a time limit, it could in fact work to the general disadvantage in some cases. I also pointed out the time factor, which in some circumstances would make it physically impossible for us to have the full 14 days and yet give the 21 days' notice, and so on. I want to be helpful and to assist the Committee as far as I
2404
can, but it is certainly not true to say that we are trying to keep to a minimum number of days after which we shall prosecute a person for not complying. I find it difficult to visualise how many days one could give and yet keep within the time factor, which is so important.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: That was why I asked if the hon. Gentleman would give an assurance on the point between now and the Report stage.
Mr. Lee: I am trying to meet the point of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), and I will give the undertaking that we will look again at the question of seven days and will try to make the period as long as possible, consistent with the time factor for getting the men into action by the requisite date for which they are called. I think that in saying that I am going as far as hon. Members opposite could expect me to go, because, as I say, it is not now a question of personal opinions, but of the hard factor of the number of days in a month. Within the limits which the calendar allows us to have, we will certainly do our very utmost to extend as much as possible the time we give a person to go before the medical board. I cannot say whether that is 14 days, eight days or 10 days, but that is the kind of spirit which I think the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asked me to show.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not quite sure that that reply goes far enough or covers all the points, but I appreciate its spirit. I understand that the hon. Gentleman will look at this again with a view to giving the longest possible time. What concerns us is that a person should receive short notice when it is a criminal offence if he does not comply with that notice. It is not sufficient to say that this would not be applied in certain cases. The law should not be adaptable like that.
It is a criminal offence, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to say that he will give further thought to this between now and Report stage, bearing in mind that the penalty under the Bill is five times the initial penalty under the National Service Act, 1948, for failure in the first place to comply with notice for medical inspection. If the Government are increasing the penalty, they should try to. define the

2405
offence with more precision. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but it is an important point, and I ask the Minister to say that he will consider these matters before the Report stage and that he will also consider the matter touched upon by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), of giving adequate notice to people of their right to have the date changed.
Mr. Lee: I think that request is reasonable in view of the penalty entailed, and I will look into it between now and the Report stage.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of that undertaking and in the hope that at a later stage of this Bill the Parliamentary Secretary will have some concrete proposals to make, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for Air will recollect that earlier in our proceedings we got into a procedural difficulty about a fundamental Amendment to Clause 2 to add a proviso exempting a man from his liability under this Clause, or rather exempting him from penalties arising under Clause 2 if he was in the process of applying for exemption as a conscientious objector or on grounds of exceptional business or personal hardship.
I think that under Clause 3 there ought to be a similar proviso. I should have liked to have moved it in manuscript form, but I understood that that was inconvenient. I hope the Government will give some indication that they think there is an appropriate place in this Clause for the same proviso, possibly in the identical terms of the proviso which they themselves sought to bring forward earlier in the proceedings.
The simple point is that if a man is in the process of claiming exemption from call-up notice under Clause 2 and he thinks he is going to be successful, he will be most unwilling to come forward for medical examination under Clause 3. As Clause 3 has special penalties applied to it quite distinctive from Clause 2, some sort of proviso must be added in Clause
2406
3 to exempt him from medical examination and the penalties attached to his non-attendance for a medical examination if he is in the process of applying for exemption on the grounds of personal or business hardship or because of conscientious objection.
I think I saw the Secretary of State tot Air nod his head and I hope he will be able to indicate to the Committee that he will look at this sympathetically. If he thinks that his own suggested Amendment to Clause 2 was in the exact form of words applicable to Clause 3, perhaps he will put his name at the top of it to indicate his approval.
Mr. A. Henderson: I think the noble Lord has made a very fair point, and I will certainly undertake to look into it on the lines he has suggested with a view to putting down a proviso on the Report stage.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I' am obliged.
Mr. Profumo: I should like to raise a somewhat wider point before we leave this Clause. The more I hear the details of this Bill, the more. I am convinced that the whole idea of this call-up has been hastily conceived by the Government. I should like to know if it is the Government's intention that this medical examination prior to a man arriving at the place of training, is the only medical examination he will have to undergo. If it is, I think we shall get into great trouble. We were told earlier by the Government, when the broader aspects of this call-up were being debated, that there would be arrangements for medical examination prior to the call-up, in order to allow the greatest amount of time for training during the short period of 15 days.
It occurs to me that a man might pass his medical examination A.1, perfectly fit, and then receive his notice to go and do his training. Then he would get on a train to go to the place of training. During that period he might easily contract scabies or something more serious—perhaps infantile paralysis—and then he would arrive with a lot of other men to be trained together. In the course of that training this disease could be contracted by other people who had been called up under this Bill. Who would be responsible? Are the Government responsible

2407
for any pension which may arise? Who will decide whether the man contracted this disease while he was being trained—
The Deputy-Chairman: This point does not arise under Clause 3.
Mr. Profumo: I wonder if I might have an answer to that point?
Mr. M. Stewart: I can answer the hon. Member briefly and, I think, satisfactorily. It is proposed that when a man arrives at his unit there should be a brief medical examination. I say "brief" partly because it is our object to save time, and it is brief in comparison with the medical examination described in the Clause. We have in mind the object of trying to safeguard as far as reasonably possible against exactly the kind of contingency which the hon. Member has in mind.
Mr. Profumo: May I make one other small point? May I take myself as an example? Suppose I am called up and I am passed fit. Will my papers go with me, so that I shall not be put through the same tests again? Will my case history go with me so that the second medical examination will be short?
Mr. Stewart: We shall know when the hon. Member arrives in camp the result of his "Pulheems."
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(RELEASE FROM SERVICE UNDER SECTION I.)
The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would save time if the next Amendment, in page 8, line 10, were discussed with the Amendment in Clause 5, page 8, line 36. If necessary, hon. Members could divide on them separately.
Mr. Nlanningham-Buller: With respect, these Amendments involve rather different points. I feel that the discussion is more likely to be shorter if we take these Amendments separately. There is a certain difficulty with regard to Clause 5—I do not wish to take up time explaining it—and I think it would save time if these Amendments were taken separately.
The Deputy-Chairman: I only made the suggestion with a view to speed.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 8, line 10, at the end, to add:
"and if either House of Parliament, within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which the regulations are laid before it, resolves that an address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the regulations be annulled, no further proceedings shall be taken thereunder after the date of the resolution, and His Majesty may by Order in Council revoke the regulation, so, however, that any such resolution and revocation shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the regulation."
The effect of this Amendment is to subject to the negative procedure of Parliamentary control the regulations made under this Clause. As the Clause stands, the regulations have to be laid before this House. There is nothing else this House can then do about it, other than to admire the handiwork of the War Office draftsmen. The purpose of this Amendment is to subject these regulalations to the negative procedure. The regulations to be made under this Clause are not without importance to the men concerned. They relate, among other things, to the computation of travelling time, the power to recall the man if he arrives too late for one period of training and other analogous matters. They are matters of some importance affecting the rights and liberty of these men, and it seems to my hon. Friends and myself proper that this House should seek to retain a certain degree of Parliamentary control.
We have proposed the negative procedure, which involves no delay to the Service Department making the regulations. I hope it might not be necessary to move any Motion to annul any of these regulations, but I think it is right that in a matter of this importance the House should retain effective control, for use if necessary.
Mr. M. Stewart: It had originally been my intention to ask the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) to withdraw his Amendment so that we might put down a manuscript Amendment, but as that procedure was received rather coldly by the Committee on an earlier occasion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—well, it was coldly received in certain quarters of the Committee—and since it is a procedure which requires the

2409
unanimous consent of the Committee for its adoption, I do not on this occasion propose to follow that course. I would invite hon. Members who are concerned in this Amendment to consider the alternative which I shall suggest to them. On this point, Sir Charles, I should like to have your guidance on a matter of procedure. If I am able to persuade hon. Members opposite that the alternative I shall put forward is preferable, then I think the proper course would be to invite them to withdraw the Amendment and for the Government to put down an Amendment at the Report stage.
The Deputy-Chairman: The Bill having been amended, there will be a Report stage and that procedure will be in order.
Mr. Stewart: Having cleared up that point, I will now explain what it is that we propose in place of this Amendment. We would propose an Amendment, in Clause 4, page 8, line 8, to leave out subsection (5) and to insert:
"The power to make regulations conferred by subsection (3) of this Section shall he exercisable by Statutory Instrument and any such Statutory Instrument shall be subject to annulment by a Resolution of either House of Parliament."
The effect of that is that it does for regulations made under subsection (3) what the hon. Member's Amendment would do for all regulations made under this Clause. The point upon which I am inviting the agreement of the hon. Member and of the Committee is that there is a distinction between the regulations to be made under Clause 4 (3) and those to be made under Clause 4 (2). One cannot entirely explain that without referring to matters in Clause 5, but I shall endeavour, Sir Charles, to keep strictly in order while doing so.
The point, I think, is this. Regulations to be made under Clause 4 (2) relate, for example, to what is a reasonable excuse when a man turns up late. I think it will be agreed that that is very closely allied indeed to the matters referred to in Clause 2 (3)—what is a reasonable excuse for not turning up at all. The regulations which are to determine that matter—what is a reasonable excuse for not turning up at all—will be regulations made in virtue of Clause 5, and I think the regulations about what is a reasonable excuse for not coming at all and those about what
2410
is a reasonable excuse for turning up late ought to be treated together. However they are treated, they ought to be treated together.
The reason for not regarding them as a Statutory Instrument is that they are very similar indeed to King's Regulations and Territorial Army Regulations; they will be part of a body of comprehensive regulations dealing with a wide range of subjects—for example, the bounty. They will be closely similar to Territorial Army Regulations which, as hon. Members are aware, in virtue of the regulations made under the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, are not subject to either the affirmative or the negative procedure in this House. As the hon. Member stressed. the House can do nothing but admire.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Or not, as the case may be.
Mr. Stewart: I was making a more optimistic assumption. I believe, however, that it would be possible to refer to matters within these regulations if hon. Members were dissatisfied with them—possibly by means of Questions, and possibly by the use of the Adjournment: the House would not be entirely devoid of opportunity. However, that is a side issue. The main point is—
Mr. Leslie Hale: Surely, use could not be made of the Adjournment? If it requires an Act of Parliament to bring the regulations into force, surely it will require an Act of Parliament to bring them out of force, and therefore, the Adjournment could not be used? Then, as to King's Regulations, are these regulations to be as readily available to members of the Forces as King's Regulations are? Can my hon. Friend say whether, as a serving member of the Forces, he ever tried to get hold of a copy of King's Regulations?
Mr. Stewart: I think they would be as readily available. However, the House has, after careful consideration of the matter, decided that it is not desirable that King's Regulations should be treated as a Statutory Instrument, and for that reason I invite the Committee to accept the view that regulations under Clause 4 (2), which are closely comparable, should also not be Statutory Instruments. Similarly, I ask the Committee to take

2411
the same view of regulations made by virtue of Clause 5. But regulations to be made under Clause 4 (3) deal with rather specialised matters relating to this particular call-up and to this particular group of men and for that reason I quite agree that it would be quite proper to treat them as Statutory Instruments and make them subject to annulment by the House, and I hope that that suggestion will be agreed to by the Committee.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the argument of the Under-Secretary of State is very reasonable. The main point, so far as my hon. Friends are concerned, is to achieve Parliamentary control over this computation of travelling time, because, after all, that does affect the duration of the call-up from the practical point of view of the men. Although I might be on another occasion desirous of entering into an argument with the Under-Secretary of State as to whether it was right or wrong to insulate from Parliamentary control the general corpus of King's Regulations and so on, I quite agree that it might be anomalous to make that part of these regulations which applies to these men subject to Parliamentary control while the others were not, and that that might make confusion worse confounded. Therefore, while incidentally expressing the pious hope that the statement of the Under-Secretary of State, that Parliamentary Questions can be asked about King's Regulations, will be noted in the appropriate quarters, and on the understanding that this Amendment he has forecast with reference to subsection (3) will be introduced on the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(APPLICATION TO PERSONS CALLED UP OF ARMY ACT AND AIR FORCE ACT, AND PROVISIONS AS TO DISCIPLINE, PAY, ETC.)
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 8, line 21, to leave out subsection (2).
We view with considerable concern subsection (2) of this Clause. The Committee will see that it gives power to the authorities to prosecute in the magistrate's court a man going absent without leave,
2412
and at the same time it retains the existing power under military law of dealing with him summarily under the military law, or, indeed, of trying him by court-martial. There is no doubt that this provision is modelled on Section 15 of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882. Under that Act the maximum penalty was a fine of £25, with prison in default of payment. Here, the Committee will appreciate, the maximum sentence that can be imposed in the magistrates' courts is £25 and imprisonment for one month.
I do not believe that much use has been made, if any, of this power of prosecuting in courts of summary jurisdiction persons under the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, for absence without leave. I have a strong objection to the inclusion of this power of prosecution for what is, after all, in its nature, purely a military offence, if it is intended to use it in relation to the men who will be affected by this Amendment or if it is not intended to use it.
I should like the Committee to consider a moment what the position would be if this subsection remains in the Bill. There will be a lot of these people called up who are going into the Regular Army. The majority of those will be called up for 15 days, some for three months, and some for as long a period as 18 months. But all those called up, whether it be for 15 days, three months, or 18 months, will, if this Bill is passed in its present form, be liable, if they are absent without leave for one day—and this is not a question of not turning up for the call-up—not only to be dealt with under military law but to be brought into the local police court, prosecuted and convicted of a criminal offence.
It seems to me that that will lead to very odd results. Those who are brought into the magistrates' court, or a court of summary jurisdiction as it is sometimes called, and convicted will have that conviction permanently upon their record. Those who are dealt with by the military authorities, either summarily or by court-martial, will have no such record upon their record. Some of those who are called up under this Bill may be prosecuted before the magistrates' court; some may be dealt with by court-martial.
In the cases dealt with by magistrates' courts there will be a wide disparity of sentences because they have no practical experience of dealing with this kind of

2413
offence. There will not only be a wide variety of sentences passed by magistrates' courts, but there is likely to arise a wide disparity of treatment between the civil courts and the treatment, either summarily or by courts-martial, by the military authorities. The maximum punishment under the Army act for absence without leave is two years' imprisonment or two years' detention. If a man comes before a magistrates' court the court may have no power of awarding a sentence of detention. One of the objects of giving a sentence of detention is to avoid the stigma of a sentence of imprisonment.
On Second Reading the Under-Secretary used two arguments—although I think myself that not much importance should be attached to it because he was a little taken by surprise by the point—on which I must touch. He said that if this power to prosecute is not taken the man who has gone absent without leave must be taken within three months of the 15 days, because under the Army Act the man is only subject to military law for a period of three months after his service terminates. That is true. But he must be prosecuted within six months if he is brought before a magistrates' court, and if that man is not caught absent without leave in the first three months the chances of doing so in the last three months are slightly reduced. That was one argument, but I do not think it is a good enough argument for making absence without leave a criminal offence for all those who are brought up under this Bill when it is not made a criminal offence for members of the Regular Forces.
The other argument, which I think I can deal with fairly and shortly, was that, having regard to the period of time it would be administratively convenient to bring these cases before the magistrates' court. I do not think that in practice that would be found to be so. The same evidence would be required before a magistrates' court as before a court-martial. I think that it would be found that the magistrates' court, not being so familiar with this sort of case, would probably meet with some difficulty in establishing fairly and conclusively the case of absence without leave. I have put forward my arguments very shortly. I can see how this subsection came to be within the Clause, but I think that the Bill will be very greatly improved and the possibility
2414
of injustice and unfairness as between individuals considerably reduced if the hon. Gentleman will agree to its omission.
Mr. M. Stewart: I have been much impressed by the arguments put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I ask the House, however, to notice that whether one is concerned for military discipline and making sure that orders are obeyed or concerned for the liberties, rights and proper treatment of the man there are arguments on either side. For example, the provision under Clause 5 (2) makes it possible for the offence to be dealt with, if that were appropriate, solely by fine. Unless we can devise some new procedure under the regulations to be made under this Clause, there does not appear to be at present any equivalent to that when we deal with it militarily. That is one argument for dealing with it through the civil courts.
As I suggested on Second Reading, there are some administrative difficulties. If a man goes absent and is apprehended later, he will probably have to be attached to a different unit for the disciplinary process to be carried through. We shall have to consider how, if we are acting under military procedure. to apprehend the man. Do we send a military escort to fetch him, possibly some months after the period of training is over, when he is living at home as an ordinary civilian? If we do, is that likely to create unnecessary odium? I do not say that the problem is insoluble, 'but these things were in our minds when the Clause was incorporated in the Bill. Although a good deal can be argued either way, I think that we must accept the force of the contentions advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and we shall be glad to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move in page 8, line 28, after the words last left out to insert:
Any person who has been convicted under this section shall, on conclusion of such sentence, he discharged from His Majesty's forces.
I do not wish to repeat the argument which I used on an earlier stage of the Bill, except to say that I believe that a sentence under this section would mean discharge from His Majesty's Forces.
Mr. Paton: On a point of order. I am at a loss to under-

2415
stand to what it is proposed to attach this particular Amendment, since we have already agreed to the deletion of subsection (2) to which this is an Amendment.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I am concerned with a similar Amendment, and I presume that they will be discussed at the same time. This is an Amendment to the section, and subsection (2) applies to convictions under subsection (1).
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman does not desire to move the Amendment?
Mr. Hughes: Yes, I move to oblige you, Sir. You called upon me, and I did not wish to be discourteous.
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, oblige the Chair and the Committee if he does not move the Amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I move the Amendment.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I am sure that there has been a misunderstanding. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. J. Paton), has suggested that the Amendment has no force because of the deletion of subsection (2). But the Amendment applies to the whole Clause. In these circumstances, we desire the Amendment to be moved.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think that the hon. Member is wrong, because subsection (1) does not refer to convictions of any kind at all, and subsection (3) also has nothing to do with convictions. Therefore. I submit that the hon. Member for Norwich, North, is clearly right.
Mr. Hale: Subsection (1) simply says that a Class Z reservist will be subject to military law, and the Amendment concerns anyone who becomes convicted under the subsection. It has always been inherent in our proceedings, quite apart from rather crude points of order, that if a subsection is deleted, some readjustment is made to the wording of later Amendments so that they can be moved.
The Chairman: We need not discuss that at any length. If the Committee so agree, the Amendment can stand by itself. I assume that men subject to mili-
2416
tary law can be convicted, and that being so the Amendment is in order.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think that the Amendment will strengthen the Clause. The purpose of the Amendment is that in the case of anyone being convicted under the Clause he shall be forthwith discharged from the Forces.
Mr. Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend explain to the Committee what the man can now be convicted for?
Mr. Hughes: It is not for me to answer that. I submit that it is a reflection on you, Major Milner, because you have called the Amendment. I should certainly have been the last person to rise had you not called my name. I wish to move the Amendment, and I think we are entitled to ask for the support of those with military experience. I think they will agree that if an offender ceases to be a liability their time will not be wasted. It will avoid further court martial proceedings in regard to people who are not likely to be of any use to the Army. Therefore, they should be glad to discharge these people from the Forces. This is a particularly logical Amendment, and I appeal to the brigadiers opposite to support it.
Mr. Hale: The Amendment standing in my name is in almost identical terms. I understand that it is being discussed with the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). It raises the same point, but I hope that we shall not regard this as the moment to press this matter to a Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We shall have later opportunities. We accept for the moment the decision that has been taken by the Committee, but the point is one that deserves serious consideration. The object is perfectly clear, although the Amendment is not now quite so consequential having regard to the previous Amendment, on the acceptance of which I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. ManninghamBuller)—I only wish that I were more successful in the Amendments I move. As I say, the Amendment is not now quite so consequential, but it can be made so by adding the necessary conjunctive words, as is so often done in proceedings in Standing Committee.

2417
The whole object is well understood by the Committee. A man is called up for 15 days, but for some reason during those 15 days he breaks his period of service. It may be through some act of folly on his own part, some indiscipline, because of some emergency at home or something of that kind. Those are matters which can be considered by the tribunal. If such a man is called up for service if he enrols, if his name is down, and if he is doing what he is called up for and if something like that happens, and he is convicted, and penalised under military law, all we say is, whatever may be his future under military service, he will not be called up for another fortnight.
Mr. Messer: Does that not have the effect that every soldier can be discharged from the Service?
Mr. Hale: Of course it does not. I am sorry my hon. Friend has not read it more carefully. This only relates to the 15-day period of service, because this same man might be called up for 18 months, but that comes under a different training anyway.
Mr. Messer: But everyone could get out by this means?
Mr. Hale: Everyone can get out of service in the Armed Forces through a court martial, a period in the glasshouse —institutions, which, by the way, I hope we shall some day pay particular attention to—and by the possibility of a stiff military sentence. However, if a man carries his objection to military service to that extent, I think the military authorities would agree that it is not worth while having him at all.
Mr. Wyatt: Could my hon. Friend tell me what this Amendment means? Does it mean that a person called up under this Clause would not be subject to military law during the time of his call-up? I do not follow what the Amendment means.
Mr. A. Henderson: In spite of the dulcet tones of my hon. Friends, I have to disappoint them again. It is quite impossible to accept a situation such as that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), on the basis that if a man commits a breach of military law and is punished for it, he is thereupon able to return to
2418
his own home. Indeed, as the Clause is drafted, the Amendment would cover not only those called up for 15 days, but also those called up for three months and 18 months.
While I do not believe that any individual in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force called up for three months or 18 months as a flying instructor would ever be convicted of a serious offence, I do not think they would expect to be discharged from the Force merely because of the fact of a conviction. Certain types of offence carry with them cashiering or dismissal from the Forces, and the law for that already exists. To suggest, as my hon. Friend does, that because a person is convicted—no matter how minor the offence may be—he should be discharged is a situation which we find impossible to consider, and I am bound to tell my hon. Friend that I could not in any circumstances agree to give it serious consideration.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, at end, to add:
"and if either House of Parliament, within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which the regulations are laid before it, resolves that an Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the regulations be annulled, no further proceedings shall he taken thereunder after the date of the resolution, and His Majesty may by Order in Council revoke the regulation so, however, that any such resolution and revocation shall be without prejudice to anything previously done under the regulations."
The Under-Secretary, on a previous Amendment, anticipated what he was going to say on part of this Amendment, but I would respectfully submit that the answer which he gave to this Amendment is only a partial and not a complete answer. The effect of this Amendment is to subject to Parliamentary control by way of the negative procedure the regulations made under this Clause. I conceded on the previous Amendment that it would be inappropriate to submit regulations of the King's Regulation character to Parliamentary control, but regulations made under this Clause are not confined to them. If the Financial Secretary will look at the Clause he will see that regulations can also be submitted
"otherwise for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and in particular for prescribing anything thereby required to he prescribed."

2419
Those are extraordinarily wide words, and there would seem to be the need for some explanation of what these words are intended to cover before we can allow the Clause to go without attempting to submit these regulations to Parliamentary control. Can the Under-Secretary say now that the regulations to be made under that part of the Clause are similar to those made under the earlier part, and are King's Regulations? The words are very wide and I should like to know what they are intended to cover.
Mr. M. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is raising the question how far the regulations to be made under this Clause are comparable to King's Regulations. I think that I am correct in saying that the regulations made under the Clause are those referred to in Clause 2 (3) where there is a reference to "the prescribed manner," which will mean prescribed in the regulations. In the subsections that we were discussing earlier, Clause 4 (2) and (3), there are also certain references to regulations to be made or things to be done in the prescribed manner.
I think the hon. Member will find that if there are any regulations to be made under the Clause not strictly comparable to King's Regulations, they will form one close body together. We should be creating difficulties to no useful purpose if we tried to chop off a few here and there on the ground that they are not exact counterparts of King's Regulations. The case of regulations to be made under Clause 4 (3), which we discussed earlier, is somewhat distinct. There the Bill had already chopped them off to be dealt with as a very specialised class. I would ask the hon. Member and the Committee to accept the view that we shall be following a correct and reasonable procedure, for which there is good precedent, if we keep the Clause as it is.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I take it that the Financial Secretary means that the general words at the end of subsection (3), and in particular
"for prescribing anything thereby required to be prescribed,"
are intended only to be used for making regulations of the King's Regulations character and not generally for the purposes of the Bill. Is that right?
Mr. Stewart: I am afraid that if I gave that impression I would be going too far. They mean that wherever there is in the Bill a definition using the words "manner to be prescribed," or words to that effect, the prescription is done by regulations under the Bill. What I was saying was that although that is so, I think we can safely say that the things to be prescribed are such that the regulations are properly comparable to King's Regulations and can reasonably be treated in that manner.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It was of some importance to get that clear. The Financial Secretary will agree that the words are very wide. On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. Stewart: I would add that I shall look at this again and see if it is as I believe it to be. If there is any difficulty, we shall endeavour to put it right.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(PENALTY FOR INCITEMENT TO DISOBEDIENCE.)
Mr. Henry Strauss: I beg to move, in page 8, line 37, after "person," to insert "maliciously and advisedly."
The grounds on which I move the insertion of these words I explained in the speech which I made on Second Reading, and the Financial Secretary, in making the winding-up speech in that debate, was good enough to say that he contemplated some amendment of the Clause. We have the advantage tonight of the presence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, who will, I think, grasp the point I have in mind if I state it very briefly.
The words which I propose to insert are words which have been familiar to the courts for a very long time, for they appear in Section I of the Incitement to Mutiny Act, 1797, which is one of the principal Acts in this branch of the law. They also appear in Section I of the Incitement to Disaffection Act, 1934, and it is on that Act that this Clause is mainly based. The words "maliciously and advisedly" did not appear in the 1934 Measure as originally introduced, but

2421
they were moved on the first day of the Sittings of the Standing Committee by Mr. Dingle Foot and they were at once accepted by the Attorney-General, Sir Thomas lnskip. I want to say what Mr. Dingle Foot said on that occasion. I do not allege that these words make any overwhelming difference, but I wish to quote one short sentence from Mr. Dingle Foot's speech on that occasion:
"It may be that these words are not entirely necessary, but I think we should do well to include them here, if only to make assurance doubly sure."—[OFFCICAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8th May, 1934; c. 238.]
For the benefit of the lay members of the Committee, it may be convenient if I inform the Committee—I think this will be confirmed by the Attorney-General—that the effect of the words "maliciously and advisedly" is simply that they mean "knowingly." The judicial consideration of the meaning of the word "advisedly" occurred as early as 1797 in the case of Rex v. Fuller, and it is now clear that the effect of the words, the insertion of which I seek, is to insert the word "knowingly."
The argument in favour of the insertion of these words is twofold. First, it is the argument that was successfully addressed to the Standing Committee in 1934 and which was at once accepted by the then Attorney-General, Sir Thomas Inskip—it does make assurance doubly sure. But today there is an additional argument which is very clear and simple: if these words appear in the principal Act of 1797, and also appear in the Act of 1934 on which this Clause is based, there would be a serious danger, in my submission, that the courts would attach some significance to their apparently deliberate exclusion from this Statute. Therefore, I suggest to hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee that every reason for the insertion of these words that was valid in 1934 is valid today. In addition, there is the reason that there would be a serious danger of the courts misinterpreting the intention of the Government if these words were not now inserted.
The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): May I say at once that it is my intention to accept this Amendment? I hope, however, Major Milner, that you will allow me to explain the reasons why I propose to take that course. Also I thought it might be for the convenience
2422
of the Committee if, with your permission and that of the Committee, I were to indicate a little more generally the position of the Government on the Amendments which immediately follow, and to say something about the legal implications of the Clause as a whole.
It may be that I ought to have sought an opportunity rather earlier of explaining the legal implications of the Clause as we understand it, but it is not always easy to do these things. Looking back on it, I wish that the Explanatory Memorandum had dealt with Clause 6 rather more fully, but it is always easy to be wise after the event in regard to what other people do. Anyway, I apologise to the Committee for that, but I should like to take the opportunity now of explaining how we see the legal effect of the Clause, and what we contemplate doing in regard to other Amendments on the Order Paper.
We appreciate very much—I certainly do—the concern expressed on both sides of the Committee at what was thought to be the intention and the effect of this Clause. I hope for my own part that I do not rate the importance of freedom of speech any lower than anybody else in the House of Commons on one side or the other. So much so that I have incurred criticism from time to time because, in the exercise of the discretion I have, to decide whether or not it is in the public interest to prosecute, I have often decided not to prosecute in cases where newspapers or other publications had undoubtedly rendered themselves liable to prosecution. For instance, I remember a case of obscenity that we discussed here at some length. Then there were other cases we have had—contempt of court, sedition, even possible treason. When I say that, I am not saying that I shall always refrain from prosecuting in these cases; but hitherto I think there has been only one case of this kind in which I have authorised a prosecution. That was a prosecution for sedition in a case involving allegations of anti-Semitism.
I wanted to say that because, although I am going to talk about the legal implications, this is really a political matter and I wanted to make quite clear my own political approach to the problem. I hope that nobody thinks that I am lacking in any respect for the general principles

2423
of freedom of speech and discussion of opinion. I like to say what I think. I often get into trouble for it. I insist on everybody else having their right to say what they think, even if they get into trouble for it.
But, of course, it is one thing to say, "This is the law; I do not like this law; I am going to agitate for its repeal. I am going to press my M.P. to take steps to get it upset." It is another thing to say, "This is the law; I urge you to break it." That, of course, is what this Clause is intended to deal with. That is the spirit in which we approach the purpose of this Clause. If this Clause had intended—it may unintentionally have had this result, and I propose to accept Amendments to make sure that it does not —in any significant way to increase the restrictions upon freedom of speech, it would not have found its place in this Bill at this time.
I subscribe to the view that, just because this is a dangerous, critical time in our country's affairs—and there certainly are subversive underground movements being built up to cause trouble—it is important for us in a free democracy to show, as far as we can without giving complete licence to those who would subvert our laws and institutions, that in a free democracy we do not need the absolute restriction upon freedom of speech and freedom of opinion which are characteristic of the Communist countries.
But the attacks which have been made on this Clause in the form in which it now stands have, as I very well appreciate, not come from Communists alone, although, of course, the Communists outside have been active in attacking it. The attacks have come from liberal-minded people on both sides of the Committee. They think that the Clause—and this is particularly illustrated by the Amendment which has been moved—is one which is intended to impose new restrictions on freedom of speech, and they think this Clause gives new powers to the Executive. The hon. and learned Member for Norwich, South (Mr. H. Strauss), suggested in his explanation of the meaning of the words, "maliciously and advisedly" that they would remove that misunderstanding. He put the matter very fairly.
2424
It really does nothing of the kind. The object of the Clause was to bring into a single statutory provision the existing body of law relating to the incitement to seduction of members of His Majesty's Forces. Indeed, I think that the value of this Clause, some people might say, has been demonstrated by the misunderstanding which has arisen in regard to it. Many people believe that this is a Clause which greatly enlarges the law about these matters. In fact, it really does nothing of the kind. Under the Bill as it stands, under the Clauses that have already been passed, as the Committee appreciate, those who fail to obey the call-up notices that they receive commit an offence—a misdemeanour. Anyone who incites or seduces them to neglect that duty to respond to the call-up notices commits an offence.
9.45 p.m.
That offence already arises under the Incitement to Disaffection Act, 1934, which is in full force in relation to those who attempt to incite members of His Majesty's Forces, whether they are in the Z Reserve, or whatever they are, to disobey their duties to the Crown. That, I think, is the position. I am glad ti see the hon. and learned Gentleman nod on that point, on which I think all lawyers are agreed, but if this is a matter about which there is no legal doubt, it is a matter about which there has been great doubt in the public mind. The public have been inclined to think that the Act of 1934 applied only to Regular serving soldiers and did not affect those who were in the Reserve.
The matter does not by any mean stop there. In addition to the Act of 1934, there are the provisions of the law under which anybody who seduces or incites a serving soldier to disobey his duty or depart from his allegiance can be prosecuted. That is the Act of 1797, under which the penalty is imprisonment for life.
It is, moreover, a common law misdemeanour to incite a person to commit such offences as will arise under this Bill, and the penalty is imprisonment for any period which the court of assize or quarter sessions may think fit. It is an offence under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and under the Accessories and Abettors Act, to counsel or procure the commission of misdemeanours and, of course, if there were a conspiracy

2425
to incite Class Z reservists not to respond to the call-up, that would be indictable and the punishment would be without limitation.
That being the position, what we thought would be fair, frank and convenient was to collect, as it were, all the existing provisions of the law, from the common law, from the old Statutes and from the new ones, and substantially embody them in one section which, so to speak, codified and clarified the law, so that nobody could be in any doubt about what the law really was.
Mr. S. Silverman: My right hon. and learned Friend does not really mean that all these previous enactments and provisions of the common law are hereby repealed in favour of this Clause?
The Attorney-General: No, I am not saying that, and that is why I used the expression "so to speak." The effect of the enactment of this Clause, with the Amendments which we are prepared to accept, would be that, under the Interpretation Act, where this Act covered the same ground as, or conflicts with, any earlier law, whether it is statutory or part of the common law, both cannot be applied, and it is the intention, of course, to proceed under this Clause, when it is enacted, and not under the earlier provisions of the Mutiny Act and the other Statutes. We cannot proceed on both; we have to make a selection, and the intention is—and that is why we are enacting this Clause—to proceed in the case of some of the graver offences by way of indictment, which would mean going to the courts of quarter session or assizes, but in the vast majority, though. I do not say all, of cases, all we should want to do would be to deal with them summarily. We want to have a clear procedure and the possibility of proceeding by way of indictment if the case is a very grave one.
That was the position as it struck us when we considered what to do about these matters. As a matter of fact, there were several possible courses. We could have said that the 1934 Act applied, that these other Statutes or the common law applied and that everybody must be on the look-Out; or we could have had a declaratory Clause in the Bill saying something to the same effect; but we thought that the best way was to be quite
2426
frank and open about it, and to say that we want to make quite clear to everybody, not that we are increasing the stringency of the existing law, but that this is the existing law and has been for a very long time. That is the broad effect of the Clause as we put it in the Bill.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has moved an Amendment to include these words "maliciously and advisedly." I do not disagree with anything that he said in his speech. He started by saying that he was not sure that the addition of these words really made any significant difference to the Clause. We omitted them in the first draft because we thought they did not make any significant difference. We though it was quite clear in the Clause as drafted that the offence was one which could only be committed intentionally. To endeavour to incite means to do something with intention. But I quite accept the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman that, looking back at the 1934 Act and comparing the two Statutes, it might have been thought that the dropping out of the words in the latter Statute resulted in some difference in their legal interpretation. Therefore, we are prepared to restore these words.
We are also prepared—and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicate it now—to accept the Amendment in page 8, line 37, to leave out "endeavours to incite," and to insert "incites." We do not think that "endeavours to incite" really means anything at all. I will be quite frank about that. There are some precedents for language of that kind, but we think the proper word to use in the Clause is "incites," remembering always that an attempt to commit an offence is an offence in any event under the existing law. Therefore, the word "endeavours," if it is meant to refer to an intent, is really quite redundant, and it simplifies and clarifies the Clause to do without it.
We are prepared, too, to accept the Amendment in page 8, line 41, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to leave out from "discharge" to "he." I must be frank with the Committee and say that we do not really think these words add anything to the substance of the earlier words. A man is required to do his duty, and that means to do his

2427
duty to the best of his ability. That is every soldier's duty, and if anyone incites a man to do less than that it is an offence under the Clause as it would stand with the omission of these words.
Again, we are also prepared to accept the Amendments a little later on dealing with punishments. Those who take a nice view about the present value of money and the present value of time may think it is right to have four months instead of six months and £200 instead of £500. We take no strong view about that, but, if it is the view of this Committee we will go back to those sentences. Either of them, of course, was very much less than the punishments which could have been awarded at common law.
There it is. I am afraid I have been very long about it, but I thought it might help the Committee if we indicated the general position in regard to the matter. I hope that with the Amendments that I have indicated we will accept, with the explanation of the legal position as we see it under the existing law, and remembering that nothing in this Bill will prohibit persons who are so minded from inciting each other, inciting their M.Ps., inciting the public at large to secure an amendment of the law, and that all it does is to hit those who urge others to break the law, I hope that we shall secure the co-operation of hon. Members in getting this Clause in its amended form.
Mr. H. Macmillan: The procedure which we are now following is, perhaps a little novel, but I did not interrupt the right hon. and learned Attorney-General because I felt sure that what he was doing would be for the general convenience of the Committee and that we were, in a sense, discussing the Clause as a whole and getting the general view of the Government on this first Amendment. I therefore shall not try to speak at any length on that except to thank the Attorney-General for giving us this indication, which ought to make our progress much quicker. Since he has mentioned them, I should just like to say that we are naturally glad he has accepted the words in this first Amendment we are now considering, and the consequential words which will come later on.
We are glad that he proposes to leave out the words "endeavours to" on what appears to be the most sensible ground
2428
that they have no meaning, and we are glad that he reverts to the general words of the statute of 1934. He has the advantage of youth, for had he been here 17 years ago he would have taken part in the long, bitter and desperate debates when the Socialists declared every word of the Bill of 1934 to be a vile attack on the liberties of the people and the Act of a tyrannical government. This is the Act he now supports.
As to the Amendment to line 41 of Clause 6 to leave out the words after "discharge" I am not altogether satisfied that that is the right thing to do, but I do not want to press that now. When that Amendment comes up, perhaps my hon. Friends will have to ask one or two questions and between now and the Report stage we shall see whether there is any point in our fears or not. Perhaps that will be for the general convenience of the Committee.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: I am sure that in calling me, Major Milner, you cannot be described as having acted "maliciously or advisedly" within the meaning of this Clause. But as the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) said, it seems that we are having a general discussion at the moment on Clause 6 of the Bill and the Attorney-General did discuss Clause 6 as a whole. I do not want to seem ungracious in my attitude to the Attorney-General. I appreciate the concessions he has made to the Committee in accepting the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Norwich, South (Mr. H. Strauss) and supported by my hon. Friends and myself.
I was about to quote to the Committee the words of wisdom spoken in the Standing Committee on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill in 1934. These were the words spoken there:
"It is also very curious, and it has happened in one or two paragraphs of this Bill, that the Government, for reasons best known to themselves, have left out the words 'maliciously and advisedly' in this Bill, although the Bill is obviously framed on the Incitement to Mutiny Act of 1797 in which those words do appear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8th May, 1934; c. 247.]
Those words were spoken by yourself, Major Milner, in the Standing Committee of 1934. The Attorney-General was concerned to argue that all the powers given in Clause 6 are possessed already and that what is said in Clause 6 does not really

2429
alter the state of the law. That raises the question why Clause 6 is put in the Bill at all.
The Chairman: I am afraid that we cannot go into the Clause as a whole. It was for the convenience of the Committee and with general agreement that the Attorney-General made something in the nature of a general statement covering a number of Amendments but I think we must revert to the normal position now and discuss the Amendments one by one if necessary, but I hope not at any length. I hope the Committee will agree that I should propose the Amendments and they can indicate whether they agree with them or not. If hon. Members wish to speak on any of them, they can, of course, do so. I do not think we can have reference to the Clause as a whole, which contains many other matters than those to which the Attorney-General referred.
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Silverman: On a point of order, Major Milner. I submit with respect that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the statement that the Attorney-General made were capable of a little general discussion in the way that has already been permitted to the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan). If that were possible it might avoid the necessity of a discussion later on the Question that the Clause stand part.
The Chairman: I am in the hands of the Committee, but I did hope that as the Committee seem to be in full agreement, we might dispose of the Amendments one by one.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: I take it that we shall be able to pursue this line of argument on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." If that be so, I will certainly leave the matter, and I welcome the action of the Attorney-General in accepting this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed: In page 8, line 37, leave out "endeavours to incite," and insert "incites."—[ Mr. H. Macmillan.]
Mr. H. Strauss: I promise that I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few moments because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has most usefully indi-
2430
cated that he will accept this Amendment. There is only one point which I wish to draw to his attention and to the attention of the Committee and which indicates that this Amendment is a little more serious than he thought. He said with perfect truth that there were some precedents for the words that I seek to amend. There are at least two Statutes in which those words appear. He also said quite truthfully that they are almost meaningless. But I suggest to him, with great respect, that he understated the matter when he said that the word "endeavours" was merely useless, whereas it is, in fact, something worse.
In my submission, he was right in pointing out that, if my Amendment is adopted, an attempt to commit the crime that will then be defined in the Clause will be a misdemeanour at common law. He did not, however, point out the full implications when he gave the impression that there was no difference between "endeavour" and "attempt." Unfortunately there is, because there is a case, Stuart and Others v. Taylor, reported in the Criminal Appeal Reports, in which Mr. Justice Avory used these words, and these were the words which made me think it particularly important that we should secure this Amendment:
"It may well be that a person may he said to he endeavouring to commit a crime, although he has not actually attempted to commit that crime within the sense in which the word attempt' has been defined. He may be endeavouring to commit a crime by taking some step towards the commission of the crime which is not sufficiently proximate to constitute the attempt."
I believe that all hon. Members are well aware that a Clause of this kind, without proper safeguards, can endanger liberty. I believe that they will also agree that to make criminally punishable something less than an attempt, as defined by the criminal courts of this country, would be dangerous. I had that, among other things, in mind in drafting this Amendment, and I am glad that the Government are accepting it.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 8, line 38, to leave out
"or liable to be called up."
I think that, with your permission, Major Milner, and for the convenience of the Committee, we could discuss with this

2431
Amendment the next Amendment on the Order Paper, which I understand it is your intention to call—in page 8, line 40, to leave out "or may become."
The two Amendments are not quite the same thing, but they have the common object of reducing the numbers of people in respect of whom the offences in this Clause can be committed. One of the important things which I think was in everybody's mind, and with which the Attorney-General's statement did not deal, is that under the old law—the common law or the 1797 Act or the 1934 Act—the number of people who could be incited was extremely small, whereas the number of people who can be incited under the present Measure is extremely large. The object of these two Amendments is to narrow the field in which these offences can be committed to those who are, in fact, liable to serve or to be called upon to perform obligations under this Act, and not to include those who have not been called up, and not to include, either, those who are not even liable at any time to be called up under the present law, although they may become liable.
It is intended to leave out both those categories, and in listening to what my right hon. and learned Friend had to say, I was a little disappointed to note that he did not propose to accept either these Amendments or the principle of them. I hope he may see reason to reconsider his view about that. because I hope it is possible to persuade him that these two Amendments are well within the spirit of the statement which he made and could well have been accepted, if not in the precise form in which they appear on the Order Paper, then in some other form which he might prefer.
I would say this about the statement which my right hon. and learned Friend made. I think we are all extremely grateful to him both for having made that statement and also for the conciliatory and friendly manner in which he made it. I hope I shall not be treading unnecessarily or unduly on any corns if I say there is something, after all, in being a lawyer—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—because you learn, as some of my right hon. and learned Friend's colleagues in the Government may not have had the opportunity of learning, that if you
2432
want to carry people with you it is not very wise to go out of your way to antagonise them beforehand. I am sure the whole Committee will join with me in an expression of appreciation to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the manner in which he made that statement. I understand from him that the real object of this Clause, without actually altering or repealing any of the laws which have preceded it on the Statute Book, or any part of the common law which is applicable, was merely to bring together in a compendious form the kind of provisions of the law which would have been applicable anyhow.
If that was the object of it, and it there has been any misunderstanding about it, I think the Committee may be forgiven for having fallen into that misunderstanding, because several of us on both sides of the Chamber during the Second Reading asked that very question. We pointed to the situation as it was in 1797, and the situation as it was in 1934, and we said that if there was anything in the present situation to need a new or stronger law or wider laws, we might be prepared to consider it, but that, in our view, that was not so. In reply to that the Under-Secretary of State for War, in winding up the Debate, had this to say:
"We should notice that this Clause has not been put in out of a vague or undefined fear. We know that there is being prepared a definite campaign to incite people not to perform their duties under the Bill. To that extent the reason for the Bill is sharper and more definite than it was for the 1934 Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1878.]
I think that, in view of those remarks, all of us may be forgiven for continuing under the impression that the Clause was intended to be new law, and did, in fact, introduce a new definition of the law, and did, in fact, affect general rights in a way in which they were not affected previously. I think we are all very glad indeed to have the Attorney-General's assurance that that was not the intention; and that not being the intention, I would most seriously urge him to consider, having regard to the extremely wide range of persons who would, but for the Amendment I am now moving, be included within the scope of the mischief aimed at by this Clause, and in view of what he said tonight, whether this Amendment may not be acceptable.

2433
It is not the intention, we were told on Second Reading—and the Attorney-General has repeated it tonight—to seek to limit anyone in his rights of expressing his opinions about this Bill or about the international situation or about pacifism or militarism generally, and it is not the intention to do anything more than to insist on what always was an offence—namely, to urge, or seek to urge, any person liable to be called upon not to perform his statutory duties.
With the words I would wish to leave out we do get beyond that, because it becomes an offence under the Clause to say things which might incite people who are not liable at all to perform any obligation under the law as it stands. If he will look at the second Amendment, I think the Attorney-General will see what I mean. I refer to line 40, on page 8, and my Amendment is to leave out from that line the words "or may become."
10.15 p.m.
It is quite clear that even though the words "maliciously and advisedly" were put in, that would be no protection in the case of a man saying things to people who are not likely to perform any service under the Bill as it stands, who are not being called up and who may hereafter become liable; no one can advisedly and maliciously incite somebody not to perform a duty he is under no liability to perform, yet if those words are left in an offence is obviously committed. It is quite clear that that is not the intention of the Government, as disclosed by the Attorney-General today. If that is so, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will find reason to accept the Amendment.
The Attorney-General: I listened with great care to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend, and at the very outset I should like to say that if any misunderstanding arose about the Clause on Second Reading I must accept responsibility. It is difficult to be in two places at the same time, and it is not always possible to know which is the more important place to be. It might be that I could have been of assistance to the House on Second Reading and I am sorry I was not able to help in regard to this point at that time.
Although I was a little confused at one point of my hon. Friend's argument. I
2434
have appreciated what he has in mind. I am afraid I must reject the Amendment because, as I understand it, its effect would be both illogical, confusing and uncertain. The effect, as far as I can judge—and I am not quite certain I am judging this matter rightly, because I think the effect is very complicated—would be this, that under the Clause as amended in the way my hon. Friend proposes one would have to decide in each case whether the possibly criminal conduct, possibly criminal incitement, related to a man who had had his call-up papers yesterday or to one who was going to receive his call-up papers tomorrow.
It would sometimes—I would think very often—be exceedingly difficult to draw the line. For instance, a definite appeal to all Z reservists to refuse to respond to any call made upon them under the law might be a case which would fall on both sides of the line. Very often, of course, the incitement of the man who is going to receive his call-up papers tomorrow may be a more serious thing in its results than incitement of the man who has already received his call-up papers and has possibly responded to them.
In practice, if we accepted the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend I think the position would be this. One could only prosecute under this Bill in its amended form for the post call-up notice offence, the post call-up incitement, if I may so describe it; but the pre-call-up incitement would still remain an offence; it would remain an offence under the 1934 Act, because these Z reservists are members of His Majesty's Forces liable to recall, as the law now stands, apart from any provision in this Bill. Under this Bill they incur a new liability, it is true, a liability to be called up for training. As soon as this Bill has been passed they will be under, not only their general liability to recall as members of His Majesty's Forces, but under the additional liability to recall for training. There are exceptions, but they are now liable to recall for service, not always for training or not always for so long a period of training as is provided here.
The result would be that where we have the kind of case which my hon. Friend envisaged—the incitement to Z reservists not to respond to a notice which they have not yet received—that would quite definitely constitute an offence under

2435
the 1934 Act, under the statute which I have mentioned and at common law. One would very often be compelled to use the heavier common law procedure and say that in this case one is going to proceed under the 1934 Act, and in that case one is going to proceed under the 1951 Act. We should get a position of very considerable confusion between the various alternatives. I am not at all sure what the eventual result at the end of the day would be.
I want to reiterate what I have said before. If all that is said by the pacifists —the person who is perfectly honest and sincere in his views about these matters in the way in which my hon. Friend suggested—is, "We object to any steps being taken to call out the troops; we think that our M.Ps. ought to protest and get the law altered about that; we are going to agitate for an alteration in the law," that would not be an offence, either under this Act or, as far as I know, under any other Act, because it is perfectly right for members of the public to agitate for changes in the law by constitutional means.
It is only if it is said, "This is the law; you men are under an obligation to respond to the call-up notices; if you get them, break the law and don't respond," that this or the 1934 Act or the common law could be and would be invoked. If we have the Clause in its present form taking the place for practical purposes, as it were, of the common law procedure—
The Chairman: I am sorry but I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not give us another general dissertation. We are on a precise Amendment, and I am very anxious that the Committee should keep to the Amendments rather than we should have a rambling debate in which perhaps other hon. Members may wish to take part. This is quite a short point. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman relates it to the general position, well and good.
The Attorney-General: I do not want to pursue the matter, but I was going to add, because this point is directly relevant to the Amendment, that if the, Clause is left as it stands there will be no prosecution under this Clause without the consent of the Attorney-General. If the Clause is amended as suggested it will
2436
always be possible for anyone to prosecute under the common law provisions or the earlier statutes.
Mr. S. Silverman: Applying that argument to the first Amendment, if I had my way it would make the offence apply only to those who had been called up. I accept the Attorney-General's reasons for not accepting that. He says that it may be more dangerous to incite those who have not received notice than to incite those who may have received notice. He has not said one word about the second of the Amendments—the one to leave out the words "Or may become." The Clause makes it possible to commit an offence by inciting the man who has had notice, by inciting the man who gets a notice, as the law now stands, tomorrow or next week, and it also makes possible the offence of inciting someone who, under the law as it stands, cannot be liable at all, has not received a notice, cannot receive a notice and cannot at some future date, become liable.
The Attorney-General: I will look at that point. That is not the intention of the Clause. The intention of the Clause is that it shall apply to the man who has already received notice which makes him liable for training or is liable to receive notice which will make him liable for training.
Mr. J. Hudson: I regret to prolong the debate when there is a general desire to bring it to a conclusion. My right hon. and learned Friend's commitments are well received, and I accept them, but I am doubtful whether another Attorney-General would be so sure of carrying out what he has said, as I am sure he him-Self is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I dare say that if there were an Attorney-General in a Conservative administration he would act quite differently, as we have found in the case of Attorneys-General in the past.
Although my right hon. and learned Friend is very emphatic that any appeal for repeal of legislation will not be regarded as coming within the terms of the Bill and as being of criminal intent, which I am willing to accept, I would point out that in the past a statement just as explicit was made by the then Home Secretary but that it did not prevent me from being ultimately punished. We were then promised that there would be no prosecution of persons carrying on political pro-

2437
paganda for the purpose of altering the Act in question, but within a week or two of the statement being made, prosecutions took place concerning a leaflet distributed to men involved in the call-up, the title being "Repeal the Act." The arguments were all political and were for the purpose of getting that Act repealed.
Two of my hon. Friends appeared at the trial at the Mansion House and were fined with three other friends. They were fined £800 and received 61 days' imprisonment for that simple offence. I am very proud to say that these two hon. Friends have been with me tonight in the Lobby voting against the Government. They are not likely to be taken in. I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's intentions, but I assure the Committee from what has taken place in the past that we are right in being extremely careful to see that there is no interference with the right of political discussion to bring about the repeal of legislation.
Mr. S. Silverman: I accept the argument on the first Amendment. I do not think that my argument is really tenable. I feel rather satisfied, however, that I am right in regard to the second. In view of the undertaking that my right hon. and learned Friend will look at it again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 8, line 41, to leave out from "discharge," to "he," in line 43.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say very much on this Amendment, but as this is almost an historic occasion, the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and I having independently arrived at exactly the same conclusion, it ought not to pass without some comment. When we are unanimous, it may cause others to believe that we have not made a mistake.
10.30 p.m.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I should like to have the honour of supporting the Amendment. By what process of reasoning the hon. Gentleman arrived at putting his name to this Amendment, I do not know. He has not disclosed it, but there was certainly no collusion between us, he assured about that. Minds of a sort think alike.
2438
I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has accepted this Amendment. I have never thought it was possible to divide a soldier's duty. I know of no priorities in his duty. I was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that, because it takes away a dark shadow lying across a fairly innocent and innocuous conversation between reservists, or Z men or civilians in places of public amenity, such as a public house, in discussions on the international situation, or the wisdom of the Government's policy, or even on the possibility of a change of the Act or that it should not be renewed for another year. That has been removed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's acceptance of this Amendment, and I am very glad he has done so.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said in his general statement that the words proposed to be left out were already covered in the first part of the subsection. Then, if my hearing was correct, he added some words to the first part of the subsection. I should like him to consider carefully whether it is really so—that the first part does include the second. As I understand it, the first part deals with the failure in performance or the evasion of duties; the second part does not deal with failure in performance, but with performance at a slower rate than is desirable. I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that without the words he uttered in his speech the first part is sufficient. I hope he will look at it again.
The Attorney-General: There is very little doubt about that. I feel sure and so advise the Committee that a soldier's duty, and anybody else's duty, for that matter, is the discharge of each obligation imposed upon him to the best of his ability. A soldier who goes slow or does not discharge his duties properly is committing an offence for which he would be punished under the Army Act. I think the words, "failure in the performance" of his duties means failure to perform his duties to the best of his capacity.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 41, after the second "or" to insert "maliciously and advisedly."—[ Mr. H. Strauss.]
Mr. Fenner Brockway: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Major Milner, to an Amendment in my name on page 8, line 44, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that nothing in this section shall make the bona fide expression of opinion on matters of public interests an offence."
Are you not going to call that Amendment?
The Chairman: No, I have not been able to select the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 9, line 1, to leave out from "commit" to "an" in line 2.
I am sorry to detain the Committee, but I would like to warn hon. Members against the net spread in the sight of the bird. It is easy for the Government to put a Clause in the Bill which startles everybody by its context, and then withdraw it on the Committee stage, and offer as a substitute the 1934 Act, as though that Act was something beyond all criticism and must be accepted without amendment. It is true that the 1934 Act, after it had been subjected to considerable criticism by the Labour Party, became a better Act than it was a Bill, but it contains some very vicious provisions.
Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) and myself have put down two Amendments directing attention to two deplorable features of that Act which are repeated in this Clause. The one I have now proposed would delete the words "aid, abet, counsel or procure" from subsection 2 so that the provision would read:
"If any person with intent to commit an offence …"
The real mischief of this subsection is that it makes very alarming departures from the normal practice of the law. It makes possession of a document in itself an offence, and not the publication of that document. According to the subsection, if one has in one's possession a document which in almost any circumstances may be a perfectly harmless document which anyone is entitled to have, if it is a document which, if used in a certain way, might lead to the commission of an offence, it comes within the subsection.
It is, therefore, important that the Committee should be clear what the circumstances are in which the mere possession of a document without any overt
2440
attempt to publish it is to be an offence. I am prepared, however, reluctantly to go with the Attorney-General: we have to have this Bill and we have to have in it a Clause making it an offence to incite someone not to undertake his obligation under the Bill. I am prepared to say that it is only reasonable, where there are "stooges" distributing literature and we want to get at the principal behind those "stooges," to say that the person possessing the document would himself be incited.
I cannot, however, see why it is necessary to have in this subsection obscure and vague words. Why should it be possible to say to a man, "You have a document which, in itself, we cannot complain about, but if it got into the hands of somebody who was being called up it would incite them to evade their responsibilities, and it was your intention to incite a person in that?" That is an extraordinarily vague kind of charge to bring. I appreciate that some hon. Members may feel that "intent" is important, and, that it does not much matter whether persons were intending to do it or were counselling somebody else to do it.
I would suggest to the Committee that by the time the lawyers have finished with the word "intent" it could have a very different meaning from that which the average person thinks it has. It is a common thing in law that a person is presumed to expect the natural and probable consequences of his acts, and so forth. But by the time that unfortunate person gets into court, he may find that the evidence of intent is different from what the ordinary layman in this Committee has thought, and that person is regarded in law as intending consciously and advisedly to commit an offence.
My misgiving about this is that if it means anything at all, it must be somehow extending the scope of what is, prima facie, a very pernicious subsection which ought to be interpreted as strictly as possible. If it means anything, I think it is really obscuring the subsection, making it more difficult to understand, and more easy for the courts to expand it beyond the intention of the Committee. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not content himself with saying that the words are in the 1934 Act. The fact is that the Labour Party, including Prime Minister, divided against

2441
that Act, because it was considered to be a very vicious Act, and that would hardly be a convincing argument.
The Attorney-General: In spite of the appeal made by my hon. Friend I must refer to the 1934 Act, not for the purpose simply of saying that these identical words were in that Act, but because failure to follow them in this Clause would create a divergence between the 1934 Act and the present Bill which would give rise to great complication in practice. It is only because this Clause covers the same ground as the 1934 Act that that Act will, by implication, not apply in relation to the persons affected by this Bill.
If we were to introduce any significant changes—and this would be a very significant change—between the 1934 Act and this Bill, the old statute would continue to cover the gaps not covered by the present Bill. Consequently, one would be left with these offences still existing under the 1934 Act. One might have a case where one would be able to prosecute in respect of direct incitement under the new 1951 Act, as this Bill will become, and under the 1934 Act, under Section 2 (1) in regard to the possession of the documents. Consequently, the only result of accepting this Amendment would be to complicate the procedure and to make the general position uncertain.
I want to emphasise, in addition, that the mere possession of documents is not enough. The prosecution has to prove in these cases—and it is a very heavy onus to discharge when dealing simply with the possession of documents—that the defendant had them in his possession with the specific intention of aiding and abetting the commission of an offence, either by others or by himself, under the Section 2 (1). I think it is important to retain this provision. We cannot repeal it; it is already in the 1934 Act, and unless we cover it in this Bill the provision in the 1934 Act will remain operative.
I think it is desirable to retain the provision for the reason that while it is fairly easy to get at the puppets or "stooges," or whatever they may be called, it is usually difficult to get at those who are careful to remain in the background, but who provide the material for subversion—the ammunition which they are afraid to shoot themselves, but which they get other people to shoot for them. That is why it is desirable to have this power to
2442
deal with people who are really behind any movement of this kind which may take place.
Amendment negatived.
10.45 p.m.
The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), in page 9, line 6, could be discussed with the Amendment in page 10, line 16, to insert the new subsection 9, and that to page 10, line 46, in the name of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). They can go together.
Mr. Silverman: With respect, Sir Charles, I do not accept the view that the Amendment to insert the new subsection 9 contains the same point as that in my Amendment. I should like to deal with that separately, and confine myself to it.
I beg to move, in page 9, line 6, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the mere possession or control of such document shall not of itself he evidence of such intent, nor shall the court have regard to or be entitled to take cognisance of the political belief of any person accused hereunder for the purpose of establishing such intent.
To explain why I should like to have these words added to the Clause, might I remind the Committee how wrong we are at present? We are making it—and I know that it was so in the 1934 Act, but, nevertheless, we are doing it here a criminal offence for a person to have a document "with an intention." That may be some intention to commit an offence which is not, at common law, punishable. To commit the offence itself is punishable, but the mere intent to commit the offence is not normally regarded as an offence of itself.
What this Clause does at present is to say that, if one has in one's possession a document which, if widely disseminated in certain places, might constitute an offence, then, in fact, an offence has been committed. If one has this document with the intent to do something, although one has never done that thing, nor attempted it, the conjunction of those two factors constitutes an offence under the criminal law.
Those who know the 1934 Act and the discussion upon it will remember that that was described as a very serious new inroad into civil liberty; and that was

2443
perfectly right. Some 17 years have now gone by since then and, in matters of liberty, as in economic matters, there is a kind of Gresham's Law—the worse principle gradually displacing the better, until somehow or other, one becomes so accustomed to the new situation that one's standards and ideals are lowered. Then, when new things are introduced to bring them lower, they pass by almost unnoticed without the Committee seeing a further inroad being made.
Therefore, I attach considerable importance, if we are to have this vicious thing. re-enacted in these circumstances, to having it, at any rate, safeguarded, even if the words are sometimes superfluous or repetitive. It is worth while to have them in so as to make it quite clear that we are going thus far and no farther than that. I am asking, in this Amendment, that the mere possession of documents, no matter how mischievous or dangerous they may appear to be, shall not entitle the prosecution to say to the court that if the person was not going to commit an offence under this Act, why had he these documents in his possession, so that the documents themselves would become evidence of the intent.
I heard what the Attorney-General said when he was dealing with the last Amendment, and I am sure he will be able to satisfy me on this point because he said the mere possession of the document without the proof of the intent was not aimed at in this subsection. I would like to have it specifically enacted, in the very words of the Clause, that the possession of the document itself was not to be evidence of any criminal intent of any kind so that the prosecution will have to assume the onus of proving, first, the possession of the document; then, that the document, if disseminated, might be or would be an offence under the previous subsection, and beyond that, should have some evidence to show that there was the intent to commit or aid the commission of such an offence, in addition to the mere possession of a document capable of committing it.
That is the first half of the Amendment, and the other half, I think, is almost more important:
"nor shall the court have regard to or be entitled to take cognisance of the political belief of any person accused hereunder for the purpose of establishing such intent."
2444
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), in discussing a previous Amendment, referred to the Communists. Communists are not popular. In matters of civil liberty, it is the people who are unpopular who are in most danger. But if one found a lot of copies of the Sermon on the Mount in the possession of a member of the Society of Friends, even though he were known to be a firm and relentless pacifist, no one would think in those circumstances of saying, "You have got these documents in your possession because you want to distribute them to soldiers in order to seduce soldiers from their duty."
Mr. J. Hudson: People said that in the First World War.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Silverman: I am sure that on such a point my hon. Friend is more likely to be right than those who say, "No." No one would say that my hon. Friend, whatever might have been thought of him during 1914–18, and if this happened to him today, is known to be an absolute pacifist of the most relentless kind and what rightful purpose, therefore, could he have in having all these copies of the Sermon on the Mount in his possession, unless it was for the purpose of seducing soldiers from their duty. Nobody would say it to him although he says that between 1914–18 there were people in a like case. I do not think it would be said now.
I think we have become more accustomed to dealing with these matters, and although, in many respects, the standards of public tolerance may have fallen in the past 20 or 30 years—and I think they have in many ways—in this particular respect I believe that conscientious objectors and pacifists have a slightly easier time than they had in those days.
As the Committee agreed a few minutes ago, that would not be true of people of political faiths and creeds that are unpopular, that are feared, and that, in the event of war, would become even more unpopular than they are now. So there would be a considerable danger that the prosecution would slide out of the onus which lies upon it of proving the intent necessary to the offence merely by saying, "Here you have a lot of copies of the Communist manifesto; you are leading member of the Communist cell, or whatever they call it in the district, and

2445
those two facts, taken together, are proof upon which the court would be entitled to convict you of committing an offence under this subsection." My Amendment is intended to make it quite clear, by the words of the statute, that that is not to be done.
I am quite certain that no hon. Member would like or desire it to be done. I think we would be unanimous in saying that it would be wrong to do it, and I think most courts, at any rate in times which were not exciting times or feverish times, would be reluctant to do it. They might do it in other times, and I should not be sure of all courts at any time in such matters. It would be a matter of wise and prudent precaution to accept these words and put them on the Statute Book. They cannot possibly do the slightest harm to any legitimate intention that was to be served by the promotion of this Measure; they do not weaken the Measure in any way and they do not prevent the courts from convicting and imposing a penalty in any case where the Committee really desire a conviction and a penalty.
The words are an additional safeguard which, at the very worst, are superfluous and at the best are a precaution and a fortification. They merely enshrine in the Act a principle of which we are all in favour. I hope that the right hon and learned Gentleman will be able to accept the Amendment.
Mr. J. Hudson: I am much obliged to you, Sir Charles, for giving me the opportunity of discussing the point of my Amendment, in page 10, line 46, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no person shall be prosecuted under the terms of this section on the ground that he cherishes beliefs or advocates opinions which are opposed to all participation in war or that he has in his possession any book or document which opposes such participation.
My Amendment is couched in terms which put the matter in a much more narrow field than that covered by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I agree with my hon. Friend's Amendment and if it came to a question of saying whether I would vote for it, then I should vote for it, but I appreciate that it may be adding to the difficulties of the Government at this time by being phrased in such wide terms.
2446
My Amendment is so designed that those who genuinely hold views against all war, whether for political reasons or religious reasons or philosophic reasons—I do not ask which—should not be regarded as conspiring because they have in their possession books and documents, well-marked and indicating an active intention to pass on the ideas which those books and documents represent. Such people should not be prosecuted under the terms of the Bill.
11.0 p.m.
My Amendment is designed directly within those limits. I agree that the terms of my Amendment are not drawn with the legal skill of my hon. Friend, but I hope that somebody on the Front Bench will help me in that matter and that the idea will be acceptable. I appreciate that there is a tendency just now to use all sorts of statements to justify the undermining of general military discipline and the preparations that the Government finds itself compelled to make. I am not engaged in that process. If I have got a book by Emerson or Tolstoy or a passage from the New Testament or from the Book of Discipline of the Society of Friends, all of which are on my bookshelves, all of which are carefully marked—and many of them are passed out into the hands of young men to be passed on again—then I am urging that the possession of such books with well-established views opposing war and participation in war in all its forms should not be held to be illegal and an offence. My Amendment is couched in such terms as to procure that end.
The Attorney-General: I listened with much sympathy to the very sincere and reasoned speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). I have great respect for, and am in substantial agreement with, almost everything he said, but think that there really can be no doubt whatever that under the existing law, evidence going only to a man's political beliefs or political party or affiliation or matters of that kind would be quite inadmissible.
I cannot help thinking that to include an express provision in a statute saying that evidence as to a defendant's political beliefs was inadmissible would have perhaps the opposite effect from that which he intends in other branches of the

2447
law. It would be said, "It has been necessary in this Act to provide expressly that evidence as to a man's political beliefs must not be received." But in other offences of a quasi-political nature where no such provision existed it would be argued that if evidence as to a man's political beliefs was not admissible, Parliament would never have enacted this proposal in the present Bill. By implication the express exclusion of such evidence in this Bill might suggest that without such exclusion it would be proper to give evidence going merely to a man's political beliefs. I believe that without this Amendment any competent court would at once say that it was inadmissible and not evidence in regard to the commission of such offences as this. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend will not press his Amendment on that part of the case. I agree with the substance of it, but I do not think that it would really serve any useful purpose.
With regard to the other part of his Amendment which deals with the mere possession of documents, I agree with him that if, for instance, we were to find a man in possession of a large number of letters addressed and perhaps even stamped to a number of persons who were ex-Z reservists, and any such letters were found addressed to them personally and inciting them not to obey their call-up notices, then those letters and documents in themselves might provide some evidence of the kind of offence and intention which it is intended to hit by this Clause.
But it would do so only to this extent: that they would transfer to the defendant the onus of proving that it was not with intent that he had written these letters and put them into the envelopes, addressed them and stamped them. It would not be conclusive of the matter. It would transfer to the defendant the onus of showing that, although the facts on the face of them were exceedingly suspicious, he had merely done this as part of an exercise in writing, or for some other beneficient reason, and he never dreamt of posting them or using them for anything—
Mr. S. Silverman: I think my right hon. and learned Friend is perhaps not doing full justice to the words of the Amendment. In the case he cited there would be much more than the mere
2448
possession of documents. The putting of them into envelopes, the stamping of them and the posting of the envelopes to persons who had been called up or were liable to be called up, would all be an additional factor beyond the mere possession or control of such a document, and would rightly place upon the defendant the onus of proving, if he could, the absence of a criminal intention. But that is not the case aimed at in the Amendment.
The Attorney-General: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I should have thought that case would be covered, because we have to look at the document, whatever it is. It may be a letter addressed to a particular person; it may be in an envelope, and it may be stamped; but we have to look at the document and then consider whether that particular document found in the possession of that particular man suggests an intention to commit the offence. The document may not be one which comes within the scope of this Bill at all; it may be a copy of the "Daily Telegraph", which would not come within the scope of this Bill in the ordinary way.
Mr. Silverman: It might.
The Attorney-General: It might, but not in the ordinary way. One has to see what the document is, and if the document is of a kind calculated to incite and appears to be prepared with a view to its dissemination to other people, that might be a matter throwing the onus of proof on to the defendant. That is a matter which, I think, must be left to the discretion of the courts; it is a matter of degree in each case. I cannot see any case where the mere possession of a document, however suspicious, would be conclusive. The defendant might say, "I collected it as a very interesting curio which I intended to keep and to use in my own campaign against the very people who had prepared it." That would be a matter of degree of evidence for the courts to decide on the facts of each case.
Then there was the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), whose Amendment to which he spoke has not yet been called. That Amendment would qualify the whole of this Clause, and I think that the words we have now agreed should

2449
come back—the words "advisedly and maliciously"—would completely cover the object he so well suggested. I know that my hon. Friend would not suggest for a moment that pacifists—even pacifists of the most sincere kind, as we know the hon. Gentleman himself is—would act in a way of which he would approve, in urging people to break the law, and it is only urging people to break the law that is hit at by this Clause. The mere possession of such books on ethics, philosophy, and such like matters as those to which he referred, would, in my view, never constitute an offence.
The real objection to the Amendment is the one I have mentioned again and again. There would be introduced a departure from the 1934 Act, and a kind of duality in legislation which it would be very difficult to operate. There would be the offence under the old Act but there would not be any offence under this Clause. It would be very difficult to know where one was in practice in operating the law. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the safeguards which exist under this Act—the safeguard of obtaining the Attorney General's consent before any prosecution takes place—and I hope that he will see fit not to press the Amendment.
Mr. H. Macmillan: I am very much relieved at the words which have fallen from the Attorney General because he has removed what for many years has been a matter of worry to many people. He now says that the Act of 1934 completely covers the position. This is, of course, the famous "Mill on Liberty" Clause. Seventeen years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said that no one would ever be able to own Mill on Liberty. I was very much moved then; indeed, I am not sure that I did not abstain because I was so moved. But there have been no long queues of Mill addicts, and I just would like to say that we on this side of the Committee feel that it is some satisfaction to know that everything said on that occasion by the Ministers who now sit on the Front Bench has proved to be completely false.
Mr. Grimond: It appears that parties in office are subject to temptations which they do not suffer from so much when out of office. Luckily, my party has a spotless record, and is not likely to lay itself open to the same charge.
2450
I think that this is a particularly important point, and I do not entirely accept the view that because the Act of 1934 said something therefore that must be the Bible all the time. I quite see the legal difficulties, but we are dealing here with a Bill which is valid for one year, and has a very limited application. I do not think it is the complete answer even if one cuts down the powers under this section, to say that they still exist under a previous Act.
The first element is the intent, and I admit the Clause has been improved by the addition of the words "maliciously and advisedly." The second is the need to prove the document is in the man's possession, and that it is of a certain nature. I accept the Attorney-General's argument on the second half of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—the half dealing with political liberty—but there is something in the hon. Gentleman's general point that a distinct onus should be put on the prosecution when dealing with intent; or else they should prove that the document is of a nature which is clearly designed to procure the offence stated. We might achieve his object by limiting the Clause to such documents. Then we should escape the difficulties of those wanting to read Mill on Liberty. The general point made by the hon. Gentleman remains. although I am prepared to believe that the actual wording is not particularly satisfactory from the legal point of view.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman's claim that his party's record is spotless in this matter. It is a new virtue of being in a minority, but I would remind him that the Act of 1934 was not the first Measure which imposed these penalties. There are at least three hon. Gentlemen on these benches who served terms of imprisonment under an Act introduced by a Liberal Govt. of 1914 onwards, which was then known as D.O.R.A. The hon. Gentleman's party, therefore, is responsible for the precedent. both for the Act of 1934 and those which will follow.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Grimond: The hon. Gentleman will acquit me of offences which occurred before I was born, or in the opening years of my life.
Mr. Brockway: I have greatly appreciated the contributions that the Attorney-General has made to this debate. My only regret is that what is said here is not the law as it is interpreted in the country, and that while he may be Attorney-General now, and may have responsibility for intiating proceedings in the Higher Courts, he will not be Attorney-General for ever; and that if the change is to the other side we shall have a very much worse Attorney-General.
As I listened to him speaking I also had to remember that he will not be the judge and jury that will perhaps try the cases which are brought under this law. I particularly noted his statement that it would not be within the terms of the law to judge a man according to his political beliefs. I am quite prepared to believe that that would not be the law, but, first as a journalist attending cases when court proceedings had been carried out, and, later, as one who is interested politically, I have seen and heard juries that were obviously prejudiced by reference to the political beliefs of those who were before the court; and it may be true of magistrates as well. Therefore, I am not content with the principles that have been laid down by the Attorney-General from the Front Opposition Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] For the sake of HANSARD I will withdraw it and refer instead to the Government Front Bench.
My major point is that both the Attorney General and the hon. and learned Member for Norwich, South (Mr. H. Strauss) have emphasised that the introduction of the words "maliciously and advisedly" have made very little difference to the actual content of this clause. If that is the fact, the dangers which we saw in this Clause, on Second Reading, remain tonight. The possibility of this Clause being used to suppress political opinion, philosophical belief, social convictions, and literature which one may have on one's shelves remains as true today as it was on Second reading.
Because of that I urge very strongly indeed that the Attorney General should not be satisfied with laying down what, in his view, is the law, but should accept at least one Amendment to the Clause that will make it clear to any judge and jury who have to deal with this Measure.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I want as briefly as I can to press the Attorney General on this matter. The right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), has referred, perfectly fairly, to Mill on Liberty and the observations made on that subject on a previous occasion. But whether or not it be an offence to own Mill, it almost seems an offence to read him today. There is a good deal passing out from our public life for which Mill stood and which he thought.
On the question of political views, any Member of the Committee who looks back over the last two or three weeks will find a hardening and an alteration of view. Nowadays, every time I suggest that the 170 million people who live in the U.S.S.R. have a point of view in international affairs I get a post saying I am a Communist, fellow traveller, and so on. What must be the fate of those in the Soviet Union who suggest there is a British point of view that ought to be considered? Unless people on both sides say that at some time, the condition of the world will get worse. I say this to my right hon. and learned Friend—I think he is the same age as I am, but he has worn better. I was practising in 1926 in a mining area during the long and tragic lock-out that embittered industrial relations there. I remember the dreadful regulations that were brought in and the prosecutions that took place. In many places, to say that a man was a Socialist was virtually all the evidence needed for a conviction, especially if it was coupled with activity of any kind.
Anyone who cares to do so can turn up the reports. For people to say that a man was in the habit of organising working-class demonstrations was enough to ensure that he was well on the way to a conviction. A man who was secretary of a trade union and a member of the Labour Party was regarded almost as a criminal—[ interruption.] Let us be serious about this. Few Members on this side have protested more than I have about the atrocities committed in Central Europe. Today, if a man is described as a Communist, in some courts he is well on the way to a conviction. [An HON. MEMBER: "For inciting strikes."] The Attorney-General has been so good over this, that I do not want to press the matter unduly.
Let me put a specific and reasonable point. I am trying, with two or three

2453
colleagues, to organise an assembly for peace to meet in India, to be composed of people from all over the world, if they will come. I imagine that I shall fail. I have embarked on ambitious projects before which have failed, but I think this is worth trying. Suppose that assembly, representing all peoples, made a call to the world to lay down arms and asked the delegates to begin propaganda at once in all the nations for the laying down of arms and for the determination of all peoples that they do not intend to live in a welter of blood. What am I to do when I bring these documents back and pass them round in this country? Will it be possible for someone to say against me, "This man is not merely a Labour M.P., but considers himself a Socialist"—almost a lost creed, but one that connotes in certain legal circles something of contempt and distrust? What is to be the position if we try to say to our people, "Let us get together and put over the policy we put forward some years ago"? I do not want to emphasise this, to pin-point it, but there were public meetings before the war at which we advocated a policy of refusing to fight again.
Sir Herbert Williams: You were against rearming.
Mr. Hale: We were coming out with that line. No one knows better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman—who has approached this matter from a genuine belief in political liberty—that this Clause will render people liable to conviction in circumstances which he would regret. On one argument I can meet him at once. If he says that the insertion of this Amendment would not be desirable because it is not in the previous Acts, it could be redrafted between now and the next stage. There need not be any conflict of that kind. I suggest that the points he put were strong ones, and I know it is difficult: I know there are points for both sides, but I do hope my right hon. and learned Friend will, between now and the Report stage, try to draft something which will meet the manifest views of the majority of the Committee.
Mr. S. Silverman: Before the Committee concludes this matter I would like to reinforce what my hon. Friend has just said. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend made only one valid point against the acceptance of this
2454
Amendment, and that was relating to the. conflict produced with previous law around and about the same subject. As my hon. Friend has said, that is the danger. It is quite easy, by suitable drafting, to meet that danger, and I am sure that the Attorney-General appreciates that it is a point which can be disposed of by suitable drafting. That being so, is there any reason why we should not dispose of it and strike this blow for the preservation al liberties at this time?
It is agreed that there is nothing in the Amendment which weakens in any way the authority of the law we are intending to pass: there is nothing that weakens the criminal law on the subject, as it was before the Bill was introduced: there is nothing in it, which in principle any Member of this Committee would oppose. That being so, and if the only danger is that we may be told in the courts, that we had deliberately left it out elsewhere, that could be covered by proper drafting. I am sure the Attorney-General has appreciated the discussion, indeed. he said he did. There is no danger to be feared here, nothing to be lost, no mischief to be encountered. All we propose is the raising of one further bastion against the onrushing tide which may engulf our own citizens.
Why should we not raise it. We are raising the physical bastions. No one says "Do not." Those of us who are against re-armament at this time, or on this scale, may be mistaken about it, but we sincerely believe in it. The majority of the Committee is not of our view, and has decided, and will have its way, to raise the physical bastions as they want them raised; we hope they may succeed in what they have in mind. We may be wrong in our fears, our distrusts and our anxieties, but if they are having their way about the physical bastions why should we hesitate to raise the moral bastions to protect our liberties?
Is there not an insidious danger of a very different kind from the subversive element which has engaged hon. Gentlemen from time to time; a danger that in seeking to protect ourselves from something we sacrifice too much of those things we intend to protect, and find, in the end, that we have given it up altogether by trying to protect it from outside? It is a danger which we incurred

2455
in the 1934 Act, and the right hon. Gentleman who rejoiced that in 17 years the dangers had been found not to be serious, quite seriously rejoiced that the dangers did not develop. He appreciates himself, as he appreciated then, that in 1934 the fears that those dangers were there were real, and were not unreasonable. But, here again, we have something which takes us a little further down the slope. We say that if there is no harm in these words, if they do not affect anything which one does not want to see affected, and if the only danger is one which can be guarded against by simply redrafting the Amendment, then let us adopt the Amendment and see that our liberties are in this way preserved.
11.30 p.m.
Mr. N. Macpherson: May I put this point to the Committee? It seems to me that the Committee is somewhat losing its sense of proportion in the arguments which have been advanced on this matter, and that if these arguments go out as representing in any way the background to this matter it would, I think, cause an entirely false impression in the country. I wonder if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would help me, at any rate, on this particular point.
When, in this Clause, we are talking about "documents inciting," surely this means documents specifically inciting to a specific offence, and not philosophic documents or religious documents in general. It seems to me that this point has not, so far, been brought out during the debate. If that is so, if a particular document inciting to a particular offence were in the hands of someone, the possession of one single document might not, perhaps, indicate very much. But the possession of a great number of the same documents might be evidence of a certain intention.
I do not know whether that is a correct view. I would prefer, if I may say so, that the Attorney-General should answer that point. But I hope it will not be interpreted in the country that the mere possession of philosophic or religious documents, or even political documents, alone, will be in any way affected by this Clause. I hope that the Attorney-General will tell us so.
The Attorney-General: I had hoped that I had done so in answer to the hon.
2456
Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). I do not know if the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) was present at that time. I merely repeat that I am quite sure that the possession of philosophic, religious or ethical documents would not in itself constitute an offence. The document must have something in its nature clearly directed to encouraging people, and persuading people, to break the law. The philosophic, or religious documents to which the hon. Member has referred, would not come within that category.
As to the persuasive speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I shall read it tomorrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and consider it. But I cannot hold out much hope that I shall agree to the proposed Amendment. While I agree with a great deal which the hon. Member said, I am not at all sure that the Amendment really would achieve what he desires, and that it would not go a great deal further than even he would wish to suggest. I am confident that mere evidence that a man was a Communist, or a Conservative, standing alone, has nothing to do with the case. Of course, if one were able to prove that a man was a member of an association, one of the objects of which was breaking the law, that would be another matter.
As my hon. Friend would at once agree —I do not know whether the Amendment would exclude evidence of that kind—if one can prove that a man is a member of an illegal association, then one could say that he is a party to a conspiracy to do the thing which he was charged with doing. It would not be right to exclude that kind of evidence under the cloak that it was part of a man's political belief. But the mere evidence of political belief alone, with no evidence on what the consequences of that belief were—that they were illegal and that the members of the party shared them—would not be admissible in evidence. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, after "time," to insert:
"during the hours of daylight."
This is a reference to the power of search, which is a very wide power. It gives power to search in the absence of the owner for whatever things are being looked for, or which may be found in

2457
the premises. It provides that the officer in charge of police shall have power to break in if he can enter by no other means. These are very wide powers indeed, and a great violation of the common law, but all I ask is that these powers shall not be exercised by night.
I only ask that the police shall not arrive at the homes of peaceful citizens, even although those citizens are supposed to harbour dangerous documents, during the hours of darkness, but during the hours of daylight. That concession I think the Executive might find itself able to make without giving away anything very important—[ Interruption.] I thought I heard somebody say "Why?" If I am correct, I will only say that I am not going to waste the time of the Committee at this hour on words to explain something which is a self-evident proposition; and that laughter is really unnecessary.
Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I only wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman if he could give the reason why; that is all.
Mr. Silverman: I should have thought that it was self-evident, but if there really are hon. Members to whom it is not, I shall gladly comply with the request. Searching a citizen's house is an unpleasant thing. It is a thing always forbidden by what is known as our way of life—which is the common law. We have regard for the time-honoured phrase that an Englishman's home is his castle—[ Interruption.] Hon. Members ask for an answer, and they must not be impatient at my giving it. We mean by that expression that his house is inviolable, not merely to burglars, or trespassers, but to policemen and the Executive except under the due authority of the law. But this right of search we have certainly given, and I have heard hon. Members opposite complain continuously during the last five or six years about the increasing powers of search, of the increasing number of officials who have that right, and of the increasing variety of reasons for which the Executive feels entitled to give it.
In the recollection of all those speeches and denunciations by hon. Members opposite, I should have thought that I was entitled to assume that my reason was self-evident.
Brigadier Prior-Palmer rose—
Mr. Silverman: I will give way again in a moment, but I want to finish by say-
2458
ink that if a thing is unpleasant, and should be cut down as much as is possible during the day-time, when people are about their rightful duties and their vocations, then it must surely be more unpleasant by night.
Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Precisely what I had hoped the hon. Gentleman would say is this—why he has supported legislation over the last six years which has given ever greater powers of search?
Mr. Silverman: If I may, without putting myself out of order in discussing matters not now before the Committee, I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that these powers of search have been gradually increasing over more than half-a-century but that the number of increases in the past five or six years is really very small. We really cannot debate it, but I gave the hon. and gallant Member the answer which was given only a few weeks ago, to a Question in which numbers were specifically asked for by an hon. Member opposite, by, I think, the Attorney-General himself or by the Leader of the House.
Let us agree upon this, as I think we shall, that the giving of additional powers of search ought to be looked at by the House of Commons with a very jealous eye. We might very well, in a particular case, inquire whether the powers in that case ought to be given or not. I am not asking the Committee to say that powers of search under this Clause are wrong. I can conceive that if the possession of documents with a certain intention is an offence, one cannot refuse to the Executive the right to look for the commission of that offence. All I am saying is that we ought to circumscribe it by reasonable conditions, and it is not an unreasonable condition, in these circumstances, to say that the search should be effected in day-time and not at night-time.
We are not dealing in these matters with violent criminals or murderers. We are dealing with people who are actuated, maybe wrongly or mischievously, with things of the mind. We are dealing with documents, words, ideals, and I should, have thought that it would be quite enough to give the Executive power to make these searches exactly as the Clause provides, but to limit the time to the hours of daylight.
The Attorney-General: The power to search which arises under this Bill, is, as the hon. Member knows, only exercisable on the warrant of a High Court judge. My experience of the matter is that High Court judges are usually very averse to granting warrants and they only have the power to do so on a sworn information, which sets out the grounds upon which there is reasonable cause for supposing that evidence, or documents, or whatever it may be, are to be found on the premises which it is proposed to search.
A search is certainly a very unpleasant thing at any time, and I agree at once with my hon. Friend that it is particularly unpleasant at night-time. Usually searches are conducted in day-light. I view with as much disfavour as I am sure my hon. Friend does, what I believe in Eastern Europe is called the "Two a.m. knock," and certainly these night visitations by the police are sometimes of a most sinister and dangerous nature in countries where the police force is not subject to the control of Parliament, and there is no minister who may be answerable to Parliament for their actions, and no judge who subsequently may animadvert about the circumstances in which the search has been conducted.
Under many statutes searches may be conducted by day or night. Under some, it is true, there are restrictions on the search by night, but under many statutes they may be conducted by day or by night, and I have had experience myself, again as I am sure the hon. Member has, in which judges or magistrates have made adverse comments about the manner in which a search in a particular case has been conducted, and the police have learnt better next time.
11.45 pm.
I would say that, in general, under this Bill searches will be conducted by day, but I should not like to exclude the possibility that it may be necessary in certain circumstances to conduct the search at night—perhaps because it is only at night that the particular individual is likely to be in the premises, perhaps because there is a danger that the fact that application is being made for a search warrant has leaked out and the documents would be destroyed before the night had passed. We must remember that although we are not dealing with murderers and criminals of that kind under this Bill, we may some-
2460
times be dealing with traitors, as an hon. Member opposite quite fairly said. Sometimes this right may have to be exercised in cases of the utmost gravity. I hope that may not be very frequent. but sometimes it may be so, and in those cases I should not like the hands of the police to be tied to acting only in daylight. I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
Mr. Silverman: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that in cases of the gravity to which he referred in the latter part of his speech it would be in the highest degree unlikely that a more important offence was not being committed than the offence aimed at under this Bill, which is, after all, of a very limited kind. All we are dealing with here is documents which may incite persons who may have to perform 15 days' camp duty in one limited year, not to do that duty. That is the only thing we are dealing with, and all these grave misdemeanours and high crimes which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned in the latter part of his speach have nothing to do with the Bill at all. If crimes of another kind are contemplated, then there are rights of search other than this right which is being provided under the Bill.
My Amendment does not say that all searches shall be carried out only in daylight. It applies only to the particular powers of search in the Bill; the offences may be serious enough, they may be mischievous enough, but they cannot be of such a grave character as to justify the kind of 2 a.m. search to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred.
I have heard so much objection from hon. Members opposite to powers of entry and powers of search in circumstances where the law could not be enforced without them, that I hope they will sympathise with the objects of this Amendment. Let us for once overcome party barriers and, where we agree on the principle of the thing, let us see whether we cannot combine together to get it carried. Let us see how serious and sincere are the Opposition in their constant agitation about the extent of the right of search. Let them join me in this Amendment, which does not prevent the Executive for having all the necessary powers but says that the right of search should be used in these circumstances only in daylight.
The Attorney-General: I am speaking off the book, but I think there is no right of search in treason. Treason was a very old offence created by statute—
Mr. Pickthorn: No.
The Attorney-General: Well, it was created by the common law and declared in the statute—the hon. Gentleman is so pedantic—many hundreds of years ago when documents were not much used for the propagation of offences. I do not think there is any right of search in treason at all.
Mr. Silverman: I do not want to be persistent about this, but if the Attorney-General is right in saying that there is no right of search in treason, then let me say two things to him. First, this Clause will not give him such a right in cases of treason and, secondly, if he does not have that power in cases of treason, why does he want it here?
Mr. Pickthorn: I am loath to intervene in this private row and you are out of order—[ Interruption]. Sir Charles, the last thing I would suggest is that you were out of order. I was just using "shorthand" language for a moment and I meant that the hon. Gentleman below the Bar was out of order. The Attorney-General comes here to give us the truth on the law; he should not say that the crime of treason was created by statute. It is the most preposterous nonsense I have ever heard in this House, and that is saying a good deal. It would be more nearly true to say that the statute was created out of the law of treason, though it would take me too long to explain to the Attorney-General the process by which it was done.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. MacColl: I beg to move in page 9, line 21, to leave out, "such an offence as aforesaid," and to insert "the aforesaid offence".
Unlike the previous Amendment on the subsection, my Amendment deals with what the police may do once they get into the house and not with the manner in which they get in. Like the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), I shall not detain the Committee with a disquisition on constitutional history, but I think it is broadly true to say that since the time of Lord Camden the Executive has always been trying to extend the right
2462
of search. There was the notorious case of the Criminal Justice Administration Bill of 1925, when at the request of the Director of Prosecutions, a Clause was introduced to give general guidance on all criminal offences for this kind of search. It was rejected and withdrawn because of the strongly-expressed views of both sides of what was then a strongly Conservative House.
Since then we have unfortunately had the 1934 Act which has been used as a precedent for this subsection; and it really illustrates the point that once you lose the battle for civil liberty, you have lost it for a very long time. Now we are in a position where it will be possible in future debates to quote the views of a brilliant Attorney-General from this side of the House in support of some of the unfortunate features of the right of search.
The object of my Amendment is to limit the police so that they can only take evidence which applies to the particular offence of which they have knowledge and of which they have sworn they have knowledge. They may not, once in the house, indulge in a fishing expedition turning out a person's private papers and collecting evidence not only against that person, for possibly some quite different offences; they may not collect evidence against any person who is not involved in the matter at all. What I am suggesting is that instead of the documents which are seized being used as evidence on the commission of different offences, they should only be evidence of the offence that has led to the search.
The Attorney-General: As I understand the Amendment, it would restrict the latter part of the Clause to documents connected with a particular offence, which my hon. Friend assumes would have been specifically referred to in the information upon which the search warrant was granted, and he thinks the Clause would be wide enough to permit the seizure of any documents covering any offence not under this Clause. I will look into that point. I am not sure that I am very much impressed by it but I will look into it between now and the Report stage, without making any promise that I shall introduce an Amendment. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment now. I cannot accept it now, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the

2463
wording of the Clause as drafted would not permit the seizure of any documents relating to any different offence. It permits the seizure only of documents relating to such an offence, namely an offence under this Clause.
Mr. MacColl: In view of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Grimond: I beg to move, in page 9, line 25, to leave out "three months" and to insert "one month."
A great many voices have been raised this evening in favour of limiting this sort of Clause as far as possible, and again I say that we have to bear in mind that this Bill is a very limited Bill; it will, we hope, last for one year only and apply to a certain number of people only. In those circumstances, it seems to me that we ought to take any opportunity we can, not of following and extending past precedents in this field, as usually happens, but of following them to a limited extent only and cutting them down as far as we can.
This Amendment is designed to reduce the period of delay which may have taken place between the commission of an offence under this paragraph and the laying of the information. If accepted it would give the police power to act only in a case in which the offence is alleged to have been committed one month and not three months prior to the laying of the information. I stress that this Bill is to last only one year. The offences must be limited to that period; they can only be aimed at the people clearly set out in the Table to Clause 1 and at no one else, and we have that assurance from the learned Attorney-General. Surely this is a case in which we want to reduce this sort of power to a minimum, and I suggest that this very limited Amendment might be accepted.
The Attorney-General: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment, which again would involve a departure from the provisions of the 1934 Act; it would cause a difficulty and complication in this matter. He will appreciate that in the course of police investigations dealing first with the
2464
pawns, the puppets and the dupes who have been used to fire off the ammunition, it may become apparent who is the real villain at the root of the trouble, the man who supplied the ammunition and that he is to be found in a particular place, and that in that place the origination of the offence may be discovered. To restrict the Clause in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests would, I think, make it more difficult for the police to get the real originators of some of these offences.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: I beg to move, in page 10, line 6, to leave out "five" and to insert "two."
The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss the next two Amendments at the same time.
Mr. Roberts: I agree, Major Milner. If I understand the Attorney-General aright, he has already agreed to the Amendment I now move, and to the two subsequent Amendments. They are designed to bring the penalties in the Bill into line with the Act of 1934.
12 m.
The Attorney-General: I did indicate earlier that I should be prepared to accept these three Amendments which restore the penalties in the Act of 1934, and I am glad to accept them now.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made.
In page 10, line 8, to leave out "six." and to insert "four."
In line 8, to leave out "one hundred," and to insert "twenty."—[Mr. Emrys Roberts.]
Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move, in page 10, line 13, to leave out subsection (8).
I have no desire to waste the time of the Committee at this time of night, and I do not propose to press this matter. It covers an important point of general application, and I can confine my remarks to one or two sentences. I recognise that there are precedents for this, but I suggest it is one thing, as in one reported case, for the tribunal to say to the speaker before them, "Who are you?", and for him to say: "I am the Attorney-General," and then for the proceedings to be taken in that court;

2465
but it is another thing, under this Clause, for the Attorney-General to say, "I consulted myself, and I have decided that this man should not be tried by this court, but should be tried by another court."
There are precedents for this, but it is a little undesirable. The old procedure was to bring a man before a court of summary jurisdiction and to try him with his consent and the consent of the court, or to transfer the case, if it was a more serious matter. There is an additional serious point connected with this. In general, there is a time limit for bringing proceedings summarily, as against charges on indictment. When a matter is being considered by the Department the time for bringing proceedings summarily has run out, and then they have to be. brought to another court with cares of more gravity. I realise that this has no specific value in this discussion, and I shall be prepared to withdraw the Amendment, by leave of the Committee.
The Attorney-General: As my hon. Friend appreciates, there is a general power approved so recently as 1948 by Parliament enabling the Director of Public Prosecutions to request that cases otherwise triable summarily, should not be so tried, but go for trial on indictment. This type of offence is included within the general power.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
The Chairman: Before I call the next Amendment, may I say that I understand that it was agreed by my predecessor that the Amendment to page 10, line 16, in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) could be moved to enable it to be put to a Division only, but that it should not be discussed.
[In page 10, line 16, at end insert:
(9) Nothing in this section or elsewhere in this Act shall render any person liable to prosecution or any document liable to seizure or destruction only because such person or document maintains, expresses or endeavours to persuade others to maintain or express any political or religious faith, creed or opinion nor shall the maintenance or expression of any such creed or opinion be held by any court to he evidence of any intent to commit any offence under this Act.]
Mr. S. Silverman: I pointed out at the time the other Amendment was discussed—and the suggestion was made that the two might be discussed together —that the point here was a different one,
2466
although the principle in each was similar, and I should like to move this Amendment without repeating the arguments adduced then.
The Chairman: I understood that the arrangement was that the Chair was willing to call this Amendment for a Division but not to have a discussion. I am willing to call it if the hon. Gentleman is desirous of putting it to a division.
Mr. Silverman: I do not want at this time of night to press anything unduly. But Sir Charles MacAndrew suggested when he was in the Chair that we should discuss them together, and when I pointed out that that was not really suitable he, at any rate by implication, accepted my view. There was not really any bargain or arrangement about it.
The Chairman: I am sorry. If the hon. Gentleman desires he must put the Amendment down on Report. I do not select the Amendments.
Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. I do not want to repeat the debate in any way. Of course, when you have had a debate, you have had it. All I wish to do is to show in what way this differs from the Amendment which we have already discussed. If I may do that, I shall be very grateful; otherwise I must put it down on Report stage.
The Chairman: I am not very willing to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request. I understand he was given an opportunity to discuss it along with a similar Amendment. I hope he will put it down on Report.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: We are all agreed that in the circumstances of today it is very necessary to have this Clause, but I am glad that the Attorney-General has resisted some of the Amendments that have been brought forward, just as I am glad that he has accepted some others. Hon. Members on the other side, particularly the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and one or two others, are entirely under a misapprehension—at least, I hope that is what it is—in thinking that the people against whom this Clause is aimed are just another political party. They are nothing of the kind.

2467
It is the Communists we are up against, and they are not another political party of the ordinary kind but a dangerous foreign conspiracy which is world wide. Therefore, unfortunately, we have to take rather more stringent action than if we were dealing with ordinary political parties of any colour that we have known hitherto in this country. That should make this Clause more acceptable, even to him and others who believe it goes too far. We are dealing with a menace quite unlike anything else the law has had to deal with.
Mr. Bing: Before we pass from this Clause, perhaps I may say, on behalf of other members who like myself have not hitherto intervened, how much we appreciate the concessions given by the Attorney-General. Naturally until now we have been concerned with people whom the other side consider to be potential traitors. They were the people, they suggested, with whom this Clause was designed to deal. Of course, there are different definitions of who is a traitor which I shall refer to later. But it is very necessary that on this Clause we should safeguard the rights of people who are volunteers, and we should so carefully frame the Clause as to ensure that we are not doing any harm to volunteers who, having come into the Services, should not be placed at a disadvantage.
Between this Clause and the 1934 Act there is one most important difference: the Attorney-General is substituted for the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is a most desirable change because it does give us some direct responsibility here. But it involves us in a further difficulty. When we come to Northern Ireland we are compelled to substitute the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland for the Attorney-General here. That, of course, does away with the whole question of responsibility, for he is not responsible to this House at all
I am going to suggest a number of cogent reasons why the Government ought to reconsider this procedural part of this Clause and why there ought to be some safeguard. I should have thought one of the first reasons would be that this Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, because it is not proposed to call up any Z reservists from Northern Ireland.
2468
Therefore, it would seem undesirable that the Attorney-General in Northern Ireland should be given further powers to institute proceedings.
There is this important difference between the two offices of Attorney-General. I do not want to say anything personal about the Northern Ireland Attorney-General, who has followed very consistently the policy of the Government of which he is a member. What I say is not based on any personalities in reference to any holder of that office, but it is the case that the conception of the office of Attorney-General in Northern Ireland is quite different from the conception of the office here. I am sure it is equally true of the hon. Gentlemen opposite that they would not consider launching prosecutions in order to maintain their political party in power. They would not consider that the object of criminal legislation is to punish somebody for doing such a thing as oppose one of their candidates at a selection conference, but that is exactly the use that was made of similar legislation in Northern Ireland, and an unfortunate person who opposed a party nominee at a selection conference was imprisoned.
In Northern Ireland there is a different approach to the whole idea of the office of Attorney-General. May I give one quotation, not from the present Attorney-General, because I do not want to be personal, but from a former Attorney-General who now sits as a High Court Judge in Northern Ireland. He said in the course of a reply to a suggestion thrown out by an hon. Gentleman opposite that the legislation giving power to imprison anyone indefinitely without trial should be considered—
Sir Ronald Ross: Shall I be able to go into the whole constitution of Northern Ireland and the special powers of Ministers, Major Milner?
The Chairman: I am listening very carefully to the hon. and learned Gentleman. There is, of course, a distinct reference in Clause 6, subsection (11) to the Attorney-General in Northern Ireland. I am bound, therefore, to admit that the matter is one for debate.
Mr. Bing: I do not want to argue the propriety of a policy. There is a different form of approach and a different sort of office. The whole conception is different, and therefore when we are giving powers

2469
there, we are not giving them to somebody equivalent to the Attorney-General here, but to a person who uses his office for certain political aims.
Sir R. Ross: Nonsense!
Mr. Bing: The Attorney-General in Northern Ireland said:
"I say the abnormal times have not yet passed away, and I have not the slightest hope or expectation that they will ever pass away until there is a complete change on the part of a section of this population in their attitude towards this Government…"
The Chairman: I doubt whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is in order now. He is entitled to put forward certain arguments about the Attorney-General but they must have some relation to the Bill and not the application which the hon. Gentleman appears to be giving them.
Mr. Bing: My argument is this: and I am sorry it is not quite clear. The Attorney-General in Northern Ireland took the view that he should so interpret his powers as to make use of them for the purpose of perpetuating the existence of the Government. Obviously my right hon. and learned Friend does not use his powers in this way, and I make no point against the hon. Gentleman opposite. There is a distinctly different approach, but it is late and I do not want to pursue this point indefinitely.
12.15 a.m.
I shall now turn to one further point. The Attorney-General there, unlike here, works through an organisation known as Crown solicitors. In each county there is a Crown solicitor, who is a person who would advise on a prosecution. These are highly political figures, and I shall just read an extract from a speech by one of them.
The Chairman: I am sorry but I cannot allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to do that. That question cannot possibly arise here.
Mr. Bing: I bow to your Ruling, but it seems to me that if a Crown solicitor, who is maintained in that position by the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, says he intends to use his position for the purposes of using discrimination I think it is valid. I come to the second point. The Attorney-General of Northern Ireland is subject to all sorts and types of
2470
pressure to which the Attorney-General here is not. In Northern Ireland he yields, and often admits he yields, to outside pressure or outside organisations. When asked why he is engaged in some or other activity it is usual for him to say, "I have done so, because if I did not do it there would be some extra-legal organisation which would take the law into its own hands."
Some time ago we had the good fortune to have in the House for a period a gentleman who was persuaded by some hon. Members opposite that he was a member—
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: On a point of order. I submit that the hon. and learned Gentleman is out of order. He is making references to matters which arose outside the House, and which cannot conceivably have had any connection with the Bill.
Mr. Bing: I am sorry if the trend of the argument was not immediately apparent. The Attorney-General of Northern Ireland is responsible not to this House but to somewhere else, and before we give him the power we ought to see whether proper or improper pressure is being applied to him in that other place. I shall read a quotation from this gentleman who was a clergyman, which he put freely in defence of the Attorney-General. He said:
"I do not hesitate to tell the hon. Member for Falls (Mr. Diamond), no matter what he may think, that we would have obliged him with every hit of trouble he had been looking for. The Minister was perfectly right in suppressing that demonstration, for if he had not done so we would."
Those are not the wild words of someone who does not consider what he is saying but are the views of one who was ordained 15 years ago and was speaking with the full responsibility of his holy office.
The Chairman: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has been given a good deal of latitude, and he must not now take further advantage of it. If he has any remarks relevant to the Clause I will call him: otherwise I hope he will resume his seat.
Mr. Bing: Perhaps I could make the point shortly. It is that if the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland did give way

2471
to pressure from an outside organisation, what is the proof that he would not prosecute somebody under this Act because of that person's religion or something else?
Sir R. Ross: Shame.
Mr. Bing: It is all very well for the hon. Baronet to shout "Shame." What was the definition of "traitor" given in his constituency when he was elected? It was given by the hon. Member for West Belfast, who I am sorry is not in his place, as I had given him notice that I was going to raise the point. The hon. Member then said a traitor is someone who gives a job or a house to a Roman Catholic.
The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must resume his seat. I do not think the majority of his remarks are relevant. If he has relevant remarks to address to me I shall be prepared to listen, but I cannot listen to irrelevant matters which may also anticipate proceedings tomorrow.
Mr. Bing: That is the last thing one wishes to do. I hope that we shall take ample opportunity to discuss that tomorrow. The point which I was trying to make quite apart from this traitorous act, and was that one ought not perhaps to introduce into the hands of someone subject to this sort of pressure this sort of power. I think I can be very short and finish the matter in this sense: that the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland is subject to take proceedings against people through all sorts of improper pressure. In those circumstances, we could not leave the matter in his hands. There is a great number of ex-Service men who happen to differ in religion from the majority.
The Chairman: That being so, the hon. and learned Member has made his case. He does not need to go into further details, as apparently he is doing. He has made his point and I suggest that that is sufficient.
Mr. Snow: That seems a most improper Ruling.
The Chairman: I understood the hon. Member to make a comment on a Ruling I have given. I must ask him to withdraw that remark.
Mr. Snow: I will withdraw, Major Milner, but I am bound to say, with due respect, that you are being very harsh on my hon. Friend.
The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw that too.
Mr. Snow: I do withdraw.
The Chairman: I said what I believe to be in accordance with precedent, that remarks made in this House, or in Committee, must be relevant. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has passed beyond that in the remarks which he made.
Mr. Snow: On your instructions Major Milner, I withdraw my remark.
Sir R. Ross: I have listened with disgust to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), who has again given an example of his vindictive spirit towards Northern Ireland, which has the great misfortune to be the land of his birth. He has made attacks upon the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, apparently upon all Attorney-Generals of Northern Ireland, heedless of the fact that the last Attorney-General of Northern Ireland was made a High Court Judge by the Labour Government and so, presumably, was not one of those liable to all sorts of influences.
The Chairman: The hon. Member is now also irrelovant, and should not enter into these outside matters.
Sir R. Ross: A series of revolting attacks has been made upon the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, who is accused of carrying on prosecutions in the King's name because of religious prejudice. That is a thing I cannot pass over without protest. I have seldom had a more shaming experience than to listen to that sort of thing in this House. The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch has lacked the courage to put down an Amendment to achieve the aim which was apparent from his speech.
Mr. Bing: If the hon. Member will allow me, I should like to say that there is an Amendment on the Paper. It did not happen to be called.
Sir R. Ross: It is curious that it is not on the Paper if the hon. and learned Member had put down an Amendment.
Hon. Members: Where is it?
Mr. Bing rose—
Mr. Emrys Hughes: My Amendment dealt with Northern Ireland, and I asked the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) to support it.
Sir R. Ross: Now we see the ally. The Clause we are discussing clearly states that no prosecution in Northern Ireland shall take place without the consent of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. The senior Law Officer should protect people who might be unjustly accused, and the same protection is given here for Northern Ireland as is given for England and Wales. I think that to try to deprive people of that protection is a very unwise and stupid thing. The Clause as it stands should form part of the Bill. We all know, of course, that the interventions we have heard were made merely to use this debate as a platform for the carrying on of the usual vendetta with whch the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has distinguished himself for so many months.
Mr. S. Silverman: Since about nine o'clock last night we have been discussing Clause 6, that being the Clause to which most attention was devoted on the Second Reading as the only one which had any underlying or far-reaching political importance; and then only if read in a particular way. A number of us put down Amendments to the Clause, designed, as they were, to ensure, or, at any rate, designed to limit, the extent to which this Clause affected, or even undermined, the civil liberty.
During the debate, a number of Amendments were moved and, indeed, a number accepted, for that purpose. Some had as their object the establishment, beyond controversy, that religious faith or political opinion should have nothing whatever to do with the question and the learned Attorney-General, in a series of interventions in the debate, was enlightening and lucid. If some of us did not always agree with him, my right hon. and learned Friend established that the Government did not intend that the Clause should contain anything to make it an offence to hold any opinion or belief, religious or political. Some of us were a little doubtful about the effect of the Clause, but the Committee as a whole
2474
accepted what the Attorney-General said about those points.
As soon as we had disposed of the Clause in the light of what had been said, we had a debate on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," to which there was an enlightened contribution before we strayed into Northern Ireland. In his remarks, the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) said that those of us who are anxious about this Clause had taken up a considerable amount of time; that those of us who were anxious about the effect of the Clause on the civil liberty, were labouring under a misapprehension and that that misapprehension was that this Clause was aimed at, and had no other intention than acting against, "just another political party." He said it was not an ordinary party, but something else, and he claimed that some of us thought the Clause was directed against, as some special kind of law, this other party.
If there were no other evidence of the reasonable foundation for all the anxieties, and suspicions, and uneasiness that so many of us have felt in this Committee, it was in the speech made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I understood the Attorney-General to say that this was not directed against the holding of any political opinion. I know that there are people, although I am not one of them.
12.30 a.m.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: What I said was that if one imagined that the Communist Party, against whom we are thinking in this Bill, because it is no good arguing that we are not, is an ordinary political party, like a respectable political party, then one is under a great misapprehension.
Mr. Silverman: I do not know whether we are entitled to debate the principles or tenets, if there are any, of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the Labour Party or any other party. If that is in order, the night is still young and we can go on and on debating any of these political ideas. But the only way in which the intervention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman could have been relevant to the discussion at all was the way in which he seemed to be making it relevant at the time. I am glad that he has had

2475
second thoughts since; if not, I am sorry. But he said that he thought the Communist Party was not an ordinary party, and he thought it was an illegal party and that this was directed against it. If it was, that justified every step that we had taken.
It may very well be that the Communist is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says. I am not arguing that now as I should be out of order if I did so. It may well be that some hon. Members think that this party or some other party, for this reason or other reasons, should be declared by law to be an illegal conspiracy exactly as Communist countries declare parties other than Communist parties to be illegal. It may be right, as the hon. Gentleman thinks is right, to deal with political ideas in that way. But if we are to deal with political ideas in that way, we must do it specifically by measures designed to do it, and I take it, so far as the Government is concerned, that we are not dealing with that now, and that this Measure is not so designed.
That the hon. and gallant Member made the speech he did, ought to satisfy the rest of the Committee that this is a matter which we are right to approach with extreme care, caution, and suspicion. I beg the hon. and gallant Member to remember, if he will—and I hope it is not impertinence on my part to say it—that a great many people throughout the ages have said that it is all right for people to uphold any cause they like as long as they do nothing about it. But people, who sincerely hold ideas to be right, will never be content merely to hold them themselves.
It is of the nature of human beings living in society that if they regard certain ideas as the right ones and other ideas as the wrong ones, that they regard it as their duty as citizens to win converts to their views. I think, in the language of theology, the distinction has always been drawn between the Church militant and the Church triumphant. The Church militant is the active Church. It seeks to spread its ideas. It is the one that seeks to win converts, and the one that is not quiescent but active in the propagation of its faith. I think that the Attorney-General, from time to time, in the speeches he made, was inclined to say that
2476
nothing in the Clause prevents people from holding any opinion they like, implying, as it were, that although they held it they must not seek to spread it. It did not mean that, but that kind of idea seems to be implicit in some of things that had been said.
In the days of the Roman Empire [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—I am not out of order; in the days of the Roman Empire it was the law of the land that people should burn incense to certain gods. Those who thought that was wrong preached disobedience to the law of their day and were prepared to sacrifice a great many things, including their lives, for that propagation of disobedience to the law of their day. The essence of civil liberty very often is the liberty to preach disobedience for reasons which seem satisfactory to people who believe in civil liberty. I was glad to hear what my right hon. and learned Friend had to say and I hope he will take a further opportunity to assure hon. Members opposite that this Clause and this Bill are not aimed at any political creed or any political faith.
Mr. H. Macmillan: Purely as a matter of courtesy, I should like to rise before we pass from this Clause and thank the Attorney-General for having accepted practically all the Amendments which were put down by my hon. Friends and, I believe, those put down by the Liberal Party. It is a satisfaction to us because there has been some anxiety in the Press and among the public about certain points. It is particularly satisfactory to us that all the Amendments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has accepted have the effect of returning to the text of the 1934 Act.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: I shall be as brief as the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), but I cannot allow this Clause to pass without putting on record my own conviction that the case for including it in the Bill has not been made out. I did not find the speech of the Attorney-General convincing. I was about to develop my reasons for that when I was stopped on a point of order, and I want to put those reasons briefly now. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's case is that the Bill involves no more than the existing position; that the Bill consolidates and does not codify the existing position. But if that is so it

2477
applies to a very limited class of persons —the Z reservists who are called up or are liable to be called up under the Bill.
If there is any virtue at all in anything of this kind, or any necessity for it, why was it not in the National Service Act? The persons liable to be called up under the National Service Act are of a far wider class and at the immature age when such propaganda can be more harmful to their minds. Yet it was not suggested that a Clause of this kind was necessary in the National Service Act. When the Government can permit that kind of gap to be uncovered, I am not convinced that it is necessary to apply this kind of Clause for this very limited class of person.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Before dealing with the Clause which applies to Scotland, I want to give some explanation about the point concerning Northern Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I claim to have a right to speak about Northern Ireland, because I can see it from my constituency. Just as I am sure that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) looks with pleasure at South Ayrshire, I look with equal pleasure at Northern Ireland. My anxiety about Northern Ireland arises purely from a desire to pour oil on troubled waters.
I want to point out to Members for Northern Ireland that by giving these powers to the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland they are creating a great deal of unnecessary controversy at a time when what we need is more peace and good will. I suggest that nothing will stir up more strife in Northern Ireland than to give these powers to the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, because I would point out that Northern Ireland is the classic part of the country in which incitement to soldiers to disobey orders became such a subject of political controversy.
Mr. H. Strauss: The hon. Member seems to be under the impression that subsection (2) gives some power to the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland to institute prosecutions. It gives no such power: it only gives him power to stop prosecutions. The hon. Member, at an earlier stage, showed that he was against any prosecutions whatsoever under any part of this Clause. Why, therefore, does he wish to take away from anybody the power to stop prosecutions?
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I was so delighted with the hon. and learned Member's intervention in the debate that I am sorry he has blotted his copy-book now. I assume that if the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland is given certain powers in the Bill those powers are for the purposes of the Bill and I understand that if anybody incites or tries to incite a Z Reserve man in Northern Ireland, then the Attorney-General will be called upon to take action and, indeed, there might be prosecutions.
If there are those prosecutions in Northern Ireland I can hardly see that some precedent will not be quoted in the courts: and the inevitable argument that the Attorney-General will have to meet in the courts is that the great historic incitement to disobedience by soldiers in Northern Ireland was that by Sir Edward Carson. I do not want to pursue that—[Interruption.] I want to nip this ill-feeling at birth.
I want to thank the Attorney-General for the pacific speech he made tonight. He has, indeed, done a good deal to redeem the reputation of the Law Officers of the Crown, because there was some very severe critcism of the Law Officers of the Crown from so eminent and impartial a paper as the "Manchester Guardian" which, referring to this Clause said:
"The political amorality of lawyers is a matter for endless wonder. In 1934 the Attorney-General was an elegant non-political barrister, in those days, but the Prime Minister should have remembered his own votes and speeches and Mr. Aneurin Bevan should have recalled how he startled the pigeons in Trafalgar Square with his vehement denunciations."
I view that comment by a leading influential paper, which influences public opinion in this country, as relative to the discussion of the Clause and I will only quote a final sentence. It goes on to refer to the Communists—[Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) is, I know, very much concerned about Communism. I had a debate with him about it in his constituency and he knocked the whiskers off Karl Marx.
About the Communists the "Manchester Guardian" made this very relevant remark:

2479
"But because the Communists are pretending to be the friends of freedom and it does not mean that the Government is not at fault. Its own supporters do not like to see it cynically going back on its own principles to satisfy the Crown lawyers' love of repressive powers."
I am glad to say that the Attorney-General has largely redeemed the reputation of that most respectable profession by his speech tonight.
12.45 a.m.
Now I want to turn to Scotland. I am glad to see the Solicitor-General for Scotland here, because if there are any of these trials in Scotland the Solicitor-General for Scotland will have to bear the odium of conducting the prosecution. I would point out that the Socialist lawyers of Scotland are a society called the Muir Society. Now, who was Muir? Thomas Muir was an eminent lawyer who was sent to Botany Bay because he preached incitement to sedition at the time, and I do not know what the Muir Society will say if there are prosecutions of that kind in Scotland. I suggest that the Attorney-General should point out to the Solicitor-General for Scotland that the specific references to Scotland in the Clause deserve so much attention that they should be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee, because I am quite sure the Attorney-General would be quite happy to be relieved of the responsibility.
Do the Government realise what they are doing by putting the Clause, as it affects Scotland, on the Statute Book? There have been very severe sentences, under previous Acts quoted by the Attorney-General this evening, on people who made allegedly seditious or inciting statements. There was a very well-known case in Scotland of John MacLean. During the First World War, John MacLean was prosecuted for incitement to disaffection and he received the very severe sentence of five years' penal servitude. Instead of that sentence suppressing the views of John MacLean, he became the great hero of Scotland for a very long time, and he inspired James Maxton who, in turn, was prosecuted for incitement to disaffection.
Another case relevant to this Bill is the case which affected the right hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Kirkwood). If there are to be incitement to disaffection trials, this is a very important precedent, and details of it will be found
2480
in the Library. In this trial very prominent figures in our political life were in the dock, including the Minister of Defence—
The Chairman: I have given the hon. Gentleman a great deal of latitude, but he will appreciate that his remarks on this and other cases are not relevant, because subsection (1) refers to
"persons called up or liable to be called up under…this Act."
The Bill does not refer to any other persons.
Mr. Hughes: I do suggest that all this discussion has been on the question of incitement to disobedience, and in quoting precedents I am only quoting the arguments of the Minister of Defence and pointing out the danger of carrying this Clause because of the effect it will have upon recruiting and the call-up in Scotland. However, I will abandon that line of approach.
I submit, however, that the sentences under this Clause—two years' imprisonment and a fine of £500—are harsh for Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have gone."] They have not all gone. If the Attorney-General assures me that there will be no sentences of imprisonment or fines in Scotland then, of course, my argument does not hold good. But there are still heavy penalties contained in this Clause for Scotland. Now sentences will be for inciting someone not to fight in the Army. How do they compare with the sentences for incitement to fight?
In the case of Rex v. Kirkwood and Shinwell, there were certain penalties. My argument is that the penalties for inciting not to fight should not be more than the penalties for incitement to fight. The penalty that was very harshly and unjustly imposed upon the Minister of Defence was five months' imprisonment. I do suggest that if one gives five months' imprisonment to someone for inciting to fight, one is not entitled to give more than that period to someone who incites not to fight.
I submit that this is high political explosive in Scotland. The worst thing we can do with the law is to make it look ridiculous, and if we have any of these trials in Scotland, sanctioned by the Solicitor-General or anyone else, the first witness a man will call will be the Minister of Defence. I do not want to be

2481
embarrassed, as a Socialist in Scotland, having to defend the Minister of Defence at a trial of this kind. I suggest that as far as Scotland is concerned the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General should look at the Clause again, and say, "Nothing doing: wipe it out."
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I will not detain the Committee more than a few minutes, but having listened to the stone-walling and boredom of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) all day, I think a backbencher might "have a knock." I understand that the object of this Clause is to prevent people from inciting others to disobey orders which they are asked to carry out to defend their country. In other words, a form of sabotage. We all want to prevent that. I heard the Attorney-General as saying—and I know he will stop me if I am wrong—that this is the punishment the Government intend to inflict on people who incite others. If an attempt is made to stop people joining up or to incite them to break the law, that can be regarded as a misdemeanour, with a penalty up to life imprisonment. Is that right? Would the Attorney-General please stop yawning? If they incite Class Z reservists not to join, the punishment can be without limitation.
I want to make certain that the Clause works and that there is no means of getting round it. I am going to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman five concrete examples of incitement to disobedience that actually occurred before the second World War. These men got away with it then because, apparently, there was no law to stop it. We all want to prevent it happening again. I shall give a few brief examples and I wish to know whether this Clause will stop the repetition of these shameful statements.
The Chairman: I have already indicated to the Committee that remarks are only relevant to this Clause in relation to persons when called up under this part of the Bill, not to cases during the last war.
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I quite agree. What I want to know—and it will be painful to some hon. Gentlemen —is whether, if such statements are made in the future, this Clause will stop sabotage. My first one is: "Every pos-
2482
sible effort should be made to stop recruiting for the armed forces." There cannot be much greater incitement than that, and that disgraceful statement was made by Sir Stafford Cripps. My second example: "The capitalists are in your hands…"
The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman really cannot make these remarks they are out of order, as being irrelevant.
Sir Ian Fraser: On a point of order. May I ask you, Major Milner, with all respect, to consider the limitations that you are seeking to place upon these speeches. It surely has been a long-standing tradition of the House, in which I have had the honour to sit for 27 years, that full and ample examples may be given, and I submit that it is a new practice to try to limit debates in Committee I beg you to consider that long-standing tradition.
The Chairman: I agree that there are occasions when illustrations and examples may properly be given, but they must be relevant to the matters before the Committee. Furthermore, if the Committee will forgive my saying so, I do not think some of the things that have been said are really consonant with the dignity of our proceedings. I hope hon. Members will not make personal allegations and reflections. That applies equally to all sides of the Committee. We have almost got through a very difficult Bill and I hope that we may conclude our proceedings amicably.
Mr. John Foster: Further to that point of order. Is it not in order for my hon. and gallant Friend to give instances of what a Z reservist might say or do? He might be led into error by following examples of what people have said before. If you put a case "supposing a Z reservist did or said that," surely it is relevant to ask if such a man would come within the mischief of the Clause?
1.0 a.m.
The Chairman: I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not put his case in that form. I have to deal with what is said and not with what might be said.
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I suffer from the disadvantage that I did

2483
not hear a great deal of what you said Major Milner, but I got the gravamen of it. Suppose the following is said to a Class Z reservist? Can this be classed as an offence or incitement under the Act:
"No war can be justified under modern conditions. Have nothing to do with it under any circumstances. Refuse to fight. Refuse to enlist. Refuse to play at soldiering. Refuse to be conscripted."
If that is not incitement, I should like to know what is. That was said by Dr. Alfred Salter, the Socialist M.P. for Bermondsey, West, in May, 1933.
The Chairman: I cannot allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to "bring up," if I may use the expression, cases which I think have no relevance to this Clause. I trust that he will resume his seat.
Sir I. Fraser: On a point of order. May I beg you, Major Milner, not to introduce what are really quite strange and new rules for this House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] May I beg you to consider the long traditions of the House? For example, you were good enough to advise that we must not be undignified. That, surely, is a matter for the Committee.
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now venturing to comment upon my remarks. I made a suggestion to the Committee which I hope they will take in the spirit in which I tendered it to them. I think we must have regard to our traditions of tolerance and dignity in debate both in Committee and in the House. I hope that all hon. Members will agree with me on that.
Mr. S. Silverman: I submit, Major Milner, that the Clause is one which prescribes penalties for inciting persons to repudiate their obligations under the Act. It is vitally important to know what kind of thing would be an offence under the Act and what kind of thing is not. Is it in order to pick out famous examples of things we all know have been said and ask whether or not they would be an offence under the Clause? Will the Attorney-General tell us, when he replies, whether that kind of thing, not being an offence, when said under the old circumstances would be an offence under the new circumstances of this Clause.
Lieut.-Colonel Davenport: Could you now tell me, Major Milner, as it seems to be going either way, whether I am to be allowed to quote any more of these disgraceful statements. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I see hon. Gentlemen opposite nod. I do not know whether that may be to lead me up the garden path. However, I will risk one more.
The Chairman: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not risk any more. I have to be guided by my own views of what is relevant and what is irrelevant. I think that the examples which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave have no relevance to this Clause. I have to be guided by my view, and I hope he will not proceed with these matters.
Mr. Nigel Birch: On a point of order. If incidents from the 1930's are not to be quoted, may it not be impossible for Socialists to take part in the debate at all?
Mr. Pickthorn: Further to that point of order. I am not quite sure who has been in the Chair at which part of the debate, but it will be within the recollection of the Chair corporate, if that expression is not improper, that we have had continuous references to, citations from and questions about the effect of the Sermon on the Mount, the Essay on Liberty and many other statements by leading preachers and politicians from the past. Is the ruling now that the line must be drawn at the point at which the Socialists began to be reported?
The Chairman: I do not know whether that was a reflection on the Chair. I did not gather all the hon. Gentleman said.
Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport rose—
The Chairman: A great deal of time is being wasted, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will now take note of what I have said.
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I believe the Committee will sympathise with me. I feel a certain amount of bad luck in having sat and listened to other speeches, and now I have mine all ready I cannot give it. I have been able, fortunately, through your tolerance, Major Milner, to give two or three disgraceful examples of sabotage before the Second

2485
World War. I hope that this Clause will prevent Socialists from doing again what they did then. Never again must we let such guilty men incite our people not to defend our country. Whether we agree with the Government's foreign policy or not, it is unforgivable to leave the country undefended and at the mercy of the enemy. Shame on those men for what they said and what they did. They ought to have been exported overseas long, long ago.
Mr. Driberg rose—
Mr. N. Macpherson: —I see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon has in his possession, or under his control, a document, reference to which you Major Milner have already ruled out of order.
The Chairman: I have no idea of what the document is. I have certainly not ruled any document, or book, out of order.
Mr. Driberg: It is the sinister and mysterious document called HANSARD, and it is the HANSARD of Northern Ireland—if they call it that. It will come up, in due course, in what I hope will not be a protracted speech. I must congratulate the Government, in all sincerity, upon having secured the allegiance of what one might call, perhaps, the intellectuals of the extreme Right even more firmly than it has secured the allegiance of the so-called intellectuals of the Left. I must also confess that I would not have risen at this late hour if it had not been for the regrettable curtailment of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is there any objection?
The Chairman: The hon. Member appears to be desirous of being offensive to the Chair.
Mr. Driberg: Oh, no, Major Milner.
The Chairman: The hon. Member's remarks certainly appeared to have been intended as a reflection on the Chair.
Mr. Driberg: Not at all.
The Chairman: If they were not, perhaps the hon. Member will say so in specific terms, or, if they were, perhaps he will withdraw them.
Mr. Driberg: I am extremely sorry, but I was assuming, in my innocence, that you, Major Milner, regretted as much as we all did, the necessity that you, quite rightly, felt to curtail the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch. That was why I used the word "regrettable." I am sure we all regretted it, because my hon. Friend is so brilliant and entertaining and informative. I am sure, Major Milner, that you will see what I mean. Otherwise, I can only say that I am very sorry, because we all hold you in great veneration, if I may say so, not only as the occupant of the Lower Chair and, from time to time, of the Upper Chair, but also as one of the representatives of the great conurbation of Leeds. I am aware of—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member's remarks are out of order. They have no relevance at all.
Mr. Driberg: I was trying to explain how sorry I was.
The Chairman: I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will confine his remarks to the matter before the Committee, which is the question whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill, and to that matter alone.
Mr. Driberg: I was a little puzzled by your ruling, Major Milner, though, naturally, I accept it, because I see that the last part of the Clause does refer to Northern Ireland, and that there is a specific reference to the fact that no prosecution in Northern Ireland shall take place without the consent of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. Although I perfectly well see the point of the hon. and learned Member opposite, that this is purely a negative, rather than a positive, provision, it does seem to me that it is relevant to that subsection to inquire into the conditions in which the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland would be expected to give his consent to such a prosecution. I do not see how that can possibly be out of order.
The conditions in which the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland would give consent to such prosecutions must obviously be determined, to some extent, by his own known views and attitude on various relevant subjects, on cognate prosecutions, and so on. It therefore seems relevant to refer—and this is

2487
whether this book comes in—to a question which he answered on 27th May, 1947, in the Northern Ireland Parliament on the question of whether it was
"permissible for a Resident Magistrate to belong to a secret political society, such as the Orange Order"—
to which he replied with an emphatic affirmative—he said that
"from a very long knowledge of, and from association with and membership of the Orange Order,"
he thought that
"membership of that Order would do everything to help the magistrate to arrive at just decisions."
That, Major Milner, is surely a significant point in relation to this question of whether prosecutions in Northern Ireland of people who may or may not be opposed to the existing government of that country should take place. As we see under this Clause that they are not to take place without the consent of the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, I feel that my right hon. and learned Friend might like to look into this matter a little more carefully; because there are also other aspects of it.
1.15 a.m.
Suppose that such a prosecution took place in County Fermanagh. The Crown solicitor would probably be Mr. E. C. Ferguson, who is a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament; and it will be within the recollection of hon. Members opposite what some of his recent observations have been. He cannot be described as an impartial judicial figure. Speaking at a meeting of the Fermanagh—
Sir R. Ross: On a point of order. Are we to have quotations from very distinguished persons on subjects which seem quite irrelevant? Are we to have read out to the Committee all the quotations which the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) can find?
The Chairman: I allowed a certain latitude to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) and I am now waiting to hear what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Driberg: I am sure, Major Milner, that if my remarks are not in order you will stop me. Although this statement
2488
was in April, 1948—nearly three years ago—it seems to me to have some relevance. That, of course, is why I am quoting it. At the annual meeting of the Fermanagh Unionist Association, Mr. Ferguson said—
The Chairman: I really cannot allow the hon. Member to proceed on that line. I have asked other hon. Members not to do so, and I must now insist that he does not. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are too far removed, in my view, from the Clause before the Committee.
Mr. Driberg: May I, then, ask what conditions are envisaged under which the learned Attorney-General of Northern Ireland would refuse to assent to such a prosecution?
The Chairman: That question should not be addressed to me.
Mr. Driberg: Could I then, address it to the Government Front Bench—if they are capable of answering it?
The Chairman: The hon. Member should make his speech and, if necessary, I will call him to order.
Sir R. Ross: The Attorney-General to whom the hon. Member is referring has since been made a judge; and that was done by the hon. Member's own Government.
Mr. Driberg: The Crown solicitor is the gentleman who would advise the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland.
The Chairman: The point is too far removed from the matter before the Committee.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 51 AND 52 of 11 & 12 GEO. 6. c. 64 TO SHORT-TERM TRAINING UNDER SECTION 1.)
Mr. Low: There are two Amendments to this Clause on the Order Paper in my name, Major Milner, and perhaps it

2489
would be convenient to take both together.
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman should move the second Amendment. If it were approved, the first would follow as a matter of course.
Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 11, line 28, at the end, to insert:
"and (b) in 1951 and in every year in which Part I of this Act is in force following a direction under section twelve of this Act, to one period of continuous training of not less than fourteen or more than twenty-one days undertaken by volunteer members of His Majesty's Auxiliary forces, whether under a legally enforceable liability or not."
The object of this Amendment, together with the one in line 25, at the end to insert "(a)," is to give the same protection as is given to the Z men and the G men to the volunteer members of the Auxiliary Forces and, in particular, to volunteer members of the Territorial Army. I and my hon. Friends want this protection to be given mainly in order to assist the Territorial Army to get the extra volunteers which it so badly needs. We consider that this will not be possible unless this Committee is fair to volunteers. It is clear, as some of us pointed out on the Second Reading, that it really is ridiculous that the War Office should be inviting Class Z men, whom it is now calling up, to join the Territorial Army as volunteers and at the same time be saying to them. "If you do volunteer, you will lose the protection which we give you in this Act," the protection of paid holidays and the protection from dismissal from their employment. I think the Committee will agree, as indeed the Under-Secretary of State for War implicitly agreed in his Second Reading speech, that if it is not ridiculous it is anomalous.
Mr. M. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I said it did appear to be anomalous, but I did give reasons why there was not much more than an appearance.
Mr. Low: I am sorry to have misquoted the hon. Gentleman, but I think the Committee will see that I did not do him much damage. There are really two quite separate questions here, and I think the Under-Secretary, when he addressed his remarks to the House on the Second Reading, was dealing with the wrong point. There is the general question whether it is right in ordinary
2490
circumstances to impose upon an employer a duty because a voluntary act of one of his employees, such as joining the Territorial Army, has caused that extra duty to be put upon him. That is a general question that applies in any year and is not the specific question which is raised by the Amendment which I am now moving, because if the Committee will look at that Amendment they will see that the Amendment explicitly applies only to the year 1951 or to any other year in which Part I of this Act is enforced.
So the point to which the Under-Secretary addressed himself on the Second Reading, was not exactly the same point as that with which we are now concerned. What is the exact position as it stands? As I understand it, during this summer one in four of the members of the Army who do 15 days training for one reason or another, will be a volunteer. The other three will be Z men or National Service men. There out of the four, all serving together, will be given protection under this Bill or under the National Service Act as to their right to paid holidays and freedom from dismissal from employment. One out of the four will have no protection at all.
That seems to me to be quite unjust, if nothing else, and it seems quite absurd if, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the Government are intent on getting more volunteers into the Territorial Army. I see the Secretary of State for War below the Bar; I wish he were listening to the arguments I am putting, because he ought to be interested in getting more volunteers into the Territorial Army and it would be much better if he would come on to the Floor of the Committee and listen to what is being said.
The Under-Secretary used two arguments in his speech on Second Reading, one of which I have mentioned—the general question whether it is right to impose this duty upon employers in the case of volunteers. I shall return to that point in a moment, because I believe the hon. Gentleman is wrong. On the second point I think the hon. Gentleman quite unwittingly misled the House. He said:
"Nor is there by any means unanimity among the men in the Territorial Army. Indeed, I should think it is probable that the majority opinion among them is that they do not want to jeopardise the very good relations which usually exist between them and their employers and possibly end up in

2491
a position which, although legally stronger, would in practice not be so satisfactory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1878.]
I tried to make inquiries before Second Reading, and I have done so again since the Second Reading, to find out what was the feeling in the Territorial Army about this and I have not heard one person object to the protection in the form of the words which I have placed on the Order Paper. That protection applies only in the years in which Z men are called up-1951 and any other years in which Part I of the Bill is enforced. No one has objected, and I have had a number of letters from and conversations with people who ought to know the Territorial Army very well. They indicate that there is a strong feeling that this protection should be given.
I should like the Under-Secretary to tell me with whom he has consulted, and who has advised him on the lines indicated in his speech on Second Reading. Has he consulted the Territorial Army Council, has he consulted the chairmen of the Territorial Army Associations separately, has he consulted the commanding officers of Territorial Army units? How is it that he has formed this opinion, which I believe to be misguided? I must refer over and over again to the main point, as I understand it. The main object which the War Office have in this Z scheme is to get more volunteer N.C.Os. for the Territorial Army, without which the hon. Gentleman cannot keep the Territorial Army going.
I said I would refer again to the first reason which the hon. Gentleman gave for not granting this protection—the attitude of the employers. What good employer has indicated to him that it will make any difference in the employer's attitude to the Territorial Army if a subsection such as this is inserted in the Bill? Surely the good employer will want to help His Majesty's Government in their efforts to put the defences of the country right. Surely that will be so. Surely employers as a whole know that they are to have men called up under Class Z, and that these men will have statutory rights under the Bill. They must realise that if a particular employee is serving as a volunteer, he might just as well have been called up under Z Reserve had he not been a volunteer. It is only because
2492
he is a volunteer that he is not covered by the Bill, yet if he had not been a volunteer he might well have been on the Class Z list and might well have been called up in any event.
I do not believe that there exists this objection on the part of employers to the protection given in the words which I seek to insert into the Bill. I press this idea upon the Government, if not in the exact words which I have put on the Order Paper. I believe it is essential to the success of the scheme and to the success of the Territorial Army. I think it is not only essential, but is fair. I think that at this time, above all, we should try to be fair to those who volunteer as well as to those who have to serve because we have to call them up.
1.30 a.m.
Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I want to support this Amendment. I think there is a very great danger in this country that we will lose the whole concept of voluntary enlistment. It is hon. Members opposite who traditionally have been opposed to conscription, and surely the alternative to conscription is a voluntary Army. Therefore, it is somewhat of an anomaly that here we have a Socialist Government which is giving protection to the National Service man and denying it to the volunteer.
I ask the Member who is to reply whether it is from private employers that he has had this impression that these employers do not like it; or is it from the nationalised industries, which have notified their dislike, particularly the British Electricity Authority? I should like to have an authoritative answer to that question, if possible, because I have a feeling that this is probably the case. I urge the Minister to resist that with all the force he possibly can. We must get the voluntary spirit back into the Army of this country. This will be one way in which we can help to do so.
Mr. Wyatt: From this side of the Committee I would like to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low). It must be clear to everybody that it is utterly ludicrous to put the volunteer in a worse position with regard to holidays and other things as compared with the person conscripted. We must do all we can for the conscript person, because it is by no

2493
voluntary act of his that he is being brought into the military machine.
At the same time, somebody who feels so strongly about the matter as to answer the appeals of the Government and to go to serve in the Territorial Army or other Territorial Forces should have every bit as much protection as anybody called up under these Acts. I am sure my hon. Friends will see it in that light. I cannot see how you can justify on any basis of equity that a volunteer should be in a worse position than a conscript.
Mr. Ian Harvey: I am most grateful for that contribution, because it represents a point of view we have been trying to get across from this side of the Committee. When we discuss this matter, it seems to me that we do not entirely appreciate that the Territorial Army in the present state of affairs is altered from that of yesterday. I am well aware that there may be some people thinking of the past and saying that as the Territorial is a volunteer he knows exactly what he is in for and must accept it.
I think that is an argument which was quite tenable under the old conditions, but today the Territorial Army is an integral part of the whole system and if hon. Members want this system to work they must keep the Territorial Army in being. We will not keep it in being if it is penalized—is there any other word for it?—in this way. To meet the very considerable demands there is no doubt that the Territorial Army man must spend a great deal more time in learning the job and dealing with the new intake.
On Second Reading I pointed out that the conception of Territorial Army camps being a holiday is completely out of date. From what I have been told I am certain that the Territorials will have to put in a great deal more time at camp, and there is no question that many of them would far rather be spending their holidays in the normal way with their wives and families. If this principle is accepted they will, next year, spend their holidays with their wives and families, and the Under-Secretary will have no Territorial Army to train the Z men, who, I understand, may be called up then, and the whole structure of the present system will break down because of this unwillingness to make a very reasonable concession. I must say, I find it very difficult to believe, sustain or to prove the state-
2494
ment of the Under-Secretary on Second Reading that there is unwillingness on the part of the Territorials to accept this, and I join with my hon. Friend in asking him to give us proof that that unwillingness exists.
Finally, I endorse what has been said about the danger of this anomaly which will exist at camp. If the morale on which the whole of this system is developed is to be built up it will certainly not be built up if there is any feeling of unfairness or injustice, or any suggestion that two people serving side by side have not the same conditions of service. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the Amendment.
Mr. David Renton: I have always understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite, for reasons which they sincerely feel, have always been rather against any kind of a privileged class, and I wonder how they expect the new Territorial units to have the enthusiasm we all wish them to have if they are to be divided into several different types of men serving side by side, some having privileges which the others do not have
I remember very well early in the last war, when we in the Territorials had the first intake of militiamen, the militiamen worked in very smoothly; they were welcomed and there was no trouble whatever. But there were just a few of the militiamen who put it round that the thing not to do in the Army was ever to volunteer, and I always felt that that was a very bad spirit indeed—the spirit of "Don't volunteer." If those who do volunteer are to be at a disadvantage compared with the others that most unfortunate spirit will have support given to it, and for that reason I think that this Amendment is a very wise one.
Mr. Lee: We had this discussion on Second Reading, and even more extensively last year on another Bill. I agree that at first sight quite a strong case can be made for the Amendment, but I suggest that the case itself is theoretical, and that, in practice, it does not work out quite in the way suggesed. I assure the Committee that this whole question has been most carefully considered with the one object of doing what we believe is to the advantage of the auxiliary Forces and what would be most likely to encourage volunteering, and the conclusion we have reached is that it is

2495
better for the volunteers themselves not to extend this protection.
Mr. Harvey rose—
Mr. Lee: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to put my argument; I did listen to his argument without interrupting. The fact is that in every section of industry it is, and has been for many years, the practice of employers to treat Territorials and other volunteers going to annual training a good deal more generously than is provided for in the statutory requirements. It is quite common practice, both in private and nationalised industry, for volunteers to be paid full wages in addition to Service pay for the period of annual training, or for employers to make up Service pay to civilian pay for the whole or part of the period of training.
Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Does this happen in the nationalised industries?
Mr. Lee: Yes, I will give details later. It is a typical practice in the Civil Service and the nationalised industries.
As regards private industry, the National Joint Advisory Council which is representative of the two sides of industry on national level, in July last, when we discussed this question with them, endorsed the principle that employers should continue, as far as practicable, to deal with volunteers in the future with the same generosity as they have done in the past. As regards protection against loss of employment, we in the Ministry do not hear of cases where the employer seeks to dismiss a volunteer because of his liability to annual training. There is also the fact that there is co-operation in the matter of evening training. The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) will agree that this is an important point in the training of the Territorials, and is as important as the annual camp.
Mr. McCorquodale: The hon. Gentleman must not assume that I am on his side. I am strongly on the side of my hon. Friends.
Mr. Lee: I appreciate that fact from the right hon. Gentleman's recent speeches, but from his experience at the Ministry of Labour he will know that it
2496
is not merely a question of the annual training. Evening training is not, in fact, covered by the Amendment, and he will know that we get the utmost co-operation from the vast majority of employers in the country. We would be loth to do anything which would militate against that good spirit which we now have from industry.
If volunteers were given the same limited statutory protection as the national service men we should simply be providing something which is of far less value than they normally get under voluntary arrangements. While there may appear to be a good theoretical case for this, no real need for it has been shown by our experience. To give statutory protection to the volunteers would be to depart from the long-standing principle that this kind of statutory obligation on employers can only properly be applied to men the State has compulsorily taken away for training. Employers might well come to make no distinction between volunteers and National Service men. They might well consider the legislative proposals, if this Amendment were incorporated in the Bill, to be a maximum. That is the general reaction to legislation. Very much of the good will between employer and the auxiliary Forces at present would, in fact, break down.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low) asked me certain questions concerning our contacts with the Territorial Army. The decision which we reached to exclude this provision from the Bill was made in accordance with the advice given by the Director-General of the Territorial Army.
Brigadier Head: But that is the War Office.
1.45 a.m.
Mr. Lee: The decision we reached was in accordance with the advice of the Director-General of the Territorial Army, and has the support of the Council of County Territorial Associations. Our investigations have led to the advice that I have outlined, and it cannot be said that we have not taken what steps were open to us to find out precisely what was the considered opinion of those in charge of the Territorials.
I do not quite understand the significance of the hon. Gentleman's point when he asked whether there was pressure from the nationalised industries on this

2497
issue. As a matter of fact, there is no pressure, so far as I am aware, from the nationalised industries to do anything of the kind.
One can outline the attitude taken by several of them. If one may regard the Bank of England as a nationalised undertaking, they give one week's additional paid leave. The British Electricity Authority was quoted by the hon. Gentleman: they give additional leave (a) to those with two weeks' holiday or less, one week on additional pay and one week unpaid; and (b) those with two weeks' holiday or more get one week on full pay and one week unpaid to bring the total annual leave up to four weeks. The Transport Commission: two weeks' additional leave, and Service pay be made up to the standard of civil pay for one week. In the case of members of the R.E. Transportation Unit, the Commission will make up the balance of civil pay for the whole period.
I assure the hon. Member that this is the attitude the nationalised industries are taking. I agree at once that, theoretically, there is a point in what the Amendment asks for, and if one felt that it was, on balance, of greater advantage to the volunteers, or if it would lead to a greater incentive for volunteers. I would take a very different attitude. But we believe that, in practice, it is far better to give them the co-operation which has lent itself financially to better inducements from employers rather than to limit it to the point where they do not differentiate between the Territorial and the National Service man. It is only because of considerations of that kind that we suggest it is better to leave the Bill as it is, rather than to accept this Amendment.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 84.

Division No. 49.]

AYES

1.50 a. m

Alport, C. J. M.

Heald, Lionel

Pickthorn, K.

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Heath, Edward

Powell, J. Enoch

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

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Prior-Pajlmer, Brig. O.

Birch, Nigel

Higgs, J. M. C.

Profumo, J. D.

Bishop, F. P

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Renton, D. L. M

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

Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Roper, Sir Harold

Boyle, Sir Edward

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Ross, Sir Ronald (Londonderry)

Braithwaite, Ll.-Cmdr. Gurney

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Russell, R. S-

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

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

Low, A. R. W.

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

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Channon, H.

MoCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

MacLeod, lain (Enfield, W.)

Studholme, H. G.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Macmillan, Rt Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Teevan, T. L.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

de Chair, Somerset

Marshall Douglas (Bodmin)

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

Deedos, W. F.

Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

Turner, H. F. L.

Digby, S. W.

Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)

Vosper, D. F.

Fisher, Nigel

Mellor, Sir John

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Fraser, Sir I. (Morecamba & Lonsdale)

Nabarro, G.

White, Baker (Canterbury)

Gomme-Dunean, Col. A.

Nicholls, Harmar

Williams, Charles (Torquay)

Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

Oakshott, H. D.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Harden, J. R. E.

Odey, G. W.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Head, Brig. A. H.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Drewe and Major Wheatley.

NOES

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Gunter, R. J.

Bartley, P

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Hale. Leslie (Oldham, W)

Benn, Wedgwood

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

Bing, C. H C

Delargy, H. J.

Hannan, W

Bowden, H W

Donnelly, D.

Hargreaves, A.

Brockway. A F

Driberg, T. E. N,

Hayman, F. H

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)

Callagban, L. J.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Herbison, Miss M.

Collick P.

Evans, Albert (Islington, SW)

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Collindridge, F.

Fernyhough, E.

Hughes, Emrys (S Ayrshire)

Cooper, John (Deptford)

Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E.)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Follick, M.

Janner, B.

Crawley, A.

Foot, M. M.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Cresland, C. A. R.

Gibson, C W

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Kinley, J.

Pearson, A.

Sylvester, G. O.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Robinson, Kenneth (St Pancras, N)

Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

MacColl, J. E.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Shawcross, Rt. Hon Sir Hartley

Wallace, H. W.

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

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

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

Moeran, E. W.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Moody, A. S.

Simmons, C. J

Williams, David (Neath)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Slater, J

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Snow, J. W.

Wyatt, W. L.

Moyle, A.

Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank

Yates, V. F.

Nally, W.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

O'Brien, T.

Stress, Dr. Bamett

Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Sparks.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(EXTENSION OF PART I TO YEARS 1952–1954.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. H. Macmillan: We do not like this Clause, and we do not like the reason for it. This Bill is, after all, merely a stop-gap, and it is unlikely that the precise procedure as to length of call-up or categories or many other points will be of a permanent nature without change or modification. I think more flexibility may be required. We feel that this system, which has many shortcomings, will not in principle serve us in these following years without some change. After all, it does not fully meet the training needs of the Territorial Army: it does not meet the needs of the Regular Army or Air Force at home. It certainly does not meet the needs of the Air Force abroad. There are many provisions apart from the main principle which have detained us for a whole day's discussion, and about which we have had a good many doubts, and these machinery clauses may require alteration or amendment in the light of experience.
I rather doubt whether this Clause without amendment will meet the convenience of any Government. Iam confirmed in that view by something which the Minister of Defence said today on an earlier Amendment on Clause 2 in the name of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). The right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, but I took his words down. He said:
"After all this is a temporary measure which can be revised from year to year."
It cannot be revised year by year under Clause 12 as I read it, and I am fortified in the view because one would have thought the present Government would
2500
not be particularly interested in this matter in 1952, because, whatever may be the uncertainties of modern life, I do not think anyone on the other side of the House who has a stake of the most modest amount of his own and not of Government money, would be prepared to say the Government would be in office next summer. Whether amendment is necessary or not I do not know. I do not like the procedure: nor do my hon. Friends. I do not like the Order in Council, even with the affirmative resolution. I do not see why if amendment is required it should not be in the Bill. If none is required, a simple one-Clause Bill can be passed.
Having regard to the fact that the Regular Army and the Regular Air Force must have a yearly Bill to prevent their becoming an illegal conspiracy, it does not seem unreasonable that there should be a yearly Bill to deal with the question of Reserves. Therefore, if the only reason for this Clause were pure altruism on the part of the Government, through their simply thinking of their successors, then they can meet us by not making any factious opposition to a one-Clause Bill which we may have to introduce next year.
Mr. M. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman referred to this Measure as a stopgap, as, in a sense, it is. We all recognise that we are dealing here with the period before the working of the National Service Act has fully poured National Service men into the Territorial Army. But that is not a period which will be completed in one year from now. I think, therefore, that it is common ground between us that there ought to be provision for the possibility of doing something like this scheme not only this year, but in the next two or three years. So the issue narrows down to the ex cathedra way of doing that.
I understood that the right hon. Gentleman objected to the procedure by Order

2501
in Council partly on what I might compare to a priori grounds, and partly because it would not admit of amendment of the scheme. But the insertion of this Clause into the Bill does not preclude the method of introducing another Bill if that should seem to be more desirable. If we found, in the light of this year's experience, or in the light of the situation next year, that it was impossible to devise a satisfactory scheme for next year within the framework of this Bill, if it were essential to have some scheme we—and I am taking a different view from that of the right hon. Gentleman—would have to invite the House to pass a separate measure.
I think it is unreasonable to suppose that the conditions are bound to be so different. It is not something on which it is sensible to prophesy, but it is quite possible that a scheme which would be
within the framework of this Bill would also be appropriate to the needs of next year. We cannot at this stage prophesy what the needs of next year, under a scheme of this sort, will be. I think it is reasonable to have both alternatives. If it is simplest to proceed by Order in Council, we are keeping that door open. If, as might happen for a variety of reasons, that arrangement is not satisfactory, nothing in this Clause precludes our proceeding by Bill. I think, therefore, that since the door which the right hon. Gentleman wants open is open, he ought not to seek an alternative which the Bill already provides.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes. 82 Noes, 82.

Division No. 50.]

AYES

[2.5 a.m.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Gutter, R. J.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Bartley, P.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

Benn, Wedgwood

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Bing, G H C.

Hannam, W.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Bowden, H. W.

Harg eaves, A.

Simmons, C. J

Brockway, A. F.

Hayman, F. H.

Slater, J.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)

Snow, J. W.

Callaghan, L. J.

Herbison, Miss M.

Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank

Collick, P.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Sparks, J. A.

Collindridge, F

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Cooper, John (Deptford)

Hynd, J. B (Attercliffe)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Janner, B.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Crawley, A.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Sylvester, G. O.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

MacColl, J. E

Wallace, H. W.

Delargy, H. J.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

Donnelly, D.

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

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Oriberg, T. E. N.

Moeran, E. W.

Williams, David (Neath)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Moody, A. S.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Wyatt, W. L.

Evans. Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Yates, V. F.

Fernyhough, E.

Moyle, A.

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Nally, W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Follick, M.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Mr. Wilkins and

Foot, M. M.

O'Brien, T.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson

Gibson, C. W

Pearson, A.

NOES

Alport, C. J. M.

Fisher, Nigel

Low, A. R. W.

Ashton. H. (Chelmsford)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

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

Fraser, Hon Hugh (Stone)

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Birch, Nigel

Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Bishop, F. P.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

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

Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

Harden, J. R. E.

Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Gurney

Head, Brig. A. H.

Mellor, Sir John

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Heald, Lionel

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Heath, Edward

Nabarro, G.

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

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Nicholls, Harmar

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Higgs, J. M. C.

Oakshott, H. D.

Channon, H.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Odey, G. W.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

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

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

Joyneon-Hicks, Hon. L. W-

Pickthorn, K.

de Chair, Somerset

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Powell, J. Enoch

Deedes, W. F.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Digby. S. W.

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

Profumo, J. D.

Renton, D. L. M.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Roper, Sir Harold

Studholme, H. G.

White, Baker (Canterbury)

Ross, Sir Ronald (Londonderry)

Teevan, T. L.

Williams, Charles (Torquay)

Russell, R. S.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

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

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Turner, H. F. L.

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

Vosper, D. F.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Drowe and Major Wheatley.

Question put, and agreed to.

Whereupon The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN stated that he thought he should vote for the provisions of the Bill as introduced, and declared himself with the Ayes.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule be agreed to."
Mr. Fenner Brockway: On a point of order. I understand that the proposed new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) and myself—(Registration of conscientious objectors)—is not to be called. I understand it is not to be called on the ground that the cost involved would be beyond the estimates for this purpose. I am going to ask your serious consideration, Sir Charles, of the point of order I now raise. This new Clause in actual fact applies the Act to the proposals of the Government administratively to deal with conscientious objectors. There will be no increased cost, at all. I therefore suggest that the new Clause is in order.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: Further to that point of order. There is a new Clause to the same effect in my name and those of my hon. Friends dealing with registration for conscientious objectors. There is another— Certificate of postponement)—dealing with the persons who suffer personal hardship by being called-up. Can I have some indication, Sir Charles, whether it is intended to call these new Clauses?
The Deputy-Chairman: I have called the Schedule. The reason that this new Clause referred to by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) is out of order is that it provides for payments which are outside the Money Resolution.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: That is exactly the point of order I raised. There is no increased cost in this new Clause at all. All it does is to give statutory effect to what the Government have already agreed administratively to do. There-
2504
fore, I am arguing that as no increase in cost is involved, it is in order.
The Deputy-Chairman: I disagree with that. I am sorry.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next. and to be printed [Bill 76].

ALBANIA (BRITISH CLAIM)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
2.16 a.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): Four and a half years ago, on 22nd October, 1946, a squadron of the Mediterranean Fleet was proceeding through the Corfu Channel, which is the strip of water separating the island of Corfu from the mainland. As that squadron was proceeding, a number of explosions took place which resulted in damaging one of His Majesty's destroyers beyond repair, seriously damaging another and, more important than either of those facts, killing 44 officers and men of the Royal Navy and seriously injuring some 22 others. Mine-sweeping operations carried out in the following months showed that the explosions had been caused by mines, and there was expert evidence that those mines had been laid during the preceding six months—that is to say, during a period beginning at least a year after the end of the war in Europe.
As a result of these investigations, His Majesty's Government sent a note to the Albanian Government protesting and claiming compensation, but as no satisfaction of any sort or kind was obtained, the matter was brought before the Security Council of the United Nations early in 1947. On 9th April, 1947, by a resolution of the Security Council, the matter was referred to the International Court of Justice at The Hague and, despite various attempts at obstruction of these proceedings on the part of Albania,

2505
hearings took place in the winter of 1948, at which this country was represented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. On 9th April, 1949, the International Court found Albania responsible and, in particular, held her responsibility to be based upon the fact that she must have. known of the presence of these mines in the waters adjoining her coast and had not taken the steps required under international law to notify shipping of the existence of these mines.
The Court at this stage adjourned the hearing as to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further argument took place, and on both occasions Albania was represented before the Court. On 15th December, 1949—that is, some 15 months ago—£843,947 damages were awarded by the Court to this country. The amount was broken down into a sum of £700,000, in round figures, in respect of one of the destroyers which, although by quite magnificent seamanship taken to Malta, had proved unrepairable; some £93,000, in round figures, in respect of another destroyer which was repaired; and, to my view the somewhat modest figure of £50,048 in respect of the 44 persons of the Royal Navy who had been killed and the 22 injured. The findings of the Court on the merits of the matter amounted to a finding of plain and unmodified murder.
Not a penny of the damages awarded by the Hague Court 15 months ago has so far been paid. His Majesty's Government saw fit last summer to conduct conversations in Paris which this House was informed were conversations relating solely to the method by which the amount of damages awarded by the Hague Court should be paid. As I understand it, these conversations were conducted by Sir Eric Beckett on behalf of the Foreign Office and by the Albanian representative in Paris on behalf of his Government.
There were a number of Questions on the subject, but I need not trouble this House with any until we come to 24th July of last year. At that time the conversations had been proceeding in a leisurely manner for some months. A Question was asked on 24th July and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whom I am glad to see on the Benches opposite, replied:
"A third discussion took place in Paris on 17th July. It was inconclusive, but the
2506
Albanian delegate was pressed hard to put forward concrete proposals. He was told that failure to do so would compel His Majesty's Government to doubt the Albanian Government's good faith. It is expected that a further meeting will take place shortly."
I asked the Under-Secretary this supplementary question:
"Can the Minister say what will happen it the further meeting is equally inconclusive?"
The Under-Secretary replied:
"In that event, we should have to consider turning to other remedies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July 1950; Vol. 478; c. 29.]
The conversations did, as a matter of fact, prove inconclusive and there was one further Parliamentary Question to which I invite the attention of the House. On 29th Jan. of this year, to a Question relating first of all to the Paris conversations, it fell to the Under-Secretary to answer:
"The discussions have led to no result and are now considered to have concluded. His, Majesty's Government are, as a consequence, now considering what course of action is most likely to secure payment of damages by the Albanian Government."
I asked this supplementary question:
"Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that consideration will merge into action within the next six months?"
The Under-Secretary replied:
"Yes, Sir. We are proposing to take action when we have decided which action it is best to take."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January. 1951; Vol. 483; c. 572.]
I would only comment that the final supplementary answer of the Under-Secretary was given six and a half months after the Under-Secretary had assured the House on the 24th July, 1950, in the passage I have already quoted, that if the Paris meeting turned out to be inconclusive, the Government would have to consider turning to "other remedies." By 29th January their consideration of "other remedies" had not got beyond the stage of proposing to take action when they had decided what action it was best to take.
It seems quite intolerable that the matter should be allowed to rest where it now lies. Not only was the incident in the Corfu Channel in October, 1946, a quite intolerable affront to the dignity and to the prestige of the Royal Navy and this country, it was equally, as I have already described it, an act of plain murder committed on behalf of the Albanian Government. If the matter is to be left

2507
there, it is not only a humiliation to this country of which history has few parallels: it equally is a dangerous humiliation to accept at this time when it would seem to be profoundly dangerous to allow an impression to exist abroad that such wrongs can be done to this country with impunity.
If the matter is allowed to rest where it now lies, it is highly damaging to the prestige of the International Court, and indeed it would seem in future cases to make it quite futile for any country that has suffered wrong or injury to take the matter before the Hague Court when, as a result of the expense of arguing the case, they are to be left with a judgment that is not worth the paper upon which it is written. The Hague Court is not only the oldest but perhaps the most respected of the existing pieces of international machinery, and it will be doing a poor service to the peace of the world to allow the Hague Court method for the settlement of international disputes to fall into contempt.
Therefore, both on account of the grave and inherent wrong done to this country by a Power of whom little good can be found to be said in this century and equally the damage done to the prestige and respect held for an important piece of international machinery, I submit to the House that we are entitled to demand of the Government that the matter be not left where it is.
The Under-Secretary will recall that on another occasion, when perhaps a little harried by supplementary questions, he indicated that he thought it was for the Opposition to advise him what to do. That is not, if I may say so to him with due respect, a proper attitude to be adopted by the representative of the Foreign Office, who has at his disposal the immense resources and information and advice which are available solely and properly to Ministers of the Crown. I hope the Under-Secretary will not adopt that attitude tonight but will accept the responsibility which falls to him as representing the Foreign Office, and will indicate clearly and definitely the action which His Majesty's Government propose to take to execute the judgment which has been made in their favour.
As I say, it is for the Under-Secretary to make the positive suggestions, but if he has not got a concrete suggestion to
2508
put before this House tonight, I beg of him at least to consider the possibility of acting along the lines that I should like to indicate briefly. In the first place, this dispute was referred to The Hague Court as the result of discussions in the Security Council. The Hague Court proceedings having been rendered nugatory as a result of the attitude adopted by Albania, it would be at least open to His Majesty's Government to go back to the Security Council and ask for steps to be taken to enforce the judgment by levying distress upon Albanian property wherever it is to be found throughout the world. It is at least worth considering whether that could be done.
There is also the possibility—and I should like to hear from the Under-Secretary what steps have been taken—of inquiring into the location of Albanian property, not merely within this country but within the reach of His Majesty's Government's Forces. I do not know whether there are any Albanian assets in London; I do not know whether there are any Albanian assets in Malta or in the Colonial Empire; but I think we are entitled to be told by the Under-Secretary whether they have been investigated and whether they have been found.
Assuming there are not, then there are at least Albanian ships, although of small size, in the Mediterranean, and, if Albania continues to default upon the award made against her it seems worth considering whether those ships should not be taken into Malta and, if payment is not made, sold to satisfy the judgment wholly or in part. At least that would be action indicating that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to be cheated of the sum awarded to them, as a result of a case of high seriousness, by the International Court, and that would be not only a vindication, in some degree, of the affront suffered by this country, but also a clear indication to any other Power which may feel inclined to indulge in acts of aggression of this sort that this country cannot be treated in that way with impunity.
As I say, the precise action to be taken is the responsibility of His Majesty's Government. It is not the responsibility of private Members of this House to seek to indicate to those who hold office the precise details of action to be taken; but it is, with respect, one of the duties of hon. Members not to permit the Govern-

2509
ment to lapse into inaction merely because action may appear to present certain difficulties to His Majesty's Government.
I very much regret that a matter of this high importance should have fallen to be discussed on the Adjournment at half-past two in the morning, but such is very often the result of the working of our Parliamentary machine. I hope I have at least succeeded in indicating to the Under-Secretary that there is at any rate one Member of this House—and I believe there are more—who feels that it would be quite intolerable if this matter were simply to be left with His Majesty's Government holding the poor asset of nugatory judgment while the wrongdoer, who has defied this country, defied the United Nations and defied The Hague Court, was allowed—if I may use a colloquialism— to get away with it.
2.30 a.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: This is a matter which is of interest to both sides of the House. I do not think that anyone has ever attempted to condone the action of the Albanian Government, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has used exaggerated language in regretting the intolerable affront to the British Navy, and in commenting on the fairness of the judgment for £843,000 awarded by the International Court. At the same time, it must be appreciated that it is a matter of very great difficulty for His Majesty's Government to force home that claim. I do not think it has been suggested that the Government have allowed it to go by default. There have been negotiations. It is a difficult matter to enforce because there are no Albanian assets in this country.
There is one suggestion I have to make. I understand that during the war there was some Albanian gold held by the National Albanian Bank in Italy or somewhere else. I am not sure whether it has been handed over to the International Bank, but if that gold is outside Albania, and is in the hands of some international authority, it might be worth while for the Government to pursue that matter, and to see whether in that way the judgment to which His Majesty's Government are entitled can be enforced.
2.32 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): The facts as put forward by the hon. Gentle-
2510
man the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) are quite correct. He stated the circumstances which led us to take this deplorable case to the International Court, where we obtained the judgment referred to—a judgment which we have so far failed to have implemented. I would stress at the outset that we are as concerned as he is that this award should be collected from the Albanian Government, but it is not at all easy to find ways and means whereby that can be done. Right from the outset, as soon as the award was made, His Majesty's Government considered how the Albanian Government might give effect to the judgment. Unfortunately, we came to the conclusion very rapidly, as we were bound to do in the circumstances, that Albania had no assets abroad whatsoever, nor were there any transferable assets to meet this judgment.
It was when we considered this situation that we had to look round to see what other action could be taken, if any, whereby we could obtain settlement. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we might levy distress on Albanian property in the United Kingdom, in the Colonies, or on the high seas, wherever assets could be found. Unfortunately they are negligible, and there is no way in which we can lay cur hands on any assets.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Are there no ships at all?
Mr. Davies: Before I deal with the question of ships, I should like to say that even if there were assets, it would be an extremely serious step to take to obtain possession of the property of a sovereign Power in time of peace, and it would require legislation to do so.
Mr. Pickthorn: When we were told repeatedly that what was being discussed in Paris were the methods of payment, what methods of payment were ever suggested either by our side or their side?
Mr. Davies: If the hon. Member will allow me to make my own speech, I will deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. He referred to the possibility of taking possession of ships of the Albanian merchant marine. The only ships known to us, with one exception, are small fishing vessels and so on, which we do not

2511
consider it worth our while or desirable to accost on the high seas and take, as he suggested, into Malta. There is only one ship of over 2,000 tons, so far as we are aware, and that is not in the hands of the Albanians but of the Yugoslays.
Mr. Pickthorn: Who laid the mines?
Mr. Davies: The suggestion that we should look to see whether there are any assets within range of His Majesty's Forces struck me as dangerous. If he is suggesting that we should use force to take possession of anything that we could reach, we should be stepping on very dangerous ground. When we come to the question of discussions in Paris, which have been referred to and which have incensed the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn)—
Mr. Pickthorn: It is what the hon. Gentleman said about them.
Mr. Davies: —during those discussions we at no point abandoned our right to a full settlement, but we wished to ascertain from the Albanians how and when they were going to make the payment which was due to us. We had four discussions with them in Paris, and three of them were concerned solely with the payment of damages. I have said this several times in this House and it is a correct statement. On 22nd September our conversation with the Albanians—the third one of the series—confirmed that it was unlikely that Albania would make any serious offer to meet the judgment, and so we informed them that unless they did so by the end of October, these discussions would cease, because they were fruitless and we did not wish to continue.
We received another approach from the Albanians in January of this year, when they asked for a further meeting. As we thought at that time there was no way of obtaining this sum of money, we decided it was worth while to meet them and see if they had any suggestion to make. Their offer was actually derisory; it was £40,000. Because of that, we decided to take serious steps to see whether any further action could be taken. We have not abandoned all hope and we are examining the possibilities of taking action which will lead to our obtaining this award.
We are exploring certain possibilities, but some of these it would not be in our
2512
interests to disclose from the point of view of obtaining payment. To disclose them might quite easily prejudice the outcome. Of course, the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman that this question might be remitted to the Security Council is one of the possibilities, among others, and in connection with other matters, which is being seriously considered, and which might ultimately be taken. We certainly accept, as he said His Majesty's Government should, the responsibility for taking action in this matter and for finding ways and means of obtaining payment. Tonight he has put forward some suggestions, and we shall consider them.
As regards the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who referred to some Albanian gold, there is no Albanian gold at the present time. All we are aware of is gold held by the Tripartite Gold Commission, which is gold taken from Albania, or rather from Italy, because it was actually in that country at the time, by Germany. It is held as part of the International Gold Pool. Both Albania and Italy lay claim to this gold and it is for the International Gold Pool to decide to whom it belongs.
Mr. E. Fletcher: Could the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that if the tripartite organisation hold that it is Albanian gold and not Italian gold, then we shall be able to earmark it.
Mr. Davies: Certainly not in that way. We cannot earmark gold which belongs to Albania, but if we knew that Albania was in possession of a large amount of gold, we should see in what way, if any, it was possible to obtain it and take whatever action was appropriate. To whom the gold belongs has not yet been decided, and I can say no more than that.
One other point which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames raised was the loss of prestige of the International Court if this judgment is not met. He is quite correct in that, and it would be regrettable if, as a result of our failing to collect, the prestige of the International Court were affected. I doubt whether that would really be so, especially in view of the great difficulty of fulfilling the judgment. There have been no greater supporters of the International Court than His Majesty's Government. We are mindful all the time

2513
of upholding the prestige of the International Court and are aware that not one of its decisions has remained unfulfilled. We will certainly do our utmost to bring about the fulfilment of this judgment for payment of damages. All the way through His Majesty's Government have been supporters of the Court inasmuch as we have suggested to the United Nations the remission of disputes to the International Court and have always ourselves abided by the latter's decisions.
Finally, one must realise the difficulties that are involved in executing this judgment. The difficulties do not in any way condone the deplorable incident which resulted in this tragic loss of life. Albania is a country which is no larger than Wales and has a population of only a little over one million. There is no record of any trade with the United Kingdom at the present time and before the war the trade was roughly only £6,000 a year, which is obviously negligible. It has no assets abroad or assets known to be transferable. These factors must be borne in mind when an attack is made on the Government for failing to have this judgment executed. Perhaps it is not out of place to say also that the Albanian Government happen to be a Communist Government who do not respect the rule of law or the principles of international law as do the Western democracies.
2514
If these claims are satisfied, the money goes to the Treasury. I want to remind the House that the people who suffered, the dependents of those who lost their lives and the injured, are not affected by whether this judgment is executed or not. They are in receipt of pensions and allowances and the execution of this judgment in no way helps them. The money will accrue to the Treasury. While we deplore this incident and regret our failure to execute the judgment, I would remind the House that, however much right there is on the side of the Government and however satisfying it is to be vindicated in this case by obtaining the money, obtaining the money from the guilty will bring no comfort to those who suffered. Theirs is a tragedy greater than failure to obtain monetary satisfaction.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can the hon. Gentleman describe the circumstances in which the Albanian Government made this insignificant offer of £40,000? They admit liability in making any offer at all. Did they describe themselves as too poor to pay more?
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Thursday evening, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes to Three o'Clock a.m.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Rubber Exports
  Rubber Exports
  Newsprint
  Newsprint
  Statutory Instrument No. 212
  Statutory Instrument No. 212
  Wood Pulp Stocks
  Wood Pulp Stocks
  Statutory Instruments Nos. 275 and 277
  Statutory Instruments Nos. 275 and 277
  Paper-making Materials (Stocks)
  Paper-making Materials (Stocks)
  VISA APPLICATION, GERMANY
  VISA APPLICATION, GERMANY
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Tuberculosis (Swiss Treatment)
  Tuberculosis (Swiss Treatment)
  Clinic, Manchester
  Clinic, Manchester
  Vaccination Statistics
  Vaccination Statistics
  Administrative Costs
  Administrative Costs
  Hospital Staffs
  Hospital Staffs
  Day Nurseries
  Day Nurseries
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Chemists' Prescriptions (Pricing Staff)
  Chemists' Prescriptions (Pricing Staff)
  Paddington Hospital (Admittance)
  Paddington Hospital (Admittance)
  Wembley Hospital (Maternity Wing)
  Wembley Hospital (Maternity Wing)
  Medical Auxiliaries (Report)
  Medical Auxiliaries (Report)
  Cliveden Hospital, Taplow
  Cliveden Hospital, Taplow
  Chemists' Accounts
  Chemists' Accounts
  Tuberculosis, Cheltenham
  Tuberculosis, Cheltenham
  DENTAL GOODS (REPORT)
  DENTAL GOODS (REPORT)
  CENSUS ENUMERATORS
  CENSUS ENUMERATORS
  INDUSTRIAL HEALTH SERVICES (REPORT)
  INDUSTRIAL HEALTH SERVICES (REPORT)
  MORTALITY STATISTICS
  MORTALITY STATISTICS
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Imports (Increased Cost)
  Imports (Increased Cost)
  Home-Grown Tobacco
  Home-Grown Tobacco
  Publication "Report to Women"
  Publication "Report to Women"
  Raw Materials (Commodity Committees)
  Raw Materials (Commodity Committees)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (CAR ALLOWANCES)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (CAR ALLOWANCES)
EMPLOYMENT
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Railway and Dockyard Workers
  Railway and Dockyard Workers
  Local Offices (Service)
  Local Offices (Service)
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
EDUCATION
  Local Authorities' Estimates
  Local Authorities' Estimates
  Schoolchildren (Spectacles)
  Schoolchildren (Spectacles)
  Pupils (Annual Costs)
  Pupils (Annual Costs)
  Travelling Expenses, Accrington
  Travelling Expenses, Accrington
  School Dental Service
  School Dental Service
  Pupils (Agricultural Work)
  Pupils (Agricultural Work)
  Architects
  Architects
  Good Friday
  Good Friday
  HOUSING (RECONDITIONING LICENCES)
  HOUSING (RECONDITIONING LICENCES)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Milk
  Milk
  Fish Prices
  Fish Prices
  Canned Imports (Tinplate Supplies)
  Canned Imports (Tinplate Supplies)
  Sugar Beet Factories
  Sugar Beet Factories
  METAL STOCKS
  METAL STOCKS
SCOTLAND
  Forestry Commission's Land
  Forestry Commission's Land
  Telephone Kiosks
  Telephone Kiosks
  NIGERIAN RAILWAYS (LOCOMOTIVES)
  NIGERIAN RAILWAYS (LOCOMOTIVES)
  TANGANYIKA (GERMAN PROPERTIES)
  TANGANYIKA (GERMAN PROPERTIES)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  BISHOPS (RETIREMENT) MEASURE, 1950
  2.34 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Bishops (Retirement) Measure, 1950, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the statutory Resolution standing in my name, with reference to the Bishops (Retirement) Measure, 1950. I am well aware that many of your Lordships are eager to resume the debate on Foreign Affairs, and I realise equally that at the present moment you rightly feel that many issues in that field are more urgent than any questions of ecclesiastical reform. I also realise that in their Report the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament have said that they think it expedient that this Measure should be sent forward for the Royal Assent. How easy, therefore, for me to feel that nothing further need be said by way of introducing to your Lordships this Resolution and the Measure to which it refers! On the other hand, I feel that, unlike some Assembly Measures, this Measure is of sufficient public importance to make it necessary, if only for the purpose of record, that something further should briefly be said about it than the Ecclesiastical Committee in their short Report can properly say. At any rate, I feel it my duty to make some brief observations in regard to this Measure.
  It will be noticed that although the word "Bishop" is used throughout, by means of Section 11 the Measure is applied to Archbishops as well as to Bishops, diocesan and suffragan. It will also be noticed that the word "retirement" is used with a certain delicate ambiguity, to cover both voluntary and compulsory retirement. Part I of the Measure, if approved, will supply the
  724
  Church with a simple, comprehensive and, in many respects, new method of action whereby Bishops suffering from infirmity of mind or body will be able to resign and, what is more pertinent, will be able to be relieved of their office if they are unwilling to resign. Some of your Lordships may be surprised to learn that at present nobody has power to get rid of a Bishop, however disabled he is, either by physical or mental infirmity. All that can be done—and this is only in the case of mental infirmity— is for the Crown to appoint to him a coadjutor Bishop and compel him to pay the coadjutor. The coadjutor would secure the right of succession to the Bishop he is designed to help, or else, if the See of the Bishop he is helping is one of the five senior Sees, the right of succession to any Bishop who is translated to that senior See. Obviously, that would give the coadjutor an unhealthy interest in the early decease of the Bishop, and also would possibly mean the imposition after many years of a Bishop on a diocese which may be unwilling to receive him. It is felt that something should be done to amend that state of affairs.
  Happily, since the Act of 1869, no Bishop has gone beyond a certain point in imbecility, and as a result no coadjutor has ever been nominated to act. But even in the last twenty-five years, one or two Bishops have unfortunately come near to such a state of mental infirmity and have been unwilling to resign, or slow to do so; and one or two Bishops have become so infirm physically that they could not carry on, and they also have been slow to accept the remonstrances or blandishments on which alone an Archbishop can at present rely. It is felt that the time has come for some change, and it is hoped that this Part of the Measure will get over those difficulties and remove those dangers.
  The second Part of the Measure is relatively unimportant. It provides a particular relief which experience has shown to be desirable. The effect of it is to make a change in the Episcopal Pensions Measure, so as to allow a Bishop, although he has not attained the age of seventy and is not technically physically or mentally disabled, to retire on a modified pension if he feels that it would be in the interests of his diocese for him to do so and if his opinion is

  725
  shared by his Archbishop and some other Bishops. The most obvious case, and a particularly real case, is where a man has been made a Bishop say, at forty-two years of age and has been left for twenty-five years in the same diocese. He may come to feel that he has shot his bolt and has no more leadership to give, yet he cannot get out because at present there is no pension available for him.
  Part III of the Measure is more difficult and requires a little more explanation. I say this very diffidently, but I think it should be made clear that this part of the Measure does not come before your Lordships' House because there is any fear in the Church of England that its Bishops are at the moment more likely than Bishops have been likely lately to give serious cause for being regarded as negligent of their duty or guilty in any serious sense of unbecoming conduct. Rather is this part of the Measure an interesting act of deference to the principle of "Fair shares for all." Your Lordships, and especially noble Lords on the Government side of the House, may take special interest in the fact that the commodity to be distributed fairly here is the unusual one of liability to discipline—of the maldistribution of which in the community as a whole we perhaps do not hear so much as we ought at the present time.
  Ten years or more ago it became recognised in the Church of England that a small minority of incumbents, although not bringing themselves within the range of the terms of any definite Law or Canon, appeared to be guilty of conduct which most sensible people would regard as negligent or unbecoming to their office; and it was felt necessary that there should be set up in the Church of England some ecclesiastical tribunals on which incumbents would themselves be represented by elected members, and which, from inside knowledge and experience, would know well enough the standard of duty of incumbents at any given time and could apply it to particular cases. Consequently, the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure was passed, setting up those tribunals; and some years ago your Lordships sent it forward for the Royal Assent.
  It was then felt that "fair for some" ought to be "fair for all", and it was quickly recognised that holders of bene-
  726
  fices other than parochial benefices might well place themselves under a similar form of discipline. That was done in the next Measure, the Church Dignitaries (Retirement) Measure, which received the Royal Assent. Part III of this Measure represents the conclusion of that work, and enables the Bishops to apply the same form of discipline to themselves. I think this Part of the Measure is an act of deference to the principle of fair shares for all in another sense. The Clergy (Discipline) Act of 1892 refers to a number of serious offences, and lays it down that if any clergyman other than a Bishop pleads guilty to or is found guilty of one of those offences in a temporal court, the appropriate ecclesiastical action shall at once follow; and it is made perfectly clear what that ecclesiastical action should be. Now it is realised that supposing a Bishop ever committed, or was found guilty of committing, one of those crimes, it would be far from clear how necessary and appropriate ecclesiastical action should be taken. It is claimed that this Part of this Measure will remove those doubts and possible difficulties in dealing with a situation of that kind.
  It only remains for me to mention, in almost as many sentences, some other important points concerning this Measure. If it receives the Royal Assent, it will go far to settle one legal question which has vexed the minds of ecclesiastical and other lawyers in this country ever since the Reformation—that is, with whom precisely jurisdiction lies, in the first instance at any rate, over a Bishop thought to be guilty of some ecclesiastical offence. It has been said that it lies in the Archbishop of the Province, acting alone or with assessors. It has also been said that it lies with the Archbishop of the Province acting with certain other Bishops as fellow judges. It has also been claimed that it really resides in the Archbishop associated with all the other Bishops of the Province in the Upper House of the Convocation of the Province. Action has been taken in England since the Reformation on all three of those views, but always there has been discussion on the question whether the court to which on any particular occasion a Bishop was brought was composed in such a way as to give it the jurisdiction claimed. This Measure, which lays stress on the Archbishop

  727
  acting with fellow Bishops in the Convocation, would, it is felt, not necessarily solve the problem altogether, but certainly go some way to establishing an authoritative answer.
  Again, your Lordships will notice that under the terms of the Measure no charge can be brought against a Bishop of unbecoming conduct which, in the Archbishop's judgment, involves a question of doctrinal definition. The reason why such charges are excluded from this Measure is primarily because they were excluded from the allied Measures. It is thought best that the three Measures should be, so to speak, on all fours. I say frankly that whatever distress may be caused by the expression of unorthodox doctrines, even by a Bishop, the Church of England is characteristically slow to think that the right method of dealing with the enunciation of those doctrines is by a trial, but believes rather that it should be dealt with by the better commendation by other people of what is felt to be the orthodox view which, if it does not convert the heretic, at any rate may go far to convert the public to whom he addresses himself.
  It will be noticed that the Measure leaves a great deal to the Convocation, and in this connection it uses the word "may" rather than "shall." That is, of course, because Convocation is a very ancient body and jealous of its rights, and experience shows that it is more likely to do the right thing quickly if it is told what it may do rather than if it is told what it must do. One further point is that there is no provision in the Measure for any formal appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is a real change in the law. There was no such provision in either of the other Measures. Clearly, it is felt that even the members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council assisted by ecclesiastical assessors would not necessarily be more competent than the whole bench of Bishops to say at any given moment what amounts to neglect of duty or unbecoming conduct in a Bishop. On the other hand, it will not be possible for any Bishop to be deprived of his See under this Measure without the consent of His Majesty by Order in Council. I have no further observations to make on the rest of the Measure. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships
  728
  for even so long a time, out of what is, perhaps, a mistaken sense of duty. I beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Bishops (Retirement) Measure, 1950, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS
  2.46 p.m.
  Debate resumed (according to Order), on the Motion moved yesterday by the Marquess of Salisbury, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to Foreign Affairs.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, the long debate that opened yester-day seemed to me to be notable in particular for one feature. It expressed the grave feeling of anxiety which exists in every quarter of the House. Speaker after speaker voiced the feeling that the conduct of the country's policy was going too slowly, that it was vacillating, and that it was often subject to confusion. It is worth noting that the strongest criticism came from the Government's own supporters. There were, for example, the speeches of Lord Chorley and Lord Winster. And it was clear from the speeches made from the Benches of the right reverend Prelates that, there also, there was this general feeling of anxiety and doubt as to whether in recent months the conduct of foreign affairs has proceeded as efficiently as was needed in the face of the very great crisis with which the country is confronted.
  Are this vacillation and hesitation due to the Foreign Secretary's illness? Nobody can regret more than I do the Foreign Secretary's illness, and I desire to say nothing that would in any way distress him or impede his complete recovery. The only comment I make is as one who has himself been Foreign Secretary, and that is that there is no post in the Government in which it is more necessary to have the Minister sitting day after day, even night after night, in his room in the Foreign Office. It is an extremely exacting post. Indeed,

  729
  I have often thought that, perhaps, in future, the main test for it might well be a physical test. I have wondered whether it does not really call for someone with the physique of, say, a champion boxer. But, meanwhile, let me wish the Foreign Secretary a complete recovery, and let me add that, whether that be delayed a long or a short time, an acting Foreign Secretary ought certainly to be appointed to undertake the duties in the interval.
  Is this hesitation again due to the fact that the Government have a very precarious majority? It may well be so. I do not seek to answer either of these questions. All I say is that at this moment of crisis it is most unfortunate that the country has a Foreign Secretary who is a sick man and a Government who are dependent upon the temperature of half a dozen of their Members in another place. Meanwhile, anxiety in the country is undoubtedly growing. The country sees that it is faced with a crisis every bit as dangerous as the crises of the years 1937, 1938 and 1939. It is faced with this crisis, and it is bewildered as to whether or not the Government are capable of giving the country a lead in carrying through the great programme of rearmament about which we have heard so much. The country is particularly anxious over three issues. First of all, there is the issue of China and Korea; secondly, there is the issue of the rearmament of Germany; and, thirdly, there is the issue of British rearmament. Let me say a word or two about each of these causes of anxiety.
  Let me begin with China and Korea. In the last debate we had in your Lordships' House on Foreign Affairs, several very pessimistic speeches were made about the military operations in Korea. I was bold enough to say that I thought that so long as we maintained command of the air and of the sea, we had a good chance of re-establishing our position. I am glad to say that in the military field the position is definitely very much better to-day than it was at the time of our last debate. I think this debate should not end without a tribute to General Ridgeway and to the transformation that he has affected in a short time in the military field. So far so good.
  Nevertheless, it is a fact that upon two of the most important questions the Americans and ourselves are still not in
  730
  agreement. The Prime Minister went to Washington, and held full and frank discussions with President Truman. At the end of those discussions he frankly stated that upon the questions of Formosa and the entry of the Pekin Government into the United Nations agreement had not been reached. I am genuinely nervous that those disagreements will break out again, and more particularly when we are faced once more with the issue of the 38th Parallel. It was the crossing of the 38th Parallel that brought these disagreements into prominence. Since then, the fact that the military operations have gone better has pushed these disagreements into the background, but I feel profoundly that if and when the question of the Parallel once again becomes a live issue we shall see these difficulties break out once more, and we shall run the risk of another serious disagreement between the United States and ourselves. If that be so, it is essential that we and the Americans reach agreement at the earliest possible moment upon the policy to be adopted if and when we reach the 38th Parrallel.
  I had hoped that agreement had already been reached. The Prime Minister seemed to me to make more than one statement in another place giving the impression that at any rate a working agreement had been reached. Yet only yesterday we had the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stating that agreement had not yet been reached and that the question was still under consideration. Let me read to the House what he actually said.
  "… it is a matter of major importance that before the United Nations forces arrive at the 38th Parallel the question of what is to be the guiding policy should have been settled. As noble Lords know, discussions are proceeding in Washington in which bath the political and military aspects of the question will be fully considered."
  say frankly that I am disappointed at that statement. I have no inner military knowledge, and I cannot therefore say whether it is likely, or when it is likely, that General Ridgeway's forces will once again reach the 38th Parallel. Looking back at the astonishing vicissitudes of this curious war, however, it seems to me that a contingency of that kind might happen almost at any moment It is essential, therefore, that we should reach agreement at once, and that there should be no

  731
  dangerous period for discussions when we reach that point in Korea, no danger of a recurrence of all those disastrous differences from which we hoped we had emerged. I venture to say to the Government to-day, that this is not a question that can be left to the future. Every day's delay is a danger. We must come to an agreement with the Americans without any further procrastination.
  I pass from Korea and China to the question of German rearmament. I am disturbed by the Government's record over the question of German rearmament. There was a time, not so long ago when it appeared to many of us that the Government were opposed to German rearmament. Then came the visit of the Foreign Secretary to Washington, and what appeared to be a reversal of policy, and an acceptance of the necessity of German rearmament. Since then there have been questions and answers in another place. There has been the Prime Minister's statement, from which, I confess, I cannot see that any clear lead is given by His Majesty's Government upon this very difficult question. Here again, this is a question upon which we cannot delay.
  We have asked the Russians to take part in a Four Power Conference. We do not yet know whether they will or will not accept, although we hope that they will. Supposing they do accept, the first issue that will be raised, whether it is put down first on the agenda or not, is the question of German rearmament. The Russians will see that here is a question with which they have a chance of driving a wedge into the Allied front. Here is a question that can be put very cunningly and persuasively to those supporters of the Government who are opposed to German rearmament, or who are doubtful about it. I can almost hear the Russians saying, "Why raise this troublesome question now? You cannot do anything with it for a year, two years or three years; it is the one question that stirs up the satellite countries. Why not drop it, and bargain with us: no German rearmament against the neutralisation and demilitarisation of the Eastern Zone?" I am convinced that inevitably that is the kind of argument the Russians will make. I should feel much happier if I felt that the Gov-
  732
  ernment had a clear answer to make. Let me be so presumptuous as to suggest to them the kind of answer that they should make. They ought to say: "On no account are we prepared to allow a great vacuum in central Europe in the midst of potentially hostile armed nations. "That ought to be the first condition, with no bargain upon it at all. As I say, I have studied with great care the Prime Minister's statement, and the statements made in another place by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and I have the feeling that the mind of the Government is going that way. But I say to them that it would be a great advantage if they could state it clearly and definitely from the start.
  I come now to the third of my causes of anxiety—namely, the question of our own rearmament. When I come to consider the carrying out of the future programme, I cannot forget the past record of the Government in the matter of rearmament. Perhaps I speak with some feeling. Time after time I have tried in a humble way to stimulate the interest of this House in questions of rearmament, and particularly in questions of air rearmament. I have here a whole series of speeches, debates and Government answers. It was like fighting cotton wool: time after time we seemed to have made a strong case for rearmament, and time after time we were assured by this or that representative of the Government that there was no particular cause for anxiety, and that things were going along very well.
  For instance, when the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and I asked for a great air striking force of 500 squadrons, to be formed principally by ourselves, the United States and the British Commonwealth, we were put off with vague statements about the amount of money we were spending, and about the need to be very careful in time of peace as to militarising the country to so great an extent. Supposing three years ago, when Lord Trenchard and I made this proposal—it was a perfectly practicable proposal, and well within the means of the British, the American and the Commonwealth Governments—we had started building up an air force, properly balanced and composed, with a strong force of bombers able to strike at ranges of 5,000 miles, what a different position

  733
  we should have been in to-day in negotiating with the Russians next week, the week after, or whenever it may be! It is these things which make many of us doubt whether, with their past record of complacency, and, as we have often thought, of indifference, the Government can to-day give the country a lead in carrying out a gigantic programme of rearmament.
  Our doubts as to the competency of the Government to carry out a programme of this kind are redoubled by what has happened in the Atlantic storm over the Supreme Naval Commander—and here I speak with some interest as a former First Lord of the Admiralty. Here was a decision that was obviously going to touch the national sentiment to the very quick, and upon which there ought to have been all the regular processes of consultation. I have in mind the kind of procedure that would have been adopted in the past. The Prime Minister would have consulted the Leader of the Opposition; he would have arranged for a Question to asked in the other place; he would have made a statement upon the subject, and he would have accompanied it with a White Paper setting out in detail exactly what the proposal entailed. Instead of that, by some haphazard leakage from a neutral country, we learn that a decision has been taken, by persons unknown, in some place unknown—we have no details as to the procedure—which, whether it be right or wrong, has fundamentally altered the whole system of naval command.
  Let us remember that the Royal Navy, in spite of all the changes which have taken place—the developments for instance in the air—is still almost a religion with the British people. Let us remember, also, that, rightly or wrongly, foreign countries still regard the Royal Navy— and I speak with direct experience in this matter—as a great British institution, second only to the British Monarchy in importance. Let us remember that "Rule Britannia" is a second National Anthem. Now, against that background, comes this decision—blurted out quite casually. We have not yet had any detailed explanation of it. We do not know whether this particular command is needed or, if it is needed, what it actually entails. We do not know what the position of the British Government would be in view of the arrangement which has been made.
  734
  I well remember a not dissimilar arrangement which was made in 1918, with reference to the British Army. After a great deal of discussion, upon many levels, it was decided to place the British Army under the Command of Marshal Foch. The arrangement was made with the greatest possible care; the details were thought out and it was specifically stated that, though the British Army was placed under Marshal Foch, Lord Haig, the Commander-in-Chief, would retain the right of appeal to the British Government. I ask the Government: Has any right of appeal been retained by the Admiralty against the decision of the Supreme Commander, supposing we felt that it endangered the vital interests of this country? It is essential, without necessarily taking sides one way or the other as to the merits of the proposal, that we should know what it actually means. I therefore ask formally and definitely that the Government should: circulate a White Paper, stating clearly how this proposal originated; what are its terms, what is the sphere of action of the various admirals, and whether or not there is a right of appeal to the British Government. I am making no unusual request. In the past, procedure of this kind would have been regarded as a matter of course. I hope that when the First Lord of the Admiralty comes to reply he will willingly accede to this request.
  I have now dealt with the main points which cause me—and I believe a great many men and women in the country— very grave anxiety. I say to the Government: Do not ignore them. These anxieties are very genuine, and we urge them to-day out of no Party spirit. We say to the Government: Remember that in these great issues of national importance you are not the Government of a small precarious majority that is here to-day and gone to-morrow, but that you are the Government of the whole people. Take the people into your confidence. Tell us what is happening. Let us know more of the rearmament programme. If you will give the country the lead, I am sure the country will follow.
  3.16 p.m.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, I ask leave to intervene in this debate to deal with a matter with which

  735
  the noble Viscount dealt in his speech, and which was dealt with by a number of your Lordships who took part in the debate yesterday—the appointment of a Supreme Naval Commander, North Atlantic. This is a subject of importance, and one much discussed at the present time. We cannot dissociate this appointment from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and in dealing with the matter it is well to bear in mind that N.A.T.O. is in the process of being built up. It is in its infancy, so to speak, and we are now attempting to put flesh on to the bare bones of this body. The problem of the Atlantic cannot be looked at in isolation. It must be looked at as a whole, in relation to other commands in other areas which have yet to be decided. Indeed, it must be looked at in relation to the detailed powers of the Supreme Commanders who will have to be appointed in the various areas, another matter which is still under consideration. Noble Lords complained yesterday that insufficient information has been given in relation to this appointment. It was very unfortunate that, a short time after the appointment was made and while consideration was being given to the detailed powers to which I have referred, this leakage took place. I ask that further comment should be deferred until noble Lords can see the plan as a whole which, when it is completed, His Majesty's Government will certainly make public.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: When will that be?
  VISCOUNT HALL: Discussions are going on at the present time, and I cannot say. Other appointments are to be made, and I think it is rather unfair that there should have been all this discussion without knowledge of the complete facts, for we feel that it is above all important that, in building up an organisation of this nature, we should exercise much more mutual trust and forbearance than has been shown during the course of the last two weeks. Unless the North Atlantic Pact nations can trust each other, any organisation that we build up will be useless in peace and in war. It was pleasing to note how the appointment of General Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe was universally acclaimed. I wish that that example had
  736
  been followed, for we must look at this problem as a member of an international organisation, and not from our own particular national standpoint. We must be prepared to give here and take there, in order that the overall pattern of organisation to be set up will command the respect and confidence, not only of one of the members of the organisation but of all its members.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: We do all the giving.
  VISCOUNT HALL: The noble and gallant Earl might just wait and see, and then he can make up his mind.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: What is more important to this country than the Eastern portion of the North Atlantic?
  VISCOUNT HALL: If the noble and gallant Earl will be patient, I will deal with that aspect of the matter. The criticisms during the last weeks have certainly not been a good start for the Anglo-American co-operation to which the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has just been referring —or indeed for naval unity. Nor can it be said that it is healthy for the Royal Navy. It certainly cannot help those persons who are appointed to positions of great responsibility in what should be a working partnership in this great Allied organisation.
  One would imagine, from the criticisms which have been levelled, that it was a new experience to have ships of one country combined under the command of another country during war time. The experience of the last war, and of the Korean war, has brought out forcibly how necessary it is to have our ships under an Allied Commander-in-Chief. When the United States entered the War, in 1941, a number of their ships served with British admirals in the Home Fleet— Admiral Tovey and Admiral Fraser, for example. Admiral Fraser had squadrons of American ships and American naval personnel served in them. In the Mediterranean, strong American forces, under Admiral Hewitt, operated under the overall command of Admiral Cunningham, while for "Operation Overlord" the British Allied Naval Commander, the late Admiral Ramsey, commanded strong British and American naval forces. Finally, the whole British Pacific Fleet, under Admiral Fraser, operated under

  737
  the Commander-in-Chief, United States Pacific Fleet, Admiral Nimitz—although the British Fleet remained an entity under the tactical command of Vice-Admiral Rawlings.
  In Korea at the present time there is an example of United Nations naval task forces having operated with great success, first under the command of an American admiral and now under the command of our own Vice-Admiral Andrewes—a good example oil bringing under one command, where necessary, the forces required to do the job.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but does he really compare the Command of the Korean Coast with the Command of the British Coast?
  VISCOUNT HALL: There is that question of give-and-take; and if the noble and gallant Earl will be patient—and, I almost said, will live faithfully up to his reputation—
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I will trust my reputation to look after itself.
  VISCOUNT HALL: —I propose dealing with the point to which the noble and gallant Earl refers. During this debate we have had the advantage (and I deeply regret that yesterday I was called out of the Chamber, and was unable to hear many of the speeches made by noble Lords, but I have since read them carefully) of a speech from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tovey, who has had such a long and distinguished career in the Royal Navy. His opinion, and that of Admiral of the Fleet Lord Cunningham, cannot lightly be disregarded. They have expressed their views in The Times. Similarly, the opinion of Lord Cork cannot be disregarded in these matters. These admirals held the highest posts in the Navy during the war, and they speak from great experience. No one doubts their sincerity, but at the same time it must be remembered that the present naval advisers to His Majesty's Government also have great war experience; and they are convinced that, while we may benefit by the experience of the last war, it is a great mistake to think that another war is going to be like the last. Indeed, a common accusation against the Fighting Services is that they fight a war on the last war's methods; and we must
  738
  remember that improvements in organisation are just as necessary as improvements in weapons and tactics. The new organisation, we think, will do away with much of the unnecessary business of looking at the Atlantic in parts, instead of looking at it as a single whole.
  Whilst we have had the experience of three distinguished admirals who are opposing the plan of treating the Atlantic as a whole, two very distinguished naval officers have taken exactly the opposite view. I refer to Admiral Schofield and Admiral James. A letter from Admiral Schofield appeared in The Times yester-day and one from Admiral James appears to-day. Admiral Schofield served as Director of the Trade Division of the Admiralty from April, 1941, to July, 1943, when the Battle of the Atlantic was at its height. He was directly concerned in the planning of all seaborne trade in the Atlantic, and is therefore uniquely qualified to speak on this subject. He draws attention to the lack of a satisfactory organisation with our American friends during the last war, and considers it right that the protection of trade and the conduct of anti-submarine operations in the Atlantic should be placed under a single authority. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister pointed out in another place, this was the outstanding lesson of the Battle of the Atlantic. Morever—and I must emphasise this point—his opinion is fully supported by that of the Chiefs of Staff, including the Naval Staff.
  The main criticism which is made of this appointment is: "Why change the well-tried system of 1939–45? "In reply, it must first be emphasised that the conditions now are, in fact, very different. Until the United States entered the war, in 1941, this country had fought the Battle of the Atlantic single-handed. When America came in we had to adapt the command system to meet the new situation. This was done by dividing the Atlantic into two, each side retaining its own command. Unity of command was achieved only by mutual forbearance and co-operation, and in the last resort by the Combined Chiefs of Staff in Washington. Now, we are planning to make the best possible use of the combined resources, not of two nations but of twelve Allied nations, and we have therefore abided by one of the simplest principles of war—

  739
  economy of force. The Atlantic Ocean is one, and any battle in it must be treated as one. We believe, therefore, that there can be only one command, with which we shall be able to make full use of that flexibility which is the great advantage of naval forces; and where a concentrated threat arises, there can we move a substantial defence to meet it. If, on the other hand, the enemy spreads his attack throughout the ocean, so too can the defence be spread. Finally, it is most important that there should be a single overall Commander who can co-ordinate all the offensive operations.
  There has been much criticism of the fact that the Supreme Commander can move forces from one side of the Atlantic to the other. One of the primary objects of having a Supreme Commander, Atlantic, is to enable him to do this very thing, and to concentrate rapidly Allied forces under his control to wherever the enemy threat develops. That had to be done during the last war. A good example of that sort of flexibility has been quoted by a distinguished naval officer to whom I have already referred, Admiral James, in his letter to The Times to-day. When America entered the war in 1941, the Germans switched their submarine offensive to the American Atlantic Coast, with great loss to American and also British shipping. After discussion between the Admiralty and the Navy Department, we turned over ten corvettes to the United States Navy, and allocated two escort groups and twenty-four anti-submarine trawlers, which remained British-manned but which were under American command in the Western Atlantic. With a single Commander for the whole Atlantic, action of that nature could be taken with the least possible delay. We do not believe that in a future war, with fast submarines and aircraft, time will allow the slow-moving machinery of committee work to take the place of a single and unified overall command and control.
  Nevertheless, it should be clearly pointed out that neither we nor our Allies can afford to give the final and absolute control of our forces to any one commander. It is for this reason that the supreme strategic direction of the war in the North Atlantic area will be placed in the hands of the Standing Group, who will be the modern equivalent of the
  740
  Combined Chiefs of Staff in Washington so far as the North Atlantic is concerned. This Standing Group will consist of representatives of the Chiefs of Staff of the United States, Great Britain and France and will have direct control over the Supreme Commander. The Standing Group will assume the same responsibilities as the Combined Chiefs of Staff had during the last war for that area of the world which is now covered by the North Atlantic Treaty. Thus, although we give the Supreme Command of the North Atlantic Ocean to an American admiral, acting as a kind of international authority and served by an integrated international staff with a British admiral as deputy, we still retain, through the Standing Group, the necessary degree of national control for the protection of our Islands. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tovey, stated that officers and ratings of the Navy felt very strongly about this new appointment. I know they do. Indeed, the feeling of the country was rightly described by the noble Viscount, but we are hoping that we shall make the position so clear that it will disabuse their minds of much that they are concerned with at the present time.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: What the noble Viscount has just said is of great importance. For the first time we hear of the Standing Group in this relation. Do I understand that our representative upon the Standing Group will be a British admiral, with responsibility to the Admiralty and the British Government?
  VISCOUNT HALL: At the moment the British representative upon the Standing Group is Lord Tedder. It does not necessarily mean an admiral. It will mean someone who has had long experience of a Service. This representative has very distinguished men from each of the Services who are advising him.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: But, in any case, he would be a British officer responsible in the ultimate resort to the British Government?
  VISCOUNT HALL: He will be a British officer and will be advised by the Chiefs of Staff.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: That makes him responsible to the British Government?
  VISCOUNT HALL: And he will be responsible to the British Government. It is an organisation which is set up under N.A.T.O. This is not new. The Prime Minister referred to the Standing Group in the statement which he made on Monday of this week, so it is not news at all. Indeed, the Standing Group has been in existence for a long time.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We must get this point clear, because it is important. As I understand it, in the unhappy event of there being a disagreement as to the conduct of operations in the North Atlantic, the British admiral covering this side of the Atlantic would have an appeal to the Standing Group, or someone would have an appeal to the Standing Group, and the British representative on the Standing Group would have an appeal to the British Government who would take a final decision so far as British affairs were concerned. Is that the position?
  VISCOUNT HALL: Of course, as the noble Marquess should know, the Standing Group acts under the N.A.T.O. Defence Organisation. The Ministers of Defence have a Council of Ministers of Defence, just as there is a Council of Foreign Secretaries. It is a part of that body, and there is no doubt about it that any disagreement would quickly be brought to the notice of the Minister of Defence, or to the Government through the Minister of Defence.
  I think it is most important that I should make it clear that there is no possible reflection upon British admirals or British naval officers by this appointment. It should be said that no country in the world has such a wealth of naval skill and strategic knowledge as Britain. In two world wars it has met and destroyed the greatest naval challenge ever brought against this country, and the triumphs of the Atlantic and Malta convoys, the rescue at Dunkirk, the engagements with the German battleships, the Battles of the Plats, Taranto, Matapan and North Cape—all these victories will live in history. Similarly, I think it is generally realised that the criticism about this appointment is not intended to cast any reflection upon the American admiral who has been appointed to the post of Supreme Commander, Atlantic, or any other United States Naval officers. The British people have a great admiration
  742
  for the United States Navy and its officers, just as the Americans have an equally sincere admiration for the Royal Navy and its officers. There should be no competition between them, but the closest co-operation for the benefit not only of our two great countries but of the whole world.
  But it must be remembered that we rely on the Americans for an equal share of the forces likely to be assigned to the normal protection of trade, and for the lion's share not only of the forces on which we rely for offensive operations but also for reinforcements. We must not allow ourselves to think that Britain is the only country whose life is threatened by the loss of control of the North Atlantic. While this was true in 1940, in any future war the life of the large Allied land and air forces which America and our European Allies plan to deploy in Europe will be equally dependent upon North Atlantic communications. My Lords, strong as may be our sentiment and our pride—and I know it is strong, and rightly so—we must not allow it to blind us to the facts, or to prevent us from approaching a problem of this magnitude in a realistic manner.
  Furthermore, the critics have attributed to the Supreme Allied Commander powers which he will not possess. His area is limited to the deep waters of the North Atlantic, and the only forces over which he will have command are those Allied forces which are specifically allocated to him for operations in his theatre by the Standing Group Moreover, Allied forces placed under his command are not irrevocably committed and may be redeployed to other theatres should the situation demand. Should a threat develop to this country, forces will be switched by the Standing Group from the Atlantic to the British Home Command, as was done in 1940. In peace, there is no question of our placing any of the Royal Navy or Air Forces in the Atlantic under the Supreme Commander. It will be necessary, of course, for the forces to undergo a measure of combined training during peace so that they may be fully ready for their war-time role, and for this purpose the Supreme Commander will assume command only for the period of exercises needed to carry out the combined training.
  The North Atlantic Council have recognised that the Standing Group will be

  743
  responsible for the higher strategic direction in areas in which the combined North Atlantic Treaty Forces are operating. As such it will be the superior military body to which the Supreme Commander will be responsible. It is therefore quite clear that the Standing Group have direct control over the Supreme Commander and, as was pointed out in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, we are fully represented on the Standing Group. This should make it clear to your Lordships that the new arrangement for the command of the Atlantic Ocean in time of war will not in any way prejudice the safety of this country. On the contrary, His Majesty's Government and their Service advisers fully believe that the new organisation is a most effective method of ensuring that the sea-lines to the United Kingdom and Europe will be kept open. The noble Viscount in the course of his speech asked whether His Majesty's Government would consider the preparation of a White Paper giving full information in regard to this matter. As I have informed your Lordships, these are matters which are now being considered. When a final decision has been taken, both in relation to commands and to powers, I have no doubt His Majesty's Government will consider the request made by the noble Viscount.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I must point out to the noble Viscount that on this side of the problem a decision has already been made. That being so, surely we should have a White Paper at once, giving us the history of the decision and informing the British people exactly what it means.
  VISCOUNT HALL: It is true that a decision has been made in relation to the Supreme Commander, but there has been no decision about his powers.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I should like to see that in black and white.
  VISCOUNT HALL: Until they have been decided one does not know what his powers are in relation to his command. That is being considered at the present time, and further appointments are also being considered at the same time. Until the plan is complete, we cannot submit for information what the plan will be.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: The trouble is that the British public are suddenly faced with a decision that seems to them to be of great importance at the present time. Looking back to many precedents in the past, there should have been a White Paper giving the background of the procedure, and giving in specific form the kind of observations that the First Lord of the Admiralty has made in general terms this afternoon.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think this is a very odd procedure. It appears that this officer, who I am sure is most distinguished, has been appointed before anyone knows what he has to do. As I understand, he has been appointed Commander of the North Atlantic, but the extent of his powers is not known and has not been decided. It is in those circumstances that His Majesty's Government have agreed to the appointment, and we are now asked to wait until the whole of the plan is completed before we are told how the appointment was made. I should have thought that the natural thing would be to draw up the complete plan first, and then make the appointment.
  VISCOUNT HALL: That may be the correct procedure to the noble Marquess's mind, but that is not how things operate in an international or semi-international organisation. There are twelve nations to be consulted in connection with this matter, and it takes time. A broad plan has been drawn up, but the detailed plan has not been fully worked out, and we must wait until the detailed plan in relation to this appointment has been worked out, and, indeed, to fill other appointments which are to be made in relation to the detailed plan as a whole.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to press this matter to the full to-day. I should like to leave it in this way. The noble Viscount has made a very important and far-reaching statement, and we are grateful to him for that. I do not think anyone in this House can understand at the present moment what are the implications of that statement. Therefore, I think we must read it with all the care that it deserves. But I should like to say to the noble Viscount that we reserve the right to revert to the subject if, when we have read his statement, we

  745
  come to the conclusion that it is still not clear to Parliament what is involved in this appointment and that a White Paper is necessary.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I hope it is not assumed that His Majesty's Government have anything to hide in connection with this matter.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was not suggesting that.
  VISCOUNT HALL: His Majesty's Government owe loyalty to eleven other States, and because there was a leakage by one of those States it does not mean that His Majesty's Government can run away with itself without consulting the other States. Until such time as there is this complete agreement, His Majesty's Government would have to abide by a decision of that organisation. There is nothing at all to hide.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was not suggesting that His Majesty's Government were wishing to hide things. I say merely that we do not understand what the position is, and we feel that Parliament ought to know. As I have said, we reserve the right to ask for a White Paper, should it be necessary.
  3.50 p.m.
  LORD CROOK: My Lords, I am not at all sure whether you will be relieved or disappointed to know that I do not propose to make any reference to the question of the appointment of an admiral or to the Navy in any way. I have never intervened in a Foreign Affairs debate on a previous occasion, but I have been persuaded to do so to-day. Noble friends on both sides of the House have suggested that since I was one who had the privilege of being an alternate delegate to the United Nations, I should offer some observations this afternoon. I was delighted to have the opportunity, in company with two other members of your Lordships' House, Lord Ogmore and Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, of going to Lake Success and trying to take some small pan in carrying out the foreign policy of the Government, a foreign policy in which, may I say, I have profound belief. I have profound belief in it because I am convinced that the basic principle of the policy of His Majesty's Government has been the
  746
  replacement of power politics by an international rule of law, and that policy has governed everything that they have done.
  I think, too, that what we have tried to do is to bring into world affairs the conception that the strong shall help the weak and that the rich shall share their plenty with the poor. And, after three months at Lake Success, I am more than ever satisfied that the United Nations, as an instrument, is proper and indispensable for the establishment of that rule of law and the creation of world order. My visit gave me the opportunity of experiencing at first hand what I can only term the distinguished and loyal support which the United Kingdom has given, and is giving, to the United Nations, not only in the political field but in the economic field also; for to the refusal of the United Kingdom to take unilateral action, whatever the provocation, must be added its many actions in the social and economic affairs of the world. One of the greatest and strongest weapons against the growth of Communism in the world and the disruption which it can bring about is the realisation that democracy of itself is not enough, but that the ordinary man must be guaranteed security for his family and a decent standard of living. I have ventured to change the general slant of the discussion, and I suggest to your Lordships that unless we look at that side of foreign affairs we do not debate the subject completely.
  In that social and economic field the United Kingdom has made, in the United Nations agencies, a contribution to every project. In that connection I was able to see at first hand the great efforts that my right honourable friend the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the honourable gentleman, Mr. Kenneth Younger, have made. Unfortunately, the contribution which the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics offer is of a different kind, because they seem to be unwilling to accept anything which impinges upon their main and sovereign rights. Their obstruction dominated a great part of the discussions in the United Nations this year. I was astonished on the second day of the sitting of the General Assembly to hear Mr. Vyshinsky use these words:
  "The Soviet Union deems it particularly important that the five great Powers should combine their peaceful efforts and should conclude among themselves a treaty for the strengthening of peace."

  747
  Those are impeccable sentences. I only hope that Mr. Vyshinsky and his colleagues will bear them in mind if a Four Power Conference is held and we really have the opportunity of getting down to discussions.
  But peace and peaceable intentions are not the monopoly of those who most often and most vociferously proffer them, for words, in fact, may mean little and may mask, instead of revealing, facts. Among other suggestions made to us was one that 400,000,000 people had supported the alleged Stockholm Peace Pact. I have no doubt that in the sacred name of peace there will during the next few months be opposition in this country to rearmament and to the call-up of men from the Reserve. As I say, this opposition will doubtless be put forward in the sacred name of peace and it will be supported by organisations Communist in type which masquerade in order to deceive the people. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, in reply to a question of mine two days ago, disclosed the real basis of that new movement which calls itself the Ex-service Movement for Peace and is trying to set up branches in various parts of the country. I venture to remind your Lordships of the noble and learned Viscount's reply, in order that the widest publicity may be given to organisations of this kind. The noble and learned Viscount said that this body, which professes to be a non-political organisation of ex-Service men and women, has the practical purpose of promoting the campaign of the Communist Party and hindering the defence effort. Members of the public in general cannot have facts such as that brought too often to their minds. These organisations mislead the genuine pacifists into all sorts of fake movements.
  We who have to deal with the trade union movement every day of the week are conscious all the time of the way in which organisations are set up by the Communist Party to deflect the efforts of this country. Communists themselves are no pacifists. The truth is that they are as bellicose as they can be when, for instance, they shriek for the punishment of Tito. They are ready to settle by force every problem that worries them externally, while at home they exploit the genuine love of peace in the friendly
  748
  hearts of the people of this country. I suggest that persons who organise these so-called peace movements to protest against the handling of foreign affairs in this country should post their demands for peace to the Kremlin and not to the British Government. I am convinced, as I am sure the rest of your Lordships are, that the peace of the world can be assured any time the Kremlin likes to make up its mind that peace is what is to rule in the world of to-day.
  At Lake Success I saw the real efforts for peace which the United Kingdom made, efforts which produced in a humble delegate like myself nothing but pride. I saw the British delegation unremitting in their attempts to advance the very clear viewpoint of this country. I saw their firm stand against aggression from whomsoever it came, and their efforts for a negotiated settlement of the outstanding problems of the Far East. May I say-also how good it was to witness the way in which the Commonwealth delegates got together to try to secure on the part of this great Commonwealth of ours a common aim in the prosecution of our affairs in the United Nations? May I select two names from many and say with what profound respect I watched the efforts of Sir Benegal Rau, of India, and Mr. Lester Pearson, of Canada? I came back with a clear view that throughout. the poor response of China and the obstruction of the U.S.S.R. were responsible for the lack of success.
  The work behind the scenes to co-ordinate activity and secure agreement was of tremendous value, and must have been appreciated by any who had the opportunity of seeing it. In that connection, may I say something which will appear obvious to your Lordships, but which is of profound importance to many people who do not seem to understand one of the essential features of the conduct of our work in the United Nations? We cannot have the best of two worlds. Either we alone put our policy to our opponents or we join with others, who are broadly like-minded, in the formulation of a policy. The critics of any Resolution, therefore, should realise that we cannot at one and the same time stand for a policy of collective security and expect that the final point of view to be pressed will be the point of view of our own country. For oft-times the decision must be made: do we merely vote against the

  749
  proposition, or do we instead try to alter the nature of it, so as to secure agreement on an alternative?
  This brings me to one of the observations which the noble Marquess. Lord Salisbury, made yesterday in his, as usual, excellent speech—excellent whether one agrees with it or not. The noble Marquess referred to the "odd hesitation in the making up of their minds" on the part of the Government in recent Lake Success debates. He added:
  "A great nation such as ours is expected to give a lead in matters of this sort—not to tag along behind all the others…. If we were finally going to take the decision, why did we not do so immediately?"
  For the last twenty-eight years I have been used to negotiating across the table in trade union matters with employers, and I would say that on a large number of occasions the taking of the initiative and good leadership are of great importance, whether it be in trade union or Government affairs. On the other hand, there are times when leadership calls for holding back—perhaps when someone else has rushed in with a proposition, not exactly wise, in our view—in order to seek some amendment behind the scenes before the final decision, so that the Resolution finally submitted may be much more in line with the proposition we would have advanced. I think it would be wrong of me not to try to report something of the background of Lake Success. I should like to pay tribute to the hard work of the Foreign Office staff sent out from here, as well as that of the staff permanently in the Empire State Building in New York.
  I feel that I ought to say something about the American people, both as individuals, who were so often my hosts, and in the international sphere. I cannot say enough about the real friendship and desire for understanding on the part of the American colleagues with whom I worked—Senators, Congressmen or members of the State Department, who did so much work with us. Since, in my view, there are those in this country who would misrepresent, or at least represent inaccurately, the relations of our two peoples, may I add that I feel the Alliance of this country and the United States of America is deep and strong, and relies upon the strong emotional motives between the two of us? Our interests are the same, and our purposes are common. Like this
  750
  country the United States has put herself at the disposal of the United Nations in a policy for the good of the world. But friendship and alliance with the United Stales do not mean that we are not working in the closest harmony with our colleagues in the Commonwealth and our other good international friends, such as France.
  I ask myself what would these people who think we are too dose to the United States have us do. Would they have us reach unilateral decisions which would divide us? Would they try to discourage the relationship of our two countries? Would they try to force the United States back into isolationism? They are a great idealistic people to whom we "sold" the idea of collective security. We converted them, and we are no longer living in the days of the League of Nations and of American isolationism. One of the great hopes for the peace of the world is that that great country may continue to support the United Nations and take an active part in world affairs. I am as opposed as anybody else to the domination of this country by the United States, but I do not believe that we are. I do not believe that anybody is seeking such domination. I do not doubt at all the independence of thought and action in every field which we still possess. Our civilisation is not the same as that of America. Our ways of life are not the same; material conditions in the two areas, and their reactions to world events, are different. They arc bound to be, if only because the impact of them are not the same. We are no satellite of the United States, and they do not seek such a relationship. They seek only the relationship of brothers inside the same family. Even brothers can have a row inside a family, and they can certainly disagree.
  I found, on the part of the United States people whom I met, a ready acceptance of the place which the United Kingdom has always had in world leadership. I found an appreciation of our abilities in world affairs, and a desire that the United States should benefit from the traditional abilities of Britain in world affairs, while we, in turn, benefited from the contributions to world affairs that the United States were prepared to make. They wanted a real partnership. If I may be forgiven a further tribute, may I say that this partnership is being encouraged and

  751
  cemented by the actions of our distinguished Ambassador in Washington, Sir Oliver Franks, and by that other ambassadorial figure who has caught the imagination of the American public, Sir Gladwyn Jebb? The value of the Prime Minister's visit to America cannot be overestimated. As one who was there, and was privileged to sec the impact of his personality on those in America who at that time were seeking and wondering about the British people, I can say that that visit was of enormous value. My view is that China would have been recognised by the United Nations, whatever America thought, and would have taken her place in the General Assembly before we left in December, had she not suddenly taken part in the aggression in Korea. But as a result of that aggression, she, too, threw away the good will of many of her friends in the world, in the same way that Russia had thrown away her good will in this country.
  While we talk in terms of criticism of the U.S.S.R. to-day, we might remind ourselves and Russia that at the beginning of 1945 there was in this country a great fund of good will towards those gallant Allies of ours, who had made such a firm stand against the aggressor, and who had played a common part in the war. It was that which caused the Coalition Government of 1942 to reach the Treaty of that year. Now, Russia plays no part in the United Nations agencies at all, and to the extent that she plays any part in the General Assembly it is merely a part of opposing any co-operation by anybody. While we live in an atmosphere of trying to carry out the terms of the Treaty that we reached with the Russians, they for their part seem to have made the countries surrounding them mere satellites; and they seem to have built up the armed forces of those countries contrary to the treaties to which they themselves were part. They seem to be building up in Eastern Germany a force (so we are told) of as many as 50,000 armed police. Yet when it is suggested that it may be that we should arm Western Germany against any aggression by Russia, we are told that we might thereby provoke Russia.
  How can we provoke a country which watched us demobilise, yet only pretended to demobilise herself? His
  752
  Majesty's Government have given the clearest and specific statements to the Government of Russia that Western Germany will not be used at any time, or in any circumstances, as a base for aggression. I have no doubt that the principle of the German contribution to the defence of Europe is sound, although I think that its timing must be the subject of the most careful consideration by the Government, in the light of all the facts and of the advice which General Eisenhower may give. Here I should like to say how much we on this side of the House welcome the appointment of General Eisenhower.
  We cannot, in the present state of things, sit idly by and let matters develop, being deceived by speeches while treaties are broken. It is a tragic commentary, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, reminded us yesterday, that we must examine Notes when they are received from Russia to see whether there is any hope in them; to examine them—as The Times so well put it a few days ago—in the way that the Romans used to scrutinise the entrails of fowls for a sign of good news or bad about the future. What a tragedy in a world which, if we liked, could be good for us all to live in! The best measure I have seen of the world's absurdity is that men who would prefer to hold an agricultural implement in their hand are forced instead to hold a rifle, and men who would prefer to drive a farm tractor have to drive an army tank. So it is that, when we review Foreign Affairs, those of us whose philosophy relates to the cause of peace, and whose hopes have always been for disarmament, find it regretfully essential to declare in favour of rearmament for defence against those who, seeking to destroy the independence of free nations, threaten the freedom and democratic ways of life of the world by a military despotism openly dedicated to their destruction.
  4.15 p.m.
  LORD LAYTON: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships many minutes. My main purpose is to address to the Lord Chancellor a question to which I shall come shortly. We have been forced by events in the last few years to face the important task of organising the free world, and the noble Lord who has just spoken has given his testimony as one

  753
  who is playing his part in that task. But anybody who listened to the debate on rearmament in this House last week, and to the speeches of yesterday and to-day, will appreciate what a long way we have yet to go and how far we are from having achieved anything like an adequate organisation of the free world: how, indeed, it contrasts with the organisation on the other side of the Iron Curtain. He would be a very rash man who would try to debate at this moment with the noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the statement he has just made. However, I venture to think that the issue as regards the appointment of the Supreme Commander of the Atlantic goes very near to the heart of all the questions which are concerned with the international organisation of the free world.
  As I say, I should not attempt to debate with the noble Viscount that statement, made only twenty minutes ago, without having had an opportunity of studying it carefully—and, in any case, I speak as a non-technical person on this issue. However, I hope that His Majesty's Government will state their position on this issue clearly. When it conies to setting it out, I would say this, because it is an example of the preoccupation of people who are approaching this question from a non-technical point of view: that one must be quite clear why it is necessary to-day to have a unified command of the Atlantic, when it was unnecessary in the last and the First World Wars, although it was then necessary to have a unified command on land. There is, at least, an implication that there is an essential difference between land and sea warfare; indeed, perhaps the distinction is between specific operations, such as the North African campaign, or the appointment of a commander to undertake the invasion of Europe. That is surely different from a long-drawn-out sea campaign, which has no boundaries but extends all over the world.
  In that connection there is another preoccupation which I am sure will have to be removed—namely, that while the country might accept the appointment of a Supreme Commander, either of the Army or the Navy, in time of war, it might hesitate to do so as a permanency. The moment you come to that point you have to consider the question of political direction and control. It was possible in
  754
  the First and the Second World War to appoint a Supreme Army Commander for a purpose, when it was clear where the political responsibility lay—political responsibility which, in a democratic community, is above (as it must be) any military command. What is the political authority that is put above the Supreme Commanders of N.A.T.O.? There is uneasiness about that matter. In the N.A.T.O. there are six committees consisting of a dozen or so people each. Now that is a very different proposition from the duumvirate which controlled the Chiefs of Staff and, under them, the Supreme Commander during the late war. In the statement which is to be put before this country, the relationship between the military Supreme Commander over forces which are vital to the nation and the political organisation must be made clear.
  While I am referring to that point, may I go even further? It is hard to conceive of any greater service that any man could render at this particular moment than that which General Eisenhower has rendered by coming over here and holding together, encouraging and stimulating the countries of Europe. It is an immense service, and we must all pay tribute to it. He has done his job excellently. But we should stop and think that what in fact he has done in the last five months has not been a military job at all, but a political job, a diplomatic job. So long as he is there, he is not merely Supreme Commander; he expresses in himself a political concept, and he is doing the job as a world ambassador, if one may so call it. But you cannot always rely upon a personality to hold together the countries of Europe and produce the consolidation which is essential, however great a personality he may be. For that reason, I hope that His Majesty's Government will not take advantage of this asset which they have and avoid the issue which lies behind the consolidation of the forces: the problem which may be referred to as the creation of a European army and a European organisation. All those questions emphasise that, in the consolidation of the free world, we must be clear about the nature of the sovereignty which is being delegated. On those grounds I would repeat once again the plea which I have made more than once in this House for a bipartisan policy; an attempt as between Parties to get down to this basic issue of what degree of sovereignty we are going

  755
  to pool and for what purposes, and what is the organisation through which it may be controlled.
  What I have said may be regarded as critical of what is happening. I did not mean it in that sense at all; I was trying to show the need for getting down to basic things. Although we describe this situation as chaotic, perhaps the free world is slowly coming out of chaos. Something is emerging, and certainly some of the pieces are beginning to take shape and will be fitted into the final picture. I want to refer briefly to one of these—the Convention of Human Rights. It may seem that that is a far cry from the specific questions which we have been discussing in the last two days, but it is really not very far away; in fact, it is closely related to foreign policy generally. Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Winster, referred to this fact when he quoted General Eisenhower as saying that a political platform must be achieved. In other words, we cannot hope to go very far on the military line, or, indeed, on any other line, until we have a comnon political basis. It is for that reason that I believe that the Convention of Human Rights of the Council of Europe is absolutely crucial. It is the beginning of the creation of solidarity which is vital for the safety of Europe.
  Four weeks ago I put a Motion on the Order Paper asking the Government to ratify the Convention of Human Rights, but almost immediately I took it off again. I did so because the Convention was laid on the Table and it has laid there for twenty-one days. As nobody prayed against that document, or moved a Motion for its rejection, I believe I am right in saying that it will now automatically be ratified. The Deed of Ratification will be sent automatically to Strasbourg, and when nine other countries have done the same that Convention will come into force and will be binding upon this country. I wish to say one or two words upon that matter. First I wish to express my appreciation to His Majesty's Government for having taken this step so promptly. They have often been accused —although I have never used the phrase myself—of dragging their feet. They have the honour of being the first of the Governments of Western Europe to ratify this Convention. This is an im-
  756
  portant act, because unless you begin to build up a political basis you will never get very far with the military side or with the economic integration of the Continent of Europe. Secondly, this is not just a question of prestige, though that is in itself important. May I recall to your Lordships' recollection that this Convention, unlike the United Nations Declaration, is not a mere paper statement but is a Treaty commitment binding on this country? it establishes for this country, with the other countries signatory to the Convention, a joint responsibility for certain basic human rights, and it gives to each signatory the right to call to account other countries who do not fulfil, or who commit a breach of, the Rights in the Convention. It is a pooling of sovereignty in respect of definitely indicated purposes.
  By this Convention we agree to allow the other countries concerned to call us to account if we commit breaches of the rights of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom against arbitrary arrest, and the other articles which are in the Convention. As from the moment of the coming into force of this Convention we may be called before the commission to explain our actions. We do that in return for the right to call upon France, Italy, Sweden, Germany or any other countries who are parties to the Convention. That is a crucial issue. It is a political act of the countries concerned which makes them jointly responsible for democracy. It is the first democratic rule of the Western European club, if I may so call it. It involves a measured pooling of sovereignty, and I call attention to it because it seems to me— and what has happened about the appointment of an admiral to command in the Atlantic illustrates the point—that it is important that Parliament should be fully cognisant of whatever step is taken in the direction of pooling sovereignty. This should not pass unnoticed by being put on the Table, as one of many documents, and thus easily passed over. The matter should be brought to the attention of Parliament, and it should be made clear that we are being bound in this way.
  My third comment is that the Convention provides two forms for dealing with petitions that are brought forward. All petitions go to the Commission, but it is at the option of the country concerned

  757
  whether, after that, if there is a prima facie case, the case goes to an international court or to the Committee of Ministers, where it would be decided by a two-thirds majority. I understand that on that issue His Majesty's Government are not prepared to accept the automatic jurisdiction of the court. But by signing the Convention they accept that any accusation against this country in respect of a breach of these rights will go to a Committee of Ministers; and agree to accept a two-thirds majority decision of that Committee. The principle of accountability is accepted, but for the present His Majesty's Government have announced that they will accept a political but not a legal judgment. Personally I regret this decision, because I think it would have been an excellent example for this country to have accepted compulsory jurisdiction. But, as this may be altered at any time by contracting in, I say no more except to express the hope that His Majesty's Government will have second thoughts.
  Finally, there are certain other rights which it is thought by the Assembly of the Council and by certain countries in Europe should be included in the Convention. I am not going to discuss those, except one —the clause that was originally drafted and which committed the countries concerned to hold free elections. It was laid down that one of the rights which must be accepted in all countries who were parties to the European group was that they must give their nationals the right to take part in such elections. That clause was omitted by the Committee of Ministers, and personally I regret that that happened. But the Committee of Ministers have agreed to reconsider it; and it is now, in fact, being reconsidered, and should be added by the time the Convention comes into force, or shortly afterwards.
  I ask His Majesty's Government to support the addition, to this Convention of the right to hold free elections. I can illustrate the importance of this point by asking your Lordships to consider for a moment the significance it would have if Western Germany were at this moment committed, by her own free will and by her voluntary signature, to the obligation to hold free elections, and to agree that she might be called to account by any of her co-signatories if she failed to
  758
  do so. Sooner or later the point will be discussed between Eastern and Western Germany, and will certainly arise before we ever get to the point of a reunion of Germany. It will strengthen the hands of the Western Germans if this particular Convention quickly comes into force and becomes mandatory and binding on them. I hope His Majesty's Government will agree to add that clause and do it quickly.
  It is probable that the Convention will come into force within the next three or four months. It is a prototype for common legislation in Western Europe; it will be the first Statute of the Council of Europe. It is also illustrative of the fact that the future evolution of the free world lies first in defining exactly what you want to do and how far you are prepared to pool your sovereignty, and not. as in the case of the Supreme Commander at sea, in choosing the man and then deciding what are his powers. We must decide exactly what must be done, and then it is comparatively easy to set up the right machinery to carry the purpose out.
  4.38 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Layton, has made a valuable contribution to this debate, particularly in his remarks about the free election convention. I understand that the East German Government in their approaches to the West German Government—like the famous approach of the Governor of North Carolina to the Governor of South Carolina—suggested free elections as part of the arrangements for bringing about a united Germany. This struck me as a very substantial advance, and a vast improvement in what we have regarded hitherto as a Communist area. I know that in large areas, even in this country, there is no such thing as a free election: whoever is put up by one Party is certain to be elected in a particular kind of constituency. I agree with Lord Layton in believing that this matter is of some urgency.
  Several noble Lords in this debate, including the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, and, to my surprise, one or two of my noble friends on this side of the House, have referred to the long illness of the Foreign Secretary and suggested that it is a great scandal that he should continue to hold office.

  759
  When these things are said, whatever my views as to certain past policies of the Government in international affairs, I immediately rally to the defence of the Foreign Secretary. When I think of some of the Foreign Secretaries we have had in the past, I would rather have one hour or one day of Ernest Bevin than many of the others put together for all the time. If he is still able to work in the mornings, and he is held in prestige in so many parts of the world, then let us utilise him, although I must say that about one or two of his policies, including that in regard to Palestine, I have had to express some dubiety in the past. Perhaps I may make a suggestion to my noble friend representing the Government at the present moment in this House. It is none of my business, of course, but if the Prime Minister is looking for a successor to Mr. Bevin, if Mr. Bevin feels he cannot carry the burden any longer, I think he should not overlook the claims of Billingsgate Market, the modern Billingsgate, the great fish market. I will explain quite simply to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, exactly what I mean. The modern diplomacy of which there is much criticism, seems to consist, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, put it, of a series of long-range slanging matches. I have made the same criticism in more than one debate with which I have troubled your Lordships in the present Session. This continual stream of abuse across the frontiers is getting us nowhere. It is common to all the partisans, but, if it is to continue, then—I have not been to Billingsgate Market for a long time, but it had a reputation for developing amongst its habitués an exceptionally rich and varied vocabulary—a suitable gentleman from Billingsgate Market, who may also have held high office in, say, the London County Council, might be admirable for this purpose in the Foreign Office to-day. I hope that suggestion will be taken in the right spirit.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, gave us, if I may say so, a useful and lucid account of the circumstances that have aroused this storm about the appointment of an American Admiral as Supreme Commander for the North Atlantic Ocean. I raised this matter last Thursday on the second day of the debate on Defence. I did not know that at the same time the Leader of the Opposition
  760
  in another place was going to raise the same subject. Mr. Churchill did not give me any message that he was going to do so, and I was quite ignorant of the fact—I might have approached it a little differently, had I known beforehand. But, as so much trouble has been stirred up, I think it is necessary to say this. We must never overlook the fact that, whereas in this country you can make fun of Parliament, you can make fun of the Army —you can always make fun of the Army and the Army does not seem to mind— you can even make fun of the Monarchy, you can make fun of the Church and most of our institutions, the one thing that the British people are most sensitive about is the reputation and the standing of the Royal Navy.
  It is a kind of hereditary feeling. I remember Sir Charles Dilke saying that you could go into an open field in the broad countryside and talk about the abolition of the Royal Navy, or the cutting down of the Royal Navy, and you would have a roaring angry crowd around you within five minutes. That may have been an exaggeration, but it illustrates the extraordinary feeling of the British people for the Senior Service. I know that noble Lords have realised, from what they have heard, that this matter was bound to arouse serious misgivings, as I ventured to say last Thursday. We have now had an explanation, and my noble friend has admitted that we have not yet got the complete picture. May I, however, put a question on this matter of this Standing Group? Is this Standing Group an executive or operational authority, or is it a planning group? Does it make plans only, or can it give the direct orders? Above all, I think we must know exactly what area it controls. My noble friend spoke of the deep waters of the Atlantic. That is a new phrase to me; I have never heard it before. I do not know how much of the so-called home waters that covers.
  There is also the important question of the South Atlantic, which is linked with the question of defending our trade routes. As I gather, this Standing Group is in the nature of a sort of combined operations division. It deals not only with naval matters but also with air matters, and I should have thought it would have some sort of say in combined operations if there are to be any. I saw in the newspapers

  761
  to-day a report that an American officer, no doubt of very high attainments, is to be appointed to command the combined bomber squadrons, too. If there is to be an American general in command of the European forces on land, an American admiral in command of all the naval forces in the North Atlantic, and an American air officer (and I would point out that the Americans do not yet possess a separate air service, although that may come one day) to command the combined bomber forces, the truth of the matter is —and we may as well face it; it is no use trying to smooth the matter over— there will be apprehension in this country, and on both sides of the House. That apprehension was voiced by the Conservatives in another place.
  There is apprehension in this country— I do not think it is well-founded but the feeling exists—that we have not been independent enough in our dealings with our American ally and friend, and that we have been inclined—and the same criticisms have been made in France and in other countries on this matter—to be too subservient to the Americans in matters of high policy. As I say, I do not think that apprehension is altogether justified. We have had a most difficult task in dealing with the Americans in their present state of mind, but the British people, and I think some of the Continental people as well, are very sensitive about any undue diminution of their sovereignty. In my view, this appointment of an American admiral to the Supreme Command. North Atlantic, really stoked up the flames, if I may put it in that way, of this feeling of resentment which has existed for a long time. It is, however, absolutely necessary, if we are to continue harmonious working with the Americans, that these flames of resentment should be damped down or, better still, put out altogether. In the future, we shall have to be extremely careful how we make announcements of this kind to the British public.
  May I for a moment refer to a speech made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart?—I am sorry that he has been called away to-day. There are one or two points in his remarks with which I feel I must deal. The noble Lord spoke about the troubles in Malaya, and said that the Chinese Government in Pekin could stop the Malayan jungle warfare by just holding up their fingers—or words to that
  762
  effect. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, for once is completely misinformed. My information from the very highest authority possible is that the movement in Malaya, unfortunate and difficult as it is, is an indigenous movement. I know that there may be sympathy for it amongst the Chinese; but it was not started and initiated upon the authority of the Chinese Government— that is true—and I think that that fact should be stated in Parliament.
  With regard to Formosa, the latest idea, apparently, is that Formosa should have a plebiscite and that the inhabitants should decide what they want to do in the future with regard to their allegiance. We are committed by the Cairo Declaration to return Formosa to China. We cannot go back on that Declaration. It will be very unfortunate if we do. I think all the precedents are against a plebiscite. The most obvious case which springs to mind is that of Alsace-Lorraine. After all, forty-eight years elapsed between the German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine after the 1870 war and its rendition to France after the 1918 war. There was no question of a plebiscite. That was a case where the French-speaking people there and in France demanded the rendition of Alsace-Lorraine, and any idea of a plebiscite would have been laughed at. I think the same applies to Formosa to-day. There are other precedents as well.
  My Lords, I have only one other subject with which, if I may be permitted to do so, I wish briefly to deal—namely, the latest Russian Note. I had the unfortunate necessity to interrupt the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House during his very delightful speech yesterday, when he quoted from the Russian Note. I asked him where he found the wording of that Note. With one exception no newspaper published that Note. The Times gave perhaps the best report of it, but even in The Times the Note was very truncated; and the other newspapers simply picked out parts of it. That is not treating the British people, or for that matter Parliament, fairly. We are not children. That Note is of the greatest importance. We are now dealing with issues of life and death for millions of people and we ought to have the right to know exactly what was said. The only newspaper which carried that Note in full was the Daily Worker, which has a very small circulation. Of course, it may be pleaded that

  763
  there is a great shortage of newsprint, and that there are many other matters of tremendous importance—cricket matches in Australia, and divorce cases in the Courts, and so on—which must be dealt with. But that Note was something which should have been printed in full, together, of course, with any reply that the Government cared to make.
  I understand that this meeting of the officials, to settle, as is to be hoped, the preliminaries and agenda of the Four Power Conference, assembles next Monday in Paris. In this debate we have heard very little about this forthcoming Conference. For once I must correct Lord Templewood. It is seldom that one can do that, but the invitation to this Conference came from Russia and not from us; it was their initiative. Tremendous issues hang on this Conference. While it is sitting, and even more if the subsequent meetings of the senior representatives of the Powers take place, I hope that there will be a truce to continual goading and backbiting and girding and abuse across the frontiers. We are not by any means the only ones to blame. This propaganda that has been going on, over the air, in the newspapers and in the speeches of public men, does not carry us anywhere.
  As I read this last Russian Note in the Daily Worker (as I say, the only paper to give it in full) I was reminded of what I hope not too many of your Lordships have experienced—a family quarrel. It is very like a family quarrel which gets worse and worse, with the people concerned getting more and more heated towards each other. Then it suddenly ends, and they find that after all they love each other, and they can be friends. That is usually the course of a family quarrel, unless of course there is an irreparable breach and a complete breakup. Usually this sort of family squabble ends like that. Two of the nations concerned in this matter are comparatively young. The United States and Russia are both comparatively young nations. Present-day Russia is comparatively young as a nation, and when the young quarrel it can usually be ended amicably. We and the French are the old nations and have the old culture; and I hope that presently we shall be able to call on the Chinese, with their even older culture, to
  764
  come in to redress the balance. It is for the older nations, ourselves and France, and also the Indians, who were referred to by Lord Crook in his most interesting speech on his experiences at Lake Success —and I believe that the Indians have given very valuable advice in the difficult time that has led up to the present juncture. Above all, it is for our older nations, and particularly for the British, if they can, to restrain extravagances on both sides in this verbal contest. The stakes are too high not to risk rebuffs and not to be prepared to endanger our dignity. The risks in a matter of this kind are the life and death of millions of people, and the survival of our whole civilisation; and therefore real efforts must be made to bring about some kind of arrangement between these great Powers, each of whose people is most reluctant to engage in another great struggle.
  4.57 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords. I take part in this debate under certain difficulty, because, unfortunately, I was not able to be in my place to hear the statement that I understand was made by the First Lord of the Admiralty and which was obviously of the greatest importance. I arrived just at the concluding sentences, and I think I heard the noble Marquess ask the First Lord whether a White Paper could be provided to explain the details of the appointment of the Supreme Naval Commander. I hope most profoundly that His Majesty's Government will agree to that proposal, which I think is of vital importance. I bitterly resent the attacks of people upon America, alleging all sorts of motives to her and trying to make out that we are content to trot along in the wake of America in everything. I am one of those who has had plenty of opportunity of coming into contact with the American Navy, and at very close quarters, and I have nothing but the greatest possible admiration for them. But there are certain points about this business that the country wishes to understand. Yesterday, Lord Winster told us what his chauffeur said—that he thought the incident might make Nelson hop off his column. It is curious how Trafalgar Square leaps to the minds of most people whenever they talk about the Navy. I was talking to an equally humble member of society the other day, and he said that

  765
  he hoped the lions round the statue would get up and bite the pants off anybody who was responsible for the idea.
  Be that as it may, there are several questions which I want to ask relating to this appointment. In explaining it in another place on February 26, the Prime Minister said that it was considered to be necessary in the light of experience in the last war, and had been agreed to accordingly. I happen to have with me the terms of an Agreement called the A.B.C.l Staff Agreement, which was come to between representatives of the American Navy and of our own Service before America came into the War, and which governed the whole procedure afterwards. The Agreement was the result of several conferences which took place in January, 1941. and the particular clause in the Agreement to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is No. 4, headed: "Principles of Command." There it says:
  "Each Power to be charged with strategic direction of all Allied forces in specific areas of responsibility; but the forces of each Ally to operate under its own task force commanders, not to be broken up into small units, Specifically, the United States naval air arm operating in British strategic areas to be under United States, not Royal Air Force command. Special and separate arrangements to be made for each combined operation."
  It seems to me that that Agreement governed the procedure for the whole of the rest of the late war, and I cannot understand how and why it is that the Prime Minister considers that now we must have a Supreme Naval Commander.
  All your Lordships will, I am sure, have read the views expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Cunningham of Hyndhope, and by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. I have the statements of both noble Lords here, and I could quote from them, but I will not do so now. We also had the advantage of listening yesterday to Lord Tovey. Every one of those distinguished Flag Officers has declared that he does not consider that such an arrangement as is; proposed is necessary. No question of the need for it was ever raised during the last war. Why should it be raised now? May we have an answer to that question from the representative of the Government? What is the real necessity for this appointment? That is one of the things which I want to find out. Here is another. A great
  766
  deal is said about areas. I have not heard any of these areas defined. There is the Western Area, and the Eastern Area, but they are quite nebulous. The areas as defined in the last war are set out in the book that I have here, the unofficial history of the War. In it are set out these areas as they were marked out for the last war.
  What about Coastal Command? Another war, if we are unfortunate enough to be involved in one, is bound to be largely, so far as we are concerned, an anti-submarine war. It is imposible to wage a successful anti-submarine war, except with a Navy and an Air Force working together in the closest possible co-operation. So far as we know, there is a Western Area and an Eastern Area, and also another area which is to be controlled by the Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth. It seems to me to be of the utmost importance that we should be given a little more information than we have been given—if that is at all possible—with reference to the whole of this set-up. For instance, we might be told whether the Supreme Naval Commander will be able to divert ships from the Western approaches. Will he have the power to divert units of aircraft from the Western approaches? It is possible that all these questions may have been answered in the First Lord's statement, but, unfortunately, I was not here to hear it.
  Another point that I wish to raise is this: Will the Supreme Naval Commander be able to indicate to the Government of this country how many and what ships and aircraft he may require from this country, as its contribution, in order to carry out his duties? If he does make demands of that sort, shall we be told what his views are? He may come to the conclusion that we have not the necessary number of patrol craft, that we are very short in that respect. Will he then be able to tell His Majesty's Government that they must build more patrol craft—or what will be his position?
  Then there is the question of the Standing Group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has already referred. I want to know how this Standing Group is going to be composed, and what are to be its responsibilities. I hope that if the Government do publish a White Paper on the subject they will make that matter quite clear. I do not understand from the

  767
  Prime Minister's statement, which I have in my hand, whether the Combined Chiefs of Staff Committee set-up, which we had in the last war between America and ourselves, is to continue, or whether it is to be superseded. It seems to me that before these appointments are made, the Government ought to explain matters to the people in very much more detail than they have done. As we all know—it has already been referred to in the debate— the news first leaked out in a Danish newspaper. Why could not the Prime Minister have gone to another place, and the noble Viscount the Leader of this House have come here, and made a statement explaining exactly what the Government had agreed to, and what they proposed to do? That would have obviated this rather unhappy kind of questioning, amounting almost to bickering, which now goes on. I personally would much have preferred that it should be done that way, and I am sure that that is the general view of your Lordships also.
  Finally—as I say, I was not here to hear the statement made by the noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Admiralty, so I have cut out most of the notes which I had prepared for my speech— may I say that it seems to me that The Times, in a leading article, put the matter better than any other paper which I have read? It said:
  "What is wanted is a working partnership, not a mass of blueprints, to make an Atlantic defence real."
  The only other question I should like to ask is whether we may have some information about the officer who has been selected for this most important post. I understand that he is a most distinguished officer, and an expert in amphibious warfare in the Pacific. Is he an expert in anti-submarine warfare? Many of us would like to know that. I do not want to take up the time of the House further on this matter, but I beg His Majesty's Government to take the country into their confidence. I am certain that our people are always at their best when the Government of the day, whatever their complexion, are ready to take the course of telling us the real facts in Parliament. When that is done, we do not get stories spread about in the way they have been spread, unfortunately, in this particular case, and in many others of which we can think. I hope
  768
  that His Majesty's Government will consent to issue a White Paper by which we shall all be very much better informed.
  5.8 p.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, I mean no discourtesy to any of your Lordships when I say that I do not intend to follow up the questions raised concerning the Supreme Command, or some of the other items that have occupied our attention during this debate. I propose to speak only of one matter which seems to me to be of some importance—that is, China. I say what I have to say, not in the spirit of criticism but rather to suggest that probably the line of approach adopted has been a mistaken one, and that it is possible, even now. that it is not too late to do what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, suggested yesterday—that is, to arrange a meeting fairly soon to discuss matters. I am impelled to say this because it seems to me that our policy is driving China into the arms of Russia. I am not suggesting that because I spent a couple of months in China between two and three years ago that has made me an expert on the question; but at least it brought me into touch with leading people. I visited a number of large towns and went to universities, and so on, and I have kept open some lines of communication ever since.
  On visiting China as I did, I was impressed, first of all, by the fact that there is very much in common, both as regards the philosophy of life and otherwise, between the Chinese and ourselves. I was also much impressed by the tremendous amount of good will shown towards us by the Chinese. Our prestige at the time of which I am speaking stood very high. I thought it rather hard luck on the United States that they should be pouring out very lavishly both services and money, and yet be met with a certain amount of veiled hostility. I told people I met that while we should not be giving them material help, we would, in other ways, do all that we could to assist them. That declaration was very popular and it was received with applause in most places. One cannot say anything about Mao Tse-tung, but the second in command, Chou En-lai, showed very strong pro-English leanings. There must be some other means by which we can get into touch with the Chinese. There are two

  769
  main causes for the progress of Communism in China. First of all, there is the fear of Japan, and, secondly, there are the dreadful economic conditions, the mass of poverty and misery, which is so great that it cannot be described. Their fear of the revival of a strong Japan is great, and it is a pity that the Communist Leader lost the opportunity of reaching an agreement to cease fire when militarily successful—but that opportunity is gone, and it is not likely to occur again.
  I have received a letter from a man who for many years occupied a prominent position in China, and who was interned in a concern ration camp and went through much hardship. He knows the Chinese thoroughly. He writes to me:
  "We must try to put ourselves in their position. China throughout the century has been menaced by Japan, and from 1937 to 1945 was ravaged and devastated. Japan attacked because China was becoming united and was determined to prevent a strong China emerging…. I was in the interior when the Japanese soldiers ravaged the capital, Nanking. Murder, pillage, rape and material destruction were the order of the day. A shudder ran through the whole country…."
  Then the writer comments:
  "If I were a Chinese at the moment I would look for support in that quarter where it would be sure to be available when needed. France, who has suffered so much at the hands of Germany has 150 (about) Communists in her Assembly. If there were no Atlantic Pact, she would have twice or thrice that number, for again Russia would be, as in the past, her natural ally."
  In short, he means that Russia has exploited the situation in China, as she has exploited the situation in Germany.
  I venture to suggest that our line of approach has been altogether wrong. China has never acted in the same way as other nations. She has no great cause to love the Western Powers, for she has suffered much at their hands. But she has a greater feeling towards us than towards the other Powers. What impressed me and my colleagues when in China was the utter indifference of people to the Communist advance. Their only hope was that the Communists would relieve their misery and defend them from the Japanese. I addressed meetings at no fewer than fourteen universities, and in every case my remarks were well received. But I always had the same question: Is there going to be a strong Japan again? To a large extent America has missed that. A United Nations
  770
  guarantee against Japanese aggression would do more to end the Korean war than anything. General MacArthur has had a hard job, but I have the feeling that he is not the person suited for it. It would be better if somebody with a broader mind, like General Marshall or General Eisenhower, were carrying out that task.
  I should like to quote from another letter which I have received from someone who recently returned from China. He said:
  "I have a feeling that an unorthodox approach to Mao and Chou might still swing them to us-wards. What they do not like is the orthodox diplomatic methods, for the Russians avoid those methods, and the Chinese believe, rightly or wrongly, that the unofficial, personal approach leads to the quicker and more satisfactory settlement of outstanding problems."
  I believe that China must be approached from another angle, and that the whole problem would be solved if we could give her a guarantee against aggression in a third letter, which I received in January, there is news of a large hospital which used to be under British management. My informant writes:
  "The hospital is very busy and is continuing without Government interference. It is now run entirely by Chinese mission staff, and is self-supporting, and they seem to be in good spirits."
  That is an encouraging indication of what is happening in the interior of China. I believe that if our American friends would accept the suggestion made yesterday toy my noble friend Lord Henderson -and, after all. we have had some experience in these matters—it might be that we could find some other means by which to circumvent the Russian purpose, and so bring about the understanding and co-operation with us which I am sure the Chinese desire. The outcome of any move depends to a large extent on our ability to guarantee China against the Japanese menace which she fears.
  5.14 p.m.
  LORD AILWYN: My Lords, it is not easy for the twenty-second speaker in a debate to say anything startingly original or avoid echoing what has already been said, probably far more ably, by previous speakers. Particularly is this the case where, running like a thread through nearly all the speeches has been the

  771
  central theme of Anglo-American relations which I had hoped and still intend to make the pivot of my short contribution. Among all the difficulties with which we are faced, among all the responsibilities which pile up upon His Majesty's Government, there is one supreme factor —our relations with the United States of America. If ever there was a time when it was imperative that our two countries should walk faithfully in step, neither one outstripping the other nor one lagging or faltering behind the other, it is surely at this moment. Nothing else, in my view, is comparable to that vital necessity at the present time.
  It is because of a certain divergence of views in our approach to the situation in the Far East that I venture to intervene for a few moments. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord who has just sat down, although my approach to the subject will perhaps be a little different. One of the most melancholy things that has happened in my lifetime—and perhaps one feels it more poignantly than some, through association over a great many years with China—was the overrunning of that vast country by the Communists. I had greatly hoped that, with the final defeat of Japan, Chiang Kai-shek would have been able to check and perhaps finally eradicate the Red menace. Opinions differ as to why he failed. But let those who talk of the corruption and mis-government of the Kuomintang not forget that China, as the noble Lord who has just sat down reminded us, had been at war for eight long years when Japan at last surrendered in 1945. The nation was war weary and exhausted. Let them not forget that Chiang Kia-shek was the first to stand up to naked aggression in 1937. The world at large has cause for deep gratitude towards the man who guided the destinies of 450,000,000 people over twenty years, who was a gallant and loyal ally throughout the Second World War, and who has now fallen upon adversity. I feel that these things should be said. Chiang Kai-shek was an outstanding figure in the world, and I, for one, acclaim him as a great patriot.
  For well over a year now the situation in China has been abundantly clear. On the strength of overwhelming evidence that Mao Tse-tung and the People's Government were in effective control of certainly 80 per cent., and perhaps more,
  772
  of the mainland of China, His Majesty's Government decided to recognise the Communist régime. Knowing something of the considerable financial and commercial interests that we have in China, and having a fairly shrewd suspicion of the pressure that was probably being exercised by those interests in favour of recognition, I was inclined to support His Majesty's Government in their action, in spite of the strong condemnation from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and others, although I am bound to say that I felt that the Government were a little too precipitate in their action. Moreover, it did appear to me at the time that de facto recognition would have been sufficient. Much water has flowed under the bridges since that time. Recognition of Mao Tse-tung has brought little more than insult and humiliation to Britain and her interests. Whatever they have accomplished in their own country (and those noble Lords who were fortunate enough to have listened to the brilliant broadcast a few weeks ago by Mr. Leonard Constantine will know that they have accomplished a great deal) their attitude to this country has been no whit less intolerable than it has been to the United States, who have steadfastly refused recognition.
  With the impact of the Korean War and of Chinese aggression there—and no amount of passionate pleading (my mind goes back to some very passionate pleading by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who I am sorry is not in his place) can avoid the fact of that aggression—is it possible that the time may have come for reconsideration of our attitude towards Communist China? I am not forgetting our interests out there, to which I have already referred; I am not forgetting Hong Kong and its isolated position; I am not ignoring the difficulties that are always inherent in retracing steps. But the world situation comes first, and the safety of the Western World and its Allies depends upon the closeness of our relations with America. We have fallen out of step with them in that direction and my fear is that the march may become still more ragged unless remedial measures are applied. We have retraced our steps before. At the insistence of the United Nations, and as a loyal member of that body, we withdrew our Ambassador from Madrid—an utterly

  773
  futile and fruitless gesture, as it turned out to be. Happily, that mess has been cleared up. However much some of us disliked that action, we at least had the satisfaction of knowing that we had acted multilaterally. But with regard to China that is not so: we acted unilaterally, and, I am inclined to think now, impulsively; and in so doing we diverged from the course we had set in company with the United States. If the Chinese persist in their aggression, and if they refuse to co-operate with the Good Offices Committee, I would ask His Majesty's Government whether the time has not come to consider seriously the withdrawal of that recognition. I naturally expect no answer from the Government to-day; I merely ask them to examine that situation in the light of present events.
  I wish to say a few words about Formosa—and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, is not here. Unfortunately and alas it has been the lot of island peoples in the past to have very little to say in their own disposal. Ceylon is one of the few bright exceptions of which I can think. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, in saying that the wishes of the inhabitants should first be ascertained before any disposal of Formosa is settled, seems to forget that no protest about their wishes was ever made until it was a question of that island being turned over to Mao Tse-tung's China. It was not made after the Cairo Declaration or after the Potsdam Declaration. Therefore I do not think it is a logical point to make.
  There is only one thing more I wish to say, if your Lordships will bear with me, and it is a repetition of what I have already said to your Lordships on more than one occasion in the last year or two. More and more is it borne upon me that the impact of world events is too great for any Party Government to handle with any hope of success, let alone a Government with a Foreign Secretary who is a sick man—and the sympathy of the whole House is warmly extended to Mr. Bevin. America docs not understand (I am not making a Party point; I am not interested in Party) nor have they very much use for Britain under Socialism. I am bound to say that they have my sympathy. They did understand, and had great sympathy with, the atmosphere of "blood, sweat and tears" of some years
  774
  ago. Get that back in the form of a National Government, and any differences we have with the United States will vanish overnight. Here let me say how welcome was the voice from the Liberal Benches last week. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Layton, is not in his place, and that he was so demure at the time we debated National Government last year. I hope he was using the word "Coalition" in rather a loose way, because what we require is Government by the best men of all Parties, and of no Party—and perhaps I shall be forgiven for stressing the no Party element. I end where I began. To my mind, no issue counts beside that of Anglo-American co-operation. I beg His Majesty's Government to lose no opportunity of resolving any difficulties and differences in points of view which may arise, and to take every possible step to cement a friendship which threatens no one and can only be of lasting benefit to the peace-loving world.
  5.30 p.m.
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but, like all your Lordships. I was keenly interested in the speech of the First Lord this afternoon on the question of the Supreme Commander in the Atlantic. I am sure that we must all feel, whether we be American or English, that the only thing which matters is that the defence arrangements of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation should be successful. If they are to be successful, it seems to me that on both sides of the Atlantic we must have confidence in those arrangements. And I suggest that we must know what those arrangements are, and what is involved. For that reason, I am sure that the House is indebted to the First Lord for such light as he has thrown upon the situation this afternoon—and he has thrown some light.
  There is still, however, a good deal which remains obscure, and, in particular, there is this question of the right of appeal by the British Naval Commander in the event of any disagreement between himself and the Supreme Commander. This question was raised by my noble-friend Lord Templewood and by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to whom the noble Viscount did not give any adequate reply. His reasons for not giving a reply were that although the Commander had been appointed, nobody quite knew what

  775
  the job was going to be. I feel that if we on this side of the Atlantic are to have complete confidence in this organisation, this question of appeal is a matter of vital importance. I hope that when the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor replies he may be able to give us a little more information on these points. First, we should like to know whether there is definitely to be a right of appeal; secondly, to whom will that right of appeal lie—will it lie direct to the Standing Group—and, thirdly, does this new organisation mean that our Supreme Naval Commander will no longer have the traditional and historic right of appeal to the Board of Admiralty, a right which he has exercised for countless generations? I feel that those are important points, and are material to our confidence in this organisation. I therefore hope the noble and learned Viscount will be able to reassure us on them.
  5.34 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, found some difficulty in addressing your Lordships as the twenty-third speaker, my task is even more difficult as the twenty-fifth. I take some comfort in the fact—as I am sure will your Lordships—that this is the last speech from this side of the Chamber. As one who has listened to practically every speech in the last two days, I have been able to take stock of the general atmosphere of this debate. First, I should like to say that, although these debates are not largely attended by noble Lords, what is said here is read and listened to with the greatest interest throughout the country and throughout the world. I feel that we have conducted ourselves with a high sense of responsibility, having regard to the very wide repercussions of the fact that every word said in this Chamber will be examined in other countries.
  Two things have impressed me. Leaving aside the subject matter of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and others who have intervened intermittently throughout the debate, like a second running theme, the first point which impressed me was the extent of our agreement. I think that the noble Marquess who opened this debate said that he agreed with every word of the speech of the Prime Minister in another place. I know that he went on to criticise, as did the
  776
  noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, the way in which the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister had been implemented. But I believe he said—and at any rate, I think it is true—that by and large he accepted, as did others, the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The broad principles for which we stood.
  LORD SILKIN: Yes, the broad principles. What the noble Marquess started off by saying was true generally throughout the debate. The main theme throughout the debate during these two days has been the universal desire for peace. There has been little bitterness or feeling expressed in this Chamber. There has certainly been no evidence of anybody desiring to commit aggression, and there have been no warmongers—not even the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, or the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, who made some rather "hot" remarks in the course of their speeches. Throughout the debate there has been a willingness to pay a very high price for peace. I wish that those in other countries who are closely concerned with what we are saying would not only read carefully the words which have been uttered here, but would try to understand the spirit in which those words have been uttered.
  I feel that our foreign policy to-day can be expressed quite simply in the replies to one of two questions. I believe that the main question we have to solve to-day is whether it is possible to establish a modus vivendi with the Communist countries under Soviet leadership. We must recognise, whether we like it or not, that Communism has come to stay, at any rate for a considerable time. Is it possible for us to make the best of what we might regard as a bad job, and create some kind of method of living together at peace in this world? If so, what should be our policy in securing that objective? The answer to the first question, as to the possible modus vivendi, must depend upon what is our conception of the real motives of the Communist countries. If we sincerely believe that their real objective is world power, world domination, imperialism, and so on; if we really believe, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester said, that Russia has a policy of expansion by force and by threats of force and that certain proposals

  777
  which have been sponsored are tendentious, misleading, treacherous, and so on; and if, as the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, said, Communism is a cruel system— "the most cruel the world has ever seen"— if we really believe these things, is it of any use our carrying on negotiations with people whom we describe in those terms? Are we not deceiving ourselves by pretending that negotiations are possible at all? Are we not deceiving our people and holding out false hopes to them?
  On the other hand, even the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, felt that discussions would be worth while. And I could not help feeling that, despite these hard words —hard words which, equally, are being uttered on the other side of the Iron Curtain about ourselves and the United States—they both believe, as practically every noble Lord who has spoken during these two days has believed, that negotiations are possible, and stand some chance of being successful. That must mean that they do not necessarily assume that the motives of the Communist countries are evil, or even incompatible with our own motives. I believe—and I hope that events will not prove me wrong —that the whole of our difficulties arise from mutual fear and suspicion. I believe that many of the actions of the Communist countries—which can, of course, be interpreted in sinister terms if we wish—can also be explained by their feeling suspicion and fear. We ourselves, and even the United States, have what I may call more violently-minded persons—especially those in the United States who are out for a preventive war —who are entirely actuated by these two feelings of fear and suspicion.
  It should, therefore, be our purpose, when we enter into the discussions, not to take it for granted that all of the justice is on one side and that none is on the other. If we are embarking on a vast rearmament programme because we fear the Soviet Union, it is important to believe that they also fear us. After all, we must remember that the first Soviet Note sent to the Three Powers last October was sent immediately after the announcement that it was proposed to re-arm Western Germany—an indication that Russia was really actuated by fear and desired, if possible, to come to terms.
  778
  In my view, in approaching these Conferences we are asking for failure if we start off on the assumption that we are right in every respect and that the Communist countries are wrong in every respect. I am fortified, curiously enough, by a leading article in a periodical to which I do not normally look for support of my views—namely, the Sunday Express. In the issue of February 18, 1951, I found a passage which I should like to read. I wish that His Majesty's Government could see a copy of that leading article before the Four Power talks. It might serve as their text. I do not propose to read the whole passage to your Lordships, but I should like to read two or three sentences. They run:
  "Russia fears the West. The West in turn distrusts Russia. We hold Stalin responsible, and rightly, for the cold war that has led us close to the hot one. But all right does not lie on one side or all wrong on the other."
  I believe that if we approach these talks in that spirit, and in the accommodating frame of mind that is implied in that spirit, then these talks will be successful. I should like to suggest one condition about these talks, and that is that the Press might be kept away while the talks are going on. If only the gentlemen conducting the talks could be left alone. without any publicity or any leakage, until the talks are over, then possibly, with a sufficient supply of vodka and caviare, there would be a chance of a brilliant success.
  In the meantime, on our assumption that these talks may fail—and the whole of our foreign policy has, unfortunately, to be carried out on that assumption— what should we be doing? No one, of course, would dispute that we must proceed with rearmament on at least the basis laid down in the Statements made by His Majesty's Government in the last few weeks. We must also, of course, remain effective and loyal members of the United Nations Organisation, and we must do our best to maintain friendly relationships with the United States of America. I think these are cardinal points in our foreign policy, though there has been a good deal of talk as to what exactly should be our relationship with the United States. Friendliness does not mean universal agreement; nevertheless, whenever this country does presume to disagree with the United States, the Government

  779
  are attacked on the grounds of "breaking up Anglo-American friendship."
  The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, made a statement which I feel that I should like to have clarified, certainly for my own sake and possibly also for his. He wants this country to take a strong lead—and I agree that our traditions, ideals, wisdom and resources ought to enable us to take a lead—in the councils of the United Nations Organisation. But does not the noble Marquess agree that the taking of this strong lead, and a firm and resolute line, may of necessity involve differences with the United States? What happens when we take a lead in a sense which is contrary to the views of the United States?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to the noble Lord now. Obviously, we cannot expect the United States and our-selves to agree about everything. That would not be a true cooperation at all. It is purely a matter of opinion, and noble Lords opposite may not agree, but what I feel that His Majesty's Government have too often done is to show themselves reluctant to agree with the United States on matters upon which they finally do agree. That is what I call "tagging along at the end." The noble Lord may not share that view but I think it is what has happened. It does not apply only in the case of the United States. Take, for example, the question whether we should recognise Spain—there is a good case in point. That matter came up before the United Nations, and although, I suppose, we are one of the greatest nations in the world, we did not vote one way or the other; we waited for the other nations to decide the question. Now there is to be an Ambassador there. That is what I mean by lack of leadership.
  LORD SILKIN: One of the difficulties is that, whenever they do presume to exercise leadership in a sense which is not in accordance with the views of the United States, this Government are attacked, and attacked bitterly, for disrupting and breaking up Anglo-American relationships. We are bound to disagree with America from time to time, and there may even be times when we have not made up our minds. There may even he times—I do not wish to apologise
  780
  for His Majesty's Government—when they may want to hear all the evidence before deciding. There may be times when they hold one view, the pressing of which, they realise, would mean merely their being outvoted. So they do the next best thing, and negotiate with a view to compromising. The noble Marquess calls that "tagging behind" every time these leadership difficulties arise, but quite often there must be a compromise. And quite often each country will modify the view that it originally took. Then we are chastised for having modified our views. That is inevitable. I believe that this country has taken a lead in a great many respects with considerable success, and has modified and influenced deeply the views, not only of the United States of America but also of the United Nations Organisation as a whole. I think it is grossly unfair to criticise the Government because they have been resilient in their views, because they have not gone to a Conference with firm, decided, final views, and been unwilling to listen, unwilling to modify their views in the light of the discussion that has taken place.
  I do not believe that this country has been subservient to America. There have been occasions when they have taken a line with which, perhaps, I myself have not been wholly in agreement. On balance, I think that it would have been better not to have called China—the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, did not like the term "branded"—an aggressor. I do not think it has served any useful purpose. Whether or not China is an aggressor is beside the point. What we want is peace with China, and I am doubtful of the value of calling China an aggressor and thereby calling off negotiations. But I fully appreciate His Majesty's Government's point of view. Their representatives were on the spot, and had to make a decision. They did in fact modify in a very important respect the Resolution which came before the United Nations Assembly and they did put off, I hope until the Greek Kalends, the question of imposing sanctions on the Chinese. That was a valuable concession.
  There is one question on which I should like to touch which I think has aroused general anxiety. I believe that every speaker who has taken part in this debate, and touched on the question of German rearmament, expressed grave

  781
  anxiety about the position. Likewise, I think that every speaker eventually came down on the side of German rearmament. I hope this House will forgive me, but I feel it my duty to put the other side of the case. I realise that there is a strong case for German rearmament—indeed, I have put before the House one significant point: that is, that I presume it was only the threat of German rearmament which brought forward the Soviet Note in October asking for Four Power talks. I recognise the difficulty, as I think the noble Viscount. Lord Templewood, put it, of creating a vacuum in Germany, and of the importance of allowing the Germans to defend their own country and not for any of them to rely upon other members of the United Nations. Nevertheless, the anxiety which most noble Lords feel about this matter is a very real one. There are a number of serious points which I should like to put to the House.
  First of all, there is the fact that at present, at any rate, most of the population of Western Germany are unwilling to take part in an army at all. As General Eisenhower said, he does not want an unwilling force. We have the difficult task of converting this unwilling nation into a willing band of fighters— a rather startling reversal of German history, for Germany has always been a remarkably militaristic nation. Then, so far as the Bonn Government are concerned, they are willing to discuss this question only provided that they can have their people rearmed on certain terms—their own terms. One of them is equality. We do not know yet what the other terms are; so far as I know, they have not been put forward. I should like to put to the House, also, the question whether, even if we have such an army, and even if it is part of a European Army, it will be reliable. After all, we have to ensure that those who fight on the side of the United Nations, if aggression should come, have the same aims as ourselves. We know what we are fighting for: we shall be fighting against aggression and for the democratic way of life. But can we be fully satisfied that, if eventually we persuade the Western Germans to come into such a force, they will be fighting with the same aims?
  Personally, I have grave doubts. I have read some of the speeches of their military people, of some of their generals.
  782
  I have read particularly speeches which have been made by Von Schwerin, by Guderian and by Manteuffel, and each of them has taken the view that if there is to be a German army it should be used not for the purpose of resisting aggression but for the purpose of getting back for Germany their lost territories. I venture to submit to your Lordships that that is not the purpose of creating a European force. And if we are to have the German portion of that European army fighting for one purpose, while we are fighting for another, we shall get into grave difficulties. I fear even that we may be led into an aggressive war.
  Then again, we have at the moment committed ourselves to the view that there should be no large-scale German war production. But shall we really be able to maintain that view? We start off with a German force integrated into a European army at brigade strength. It is natural that the German force should wish to be commanded by its own generals or brigadiers—just as this debate to-day has shown the natural feeling that we wish to be under the command of our own admirals. It is a logical step to agree to this; and once that has been done, it seems to me quite logical not to stop at brigade strength but to go on to divisional and army strength. After all, we have to consider what is the most efficient way of organising our forces, and if it should turn out that it is more efficient to organise the German force in corps strength, then we shall be driven to agree to it, whatever we may say at the present time.
  The next question will be: Are we to waste all the resources that exist in Germany, that vast potential for the manufacture of war materials? We shall be desperately short of them for a long time to come. Indeed, we are told that it may not be possible to arm Germany at all for some time, because we want to use for our own forces first the war material that we have. Once we have accepted the principle of German rearmament, is it not reasonable to say: "Very well, there they have the potential. Let them get on with it, and produce arms only for their own forces"? So, step by step, I fear that we shall be driven gradually, irrevocably and quite logically, into accepting German rearmament. Then I fear that in a very few years we shall

  783
  be rearming, not against the Soviet Union but against a revived, strengthened Germany. These are my apprehensions. I feel that they are real apprehensions, and I believe that they are at the back of the minds of a number of noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and who have expressed their anxiety—and this anxiety does not come from one side of the House alone. There is also the moral question. After all, we know that on two occasions Germany has been guilty of aggressive war. We remember the brutalities, the horrors, the great massacres of millions of people that were established at the Nuremberg trials only a relatively short time ago. Are these people with whom we want to conduct even a defensive war as Allies? Does not the whole of the moral sense of the world revolt against our taking them into our hearts once more at the present time?
  Now I should like to say a few words about the criticisms of His Majesty's Government. The noble Marquess, for instance, referred to our weakness in the statements that we have made about the 38th Parallel, and our attitude on the China Resolution. Those criticisms have been effectively dealt with by the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Wilmot. The noble Marquess made an interesting statement about sanctions. I cannot help feeling that he is right: that it would be most difficult, and I think wholly undesirable, to endeavour to impose sanctions upon China. I hope that His Majesty's Government will take note that there is a very strong feeling throughout the country which is sympathetic to China. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, expressed that view.
  I think many of us feel deep regret that circumstances have put us in the position of being antagonistic towards China. I certainly feel that, with our experience of sanctions against Italy, we should hesitate long before endeavouring to repeat the experiment against China. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, intervened yesterday to say that in the case of Italy it was not possible to make sanctions fully effective because the United States of America remained outside. But there would be a similar state of affairs this time. The Soviet Union and all its friendly countries, and all the countries associated with them, would come to the assistance of China, thereby to a large
  784
  extent defeating the purpose of sanctions. I was most interested in the suggestion that we ought to establish contacts at the highest level. I believe that is all to the good, but the timing must be carefully thought out and, of course, such a meeting must be carefully planned. I do not believe, for example, that one could suggest going to the Kremlin next week and meeting Stalin without the most careful preparation and discussion with those who are associated with us. But, in principle, I agree that it would be a good thing to have these discussions at the highest level, and I believe that they may even have dramatic results.
  A number of noble Lords have made statements about the Foreign Secretary and his illness. I regret that it should be felt desirable to call for the resignation of the Foreign Secretary on account of his illness, especially at a moment when he appears to be fully recovered.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to misrepresent what I said. I never called for the resignation of the Foreign Secretary. I drew attention to a practice which had been universal in times past, and about which there is nothing new, that when a Minister, and especially the Foreign Secretary, was a sick man for any long period, another Minister was temporarily drafted in to occupy his chair, to act as Foreign Secretary until he came back. I should not like the noble Lord to give the impression that I have called for the resignation of the Foreign Secretary.
  LORD SILKIN: I agree that the noble Marquess did not call for his resignation. I was not at this moment referring to his statement. But there were quite a number of other noble Lords who did, and I feel that that is rather unfortunate. One may agree, or disagree, with Mr. Ernest Bevin's conduct of affairs as Foreign Secretary. If his conduct or his policy does not meet with the approval of the nation, then of course he ought to go. But I think it would be unfortunate that his illness should be regarded as a reason for his resignation. I would ask the noble Marquess whether he did not rather overstate the case when he used these words of the Foreign Secretary:
  "It is since the Foreign Secretary fell ill that this deplorable change has become so evident."

  785
  Of course, it may be only a remarkable coincidence, or it may not even be a fact, but if the noble Marquess will search his mind and search dates, I do not believe he will find it is true that the position has deteriorated—that this deplorable change has taken place—since the Foreign Secretary fell ill. I assume that, by implication, the noble Marquess would say that it is because the Foreign Secretary fell ill. In my view that is not true. Even if it were true chronologically, however, I do not believe that it is because of his illness that this deterioration has come about. Indeed, the noble Marquess has himself given other explanations for this deplorable change in the international situation, so I hope that he will look at the Foreign Secretary's position broadly now that he has—as we ill hope—recovered. At any rate, Mr. Bevin is back to-day, and I understand that he will be in his own constituency this evening. We all hope that he will be able to carry out the work which he has been doing so remarkably for the last live or six years.
  I should like to conclude by expressing my hope and belief that the situation, black as it looks, is by no means irretrievable. We have all approached the situation in the last few days with feelings of gloom, doubt, hesitation and, perhaps, fear. I believe, however, that there are rays of hope. Some emanate from the fact that the Four Powers are about to meet, and I believe that the very fact of British, American and Continental rearmament has introduced a dramatic change into the atmosphere. I think the Communist countries will be much more ready to talk realistically, and to make concessions, than they have hitherto been prepared to do. I hope that we, equally, shall be prepared to make concessions. It may well be that the next few months will see a perceptible lifting of the clouds, and disclose a brighter future for this country than has appeared likely during the past few weeks.
  6.10 p.m.
  LORD TWEEDSMIMR: My Lords, no one reads the Daily Herald with more interest than I do, and I was therefore surprised, on turning over its pages this morning, to find that, in dealing with the debate in your Lordships House yesterday, it referred with some disapproval to my noble leader, Lord Salisbury. It said that: "All pretence of unity was
  786
  dropped." In view of that statement, I was all the more pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, comment on the extent of our agreement on things that matter during the two days that this debate has occupied. None has denied the gravity of the position; none has seriously disagreed with the view that we can build up our strength and further our cause with all our Allies at one and the same time, while not closing the door to discussion with Russia, however hopeless it may seem at the moment.
  We on this side of the House are in broad agreement with the principles that the Prime Minister laid down in the interesting speech that he made in another place last week. We do not quarrel with the aims which he set out, but we are driven to criticise the apparent reluctance, and the apparent indecision, with which steps are taken to give those aims force. Our reading of the situation leads us to believe that the trend towards the half-world of the haphazard, and what we regard as indecision on important matters, have coincided too closely with the illness of the Foreign Secretary for it to be a mere coincidence. If anyone will read the Report of this debate carefully I think he will agree that it would hardly be possible to devise a greater tribute to Mr. Ernest Bevin than that contained in what has been said, and in the fact that we see coincidence in his departure from the active sphere with the reluctance and hesitation which we deplore.
  I am not going to take up your Lordships' time for long this evening. What are we up against at the moment? I think we are all agreed that in 1945 we had the warmest relationship with Soviet Russia. It is tragic how that relationship has declined. I will never be convinced that that decline is the fault of this country. I believe that it is highly arguable whether our warm sentiments were ever really reciprocated. Those who spread Communist propaganda in this country generally use, as a principal plank, the phrase: "Russia does not want war." That is true to a point. Russia wants the world, and she will not go to war if she can get it in any other way. There was a time, before the last war broke out, when Marshal Stalin committed himself to one or two sentiments on the peaceful co-existence of the Communist and non-Communist worlds.

  787
  But that tolerance, I think, was rightly appraised by Miss Barbara Ward, in her admirable book Policy for the West, as the tolerance which the cat extends to the mouse, at the time when the mouse is down its hole.
  This is not the first time that we and other free nations have been threatened by an aggressor who would make himself master of the world. But the threat now comes at a time—and the first time in 5,000 years of history—when it is technically possible for one nation to make itself master of the world. We may talk about potentially cordial relationships between ourselves and the Russian people, or between ourselves and the Chinese people. But we are not dealing with peoples; we are dealing with regimes. They may go to war by mistake; they may go to war as the result of a mistaken appreciation of our strength or our resolution. But I am convinced that they will not go to war by accident. The whole trend of our foreign policy surely must be to avoid what might be called the psychological defensive. What we must do is to show Russian Communist imperialism that aggression does not pay, that if we are attacked we shall fight, and that if we fight we shall win. That alone, I believe, can prevent war. In the last conflict, we were faced, for the first time in our history, with the fact that if we were overcome it was not merely defeat that would be our fate but racial extinction. We should face no less this time.
  I think that one word is very seriously misused in talking over our preparations for defence. That word is" vital."" Vital," your Lordships will recollect, means essential to life; if you are deprived of something vital you will die instantly. Many things are important but only three things are vital. The first is the will to fight; the second is something to fight with; and the third is the will to combine for the fight. Taking the first one—the will to fight—it is no accident, to my mind, that there is in the democratic countries a tremendous confusion of thought over world affairs. This has been brought about as part of a deliberate policy by Russia in much of her propaganda. It exists not least of all in Britain. Therefore, I agree entirely with the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York, that we must bring home to the
  788
  people of Britain the gravity of our position, and to a much greater extent than we have so far done.
  There was a time—even during my lifetime—when the study of foreign affairs was left to serious, scholarly men outside the Houses of Parliament. It is now the uneasy preoccupation of everyone in these Houses, in this city, and in this country. We must make it easier for them. If I may be permitted to do so I should like to quote from a work of my own father.
  "The task of government is not to instil greatness into the people; it is to elicit it, for the greatness is there already."
  When we have a foreign affairs debate, and our eyes rove to distant shores and the confines of far Continents, we are sometimes apt to overlook what treasure we have at home. In the last war, as in every one that preceded it, the people of Britain rose to heights of sacrifice that were almost sublime. Since the last war ended, they have had some justification for expecting peace and plenty, but they are now facing a situation when peace must be secured by costly and vigorous preparations, and the vision of plenty must recede. There is no kind of sacrifice of which the British people are not capable, once they know the need for it really exists.
  Of course, in this country, as in all free countries, our people suffer from the great difficulty of really convincing themselves that any one country would want to involve the world in war. I think, too, they are apt to rely on one or two illusions. We often find ourselves thinking that democracy is catching—there is little sign of it—and that a nice policy in the middle of the road may perhaps make things easier. This is much too dangerous a road, with too much heavy traffic coming both ways. I do not agree with what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to say a little earlier, expressing a view which is widely held in certain sections, that Russia might take some drastic step through suspicion or fear. I do not see how you can make a nation apprehensive that possesses more than 175 divisions.
  My second point was: something to fight with. I will not go into that, because we have had Defence debates in both Houses, but I should like to say something about the will to combine for the fight. Let us remember that we have

  789
  never been a great land Power. We have always been the leader, or the moving spirit, in some great alliance. In the last few weeks events have raised a slight doubt as to whether we are the moving spirit on this occasion. We are in a difficult position. We have three spheres of unity—the one with which we have grown up, he British Empire; the one which is next door to us, Europe; and our friends, the United States of America. More than once the Communists have tried to drive us into the position of appearing to have to sacrifice one of these unities to maintain the others. To my mind that is the most dangerous diplomatic attack we have to contend with, and we must ever be vigilant to watch for it. I was in the U.S.A. about two months ago as were other noble Lords who have spoken. I agree with nearly all they had to say. Their reading of the situation was very much mine. But it was a time when understanding with Britain was strained to a dangerous extent. The papers that I read contained long casualty lists from Korea, and instructions on civil defence, and were wondering, not with any rancour but with some perplexity, whether in Britain we meant business. I submit that in the foreign sphere it is not merely enough to mean business; one must clearly be seen to mean it. In his interesting speech yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, pointed out that thirty years ago the United States were blamed for pulling out of Europe, and what a long way they have come since. They have realised now that the free nations of the world are playing a game which cannot be drawn. You can only win or lose; and you cannot win by defending your own goal. Marshall Aid was a wonderful manifest of the responsibility they are prepared to take in the rest of the world, and the only well-known champion of American isolationism to-day is Marshal Stalin.
  I much regret the circumstances of the appointment of an American admiral. I am not going into it at great length, for many keen Royal Navy broadsides have been fired already. I do not think that anything that has appeared, in the way of comment and controversy, can have done any damage whatever with our friends in the United States. They appreciate plain speaking and they see we have cast no aspersions on the distinguished admiral
  790
  appointed, or on the United States Navy. I am much obliged to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, for his explanation this afternoon, but it is still not very clear to me, and perhaps other noble Lords may be in the same position. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Layton, that Parliament must be informed in advance of every step which involves the pooling of our sovereignty. And I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that if we are to have confidence in these arrangements, we must know just what these arrangements are. I regret all this has happened, because the appointment of this admiral, and all that has gone with it, is an example of how we have not yet reached a true balance of alliance with the United States: and it is mighty important that we should have an equitable division of leadership if that alliance is to be firm and lasting.
  I shall turn briefly to the East. I regard with a certain amount of dismay the announcement that discussions still go on about the 38th Parallel and no conclusion has been reached. If the tide of war flowed strongly our way, as it might easily, we should find ourselves faced with the necessity to make that decision, not in our own time, but in a short time and probably with shortening tempers. I regard the Japanese Treaty and rearmament (and the German one similarly) as a balance between restoring security to Japan and security to her neighbour countries against a recrudescence of Japan. I received a good deal of comfort from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, when he told us that not only Australia, New Zealand and Canada would be partners to discussing any treaty, but that we ourselves, who are heavily concerned, would be there as well. I am not going to labour the point about China and the Security Council. To my mind a purely legalistic case can be made out for the inclusion of China. I do not think I misrepresent the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, when I say that he suggested that if China were included in the United Nations, she might be tempted to follow the path that Tito trod. That, surely, is the wrong way round. To our way of thinking, the greatest possible wrong a nation can commit is to start an aggressive war. Only when they withdraw, bag and baggage, and are prepared to make amends for what they have done, can we award them a seat. This is much too

  791
  much like paying Danegeld. As Kipling says:
  "And if you pay them the Danegeld, you will never get rid of the Dane."
  They have to show some manifest of good faith. I would say that withdrawal from Korea is the very least—and some would say," Withdraw from Malaya, too." The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, made an interesting short speech, but I could not agree with him that we could make any treaty or alliance out of the good will between the peoples of China and our own people. China has made a vast contribution to civilisation, but we arc dealing not with the people of China; we are dealing with the present régime.
  I would go a little farther south in Asia. I think the Colombo Plan and President Truman's Point Four Plan were great and inspiring measures. I have heard it said that the way to defeat Communism—and this applies to the convinced Communist—is to oppose to it a higher standard of living. That cannot be. With a purely material appeal you cannot overthrow a material creed with a strong missionary appeal. We should have to oppose performance to promise. If we provide three acres and a cow, the Communists will promise six acres and two cows. But one thing I will agree; where Communism has not yet reached, a great deal can be done, and that is the weapon by which to do it. Hunger, poverty and disease are good growing weather for Communism. Communism is an army which marches on other people's stomachs. I should greatly appreciate it if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor could give us some information on how the Colombo Plan and the Point Four Plan are proceeding: whether they found a modus vivendi, and whether they have some kind of parallel priority with defence—which, indeed, they are.
  Now I just want to slip to the necklace of countries of great importance, which have been only cursorily mentioned in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, spoke in moving terms about Turkey. The Turks have a splendid army; they have greatly prejudiced their prosperity by spending one-third of their national budget on maintaining that army—and I think the noble Lord hit the nail on the head when
  792
  he said it was because" they understand the Russians." The Turks have the third largest force in Korea; they are strong supporters of the United Nations; we know them for a warlike and resolute people; and in a world where we have all lived to see so many nations turn from democracy, they are a nation which has turned back, and which has gone from one-Party Government to encouraging an Opposition, a Government which eventually accepted, with dignity, defeat at the hands of that Opposition.
  Then there is Greece, which nation is also fighting resolutely in Korea. It is always a matter of great pride to me, when I think it over, that in the worst of our extremity in the Western desert, short of men and materials, we sent troops to help the Greeks, who were out-armed, outmanned and outgunned, but were making Hitler pay for every yard of Greek soil. One first-class British brigade prevented Greece from going behind the Iron Curtain. The Greeks have had substantial help from us and from the United States. Greece is a country which deserves well. Yugoslavia needs no introduction. The noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, spoke of it yesterday, as one who fought there in the war and knew the country from the inside. I feel that we all object to Yugoslavia's form of Government—I certainly do—but anyone who is prepared to resist being swallowed up by the Russian colossus must inevitably be ranged on our side. Add to those Persia—a glittering prize for the Russians —who declares herself ready to fight if she is invaded. Calling those countries, in a newly coined phrase," the Eastern approaches," they are countries to which I am convinced we must pay considerable attention. Mr. Bevan said the other day in another place that an attack on Yugoslavia would be a matter of" concern" (that is his word) to His Majesty's Government and our Allies. I would suggest that an attack on those other countries, whose fortunes stand or fall by the fortunes of the West, would also be a matter of" concern."
  Coming now to the West, I will not go over and thresh and re-thresh all the arguments for and against a European Army and German rearmament generally. But it is a question of finding a modus operandi; of asking the Germans whether they wish to be armed, and whether they

  793
  are prepared to take their place in the defence of Western Europe. It is a question of the pattern. The question is asked: Can we risk another German army? On the other hand, can we possibly leave them out? Our view on this side of the House—and I think it is one gaining general currency—is that Germany must be represented in a European army because this would allow her to come in on a basis of equality, and would also prevent the danger of an independent Gorman army of the type from which we have suffered. In these discussions I am convinced, as indeed the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, that we should be represented by a delegate. I thought the noble Marquess made out a very strong case, and that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, when he came to reply, made that case even stronger. On the matter of the Four Power talks, I was greatly dismayed, as was the noble Marquess, by the way the Prime Minister talked in another place as if he would rearm Germany only if the talks failed. We are all agreed that we must not expect too much from this discussion. But if we do start and get ahead with this business of rearming Germany, in what a different atmosphere will those discussions take place! I feel that we should do that, and that the agenda should be of the widest. I believe that this is a chance for getting back some of the initiative that we seem temporarily to have lost.
  In bringing my remarks to a close, I would say this. No one can pretend that His Majesty's Government have anything but the most difficult task, and have had for the last few years, in the darkening scene of world affairs. But I do say to them that, to my mind, there is nothing more important than that we should keep off what I might call the psychological defensive. I think the greatest military principle ever enunciated by the noble and gallant Viscount, Field-Marshal Montgomery, was:" Never react to your enemy." Only too often we give the appearance of doing just that. We must retain the initiative; and we must never allow the impression to get abroad that we have lost the power of decision or the leadership of ideas. It is true that the burglar always possesses a strong initiative over the householder; he comes on a night that he thinks fit, and one most suitable for his deed. But you can often
  794
  make the burglar think twice if you make quite clear just what constitutes burglary and what the penalties are.
  I suggest, too, in summing up, that we should extend our area of" concern"— or, at any rate, give consideration to it— to those other nations of the Eastern approaches; and that every one of us must always be on our guard to scotch any attempt to divide us; from our Allies. Attempts have been made, and they will continue to be made. Month after month the free nations make progress; in adding to their strength. We run a race with time, and we still have a good long way to go. I should like to conclude by using the same words that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, used at the end of his speech last night. Speaking of the Government, he said:
  "If they will only take the lead, as this country has done in the past, they need not fear that they will not be supported."
  6.38 p.m.
  TEH LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for raising this debate. In my view, it has been well up to the very high standard that we have come to expect from your Lordships' House when we discuss Foreign Affairs. It is not only that we have received (as we have grown to expect) brilliant speeches from the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, and from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, but that throughout the speeches notable contributions have been made. Sitting here over the last few weeks I can recall two speeches in particular—if it is not invidious to single out speeches— which have deeply impressed me. One was the speech which the noble Lord. Lord Ismay, made in our Defence debate last week; and the other was the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, in winding up our discussion last night. Unfortunately, there was a very thin House, it being the last speech, and it has not been adequately reported in the Press.
  The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was here and heard the speech. I have seldom heard expressed better and more simply the immense debt which we owe to America; the generous-hearted contribution which she has made to us (in spite of all the difficulties, and the natural predilections which might have prevented her); and how fundamental it is for the

  795
  future of our civilisation that we and that great country should be able to go on hand in hand together. That does not mean that everybody, on either side of this House, agrees that we are in any sense satellites, as the satellite States of the Soviet are unable to express their own opinions and unable to air their differences. That is quite inconceivable. Of course we must have our differences, and of course we must thresh out our difficulties. But of course, too, there must be good will, give-and-take, tolerance and an underlying knowledge of the fact that the happy solution of those difficulties is fundamental to the peace of the world and the well-being of Europe.
  A certain amount of anxiety has been expressed in the debate. It is inevitable that, with conditions as they are to-day, there should be anxiety. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, always uses considerable discretion in his speeches. He, too, walks, if I may say so, a little delicately. Perhaps he remembers, since the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, generally speaks after him, that Agag was himself hewed in pieces by Samuel. He was dealt with there on the highest level. The burden of Lord Salisbury's complaint against us was, I think, this, if I may adapt and mis-translate the old Latin proverb. It was that, whereas we were fortiter in verbo we were cunctanter in re —hesitant in what we did—and he gave three instances. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, did not condescend to particulars. He assumed them, and sought to find out the reason for them. I will deal with the three instances—and I think I may say, the only three instances which have been given, except the little incident of Spain, which was thrown in at the last moment as a red herring. If I remember it, I will deal with that, too.
  The first one, as the noble Marquess said, was: Why did we hesitate to declare China an aggressor? I am going to deal with this matter, and I hope to deal with it thoroughly. The first answer is that we never hesitated to declare China an aggressor. It is perfectly obvious to anybody that, when China started helping the North Koreans in resisting the United Nations, China herself became guilty of aggression. On what then, is the complaint of hesitancy based? It is based on the fact that there was a Resolution
  796
  tabled on January 20, 1951, at U.N.O. and the fact that the Resolution was not accepted until February 1, 1951, when it was accepted in a modified form. Now the Resolution of January 26, 1951, contained these points. It first of all contained this statement:
  "Noting that the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China has rejected all United Nations proposals. …"
  We did not believe that that was an accurate statement of the facts. Certain explanatory statements were made by Sir Benegal Rau, as a result of which it seemed to us clear that it was not accurate to say that the Chinese had" rejected all United Nations proposals." Accordingly, we put that to our colleagues and friends, and everybody agreed that we were right. The phrase was altered to read:
  "China has not accepted United Nations proposals."
  The second point is, I think, more important. The Resolution, as originally tabled, contained this phrase in paragraph 8:
  "… requests a Committee composed of the Members of the Collective Measures Committee as a matter of urgency to consider additional measures to be employed to meet this aggression."
  After that, in paragraph 9, the Resolution went on to state that the United Nations desired to finish this matter by peaceful means.
  That seemed to us putting the matter the wrong way round. If seemed to us that before you consider further sanctions you ought to exhaust the possibilities of friendly negotiations. We had that Resolution remodelled. The end of paragraph 8 now reads:
  "It being understood that the Committee is authorised to defer its report if the Good Offices Committee referred to in the following paragraph reports satisfactory progress in its efforts."
  This, then, is the position—I am bound to put this to the noble Marquess, because I do not think he was quite fair on this point. He asserted that we had hesitated to declare China an aggressor. That is not true. We had hesitated to accept a Resolution which, in addition to declaring China an aggressor, contained two other statements, one of which was inaccurate and the other of which was unwise. When we came to put this matter before the United Nations.

  797
  everybody agreed with us, and the Resolution as passed on February I—that is, ten days after it was first introduced— contained these two amendments, and was accepted by everybody there, apart from the Soviet bloc. I assert to the noble Marquess—and he will forgive me for asserting quite positively—that he had no foundation whatever for saying that we had ever hesitated in declaring China an aggressor.
  Incidentally, since I am dealing with this matter, may I go back to the question of the original recognition of China? I do not want at this time of night to go into the old controversy again, but it is rather interesting to see that sometimes the accusation is that we drag our feet. and sometimes that we act too precipitately. I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, who was the last speaker and who used the phrase" whether China should be included in the United Nations," that that method of dealing with it begs the whole question. Do let the noble Lord, and the House, remember that China is a member of the United Nations. China is a member of the Security Council. There is no argument about that at all. The only question is: that being so, whom do you recognise as China? Do you recognise as China the People's Government of China who, whether we like it or not— and I frankly say that I do not—arc in de facto control of China; or do you recognise Chiang Kai-shek who, for all I know, may be a very estimable gentleman, but who lives at Formosa? That is a pure question of fact: who is in fact in control in China, China being a member of the United Nations and entitled to a seat on the Security Council? To state that the question is whether China should be included seems to me to miss the whole point of the controversy. Incidentally, I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, made a very powerful point yesterday, through Lord Samuel, when he said that when we condemned the People's Government of China for acting as aggressors, that involved the proposition that the People's Government of China was in control of China, and it really seems to me that that is the fact. So much for that. That is the first point upon which we are supposed to have been dragging our feet, and I humbly say that there is nothing in that.
  798
  Now I come to the second point. If is said: Why boggle about crossing the 38th Parallel? We have not boggled at all. Where are you going to advance to? There are both military and political questions. You can go to the 38th Parallel; you can go to the neck at Pyongyang or, of course, you can go right up to the frontier. I can hardly think that anybody in his senses would want to go up to the frontier, unless he proposes to use his air force in advance of the frontier. Anybody who tried that without using his air forces in advance of the frontier would sterilise his air forces. He has gone as far as he could, and he would not be allowed to go any further. We do not want to have a large-scale war in China—larger than it need be. There is only one set of people, so far as I know, who want that: I strongly suspect that it is the Russians. The less we get bogged down the better, because that may prejudice us if we have to face a war in Europe. Therefore what can we say about the 38th Parallel? We asked that before it was decided to cross the 38th Parallel we might be consulted—we and the other nations who are contributing forces—and the Americans have conceded the point. They say it is right that we should be consulted and that they will consult us. Was it not right that we should be consulted? Had we not a right to be consulted? Does anybody object to our asking to be consulted? Certainly the United States do not object, for they have conceded the point.
  The third point put forward as illustrating this alleged hesitating and dragging of our feet deals with the German Army. The Prime Minister in his statement in another place said this:
  "It is in this context"
  (that is the context of the Four Power Pact)
  "that the question of the rearmament of Western Germany has to be considered. If we can get real and genuine settlement with Soviet Russia the matter of German rearmament would become less important and would fall into its natural place."
  So will all our rearmament, if by any chance we can get a real settlement with Russia. In that event we should be able to reconsider the whole of our armament programme, German rearmament and every other form of rearmament. If we cannot get a real settlement with Russia, then, of course, that and every other form of our rearmament must go on. So far

  799
  as time is concerned I would commend, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, the wise words of General Eisenhower with regard to this matter. They were quoted in yesterday's debate by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and they will show the noble Lord exactly what General Eisenhower thinks. And it is of course the fact that, whether we like it or not, we shall want all the arms we can get for our own troops—Dutch, Belgian, French, Luxenbourg, Danish and the rest—for a pretty long time ahead. I have never heard anybody doubt that whilst there is a shortage of arms we ought to come first.
  It is quite untrue to say that we are putting anything off. I think it is true to say that it is impossible for a German contribution to Western defence to materialise in a matter of weeks or months. But we are continuing technical discussions with the Federal Government on the matter of the form of the German contribution and on the other problems involved in Germany's new relationship with the West. If anything were liable to delay the achievement of a German contribution it would be theoretical discussions about integrating them into exclusively European units under a federalistic political structure with the complicated problems which that involves.
  On this question of the European army the noble Marquess complained about a lack of positive resolute action, but I think he overlooked the positive aspects of our policy in Europe and of our defence policy. Our policy is firmly based on the North Atlantic Treaty and on the combination of the European and North American Powers which makes this grouping, in our view, the only effective association for the present and the future. We have taken a foremost place in the matter of common defence under that treaty. We have welcomed and assisted the establishment of an integrated Allied defence system under the supreme command of General Eisenhower. We have greatly increased our defence production and our overall defence expenditure; and we are increasing the forces we maintain on the Continent. We are in it up to the hilt. There is nothing negative about that.
  The noble Marquess spoke as if the only two alternatives were, on the one hand, that Germany should have an absolutely independent army and, on the
  800
  other hand, that they should be members of a European army—by which I gather he means members of a European international force on the lines put forward at the Conference in Paris. I think it is time that your Lordships' House understood quite clearly that these are not the two alternatives. The decision of the North Atlantic Council, with which we are in full accord, was that Germany should be invited to make a contribution to the integrated Atlantic Force under General Eisenhower. The noble Marquess is putting a gloss on that decision when he says —I quote his words:
  "I should have thought that that could mean only that His Majesty's Government were party to a decision to create an international force, mainly composed of European nations, including Germany, in a unified command."
  I suppose that the words" mainly composed of European nations" are used to suggest that we are committed to the support of a European system within the North Atlantic integrated force. We have no such commitment. We do not believe it is necessary to the concept of the integrated force which General Eisenhower is trying to create that there should be within it another piece of international machinery composed exclusively of Europeans. But, since certain Governments were willing to consult with the French on the possibilities of such a scheme as one of the methods by which Germany might be brought into the common defence, we shall wish them well and send observers to the Conference. I think that that is a practical and sensible course to adopt.
  I do not propose to add anything to the statement which was made by the First Lord to-day on the matter of the Atlantic Command, or to speculate on what other appointments will be made to other Commands. I think the First Lord gave us some very wise advice when he said that we had better reserve our criticisms until we see the whole picture and until the details have been worked out. I was asked about the Japanese Peace Treaty and reference was made to Mr. Dulles's tour in this connection. His talks with Sir Alvary Gascoigne in Tokyo, and Sir Esler Dening who was in Canberra on an official tour at the time of Mr. Dulles's visit there, were of considerable value to both sides. I should like to take this opportunity of paying my warm tribute to Mr. Dulles's

  801
  helpfulness and to his courtesy in visiting Sir Esler Dening in hospital when he fell ill at Canberra. So far as we know at present, Mr. Dulles has no intention of paying an early visit to this country. He would, of course, be most welcome here, but we realise that at this stage of the preparatory work for the Japanese Peace Treaty he must be fully occupied in Washington. Mr. Dulles' tour has given us an opportunity of conveying the views of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, unofficially but very fully, to the United States Government at a time when the preparations for the Japanese Peace Treaty are still in the formative stage. We are now following this up and pressing ahead in order to secure agreement with the other countries concerned as early as possible on the form which the Treaty should take. The House may be assured that in this process we are in constant touch with the Commonwealth Governments and also that there is no risk of our view going by default.
  I must not keep your Lordships much longer, but so many questions have been asked of me that I could go on replying almost indefinitely. May I pick out and answer just a few of them? The noble Lord, Lord Winster. asked about Greek children. I am glad to tell him that the relations between the Greeks and the Yugoslavs have improved so much recently that it is unnecessary for us, in our judgment, to intervene at this time. There are undoubtedly technical difficulties of identification, but good will is being shown by both sides and we expect the repatriation of the children to proceed steadily. In November the first batch of twenty-one was repatriated. On January 27 the Swedish Red Cross, who are. assisting the Yugoslav Red Cross in this matter, announced that a further 400 children would be leaving Yugoslavia to join their parents in Greece. I think that the changed situation in the relationship between the two countries has done a great deal to make these things possible, and I look forward to a continuance of this good work.
  The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, asked me to tell him something about the Colombo Plan. A meeting of the Consultative Committee on Economic Development in South-East Asia was held earlier this month in Colombo, as the noble Lord knows. Your Lordships
  802
  also know that the United States Government, who expressed their extreme interest in the whole matter, were good enough to send a delegation to that meeting. I should like to say once more how grateful we an; to them for the interest they are taking in the Plan. It was. announced that the Australian Government will contribute £25,000,000 over the six-year period, of which £7,000,000 will" be available in the first year; and that the Canadian Government have decided to give 25,000,000 Canadian dollars for the first year alone. Those are very generous offers and will certainly be warmly appreciated by the countries to whose welfare they are to be devoted. The main purpose of the Conference was to discuss and make recommendations about the future work and organisation which will be needed if the Colombo Plan is to be brought to fruition. Those recommendations have been received and arc now under consideration by Governments. I may add that arrangements are now being worked out to co-ordinate the Colombo Plan and President Truman's Point Four Plan. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this plan is a very valuable attempt to meet one of the greatest social problems confronting the world. It is satisfactory to know with what extreme generosity other members of our Commonwealth are approaching the matter.
  I often wish that we could have in Europe some kind of a pact of non-aggression whereby everybody was entitled to his means of protection. How does aggression come nowadays? What is the new technique? The new technique is very often, I suppose, to promote a kind of civil war and, having promoted it, to say:" This is a matter for the nation itself to determine. We must all stand aside"—rather on the Korean lines. These civil wars may be fomented from outside the countries in which they appear to occur. Whilst we realise that tension within a State may on occasion of itself break out into armed violence, we should none the less be careful not always to ascribe civil wars to domestic causes. It must be clear to all of us that civil wars will only too often serve the cause of world revolution. If so, it is far from impossible that those who preach world revolution will seek to advance the

  803
  borders of their empire by starting what may appear to be civil wars but which will, in fact, be aggression in disguise. They will hope that the free world will be confused and divided in its opinions as to the action which it should take. The Government are well aware of this danger and will not be easily misled by anything which may happen, be it in Central Europe, in the Middle East or further afield. I think that note is useful to bear in mind. We shall not be taken in by the fact that an aggression takes the form ostensibly of a civil war. It may well be that in spite of that fact it really is aggression, naked and unashamed.
  I have endeavoured to deal with the various points which have been raised. I have tried to show that the three illustrations which the noble Marquess gave, on which he based his allegation that we were so brave in our words but dragging our feet in our actions, are wholly unfounded. I hope that, if I have not convinced him, at any rate I have succeeded in showing him that the actions which we have been taking in this difficult time do not lag behind the words we have used.
  7.9 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in the speech which he has just delivered to your Lordships, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said that he thought the debate had been well up to the high standard that was customary in this House. I warmly agree with that. In my view it has been a most valuable debate. There have been interesting, and often, I thought, very moving, contributions on all sides of the House. There were, inevitably, differences of view on individual questions. Parliament would not be what it is if such differences did not exist. But, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, said last night in the impressive speech which he delivered to your Lordships, and as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, reechoed this afternoon, there has been throughout the whole of the last two days a broad underlying unity of view which I believe is characteristic of this country, and which I am glad to think still subsists.
  With regard to the points of difference I find myself in a certain difficulty,
  804
  because I raised one or two points where I thought His Majesty's Government had been dilatory—points which related mainly to the Far East—and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has given a reply in some detail which he says has completely convinced him, and very likely somebody else too.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hoped it would convince the noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, it has not; that is my difficulty. I am quite unrepentant, both as to the 38th Parallel and as to the aggressor Resolution. Indeed, though the noble and learned Viscount had an admirable brief, if I may say so, from the Foreign Office with regard to the events of certain days, it is what I should call a selective brief: it left out a certain number of incidents which also occurred within that period. If I once begin on all this detail it will take me a long time to deal with everything, and I am sure the House will not want me to do that. Moreover, I have not the slightest doubt that I shall have plenty of other opportunities to make the points I have raised. Therefore, on the whole, after two days of long debate, I think your Lordships will probably not wish me to tackle those two particular problems. But I would re-emphasise that, though the Lord Chancellor made an admirable statement from the point of view of the Government, there is still more which remains to be said.
  Before I go on to the European position, upon which I wish to say only one word, I should like to say something very generally with regard to the general situation in the Far East. I have a sort of feeling—and I think probably the Government will accept the view—that one of the reasons why some of us on this side of the House feel that they have been dilatory—though they themselves will perhaps not accept that—is that, throughout, they much more than we have hugged the hope that China might still be willing to negotiate. I do not want to put it unfairly, but I am afraid that at the present time I do not believe there was any foundation for that view. All this is a matter of opinion, and I am not proposing to dictate my opinions to other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, in an extremely interesting speech this afternoon, put down the

  805
  failure of success at Lake Success to a lack of response from China, with the support of Soviet Russia. I think that was just the difficulty. There was no response from China, and of course she was backed up by the Soviet.
  I do not want, any more than the Government do—indeed, I do not suppose any of us do—to see a continuation of the war with China, whether it be in Korea or more widespread in its area. After all, we all recognise the old feeling of friendship to which Lord Ammon referred this afternoon, and which has happily subsisted between the peoples of Britain and China in the past. But I believe that the Government have gone the wrong way to bring to an end this present tension and these present troubles as between us and China. It is my view (I do not say it is theirs) that in effect the Government have favoured a policy of appeasement—modified appeasement, but appeasement—of which the only result has been that they have stiffened the attitude of the present Chinese Government. In my view what was needed was a different approach. Probably many of your Lordships are familiar with Alice Through the Looking Glass, a book frequently quoted in Parliament, and you may remember the incident in the early part of the book after Alice had left the little room and proceeded into the garden. In the garden there was a hill, and she was anxious to get to the top of that hill. She tried every path which led to that hill, but always she found herself back again exactly where she started. Eventually one of the flowers, the rose, which fortunately was able to talk, said to her," You must go the opposite way," and although at first Alice did not believe it. after several more failures she went the apposite way, and immediately found herself near the top of the hill. I believe that that is a very good little fable for His Majesty's Government to remember at the present time. I am quite certain that a firm attitude would have been much more likely to produce a good result than merely to run after the Chinese.
  Dealing with sanctions, I fully agree, as I said yesterday, that sanctions are unlikely to be effective. When I talk about taking a firm attitude, I mean not whittling down the principles of the United Nations for which
  806
  we stand. I was rather shocked when the Lord Chancellor said that we should take Mao Tse-tung, who is, of course, up in arms against the institution of the United Nations, and bring him in as a member of the Security Council. The Lord Chancellor is in the happy position of approving all the Crown magistrates, but I doubt very much whether he would put a burglar upon the bench just after he had been held to be a burglar. It is the same principle. I believe that in the United Nations every nation stands by the principles to which it has subscribed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was inclined to put him on the bench in this matter before he had ever burgled. We tried to do that long before this Korean problem started.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But he was engaged in what may be described as a civil burglary at that time. However. do not want to pursue this matter any further. I know that it is one upon which opinions differ; but I felt it was a thing which I ought to say to your Lordships because I feel it so strongly.
  I have very little more that I want to say about the European situation. The Lord Chancellor dealt at considerable length— and I am very grateful to him— with the portion of my speech which dealt with the European Army. As I understood it, he said that there were not only the two possibilities, to have an independent German Army and a European Army, but that there was a third—the Atlantic Army of which Germany should become a part. The noble and learned Viscount said that I was in favour of the European Army, because I had said that I thought this particular army was likely to be composed mainly of the United Nations. I believe that is a fact. I do not think we are expecting the Canadians or Americans to provide a very large part of those forces. I did not say that I was pledged in any way to a European Army. I thought my description varied very little from that which the Lord Chancellor gave as his alternative. I still think that we ought to explore all possibilities, and for that reason I still think we should have sent a delegate to the Conference in Paris. We should not have been tying ourselves to accept anything by doing that, and I think it would have been a more dignified

  807
  and probably a more effective procedure than just to be represented by an observer. But if, instead of the French plan for a European Army, a larger scheme under General Eisenhower turns out to be more practical, and if the Germans and we and the French and everybody else came in under that, certainly the Government would not find us on these Benches disagreeing. I think it is just one of those questions that needs the maximum amount of exploration.
  My Lords, the question of the American admiral has taken up a large part of our discussions to-day, and I must say just a few words about that matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, said—I took down his words, I think accurately— that our criticisms or comments on the appointment were not helpful to Anglo-American co-operation. The noble Viscount is always so fair that I hope he will not mind my saying that I think on this occasion perhaps he did not quite do us justice. We have had during recent months some speeches which were really anti-American or, if not anti-American, acutely critical of the Americans. A speech was made in our last Foreign Affairs debate by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who really did make a very strong attack on the United States. No one from the Labour Front Benches criticised that speech, or made any comment. But when we stress the qualifications of the British Navy to control the defence of our own shores, we are told that we are saying something which is harmful to Anglo-American relations. I can assure the Government—and I am sure they will believe it—that that is not in our minds at all. We were very ready to agree to, and to welcome, the appointment of General Eisenhower to the supreme command of troops in Europe, including British troops. But this question of the British Navy, and of the seas round our shores, is a question of our very lifeblood. We know that the British Navy—
  808
  as the noble Viscount is well aware—has unrivalled experience in anti-submarine warfare, experience which, I believe, is equalled by that of no other navy in the world. It is not unnatural that we should be anxious for reassurance on this matter. It was clear that the Prime Minister himself was very imperfectly informed when the subject was raised in another place.
  We shall consider with the greatest care the satement which the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, made this afternoon. It was a complicated statement, and it will need a good deal of examination. But, in the meantime, I hope that the noble Viscount will bear in mind the possibility of publishing the White Paper for which the noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood, asked. If, after reading and studying Lord Hall's speech, we still do not understand to what this country is committed, he must not be surprised if we return to the attack about the White Paper. I do not think that there is anything else about which I need trouble your Lordships to-night. It remains only for me to thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and made the occasion one which has redounded with such credit to your Lordships' House. I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
  The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, that the Bill had been endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.

  LLOYD'S BILL [H.L.]
  OXFORD MOTOR SERVICES BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, without amendment.
  House adjourned at Twenty-two minutes past seven o'clock.