Sitting of 15 November 1951

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

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Goronwy Owen Roberts, esquire, Caernarvon.

LIVING ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS)
Return ordered,
" of experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict., c. 77, during 1950."

ALIENS (NATURALISATION)
Return ordered,
"showing (1) particulars of all aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation have been issued and whose oaths of allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1950, been registered at the Home Office; and (2) particulars of cases in which persons previously naturalised have been deprived of their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies during the same period."—[Mr. Llewellyn.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Cancer Cure (Experiment)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Health whether the inquiries into the claims of Mr. Rees Evans for curing cancer have been concluded; and when a report may be expected.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I understand that the Committee have not quite completed their investigation and are unable to say how soon they will be able to report.
    Mr. Freeman: Are not the Committee taking a rather long time to prepare this report? Could anything be done to ask them to expedite it?
    Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir. I think they are more anxious than anybody else to get the report out, but it requires a good deal of investigation.

    Food Improvers
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to implement the recommendations of the Report of the Government Advisory Council on Scientific Policy for a closer check on the use of chemicals as food improvers some of which have a poisonous effect even in small does if taken over long periods.
    Dr. Harriett Strossasked the Minister of Health whether he will consult with the Minister of Food as to the desirability of creating in Britain an organisation similar to the food and drug administration of the United States of America, so that the public may be protected from the harmful effects of chemical substances added to food, which have not been adequately and fully tested.
    Mr. Crookshank: It is true that a report on these matters was prepared for the previous Government by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, but I am not in a position to state what action, if any, can be taken on it until the extent of the problem and the cost involved in manpower and money has been fully investigated.
    Dr. Stross: Would the Minister not agree, however, that many substances formerly used have had to be forbidden because they were discovered to be dangerous, and does not this imply that the public, in the past and today, are used as guinea pigs for some of these new substances? Will the right hon. Gentleman not do whatever is possible as soon as he can?
    Mr. Crookshank: I could not accept without further consideration all the statements that the hon. Member has made, but I cannot make any statement now about it.

    Eyes (Beqneathal)
    Dr. Horace Kingasked the Minister of Health whether he will propose to amend the Anatomy Acts so as to make it easier for persons to bequeath their eyes to be used for the benefit of blind people.
    Mr. Crookshank: I will consider this and write to the hon. Member.
    Dr. King: In view of the almost miraculous restoration by cornea grafting of sight to those whose blindness is due to cornea disease, and in view of the necessity of obtaining eyes within a few hours after the death of one who has bequeathed them for this purpose, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the eye surgeons and give very serious consideration to this matter?
    Mr. Crookshank: I would rather have a conversation with the hon. Member first.
    Mr. Gerald Williams: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in France a law has recently been introduced to overcome this difficulty? There are very many willing donors, but they cannot give their eyes after a post mortem, and the law in France has been altered to get over this difficulty. Will my right hon. Friend therefore give serious consideration to these aspects for this country?

    Haemophilia
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Health what research work or clinical work is being done with a view to curing or alleviating haemophilia.
    Mr. Crookshank: Research into the treatment of haemophilia is in progress at various hospitals including special studies in London, Oxford and Manchester, particularly into the use of products derived from human serum. Treatment is available at hospitals in the ordinary way.
    Sir I. Fraser: In view of the fact that this rather rare, but very grave disease, has not been much studied, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Medical Research Council to make a special study of it?
    Mr. Crookshank: I am very happy to say that the Medical Research Council is, in fact, actively encouraging further study into this problem.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: When did the Medical Research Council start its investigations into haemophilia? Is it not the case that there are no investigations whatever in Scotland and that patients there who are suffering from this disease are not regarded at all by the medical profession?
    Mr. Crookshank: I am not responsible for Scotland, but I should have thought that in matters of special study into particular ailments even an English investigation might be of some use.

    Aureomycin (Production)
    Mr. Peter Remnantasked the Minister of Health what is the present production of aureomycin in this country; and what percentage is being exported.
    Mr. Crookshank: The manufacture of aureomycin is completed in South Wales from bulk aureomycin imported at considerable dollar cost. A proportion of the output is being exported without prejudicing present needs in this country. In fairness to the makers, I think that the precise figures should not be disclosed.
    Mr. Remnant: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this export, such as it is, is justified when the home demand has not yet been fully met?
    Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir, at present.

    Expectant Mothers (Doctors)
    Mr. R. W. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health whether in view of existing disquiet and confusion among public health authorities and pregnant women, he will take steps to enable pregnant mothers to change their doctors for religious reasons.
    Mr. Crookshank: There is nothing in the existing arrangements to prevent an expectant mother from changing her general practitioner on religious grounds.
    Mr. Sorensen: That may be so, but is the Minister aware that notice has to be given and that this matter may be of urgency? In the interests of both Catholic and Protestant mothers will he not reconsider this matter with a view to giving some guidance to local authorities and to mothers, both Catholic and Protestant, who at present are in a state of considerable disquiet?
    Mr. Crookshank: I answered the Question on the Paper, which dealt with public health authorities and pregnant women. On that my answer stands. I would prefer to have any further issues set out on the Order Paper.
    Mrs. Mann: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of strongly urging would-be mothers to take

    1141
    advantage of the ante-natal clinics, when this great controversy will very greatly resolve itself?
    Colonel Ralph Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind another aspect of the matter, namely, that in such cases there may also be severe conflict of loyalties between duty to their religion and duty to their patient among doctors and nurses themselves?
    Mr. Sorensen: In view of the inadequate nature of the reply, and in view of the necessity for greater clarity, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first opportunity.

    CREMATION, PONTYPRIDD (ERROR)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to a case which occurred in October, in which a woman's body was cremated at Pontypridd in place of a man's; and what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence of such an incident.
    Mr. Crookshank: I am aware of this tragic mistake, and greatly regret the distress it has caused. Instructions have been given for an additional check to be made, which should prevent any similar occurrence in the future.
    Mr. Freeman: Although I think that the conditions under which a person is cremated are more stringent than those under which a person is buried, would the right hon. Gentleman consider arranging for an investigation at the crematoriums immediately before the final operation, in order to prevent an occurrence of this kind?
    Mr. Crookshank: I do not think that that is necessary. We have now arranged that there should be a double check, instead of a single check as previously, and I do not think that this could possibly recur.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

    Hearing Aids, Southampton
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Health whether he will speed up the provision of hearing-aids for deaf people in Southampton.
    Mr. Crookshank: The allocation of hearing aids to the Southampton distribution centre has recently been substantially increased. I hope that the improved supplies will enable the centre steadily to reduce the waiting list.
    Dr. King: As the waiting list is increasing each month by more than the supply each month, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the statement that some of the essential parts of hearing aids are now not being made because the factories are being taken over for rearmament?
    Mr. Crookshank: That is another question, but the fact is that greatly increased supplies have been sent to the Southampton centre in the last few months.
    Colonel L. Ropner: May we look forward to the next step? There is a great deal of delay at the moment. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the supplies will be speeded up?
    Mr. Crookshank: Yes, it is our object to try to get these aids to whoever requires them as soon as possible.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Does my right hon. Friend think that the chances of the re-election of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King), would be increased if all his constituents heard him?

    Handicapped Children (Occupational Centres)
    Mr. William A. Stewardasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there is no provision under the National Health Service for providing transport or guides for children who are considered suitable to attend occupational centres but who, owing to their ill health or physical disabilities, are not able to attend these centres without this assistance; and if he will consider giving transport assistance where the medical authorities consider it in the interests of the child.
    Mr. Crookshank: I am advised that local health authorities have adequate powers to provide these services where necessary.
    Mr. Steward: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this unfortunate section of the community will have enough difficulties with which to battle through life

    1143
    without the added one of being uneducated? Will he see if something can be done, because my information is that there is not much being done?
    Mr. Crookshank: It is a question for local health authorities. They have all the powers; it is up to them to provide the service.
    Mr. Steward: Would my right hon. Friend look into a case if I send him particulars of a local authority which has failed to do anything?
    Mr. Crookshank:I will look into any case which comes within my province.

    Hospital Visits
    Mr. Stewardasked the Minister of Health if he will consult with the British Transport Commission on the possibility of authorising cheap fares to relatives visiting immediate relations in hospital in cases where the patient is transferred on medical instructions some distance away from the patients home or residence.
    Mr. Crookshank: Arrangements have already been made for cheap fares for visits to most hospitals where patients are expected to remain for a long time: I am not prepared at this stage to ask the Commission to extend the scope of the arrangements.
    Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmerasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in certain hospitals visiting hours for parents to the children's ward is restricted to once a week whereas in others visiting is permitted once a day; and if he will examine the evidence regarding the effect on the children of the daily visit with a view to standardising the practice throughout the country.
    Mr. Crookshank: The attention of hospital authorities has been drawn to this question in a circular of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy; but I doubt whether any standardisation of practice is desirable or possible.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: While not wishing to imply for one moment that the Minister should give directions in this matter, I feel very strongly, and would he not agree, that the available evidence from those hospitals which have experimented with this over a period of
    1144
    18 months proves that it is not only not detrimental but beneficial, and should it not be made available to those hospitals that have not yet tried it?
    Mr. Crookshank: That may be so, but I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the circular that I am sending him.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that many hospital authorities, sisters and doctors, deprecate the visiting of young children on the grounds that it has a very disturbing effect upon them?
    Mr. George Thomas: Would the Minister put that circular in the Library so that we may all see what has been sent out?
    Mr. Crookshank: Certainly, there is no objection, provided that that is the normal course.

    Patients (Travelling Expenses)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Health whether he will provide a travelling allowance for patients who have to make frequent and long journeys to hospital.
    Mr. Crookshank: Patients' travelling expenses are paid where the National Assistance Board consider that otherwise hardship would be caused.
    Dr. Stross: Is the Minister not aware that in many cases in which National Assistance cannot be invoked, and in which, if it is invoked, it is done reluctantly, many men, especially in North Staffordshire and similar areas, particularly miners, have to spend a very considerable sum of money each week in travelling as out-patients to and from hospitals? In view of the fact that the total sum saved has been £1 million or less, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the whole problem?
    Mr. Crookshank: No I can hold out no hopes of doing that in the present financial circumstances, apart from the, circumstances dealt with in my reply.

    Middlesex Executive Council (Temporary Clerk)
    Mr. E. H. Keelingasked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement about the employment as a clerk in the National Health executive council for Middlesex of a man who, having been a

    1145
    secret agent of the Czechoslovak Government, had been deprived of his British citizenship earlier in the year at the instance of the Attorney-General.
    Mr. Crookshank: I understand that he was employed for a short time as a temporary clerk by the Middlesex Executive Council.
    Mr. Keeling: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any steps have been taken to prevent this sort of thing happening again?
    Mr. Crookshank: If by "this sort of thing" my hon. Friend means the employment of a particular individual, I think that is a matter for the Ministry of Labour.

    Hospital Staffs (Redundancy)
    Colonel Malcolm Stoddart-Scottasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Ministry of Health Circular (RHB(51)101), dated 9th October. 1951, recommends that when redundant hospital staff is discharged the relative efficiency of one individual as compared with another shall not be considered, but only the length of service; and, as this recommendation is not commensurate with an efficient and economically-run hospital service, if he will withdraw the circular.
    Mr. Crookshank: The circular says that the principle of "last in first out" is subject to the over-riding consideration of the efficiency of the hospital. This is met by paying regard to the work that the individual is doing rather than by a comparison between individuals and I do not propose to withdraw the circular.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Does not the circular say, after it refers to the efficiency of the hospitals:
    "the employee to be discharged is subject to the over-riding consideration of the efficiency of the hospital. This latter proviso does not refer to the relative efficiency of one individual as compared with another."
    Is not the keeping of the oldest employees likely to lead to lack of efficiency?
    Mr. Crookshank: I think both cases are provided for, and in any case the procedure was discussed by the Health Service Whitley Council and the circular reflects the views of that Council.
    Mr. A. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will do nothing to weaken the authority of the Whitley Council, in spite of the pressure from the benches behind him.

    Hotel, Harrogate (Use)
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Minister of Health (1) how many of the 191 rooms in the Queen's Hotel, Harrogate, were being used by the Leeds Regional Hospital Board on 1st November; how many occupied as a nurses home, and how many are in use as a preliminary nurses training school; and for what purpose the rest of the accommodation is to be used; and
    (2) if the Leeds Regional Hospital Board have yet sold any of the £30,000 worth of carpets and hotel furnishings which they bought on removing their office from Leeds to the Queen's Hotel, Harrogate.
    Mr. Crookshank: The Regional Hospital Board use 73 rooms. The principal sister tutor is using two rooms earmarked for the Preliminary Nurses Training School. No other rooms are at present used for the purposes of the school or the nurses home, but 99 are earmarked for these purposes. The remainder are not considered suitable for use as living accommodation and will serve as stores. Carpets and furniture have not been sold, until it is known what will be surplus.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: If there is a ceiling on the health services and, therefore, the money spent on administration cannot be spent on hospital services, would the Minister see that this Board, who have more than 100 rooms in excess of those they require and are paying rent for them, are moved to accommodation which is suitable to them and which they can entirely use, instead of paying rent for accommodation they cannot use?
    Mr. Crookshank: I fully realise the interest my hon. and gallant Friend takes in this matter and will be very glad to discuss it with him.

    Cortisone
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement regarding the availability and supply of cortisone or its chemical equivalent for the patients of British doctors.
    Mr. Crookshank: Cortisone has not yet been made in this country. The maximum quantities which can be made available by the American manufacturers are imported by my Department and distributed for continuing clinical research and for hospital treatment of cases which, on medical grounds, most need it. Fifty-five hospitals in England and Wales are receiving cortisone for use on this basis. No chemical substitute for cortisone has yet been developed for clinical use.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that research is going on at present into chemical substitutes from coal and also from a certain plant? Could he say whether we are taking any part in that research?
    Mr. Crookshank: If it has to do with research in coal the hon. Lady should ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power. All I know at present is that no chemical substitute has yet been developed.

    Confinements
    Mrs. Mannasked the, Minister of Health if he will make an inquiry into the non-use of gas and air machines at childbirth in Monmouthshire; and why this analgesia, so freely available there, is not in use at confinements.
    Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir; my information is that gas and air analgesia is given in the majority of domiciliary confinements in Monmouthshire.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than 1,000 mothers in Monmouthshire did not have this analgesia? Will he inquire why they did not have it, as it was available and, if it is unpopular as an analgesic, would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is wise to recommend other local authorities to adopt its use?
    Mr. Crookshank: I think the hon. Lady's figure is wrong. That is not the number of those who did not get this last year. The number using it was 64 per cent.
    Mr. Iain MacLeod: Would my right hon. Friend consider whether it might be for the convenience of the House if this long-standing dispute between the hon. Lady and the President of the Board of
    1148
    Trade were now referred to the conciliation machinery of the Minister of Labour?
    Mrs. Mann: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Health the number, on a local authority basis, of confinements relating to England and Wales at which a doctor was present or engaged.
    Mr. Crookshank: I will send the hon. Lady a statement setting out the information she requires.

    Hospital Building Programme
    Mr. George Chetwyndasked the Minister of Health what cuts are planned in the hospital building programme.
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Health the estimated cuts planned in the hospital building programme in Wales.
    Mr. Crookshank: No cuts are planned at present, beyond what may result from the decision announced on 7th November by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to delay the granting of starting dates. This matter is, of course, one of those which the Government are reviewing in considering how to make the best use of the available building resources.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these cuts will be made, and whether they will be announced before the Recess?
    Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir, I could not say.
    Mr. Thomas: Could the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of the effect of these cuts on the proposed building programme in the Principality?
    Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir.
    Miss Irene Wardasked the Minister of Health what was the total estimated saving envisaged by the instruction issued to regional hospital boards prior to 25th October to cut their estimated capital expenditure designed to provide the necessary services for which they are responsible under the National Health Service.
    Mr. Crookshank: Owing to the demands of the defence programme on building resources, the value of the hospital capital works to be undertaken in 1951 had by 25th October been reduced by about £1½ million below what had originally been proposed, though the reduced figure remained higher than the value of the works actually carried out in 1950.
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Health if he will obtain the details of the schemes which have been postponed by the regional hospital boards as a result of the instructions issued prior to 25th October to cut their estimates on capital expenditure.
    Mr. Crookshank: I do not think that the value of this detailed information would be commensurate with the labour involved in obtaining it.
    Miss Ward: Could my right hon. Friend say whether the elimination by the Regional Hospital Board of a nurses training school in Tynemouth, which is fully equipped and ready to open, is a help to the defence programme? Does my right hon. Friend think that the Conservative pledge to give better service for money expended would be forwarded by a failure to be fully informed of the situation in the regions?
    Mr. Crookshank: I should like to see that question on the paper. All that I have been asked for now is a long list of details about a lot of schemes. I should like to have notice of any particular scheme in which my hon. Friend is so rightly interested.

    Hospital Equipment
    Mr. Alfred C. Bossomasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that when some hospitals under the National Health Service send in requests for a small number of items of equipment, they are now required to take in certain instances no fewer than six dozen of the same article where three only would have been sufficient; and if he will see that this procedure is ended.
    Mr. Crookshank: The minimum quantities in which goods are delivered to hospitals under the Government contracts to which my hon. Friend refers are fixed at levels likely to effect the maxi-
    1150
    mum savings. I am aware that, in some cases, these quantities may be too large for small hospitals and I hope shortly to meet this difficulty.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that in the case I itemise here they asked for three items and were compelled to take six dozen, which they will not be using for 10 years?

    Mental Hospitals (Nurses)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health what is the present shortage of male and female nurses in mental hospitals; and, in view of increasing difficulties of recruitment, what action is being taken to meet the increasing gravity of the deficiency in this type of nursing.
    Mr. Crookshank: About 3,000 men and 8,000 women. Hospital management committees are being encouraged and assisted to conduct their own recruiting campaigns. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour is continuing his predecessor's efforts to stimulate recruitment and is in consultation with his National Advisory Council on the whole problem.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister catching up on the deficiency, or is the shortage greater now than it was some months ago? Is it likely to become still greater next year?
    Mr. Crookshank: I should like to see questions such as that, about figures, on the Order Paper.

    IDENTITY CARDS
    Mr. C. J. M. Alportasked the Minister of Health when he anticipates that the system of personal identity cards will be abolished.
    Mr. Crookshank: This is not a matter on which I have any statement to make at the present time.
    Mr. Alport: Would I be right in supposing that that does not in any way detract from the Home Secretary's undertaking yesterday that the matter would be very carefully reviewed in the months ahead?
    Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. The Home Secretary was, of course, speaking for the Government.

    OLD PEOPLE'S HOSTEL, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health if he will give an assurance that the proposed ban on new building will not affect the construction of a new old people's hostel at Kenton, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, approval for which has already been given in principle.
    Mr. Crookshank: No starting date had been allocated to this project before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement,' and it is at present impossible for me to say when building is likely to start.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Are we to understand that provided that the necessary detailed plans, which, I understand, have been submitted to the right hon. Gentleman's Department, are accepted, there will be no delay in proceeding with this scheme?
    Mr. Crookshank: It all depends what is meant by delay. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that no new starting dates for building work will be granted during the next three months except for specially urgent schemes.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the Minister agree that this is or could be regarded as a housing scheme, and provides housing accommodation for old people? In view of the pledge given in the Gracious Speech that special consideration will be given to the needs of elderly people surely some special consideration will be given to this scheme.
    Mr. Crookshank: I have just stated that no new starting dates will be granted during the next three months. I am not certain that the plans have reached the stage at which one could even give a starting date.
    Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the direction of the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health part of the accommodation for the chronic sick at Scaffold Hill was not proceeded with, and what is the difference between that and this scheme? Both provide accommodation.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Older Workers
    Mr. Alportasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by men and women over 45 years of age in obtaining suitable employment; and what steps he proposed to take to ensure that the contribution which they can make to solving the manpower problem is not lost to the country.
    The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monekton): My Department has been considering with the National Joint Advisory Council, which represents both employers and workers, the practical steps to be taken to remove hindrances to the retention and engagement of older workers, and I am assured of their full co-operation.
    Mr. Alport: Does the Minister agree that the problem of those who are seeking employment when over 45 years of age is probably greater than the present statistics show and—
    Hon. Members: Do not read it.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not customary for hon. Members to read supplementary questions.
    Mr. Alport: On a point of personal explanation, Sir, I have not read a single word.
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was merely consulting a very full note.
    Mr. Alport: I have nothing whatever written on this paper, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I must have misconstrued the appearance of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Alport: I was about to ask the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the extent and nature of this problem, and the fact that a number of categories are not immediately concerned or available for manual work, or connected with it, he would especially look into the problem of that particular class of unemployed?
    Sir W. Monckton: I will certainly take particular care to look into this question. It is one of sufficient importance to have been raised with the National Joint

    1153
    Advisory Council, and they have assured me of their help in regard to it as a special matter.
    Mr. I. Mikardo: Is the Minister aware that the action which he is proposing has already been taken by his predecessors; and although it is probably the best that could be done at the time and can be done now, it has not so far been effective? Will he try to adopt further and stronger measures?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am aware that the steps I have taken in consultation were also taken by my predecessors, but I have various particular matters about which I want the National Joint Advisory Council to assist me, and they do, I hope, introduce one or two new ideas.

    Coal Mines (Recruitment)
    Mr. Stephen Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to attract more men into the coalmining industry.
    Sir W. Monckton: Employment exchanges, in collaboration with the National Coal Board, will continue to offer employment in the mines to all suitable applicants, and the advertising campaign which was started last August will be continued. The alternative of entering or re-entering the coalmining industry instead of the Armed Forces is being brought more prominently to the notice of young men registering for National Service. It is hoped that it will be possible to secure the acceptance by the miners' lodges of an increased weekly inflow of Italians.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that this is the most vital question which faces his Department at present? Does he appreciate that the idea that the most important industry of the country can be maintained only by the perpetual recruitment of foreigners will never inspire the mine workers? Will he consult with the miners' leaders and provide ways and means for more people to enter this industry?
    Sir W. Monckton: I shall certainly consult with the miners' leaders with that object in view. I was not suggesting to the House that the only way of dealing with this matter was by recruiting more Italians; I quite appreciate that that is not so.
    Mr. Peter Roberts: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the work which is being done by foreign miners is very useful and acceptable?
    Sir W. Monckton: Certainly, Sir.

    Re-armament (Labour Force)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to fill the vacancies in the labour force required by re-armament plans.
    Sir W. Monckton: Various steps to this end were agreed by my predecessors with representatives of industry. These included first, the development of schemes of training and up-grading; second, collaboration with employers and trade unions in the quick re-deployment of redundant labour; third, more employment of older workers; fourth, development of the part-time employment of women who are not available full-time.
    I am examining the whole position, and after consultation with representatives of industry on any further measures that may be necessary, I will inform the House of any additional measures proposed. I am happy to say that I have been assured of the co-operation of all sides of industry in helping to solve the problem.
    Mr. Swingler: While thanking the Minister for that very full reply, may I ask if he will give a categorical assurance that he is not considering the introduction of powers of direction?
    Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir, there is no question of the introduction of powers of direction, except in the case of grave emergency.
    Mr. Maurice Edelman: As a counterpart to the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, will he say what emergency action he is taking to find work for the numerous men recently made redundant through shortages of raw materials?
    Sir W. Monckton: That is one of the problems which we are endeavouring to consider with the National Joint Advisory Council. They are very well aware of that point, and so am I.

    Factories (Inspectors)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the waste of manpower involved by the present system of

    1155
    monthly visits by no fewer than four men to the lesser factories engaged on Government work, to inspect their books or interview their employees; and if he will see that this practice is stopped.
    Sir W. Monckton: I am, of course, in sympathy with the purpose of my hon. Friend's Question, but my inquiries into the individual instance of which he sent me particulars do not substantiate his complaint of waste of manpower.
    Mr. Bossom: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that this same firm has been doing Government work for its entire existence for probably 20 or 30 years, and that it never had such inspection in the past? Now it is getting them at the rate of four a month.
    Sir W. Monckton: I inquired whether there was a duplication of any necessary inspection and I was unable to satisfy myself that it had taken place.

    Port of London (Dispute)
    Mr. Ronald Russellasked the Minister of Labour if he has yet been notified of the dispute between the Port of London Authority and their employees over new grain elevators installed in London docks; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. I understand, however, that following the installation of a new elevator by the Port of London Authority certain questions have arisen regarding the terms and conditions of employment of the corn porters concerned. These questions are being considered by the joint negotiating machinery in the Port of London in accordance with the established procedure.

    Catering Wages Act
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the operation of the Catering Wages Act, and the constitution and operation of the various wages boards.
    Sir W. Monckton: Five wages boards have been established under the Catering Wages Act, 1943, in accordance with recommendation made by the Catering Wages Commission some years ago. Wages Regulation Orders have been made to give effect to proposals submitted by four of these boards.
    1156
    As regards the two boards for residential establishments, the Catering Wages Commission made certain suggestions of a long-term character in the report of their inquiry which they submitted in July, 1950, and they still have under consideration certain questions arising out of that report. I am waiting to hear further from the Commission and will then review the matters involved.
    Mr. Taylor: As the working of these boards at the present time finds favour with neither employers nor employees, would the Minister say that he is prepared to tackle this as a matter of great urgency?
    Sir W. Monckton: I shall have the advantage of meeting the Chairman of the Commission in the next few days and that may help me further on my way.
    Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say how many of these boards are operating for Scotland, and in Scotland?
    Sir W. Monckton: I have not the figure, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will ask me I will let him know in due course.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that the trade unions interested in the catering industry are strongly in favour of maintaining this organisation?
    Sir W. Monckton: I shall not overlook the fact that there are two sides represented in this matter, and when I review it I will consider both.

    Labour Stockpiling
    Mr. Cyril Benceasked the Minister of Labour what action he intends taking to check the stockpiling of labour by firms, not necessarily on the most essential work, who fear that there may be a scarcity of labour in the near future.
    Sir W. Monckton: I hope to make a statement on this matter as soon as I can.
    Mr. Bence: In making that statement, can the Minister assure us that he will consult the trade unions movement on this question before any action is taken?
    Sir W. Monckton: I have already raised this matter and intimated to the National Joint Advisory Council on which, of course, the trade unions are represented that I require their help.
    Mr. Mikardo: If, as has been reported in the Press, the Minister is considering again using labour supply inspectors, as was the case during the war, will he see that when they go about their work they will apply more accurate and more scientific principles than they did in those days?
    Sir W. Monckton: I should prefer not to say what the suggestions will be until I have had the consultations with the National Joint Advisory Council.
    Captain Charles Waterhouse: Does this mean that there is a good deal of camouflaged unemployment?
    Sir W. Monckton: The point which I understood to be raised was that there might be cases in which labour was being retained in employment where it ought not to be. I do not want to say how much of that there is until I have had the opportunity of making these investigations.
    Major Guy Lloyd: Is not this the kind of thing which has been going on to a considerable extent in the Royal Dockyards during the last five years?

    Work Saving Week (Productivity)
    Mr. Frederick Mulleyasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the Work Saving Week to be organised from 19th-23rd November, particulars of which have been sent to him, with the view of attracting interest in better methods of production; and whether his Department will give publicity to the need for greater productivity during this week.
    Sir W. Monckton: I have been interested to see the programme for this week and the Government are, of course, in entire sympathy with the objective of increasing productivity.

    WOMEN'S TRAINING COLLEGES
    Mr. Ralph Morleyasked the Minister of Education how many places were left unfilled this year in the women's two-year training colleges.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): About 7,750 women students
    1158
    are being admitted to two-year training colleges this year, compared with 8,000 available places and 7,620 admissions in 1950. A few more students may be admitted to courses at two colleges beginning next January.
    Mr. Morley: Can the hon. Gentleman say what steps his right hon. Friend proposes to take to increase the supply of women teachers and the number of applications for acceptance in the training colleges?
    Mr. Pickthorn: No, not at present. I think that that question will have to be put on the Order Paper. I do not think I can say any more at present than I have indicated, that is, that there are two new courses opening in January.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Leslie Haleasked the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take to reduce the volume of delegated legislation.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): We may expect that as the war-time controls prolonged by the Socialist Governments are progressively removed or relaxed, the volume of delegated legislation will also dwindle.
    Mr. Hale: I appreciate that the cuts in hospital building and in public building announced recently may involve less immediate delegated legislation, but cannot the right hon. Gentleman, having said so much on this subject, now tell us that the matter is under active consideration, that every avenue is being explored, that no stone will be left unturned and that something will be done within a measurable period of time?
    The Prime Minister: I will gladly repeat the famous utterance of the party opposite, that every avenue is being explored and no stone is being left unturned.
    Mr. E. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first Bill promoted by His Majesty's Government—the Home Guard Bill—provides for delegated legislation?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We had to start from the point where we began.

    OPERATIONS, KOREA (COMMONWEALTH TROOPS)
    Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcockasked the Prime Minister if he will make representations to the United Nations Commander in Korea to refrain from committing troops of the Commonwealth Brigade in offensive action while the Armistice Commission is in session.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would not in any event consider making such representations without first consulting the other Commonwealth Governments concerned. I do not, however, propose to approach these Governments as His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have complete confidence in the United Nations Commander in his conduct of operations in Korea.
    Group Captain Wilcock: While thanking the Prime Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he agrees that operations other than those of a purely defensive nature create an atmosphere in which it is impracticable to carry on successful negotiations to an armistice? Further, does not the Prime Minister agree that casualties at such a time are particularly distressing and, in view of these circumstances, will he reconsider this suggestion?
    The Prime Minister: I do not wish to add to what I have said on this matter, which concerns so many countries besides our own.

    ATOMIC ENERGY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
    Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Prime Minister what arrangements he is making with regard to the apportionment of responsibility between the Paymaster-General and the Lord President of the Council for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and for the Medical and Agricultural Research Councils, and between both those Ministers and the Minister of Supply in respect of atomic energy.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will be responsible for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Agricultural Research Council and the Medical Research Council. My noble
    1160
    Friend the Paymaster-General will be responsible for advising me on atomic energy questions. I am now considering what adjustments should be made in the existing statutory responsibilities of the Minister of Supply for these subjects.
    Mr. Philips Price: May I take it that the Paymaster-General will have no right of supervision over the work of the Lord President of the Council in connection with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and other Departments which are under him?
    The Prime Minister: The arrangements are as I have set out in my answer.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Will the Prime Minister say who will answer Questions on these subjects in the House of Commons?
    The Prime Minister: I think I am to be asked a question on this point a little later in the week.
    Hon. Members: When?
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: As the Minister of Supply at present has direct Parliamentary responsibility for the whole of the atomic energy work, military and peaceful, can I take it that he will continue that responsibility until a formal change takes place?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, unless there is an amending Act. The responsibility formally rests with the Minister of Supply. There will be no difficulty, I think, in making an arrangement pending legislation.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. Owing to the inadequate and wholly unsatisfactory nature of the reply to Question No. 46, I should like to give notice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too late."] No, I am not—that I will take an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment

  AGRICULTURE

    Ryan Report
    Mr. Desmond Donnellyasked the Minister of Agriculture what action he proposes to take regarding the Ryan Report.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Thomas Dugdale): A number of the Ryan Committee's recommendations affecting the internal organisation of the Department

    1161
    were accepted by my predecessor and have been or are being carried out. My predecessor invited the various interested bodies to give him their views on the Report, and I shall need time to study them—and, indeed, the whole question —before I can come to any decision on the main recommendations.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable uncertainty among the staff of many of the agricultural committees, and will he do all in his power to remove this uncertainty as quickly as possible?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I appreciate that point.
    Mr. George Brown: Will the Minister bear in mind that, with regard to the major recommendations of the Report, there is a very great deal of strong feeling against them in the agricultural community?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I will look at every aspect of the position.

    Part-time Smallholdings
    Mr. Denys Bullardasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will modify the instruction to county councils which at present prevents the establishment of part-time smallholdings.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I am looking carefully into this matter, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. G. Brown: In considering the matter, will the Minister have regard to the unanimous view of the very representative Committee which considered this matter and reported against this form of holding?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. The views of that Committee will be given very careful consideration.

    Drainage Areas (Rating)
    Mr. Geoffrey de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will introduce legislation to enable a rating authority to spread the drainage rate, as recommended in paragraph 94 of the Report of the Land Drainage Legislation Sub-Committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee.
    Sir T. Dugdale: Consultations are proceeding with the various interests affected
    1162
    by the recommendations in this report. When these consultations are completed, I shall be able to decide whether or not legislation should be introduced.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware of the very great hardship which is suffered under the present rating system in drainage areas, and will he do everything he can to speed up the consideration of this Report?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I must wait until I receive recommendations from the people who are to be consulted about the Report.
    Major H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind, in view of that last supplementary question, that many of these matters concern many associations engaged in the administration of water channels in the country, that they are very complicated and will take some considerable time? May I therefore ask him not to press the matter too hard?

    Home Food Production
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, while the cost of feeding-stuffs has more than doubled since January, 1949, and wages and overheads have also risen, the price of eggs has only risen about 5 per cent.; and what action he is taking to prevent a decline in home egg production.
    Mr. Robert Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture (1) what steps he is taking to arrest the decline in our cattle population;
    (2) what steps he is taking to increase sheep breeding in Great Britain to the pre-war figure of over 26,000,000 sheep and lambs.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I am well aware of the importance of those various aspects of home food production. The percentages quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Macpherson) are approximately correct. I am studying with care the whole problem of prospective agricultural production, in consultation with my colleagues responsible for agriculture in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject, either in regard to particular commodities or in general.
    Mr. Macpherson: Can the Minister say when he will be able to make such a statement? Will it be before the House rises?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I very much doubt it.
    Mr. Richard Adams: Can the Minister tell us why he made no reference in his reply to consulting his co-ordinator?
    Sir T. Dugdale: It does not arise out of this Question.
    Brigadier R. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern in the agricultural community at the increase in feedingstuff prices over the last three years, and will he do all he can to try to arrest that increase?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I am very well aware of the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has brought to my attention.
    Mr. A. C. Manuel: Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern among the agricultural community arising from the return of the Tory Government, and will he, as soon as possible, make a statement to allay the fears of a change of policy by the present Government?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is the reaction throughout the countryside.
    Mr. Archer Baldwin: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that, if that was the feeling in the country districts, they did not record it at the General Election?
    Mr. Crouch: May I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend if he is aware that, during the last 12 months, there has been a fall of 2 per cent. in the number of dairy cows in milk and one of 4 per cent. in dry cows; and that, until we have more stability in the industry, there will be a very great milk shortage in the next 12 months? Is he also aware that, whereas six years after the first war we were only one million sheep short as compared with 1914, we are now seven million sheep short as compared with 1939, and that the former result was achieved under a Conservative Minister of Agriculture?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I can assure my hon. Friend that all these matters are under very active consideration.

    Farm Price Review
    Mr. Anthony Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement about the scope of the special farm price review now being undertaken by the Government.
    Sir T. Dugdale: A special review in terms of Section 2 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, was held last month following the award by the Agricultural Wages Board in England and Wales of an increase of 8s. 0d. a week in the basic pay of farm workers and an extra five days' holiday with pay. The opportunity was also taken to examine certain other actual and prospective cost increases affecting the industry, such as wage changes in Scotland and Northern Ireland and fertiliser prices. The Government are now considering on the basis of the facts and figures established at the review whether further action is called for under Section 3 of the Act—which enables Ministers to fix or vary agricultural prices—or in any other way.
    Mr. Hurd: May I take it that the Minister will be able, before we go away for Christmas, to tell the House the decision of the Government?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I hope very much that that will be the case.
    Mrs. Barbara Castle: Will the Minister bear in mind his party's promise to the housewives to reduce the cost of living?
    Sir T. Dugdale
    Mr. Callaghan: As the Government have promised that the food subsidies will not be tampered with, may we take it that any increase in prices which result from the review will be reflected in increased food subsidies?
    Sir T. Dugdale: That question should be addressed to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food.

    Dispossessed Farmers
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture how many farmers in England and Wales were under supervision, within the terms of the Agriculture Act, 1947, on 1st October; and how many were dispossessed from their farms during the previous 12 months on the grounds of bad husbandry.
    Sir T. Dugdale: On 1st October, 1951, 1,584 farmers were under supervision for failure to comply with the rules of good husbandry. Orders to terminate the occupation or interest of 68 farmers on the grounds of bad husbandry became effective during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1951.
    Mr. Hurd: In view of the figures which my right hon. and gallant Friend has just given to the House, will he look into what has been happening to see if he can devise any better method of carrying out the intention of the Agricultural Act, 1947?
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say, roughly, what acreage that represents?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Not without notice.
    Mr. G. Brown: As the intention of the Agricultural Act was to raise food in the country, will the Minister, in answer to the supplementary asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), say what he estimates is the increase of food we have had as a result of these powers?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I think that would be a very hypothetical figure if I attempted to give it to the House.
    Mr. Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that under Section 85 of the Act his predecessor dispossessed smallholders, not on grounds of bad husbandry, but to round off larger units of land already in his possession or in that of other farmers? Is he further aware that this confiscation has aroused great indignation, and will he undertake to review his powers under the Act in order to avoid the continuance of such injustice?
    Sir T. Dugdale: That is an entirely different question.

    CORACLE FISHING, RIVER TEIFI
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Minister of Agriculture what representations he has received from the West Wales River Board regarding salmon fishing licences for coracle fishermen on the River Teifi.
    Sir T. Dugdale: None, Sir. but I understand that the matter is now before the River Board.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the Minister aware that this question has been before the River Board for seven or eight months? Cannot he do something about getting it away from the River Board?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I understand that the whole question of coracle fishing in the River Teifi has been reviewed by the fisheries committee of the River Board following representations from the Pembroke and Cardigan County Council. The recommendations of the Committee will be discussed at the next meeting of the Board on 19th November.
    Mr. James Callaghan: Would the Minister ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to give him the pronunciation of the river he has just mentioned?

    FISHING INDUSTRY
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement on the future of the fishing industry.
    Sir T. Dugdale: The Government intend to make full use of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board in furthering the efficiency and prosperity of the fishing industry.
    The White Fish Authority are now engaged, in consultation with the recently constituted White Fish Industry Advisory Council, in formulating plans on a number of specific subjects falling within their sphere, but the hon. Member would not expect me to go into detail about them while they are still under consideration by the industry itself.
    The Herring Industry Board, by the arrangements they have made for the encouragement of home consumption and of exports, and for the reduction of surplus herring to oil and meal, have done much to ease the economic difficulties of the herring industry, and we shall look forward to a continuation of their active help.
    Mr. Donnelly: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that, as the winter advances and fish becomes more and more scarce, it is very important that

    1167
    the White Fish Authority should give consideration to a comprehensive scheme to keep down the prices of fish to the housewives, while, at the same time, in no way affecting the needs of the producer section?
    Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether the White Fish Authority have under consideration the question of transport?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a Question on that point.
    Miss Ward: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say when he expects to be in a position to receive the first report from the White Fish Authority?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Not at this stage.

    TRANSIT OF HORSES (INSPECTION)
    Lieut.-Colonel J. C. Lockwoodasked the Minister of Agriculture how many of his officers have been appointed to carry out inspection under the Transit of Horses Order, 1951; and what has been the result of their investigations to date.
    Sir T. Dugdale: No officers have been specially appointed to carry out inspections under the Transit of Horses Order, 1951, as that work forms a part of the normal duties of the veterinary staff of the Department. Any infringements of the Order would be brought to the notice of the police, who, with local authorities, have the duty of enforcing it. There is one case of difficulty which is being dealt with, but I do not know of any other failure to observe the provisions of the Order.

    FORESTRY (DOUGLAS FIRS)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture approximately how many Douglas firs were planted in the United Kingdom by the Forestry Commission in 1950; and how many it is expected will be planted in 1951 and 1952, respectively.
    Sir T. Dugdale: About 2¾ million, 2¾ million and 3½ million, respectively.

    RIVERS AVON AND FROME (FLOODS)
    Mr. S. S. Awberyasked the Minister of Agriculture what action he proposes to take to prevent a repetition of the recent flooding caused by the overflowing of the Rivers Avon and Frome.
    Sir T. DugdaIe: I have asked the Bristol Avon River Board, as the responsible land drainage authority, to send me a report on the floods. I will write to the hon. Member when I have considered the report.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that urgent action is necessary to prevent a repetition of this flooding? Will he urge the Board to take such action as quickly as possible?

    FIRE SERVICE (WAGE CLAIM)
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Fire Brigades' Union is calling on all brigades in Great Britain to demonstrate their support for the Union's claim for an increase of pay by a standstill on duties next Monday and Tuesday, and whether, in view of his responsibility, under the Fire Services Act, 1947, to ensure the maintenance by fire brigade authorities of an efficient fire brigade service, he has received any inquiries from the local authorities on the matter.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): Yes, Sir. I have received a number of inquiries from local authorities as to the course which they should pursue in view of their responsibility to me and to the public to maintain an efficient fire brigade service.
    As the House will be aware, a dispute has arisen on the National Joint Council on a claim for increased wages submitted by the Fire Brigades' Union. The matter in dispute has been reported to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service. In the meantime, the Fire Brigades' Union have decided to take direct action in support of their claim and have called on all members of fire brigades in Great Britain to refuse to perform any duties

    1169
    other than fire and emergency duties on Monday and Tuesday next.
    All members of fire brigades in England and Wales are, of course, subject to a national code of discipline embodied in statutory Regulations which have been made on the recommendation of the National Joint Council. Similar Regulations are in force in Scotland. There can be no room for doubt that action on the lines suggested by the Fire Brigades' Union would be a serious breach of these Regulations.
    I have felt compelled to inform local authorities in response to their request that I must look to the local authorities to carry out their responsibility to maintain an efficient fire service. In expressing these views I sincerely hope that wiser counsels will prevail among the men and that they will recognise their duties as members of a disciplined service.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is informing the fire authorities in Scotland in similar terms.
    Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Will the Minister give very careful consideration to this case, because, while we all appreciate that the members of the Fire Brigades' Union have agreed to look after the essential services and to give protection where fire takes place, these people do, on the other hand, feel that they have a genuine grievance owing to the difference between their pay and that of the Police Force? Previously, there was a similarity in rates of pay between the two services, as there had been for a very long time. Before any drastic action is taken, will the Minister and the Government as a whole give careful consideration to this genuine grievance with a view to getting a settlement as quickly as possible without causing any undue friction?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I very much appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman asks that question, and I am most anxious that nothing should be done to embitter the dispute. But I would remind him, and all hon. Gentlemen interested in the matter, that the process provided by the machinery for dealing with such disputes has not yet taken its full course, and I can express no opinion on wages and conditions, which are a matter for the National Joint Council and
    1170
    the subsequent procedure. Therefore, I am not going to do that.
    On the other point, I have told the House that the matter has gone to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour, and I am sure that all its aspects will be borne in mind. I hope the House will appreciate that I am very anxious that the conciliation procedure should go on. I am also very anxious —and am sure that all local authorities who have the duty are very anxious—that no rash action should be taken without appreciating the seriousness of the matter. I hope the House will appreciate the spirit in which I am trying to deal with it, which is, I think, that in which the hon. Gentleman asked the question.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. George Thomas.
    Mr, G. Thomas
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Would it be in order for me, Mr. Speaker, to ask a supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: No, I am afraid it would not.
    Mr. Silverman: May I ask why not, Sir?
    Mr. Speaker: Because I had called Mr. George Thomas.
    Mr. Silverman: On a perfectly serious point of order, Sir. The Home Secretary, in response to a Private Notice Question, has made an exceedingly important statement on which only one supplementary question has been asked. The matter must be of considerable importance, Sir, or you would not have allowed it to be asked as a Private Notice Question. Surely it is customary, in circumstances of that kind, if there is another hon. Gentleman who wishes to ask a supplementary and if the number of supplementary questions has not already been excessive, to permit that to be done?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must know that how many supplementary questions asked is a matter for the Chair. It is often a difficult discretion to exercise. I thought, from the questions asked from both sides and from the answer given by the Minister, that it was, perhaps, a matter which should not he unduly debated at this time, and in

    1171
    the exercise of my discretion and in trying to carry out my responsibility I took the course I did. If the hon. Gentleman objects to it, he knows the course of action he must take.
    Mr. Silverman: I have no intention whatever of objecting to your discretion, which is your responsibility, Sir, but, all the same, I submit to you with respect that I had no intention whatever of asking any kind of a debating question. There is an aspect of the statement made which I regard as of considerable importance and to which no other reference has been made. I think that that discretion is a little tightly exercised when only one supplementary has been asked.
    Mr. Speaker: Opinions must always differ on these matters of discretion, but I have given my Ruling.

    CARDIFF PRISON (EXPLOSION)
    Mr. G. Thomas (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the explosion that occurred yesterday at Cardiff Prison.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I regret to inform the House that a serious explosion occurred while a test was being carried out on the installation of a gas fire in the women's section of Cardiff Prison yesterday morning. A prison works officer, a woman prison officer and a male prisoner sustained serious injuries and have been removed to hospital: the two former are making satisfactory progress. Structural damage was caused to the committee room in the women's prison, to the part worn stores below and possibly to the sleeping-in room above. The Prison Commissioners are making a thorough investigation into the causes of the explosion. I should like to express my sympathy with the injured.
    Mr. Thomas: Will the Minister be making a statement to the House following upon the report of the Commissioners?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to consider the report, but the hon. Member can take it that if there is anything of interest I shall see that it is ventilated.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the business for next week?
The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 19th NOVEMBER—Debate on Foreign Affairs on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will open the debate.
TUESDAY, 20th NOVEMBER—Conclusion of debate on Foreign Affairs.
WEDNESDAY, 21st NOVEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the Border Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Bill.
Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates for the Ministry of Materials relating to trading services and assistance to industry and strategic reserves.
Supplementary Estimates relating to new Ministerial appointments (contained in House of Commons Paper No. 23).
THURSDAY, 22nd NOVEMBER—Second Reading of Home Guard Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Committee and, if possible, remaining stages of Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Bill.
FRIDAY, 23rd NOVEMBER—Second Reading of Public Works Loans Bill.
Second Reading of Judicial Offices (Salaries &c.) Bill, Metropolitan Police (Borrowing Powers) Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions; and, if there is time:
Second reading of the British Museum Bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have a further statement to make to the House about the Government's proposals in relation to Private Members' time. You may think it best, Sir, to dispose of any Supplementary Questions on business and perhaps you will be good enough to call me again.
Mr. Attlee: I have two questions on business. First, will the Government consider extending the time on the Monday for an extra hour to give an adequate

1173
opportunity for hon. and right hon. Members to debate? The second point is that we should like an opportunity to be given in the near future to discuss the statement of the Minister of Food relating to the dropping of the usual increases in the rations for Christmas.
Mr. Crookshank: We would be very happy, if it is the wish of the House in general, to extend the debate for an extra hour on Monday. [An HON. MEMBER: "Two hours."] One hour I should think, but that could be discussed if necessary. On the second point, whether the House should have an opportunity of discussing the Christmas bonus problem, I shall be very happy if that can be discussed through the usual channels and we can see if time can be found for it.
Mr. S. Silverman: While appreciating the response the Leader of the House has made to the request for a further hour on the first day of the Foreign Affairs debate, would he not take into consideration whether, in the circumstances, it would not be well to have a third day for the debate? There are always a great number of people anxious to take part in these debates—far more than there is normally time for. The House is not busily occupied with other things and foreign affairs are being discussed on this occasion at a time very critical for the world as a whole and for this country. Would not a further day therefore be useful to the House?
Mr. Crookshank: I do not think so, if for no other reason than that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has to leave for a conference in Rome on Wednesday, and a debate on this subject in his absence would not be very useful at the present time.
Mr. C. R. Hobson: May I ask whether the Government intend to present to the House shortly a new B. B. C. Charter and licence in view of the expiration of the existing Charter and licence on 31st December?
Mr. Crookshank: I am not in a position to make a statement today, but we are well aware of the position.
Mr. J. Rankin: Has the Minister anything further to add to what he said last Thursday about the position of Scottish Oral Questions on the Order Paper?
Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir. The position about that is that the order of Questions was carried on from earlier in the year and it seems to have been just a misfortune that Scottish Questions happened to be at the bottom of the list. The normal course of moving up the scale is going on.
Mr. Rankin: But as a result of the operation of the normal course, the voice of Scotland will be squashed. That is a point which I understood the right hon. Gentleman promised last Thursday to take into consideration. I gathered that through the usual channels—which I hope have not been silted up in the process—the matter would be given attention and that we might have a favourable answer so far as our position was concerned.
Mr. Crookshank: I have considered it, but I cannot take the matter further today.
Mr. Rankin: Could not this part of the Session be extended by another week?
Sir Herbert Williams: May I, as one who is unambitious to speak on foreign affairs, ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is possible that those hon. Members who did not speak on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech will have a better opportunity in the debate on Monday and Tuesday?
Miss Elaine Burton: May I ask the Leader of the House whether there is any chance of finding time to debate between now and the Christmas Recess the Motion on the Order Paper standing in my name and in the names of several of my hon. Friends?
[That, in the opinion of this House, further delay in making a start with the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work for women in the public services will weaken the authority of Parliament and undermine public confidence in the repeated affirmations by this House of the acceptance of the principle of equal pay made during the past thirty years. This House therefore calls upon His Majesty's Government to announce a date by which a beginning will be made with the introduction of equal pay in the Civil Service.]
Mr. Crookshank: I do not think so: but when we come back there will be opportunity for Private Members' Motions and that might be a suitable one.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' TIME
Mr. Crookshank: I should like now. Mr. Speaker, to make my statement on Private Members' time.
During the course of the short debate on the Motion to take the time of the House until Christmas I undertook to consider the possibility of bringing forward the Government's Motion to set up the machinery for the Ballot for Private Members' Bills before we adjourn for Christmas, so that the fullest advantage could be taken of the time to be set apart in the New Year for Private Members' business. It may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I briefly explain the Government's proposals.
We propose to ask the House to adopt the recommendation made by the Select Committee on Procedure in 1946 in favour of allocating 20 Fridays, Motions and Bills being taken on alternate Fridays. This was the proposal followed last Session by the late Government. There will be 10 Fridays for Bills, the first six for Second Readings, beginning on Friday, 1st February; and the last four of the Bill Fridays will be devoted to final stages.
There will be 10 Fridays for Private Members' Motions, the first being Friday, 8th February, and precedence will be decided by periodical Ballots which will be held in the House. By this means the subjects of Motions will be fresh and topical. The first Ballot for Motions will not be held until after the Christmas Recess. We shall provide that after the Ballot has been held to decide the precedence of unofficial Bills, Private Members will be able to present Bills in the ordinary way or under the Ten-Minutes Rule procedure.
A Motion is being drafted in consultation with the authorities of the House and will be placed on the Order Paper as early as possible with a view to its being passed not later than Thursday of next week. If the Government proposals are generally acceptable, as I trust will be the case, and the Motion is approved by the House, hon. Members will sign their names for the Ballot for Bills in the list to be placed in the "No" Lobby on Tuesday and Wednesday, 27th and 28th November. The Ballot for Bills will be held under arrangements to be made by Mr. Speaker on Thursday, 29th November.
1176
In the past it has been the custom for Bills to be presented on the day following the result of the Ballot. We feel that it would be an advantage to hon. Members successful in the Ballot if they had a little more time to consider the Measures which they wish to bring forward and, accordingly, we shall propose that the Bills should be presented at the commencement of public business on Wednesday, 5th December.
I have considered this matter very carefully and believe that the proposals which I have outlined will enable the most effective use to be made of the Private Members' time; and those Bills which prove acceptable to the House should reach another place in good time for consideration during the course of the Session.
Mr. Attlee: I understand that this is, with a slight variation, substantially the same as was done last year, which, I think, met the convenience of the House. I think the proposed variation, to give a little more time for preparation, is an advantage, and as far as I am concerned I think that this should be accepted.
Mr. Crookshank: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

SUDAN (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): With your leave, Mr. Speaker, and the leave of the House, I wish to make a statement about the Sudan.
In view of the uncertainty caused in the Sudan and elsewhere by the Egyptian Government's unilateral action in purporting to abrogate the 1936 Treaty of Alliance and the two Condominium Agreements of 1899, His Majesty's Government find it necessary to reaffirm that they regard the Governor-General and the present Sudan Government as fully responsible for continuing the administration of the Sudan.
His Majesty's Government are glad to note that the Sudan has for some time been, and is now moving rapidly in the direction of self-government. In their view this progress can and should continue on the lines already laid down. His Majesty's Government will, therefore, give the Governor-General their full support for the steps he is taking to bring the

1177
Sudanese rapidly to the stage of self-government as a prelude to self-determination, and now await the recommendations of the Constitution Amendment Commission. His Majesty's Government are glad to know that a constitution providing for self-government may be completed and in operation by the end of 1952.
Having attained self-government, it will be for the Sudanese people to choose their own future status and relationship with the United Kingdom and with Egypt. His Majesty's Government consider that the attainment of self-government should immediately be followed by active preparations for the ultimate goal of self-determination. They will support the Governor-General in his efforts to ensure that the Sudanese people shall be able to exercise their choice in complete freedom and in the full consciousness of their responsibilities.
His Majesty's Government, with whose support the Sudan Government have brought the Sudanese people to their present stage of progress, are confident that they will work with united enthusiasm towards their goal. His Majesty's Government meanwhile guarantee to ensure the defence and security of the Sudan during the intervening period.
Mr. Herbert Morrison: May I say quite shortly that I welcome the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has made. He has indicated that it is a reaffirmation of Government policy, and I think he will agree with me that it is in substance the policy which we on this side of the House were pursuing. That is now being continued, and we welcome the declaration that has been made. Certainly we would agree that the unilateral steps taken by the Egyptian Government are of a character that our country cannot recognise.
Mr. Eden: I am prepared to say that the progress that has been made in the Sudan, which is very remarkable progress, has taken place over a long period of years. I do not think any particular
1178
Government would wish to claim exclusive credit for that, but of course the new situation which has arisen is due to the action of the Egyptian Government, and I thought it right to make this statement before the general debate on Monday, since I understood from Khartoum that there was some anxiety to know the position of His Majesty's Government.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: While very sincerely welcoming the reaffirmation of the right of the Sudanese people to self-determination, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider either inviting the leaders of the Independence Front and the National Front in the Sudan to come to London for consultations or sending a Minister to the Sudan for consultations there?
Mr. Eden: There is a Commission at work in the Sudan consisting of Sudanese to consider their future constitution, and I think we should see what they report before we consider any other steps.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask whether the principle which the right hon. Gentleman has enunciated in respect of the Sudan applies equally to Cyprus?
Mr. Speaker: I should think that is another question.
Mr. Eden: That is a country which is also now moving towards self-government. It is a principle which we have followed in many parts of the world.
Mr. Brockway: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House that the recommendation of the Commission to which he has referred, and which I understand is for a wholly Sudanese cabinet, will be accepted by him?
Mr. Eden: I have said that we are awaiting the Report of the Commission, and we must await the Report. The hon. Gentleman says that he knows what is in the Report of the Commission. He knows more than I can possibly hope to know.

BILLS PRESENTED
  JAPANESE TREATY OF PEACE BILL
  " to provide for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace with Japan and Protocol thereto," presented by Mr. Eden; supported by Mr. Peter Thorneycroft and Sir Arthur Salter; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 10.]
  HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
  " to extend the borrowing powers of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board," presented by Mr. Stuart; supported by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Commander Galbraith and Mr. Snadden; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

  RETIREMENT OF MR. SPEAKER CLIFTON BROWN
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I beg to move,
  That the thanks of this House be given to Colonel the Right Honourable Douglas Clifton Brown for his distinguished services as Speaker for more than eight years; that he be assured that this House fully appreciates the zeal, ability, and impartiality with which he has discharged the duties of his high office through a period of unusual labour, difficulty, and anxiety, and the judgment and firmness with which he has maintained its privileges and dignity; and that his unremitting attention to the constantly increasing business of Parliament, and his uniform urbanity and kindness have earned for him the respect and esteem of this House.
  The late Speaker, Colonel Clifton Brown, succeeded Captain FitzRoy, who died at his post during the war. It was a hard test to succeed Captain Fitzroy who was, I think, much beloved and well regarded in every part of the House, but Colonel Clifton Brown did not prove unequal to this test. In the tumult and convulsion of the war, he sat in the Chair through the self-propelled missile and rocket bombardments which cost us 30,000 casualties in London. We can still look at the ruins of the Guards Chapel in which more than 100 people, including many notable officers, were killed in a flick when at a memorial service.
  I remember that when we had to move again and met in the Church House, a Member asked me at Question time why we had quitted our Chamber which was then in the House of Lords, and how somebody said, "If the hon. Member will walk 500 yards down Birdcage Walk he will see the reason." This was one of those remarks that, so to speak, disposed of the issue for the moment in the House. It was also one of those many incidents with which Colonel Clifton Brown, as Speaker, was familiarised during the first part of his service in the Chair.
  But the late Speaker had a more memorable and certainly a more agreeable experience than these war-time days. He conducted the move back into what is called the new House of Commons by very young people, but what I and some of the elders may fairly call the old House of Commons. The late Speaker went through all the birth pangs of this building to which we are adapting ourselves by many trials and tests, but for

  1181
  which upon the whole there is a growing feeling of comfort and comprehension. This come-back was a great event in the Speakership of Colonel Clifton Brown. I am sure it was a joy to him to lead us all home again.
  Let me speak of another sphere in which the late Speaker was distinguished. It was the strong, vibrant initiative and perseverance which he showed in strengthening the contacts and sense of brotherhood between the Parliaments of the Commonwealth in all parts of the globe. I remember the very remarkable gathering which he organised of all the Speakers of all the Parliaments of the British Commonwealth of Nations and Empire. Fifteen Speakers and 13 other representatives of Commonwealth legislatures were assembled. That was a memorable gathering, because the Speaker represents and embodies the spirit of the House of Commons, and that spirit, which has transported itself to so many lands and climates and to countries far outside our sphere, is one of the gleaming and enduring glories of the British, and in a special way, if I may say so, of the English message to the world.
  Besides all this, Colonel Clifton Brown had to look after the last Parliament for the 20 months of its existence. I do not wish to raise any form of controversy and it is far from my intention to disparage the late House of Commons. I will therefore content myself with saying that I did not feel it was the best, the happiest or the most useful of the dozen Parliaments in which I have been called upon to dwell for a while.
  But Mr. Speaker had to do his best, which I think he did, to keep it up to the level and to hold the balance fairly between both parties. To have presided over a Parliament with a majority of six for the Government, sandwiched between two elections at the beginning and end of 20 months, and to hold his position of authority, dignity and responsibility was indeed an achievement of which any Speaker might be proud. In these hard party fights under democratic conditions, as in football matches and the like, there are moments when the umpire gets a very rough time. If you, Mr. Speaker, in your tenure succeed to a more sedate period of office in which the quality of debate rises higher whilst passions cool, you will be more fortunate than your predeces
  1182
  sor. But this will only enhance in the minds of Members of all parties the services rendered in very rough and tangled times by Colonel Clifton Brown.
  Mr. C. R. Attlee: On behalf of the Opposition, I desire to support 'this Motion, which has been moved in such fitting language by the Prime Minister. I was in this House with Colonel Clifton Brown for almost all his public service. He was most notably a man who was the friend of other Members. I think that particularly commended him when a choice was needed for the Deputy Chairman. He served a comparatively short period of apprenticeship and then came into the Chair, as the Prime Minister has said, in all the stress of war.
  Having successfully carried through that difficult period, he met a House of an entirely new composition, but his qualities were such that he was re-elected to the Chair, and there he had to preside over a new House of Commons under peace-time conditions. Throughout his service he set an example of impartiality, urbanity and a great deal of human sympathy. One always felt of Colonel Clifton Brown that, while he supported to the full the dignity of the Chair, the occupant of the Chair was a man of like passions with ourselves, who understood very clearly the kind of feelings and the atmosphere in the House. He had, too, a very ready sense of humour, which is so essential in the occupant of the Chair.
  In his last period, which I think formed a fitting climax to his work, he had that great gathering of Speakers from the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister rather disparaged that Parliament and compared it unfavourably with others of which he had been a Member. I should have thought is compared favourably with the short Parliament of 1910, which was sandwiched between two particularly stormy General Elections, but the right hon. Gentleman was here and I was only a street-corner agitator at the time, and he is the greater authority.
  In commending this Motion to the House, I should like also to express the gratitude of all of us to Mrs. Clifton Brown. She gave much gracious hospitality and carried out in a most adrnirable manner the duties which fall on the wife of the Speaker. I am quite sure that in passing this Motion—and I am sure we

  1183
  shall pass it nemine contradicente—everyone wishes that in their retirement Colonel and Mrs. Clifton Brown will have a long and happy period of rest.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I should like to say a few words on behalf of the minority party in this House. I should like to do so for several reasons, personal as well as party; but particularly do I desire to add our words of gratitude and appreciation so that it may be realised that this Motion is accepted by the whole House and that this vote is unanimous.
  The Speaker is the guardian of the privileges, rights and liberties not only of the whole House but of every section of the House and of every individual Member in it. Upon him, his attitude and conduct, his fairness aid his firmness, depend the rights and liberties of minorities. The smaller the minority the greater is the responsibility thrown upon the Chair of safeguarding those rights.
  It is as a Member of such a minority that I wish to add my tribute to what has already been so well said by the two right hon. Gentlemen, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I and my colleagues will always recall with gratitude and pleasure the years we passed under Colonel Clifton Brown's presidency. We are all his debtors for public services loyally rendered, for great duties worthily discharged and for the ready and ever unfailing courtesy with which any appeal addressed to him was met. He was our mentor and our guide, but even more, as the Leader of the Opposition has just said, he was the kindly friend and the sympathetic adviser of each one of us, so that we not only respected and admired him but we had—and have still—for him a very real and warm affection.
  I join with the two right hon. Gentlemen in the hope that the years before Colonel Clifton Brown will be many, will be happy, and will be reposeful. That same hope we also express sincerely for his gracious lady who so regularly watched our proceedings, and who so charmingly and warmly received us on all occasions in Mr. Speaker's House.
  Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: I think that it is desirable that on such an occasion as this one who is not the leader of any party but a back bencher should also be heard; because
  1184
  the Speaker is essentially a man of the House of Commons, elected from the back benches, and taking his seat in the Chair as the representative of the ordinary Member of Parliament. It has been said—with great truth, I think—that what endeared Colonel Clifton Brown especially to the House was that he was a man of like passions to ourselves. We recognised in him one who had not adopted and could not adopt any Olympian attitude of detachment, but one who was shaken by the ordinary feelings of mankind, and so, perhaps, was able to appreciate the feelings of the rank and file better than those of greater detachment.
  It has been said that his proudest moment was, perhaps, when he led us back to our own Chamber. I think that there was a moment in his career which he regarded as of even greater significance. It was on the night that he was able to switch on the light above Big Ben, to indicate that the period of trouble was past, that it was possible again for this light to shine out in action, as it had shone out in ideals for so many months and years, over a very troubled scene indeed. The fulfilment of that, I think, was his moment of greatest pleasure as the Speaker of the House of Commons.
  I think it is only right for the back benchers to pay their tribute to one who was a man of themselves, who was their choice, and in respect of whom they feel a deep sense of responsibility, as I am sure is always the feeling towards the Speaker, who is the person of their creation, and who is sustained by their support and their good will.
  Mr. Frank Bowles: May I, as a Member who had the privilege of serving as one of Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown's deputies, be allowed the chance of saying just a few words about our relationship? He was a most charming person to work with. I remember on one occasion he said to me that he would always support his deputy, which, I think, was a most reassuring thing for a younger person in the Chair.
  I also remember quite well, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that when the new House of 1945 was elected there must have been 400 or 500 new Members; and I think it was a most wonderful achievement on Colonel Clifton Brown's part that he was able so quickly

  1185
  and so soon to recognise and to call hon. Members so many of whom were new faces to him.
  I should like also to say one other thing. It was his very homely way of ruling the House which, I think, appealed most to hon. Members. I remember on one occasion some hon. Member on this side of the House—it was during the time of a Labour Government—got up and called the then Speaker's attention to a mis-statement of the Parliamentary news on the B. B. C. I remember the most charming way in which he dealt with the matter. He got up and said, "I heard this and turned to my wife and said, 'Tut, tut. They have made the same mistake again.'"
  It was for that kind of charming, homely, fatherly way in which he presided over our deliberations for the eight years—I think it was—that it was his privilege to do so, that we remember him most, and I should like most sincerely and warmly to support the Motion moved by the Prime Minister.
  Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.
  The Prime Minister: I beg to move that the Resolution be recorded in the terms you, Sir, have just pronounced.
  Question, "That this Resolution be recorded as having been agreed to nemine contradicente,"put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty that He will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of His Royal Favour upon Colonel the Right Honourable Douglas Clifton Brown for his eminent services during the important period in which he has with such distinguished ability and dignity presided in the Chair of this House, and assuring His Majesty that whatever expense His Majesty shall think fit to be incurred upon that account this House will make good the same."—[The Prime Minister.
  Mr. Attlee: I beg to support the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
  The Prime Minister: I beg to move that you, Sir, follow the course you did in the case of the first Motion, and have this Resolution recorded as having been agreed to nemine contradicente.
  Question, "That this Resolution be recorded as having been agreed to nemine contradicente," put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945, and the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty three, being expenses which under any Act are to be defrayed out of such moneys.
  Resolution agreed to.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  SCHEDULE.
  4.18 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 24 to 27.
  The object of this Amendment is to leave out the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939. The Home Secretary will remember that yesterday we were saying that really he ought to have considered a great many things before he came here, but it would, I think, be unfair of us to say to him that really he ought to have considered all the possibilities of maintaining or not maintaining all the legislation contained in the Schedule.
  I think it fair to the Committee to say quite frankly that if we are not able to convince the right hon. and learned Gentleman by the arguments we intend to put in this matter, we shall not attempt to divide the Committee against him on it. However, I think it is right to take the opportunity of just putting before the Committee what are the arguments in favour of removing this Act which, in
  1188
  my submission, performs no useful function at the moment, and which may well serve as an irritant in the relations between England and Ireland.
  The Act was originally passed to deal with the various bomb outrages that occurred in 1939. Its passage was secured by a promise from the then Home Secretary, Lord Templewood, which he put in these words:
  " the assurance from me that these powers will not be exercised a day longer than they are actually required."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1939; Vol. 350, c. 1598.]
  It is a very long time since that day, and I should like the Home Secretary to look into the question whether these powers are really still required. What the Act in fact does is to provide, first, that there can be expulsions; that anyone can be expelled from Britain, either an Irish citizen or a British citizen who has not been living here continuously for 20 years. Secondly, it provides that anyone who is likely to harbour such people as might be expelled must be registered, or the Home Secretary can require them to register, and thirdly, that in fact people who are out of the country can have a prohibition order served on them which prevents them ever returning again.
  I think that probably the views of my hon. Friends, or a great many of them, were those expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood), who was then sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, speaking on behalf of the party of which I have the honour to be a member. He said then, speaking on 24th July, 1939:
  " I think every hon. Member regrets the events which have created a situation calling for new powers on the part of the Executive. I should like to express my view emphatically, and irrespective of the political motives behind the I.R.A. campaign, that terrorist methods will achieve nothing. I do not believe that in these days the people of this country, having witnessed the use of terrorism abroad, will ever have solutions of political problems forced upon them against their will. I imagine that I part company with many hon. Members when I say that I desire to see a kind of united Ireland, which would not perhaps commend itself to the majority of hon. Members, but the way in which a minority have chosen to attain those ends will, I believe, defeat their own objects. As we know now, there are more rational ways of solving our current problems than by violence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1939; Vol. 350, c. 1057.]
  I think that those are the views which would be endorsed very largely, certainly

  1189
  on this side of the House. If I may say so I do not think this extends only to bomb outrages of the sort that we all deplored when they took place in 1939.
  I think many people place far too much reliance on the terrorising effect of bombs generally. In the world today, there are far too many people who think that their political ends can be attained with the display or threat of universal violence. If we can perform any service in regard to the Irish question, it surely should be, above everything, that we should all attempt to exercise moderation.
  It is because we have here an Act which is directly suggested to deal with violence which may arise from Irish affairs that we have got a position where Ireland is singled out in some peculiar and particular way. Whatever the appropriateness of it may have been in 1939, it is strange in a way that we are not continuing an Act to deal with German violence, or with violence from all sorts of other quarters. I would say this to hon. Members on the other side of the House for their serious attention, that even at the time at which this Act was passed some of my right hon. Friends had the gravest doubts about it. Our party as a whole decided that they would support it, but a number of very distinguished members of the party and other hon. Members in the House at that time voted against them—among others Sir Stafford Cripps.
  When we came to the Committee stage, even hon. Members of the party opposite had grave doubts about some of the provisions. The Committee stage took place on the day on which there had occurred an actual bomb outrage in King's Cross—a very severe bomb outrage—and I would not be doing justice to the feelings that were expressed on both sides of the House if I did not refer to the remarks on that occasion of the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Trade. Despite whatever the feelings were, he did come out and take a stand which I think hon. Members on both sides can most sincerely commend.
  He pointed out that because we happened to be legislating in the middle of an outrage of that sort we should not allow such ideas to outweigh our sense of justice, and we should not be rushed into legislation merely by the outrage which had taken place at that moment. Dealing with the evils of the Bill, he said:
  1190
  "One hon. Member behind me reminds me of what happened at King's Cross today, and that is a good example, but that a bomb has exploded in King's Cross is no reason why hon. Members should not give the most careful consideration to a Measure of this kind. My right hon. Friend was assuming that the people who are brought within the scope of the Bill are potential terrorists, but it is not potential terrorists alone who come within its scope. You, Sir Dennis"—
  Sir Dennis Herbert was the Chairman at that time—
  "and I are brought within the scope of the Bill, like any other member of the public. If I go to an Underground station with my suitcase and put it down for a moment and pick up another by mistake, and go to the British Museum, and then a ticking noise is heard coming from the suitcase and I am arrested, I am within the scope of the Bill just the same as anybody else, and am subject to its provisiens."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1939; Vol. 350, c. 1519.]
  The right hon. Gentleman voted with those Labour Members and Liberal Members who voted against various proposed Amendments to the Bill.
  So far as I can see—and I think probably the Home Secretary should be able to give us further information—from periodical reports, certainly over the last year or so there have been, in fact, no expulsions and no steps taken in regard to the Bill.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present. House counted, and 40 Members being present—
  Mr. Bing: You and I, Sir Charles, will view with regret that, when a matter of such importance as this is being discussed in the House, when so serious an issue of civil liberty arises, so few Members are tempted to remain to hear the debate.
  I was just dealing with the various numbers of people to whom the Bill at present applies. There are some 190 expulsion orders existing at the moment, some 29 registrations, and some 71 prohibition orders.
  If I may pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), when he was Home Secretary he did take steps and did require this Act because he was engaged in a policy of releasing under conditions the various people who were imprisoned under the Act. He did take, I think, extremely effective and extremely generous action in regard to those cases. Of course, it was necessary then to have the Bill still so that, if necessary, prohibition orders

  1191
  could be served on people who were released before their sentences had expired, so that they could be kept out of the country.
  Now no further reason seems to exist for the continuation of the Act. I do not know whether the Home Secretary thinks that some transitional provisions might be necessary to keep in force existing prohibition and exclusion Orders. I would say this about prohibition and exclusion Orders generally, that if maintained indefinitely they can produce the most extraordinary results. It so happened that when Mr. De Valera was President of the League of Nations, as it was then, it was discovered with some embarrassment by the Home Office that he could go everywhere in the world except into any part of the United Kingdom, in respect of which an exclusion order existed against him. The Act under which that exclusion order was made was held up by one hon. Member as the type of legislation we ought to pass in the House. I think that example is quite sufficient to show that this, in fact, should not he so.
  4.30 p.m.
  The reason for raising the question of this Bill goes deeper than the pure technicalities of the issue. In these days of wars and rumours of wars, the least we can do is to look round in these islands, which are joined together geographically, if by nothing else, and attempt to improve the relations of those of us who live in the one or the other. Therefore, may I refer the Committee to one more speech made on this matter, and made by someone held in very high regard on this side, who expressed far better than I can, in one of his last speeches in Parliament, what is possibly the view of my hon. Friends on these matters. The late Mr. George Lansbury speaking in the House, said:
  "I realise that we must maintain law and order and protect the citizens from this sort of outrage that is taking place, but there is always some deep-seated reason that makes men risk life and liberty in this manner. It was the same with the women suffrage movement and it is the same in India. I would implore the Committee not to be satisfied with passing this legislation.…I should like to appeal to the Government and to my hon. Friends to make a determined effort by trying to do what is the only thing that can be done, namely, to get Northern and Southern Irelanders together to discuss how they can remove these grievances in the most sensible manner, by
  1192
  becoming decent Irishmen one towards another."—[OFFCIAL. REPORT, 26th July, 1939; Vol. 350, c. 1539.]
  I raise this matter in the hope that the Home Secretary will see his way now or in the near future to remove from the Statute Book this Act, which serves no very useful purpose, and which by its presence is an impediment to those good relations between Ireland and this country which we all, irrespective of party, hope to see.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: I take the view that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing), who put this Amendment on the Order Paper, has done considerable service. I think that it will be agreed in all parts of the Committee that it is deplorable to single out acts done in connection with Irish affairs, when there are so many people in different parts of the world who have real or imaginary grievances, and who are not made the subject of special cases. We want to continue to do what we can to improve relations between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, and I submit that the keeping intact of pin-pricking legislation like this does no service to that admirable cause.
  It is just possible that successive Home Secretaries—I do not know about this—have had grounds for maintaining in force powers to prohibit persons entering into this country whose past activities are known to them. I would give due weight to considerations of that kind, but this Act does a great deal more than that. It gives powers of expulsion and powers of registration. It seems strange to me that, after all these years, the British Government should want power to expel people who have, in many cases, presumably, been a long time in this country, and who have kept fairly quiet, or people who have come in, in respect of whom it was not thought necessary to put into effect any prohibition order.
  I do not like the wording of this Act, and I take this opportunity, as the matter is under discussion, of mentioning certain features of it which affect this issue of civil liberties with which parties on both sides of the House are so rightly and greatly concerned. It is a vital principle in that field that if there is to be an offence with penalties for it, that the offence should be clearly and specifically

  1193
  defined. I ask the Committee, in that connection, to consider the expression used in the Act:
  "Acts of violence designed to influence public opinion."
  How can one tell, with all respect, whether a matter of violence is designed to influence public opinion?
  It seems to be a most perfect example of an expression in a statute which makes it extremely difficult to ascertain whether or not an offence has been committed. The truth is, of course, I suggest, that if action were taken under this Act it would be taken because it was believed that violence was intended. That would be the test. Of course, it would be. I suggest that it is hypocrisy to suggest anything else, and that that provision in the Act is an undesirable provision.
  I should have thought that terrorist acts were very seldom designed to influence policy. I should have thought that they were more often a case of revenge, or of irresponsible or destructive acts, and it would be extremely difficult to deduce from them any attempt or design to influence public opinion. It is difficult enough for a court to establish to its satisfaction that an act of violence has been designed to influence public opinion; and, that being so, how much more difficult is it for a constable to decide that an offence is being committed?
  Yet he is given power under this Act, I discover, to arrest without warrant if he suspects that there is an intention to commit an offence. He must satisfy himself that a design has been formed by somebody to influence opinion by a violent act, and then he can arrest without warrant. How is he to do that? A justice of the peace, in the same way, may grant a search warrant if he satisfies himself that these complex and vague elements of the offence are present.
  A person subject to an expulsion order under this Act can, within 48 hours, send written objection to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State is then empowered to nominate someone to interview the objector and to report. The person whom the Secretary of State can nominate can be anyone under the Act, as long as he is not a police officer or an officer of a Government Department. That seems to me to be too wide a discretion for the Statute to confer in a matter of this kind.
  1194
  In a period of tension between the Irish Republic and this country, it may well be that a special statutory provision of this kind is defensible; but, to the satisfaction of us all, this is not a period of tension; it is a period, I think, of growing understanding and growing good will. I think that if this Measure has any effect it is the effect of harming the development of that increasingly satisfactory relationship.
  Mr. J. Beattie: It is not my intention to controvert the Act which is now under discussion, and which tries to impose conditions on citizens of the Republic or on Irishmen and Irishwomen of the six counties of that nation. I would only say that this Act was the result of some cause, and that that cause was created by a Government over here.
  There have been differences in the minds of Irishmen and Irishwomen, but this Act is passed to cover up England's wrongdoing to the country to which I belong. All the outrages that happened in 1939 were not applauded by Irish people. We do not wish harm to any country, nor do we wish to destroy it. What we want is the acceptance of Ireland as a world nation which contains human beings competent and capable of regulating their own destiny.
  I appreciate the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine), about the people of the Republic of Ireland, but I would remind him and the Committee that this Act applies to the whole of the people of Ireland. It is not confined to those who come from the 26 Counties, and it is worth noting that most of the outrages with which this Act dealt were performed by people from the six north-eastern counties of Ireland. I question very much whether two of the people arrested in connection with those outrages belonged to Southern Ireland. The six counties of Northern Ireland send nine Unionist representatives to support the Tory Government here, and it was from that area that those came who were arrested for the 1939 outrages.
  If we are ever going to get outstanding questions between Ireland and this nation settled the first steps to be taken must be the clearing away of all those contentious and oppressive Acts of Parliaments and Regulations that from year to year are placed on the Statute Book with the deliberate intention of keeping Irishmen and women subservient to an overruling authority in this country—a pro-

  1195
  cess which they will not tolerate. If this Government and the people of this kingdom want to be friends with the Irish nation, I recommend them to accept the advice and counsel of those of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, whose sympathies with Ireland are well known.
  On the other hand, if the Government and people of this kingdom want to continue the disturbances and upheavals with Ireland, which, from time to time, have taken place in the past, they will continue in operation these laws which we are discussing now, as well as certain others which I cannot mention because it would not be in order, but which we on this side of the Committee are asking should be discontinued.
  Mr. Anthony Marlowe: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Beattie), is speaking as though the Members on this side of the Committee were entirely responsible for this legislation. I hope he appreciates that the Government which was supported by hon. Members opposite renewed this Act each year they were in office.
  Mr. Beattie: I am not speaking about this side of the Committee or that side of the Committee being responsible, but it has to be remembered that the Government side of the Committee has more responsibility for the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, than this side of the Committee. The party which sits on this side of the Committee opposed the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Beattie), is getting a little wide on this Amendment. It is quite a narrow Amendment.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Beattie: I hope you will pardon me, Sir Charles, but the interjection from the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) compelled me to show that the Labour Party had no part in putting the 1920 Act on the Statute Book. They have done many other things since then. but that is another matter.
  I make an appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. Many good men from Ireland and many people who have made their home in England have suffered through this Act. Some of them were brought to the bar of justice some of them interned in the prisons of Britain, and if a commission
  1196
  had been set up and the true facts of the case revealed those people might never have been put into British prisons. I want to see friendship developed between this nation and the Irish nation. This nation can work with Ireland and be helpful in every way, and Ireland can also contribute something towards the great cause of the peace of the world.
  Ireland is anxious and willing to take her place with the Western Powers in support of the peace of the world, but how is she ever going to do so if the Government of this nation continue Acts of this kind on the Statute Book from year to year? That is not the right way to court friendship with the Irish people. In my opinion, this nation follows a difficult path in trying to build up friendship with Ireland.
  I could say much more on this subject, but it would be outside the scope of this Amendment, and I am asked to confine myself to it. But I can say this. I speak for Ireland and the Irish working classes and, indeed, the Irish people as a whole. I am the only Member representing Irish Labour who has ever sat here. I am here for the one purpose of trying to ventilate the grievances of the Irish people, and at the same time educating members of this Committee and the English people generally as to the real position in Ireland. A false position has been presented to this Committee over a number of years by those from Northern Ireland who sit on the other side of the Committee. They have misrepresented Irish interests.
  I feel that a responsibility rests upon the Tory Government to try to do something to heal the wounds between the two nations, because they were partners in inflicting those wounds on Ireland. Friendship with Ireland can be brought about if the Conservative Party are prepared to give her her soverign and independent rights, thus allowing her to be a nation and to take her rightful place in the building up of the defences of the western world in the interests of world peace.
  Mr. Ede: This Act was one that was passed at a time of very considerable trouble in this country and it is quite wrong for hon. Members to speak about the persons who were dealt with under it as if they were supporters at that time of the Government of Southern Ireland.
  Mr. Beattie: No, they were not. It was of the Tory Government in the Six Counties.
  Mr. Ede: They were not even supporters of the Tory Government of Northern Ireland, but the kind of people who are supporters of no government at all. This is one of the difficulties that confronts every Home Secretary who has had to deal with this subject since 1939. When I took office some six and a quarter years ago, there were a number of persons still in English prisons who had been sentenced to very long terms of imprisonment indeed at the time of the trouble in 1939. I was approached by Members of this Committee who, on occasions, brought with them members of the Dail, and I was urged to take a lenient course with regard to these men and to exercise the Royal prerogative for the remission of their sentences. I was assured that if I did this it would be the last remaining difficulty between the Irish people and the British Government.
  After very considerable thought, it seemed to me that the temper and the time in which we were then living justified the recommendation of such remissions. Preparatory to the recommendations, I asked each of the prisoners if he would give an undertaking that if such a recommendation were made he would, on release, not indulge in the practices for which he had received his sentence. All but two of them agreed, but the two were quite frank in saying that if they were released they could not give such an undertaking.
  Mr. Beattie: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Ede: I am glad to have confirmation from at least one hon. Member.
  Mr. Beattie: Why should they give an undertaking about something they did not do?
  Mr. Ede: I should have thought that was the easiest thing for them to do. I will give an undertaking to the present Home Secretary that I will not, in my efforts to remove him from his present office, attempt to blow up Hammersmith Bridge. He must notice that this undertaking is strictly limited.
  Mr. Beattie: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether it is not the fact that one who was for five years a Member of this House, in the person of Mr. Cahir Healy, was interned, through the
  1198
  machinations of the Tories of Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Ede: I have not interned Mr. Healy. It was certainly not done during my period of office. I recollect that Mr. Healy did sit in this House.
  Mr. Beattie: He did.
  Mr. Ede: Sir Charles, can you tell me whether I am interrupting my hon. Friend or whether he is interrupting me?
  The Chairman: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. J. Beattie) was listened to in peace. He should give the same consideration to other hon. Gentlemen.
  Mr. Ede: I was not concerned with Mr. Healy. My only regret is that he does not come here to enliven our proceedings and to vote in the Lobby which I am sure he would vote in.
  Two of those people declined to give the undertaking. I do not know whether they got lonely or not in their splendid isolation, but in the end they gave the undertaking, and every one of those people was released. I think I acted in accordance with the feeling on both sides of the House and in the country when that arrangement was made. If there is one thing that we in this Committee desire it is that no cause for ill-feeling shall remain which can legitimately be removed. That was the position.
  We have to face this fact: There are a number of people not supporters of any legitimate party in Ireland that proposes to bring about reforms by ordinary constitutional means in Ireland or elsewhere, who are the subject of these expulsions and prohibitions. I am not at all sure that the present Government of the Irish Republic would not be very relieved if we allowed these people to come here instead of excluding them from our shores, for certainly I know they are the subject of grave anxiety to that Government.
  This is purely a practical measure, and I am sure that every party in this Committee would be only too glad if we could take the step of not having these orders of expulsion or prohibition against any individuals. I am sure that most of us desire that persons of good will should be allowed to come to this country as freely as possible. The difficulty that confronted me all the while I was in office was that there are some people who do not come within that category.

  1199
  From time to time, requests have been made that one or other of these individuals should be allowed to come here. I recollect one man—this seemed to me to be a very Irish thing to happen—who wanted to come here because he was anxious to visit his mother-in-law.
  In some cases of particular requests made by particular individuals that whatever orders existed against them should be waived or annulled, inquiries have resulted in our finding it possible to withdraw either the prohibition or the expulsion, and the person has been allowed to come. Sometimes he only wanted to come for a short time. Some have wanted to come back here and settle, without any undertaking as to the date on which they should remove themselves. On the whole, satisfactory arrangements were capable of being made during the past six years.
  In view of what has been said, it was desirable that it should be made clear exactly what the difficulties are that confront Governments in this matter. I can only say for myself that if the present Government felt it was possible, having regard to the national interest, to remove this Act from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and bring it to an end, I should only be too gratified; but one has to realise that one is dealing with a small number of people—not all the people against whom the existing orders are in force—whose attitude towards public affairs is such that they have to be the object of special measures directed against them.
  I am bound to say that I could have hoped that the action that was taken in ameliorating the conditions of the men who were in gaol when I took office, and relieving some people from the prohibition and expulsion orders that had been made against them, would meet with a better response from the Government of Southern Ireland, and that that Government would not have felt it necessary, after such evidence of good will, to cut the painter, to withdraw themselves from the British Commonwealth and to do other things which, to my mind—
  Mr. Beattie: They did not cut themselves from the British Commonwealth. You cut them from the British Commonwealth.
  The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to keep quiet. I hope he will do so.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Beattie: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Is it right and proper for the right hon. Gentleman to say during his statement that the 26 counties cut themselves off from the British Commonwealth, when he knows that it was an Act of this House against Ireland and that while Ireland is a divided nation she cannot take her rightful position among the nations of the world?
  The Chairman: That is not a point of order. The hon. Member has made his speech, and I hope he will now keep quiet.
  Mr. Ede: I do not think I need deal with that interruption at all. I merely stated a fact. I was brought up as a Gladstonian Home Ruler, and I still believe that if Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bills had been accepted by Parliament a lot of the troubles that we now have would not have arisen. But I am bound to say that the first duty of this House is to protect the people of this country and that some of the people who are the objects of the Measure now before us are people who, in the public interest, ought to be excluded from this country or, if they are admitted, ought to be admitted under terms that will enable us to secure their good behaviour.
  Mr. Irvine: I should like to put a question to my right hon. Friend before he sits down. I gather from what he has said that in certain circumstances expulsion and prohibition orders were waived in answer to specific requests by people in Ireland. Can he tell me whether any trouble or difficulty ensued when such orders were waived and the people entered this country?
  Mr. Ede: No, Sir, because we took very good care to make sure that they were the sort of people who would not give trouble.
  Mr. John McKay: When I saw the Amendment on the Order Paper I wondered why it had been placed there, and I examined the Act as best I could in the short time available. All the discussion has been about Ireland and people coming into this country from Ireland, but the Act is not entirely limited to such people. It defines the penalties to be imposed upon not only men who come from

  1201
  Ireland, but also upon men who may have lived in this country all their lives. The question is one not merely of the relationship between Irish people and ourselves, but of whether the Act is justifiable and, if it is not, why it should remain on the Statute Book.
  As I read the Act—unfortunately, it was the first time that I had read it—it seems to me that there must have been almost a state of panic when it was drafted and passed. No doubt the primary principle embodied in the Act has a great and fine object and most of us will agree that we are not prepared to allow violence to be committed with the object of influencing public opinion; but when we are drafting an Act of that kind for the purpose of imposing justifiable penalties for the offences which are committed it ought to be so drafted that it will bear examination by reasonable people.
  The Act gives a power to the Secretary of State if he is reasonably satisfied. That is one of the primary principles of the Act; when action has to be taken under the Act all that is required is the reasonable satisfaction of the Secretary of State. I have pointed out that the Act applies not only to Irishmen coming to this country but also to men who have never been in Ireland. If such men for some reason or another implicate themselves in the offences under the Act they may be penalised for so doing and may have to submit to registration orders. Irishmen have to submit to expulsion orders. There is no line of demarcation here. The Act does not say that it shall apply to Irishmen who have left Ireland within a given period the idea being that their whole political output is largely governed by Irish opinion. It applies to anyone in this country.
  We may have an Irishman who has been living in this country for 18 or 19 years and he may have been married for 16 years and have four, five or six children who are being brought up under English influences. One of the worst features of the Act is that the Secretary of State can take hold of such a man if he has been implicated in these offences and expel him, although it may be that the man's connections in Ireland are very thin, he may have no personal friends there and he may have no place to go to when he arrives in Ireland.
  If that be a true interpretation of the Act, it is a miserable exhibition of the
  1202
  work of this House in dealing with such matters. It does not matter to me whether it was a Labour Government, a coalition Government or any other kind of Government which passed the Act. Things are done by both parties which on occasion can only be exposed by Opposition parties. That is one of the good things about an Opposition. It seems to me a disgrace that under this Act we can bring into operation an expulsion order against an Irishman who has been voting in Parliamentary elections here, has brought up an English family and may be a public figure in our English life or in his own locality.
  The Act was brought into being at a critical period when the circumstances may well have appeared frightful, but my examination of the Act leads me to regard it as an exhibition of frantic legislation which does not at all guard the liberties of our people. It seems to me that there ought to be adequate penalties under other legislation for dealing with such offences as these, and that men against whom there are suspicions ought to be given the time and opportunity for proper defence so that they are not barred from their public activities without adequate examination of their case and without justice being done.
  We do not need to go into the Irish question. This is not a question of Irish history; it is a question of the Act as it actually is and as it is actually written, and whether the penalties laid down are justifiable and should remain on the Statute Book continuously, or whether there is a very strong case for examining the Act and modifying it and bringing it into harmony with our so-called democratic Constitution and our so-called beliefs in liberty and democracy.
  To me, the Act in all its entirety is a defiance of democracy. It is a defiance of liberty. The penalties are misplaced. They have not been considered, and they want to be renewed in a different form if they have to be renewed at all. That is why I have given these views, and not because of the relationships that exist, which I deplore. I deplore past history in Ireland, but to me the Act does not bear a reasonable investigation, and it ought to be considered and examined and something new and better put in its place.
  Mr. David Weitzman: The point at issue is really a very short one. It may well be that in the year 1939, in the circumstances

  1203
  then existing, it was a very reasonable thing to pass this Act of Parliament. We heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), that there was considerable opposition then; but let it be conceded that the Act was then a very wise Measure. We are now in the year 1951. The emergency has passed. Whether it was a question of the war period or of trouble with Ireland, at any rate that state of affairs has passed; and the real point we ought to consider is whether we are justified in keeping on the Statute Book an Act of this character.
  We ought to remember that the Act certainly is a violation of the ordinary rights of the Englishman. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), referred to the Act as if it was limited to Irishmen, but I hope that the Members of the Committee will realise that the Act is not so restricted. It applies to Englishmen who have not for 20 years before what is complained of lived here or, in the case of someone who is under 20 years of age, who has not lived the whole of his lifetime in this country. Therefore, clearly the Act applies to Englishmen.
  What we have here, therefore, is a direct restriction on the rights of an Englishman in regard to his personal liberty. Here we have an Act of Parliament, couched in the vaguest language, which gives the Secretary of State the right, if he so thinks fit, to interfere with the liberty of the subject in that way. Why not let the penalties of our criminal law apply in the ordinary way?
  I would point out a further fact. In the ordinary way, of course, every Englishman—for that matter, every person who is arrested in this country—has the right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus, and the matter can then be discussed in the courts and it can then be ascertained whether he is properly imprisoned or his liberty rightly curtailed. Under the provisions of this Act, the Secretary of State has the right, if he so thinks fit, to make an expulsion order. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that in such a case the courts would not have the right to inquire into the matter if the Secretary of State simply states that he
  1204
  has inquired into it and is satisfied that it is proper, an order should be made.
  I suggest to the Committee that in the years that have followed since 1939, a very different state of affairs exists. When we are considering this interference with the right of the subject, it is of importance that the most careful investigation should be made, and that we ought to look very carefully to see what necessity exists for keeping this Measure upon the Statute Book.
  There has been a great deal of criticism. I do not know what possible plea is put forward for the retention of this measure. We heard from my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary that there were instances where orders of detention had been made and where, upon investigation and when undertakens were given, the persons in prison were liberated. But really that does not touch the matter at all.
  Where is there today justification for the right given to the Secretary of State in these cases to make an order of this kind? I venture to suggest that this is one of those cases where the Committee, in looking at this matter, ought to form the conclusion that there is no case whatever for the retention of this Measure. Looking at it in that way, it is one of those Acts restricting the right and liberty of the subject which certainly ought to be done away with as quickly as possible.
  5.15 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I appreciate the feeling that exists in all parts of the Committee against any intrusion on the rule of law, but I think that most of us would consider such an intrusion at least worthy of consideration in the case of the deliberate infliction of fortuitous suffering on innocent and irrelevant people. I remember so well among all the films I have seen one which was directed by Mr. Hitchcock, which dealt with that. Almost at the closing shot was of a little boy who, as a messenger boy, had to carry the infernal machine. After probably nearly a quarter of a century, that section of the film remains in my mind.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Was that film "David and Bathsheba"?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member's sense of humour is a great asset to the House in general, but I am using the film to illustrate a particularly cruel and cowardly form of crime inflicted on innocent and irrelevant people. There are times when the hon. Member's sense of humour does not taste as sweet as at other times.
  I was saying that that is the sort of thing which caused the introduction of the Act. I remind the Committee, and especially the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), that the original Act was to continue in operation for two years and was continued until the end of 1941, I think, by a Defence Regulation, but that from that time it has been continued for a year at a time by the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts of the last 10 years.
  I listened with the greatest care to the speeches of the hon. and learned Member and of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), waiting for them to come to the point when they showed an acute change of circumstances between the conditions that obtained last year and obtain today. I did not hear that from either of the hon. and learned Members.
  Mr. Bing: I thought I had made it clear that in the views of some of us who have taken an interest in this matter there was an argument for retaining the Act so long as there remained in prison any people upon whom it might be necessary, upon their release, to serve an exclusion order; because otherwise, of course there would be no need, if they were released ahead of time, as some of us were pressing the Home Secretary so to do, to make certain that they left the country. Once they had all left prison, however, that argument in favour of the Act was removed, and the difficulty we were in was that we could not, on the one hand, press the Home Secretary to release them ahead of time and, at the same time, remove from him the power of removing them out of the country when he had done so.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: According to my information, that was about three years ago. There were two left, but the majority have been released. The hon. and learned Member moved this Amendment in a most fair and reasonable attitude of mind. I was dealing for the
  1206
  moment with the last two speeches and, although I am not saying they were unfair and unreasonable, they were pitched on a rather stronger note. I think it a fair point to say that the conditions which existed a year ago exist today, or at least I waited to hear from both hon. Members whether there has been any change, and I waited in vain.
  I wish to come to the purposes of the Act. On the basis that the kinds of crime I have described may happen, there is an argument in favour of prevention rather than prosecution and imprisonment after they have happened, and I have explained why I think that argument appeals to the moral sense of the majority—I do not exclude a certain minority—the majority of the people of this country.
  The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) took up a point of drafting with which I wish to deal. He said that the fact that the Act was designed to prevent:
  " the commission in Great Britain of acts of violence designed to influence public opinion…
  was a weakness in the matter. I paid attention, as I always do, to what he said, but I confess I did not appreciate the difficulty of that matter. The Secretary of State has to consider the two points, first, whether crimes of violence are likely to occur and, second, what is the motive of the crime. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced lawyer and knows as well as I do that in many cases it is not necessary to prove motive at all, but that it makes it easier to secure a conviction. In this case it would make it easier for the Secretary of State to operate, and what I could not understand from the otherwise lucid argument of the hon. Member was why an additional duty placed on the Home Secretary should make the Act worse in its administration.
  As I think there has been some confusion among some hon. Members, I would point out the three powers which are given. The hon. Member pointed them out, but it may be that some hon. Members did not hear his speech. The first is the expulsion order, and that applies to any person whom the Secretary of State is reasonably satisfied has been concerned:
  " in the preparation or instigation of such acts of violence…or is knowingly harbouring any other person so concerned.…"
  That applies, as has been pointed out, to those who have not lived here for

  1207
  20 years, or for their whole life, if they are under 20 years of age. The second power, which is the general power, is a registration order requiring any such person to register with the police and to comply with certain requirements as to reporting. If a Secretary of State has had reasonable cause to believe that these persons have been engaged
  " in the preparation or instigation of such acts of violence "
  as I have described, I find it difficult to understand moral indignation at the requirement that they should be registered. There certainly cannot be any factual basis for that indignation, because actually no registration order is now in operation and only 29 have ever been made.
  Mr. Weitzman: If in fact the person has committed a crime of some kind, why should not the ordinary rules of criminal law apply to him; why should it be necessary to go beyond that?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have dealt with that point. I think that when we have a succession, and if we are threatened with a succession, of the kind of crimes—I am sorry to repeat my own definition, but that is the kind one has in mind—which involve the deliberate infliction of fortuitous injury on innocent and irrelevant people—if that is a danger to the community, I think it is one of the few things which makes worthy of consideration whether we do not require stronger machinery than the ordinary law. That was certainly the position which was accepted on both sides of the House in 1939, and it was the position to which the hon. and learned Gentleman acceded from 1945 until this year because, as far as I know, this is the first time he has raised any objection to the continuance of this Act.
  Mr. McKay Mr. McKay rose—
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry, but was interrupted in the middle of explaining the way in which the Act operated. May I finish that, and then I shall be glad to give way. The third power is the prohibition orders prohibiting from entering or being in Great Britain a person in respect of whom the Secretary of State is satisfied that he desires to enter for these purposes.
  Those are the powers. I think the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Beattie),
  1208
  gave the impression to the House that people were in prison under this Act. They cannot be imprisoned under this Act, and no one has been imprisoned under this Act. I want to make that quite clear.
  Mr. Beattie: May I put that point again? They were interned, if that is the proper term—Irishmen were interned by the Home Secretary of that time.
  Mr. McKay: The primary factor in the whole of the Act is that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that, say, an Englishman has been helping to instigate this violent action, he can be registered, photographed and measured and put under police supervision. I suggest that if the Home Secretary suspects a man like that it would be better to have him thoroughly tried and the whole thing investigated properly before the penalties are put on him.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: There are two points; the first is the one raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, West, who asks, were they not interned under this Act? They were not; there is no power to intern under the Act, as there is no power to imprison. I want to make that clear because, as I thought, the hon. Member was under a misapprehension as to the scope of the Act with which we are dealing.
  The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) simply comes back to the same point with which I have tried to deal. I do not want to repeat myself again. I feel it is a question of moral choice for us all. I feel the extensive use of this type of crime, the perpetrator of which is willing that its victims should be innocent and irrelevant, justifies the consideration of going beyond the ordinary powers to deal with it.
  5.30 p.m.
  That is a matter on which we have to form our opinions according to our conscience. I have no doubt about my opinions. I do not think that I can help the Committee more than by putting it in that way. I think that the opinion which I have expressed is one which the majority of people hold, but everyone is entitled to his view. I am simply putting the view which I think is commensurate and necessary for the national safety.
  I was about to deal with the use that has been made of the Act. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentle-

  1209
  man gave that fully. It is rather interesting. One hundred and ninety expulsion orders were made, most of them in the period shortly after the Act was brought into force, and of these 69 are no longer in force. As I said, 29 registration orders were made, and none of them are in force. Seventy-one prohibition orders were made, and seven of those are no longer in force, 64 being in force. So there have been a considerable number of revocations of expulsion orders. A number of prohibition orders were made when the I.R.A. people were released.
  I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean, and I do not wish, to deal with a particular case. I do not think that it arose under this Act and I will not go back on it. I do not think we need pursue it. The difficulty I am in at the moment is that I am perfectly prepared, as I said yesterday, in a different context, to consider a problem of this kind, but I am not the sort of person to say that I am prepared to consider it merely as a way of stifling discussion. It is much fairer that I should put the difficulties that I see so that hon. Members may appreciate what is in my mind.
  During the last year there have been outrages in Ireland which make it clear that the use of violence as a means to political ends still appeals to what I am sure is a small minority. The hon. Member for Edge Hill raised the question of a state of tension between this country and the Irish Republic. I agree so strongly with the hon. Gentleman that that does not come into the picture. We are not dealing with inter-Governmental difficulties; we are dealing with the existence of a small minority who think that this action is justified for political ends.
  The fact that a bomb has been exploded near the British Embassy in Dublin, that bombs were thrown at police stations in Belfast, that military material was taken from barracks in Northern Ireland—machine guns, automatic weapons, rifles and ammunition for the proclaimed purpose of putting them in the hands of those who were ready to attack British lives, does give one furiously to think. The fact that there has been a bomb outrage in the immediate past obviously gives anyone who has the responsibility which I have as to the continuance of this Act something which he must consider.
  1210
  May I appeal to the hon. Member for Belfast, West and to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) that when they go and talk to their friends they urge the difficulty which this kind of action of extremists causes, and that they use whatever influence they have to prevent this extreme action and give us a chance of improving the approach.
  I know that we have many matters of difference which will come out in debate but I hope that hon. Gentlemen will believe that I have been sincere. I have so often said that; the right hon. Gentleman and I have taken part in a considerable number of debates in which the burden of our song has been to try to forget old difficulties. I say no more than this: let us try to eradicate the possibility of the return of this kind of crime and let us all do our best to help in that connection.
  Mr. Beattie: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me to make an appeal. I am prepared to accept his invitation, provided he carries out a request of mine that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and those associated with him as the Government of Great Britain repeal the Government of Ireland Act and take a plebiscite of the people.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I can accept no condition of that kind in response of an appeal of mine to prevent what I regard as cowardly and fortuitous voilence of this sort.
  Mr. Bing: If I might just reply to the points which have been raised by the Home Secretary—
  Mr. Norman Smith: On a point of order. Are we to understand from the exordium of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) that this Debate is now ended?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Further to that point of order. I thought, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to intervene in my speech.
  Mr. Bing: In that case, may I just intervene to say that I do not wish to intervene in the Home Secretary's speech, nor do I wish to cut out any hon. Member who wishes to speak, and I apologise if I appeared to do so?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have given way to everyone who has wished to raise a

  1211
  point, so perhaps the Committee will bear with me if I just say one or two words more.
  I have explained the position and I have explained my difficulties. I have asked hon. Gentlemen to co-operate in getting rid of those difficulties. I would add that just as all action hitherto has been taken so as to make the functioning of the Act less heavy whenever that has been possible, so the need for the Act itself will be considered from year to year, and as soon as we are satisfied—I speak of course for the Government—that it is no longer necessary it will be allowed to lapse. But I felt it was only right and sincere to put the difficulty I see, and to invite such help as I can get to remove it.
  Mr. Hugh Delargy: I wish to deal with one point which the Home Secretary has made and with one which I thought he was going to make and did not. He said that the circumstances this year are no different from those of last year, and he went on to make the logical point that if we did not press for the abolition of this Act last year, why do we press for it this year. Surely one circumstance has changed—the circumstance of time. We are all one year older than we were last year. These Regulations are a year older, and as the years go on they become less necessary. Therefore the argument in favour of the abolition is obviously much greater now than it was last year.
  My hon. Friends on this side of the Committee who have spoken have made the point that it is undesirable, and a cause of friction, that the Irish alone should be singled out for this kind of treatment. Outrages are occurring against us in many other parts of the world, but I do not hear of expulsion orders against Egyptians, for example. Why do we single out the Irish?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: With regard to the first point raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), is a good point pro tanto but it is not conclusive, when we have had outrages, such as have been mentioned, during the last year. That is why I have made an appeal to everyone to do his best to help in getting it removed. The hon. Member knows that we have had these experiences. As I said— I hope as unprovocatively as I could—we have the reasons which I have frankly stated for the con-
  1212
  tinuance of it. It is because of the story which I have mentioned, and the unfortunate fact that that story has been brought up to date in relation to this matter, that this statute remains. I think the answer is, let us try to have a period which will give the ground for doing without it, without going back as we so easily can into the old troubles.
  Mr. Norman Smith: No hon. Member of this Committee would doubt the sincerity of the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked us to believe that he is sincere, but there is no need for him to ask that. He is held in high regard by all hon. Members. I think that the trouble is not the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman. I have listened carefully to his speech and he still persists in the memory of what happened in 1939—what he described in wonderful English as the "infliction of fortuitous injury on innocent and irrelevant people."
  I agree that that was a very dreadful thing and it is impossible to speak in terms too condemnatory of the sort of thing that happened in 1939. But cannot we forget that? I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—and if I did not esteem him highly I would not make to him the political present which I am going to make—that something has happened since last year which will enable him to tip the balance on the side of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). There was an intervention from the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) who threw across the Committee the taunt that, after all, for six years the Labour Government had continued this particular Measure in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is true that we did, but I think there was very good reason, having regard to the political complexion of Northern Ireland —the Unionist and, I regret to say, the Conservative sentiment there.
  If my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), when he was Home Secretary, had decided to leave this Measure out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, it would have been open to a degree of suspicion and misrepresentation throughout the Six Counties which might well have had a very serious effect. But there has been a change since then, and if the Home Secretary wishes to know what that change is, it is that

  1213
  we have now a Conservative Government. The Conservative Party have a very heavy responsibility—[Interruption]—and nobody knows that better than the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Major Markham)—in this matter of Ireland. I have a different point of view from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch.
  I am a staunch Unionist, because I think that when Southern Ireland claims the right to remain neutral in England's wars, England would be foolish to part with the Border. Having said that, I would say that I am also a man of liberal views—with a small "1." I feel that if the Home Secretary would do the magnaminous thing—he is big enough to take the responsibility of a thing like this, and no one in the House will let him down if afterwards it is found there has been a mistake—and agree to my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment and leave the Measure out of the Bill, there would not be in Northern Ireland the suspicion and misrepresentation arising in this connection that there would have been if such an action had been taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields when he was Home Secretary in a Labour Government.
  I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he could do this, and there is every reason why he should. After all, if a thing of this kind were done, good will would be created throughout the whole of the 32 counties, and I hope he will do it. He is welcome to any political kudos which might arise from doing this thing. What we want is the liberal and decent thing to be done. I put it to him that there is, even now, time for him to reconsider the matter; to depart from his previous attitude and to accept the Amendment in the spirit in which it has been moved.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I had not intended to take any part in this debate and I do so only because of the possibility of misunderstanding following what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), with every word of which I am in complete agreement, although I did not make an interjection.
  There is one point of substance in this matter—and I do not use it to embarrass the Government. I quite realise that this matter is one for consideration. I think
  1214
  all my hon. Friends realise that it may be necessary to continue some of the limited powers in respect of orders already made if they cannot be continued by any other means.
  This was a Measure introduced at a time when there was a good deal of justifiable apprehension and fear and possibly some measure of hysteria. I do not use that word in any contemptuous sense. It was a very grave position. People were naturally very worried and it was necessary to do something. But on the most specific undertaking by the then Home Secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare, this was a Measure to deal with that emergency only and was for the duration of that emergency. It is impossible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say now that the theft of some guns from a barracks in Northern Ireland a few months ago is anything to do with the emergency of 1939 or the Irish Republican Army as then constituted, or the outrages then committed.
  My right hon. Friend has referred to what has happened in the last year or two. It is important that we should get that in the right perspective. Those were gross, wicked and grave crimes and I accept every word that the right hon. Gentleman has said about them. They were unprovoked and caused great hardship and suffering to people wholly unconcerned in any political matters; they were reckless, violent and indefensible. The only thing which may be said in favour of them is that, from a pathological and psychological point of view, the people who committed those brutal crimes undoubtedly did it from what they considered ideological grounds, however unacceptable it is that people can do such things from an ideological point of view.
  Therefore, when we were in power from 1945 to 1951 some hon. Members on this side of the Committee urged my right hon. Friend that the time had come when those few prisoners who still remained in custody as a result of these offences might well have a remission of the remainder of their sentences. My right hon. Friend behaved with the greatest magnanimity. I think that he a little over-stated the pledges given or the promises made, or even the expectations we envisaged about settling the whole Irish question. I should have thought that the Irish question was so complicated that none of us would have prophesied that it was capable of

  1215
  settlement by an act of great magnanimity like this.
  Mr. Ede: We did not make the prophecies. It was the people connected with the Irish Government who came over and made the prophecies. I never make a prophecy even about what my hon. Friend is likely to say next.
  Mr. Hale: I did not suggest that my right hon. Friend had joined the astrological section of the Sunday Press. I said that he had given a résumé of the sort of promises made by people who negotiated with him then, of whom I was one.
  Certainly, what we said was that this would make a genuine contribution to Irish understanding. I believe that it did. I sincerely believe that the magnanimity of my right hon. Friend in this matter was emulated by the British people in that these releases were accepted without any responsible protest and were accepted in the spirit in which they were given. It was a remarkable tribute to the British people that there were no sustained protests from any responsible quarter, in spite of the fact that there were many relatives still surviving who had been injured by these crimes
  I have no doubt whatever that throughout the 26 counties there were many people who viewed all this with a sense of relief and felt, "Well, here is another bitter chapter that is closed." I say with real sincerity that, whatever may have happened about Dominion status and about the Crown, I believe that there is a better understanding between the people of the 26 counties and the people of this country now than there has been at any time during the wretched history of the last 150 years and the wretched history of all these Acts of repression that have existed over this period.
  I regret very much the step taken by the Irish Government of that day. It was a step which I think was taken without any adequate consultation with the Irish people, and a step that is still regretted by a very large section of the people of Southern Ireland.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary has presented his case with complete fairness and I am sure he has won still more the respect of the Committee by the way in which he has handled this Amendment. None of us
  1216
  wishes to embarrass him by pressing him at this moment. I am sure that I am speaking for all my colleagues when I say that. Of course, we realise that the matter needs consideration, but I hope that he will realise, too, that the very wording of the first Section of this Act is really an affront to the Irish people.
  This phrase is directed to the Irish people and we are renewing it in this Parliament year by year—for dealing with possible outrages committed by people to influence political views on Irish affairs. The terms of the Act are something like that. I think that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee will agree that if we can get that off the Statute Book the position will be so much the better.
  I think that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee will agree that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "There are certain of these criminals whom I have had to exclude and whom I intend to continue, by some means, to exclude", he should be given the power to do that; but I suggest that he does not need power to do any more than that. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember—and I say this with great respect—that the President of the Board of Trade himself made a most generous contribution to the debate in 1939. He supported a Liberal Amendment designed to limit in some way the powers and to give the right of appeal.
  It is greatly to his credit that he did that on the very day when a bomb explosion had occurred at one of the main line stations in London. On that very day there were Liberal, Labour and Conservative Members who were still willing to say that, because we cherish our liberties, we must not pass an Act in terms which contravene our own conception of liberty. So today I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, realising that he has had no time for consideration and that this matter needs a lot of thought and discussion, that really this Act ought to go as soon as possible and that some more limited powers should be substituted for it, if he comes to the conclusion that he needs those limited powers.
  While the Home Secretary was speaking, I went to the Library for a few seconds to fetch out what I hoped I could find, and what I could not completely find —a document which I know is familiar

  1217
  to him. One of the greatest lawyers who ever adorned this House and one of the greatest Irishmen who graduated from the profession to which I belong—indeed, most of the really successful barristers start as solicitors—was Sir Charles Russell, who became Lord Russell of Killowen. He made a speech which has become of historic significance and in which, in almost every word, he managed to show that there was an English point of view and an Irish point of view and that the hopes of all the people were that these views should ultimately be reconciled.
  I could not find in the Library the speech of Sir Charles Russell, but from his autobiography I take his concluding words which I would say, with real sincerity—because I feel very deeply about this matter—outline the task that we have got to set ourselves. We must not be diverted from it merely because there are occasionally some blithering idiots on either side of the Channel. The Irish Government are no more responsible for the occasional outrages than we are. We are negotiating with the representatives of an important people with a great history. Lord Russell said:
  " It will set earnest minds…thinking for themselves upon this question. It will soften ancient prejudices. It will hasten the day of true union and of real reconciliation between the people of Ireland and the people of Great Britain and with the advent of that union and reconciliation will be dispelled for ever the cloud…that has long rested on the history of a noble race and dimmed the glory of a mighty Empire."
  Mr. Bing Mr. Bing rose—
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: On a point of order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken before, and I have not yet spoken.
  Mr. Bing: We are in Committee.
  Mr. Baxter: May I ask that I should be called to speak before the hon. and learned Gentleman?
  Mr. Bing: If I may yield to the hon. Gentleman, there is nobody I would prefer more to yield to.
  Mr. Baxter: In response to that courtesy, I shall speak very briefly. It may surprise the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), to learn that I took some small part in helping to secure the release of the Irish prisoners. At the time many arguments were advanced that it was a very dangerous
  1218
  step to take. I took the opposite view and I have never regretted what I did.
  Today the Home Secretary has a chance to do something which will bring credit to himself and to the House of Commons. I prefer to think of this as a House of Commons matter rather than a question for one side or the other. There is so much cruelty and repression in the world. Every day comes news of some further loss of personal liberty. Here is a chance for us to say to the outside world that here is a repressive Measure, justifiably repressive at the time, which we now withdraw.
  The danger is that that would provoke some more violence such as we saw before, but the experience of mankind shows that while we have to use strong measures during an emergency, in the end public opinion itself is the strongest deterrent against crime. It seems, too, that with the passing of the years there is a chance to say that we are coming to the end of the unhappy story of Ireland.
  I have a very close friendship with the Home Secretary and a very high regard for him. Indeed, we have been most fortunate in our last two Home Secretaries, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and the present holder of the office. I should like to think that his name would be associated with this wise action. I am perfectly certain that my right hon. and learned Friend may have some information at his disposal which the rest of us do not possess—that sort of warning or information which makes it difficult to come to a decision.
  6.0 p.m.
  That is all I have to say to the Committee. I do not believe that the supporters of the Government should be merely automatic Members of the House and stand for approval of whatever is done. In the end, the House of Commons makes demands on the Executive, and, as this is a non-party matter, I therefore hope my right hon. and learned Friend will not think that this is an attempt to embarrass him, but rather one to strengthen his arm, so far as I can. I think this is a moment when he could almost take the first important action in the high office which he holds, and as a result of which his name would be blessed among English-speaking people, regardless of what lilt or accent they speak.
  Mr. Bing: Before I ask the Committee —if we cannot reach agreement on this matter— to agree that the Amendment be withdrawn, I again express the hope that the Home Secretary will again consider, not only the words I have spoken but those which have been spoken, far more effectively in Irish form and eloquence by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Beattie).
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look again at the arguments put forward for the retention of this Act, he would see that it was suggested by my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench that if we let the prisoners out of prison it would lead to the end of our difficulties. I took some small part in these negotiations, but I have never been a party to any such promise, and, if I may say so with all respect to my right hon. Friend, I think he was extremely naïve if he thought that such a thing was possible.
  The release of prisoners and the repeal of this Act are not going to end, in one day's work, a history of hundreds of years of differences and misunderstandings. But what we can do is create public opinion, and I think that this is one of the Measures which can be dealt with in this way. Times do alter circumstances.
  Nothing could have been more wrong or improper than that a body of people should drill and arm and try to overthrow by armed force the decisions of Parliament. Nothing could be more wrong than that, and yet, let us suppose that we had made a law against such actions. Should we then have continued it for 12 years? If we had done so, the whole of the Conservative Front Bench in 1925 would have been excluded from Parliament, because these were the people who were drilling in Northern Ireland. Therefore, to say that, because one thing happened 12 years ago, we should go on in that way is entirely wrong, and is an unstable point of view.
  Secondly, the Home Secretary, before giving matters to the Committee as facts, ought to check his information. He said that there was a bomb outrage recently in Belfast. [HON. MEMBERS: "In Dublin."] And in Belfast. What is the truth? Somebody put out a story that there had been a bomb outrage, and this story, after having been used for its propaganda value, was officially denied later. That is the sort of thing that really ought not to be said, and there has been a
  1220
  great habit of saying this sort of thing in regard to Irish affairs when, I am glad to say, similar irresponsibility is not shown in other matters.
  The Home Secretary made an appeal to me and to some of my hon. Friends on this side to use our influence for moderation. I hope I have always done that, and I hope he will do so equally, because in the election campaign which has just ended the name of the King was used in order to solicit votes for the other side in a way which was grossly offensive to the majority of the religious people in a particular area. A certain gentleman, speaking from a platform, ended his speech in support of a Conservative candidate with the words "God save the King, and to hell with the Pope." It is that sort of statement which, just as much as anything else, arouses ill feeling and stirs people to desperate deeds.
  If there is to be an appeal for moderation, let the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least make his appeal to his own side and to some of his hon. Friends. In so far as I have any influence, I shall use it in that direction. I do not believe that by throwing bombs at people you make them change their opinions, any more than I believe that by dropping bombs on people you change their opinions. I take that view very strongly, and anything I can do to discourage terrorism in any form I will do. Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman turn to his own side and appeal to his own supporters to avoid that type of provocative remark which is the sort of thing that leads men into desperate endeavours.
  Finally, let the right hon. and learned Gentleman try this one test. I know that he has read the debate that took place when this Measure was introduced. Let him look through that debate for a single argument advanced for continuing this Measure, and let him think that, if that were the only argument before the House at the time the Bill was introduced, whether that Bill would ever have been carried. The danger we are in is that a Measure which has been carried for some particular reason is often retained for other reasons of convenience which have nothing whatever to do with the original reasons for passing the Bill, and that is a very bad principle indeed.
  Mr. Frank Bowles: Hear. hear.
  Mr. Bing: My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), says "Hear, hear," and I should like to remind the House that he was born in Egypt. Supposing that we had a similar sort of Measure applying; how easy it would be just to exclude my hon. Friend on that sort of ground. We have only to look at that sort of example to see how foolish and stupid such general legislation would be.
  Such is the long history of disturbances between this country and Ireland that we cannot look at things with reference to the Irish with a proper sense of proportion. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields deplored the fact that the Irish Republic had left the Commonwealth. So do I, but it so happens that they were parties to the Statute of Westminster, which gave them the opportunity of making that decision. I think they made a bad decision. Surely we ought not to introduce into the argument the question whether some independent member of the Commonwealth has behaved wisely or foolishly. Let us judge the matter on its merits. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is able to accept the Amendment—
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I cannot accept the Amendment. I shall give grave consideration to all that has been said today, and I should like to say that in my view this debate has maintained a very high level. It is a debate which any Home Secretary should take into consideration, and I can assure the Committee that the present Home Secretary will certainly take it into consideration.
  Mr. Bing: In these circumstances, and in view of what the Home Secretary has said—and may I thank him, on behalf of those who put their names down to the Amendment, for having promised to look into the matter?—/ shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Alan McKibbin: May I say, in regard to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing), concerning a statement made in the recent West Belfast election. that the man who made that statement is a young member of the Ulster Government who has not been long in politics. After making the statement which was quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Ulster Unionist Party dissociated themselves from it, as did Ulster Mem-
  1222
  bers of the Imperial Parliament here. The man who made the statement himself apologised for it yesterday. I think that it is just as well that hon. Members should know that.
  Mr. Bing: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Marlowe: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 18 to 21.
  If these lines were incorporated in the Bill, it would literally have the effect of deleting from the Bill the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. I should like at the outset to make it quite plain that, when I am moving the exclusion of these lines from the Schedule, I am not wishing that Act to be excluded. I am most anxious, of course, that in some form the Act should be continued, but this is the only opportunity we have of suggesting improvements which we think ought to be made in it.
  The principle which I think is accepted by all hon. Members is that so long as there is a shortage of housing accommodation, some form of tribunal of this kind is necessary. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not endeavour to marshal arguments against me over the necessity of maintaining these tribunals, because I accept that fact at once. I want to make it perfectly clear that my object is to take such opportunities as are open to us of expressing our views on particular Measures.
  I certainly would not wish to see the 1946 Act, particularly as extended by the 1949 Act, removed from the Statute Book unless and until some amending legislation were put in its place. I find it necessary to make that point perfectly clear because, although I moved an exactly similar Amendment last year and on that occasion said at the outset much the same as I am saying today—that I approved of the principle and wanted some better legislation to cover the point—that did not prevent the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), from endeavouring to persuade the Committee that I was, in fact, merely asking for the repeal of the Act and wanted a vacuum in its place. That was not the case. I have no desire for a repeal of this legislation, but I think we ought to take this opportunity of considering how it can be improved.

  1223
  The particular point to which I want to address myself is on the question of an appeal to the courts of law. As I have said, I moved a similar Amendment last year when my party were in opposition, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise that although we have changed sides, I do not feel I can cease to hold the views I then held. I feel that, although I sit behind the Government on this occasion, I am bound to put forward a matter of principle about which I feel strongly, and I desire to do nothing more than to suggest the particular improvement which I think can be made in this legislation—the provision for an appeal to the courts.
  There are other improvements with which I dealt last year, and I do not think it necessary to go over the ground again. One of the matters much canvassed then was whether these tribunals should have a legal member. There was and has been a very considerable argument for that. As time goes on, however, the case for that argument becomes weaker, because the members of the tribunals become more experienced in this particular field, and it may be that the case for a legal member is not as strong now as when the tribunals were first set up. They now have their particular form of procedure which makes it not so necessary for a legal member to be appointed. But that is a matter which at some time or another should be taken into account.
  6.15 p.m.
  The matter of an appeal to the courts is, I believe, of first-class importance as involving a question of principle. Nowadays there are in this country a great number of tribunals, and under our modern legislation there is bound to be a number which are not courts of law in the ordinary sense. I think it very desirable that the courts of law should have jurisdiction over these tribunals. That is a matter of principle to which my party has committed itself. In our party manifesto during the Election it was stated that many of the tribunals were haphazard. It went on to say:
  " The practice of these tribunals must be brought into line with the best principles of justice…Justice must be publicly administered, and reasoned decisions given. Appeals on matters of law must go to the courts."
  That I believe to be a very important principle, and one which we in the House should take every step to secure.
  1224
  The strongest argument, of course, is that such an appeal has the effect of standardising the law. As this legislation stands at the moment, there are no criteria set out in the Acts of Parliament, neither in the 1946 Act nor the 1949 Act which gives extended powers to the tribunals, and no standards set up by which the tribunals are to be guided. They are completely free to come to any decision which may be utterly irrational. An appeal to a court of law, of course, has the effect of canalising the law so that the higher court is able to give guidance to the lower courts by which they then all become bound. That is the desirable effect of standardising the criteria which have to be accepted by the different courts.
  At the moment, one decision based on one principle may be given by one tribunal, and in an adjoining area a completely contrary decision may be given by another tribunal. This could not happen if there were an appeal to the court and the court were able to set a standard by which all the tribunals should be guided.
  Mr. Barnett Janner: I am particularly interested in the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman is making, but will he give some indication as to the court to which he suggests there should be an appeal, because that may make a difference to the reply?
  Mr. Marlowe: That is more a matter of machinery; I am dealing with the principle. Probably the best court to which to make an appeal would be the county court or the High Court, but I do not think that is so important as the principle. The important thing is to have an appeal which has the effect which I have already advocated and which gives, I think, the litigant greater confidence in the tribunals themselves.
  It is very undesirable that people should have disputes settled by tribunals which have not the backing of courts of law. As I said, quite obviously we cannot get away from the situation owing to the complicated questions which arise today, and we cannot get away from the fact that we have to have disputes settled by tribunals of one kind or another. But, ultimately, the citizen ought to have the right of resort to the court. That is really all I am asking in this matter. The fact that a man may have to go to a

  1225
  tribunal in the first instance does not matter if he is sure that ultimately he can take his case to the courts.
  There is not the faintest doubt that the present arrangement sometimes results in injustice, or, which is just as bad, in leaving the litigant under a sense of injustice. I shall not weary the Committee again with the case to which I referred last year except to summarise it. It was a case which got to the courts on jurisdiction. That is the only way cases can get to the courts. If a tribunal has acted without having jurisdiction to do so, then the courts can intervene. But there is no appeal to the courts even on a question of law. About one of the cases which did get to the courts on the question of jurisdiction, the Lord Chief Justice said:
  "This case was, in fact, conducted in the tribunal by a standard of justice which would not be tolerated by a court of law."
  It is deplorable that we have a situation in which decisions are being made that affect the rights of parties under a system which the Lord Chief Justice of England has himself described as one which ought not to be tolerated in a court of law. The remedy for that is, of course, to give the right of appeal to the court in the way I suggest.
  As I say, I do not want to take up the time of the Committee in canvassing all the arguments on this matter which I put forward last year. I still feel the same about it, nor would I be justified in taking any other action than I have taken this year merely because my party has changed its position in the House. I finish by repeating what I said at the start, that I am sure there is no difference between us over the necessity for some kind of tribunal. I think we all want to find the best tribunal, and I feel that if some such method as I have suggested is adopted that can be done.
  Mr. Janner: May I say at once that I appreciate the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe); and I suppose anyone who has been connected in any way with legal procedure would have some kind of regard for that point. I purposely asked the hon. and learned Gentleman what court he suggested should hear the appeal, because there is a reason why today I might possibly be able to favour some kind of appeal which I was not in
  1226
  a position to do when this matter was raised before.
  My reason for that is that the Socialist Government gave the opportunity to the man whose means were not sufficient to enable him to carry on his own appeal. They gave him that opportunity by introducing an Act which enabled him to obtain assistance. But unfortunately that assistance does not extend to the county court. Therefore, if the question were one of sending a decision to a county court for appeal, the same point to which I have referred in previous speeches in this Chamber would apply with equal force today.
  Mr. Marlowe: Legal aid did extend to the county court, but the hon. Member's right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) refused to exercise the powers he possessed.
  Mr. Janner: That is just a debating point. The hon. and learned Member for Hove knows very well it does not apply at the present time to the county court. Consequently, if a person sought the relief to which he referred it would be essential for him to spend a considerable amount of money to have the appeal heard and these courts would have brought before them constantly cases in which the landlord would be the appellant, the tenant not being in a position to take the case to appeal at all.
  If, on the other hand, the hon. and learned Member for Hove suggested there might be some consideration of taking the appeal to the High Court another difficulty arises as he knows; because it is a rather heavy machinery and it might be a question of using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. But for my part, under certain circumstances, I might be prepared to support a view of that description.
  I am glad that the hon. and learned Member has raised this whole matter by way of his Amendment. It gives one an opportunity of saying something about the Act itself and of pointing out some of the difficulties which exist in consequence of the fact that the Act is not as good as it might be, though perhaps in a different direction from the one the hon. and learned Member has in mind. For example, only a few days ago a case was heard in the Divisional court, namely,

  1227
  the King versus Folkestone Rent Tribunal ex pante Sharkey. I am quite certain that the finding of the court in that case was not consistent with the point of view that was held by hon. Members of this House when the provision with regard to notice to quit not having been given before reference to the tribunal was brought into effect.
  My recollection is that it was intended by the 1949 Act, which extended the 1946 Act, to enable persons to refer their tenancies to the rent tribunals not only before the service of a notice to quit upon them by the landlords, but also after the notice had been given. I know, of course, that once an Act is passed one cannot refer to the intentions of hon. Members expressed in the course of a debate. But I am quite sure that if any of those here who were concerned with the debates in relation to these matters will search their memories, they will recollect that ultimately the result that was achieved was intended to enable a person to apply to the rent tribunals irrespective of whether notice to quit had been given beforehand or not. That is a difficulty which should be remedied, If it were possible to remedy it under this Bill I should be happy to put down an Amendment to that effect, but I know that that would not be in order.
  There is a further point. The rent tribunals find considerable difficulty in getting all the people who would want to bring their cases before them to do so. There are two reasons for this. First of all, in spite of the fact that a certain amount of publicity has been given to this Act and other Rent Restrictions Acts, the average man in the street is not aware of his rights and remedies under them. I am quite certain that other hon. Members of this Committee have had the same experience as I have had, of applications being made to them for help in relation to excessive rents and to threats of ejectment which we would have thought the whole community knew it was possible to have remedied by rent tribunals or by county courts.
  But that is not so; and I am somewhat surprised that local authorities throughout the country who have the right and duty to give full publicity to the provisions of the Acts do not in the main take advantage of that right and do not exer-
  1228
  cise that duty which I consider, and I am sure many other hon. Members of the Committee consider, rests upon them. I do not agree with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Hove regarding the personnel of the tribunals. It has been my experience that most of the tribunals—I think I would go so far as to say all the tribunals of which I have had any knowledge, and particularly the tribunal in my own constituency—have been extremely capable and have been quite competent to do what this Act requires them to do.
  The figures in respect of the cases which have been referred to the tribunals under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, reveal a state of affairs that would startle the country if people were to sit down to examine them. Let me give a few illustrations from the tribunal which deals with applications from my own constituency. The number of cases which have been referred to the tribunals by tenants is 485. As I have said before, the Chairman himself has told me he is certain that there would have been a much larger number of applications to them if people had known the law and what their rights were under these Acts.
  There have been 485 cases submitted by the lessees, 25 by the lessors and only one by the local authority. That is not altogether satisfactory. There was a total of 511. Of these 117 were withdrawn, 336 were decided and five were awaiting decision. There were 15 cases dismissed. 284 in which the rent was reduced and only 36 in which the rent was approved. I think that what is more important to note is the fact that 25 per cent. was the mean percentage reduction in the rentals after they had been submitted to these tribunals.
  6.30 p.m.
  The Act requires that a reasonable rent has to be decided in respect of each of the cases submitted, and it is a very serious matter that on the average throughout the proceedings of this tribunal the result has been a reduction of 25 per cent. This means that not only are there a large number of people charging higher rents than they should after taking all the circumstances into consideration, but that the overcharge was 25 per cent. in the Leicester district alone.

  1229
  There are even worse cases than this; for example, in Bradford and in St. Pancras the rentals were reduced by 40 per cent. The total number of cases which have come before tribunals in which the rent has been reduced were 31,595 and the mean percentage of reduction was 29 per cent. That indicates that to this day— I have given the figures up to September of this year—there is a need not only for continuing this Act and the 1949 Act, which of course extends some of the provisions of this Act, but that there is a very great need for publicity to be given to people in the country in relation to their rights on the one hand and, on the other hand, to the duties of local authorities, landlords and others under this Act.
  I hope that the Government will not accept a suggestion, which I admit has not been put in this form, for the removal of the Act itself, and that they will introduce an extension of this Measure which will remove the ambiguities and difficulties that exist, and in particular will grant the right which this Committee and previous Committees really intended should be included in the Acts, that when a notice has been given this should not prevent a tenant who has been and is being charged an unreasonable rent—there is no fear with regard to a person who is charged a reasonable rent; that is provided for in the Act itself—from taking his case to the courts, in consequence of the fact that he either overlooked or did not know that a notice to quit had not to be given before his case could be heard.
  I hope this Act will be retained, and I also hope that the threat that there will be Amendments to this and other Rent Acts, in which the Government are going to permit higher rentals to be charged, will fall in the same way as other threats which were contained in the numerous pledges made by the Conservative Party in the course of the Election.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I think the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) has done a service to the Committee by raising this question, and, if I may say so, I am the more, grateful to him by reason of the fact that, although I have not listened to all his speeches, this is the first speech of his that I have heard in which he did not
  1230
  find it necessary to be personally offensive to anybody.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not be seduced by this suggestion that an appeal from a rent tribunal to a legal tribunal should be instituted. There is nobody who believes more strongly than I do that where any question of the liberty of the subject is involved, there must be a proper appellate jurisdiction to preserve and defend that liberty. But to attempt to impose a legal tribunal in an appellate function over an arbitration tribunal operating informally has, I think, always been a failure. There used to be appeals to legal tribunals under the Arbitration Acts. This was found quite unsatisfactory, and appeals to legal tribunals where there has been arbitration are now, almost without exception—there are a few exceptions—eliminated.
  The reasons are these. If we are to have an appellate jurisdiction, then in the original jurisdiction we must give the trial a form. This involves a number of considerations. On the one hand, the claimant will have to put his claim into some form of writing, and the defence will have to he drawn up. It will be necessary to draw an issue. Then there will have to be some form of reporting in order to put the decision into a form in which it can be passed on to somebody to examine. Unless professional people are engaged, that involves a complete mess in practice. My profession sounds easy, but, in fact, years of experience are required to get issues into that straight form in which they can be passed to another tribunal.
  If we are to have the sort of informal round-the-table investigation which we have now, in which a fair rent is arrived at by a commonsense man who is not a lawyer, it works perfectly satisfactorily in practice; but immediately one tries to have an appellate jurisdiction overlooking it, all sorts of muddles are created thereby.
  My next point is that this Act requires strengthening. The shortage of furnished accommodation, instead of having become less, as was contemplated when this Measure was originally introduced, has become progressively more severe. I know it is the experience of my constituents—as I think it is in every other constituency—that there is an appalling difficulty in finding furnished accommo-

  1231
  dation, particularly when there are children. I know that in Northampton for quite long periods there have been men with their families in what used to be called the workhouse—it is called something different now—earning over £10 a week, simply because of the impossibility of getting any furnished accommodation at all.
  That being the situation, it will be clear to hon. Members what an opportunity there is for exploitation. We can understand anybody's fear of going to the rent tribunal, because they will lose a room which at least is better than nothing, however exorbitant the charge for it may be. The three months' security of tenure which the rent tribunal can give is wholly inadequate in these circumstances.
  For instance, only the week before last a lady came to see me with exactly this kind of problem. She had two babies, twins, under eight months old. She had one room for herself and her husband and those children. That room was two floors away from running water, and she was charged 45s. a week for it. The only advice I could give her was this: "If you lose this accommodation, I have not the faintest idea where you can find any other. I know the appalling difficulties involved, but in the circumstances I cannot advise you to take the risk of going to the rent tribunal." I believe that is the sort of advice which many of us have to give to people.
  I would therefore stress two points. First, I ask the Minister to send a circular to local authorities to bring to their attention the fact that they are entitled to initiate proceedings under this Act. I believe that is a power of local authorities which has been almost entirely neglected. It ought to be drawn to their attention and they ought to be told that in these circumstances, where tenants, because of the extreme shortage of accommodation, fear to initiate these proceedings, then it is the duty of local authorities to initiate them.
  The local authorities ought to look round their areas to see the situation. It will be very easy for them to do that, because the people who are paying those exorbitant rents are almost invariably applicants for houses and the rents which they are being charged are circumstances
  1232
  which are recorded in their application. The local authorities are, therefore, in a perfectly good position to see where exorbitant charges are being made for furnished accommodation. I suggest that they should be urged to take the initiative in this matter.
  I would certainly make this point with regard to requiring security of tenure. When my right hon. Friend originally introduced this Measure in 1946, he said, referring to the three months security of tenure, that if the local authority had any reason to think that because somebody had initiated these proceedings, vindictive action might be taken against them and they might be compelled to quit at the end of three months, then the local authority had power to requisition and ought to requisition. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether any local authority have ever requisitioned in those circumstances.
  I know of no instance in which it has occurred, and yet the then Minister of Health made that point very strongly indeed—that if people were wrongly evicted after the three months as a form of revenge for having initiated the proceedings, then the requisitioning procedure ought to take place. I suggest that where a local authority consider it necessary to initiate proceedings under this Act and the tribunal agree with them and substantially reduce the rent, then the local authority should requisition in order to see that there is good management. It has become clear in such a case that there is a case of exploitation and the local authority ought to step in.
  Perhaps I part a little from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) when I say that I feel the time has come when the recommendations of the Ridley Committee, on which we have been promised legislation for so long, ought to be considered. There is at least a case for registering all restricted rents and for consolidating all this muddled legislation, and this could be done at a moment when the Government apparently are not pressed for legislative time.
  Mr. Janner: I do not want my hon. and learned Friend to run away with the idea that I do not think there should be a consolidation of the Rent Acts. On the contrary, I think this should be done and that there is a large number of points which

  1233
  must be considered in remedying defects in their provisions, but I certainly do not agree with any further increase in rentals being permitted.
  Mr. Paget: Probably an increase in rental would be recognised by everybody as being intensely inflationary at the moment and something which we could not face. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education looks surprised. An increase in rentals would, of course, mean an increase in the cost of living which would mean higher wages, and we should immediately have an inflationary situation. We could not possibly face that, and I think both sides of the Committee are agreed upon it.
  There is, however, a very serious repair situation. I suggest—and this is a matter which I have put on previous occasions—that all rent restricted property ought to be managed by the local authority, because at present the only interest in management of this property is to get it empty so that it can be sold with vacant possession, which is the only profitable use a landlord can make of it at present. I will not expand this argument at the moment. My hon. Friend knows it very well; I have put it on former occasions. Making the local authority responsible is the only way we can get repairs properly organised by someone with a repairs department. All those aspects must be borne in mind when legislation dealing with the matter is considered. I hope it will be considered.
  6.45 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): We have had a most remarkable debate, if I may say so, in that I am following three lawyers who have shown a very astonishing degree of unanimity. It was very pleasant indeed to hear the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe). He followed the point made by my hon. and learned Friend inasmuch as he considered there should be some sort of revision of the present Acts.
  I gathered from the three hon. Gentlemen who took part in this debate that the Act can be divided into two parts, the first part being the principle—which is security of tenure and the fixing of
  1234
  a fair rent—and the second part being the machinery for implementing the principle. I gather the Committee were agreed upon the principle but disagreed that the method of applying it was the best possible.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove made three points. First, he said there should be a right of appeal to a legal tribunal, a legal court. Secondly, he said there should be a legal person on the tribunal.
  Mr. Marlowe: I do not press that.
  Mr. Marples: Generally speaking, although it is not mandatory but is permissive, a legal person is on the tribunal. Normally, legal gentlemen seem to have a habit of being able to get on to the tribunal. The third point made by my hon. and learned Friend was that there are no standards by which the tribunal can be guided. I think that there is merit in all these points raised by my hon. and learned Friend, but the Amendment which he has proposed would bring about a very serious state of affairs if it were agreed to. I realise that my hon. and learned Friend does not want the repeal of the Act. He has moved the Amendment as his only method in Parliament of bringing about a discussion of these points.
  If the Act were repealed, or allowed to fall into disuse, there would be a rapid rise in furnished rent. Of that there is no doubt. There would be a serious number of evictions, I think, because security of tenure would go. On those grounds alone one would have either to substitute a more effective Act or keep this Act on the Statute Book. There is another point which has arisen recently. Any Service man who has volunteered to go to Korea would lose the protection of this Act if it were removed from the Statute Book. Therefore, it would be folly to allow it to lapse unless some substitute were found to take its place. The Minister must resist the Amendment, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw it.
  However, I should like to deal with one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West. He expressed dissatisfaction at a recent ruling of the courts. I cannot comment on that because, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, I have not the details of it with me, and possibly it would be

  1235
  improper to comment; but that merely reinforces my hon. and learned Friend's point that there should be a review of this Act at an early date.
  Mr. Janner: I should understand the hon. Gentleman's reply if it were not for the fact that this question was raised by another hon. Member, as to what action the Minister would take, and the answer was:
  "Nene."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 26.j
  So I hope that he will have a talk with the Minister, and perhaps persuade him to have some legislation.
  Mr. Marples: I am glad the hon. Gentleman is pressing for legislation on this point. The point that he has made will be borne in mind, because the Minister intends in due course to review this Act after taking into account points put forward by hon. Gentlemen. It will take time because he has not been long in his present position and will require time to review this question of rent.
  Another point the hon. Gentleman made was that tribunals had difficulty in getting people to apply to them for reductions in rent, and he thought that the local authorities were slack. Well, the local authorities must have shown some initiative because the Act originally provided that a tribunal should be set up after representations, and consultations with the local authority. It is now in force in every local authority area in England and Wales, so that there cannot have been the enervating inertia to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However the point made by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) will be considered along with other points. The point was that local authorities should have a circular drawing their attention to the possibility of their making an appeal to the rent tribunal; and their initiating cases to be heard. That point will be considered.
  Another point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton was that the Act required strengthening because people with children had great difficulty in securing accommodation. I certainly agree with him that people with children have the utmost difficulty in obtaining accommodation, either furnished or unfurnished, today. That point will
  1236
  be taken into consideration by the Minister.
  This Act is obviously not perfect. I think that every Act, after having been in operation a short time, must reveal a certain number of flaws. If any other hon. Gentleman has points he would like to make either in this debate or subsequently, I should be grateful if he would make them reasonably early in order that they may be taken into consideration. I am hoping that my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw his Amendment. He has moved it with the tenacity and clarity that he always displays, and as we are going to take his points into consideration, I hope that he will withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Marlowe: I am grateful for the reply given by my hon. Friend. If I can do so in words not capable of giving offence to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I will say that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment read the Third time, and passed.

  BORDER RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.57 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill has the merit of being both short and non-controversial, I shall therefore have to make only a very short speech upon it and not have to go into the intricacies of pollution, because the long Title to the Bill does not include matters of pollution which therefore cannot be discussed. I would invite the attention of the House to the long Title, which says:
  " A Bill to make provision for the constitution of, and other matters relating to, joint committees of river boards and river purification boards on ether side of the border in connection with the functions of those boards relating to the prevention of river pollution."

  1237
  That limits the scope of the Bill to those river areas immediately on either side of the Border, and they are the Tweed and the Esk. The authorities which will be responsible for the rivers in England will be the Cumberland and the Northumberland River Boards. In Scotland there will he two river boards that, as yet, have not been formed.
  The purpose of the Bill is to tidy up some of the previous legislation that has been passed since the war. There have been three Acts. The first was the River Boards Act, 1948, which empowered joint boards to be set up in England and Wales with the function of controlling whole river systems or groups of river systems. The second Act was the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, which gave stronger powers to those boards in order to enable them to cope with the pollution problem. Again, that Act applied only to England and Wales. The third Act was the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, which was passed in the last Parliament, and whose object was to set up boards which could grapple with the pollution of rivers in Scotland.
  This legislation was based on the principle that one body and one body alone, should be responsible for a complete river system or a group of river systems from the source to the sea. There was the problem of divided control. The weakness of the Acts passed by the previous Government was that they did not provide for the rivers starting in Scotland and finishing in England. The reason may well have been that it was a Welsh Minister who was responsible for the legislation. The snag is that the rivers of the Esk and the Tweed are partly in England and partly in Scotland, but the laws of England and Scotland are entirely different, as is the court procedure. The problem, therefore, was how to make the English Board responsible for the enforcement of law in Scotland.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman says that the weakness of the Bill was that it did not provide for control on both sides of the border. What actually happened was that one of the Bills actually repealed the only Act that could provide for control on both sides of the border, and that was the English Bill.
  Mr. Marples: The main point is that there is now no machinery for the effec-
  1238
  tive administration of the removal of pollution of the rivers from Scotland to England. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that rivers which come into England after having been polluted in Scotland ought to be governed by some adequate machinery to enable us to deal with it. One way which did occur to the authorities was to alter the borders of the country. That was rejected, because in this time of crisis it was felt to be highly undesirable that the border feud should commence again, so my hon. Friends from across the border can rest assured that the interests of their nation will be well looked after.
  Therefore, rivers that rise in Scotland and flow into England can have no efficient administration under the law, owing to the sharp division between the laws of the two countries which now exists, unless an opportunity is given for considering the problem. This Bill gives that opportunity. The English and Scottish Boards have power under this Bill to constitute a joint committee which can consider the prevention of pollution, and can make recommendations. There may be an objection from some hon. Members that it can only make recommendations but cannot act. Apparently in 1898 they tried having a committee which could act, and the Rivers Pollution (Border Councils) Act—the one which my hon. Friend pointed out was repealed —was passed, and although there were full powers to enforce the River Pollution (Prevention) Act of 1876, they never formed the committee to operate. Therefore, it was tried in the past but did not work at all.
  On this occasion, especially when the Scottish law is so different, whereas in those days it was the same, and when the court procedure is different, whereas then it was the same, and when the costs of the administration of the committee with executive powers would then have been less, it has been decided to propose a joint committee which can fill the gap by making recommendations. The English and Scottish Boards can set up joint committees which can watch and discuss matters and then make recommendations to the two boards.
  The boards themselves have adequate powers under the three Acts which were passed by the previous Government—the River Boards Act, 1948, and the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951,

  1239
  which applies to England and Wales, and the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act which applies to Scotland. I believe that the Act of 1898 was a failure. Of course, there were many important events in 1898; it was the first occasion upon which the Leader of the Opposition appeared in public as a war correspondent—[HON MEMBERS: "The Prime Minister."] It is yet strange to find ourselves on this side of the House, although very gratifying, and it may confuse for a period of time.
  Having explained the Bill to the best of my ability, within the very narrow terms of reference and the very small scope which is allowed by the long title, I hope that the House will give it a unanimous Second Reading and its blessing.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: There is one question I should like to ask before the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat. Suppose an offence is committed in England and the damage occurs in Scotland where that would not be an offence. Since the law is different, under which law will the matter be decided, and in which courts will action be taken in connection with it?
  Mr. Marples: I think it would have to go upstream, and if that were the case, although the hon. and learned Gentleman has performed some remarkable anatomical acrobatic tricks at times, even he cannot make pollution from England go upstream to Scotland. Therefore, I should call the question a hypothetical one.
  Mr. Mitchison: Does that mean there are no rivers which flow from England into Scotland, or no rivers which flow from Scotland into England? Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that tributaries are part of the river?
  Mr. Marples: Rivers flow from Scotland to England, but not from England to Scotland, and the question he asked concerns a river flowing from England into Scotland. In any case, it would be for the joint committee set up by the two boards to consider what action should be taken in the light of all the circumstances.
  Mr. Mitchison: We are talking about pollution, and I think the hon. Gentleman has still not understood the ques-
  1240
  tion. Tributaries are part of the river, and what I am asking him is what happens when the pollution occurs in one country and the damage in another, where the pollution would have been perfectly legal in the country in which the damage occurs.
  Mr. Marples: Each board has its powers in its own country, and any legal action to be taken must necessarily come from the board of that country. The joint committee which will be set up by the two boards would make its recommendations to either the Scottish board or the English board in order that legal enforcement could be possible.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: This is one of the occasions upon which we can get that unity which is so often sought after. If His Majesty's Government will in future do what they have done in this instance, and that is to adopt what we left behind and would like to have done, given the opportunity, then we can be sure of unity as other Measures come forward. It is only fair to say that we should have brought forward this Bill had we had the opportunity of doing so, and we therefore give it our full support.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: It is, of course, quite true to say, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has just said, that this is a Bill which the party opposite would have brought forward had they been in power, and they are the true parents of the Bill. But as I see it, they are parents of the Bill owing to a curious flaw in the procedure that we followed in dealing with the Bill in the last Parliament.
  What happened was that the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Bill was introduced for England, and provided for the repeal of the Rivers Pollution Prevention (Border Councils) Act of 1898. During its passage, and when it was well on its way, the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Bill was introduced, and it was referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for Second Reading on the ground that it dealt entirely with Scottish matters. It was therefore impossible to amend that Bill in any manner which would affect England, so that it was impossible to put into that Bill the provisions that are now

  1241
  being made. That is why it is a hangover from the last legislation. No time was left in the last Parliament to enable this short Bill to go through.
  That is the history of it, and it does show the very great difficulty one is in because of this practice of referring Bills to the Scottish Committee for a Second Reading. It means, in effect, that the corresponding English Bill has to be extremely carefully scrutinised by the Scottish Department, to make quite certain that it covers all possible emergencies that may affect Scotland, because once the thing is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee we cannot there deal with anything affecting England. That is the first lesson of this Bill.
  The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the difference between this Bill and the 1898 Act. The point is that the 1898 Act required an application from the local authority concerned to the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State for Scotland, who would then together make a provisional Order. As we know, no application was in fact made, presumably because the way of dealing with pollution in those days was not in the opinion of those concerned, sufficiently complicated to warrant the setting up of a council.
  As my hon. Friend has said, this Bill does propose that bodies responsible for dealing with river pollution on each side of the border should form a joint committee for consultation and recommendation. That is, of course, an entirely different procedure, and they will have no powers; but I think it does provide the answer to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), because the answer, surely, is that if a case arises where pollution occurs on one side of the border and affects the river on the other side of the border, then the joint committee can get together and alter their byelaws accordingly. The only point on which I should like to be reassured by my hon. Friend is this: There is so far as I can see, no provision in the Bill empowering him to ensure that such a joint committee is in fact set up. I should like to know how he proposes to ensure that that will be done.
  The big difficulty that I see in this Bill is that, so far as the river Esk in England is concerned, it falls entirely under the control of the Cumberland River Board,
  1242
  set up under the River Boards Act of 1948; but, so far as the river Esk in Scotland is concerned, it falls under two different administrations. So far as pollution is concerned, it falls under the Scottish River Purification Board, which, as my hon. Friend said, is not yet created, and, so far as the fishing is concerned, under the English board, which is the Cumberland River Board.
  There has been a considerable amount of legislation recently as a result of which on the Esk alone, of all the rivers in Scotland, charges for rod licences can now be made—and that by an English board on which at the time when the proposed schedule of charges was prepared there was no Scottish representative. That omission has since been amended; but it was a grave lack of tact I consider, to say the least of it, to impose this sort of taxation without representation on those who fish the Scottish waters of the Esk. Surely in the changed circumstances, just as responsibility for pollution is divided and co-ordination effected by a joint committee, so too responsibility of the Esk, so far as fisheries are concerned, could be divided and a joint committee or council set up for co-ordination of fisheries.
  What I should like the Government to do—I suppose that I am entirely a lone voice in this matter—is to withdraw this Bill altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, that is my suggestion. I should like to see the Bill withdrawn and a new Bill introduced which would not only provide for joint consultation and recommendation in regard to pollution, but would also amend the appropriate sections of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923. Section 37 (2) of the River Boards Act of 1948 and Section 21 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Protection (Scotland) Act, 1951—and put the Scottish waters of the Esk and its tributaries under Scottish law and control.
  It may be said that it has been under English law for a matter of 80 years, but that is not an argument in view of the fact that circumstances have changed and the law has also recently been changed substantially. What I should like the Government to do is to bring the law up to date and allow the rivers on both sides to be dealt with by their respective countries, and then have a joint committee, such as this Bill proposes, to deal both with fisheries and pollution.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: Perhaps I should say that we do not join with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) in asking that the Bill be withdrawn for the purpose he has suggested. We consider that this will be a very useful little Bill. The main purpose of the two Acts to which reference was made by the Parliamentary Secretary was to clean up and purify our rivers for reasons of health, amenity, food supplies, increasing fish stocks and, strange as it may seem, industrial well-being, which has often been prejudiced by there being too much filth in some of our rivers, as a result of which industries have not been able to draw the clean water needed.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries apparently somewhat regretted that there was a provision for the repeal of the 1898 Act in the English Act, passed through this House in the last Parliament, and that there was not provision for the joint control of the border rivers. He knows, however, that it was our intention in the second of two Acts to go on the Statute Book, which was the Scottish one, to make provision similar to that set out in this Bill. That would have been done had it been possible to do it, and had there not been some technical objections to it being done on the Report stage, after the Bill had left the Scottish Grand Committee. As I understand it, we ought not to introduce into the consideration of this little Bill the wider questions which the right hon. Gentleman has raised.
  What we had in mind was this. We have a river purification board on the Scottish side of the border—and, incidentally, we have spent a lot of time today discussing borders and the difficulty arising out of them—and a river board on the English side of the border. Each, in their byelaws, lay clown standards of purity which have to be adhered to, and anyone who does not adhere to them will be guilty of an offence. There are those rivers which the Parliamentary Secretary referred to which cross the border. We have taken great trouble to ensure that all other rivers will be controlled by one authority from the source to the sea. It seems to us to be common sense that we should endeavour, as far as possible, to make similar provision for these rivers that cross the border.
  If we do not have this provision for a joint committee, albeit an advisory com-
  1244
  mittee, we might well find a different standard would be fixed by the river board on one side and the river purification board on the other. Then we should have circumstances arising, such as were postulated by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) which I think will never arise if effect is given to this Bill. I think that these boards would want to have the sort of consultation that is here provided. I am sure that they would have done, if we had not had this Bill.
  The point is that this little Bill provides for the setting up of machinery recognised by Statute, and empowers the authorities concerned to meet the expenses of the Committee so constituted; and there is provision, as there is in the parent Acts, for persons other than members of the authorities being on the Committee. That seems a right and proper thing which would not have been possible without this Bill.
  We on this side of the House welcome this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary apologised in the course of his remarks for describing the Prime Minister as Leader of the Opposition. It is a bit strange for some of us to be on this side of the House. It is said we are going to be here a long time. So long as the Government bring forward Measures such as this, which was left behind by their predecessors, of course they will be, but as soon as they begin to bring forward the traditional Tory Party legislation so their tenure of office will become shorter. We congratulate the hon. Member on bringing this Measure forward, and no doubt he will find a few more plans about his Ministry which he can present to the House. In those circumstances, he can be sure of that national unity for which the Prime Minister has often asked.
  7.20 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): The Bill has been fully explained to the House by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). I am quite sure that the House will have every sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), and we can congratulate him on being able to introduce rod fishing for salmon into a purification Measure. He asked for one assurance, and that is that these joint committees would, in fact, be set

  1245
  up. I think that he may leave that to local interests. I cannot understand why these boards should not set up these committees, but I think he will find that that will be covered by local feeling and local sentiment. It only remains for me to ask the House to give us the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

  BORDER RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the consultation of, and other matters relating to, joint committees of river boards and river purification boards on either side of the border in connection with the functions of those boards relating to the prevention of river pollution, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under Part I or Part If of the Local Government Act, 1948, being an increase attributable to the payment by river hoards and river purification boards of the expenses of committees and subcommittees under the Act of the present Session (including the expenses of paying allowances to members of those committees or sub-committees under Part VI of the Local Government Act, 1948, as applied by the Act of the present Session).—[Mr. Marples.]
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  PURCHASE TAX (DRUGS AND MEDICINES)
  7.25 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move,
  That the Purchase Tax (No. 5) Order, 1951 (S. I., 1951, No. 1357), dated 27th July, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st August, 1951, in the last Parliament, be approved.
  In asking the House to approve this Order, I hope I am carrying a stage further that co-operation on Measures of this kind which has received the endorsement
  1246
  of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). This Order, as hon. Members will be aware, was laid before the House on 27th July, when the hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was Financial Secretary —in fact, it bears the signature of two hon. Members opposite, that of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) and that of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle).
  I do not imagine that the House will desire any very lengthy explanation of this Order. Its general effect is to increase by a total of 16 substances the number of drugs which are exempt from Purchase Tax. Most of them have complicated technical designations which I hope I shall not be pressed to pronounce. Perhaps the only one of them known to the layman is a drug called terramycin, which is one of the new developments in the cure of pneumonia and other diseases of that kind.
  I should explain why it is necessary to use the Affirmative Resolution procedure at all, for Purchase Tax Orders require the Affirmative Procedure only where there is an increase of tax or extention of liability. The main object of this Order is, in fact, to increase the number of exemptions; but we are advised that the redefinition of three particular substances, which has been effected in order to secure greater clarity, might technically be construed as imposing tax. Therefore, for the sake of safety it was considered that we ought to bring them in under an Affirmative Resolution. It is in those circumstances, and bearing in mind that the main purpose is to exempt 16 new drugs or combination of drugs from Purchase Tax, that I am moving this Motion.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: In thanking the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the explanation of the Order for which I accept joint responsibility, I should like, as this is the first time I have encountered the hon. Member across the Table, to congratulate him on his appointment to his present arduous office. In the last Parliament we always respected his pertinacity as often as we disagreed with his arguments.
  I am grateful for his explanation, which agrees with my understanding of this Order. The Explanatory Note is, I think,

  1247
  unusually intelligible in this case. As we do not intend to indulge in fractious opposition in this Parliament, I will not ask the Financial Secretary to explain the Schedule in words of one or two syllables. I do not think that even Sir Ernest Gowers could do that. When I looked at page 3 and noticed yellow bone marrow concentrate, I wondered if that was one of those skeletons which the Leader of the House found hanging in Whitehall the other night and scared the life out of him. If that is so, if he looks up the page he will see Russell's viper venom, which is prepared for use as a haemostatic, which he might consider as an antidote. I recommend that idea to him.
  This Order was, of course, laid before the House just before the Summer Recess. I remember the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury rebuking me last April because we laid a Purchase Order before the House just in advance of the April Recess, thereby depriving Parliament for two weeks of the opportunity to criticise it. I do not imagine that he will repeat that rebuke tonight, because, of course, his party, in one of those sudden conversions for which it has become famous in the last fortnight, now are believers in the longest possible Parliamentary Recess and the least possible Parliamentary interference with the Government.
  What this Order does, of course, is slightly to extend the list of Purchase Tax free medicine which get their exemption on the advice of qualified medical experts. That is done by arrangement reached in the Finance Act, 1948, and it was a bipartisan arrangement, as the Americans say, because it was reached in agreement with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), who is a great expert on these matters. I think it has worked fairly well. I imagine it is extending the exemptions, and I hope that the "Daily Express" will not be claiming credit for this small measure of increased freedom from Purchase Tax. The dates would be rather against them, if they did. This Order was made on 27th July. I think it was not until 2nd October that the "Daily Express" discovered the Purchase Tax, and revealed all its inequalities to an astonished world. Nevertheless, we can welcome this small further exemption. I advise my hon. Friends to support it.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  COTTON BOARD (AMENDMENT ORDER)
  7.31 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move,
  That the Draft Cotton Industry Development Council (Amendment) Order, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.
  Before I embark upon the very few remarks that I think it will be necessary to make on this Order, I should like to declare to the House that I own some stock in one cotton company in my own right, and I believe I hold as a trustee some stock in another company which may come within this Order.
  The present Cotton Board, officially known as "The Cotton Board, 1948," was set up by the Cotton Industry Development Council Order, 1948, which is dated 25th March, 1948. It received the approval of this House on 15th March, 1948. There had long been, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are aware, particularly those who sit for Lancashire, a central co-ordinating body in the industry, first the non-statutory Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations, dating from 1925; later, the Cotton Board set up under the Cotton Industry Act, 1940; and, most recently, the present Cotton Board set up under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947.
  Section 8 (3) of that Act provides that not later than three years from the coming into force of a Development Council Order the Board of Trade shall consult both the Development Council and the representative bodies of employers and employed on the question whether the Council shall continue, and if so, whether the Order setting up the Council shall be modified or amended. Last December, accordingly, the Board of Trade consulted the various bodies concerned, the trade unions and the employers' associations. I am happy to tell the House that, on the first question put to them, whether the Board should continue, there was unanimity that it should. On the question of amendment, many of the organisations thought that some alteration was desirable.
  The Order now before the House is the, result of the recommendations which were made and of the negotiations which

  1249
  followed. I will not say to the House that every organisation consulted has had all its recommendations adopted, but that every organisation that made recommendations has had an opportunity of commenting on the Order in its present form. Every one of them desires that the Order for which I now seek approval shall be made by this House.
  I think that the best way I can help the House is by drawing attention simply to the principal changes that this Order makes. The first change is in the basis of the levy. Under the existing Order, apart from the small registration fee, the burden of the levy falls entirely on the spinners. As long as statutory price control fell on the spinners and weavers, as it did until the spring of 1949, the levy was an element in the fixed margin allowed to spinners, and was passed on, in due course, through the chain of production and distribution. Now a different method of collecting the levy becomes necessary, if all sections of the industry are to contribute and the spinners are not to be left to bear the charge alone.
  The provisions in the draft Order now before the House are based on the detailed proposals made, and have been reached by negotiation between the various sections of the industry and the Cotton Board. It will be seen that the draft Order sets out how the charge is to be distributed among the different sections and the basis of calculation of what is due from each member in each section. That is the first of the changes which this amending Order makes.
  The second change of importance is that the total maximum amount of the levy is increased from £250,000 per annum to £300,000 per annum. This increase, which is asked for by the Board and is agreed by the industry, arises, not unnaturally, from increased costs and the needs of research. The Board, as the House knows, has given valuable support to the Cotton Industry Research Association, known generally as "The Shirley Institute," and the Empire Cotton Growing Association, and the Board will be able, when this Order has been approved, to continue to make those contributions without any interruption at all. I should have said, what I think is already known, that the figures which I have given are maximum figures and that the actual amount of the levy must be
  1250
  approved in each case by the Board of Trade.
  The third change to which I would invite the attention of the House is the provision whereby a pension can be paid to the Chairman of the Cotton Board. This Order authorises the payment to the Chairman of the Cotton Board of such pension as the Board of Trade may determine. The request for this provision came from both the Board and the industry generally, who wished to mark their sense of Sir Raymond Streat's outstanding service to the industry. I would only add that the provision involves no charge of any kind on public funds.
  Those are the only changes with which I need trouble the House. I would merely conclude by saying what the House already knows, that this great industry is facing severe competition, and now that re-armament is making increasing demands on the engineering industries the immense contribution to our exports and to national well-being that this great industry can make is more important than ever. In the view of both those within the industry and those outside, the Cotton Board has an important part to play. All sections of the industry desire the Order to be made. I confidently commend it to the House.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. H. Rhodes: I should like first to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary upon his appointment. I am sure that he will have a very busy and happy life at the Board of Trade.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman began by referring to the Joint Council of Cotton Trade Organisations set up in 1925 and then he went on to say that the cotton trade, in all sections, had not taken long to make up its mind about the Order before the House. I would merely comment that it was a pity that the Joint Council of Cotton Trade Organisations in 1925 did not make up its mind a little earlier so that a Cotton Board could have been introduced in Lancashire long before it was.
  I am sure that all hon. Members, and not only those from Lancashire, welcome the Order. The Opposition would have had difficulty in doing anything else, because the Order, as it stands, was almost ready for presentation before the Dissolu-

  1251
  tion. However, I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward so quickly. because that has allayed the anxiety of interested parties in the trade who were afraid that the change of Government might mean delay.
  The Cotton Board is a tried, trusted and responsible example of a development council. It has behind it the accumulated wisdom of 11 years of experience. I am sure that if that great Lancastrian, Mr. Oliver Stanley, had been here tonight, it would have given him immense satisfaction to see the developments since his early efforts to establish a Cotton Board under the Cotton Industry (Reorganisation) Act, 1939. That Act expressed the desperation of the cotton industry and the desperation of the Government at that time, because between 1918 and 1940, 800 cotton mills in Lancashire were shut down, 21 million spindles were broken up, 360,000 looms were abandoned and 345,000 operatives lost their jobs. In the words of Oliver Stanley, it needed someone who knew Lancashire to realise what that meant in human values.
  Lancashire, in 1913, exported 7,000 million square yards of cotton cloth, paid wages of between £50 and £150, in gold, a year to adults, and sold its products to poor people with an income of only £6 a year. It was a terrific achievement, but it did not last. The poor people acquired Western machinery and produced Western goods on Eastern wages. India was given powers to impose her own tariffs; she did so, and she built up her cotton industry behind those tariff walls. Japan, seeking food for her increasing population, had to export to get it; her cotton manufactures did the trick. Tariff barriers in the United States of America assisted in the debacle. The cotton industry and the Government then realised that they had to work together to recover the former position, and even to hold what they had, of the industry.
  The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the 1948 Order was introduced under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act. The Cotton Board itself really stemmed from the Cotton Board of the Cotton Industry Act, 1940, so there have been 11 difficult years of experience during which the Cotton Board, ably led, has coped splendidly. It gave leadership
  1252
  to a distracted industry. It gave central services of all sorts to the industry. It made a channel of communication between the Government and the industry both ways. It set up colour, style and design centres and recruitment and training schemes, provided statistical services, assisted the Shirley Institute, began studies into the scientific deployment of manpower and machinery, and did good work on behalf of the Government in the preparatory stages of the re-equipment scheme.
  The cotton trade has done well in the post-war years. Only the other day the leader of the cotton industry, in the person of Sir Raymond Streat, estimated that £60 million has been spent on modernisation in the post-war years. That is a large sum of money. The industry has a more constructive and positive outlook than it has had at any time since the turn of the century. It has a better outlook and a better attitude towards new machines, colour, design and pattern, the application of science to the job, new wage systems, deployment of labour, and improved management.
  I say categorically that the cotton trade could not, and would not, have been in its present healthy situation if it had not been for the Cotton Board and its wise collaboration with the organising power of the State. It still has a big job to do. but I know that the industry is well aware of the problems that it has to face. They were mentioned at the Cotton Board Conference last month. One of them is—I have held the opinion for the last six years—that the optimum size of the industry to sustain an adequate export trade will have to be determined some time in the months and years to come. The leader of the industry thinks it is too small, and I agree with him. There is an idea, which I would express to the new Parliamentary Secretary and which lies behind the minds of some people engaged in the industry, that safety lies in concentrating on the home market; and that is part and parcel of the problem of the size of the industry.
  The next problem to be faced is the speed at which modernisation is taking place. This affects both employers and workers alike. Another factor is the need for convincing certain elements in the

  1253
  trade that unless improved technical efficiency is reflected in lower prices, we shall lose the competitive struggle which lies ahead. With those few remarks on the general aspect, may I turn to the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of the changes which have been brought about by this new Order.
  First, there is change of method of levy on the industry. Under the war-time Board of 1940, the levy was on raw cotton. In 1948 the levy was made on the number of spindles working in the industry, the charges being on spinners as the buyers of raw cotton. Now a more equitable formula has been worked out, so that all sections of the trade contribute. I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will not pose any questions of a technical nature with regard to "flyer" spindles or "Chapon" spindles. I think the proposals are as good as can be devised. It was inequitable that the spinners should bear it all. Now I hope everybody will appreciate that they have a stake in the levy.
  The second change is the increase in the maximum amount from £250,000 to £300,000. In my opinion it is well justified. Costs of all kinds have gone up and the services which the cotton board supply are costing more. Claims for assistance by organised bodies which depend on the Cotton Board for financial assistance are higher. May I instance one case, the organisation which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation. This body has done invaluable work for the improvement in cotton production throughout the Empire. I can speak about it from personal experience. I have seen it at work at Shambat and Wad Medani in the Sudan. I have seen the Namulonge Research station near Kampala and I know of the work in Tanganyika, in Nyasaland, Nigeria and the West Indies. It has done a tremendous job, and it has been particularly useful in these last few years when Lancashire has had to seek its supplies elsewhere than in America. I hope there will be no let-up whatever in its work.
  I suppose that the money which the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation received in years gone by was really the cause of the first levy ever made on the cotton industry. It was a voluntary levy from 1921 to 1923. It was statutory from 1923 until 1940. Then the levy was
  1254
  merged in the levy for the Cotton Board. The rate was 2s. for the Cotton Board and 1 d. for the Corporation. In 1948 the Cotton Industry Act was replaced by the Development Council Order and this provided the levying on a spindleage basis which really put the levy going to the Empire Growing Corporation out of joint. So the Cotton Board provided the Corporation with a grant of £18,000 a year for the three years, 1948–51.
  As I see it, one of the reasons for the increase in the amount that will be raised yearly is that this particular association have this year asked for an increase up to £32,000. As I have said, it was previously £18,000. I hope that when this Order is through and the Cotton Board is able to get down to the study of these things, it will consider sympathetically the claims of this first-class organisation.
  The third matter is the provision of pensions, and this is entirely justified. This provision was long overdue. It is unfair to expect a man to give the best years of his life on successive short-term contracts without making some provision for his retirement or death. On behalf of all hon. Members on this side of the House—and I am sure for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) will do so later—I wish to pay a tribute to the work which has been done by Sir Raymond Streat as the Chairman of the Cotton Board. He has led it through very difficult times. He is regarded not only in the cotton industry in Lancashire, but in other industries throughout this country and in other parts of the world, as a great leader in industry.
  Before I conclude, I wish to tender my personal thanks to the Cotton Board for all the assistance, courtesy and cooperation extended to me while I was at the Board of Trade. I would thank them, too, for one particular thing that happened this year, which was the friendship and hospitality they extended to my friends from the Sudan, who were cotton growers, when they visited Lancashire during the summer. The Government can be sure they will always find hon. Members on this side of the House ready to support wise collaboration with this great industry, and I have pleasure in wishing the Cotton Board for the next five years God-speed.
  7.59 p.m.
  Mr. Dryden Brook: I and my colleagues welcome this Order, because we have always looked upon it as being the collective responsibility of industry to look after its own development and provide for its research. But I find it in very strange contrast to the ideas which have been put forward by hon. Members opposite, both during the Election and during the life of the last Parliament. It is in strange contrast to the edict of the present Prime Minister to "Set the people free."
  It is also in strange contrast to and a great departure from the old individualistic notion that the individual member firms of an industry should provide for their own research and development. It is in strange contrast with the idea that competition of itself would inevitably and invariably make an industry efficient throughout all its component parts and would give us not merely the maximum efficiency but the maximum of development towards a perfect industry.
  This Order is a complete refutation of all those ideas on which the philosophy of the Government side of the House is based, and always has been based. I noticed in the "Manchester Guardian" last week a speech by the man who is, I believe, the present President of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. He held forth the idea that, in future, when the Liverpool Cotton market had been abolished, we should concentrate for the supply of American staples on cotton from the United States of America.
  It seems to me that in doing that he was forgetting two considerations which are inherent in this Order. The first is that, in relation to the United States, the one overriding factor is, and must be for many years, the amount of dollars that we and the rest of the world have to spend on the different kinds of imports that we must take from there. The second factor is that we have pledged ourselves on both sides of the House to Empire development. If we are to concentrate, as was the advice given by this man, on all our supplies of American staple coming from the United States, what will happen to the implementation of the Agreement arrived at at Ceylon? What will happen to all our Colonial Development propositions, to which we are fully pledged?
  1256
  The idea must be that if we are to use our resources for the development of our Colonies by the use of their land, cotton is one of the factors which must be of great importance. We must use research of this kind in order to be able to develop the kinds of cotton which are necessary to the Lancashire industry. I do not think that we on this side, or any other hon. Members on the back benches, need make long speeches on this subject.
  We are completely behind development of this character. I, as a representative of a constituency which nominally is woollen but which has some cotton trade in it, remember sitting in this House in the last Parliament when we discussed a similar Order in respect to my own industry. I remember the eulogistic terms in which a back bench Member referred to the industry which I know very well. That made me wonder whether he was referring to the right industry. It brought to my mind the story of a manufacturer in the woollen industry who died. A business man friend who attended the funeral and heard the eulogistic terms in which the man was referred to by the minister asked me when we were coming away whether the references had been to the man who had been buried.
  These eulogistic phrases have not been used about the cotton industry today. It is obvious from this Order that the cotton industry, just like the woollen industry, has not provided for its own research as it might have done. It is because the Government of the day are enforcing on the cotton industry that collective responsibility which ought to be on every industry that I welcome this Order.
  Mr. Richard Fort: On a point of order. Do you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, intend to allow us to speak widely on the cotton textile industry?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I think that a good deal more latitude than this Order allows has already been permitted. The Order is a narrow one, and the speeches should be directed to the limits of the Order.
  Mr. Edward Shackleton: As you have already allowed a wide measure of latitude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, surely you will continue to allow it the rest of us?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I agree that there has been a rather wide measure of latitude, but the order itself is strictly limited. While I cannot deny the wide latitude that has been permitted, I hope that the comments of hon. Members will be directed mainly to the terms of the Order.
  Sir Hartley Shawcross: Further to that point of order. I am sure that you will appreciate that this Order, if agreed to, entitles the Cotton Board To levy a further sum of no less than £50,000. With respect, I would submit to you that that entitles us to consider not altogether narrowly the functions which the Cotton Board may have to exercise in connection with the cotton industry which will involve an expenditure, or which may require an expenditure, of this considerable additional sum.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is why I allowed as much latitude as I did, but I still hope that hon. Members will keep to the terms of the Order.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Shackleton: This debate has been developing more and more into a love feast. I am sorry that I should have to shatter the placid atmosphere when I fail to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his opening speech. I regard the fact that he and his hon. and right hon. Friends are in power as an unmitigated disaster.
  For what possible reason the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, should have chosen the Parliamentary Secretary whom we know to be a sincere and able man to deal with the Board of Trade is quite beyond my understanding. I have failed to hear him take part in any of our earlier debates. Whereas I can think of many suitable posts for him in the Government, I hope that he will make good use of his Recess by studying the industries of this country. I hope that he, will come to Lancashire to see for himself the working out of the Order he proposes.
  I am grateful, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the latitude you are allowing, but I want to address myself specifically to this Order. It is one which is of great importance, and it introduces some rather startling departures. I should have liked to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us in detail how the money which is to
  1258
  be derived is to be spent. He gave us a number of examples and purposes which are wholly admirable, but it is the duty of this House to keep a most careful check on expenditure which comes within its control. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this expenditure does come within the control of the House, since we are responsible for permitting this money to be raised.
  I should like to know in a good deal more detail how this money will in fact be used. I hope that certainly there will be a much greater concentration on Empire cotton growing development so that we shall not be so dependent on American cotton as we have been in the past during the period of the great neglect of Empire cotton growing, which was so notable a feature of the period of Tory administration that we have sought to rectify, because we are a party concerned and interested in the Commonwealth. I hope that the Conservative Party have learned this lesson, and that they will continue to practise it.
  There is one special point to which I wish to refer, and that is the pension for the chairman. Nobody doubts for one moment the value of the services which Sir Raymond Streat has contributed to Lancashire. But there are countless people throughout Lancashire, in Preston, Oldham and all the cotton towns, who, in the words of Bob Smillie, have devoted not just their money and their investments but their lives to this industry. We ought to examine this question of a pension rather closely. Is it intended that it will become a practice for all chairmen of public boards to receive a pension like this? Is this in accordance with what is to be the general procedure for the chairmen of nationalised bodies and so on?
  We are touching on a very serious principle which should be examined by the House. This is not something which we should do lightly. I would not for one moment deny the services which the present chairman has given to the cotton industry. I am sure the House will decide that it should be possible for the Board of Trade to permit the payment of such a pension, but I think that, especially in an industry which has been notable in the past for insecurity, unemployment and all the conditions which were so marked a feature of pre-war years, it does

  1259
  bring up once again the question whether, in fact, real security is being given to the workers. I think that many of them will look with amazement when they see that a pension is being paid to the Chairman of the Cotton Board, who has admittedly rendered great public service, and that no provision is made for the men and women who have given their lives to the industry. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government will look at this question again and will consider very carefully how the principle will work out.
  In general, I welcome this amending Order, which is a logical development. Personally, I felt that it would be possible to raise a levy from the whole of the cotton industry, and I am glad mat it has been decided upon. It is further development of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, which some of my hon. Friends and myself played some part in passing into law, and we well remember the fractious opposition we had while we were trying to do that. I am glad to see that the new Government are prepared to operate it.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Fort: I was sorry to hear one who so very nearly forfeited the honour of representing part of the City of Preston speak in the term-in which he did of my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: Watch yourself next time.
  Mr. Fort: I cannot imagine a speech more calculated to produce the situation which this Order sets out to prevent. If there is to be security for our textile workers in Lancashire—and I am sure that is what the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) as well as every other Lancashire hon. Member wishes—it will come in part from the successful working of the Cotton Board. which we all want to see. We want, therefore, to retain the services of the excellent people like Sir Arthur Streat and Mr. Reginald Gray, though he left a little while ago, and many others who have made the Board the success it has been.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: The cotton industry will not get on very well either, unless it retains the excellent ser-
  1260
  vices of the 200,000 or 300,000 people who do the work in it.
  Mr. Fort: I entirely agree; we want all these people.
  This Order has been delayed, firstly, because of the complexity of the negotiations which have to be carried on in order to obtain agreement in all parts of the industry, and then by the intervention of the General Election. We have been delayed to the point where there is a danger of losing good men who are uncertain about the future of the Board, and, secondly, and this is equally important and will probably be agreed on the other side of the House, organisations such as the Empire Cotton Research Association, and the Shirley Institute will be handicapped unless we pass this Order very expeditiously.
  I must take up one point made by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. D. Brook). May I remind him that the extreme expression of laissez faire to which he referred, was never a part of Conservative policy, although it was the very foundation of the economic thought of the Liberal Party, which now sits below the Gangway.
  Mr. D. Brook: Does the hon. Gentleman not remember the present Prime Minister using the expression "Set the people free."Does it mean what it says?
  Mr. Fort: I cannot imagine that the Cotton Board has ever enslaved anyone, and that would be my answer to that question. I would also remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that, evidently, from their point of view, the mess of centuries which they claim to have cleared up so magnificently in six years cannot be exemplified by the Cotton Board. The Act originally setting it up was passed into law by the National Government in 1939 and 1940. As the point of this debate is to approve the Order as expeditiously as we can. I leave this argument, with the comment that there was some coat-trailing for the benefit of their constituents in the speeches of hon. Members opposite.
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I think I am right in saying, as I look round at the empty benches opposite and at the not very much fuller benches on this side of the House, that I

  1261
  am the hon. Member present at this moment who has represented for the longest period in the House of Commons a constituency depending entirely on the cotton textile industry for its livelihood. Therefore, I hope I shall not be offending against the great expedition with which it is necessary to pass this Order by delaying the proceedings for five minutes in order to make a contribution of my own to the discussion which has been going on.
  I would remind the House that this Order does two important things. One is that it extends a levy which, under the old order, was payable only by the spinning section of the industry so as to be a levy upon the whole industry, and that is a very important thing. The other thing that is important is that one of the purposes for which the extra money thus raised is to be used is to provide a sum to pay a pension to the Chairman of the Cotton Board.
  Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I welcome the conversion to economic common sense of so many hon. Members on the other side, who seemed to have lost touch with sanity for so many years. They are now falling over one another in order to deny that they have any possible sympathy with or support for laissez faire. They deny entirely that they have anything to do with it. It was only one of the wicked things which the Liberal Party was in favour of and for which it is now paying so sad a penalty. Therefore, we are to understand that they are no longer in favour of abandoning controls in industry, because, if they did that, they would go back to laissez faire.
  Mr. Fort: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree that the original Cotton Board was brought into existence by a Government which was predominantly Conservative?
  Mr. Silverman: I will deal with every point made, so far as I can, in not more than 10 minutes, but at the moment I am dealing with the general position of back bench Members, with some notable liberal exceptions, like the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), falling over one another in order to deny that they have any sympathy whatever any more with the idea that industry ought to be left to conduct its own affairs.
  1262
  Throughout the General Election, that was not the line they were taking. Did they say: "Let us have more controls, let us have a little laissez faire. Let the State step in, and never mind the old Liberal doctrine. We, of the great Conservative Party, do not believe in it. We believe that controls will be necessary in order to get the best out of the economic resources of the country "? Did they really say that throughout the Election?
  I think I must have been wasting my time considerably in addressing meetings of my own. I ought to have been sitting as a humble disciple of the new Tory Socialism being preached by the Tories in the General Election which has just concluded. But I think nobody would be more surprised than the constituents of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) to have heard him today preaching the virtues of control, of levying money and of taking money out of people's pockets by compulsion in order to provide a central board which can control and advise the industry.
  Mr. Fort: In what respect does the Board control the industry?
  Mr. Silverman: I do not know. The hon. Gentleman must really make up his mind whether he wishes the control to be there, or whether he is in favour of laissez faire. He cannot have both. He must either be in favour of leaving the industry to conduct its own affairs, or he must be in favour of regulations to regulate and control its affairs. What hon. Gentlemen opposite have always wished to do is to make the best of all possible worlds, because they are not a political party at all, but only what Disraeli called them, an "organised hypocrisy."
  Something has been said about what Government it was that introduced this kind of levy, because we are dealing with the levy and extending a levy to cover the whole of the cotton industry for the purpose of paying pensions. I want to draw a contrast between what this Order does and what used to be done in the days when the Conservative Party had not discovered that it was against laissez faire and was in favour of levying money on the industry in order to pay pensions, because the very first Bill that I heard the House of Commons discussing when

  1263
  I came here as a new Member in 1935, and the very first Bill that I was on a Standing Committee to consider, was the Spindles Act of 1936. There was a great similarity in part between that Bill and this Order. That Bill, too, put a levy on the owners of all spindles in order to provide a common fund. Every owner of spindles throughout Lancashire was compelled to make a contribution to a common fund in proportion to the number of spindles he owned. He had to pay so much per spindle.
  But what do hon. Members think the purpose of that fund was? To develop the industry? To extend it? To improve it? To enable it to progress? No the fund was to be used for buying up and destroying redundant spindles. The purpose then of the levy was not the expansion and progress of the industry, but its contraction and its limitation. Some of my hon. Friends on that Committee—and I did my best to help—dealt with precisely the point, or some very similar point, that is being dealt with in this Order.
  We said that if some spindles became redundant or were alleged to be redundant and were going to be destroyed, it was not only the spindles that would be redundant but the spinners as well. We said that if there were going to be less spindles in the industry, then fewer spinners would be employed. Indeed, one of the greatest debates I ever heard in a Committee of this House was in that Committee on the question of compensation. We said that if owners of spindles could be levied in order to provide a fund with which to compensate them for destroying the spindles, then why not raise a little more money in order to provide pensions for those who would lose their livelihood on the strength of what was proposed.
  Mr. Fort: On a point of order. In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, shall we be allowed to discuss the Spindles Act of 1936?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has no right to discuss the 1936 Act. The compensation provision of this Order is the proper subject matter of debate.
  Mr. Silverman: I have the greatest sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. If I were in his position I should not like this,
  1264
  and I should try to stop it if I could, but I would not be so optimistic as to think I should succeed. There is a close relation between levying an industry in order to provide compensation for lost employment and levying an industry in order to provide money for pensions.
  Mr. Fort Mr. Fort rose—
  Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman must learn to take it.
  Mr. Fort: But the hon. Gentleman must learn to speak the whole story. This money is not being raised entirely for pensions, as he well knows, but, as several hon. Members have said, to meet the additional cost of research work and other expenses.
  Mr. Silverman: I did not say that it was being raised entirely for that purpose. I said that it was being raised, as has apparently been admitted, for pensions, and I have not said a single word against them. The hon. Gentleman says I should tell the whole story, but I cannot tell any of it unless he stops interrupting me every other minute. I have not said I am against raising a single penny of this in order to pay an adequate pension to people who have given their lives to the industry when they can no longer serve, and so far as this Order does that I welcome it. But I am saying what a great difference there is in the spirit in which that is now being done and the spirit in which the party which is now lauding itself on progressive ideas conducted the other Measure at a time when the workers in the cotton industry had no security, when nearly half of them were unemployed, and when nearly half the remainder were under-employed and suffering from concealed unemployment.
  On the principle of the pensions, I have no comment to make, and I did not understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. D. Brook) when he spoke a little time ago was opposing it on principle either. What he was saying was that if it is a good principle, then it ought to be applied all round and not merely to the Chairman of the Cotton Board. It is all very well to say that without the Cotton Board there would be no progress, no prosperity and no security in the industry. There will be no security in the industry, even with a

  1265
  cotton board and even with an excellent chairman and an excellent board and all the rest of it, unless something is done in the coming years to protect the trade from the unfair and increasing competition of the Japanese.
  The best of cotton boards and the best of chairmen will not be able to save the cotton workers from insecurity and unemployment if they are going to be faced with the same kind of competition and the same kind of repression and exploitation from the old employers as in the years when the cotton Spindles Act was passed. Should that time come—and nothing at the moment is being done to prevent it—when we pass this Order the Chairman of the Cotton Board will have no need to fear for his future. His future is being provided for whatever happens to the cotton trade, and I am saying not a single word against it.
  I am saying that while we are doing it we ought to be doing something at the same time to afford a similar security in days of unemployment, in days of contracting trade and in days when, by reason of age, service can no longer be rendered, not merely to the Chairman of the Cotton Board whose services nobody under-estimates, but to the industry as a whole and, in particular, to the quarter of a million people whose lives are invested in it.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: I did not intend to say anything in this discussion, but when I listened to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) I felt impelled to intervene. He succeeded in imparting into this discussion all the prejudice for which he has built a reputation in this House. He has not even given credit to the Conservative Government, who, before the war, put into operation the first Act which made the Cotton Board possible.
  Mr. Hale: The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) should not intervene in the middle of a debate and make comments to show he has not heard previous speeches. It has been referred to often enough in fantastically glowing terms, because it had no powers anyway
  Mr. Shepherd: I merely said that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne had not said so.
  Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose—
  Mr. Shepherd: I must be allowed to say something before there is a battery of interruptions. I listened with very great attention to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne when he was making remarks to which I could have taken very proper exception. He referred to the restrictive nature of the 1936 Act; but does he not remember the 1930 Act produced by a Socialist Government which fined coal-owners for producing more than a certain amount of coal? Was not that an example of restrictive—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This discussion has become too wide. I understood the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) used the 1936 Act as a parallel to this Order, but the debate must be limited to the provisions of this Order.
  Mr. Shepherd: Really, I was only showing how prejudiced was the viewpoint of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. He has ignored all the atmosphere which existed in the industry in the years between the wars and I was referring to the Coal Mines Act, 1930, the Second Reading of which was moved by Mr. William Graham in this House. I referred to the past, but the past is only of interest to hon. Members opposite during election times. What we want to do is to get on to the present and the future.
  As a Conservative, I accept the Cotton Board. It has done a very good job in the cotton industry. The Conservative Party supported the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. We did not oppose the Bill when it came before the House and we have always believed that a measure of control and guidance in the industry is essential. What hon. Members opposite do in the way of dis-service to the idea is to express the view that the Development Council does in fact control the industry. It does nothing of the kind. It merely represents the industry on the labour and management side with some independents. The members do certain things; but nothing they do has any statutory value. Nothing the Council does under the 1947 Act has any forceful bearing upon the industry, save in the matter of levies and the production of accounts. The Development Council has no authority to enforce anything on the

  1267
  industry save in connection with the production of certain records and the payment of certain levies.
  Sir H. Shawcross: Is the hon. Member arguing that we ought to give the Development Council greater powers? Perhaps he will make that point clear, for there is great force in it.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am not suggesting for a moment that there should be any extension of these powers. It is reasonable to take the view that we should await experience of the Development Council generally before we make up our minds as to its ultimate form or its value.
  Mr. Shackleton: Has the hon. Member read the Order setting up the Cotton Board? He will find in the second Schedule a list of activities which go far beyond those he mentioned.
  Mr. Shepherd: I wish hon. Members opposite would acquaint themselves of the facts before they intervene. There are in the 1947 Act 17 functions which a Development Council could be called upon to perform. But I am reiterating that they have no statutory authority over those in the industry save on the question of the levy and on the production of records. I know that the former President of the Board of Trade is doubtful about this, but I assure him that if he reads the Act he will see that that is absolutely true.
  Sir H. Shawcross: I am not doubtful about the powers of Development Councils. I happen to know something about them, both as a former President of the Board of Trade and a former Attorney-General. What I am doubtful about, since the hon. Member challenges me, is the point that the hon. Member is seeking to make. Is he seeking to suggest—and if so, I should agree with him —that we ought as quickly as we can to increase the powers of these bodies?
  Mr. Shepherd: If I were free for a moment or two from interruption, I should be able to make my position about Development Councils clear. I think that in general there is a case for some sort of organisation such as Development Councils, and I think that it should rest absolutely and essentially upon a purely voluntary basis. I think that the Development Councils which were established, as
  1268
  they were, by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the clothing industry—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is entirely out of order, and indeed if we accepted the invitation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to increase the powers, that too would be out of order. The hon. Member must direct his remarks to the provisions of the Order now before the House.
  Mr. Shepherd: That, of course, prevents me from replying to the numerous interruptions to which I have been subjected by hon. Members opposite.
  Sir H. Shawcross: May I endeavour to assist the hon. Member? May 1, with great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, submit to you that on this Order, which proposes to increase the levy which a Development Council may impose, it is in order for hon. Members to discuss whether or not the activities of a Development Council, which would be facilitated and perhaps increased by this levy, are in themselves desirable.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The debate must be confined to the limitations of the increase in the Order and cannot be extended to increases beyond those which the Order proposes.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am indebted to the former President of the Board of Trade for trying to rescue me so nobly. I do not wish to detain the House, because we cannot discuss this matter as fully as we should like.
  The Cotton Board has made a very significant contribution to the cotton industry in the last few years, and I think it has pioneered a pattern which will be helpful to many industries in the future. I particularly want to say how much I appreciate the work of the. Shirley Institute. The excellent work of that Institute is not sufficiently known outside the narrow confines of Lancashire. If the increased amount which this Order will bring to its coffers will mean an increase in its activities, everybody in this country ought to be pleased. I am sure that we in this country are not sufficiently appreciative of the excellent work that is done by our research associations in many spheres of our industrial life, not only in the cotton district but sometimes elsewhere, and I hope that the increased amount of money which will be devoted

  1269
  to the Shirley Institute will bring even better results.
  Mr. Shackleton: Would the hon. Gentleman correct the statement that he made, that his party supported the Industrial Organisation and Development Act? In fact, they voted against it on the Second Reading, and he did so himself.
  Mr. Shepherd Mr. Shepherd rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Mr. Hale.
  8.39 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I can well understand the flattering terms in which the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade spoke about this Order, because I understand he drew it up himself, and it was an Order prepared by the Labour Government while they were in office before the dissolution of Parliament.
  As far as the Order is concerned with a small expenditure, I see no objection to it. Is seems a useful and satisfactory one, and one which is generally so regarded by the trade. But I find it more difficult to understand the flattering terms in which he talked about the present Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Board of Trade and his attitude to the matter.
  Unfortunately, I was deprived by another engagement of hearing the opening sentences of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech. I was looking forward to them with great delight, because some of us can remember what his attitude has been to these things over the last six years. It has been an attitude of consistent opposition to any form of economic planning of any kind, sort or description. Most of us are familiar with the topical cartoon which appeared some weeks ago in which a man had written the word "peace" on the pavement and a little girl ran in and said, "Ma, someone has written a rude word." In the years past, the word "planning" was almost a rude word and one would have thought that when a Tory Government got in the word would have been ruled out of order in our debates.
  I say this quite bluntly to the Parliamentary Secretary: I remember that every time the word "planning" was used he would sit over here lean back and deliver a howl of strident, cacophonous laughter as if it were a contemptuous
  1270
  term which should be derided and ought to be disregarded altogether. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman is listening to me, because I hope he will reply to what I am saying.
  I listened to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) with real surprise. I think he surprised himself. It may very well be that as the weeks go by hon. Gentlemen opposite will get to believe in what they say. It may very well be that they will convince themselves that all through these years they have been thinking this way although they have been saying something else. We remember the history of these things. It has been part of our lives. You fought these things sentence by sentence and word by word and with every form of criticism and every form of contempt. When we passed the Bill for development councils you even obstructed them throughout the industry. We never succeeded in getting a development council for the pottery industry because of the obstructive tactics of some employers in the industry who would not play and would not facilitate this operation.
  Sir H. Shawcross: Supported by the politicians.
  Mr. Hale: I agree, inspired and supported by politicians; and I do not want to be ungenerous, but perhaps also supported by not sufficiently strong action from the Board of Trade to deal with them. That has been the position, and we are therefore entitled to say to the Parliamentary Secretary, as we do say to him, "Have you come down here and produced this on the terms on which you have produced everything up to now, that it is something you found in the office, that you have not had time to think about it and that you hope it is going to be all right; or are you going to say you really believe in it and you have changed your minds? Do you now agree with development councils or do you not? Are you contemplating extending them to other industries or are you not? Are you prepared to support this idea, or are you not?"
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Development Councils are not in this Order.
  Mr. Hale: With great respect, the whole powers are under the Development Council Order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Furthermore, remarks must be addressed to me.
  Mr. Hale: I could not hear those last few words, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but may I venture to point out that the Cotton Board is the Development Council, comes under the Development Council Order and was so constituted. However, I have almost completed making my point on that matter and I am quite ready to come to something else.
  I propose deliberately and carefully to express complete disagreement with all my colleagues who have spoken so far. I do not believe that we should start giving pensions at the top. I have nothing against Sir Raymond Streat at all. I think he has been spoken of in terms of some sycophancy, but I think he has done a thoroughly good job. He has had a very comfortable job and has had many journeys abroad, all over the world, in the course of his duty, but I do not think we should start giving pensions to the man at the top. To give a pension to the man at the top and to nobody else is the worst way to get confidence in the industry. I think it is causing difficulty.
  There are plenty of other members of the staff of the Cotton Board with lower rates of salaries whose insecurity is a much more serious matter to them than it is in the case of the chairman. If we are to introduce pensions at all we should certainly introduce them for the whole Board, and if we are to introduce them for the whole Board, we ought to apply them to the industry.
  I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary, who appears to have been listening to me for the last few minutes with passionate and enthusiastic attention, that the National Coal Board a few weeks ago secured for all persons employed in the coal industry a really efficient and effective pensions scheme. The thing that we hoped for for years in the coalmining areas has come to pass, and now anyone who works some years in the mining industry can look forward to retiring with a really full measure of security. It is something we prayed for and hoped for, and now it has come to pass. It is something we can really applaud and be pleased about —much more than we can about this one provision in this Order.
  What are we going to do about the cotton industry now? Because the
  1272
  Government must realise that we cannot apply a scheme like this to an industry employing 600,000 or 700,000 people without at once having claims for consideration from the other industries. I know that, unfortunately, the wages in the cotton industry, even today—and heaven knows under a Labour Government they were better than they ever were at any time in the history of the industry—are not exactly too high, with the necessary contributions to a pensions scheme of that magnitude. But there is no reason why we should not start planning for such claims.
  What is the reason why the engineers of Oldham and the cotton workers of Oldham should not be entitled to participate in such a scheme? Without any thought of criticism of Sir Raymond Streat, while wishing him well, and expressing no criticism of his work, I would say that it is a bad thing to start by giving a pension to one individual. Naturally, it is apt to create dissatisfaction in the industry. The place to start giving pensions is right at the bottom.
  What about the women of Oldham, going out leaving their children in the crèche, where there is a crèche, or leaving their children to paid care when there is no crèche available, and going to work in the mills? I know one dear old lady of 83 years of age who is working in a cotton mill and who qualifies only for the 10s. pension because she happened to be abroad for a year or two at the time when contributions to the contributory scheme were required to be paid. These are the sort of people who should have a pension. They are the people who make the industry go round. They are the people who work in the industry. We can run the cotton industry without Sir Raymond Streat, but we cannot run the cotton industry without the 300,000 people working in it.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Sutcliffe: I agree with what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), has said about the fine workers in the industry, and about our looking after them and doing as much for them as possible. I think that is agreed on all sides of the House. However, I think it is a pity that Sir Raymond Streat's pension should have been called into question during this debate. All of us in all par-

  1273
  ties admire the work he has done for the cotton industry, and the whole nation in fact owes him a debt of gratitude.
  This debate began on a quiet note, and I had not intended to take part, like my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), until hearing some of the recent observations. I thought that the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade set the right note in his observations on the industry as a whole and in his hopes for the future, but since then many exaggerated statements have been made, notably by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) who seems to have taken this opportunity, as indeed, he usually does take the opportunity whenever it is offered, of taking us back to the 'thirties, as though he were on an election platform. In fact, anybody coming into the House at the moment he was speaking would have been certain that he was listening to one of the hon. Member's election speeches.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Would the hon. Member forgive me for saying to him that I am sure, whether he agrees with me or not, that he will accept it from me—and I am speaking with complete sincerity—that my recollections of what life was like for the ordinary working people from the early 'twenties until after the war, though indeed they have formed the subject of some speeches at election time and inside the House, are really very bitter and tragic memories?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Those recollections may be very interesting, but they are not relevant to the Order before the House.
  Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. I dare say that they are not, but may I suggest to you, Sir, with all respect, that they are just as relevant as the sneers about my election speeches?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I was not saying that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was not sincere. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that he was using the debate for party propaganda purposes. He said in his opening remarks that he thought he had represented a Lancashire constituency for longer than anybody else present in the House at this moment. I have been the Member for the Royton division—now the Heywood and Royton division—since 1931, so I beat him by
  1274
  four years. From mixing with constituents in this wholly industrial division in Lancashire, composed mostly of large spinning mills of which there are a great number, I personally knew the sad events in the cotton industry between 1931 and the later 1930's. I suppose few people had more opportunity of mixing with the people and getting to know them and conditions in the industry at that time. I took that opportunity, and in many debates in this House during that period I stated the situation, and urged the Government—and in a humble way at that time helped the Government—to take some action. It was not the fault of any Conservative Government that there was that unemployment in Lancashire at that time.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We really cannot have the debate roving round the extent of unemployment in Lancashire before the war. We must keep to the provisions of the Order under discussion.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I am sorry, but I was tempted to answer some of the things that had already been said. We had to take action, and we had to reduce the number of spindles in order to help. I will leave my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with some of the other observations. Some quite unwarranted remarks were made about him by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), but it will not take my hon. Friend very long to get to know as much about the cotton industry as any of us, so I do not think anybody need be anxious on that score.
  Those of us who represent the industry welcome this levy, which was formerly confined to the spinning section, and as one who represents largely the spinning section, I am pleased that the rest of the industry have come into line and are supporting us in helping with the levy. Agreement has been reached on this plan, and there is therefore no need to go into it further this evening.
  We have been reminded by the Opposition about promises to abandon controls and "set the people free." Conservative policy has always been that the Government should work with industry and help industry, and that is what we hope and intend to do now. It was never intended that the people would be set free straight away, and nobody ever said so on any

  1275
  platform during the election. I see the former President of the Board of Trade smiling. One Saturday afternoon during the election he came to my constituency and told the people there that they were uneducated. He said at a meeting in Royton that he could not understand how they had been silly enough—or words to that effect—to return a Conservative candidate for all those years. I am told that he went so far as to call them nitwits, but I am not quite certain of that. At any rate, he did me an enormous amount of good, because he made the people very angry indeed, and they are still talking about it. The Prime Minister, as I have mentioned, did once mention the phrase "setting the people free." Surely, he has done so already by ousting the Socialist Government and replacing it by a Conservative administration.
  8.56 p.m.
  Sir Hartley Shawcross: Unlike the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe), I can support this Motion in the knowledge that I did at least vote in favour of the Bill under which the Order which we are now asked to pass is made. The hon. Member who has just sat down was one of the large number who trooped into the Lobby to oppose it. I will come back to that in a moment or two, and in its proper place. I am going to refer to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) as well, and no doubt he will wish 10 intervene, and I will give him then every opportunity of intervening. The night is yet young, as an hon. Member reminds me.
  I find myself in a somewhat peculiar position in regard to this Order. I believe that it is possible, indeed I am advised, and if I am wrong the Attorney-General will correct me, that it is both legal and physiologically practicable for a child conceived by one father to be born while its mother is living in legitimate, if temporary, alliance with another husband. That is really the position in regard to this Order. I should have added, of course, that one regards any incident of that kind, if not as positively indecent, at least as highly deplorable, and one to be brought to an end at the earliest possible time.
  I want first to congratulate and condole with the Parliamentary Secretary. I want to congratulate him upon his appointment
  1276
  to what is, I think, one of the most interesting and important, and, as I am afraid he will soon find, one of the most hard-working Departments of State. I want to congratulate him on the manner in which he acted as a midwife in the delivery of this child, for the conception of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and I were really responsible some time ago. And I want to condole with him on the fact that his tenure of office is not likely to be one which he can reasonably expect to be of any considerable duration.
  As one of the co-parents, if I may so describe myself, of this Order, I naturally view most of its provisions with favour, as young parents commonly do. But I must say I was a little surprised at the enthusiasm which the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary showed in bringing the child into life. I remember very well the bitter and partisan attacks which were made on development councils, not, I think, so much from industry as from politicians whose desire was in some cases to score political points, however inimical they may have been to industry and the interests of the country.
  I remember a speech made by the hon. Member for Cheadle on the Second Reading of the Bill under which this Order is laid. He said:
  "We are opposed to this Measure because it is a very vicious example of delegated legislation."
  This is a piece of delegated legislation which the Parliamentary Secretary is now inviting us to approve.
  "If industries are important, there is every reason why the Government should have thought fit to have brought a Bill to this House in respect of each industry. Each industry could have been the subject of a separate Bill."
  There is nothing to prevent this matter before the House now being made a subject of a separate Bill, but what we are doing now is "vicious delegated legislation."
  "There is no reason why there should have been this delegated legislation in this instance. The Bill requires that we take out of their jobs men of exceptional ability. There is no doubt that that is sc."
  Apparently the majority of the Members in the House at that time had considerable doubt about whether it was so or not.
  "I suggest that we are doing a disservice to industry by taking these men out. I do not feel that there is anything in this Bill which

  1277
  can commend it to the House, and, therefore, we shall go in the Lobby against it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1947; Vol. 433. c. 642.]
  He was speaking on behalf of his party at the time and quickly and obediently he went into the Lobby accompanied by the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and a not inconsiderable number of those hon. Members who are now adorning the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Shepherd: It is true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, that we opposed the Second Reading of the Measure.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Because there was nothing good in it.
  Mr. Shepherd: It was not because we opposed the principle behind it, but because we thought we had a better method of accomplishing what was the common desire. I still think from the experiences and difficulties I have experienced that our method would have been the better one.
  Sir H. Shawcross: If what was really in the mind of the hon. Member when he made that speech was the vicious character of the delegated legislation, he ought to have brought his views again to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary, who had, indeed, been impressed by them and voted with him, before this particular piece of delegated legislation was put forward in implementation of the Bill which the hon. Member then so strenuously opposed.
  I do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who is not in his place at the moment as he had to go out to fulfil another important public engagement, that hon. Members opposite are talking with their tongues in their cheeks. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, has now fulfilled his public engagement with that expedition which one expects from him, and that he is now taking his usual place in the House.
  I was saying that I did not share the cynical view taken by him that hon. Members opposite, in supporting legislation of this kind today as yesterday they supported the whole system of planning and controls which previously they had made the subject of so much bitter attack,
  1278
  are speaking with their tongues in their cheeks. They have come, as I ventured to say yesterday, into the hard school of political responsibility. They are learning the lessons which inevitably have to he learned in that school and I believe —I think we are entitled to assume this—that they are sincerely converted to the views which we have hitherto put forward.
  I regard this as a most important and notable occasion, and we place very clearly on record our appreciation and our welcome of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government, has now come to support the principle of Development Council organisation. I am very glad that so many hon. Members of the Conservative Party are present to lend their weight to the support which the Parliamentary Secretary has given to this important principle.
  Mr. I. J. Pitman: On a point of order. If it is in order, I should like to point out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have no doubt inadvertently, is misleading the House. The principle at which the opposition of this side of the House was aimed in opposing Development Councils was the imposition by the President of the Board of Trade of a Development Council against the wishes of either a trade union or of the employers, whereas what we are talking about here is a progressive industry in which both sides have voluntarily entered into a Development Council, which the Department has blessed and approved.
  Sir H. Shawcross: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining, in what appears to me to be an entirely novel way, the position of the Conservative Party hitherto in regard to these matters. The hon. Member has not had the advantage of being in the House during the course of this debate. I have no doubt, as time goes on, that other hon. Members will come into the benches opposite, and will seek to give their varying views on why, in the past the Conservative Party has opposed the establishment of the Development Councils legislation.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That latitude is not going to be allowed. Hon. Members must keep to this Order which is before the House.
  Sir H. Shawcross: Then I will not be tempted, by the intervention which you permitted to the hon. Member, to follow him further in regard to the point which he sought to develop. I content myself with recording again my appreciation of the fact that, converted from what we thought were their previous views, the Government have now come down clearly in support of the general principle of Development Council organisation.
  I want to touch now upon two matters which were referred to in the course of the discussion, about the actual provisions of the Order. First I want to say a word about a provision which the Order contains permitting the payment of a pension to the Chairman of the Board. This is not a nationalised industry, nor will the payment of a pension involve any charge upon public funds. This organisation is financed by the industry itself. Both sides of the industry, represented as they are in this Development Council organisation, desire to be able to pay a pension to the Chairman.
  They no doubt have taken the view—I do not know whether it is necessary to canvass its correctness here or not, although I regard it as correct—that, in existing circumstances, with many alternative and attractive possibilities of employment in other spheres, it really is not practical to expect a man to accept a succession of short-term appointments—that is what happens in this case—without some greater security than exists at present. At all events, that is the view which this body has taken in regard to the disposal of what are, in fact, its own funds.
  In a sense it is really rather fortuitous that the assent of Parliament has to be asked for it, and I think—I ask my hon. Friends to agree—that that assent ought to be given. I hope that the Board will be able to promote the efficiency of the industry as time goes on in a way that will make possible the payment of pensions on a far wider scale. You would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I were to go into that in any detail. I merely commend this part of the proposal to the House because. I believe it is one which in existing circumstances is practically necessary, that is, where a person has been serving on a board for a considerable period of years although his appointment has been on a short-term
  1280
  basis of, perhaps, five years at a time or some such period.
  Attention was called by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), to the assistance which the Cotton Board has given, and may in the future be expected to give, to the Empire Cotton Growing Association. That seems to us to be a matter of the utmost importance. The price of raw cotton has risen very steeply in the period since the war. At one point it reached about 10 times above its pre-war cost, and that increase in cost had a very considerable effect upon the increase in the cost of manufactured cotton articles in this country. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, much of the expenditure on raw cotton involved dollar expenditure.
  I am certainly not convinced that a great deal more cannot still be done to stimulate cotton production—no doubt this is also true in the case of many other primary products—within our Colonial Territories. It cannot be said that in the past the Conservative Party has made any very great contributions to the development of the great colonial territories of this country. [Interruption.] As a very distinguished statesman once said of their policy in these matters, "There would be patriotism by the Impeial pint."
  As another distinguished statesman, also well known to hon. Members opposite— I am referring to Lord Beaverbrook—has made abundantly clear time and time again, the Conservative Party spent their many years in office between the two wars in neglecting the great opportunities of colonial development that existed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] That is the view that Lord Beaverbrook has, I think, expressed. If I went into the matter further, as I should deeply like to do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker would at once rule me out of order.
  All I say now is that I hope that not only the Cotton Board but also the Government will do everything that they possibly can to promote the growth of cotton in our Colonial Territories and to develop the production of those other things which may be produced in the Colonies to the fullest possible extent. It is not for me to anticipate what action may be taken by the Cotton Board in the case of the additional financial assist-

  1281
  ance which may be requested by the Empire Cotton Growing Association, but I certainly hope that when that matter comes to be considered by it, in view of the added financial resources which it will possess if this Order is agreed to, it will give the request sympathetic consideration.
  Mr. Beresford Craddock: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest where raw cotton could be grown in the Colonial Empire?
  Sir H. Shawcross: I suggest that that is certainly one of the matters which fall within the scope of both the Empire Cotton Growing Association and the Cotton Board. I do not take the view that we ought to rely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. D. Brook) said a distinguished member of the cotton trade had suggested, entirely on American cotton in future. We ought to encourage every possible research and investigation to increase the existing colonial production of cotton and other primary products. I am not convinced that that has been fully done yet, and I hope that we shall engage in that policy in a spirit of enthusiasm and even adventure. I would like to think that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) opposite would help to redeem the failure of his party in the past to achieve the proper, development of our colonial resources.
  The Cotton Board is, I think, the earliest example of what we now call development councils. I do not think they were actually called that in the earlier days. There is no doubt in the minds of hon. Members on either side of the House that the Cotton Board has contributed very greatly to promote efficiency and the smooth running of the cotton industry. This is a time when there is the greatest need to promote in all industries a really go-ahead spirit. In spite of the change in the Government there remains stimulating possibilities, or possibilities which could be stimulating, of so organising our industrial affairs that, whether it be in the publicly controlled section of industry or in the private sectors, the workers will feel that they have a real share and interest in the running of their industry, and a stake in its efficiency and success.
  The Development Council machinery of the Cotton Board is one method towards
  1282
  promoting that. I wish very much that other industries, especially those which are engaged in the production of consumer goods, would profit from the example of the Cotton Board; would rid themselves of the suspicion that these Development Councils involve unnecessary and unwarranted interference and would look upon them rather as the cotton industry does, as a most useful method of promoting the interests of the industry as a whole, including the workers as well as the shareholders.
  The Development Council in the cotton industry has met with great success. I hope it will go on meeting with great success and continuing to promote the efficiency of the industry. I hope its success will, as I say, be recognised as a guide and an example by other industries which, stimulated I think by factious and partisan political intervention, have hitherto not sought to make the best use they can of the Development Council machinery.
  My Departmental association with the Cotton Board was a very short one. I should like to say about it that, looking hack on my time at the Board of Trade, I shall always remember that association as a very happy one. I have many recollections of the very excellent work being done both by the distinguished Chairman of the Board, Sir Raymond Streat, and by all the other members of the Board: Lancashire people for the most part—I am not only the representative of a Lancashire constituency, but I come from that county myself—men who have been doing great service for the industry: shrewd, forthright capable men who have devoted a good deal of time and interest to the development of the cotton industry, on the success of which depends not only the prosperity of Lancashire, but of the whole country.
  I think we shall pass this Order, and in doing so we shall pay our tribute to the work which the Board has done. Our unanimous approval of the Order will signal again, and in no unmistakable way, the approval of His Majesty's Government for the increased use of the Development Council machinery.
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. H. Strauss: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), not only for his support

  1283
  of this Motion, but for his kindly references to my own position. Alone of hon. Members on the other side of the House, he took the same view of the Debate which I took. I thought that, just as the 1948 Order—the principal Order setting up the Cotton Board—had been supported by my party, the present amending Order would be fully supported by his. That was the view I took. Therefore, as I thought that we were all in agreement, I saw no reason for starting a quarrel. But I hope that my hon. Friends on this side of the House will not think, for that reason, that I am incapable of making a party speech were it to be necessary.
  Mr. S. Silverman: We never thought that at any time.
  Mr. Strauss: I cannot help feeling that there has been a great confusion of thought in many of the speeches we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite. They seemed to think that a man was wholly illogical unless he held one of two views—either that all development councils were good or that all development councils were bad. It just happens that we on this side of the House do not hold either of those views and think that each of those views is equally ridiculous. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) frequently interrupts, though his interruptions do not always get into HANSARD. He appears to seek to divert me from making my speech: he may succeed in making it longer.
  My party does not hold either that all development councils are good or that all development councils are bad. To state the fact which alone is relevant tonight, we think that the Cotton Board is good. We have always held that view and we have expressed it on all occasions.
  Mr. Shackleton: The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that his party has always supported this Measure. When the new Cotton Board was set up under an Order, the only member of his party who spoke was the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre). He was almost the only member of the party opposite present, and he did anything but support the Order.
  Mr. Strauss: I was coming later to the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr.
  1284
  Shackleton), but, curiously enough, I was not alluding to the few speeches made on that occasion but to the fact that the Order was unopposed in each House, as the hon. Member well knows. I will not go into the details of any speeches made on that occasion—for many reasons, apart from the fact that it would be out of order. But since many hon. Members have been allowed to comment on the action of my party over the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947—
  Sir H. Shawcross: The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that they were permitted so to comment after the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), in a momentary lapse of memory, had stated that his party supported the 1947 Act?
  Mr. Strauss: Since I have no intention of generating unnecessary heat, I do not wish to discuss which party started what was not strictly in order under the strictest rules of procedure. I was only saying that, as the matter had been mentioned in numerous speeches, perhaps Mr. Speaker would allow me to state that, while it is quite true that we voted against the Second Reading of that measure, for reasons which were then stated and which included, among other reasons, that it might be possible under that Act to set up development councils which we thought undesirable, on Third Reading, not only did we not vote against it, but my right hon. Friend the present Colonial Secretary, making the principal speech for the opposition, said:
  " But we shall not divide against the Third Reading of the Bill, because we want it to have the largest measure of support and the best chance of success, as its objects are those with which we all agree."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1947; Vol. 438, c. 97.]
  I think it is fair that hon. Members, if they wish to refer to that matter, should at least refresh their memories as to the facts.
  I have already welcomed the fact that this Motion has the support of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. I think it would be courteous if I refer to one or two of the other speeches made. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. D. Brook) spoke of the Cotton Board as having been forced upon the industry. Nothing could be more untrue. It has not been forced on the industry at any point at all.
  Mr. Rhodes: I never heard my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook) refer to it in those terms at all.
  Mr. Strauss: I am within the recollection of the House. If I am wrong, needless to say, I apologise, but that is the note I have here. Having taunted my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister about "Set the people free" and other matters of that sort, he went on to talk about the necessity in this industry, among others, of steps to force a council on the industry under the principal Act. That was the start of taunting the Conservative Opposition with having been illogical in having opposed the Act of 1947 and having supported the Cotton Board Order—
  Mr. Rhodes: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I think my hon. Friend was not referring to the cotton industry. It was the wool industry to which he was referring.
  Mr. Speaker: It would be to the advantage of the House if we concentrated more on the Order before us and less on other matters.
  Mr. Strauss: I would only say that, if I had misunderstood the hon. Member's speech in any way, needless to say I withdraw. We will see in HANSARD tomorrow what he said. The last thing I wish to do is to misrepresent any hon. Member, particularly an hon. Member who is not present at the time.
  If I may come to the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, South, he asks how the money is to be spent. I am sure that he will realise that that is a matter for the Cotton Board, and I am sure that I will have the general assent of all hon. Members who support the Cotton Board and wish it well in not asserting Ministerial powers over matters which are for the decision of that Board. If the hon. Gentleman's question relates to the things on which they could spend the money, I think he will find helpful to his ascertainment of that information a study of Article 1 of the 1948 Order, and the Second Schedule to that Order. He raised the question—and I think other hon. Members did too—of why the Chairman is the only member of the Board for whom this pension provision is made. The answer to that is very simple. His is the only full-time salaried appointment.
  1286
  I welcome the support of this provision given by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross), but I should like to point out to the House, because I do not think we want unnecessary controversy about this, that among those consulted and among the members of the Board are some very distinguished representatives of the principal trade unions concerned, and I cannot think that if they approve and desire this provision there is any hon. Member who really deplores it.
  Mr. C. W. Gibson: I should like to know whether the proposed pension for the Chairman, with the principle of which I entirely agree, is to be on a contributory or a non-contributory basis, because all the workmen in the industry pay for the pension right they get at the end of their service through their contributions. I am wondering whether that principle is going to apply to the Chairman.
  Mr. Strauss: Perhaps it would be simplest if I referred to the actual provision in the Order. It says:
  "There shall be paid by the Board to the independent members of the Board, or to any of them, such remuneration (whether by way of salaries or by way of fees) as may he determined by the Board of Trade, and on the retirement or death of the Chairman of the Board, such pension or gratuity to him or to others by reference to his service as may he so determined."
  That is the entire provision, and it is that provision which has the approval of all the bodies that have been consulted on this matter.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), delivered what I think was intended to be a strong attack upon myself, to which, if it were in order, I should be delighted to reply. The general purport of his remarks was that I had for six years—and I am replying to this, Mr. Speaker, because this was what the hon. Gentleman said and he was not stopped, and therefore perhaps I may be allowed to say a sentence or two—been vigorously opposed to all economic planning, and that therefore it was quite illogical that I should be supporting this Order tonight.
  Let me tell him at once that I have no doubt at all that we should differ fundamentally on what is the nature of good planning and bad. I am perfectly convinced that almost everything which the

  1287
  hon. Gentleman has supported as good planning, I should consider to be the reverse, but, as regards my own consistency, I have never at any time opposed the Cotton Board or the establishment of any other development council of any kind which has been generally demanded by the industry concerned. That is the only point that is relevant to my consistency tonight.
  I thank the right hon. and learned Member for St. Helens, in so far as he supported this Motion. I welcome his support. I also thank him for his personal friendly references. In so far as he made a party speech, I look forward to a more appropriate opportunity to reply to it.
  Sir H. Shawcross: I do not quite follow the hon. and learned Gentleman. I gave my whole-hearted support to the Order and never made a party speech at all. I never make a party speech.
  Mr. Strauss: The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave hearty support to the Order, which could have been done in one sentence, and then he made a very considerable party speech. If he does not remember it, he had better read it tomorrow. I am in sympathy with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Since I have not had anything to eat since luncheon, his speech gave me more pleasure than did some others from that side of the House.
  Sir H. Shawcross: "Fellow-feeling makes us wondrous kind." I also had an inadequate luncheon. Is not the explanation this? Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is unable to distinguish between a reasonable speech and party speech.
  Mr. Strauss: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not think I am blaming him. My only complaint, if it is a Complaint, is that the rules of order do not make it possible for me to reply to him at length in those terms and on those topics I should like to develop; but I dare say the opportunity will be afforded on some other occasion.
  Mr. W. Nally: As I understand it, what the Minister says is to the effect— and I think he has said it for the third time—that during the early part
  1288
  of the day speeches were made that ought never to have been made, observations were made and lines of argument developed that ought not to have been made or developed, and the only reason that he is, so to speak, with one hand behind is back at the moment, is because of a discrepancy in the judgment of the Chair earlier in the day. Surely, if something was said earlier in the day to which the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks he ought to reply it is up to you, Mr. Speaker, to give him proper guidance. It is undesirable that for the third time we should be told that the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot reply to arguments because it would be out of order.
  Mr. Speaker: On that point of order, I do not know quite what happened at an earlier stage, but it seems to me the debate is tending to stray into realms which are remote from the draft Order. I do not see what connection there is between the luncheon enjoyed by hon. and learned and right hon. and learned Gentlemen and the Cotton Board. I would ask the House to concentrate entirely on what is before us and forget the past.
  Mr. Strauss: I am very sorry if I failed to reply, or if it is thought I have failed to reply, to any argument that has been put forward that is relevant to the Order. I did not know that I had. The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Helens was one in support of the Order, and therefore I do not think it would be appropriate to reply to those remarks which I thought polemical and with which I disagreed—and I was reinforced in that conclusion, Mr. Speaker, by a Ruling which you had given a few minutes before.
  I should like to say, after the unexpected heat of the day, that this is an Order about which both sides of the House are concerned because it concerns the future of a very great industry which has an immense contribution to make both to our export trade and to our national well-being. Because this Order is desired by both sides of the industry and by the Board itself and because the Board has done, on general admission, most admirable work, I hope the House will give the Order unanimous approval.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  That the Draft Cotton Industry Development Council (Amendment) Order, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.

  ESTIMATES
  Select Committee appointed to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee, and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates may be effected therein:
  Committee to consist of Thirty-six Members: Mr. Albu, Major AnstrutherGray, Miss Burton, Lieutenant-Commander Baldock, Viscountess Davidson, Mr. John Edwards, Mr. Walter Fletcher, Mr. John Freeman, Sir Ralph Glyn, Sir Fergus Graham, Air Commodore Harvey, Mr. H. Hynd, Mr. A. J. Irvine, Mr. James Johnson, Major Niall Macpherson, Mr. Malcolm MacPherson, Major Markham, Mr. Angus Maude, Mr. Mitchison, Mr. Mott-Radclyffe, Mr. Mulley, Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Ian Orr-Ewing, Sir Leslie Plummer, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. Thomas Reid, Mr. Ross, Mr. Norman Smith, Mr. G. P. Stevens, Mr. Summers. Mr. Wade, Mr. George Ward, Miss Ward, Mr. West, Mr. Ian Winterbottom and Mr. Yates.
  Seven to be the Quorum:
  Power to send for persons, papers and records: to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time:
  Power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:
  Three to be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee:
  Every such Sub-Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to adjourn from place to place:
  Power to report from time to time Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-Committees. —[Mr. Drewe.]

  PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS
  Select Committee appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in arrangements for the reporting and publishing of debates and in regard to the form and distribution of the Notice Papers issued in connection with the Business of the House; and to inquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for the House and the public services generally:
  Mr. Deedes, Mr. Driberg, Mr. Holman, Lieut. -Colonel Hyde, Mr. Keeling, Mr. Langford-Holt, Mr. Nally, Dr. Barnett Stross, Mr. Storey, Mrs. Eirene White and Mr. Gerald Williams.
  Power to send for persons, papers and records:
  Power to report from time to time:
  Three to be the Quorum.—-[Mr. Drewe.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That a Select Committee he appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as are deposited in the Private Bill Office, and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, or on the back of such sheets, provided that on every sheet after the first prayer may he reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; and that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:
  That Mr. Dryden Brook, Mr. Carson, Mr. Grey, Mr. Hector Hughes, Dr. King, Mr. Lambert, Colonel Lancaster, Major Legge-Bourke, Commander Maitland, Mr. McGhee, Mr. John Morrison, Mr. Pargiter, Mr. Raikes, Colonel Thornton-Kemsley and Mr. Watkins he members of the Committee:
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:
  That Three be the Quorum.—[Mr. Drewe.]
  9.44 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I always speak in this House with reluctance and diffidence, but I submit that we cannot allow this important topic to go without debate at all. The question

  1291
  is whether we should appoint a Committee to examine Petitions presented to the House? Some of us for many years have urged the importance of the rights of petitioning the House and the great value attached to this privilege which is first recorded in the Commons Journal—
  Mr. Speaker: We have passed that point. We are now on the Question, "That Three be the Quorum." If the hon. Member can direct his remarks to that Question, he will be in order.
  Mr. Hale: With great respect. Mr. Speaker, you have read out the whole Question as one clause. No voices were collected upon it, and thus we were considering the Question as a clause, whether we shall appoint a Committee to examine petitions, the final words of which are, "That Three be the Quorum." The Question was read out on the Motion of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe), and that Motion is now being submitted to the House. I do not want to waste any time, but it is an important matter and it is a matter on which the House is entitled to some information. I think it is the first time in the six years I have been in the House that this question has been debated and it is, therefore, singularly appropriate that it should be debated and that we should have some information about the functions of the Committee and about what duties they are expected to perform.
  All of us, in our early days on constitutional law and practice, were told that this was one of the treasured rights of the people—the right to petition the Commons House of Parliament about any grievance: and that that right was a privilege they ought to prize and esteem. The first point I have to make is this. I have been looking up the records—there have not been a great many Petitions—and in November, 1946, Mr. Speaker made a few observations on the matter and said that every petition which had been presented up to then had been out of order. Of 911 petition signatures submitted, only four pages were correctly topped, and the other pages were out of order and therefore could not be subject to any consideration even if Parliament had thought fit at any time since 1675 to provide an opportunity for consideration—which, so
  1292
  far as I have been able to gather, they have not.
  The functions of this Committee are limited to counting the signatures. An hon. Member of this House gets up and reads the petition and believes that some really important process is being performed. He reads out the basis of his petition and gives an indication of the number of names—sometimes a singularly inaccurate observation, because in the last Report from this Committee, in March. 1951, it was said that there were five signatures whereas the hon. Member who presented the petition said there were 100,000. It is fair to say that the error of 99,995 was due to this irregularity rather than to any attempt to deceive the House. The signatures were not in the proper form. The petition is handed in to the Table, and one hon. Member in one debate in 1948 was good enough to suggest that it might go into the wastepaper basket, but Mr. Speaker gave a formal Ruling that the place for the petition is not the waste-paper basket but is in the bag.
  Nothing happens. It is taken from the bag, passed to the Committee, if we appoint it, and the duty of the Committee is to count the signatures and nothing else. [Laughter.] This is a serious topic, because I find increasing evidence in the North-West of great anxiety and a great desire to use the petitioning procedure. They have had no occasion to use it in the last six years but they may well have occasion to do so in the period immediately ahead. It is right, therefore, that I should be able to tell my constituents what attention will be paid to a petition, and so on.
  There appears to be no limit to the people who can petition. I observe that there was a petition during the last Parliament for the impeachment of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), which was signed by one person only, whose address was given as Wandsworth Prison. Again, in the last six years, in the way of the tailors of Tooley Street, we have been petitioned on behalf of the inhabitants of Great Britain. The Committee reported that the number of inhabitants of Great Britain who had signed a petition was, in fact, nine. What they did not know, although there was intrinsic evidence to show it, was that they all resided in the district of Orping-

  1293
  ton, Kent, and that the petition had been presented by their indefatigable Member.
  I have no desire to delay the House at this time. I am not clear whether the discussion can go beyond ten o'clock, and I have no desire for it to do so. All I ask the hon. Gentleman to do is to tell us what the Committee are for and what they are going to do, because they have stopped counting the votes. In every Report we have had recently they have said there has been so much evidence of duplication of handwriting that on the whole, they have given up counting. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Indeed they have. Frankly, I do not blame them.
  Is it now suggested that if petitions are brought to the House somebody will consider them, and they will be sent to the appropriate Ministers and the appropriate Departments? Can the Committee be empowered to do something with a petition other than print a perfectly worthless piece of paper saying there are so many signatures on it or saying that they have not counted the signatures? Those are the questions and I should be very glad indeed if we could have them answered.
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Speaker: Whatever may be said about the general conduct on Petitions in this House, it is clear, I think, that the House may be the better for having a Select Committee, whose operations the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), will be able to criticise if he feels so inclined. I do not think that at this moment his argument goes to show that there should not be a Select Committee, which is the only point before us.
  Mr. Hale: I am very grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder if you will be good enough to tell me how a Member of the House can approach the Committee to get its powers enlarged so that it may perform a useful function for this House?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can put down at any time a Motion to the effect that the constitution of the Committee be altered or enlarged after, I hope, he has given mature thought to the subject he puts before us.
  Mr. Hale: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. However, it is really a little
  1294
  discourteous for an hon. Member to come before this House to move a Motion and. when asked to explain the facts about it, to decline to say a word. If he is inarticulate, he ought not to be here. If he is not inarticulate, he should say why he is desirious of moving this Motion.
  Mr. Speaker: I had got as far as the words, "That Three be the Quorum." and I will now conclude the Question.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  KITCHEN COMMITTEE
  Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [14th November]:
  That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House.—[Mr. Drewe.]
  Question again proposed.
  9.52 p.m.
  Mr. James Simmons: When I prevented this Motion from being carried last night, it was with no intention of holding up the business of the House, but I think we do appoint these Committees sometimes without full consideration of what their responsibilities are and what their accountability is. We do have on the Order Paper at times Questions down to the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee. I sought to put such a Question down yesterday, and was told that the Kitchen Committee was not responsible for the particular matter I had in mind.
  The Motion reads that we appoint the Kitchen Committee
  "…to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House,"
  and I think that we ought to be able to ask tonight, what arrangements does the Committee control and what is the scope of the Questions that we shall be allowed to put to the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee when he is appointed after the Committee has been formed? Will he answer Questions on the prices charged in the Refreshment Rooms, on the conditions of the staff, on the quality of the food—on the strength of the tea, for instance, which is not very good at the moment—on profit and loss? We may also ask, if a peer on the prowl

  1295
  for good red meat strays into the Members' Dining Room, who is to say what his locus standi in that Dining Room is?
  If some of these Questions that I have suggested do not come under the control of the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee and he cannot answer such questions in the House, then that fact does open up a rather wide question, because there are far too many matters—I have found during my membership of this House—affecting the convenience and the effective carrying on of the duties of Members which cannot be ventilated in this House. After all, it is our House, and we ought to be masters in our House, and problems which affect the convenience of Members and the efficient carrying out of their duties ought to be easily ventilated on the Floor of the House.
  Therefore, I should like to know whether we are giving wide enough powers to the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee to answer all Questions relevant to the rights, privileges, and the convenience of the Members who use the Refreshment Rooms of the House.
  Mr. Speaker: I can only say that until the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms Select Committee is appointed and has appointed its Chairman there is no one to answer the hon. Gentleman. Once that has been done, I should say that most of the matters to which he drew attention would be relevant subjects on which Questions could be addressed to the Chairman, when he is appointed. As neither he nor the Committee has been appointed, there is no one who can answer the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Simmons: May I ask for an explanation? We are appointing the Committee on certain terms. If we appoint it on terms which are inadequate, however willing the Chairman may be to answer Questions, if they do not come within the terms of reference he cannot answer them. That is the point.
  Mr. Speaker: I would say myself that the terms of reference in the Motion are wide enough to enable the Kitchen Committee as such to take full control over these matters. If at any time the hon. Gentleman feels that the scope of the Committee is inadequate, he is at perfect liberty to put down a Motion to that effect.
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: I do not want to detain the House for more than a minute, but I do feel that we should have a few words of explanation on the very important points of principle that have been raised by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Speaker: I regret to say that there is no one to give that explanation. This is a Select Committee which is appointed by the House at the beginning of every Session; it is appointed by Members; its terms of reference are decided by the House, and its powers restricted and defined by the House. All the time it is in being it is liable to have these terms altered by the House. It is merely a piece of machinery, but I am sorry to say that at the moment there is no one who can answer these questions.
  9.57 p.m.
  Sir William Darling: May I claim your indulgence and guidance in this matter, Mr. Speaker? Has the House no right to inquire into the qualifications of the hon. Members submitted as Members of the Committee? Are we not entitled to ask, on this very innermost matter of the inner man, the extent to which these hon. Gentlemen have qualifications to serve on this important Committee. I think I am right in saying that it is the only executive Committee of your House, Mr. Speaker; it is the only Committee of the House of Commons which differs from all other Select Committees in that it has executive powers quite independent of the House itself.
  In those circumstances, though it is unusual, I find myself not even remotely in disagreement with hon. Gentlemen opposite. I should like to ask what are the qualifications of these hon. Gentlemen. To me they are names which, of course, command my respect; but it is in the political arena that they command my respect. In the difficult business of cuisine where do they stand? Are they sound in their financial judgment? Because, as you know, we have a very large debt in this somewhat mismanaged Committee. These are important and pertinent questions which at some time the House must raise. It is an important matter to appoint these hon. Gentlemen. Are they aware that the Kitchen Committee is £30,000 in debt? Are they persons of financial probity—?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I was going to put the next part of the Motion, which includes the names, on which the hon. Gentleman's questions would be in order. I would point out, too, that if there is any opposition to this after ten o'clock, the Motion cannot go through.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House.
  Committee to consist of Seventeen Members:
  Mr. Alexander Anderson, Mr. Burke, Miss Burton, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Coldrick, Mr. Edward Evans, Mr. Walter Fletcher, Sir Ian Fraser, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Greville Howard, Mr. Keeling, Mr. Gilbert Longden, Mr. Remnant, Mr. Steward, Mr. George Thomas, Mr. Viant and Mr. Octavius Willey.
  Power to send for persons, papers and records.—[Mr. Drewe.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That Four be the Quorum."—[Mr. Dretve.]
  Sir W. Darling: Is it desirous that four should be the quorum? I should have thought that for important business of this kind a larger quorum than four would be desirable. Are four persons to decide whether I have sausages or caviare—
  It being Ten o' Clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

  OVERSEAS FORCES (AIR PARCEL RATES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]
  10.0 p.m.
  Miss Elaine Burton: Waiting for an Adjournment Motion in this House is, I think, a most salutary experience, not only for the Member concerned as for the Minister replying, but for you, Mr. Speaker, or whoever is in the. Chair. The matter which I wish to raise tonight is one on which, I think, nobody will regret spending a little additional time, particularly as it concerns our
  1298
  Forces overseas. The problem that I wish to pose, tonight is that raised by the air parcel postage rate to His Majesty's Forces overseas.
  It is, of course. a matter for the Minister of Defence. The Prime Minister assured me that the Financial Secretary to the War Office would be replying on his behalf, and I think that it is important that I should make that point because, with respect, this is not a matter for the War Office but for the whole Ministry of Defence. I hoped that it would not be necessary to raise this matter again. I raised it several times in the last Parliament, and I hoped that for one or two reasons it would not be necessary to do so again. The first was that I hoped, in common with everyone else, that most of our men overseas might have been able to come home and the problem would not then have arisen, or alternatively, that the Government of the day—preferably a Government from this side, but now I am hoping for kind words from the present Government—would agree that this matter should be put right.
  I want tonight to stick closely to one main argument, and that is that the present position is quite unfair and 'completely indefensible. I should like to mention two places which are very much in the public eye today, one is Korea and the other Egypt. If the comparison would not be disrespectful, I should like to say that if you, Mr. Speaker, were a Service man in Korea and your family wished to send to you a parcel by air, it would cost 63s. to send one weighing four pounds. If you could then be transferred to Egypt and be a Service man there, to send that same parcel would cost 22s., but if, by some relative good fortune, you were a Service man in Germany, to send that same parcel it would cost 6s. 6d.
  Whatever the answer is going to be from the Financial Secretary tonight, I should like to tell him what I am sure he knows, that the British public and Members of this House on all sides believe that it is quite unfair that these rates should vary —63s., 22s. and 6s. 6d. Having said that. I should like to clear some hurdles first, in case the Financial Secretary offers them to me in his reply. The first point is the matter of cost. There are very few Members in this House today who would say that it does not matter what something costs. I believe that the British public

  1299
  do not care what it would cost to put these Service men on a similar footing everywhere, and, moreover, I am quite convinced that there are no people in this country who would not be willing to contribute to that, if it were necesary.
  The second point, concerning transport, is a very valid one. If the Financial Secretary were to stand up and say that this was not possible because there would be so many parcels requiring so many aeroplanes that they could not be found, I would point out that we have never had this concession refused on the grounds that transport could not be found. I hope that the Financial Secretary will not follow what I must call, I think, the bad example of the Minister who replied to me in the last Government, who gave as one of his excuses the fact that air mail to the Forces was cheaper than to civilians. I hope that it is, and I think that is quite beside the point.
  I have now reached my fourth hurdle, and that is a matter of surface mail. The Financial Secretary knows as well as I do that surface mail costs the same anywhere to Service people wherever they may be stationed. The last hurdle, and the fifth, is this matter of second-class mail, with which the Minister may deal in his reply. There is in existence a concession by which His Majesty's Forces outside Europe may have sent to them by second-class mail small packets at a standard charge of 3d. per half ounce, to a maximum weight of two pounds, which costs 16s. I have the leaflet published by the Post Office and it says this about this second-class mail:
  "Second-class mail must he packed so that it can easily be examined and must not contain a letter."
  With that matter about a letter I should like to come to the human side of this problem, and it is one on which I think no argument about finance or transport can prevail. Last Christmas this House was able to persuade the Government to allow our men in Korea to have one postage free parcel at Christmas, and that was done primarily because of this extortionate rate for air mail parcels. A journalist on a national daily paper, not I may say agreeing with me in my political views, wrote to me after that, and I should like with permission to quote three sentences from his letter. He was
  1300
  out in Korea last Christmas, and he said that as a result of that action taken by the House there was a perfect avalanche of parcels.
  " I had seven parcels sent to me for handling, and my main difficulty was finding anyone who had no parcel. I gave one to a fellow with the most woebegone face in Korea. He had just moved to a new unit and his mail and parcels had not caught him up. When I gave him one of the parcels his whole outlook changed."
  I should like to quote two definite examples given to me by people concerned out of the many which any other Member of this House could also quote. The first is from a sergeant in Korea and the other from the parents of a lad serving in Malaya. When this sergeant in Korea wrote to me in March of this year—I do not propose to weary the House with the letter, but I should like to take two points from it—he said that the previous week he had received a very small air mail parcel from his wife containing two rolls of film, two tins of boot polish and a couple of chocolate biscuits. It cost her 7s. which was more than the contents of the parcel were worth. He sent me this piece of paper which I shall be glad to give to the Under-Secretary of State for War, which is from the actual parcel and which has stamps on it to the value of 7s. I submit it is disgraceful that the families of our men who have been sent to Korea should be faced with such charges.
  Secondly, going into the matter of surface mail, he stated that his mother sent him two parcels of food by sea and they took so long—it will be recalled that the minimum period is five or six weeks —that he had to throw them away and tell his mother not to send him any more. He says:
  " All we out here have to look forward to are our letters and parcels from home."
  I think that that must melt even the heart of the Treasury, and if we can persuade the Under-Secretary to take the matter up that heart may dissolve completely.
  The parents who wrote were parents of a lad in Malaya. He went out there in September 1949, and his parents wrote to say that every week since they had sent him a small parcel. In that parcel there was a weekly magazine, a radio book and a few cuttings. The cost was 6s. or 7s. for each parcel.

  1301
  These parents wrote to say that they had sent 76 parcels to that boy since he left these shores, and it had cost them £26. They said they did not begrudge the money, but they just had not got it. I am sure that the Under-Secretary—his record in the war is well-known—must be aware, as we all are, of these matters. I have had to see me many men and women who have lads out in the Far East, asking me if the Government could not do something about this matter. I am asking for the removal of a principle which is wrong, and which is admitted to be wrong by everyone, both in this House and outside.
  If we take the special concession for the Forces outside Europe, the second-class mail, one can send a 2-1b. packet by air to the Far East at a cost of 16s., by this concession, If one sends a 2-1b. packet to the Forces in Germany, it costs 4s. If the Under-Secretary is unable to recommend the Ministry of Defence to adopt my suggestion, I would like to hear him defend a principle by which the cheapest concession available for our Forces in the Far East means that a 2-1b. parcel costs 16s. to them, while it costs only 4s. to the men in Germany.
  We all know that this matter is very difficult because of the cost, but I believe that our Forces overseas are part of the defence programme. It would be fitting and seemly, when we are allocating so much money to that defence programme, to suggest that a sufficient amount from it might be given to make sure that the relatives of our men out there do not suffer financially because of the decision of the Service Departments to send these men out to different parts of the world. I accept completely that a maximum weight would have to be given. If 4 lb. is not possible, I am willing to substitute 3 lb. or 2 lb.
  That concludes the case I want to make. I do not know how wise it is, when one is asking for a loaf, to mention a slice of bread at the same time. I am not now suggesting an alternative, but if the Under-Secretary feels that this matter of a uniform air parcel postage rate for H.M. Forces overseas must wait a little longer, during the period of decision, would he recommend that the men might have a free parcel, so far as postage rates are concerned, sent by air mail overseas now that Christmas is drawing near? I hope he will be able to agree to a uniform rate.
  1302
  but if he is unable to give us that now, then in common humanity to the men out there let him see that they have at least one free parcel this side of Christmas.
  10.14 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): Nothing can be more disappointing to one who comes for the first time to this Box than to have to say "No," or largely to say it, when every inclination and desire within him is to say "Yes." The hon. Lady and her friends have pursued this quest throughout the past year with persuasion and perseverance. Indeed, an array of predecessors of mine, now on the other side of the House, came under their fire during 1951. Every one of them was impressed with the arguments that were put forward, but they were all forced or impelled to say "No" to any major project which would increase the costs to the Services, which are already heavy.
  Let us see for a moment what the provision is. The hon. Lady has put the position perfectly fairly, but leaving out, I think, consideration of what is already being done. I do not think she would want me to spend a great deal of time on the European situation, for I believe that the troops in Germany are largely satisfied—concessions of some value as compared with civilian rates are already given in that theatre—but mainly upon —as she has concentrated her speech—the theatres of war or operations or of troops billeted outside Europe.
  First of all, for hon. Members who have not taken part in earlier debates, I should like to point out that the details of all the facilities which are available by the different methods of transport were set out in HANSARD on 30th May last, and that they still apply. It would be wearying to the House if I were to go through the rather complicated illustrations given there, where hon. Members can find what they need. Considerable concessions in those rates will be found already to have been made. For example, the concession on air letters is something over 50 per cent. compared with what civilians pay.
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: It is 62 per cent.
  Mr. Hutchison: It is rather over 50 per cent. It depends on the destination. On

  1303
  second class mail—that is the type of mail to which the hon. Lady has referred —which consisted in its original conception of printed papers, a smaller concession is allowed, but within the category of the printed papers type of mail the Forces are allowed to receive small parcels up to 2 lb., though I should recommend relatives who are making use of this facility to consult the Post Office on the details of packing before they send the parcels. I was not aware—I should like an opportunity of looking into it—that they are precluded from sending any written word in that parcel.
  Mr. Hobson: It is quite true.
  Mr. Hutchison: Perhaps I might be allowed to look into it. By a further concession, they are also allowed to send up to 4 lb. by letter rate. By using these facilities, parcels can be sent to the Far East by air at, say, 2 lbs. for 16s. compared with the civilian rate of 26s. 8d. I agree that those are fairly high rates, but I feel that we must remember in all this that the surface rates to which the hon. Lady also referred are really very reasonable and that the same parcel could be sent to that same destination at 1s. 3d. whereas a 4 lb. parcel could be sent for 2s. 3d.
  Miss Burton: I do not wish to interrupt the Under-Secretary, but I should like to make one point clear. I am not arguing about surface mail. I do not think that the comparison between rates for civilians and rates for the Forces is possible. I am complaining that it costs 16s. to the Far East and 4s. to Germany, and I say that the cost ought to be the same in both cases.
  Mr. Hutchison: I have carefully read the other statements that have been made on the subject, and I think that there has throughout been a tendency to forget that there is any surface mail facility at all. I agree that perishable goods cannot be sent by surface mail to Korea, for the time is generally too long and they have lost their value or their attract on, but there are many other things which, with a little foresight, can be sent to troops in the, Far East at very reasonable rates indeed.
  Let me just point out to the House that the total of all these concessions given in all theatres is already over £1 million
  1304
  a year. Under the pressure and persuasive appeals of the hon. Lady and her friends my predecessors have made an examination to see if they could find some sort of solution to the problem with which they and certainly my right hon. Friend and I have the greatest sympathy.
  They considered the scheme which the hon. Lady has close to her heart, the bulk flat-rate system by air, and they came to the conclusion that this could not be faced because it 'presupposes one of two things happening. If we were to put the bulk flat rate by air on to a basis where it could approximately make ends meet, on the present calculations we would have to put up the rates to Europe stiffly, to use a conservative term. The proportion that the rates would have to go up would depend upon the strength of the Forces in the various theatres of war. Then we would have the paradox of the civilians in Germany paying less than the Forces in Germany, so clearly a situation of that kind would not be tenable.
  On the other hand, if the present flat-rate for air parcels to Germany was to be taken as the basis for troops all over the world I am advised that one four-pound parcel per man per year would cost an extra £300,000. That means that if the troops abroad were all to get one parcel per man per month the extra cost involved would be £3½ million a year. That seems to be something which at present we cannot face up to. So they cast round for some other form of mitigation of the situation and in 1951 they finally adopted a scheme whereby relatives and friends could send postal orders up to the value of £2 a day to the troops in these theatres. These postal orders can be converted either into the local currency or into N.A.A.F.I. coupons and used by the recipient as he thinks fit. In the month of October 1,200 men benefited by this system, so it is not fair to leave the impression, and I should not like it to go out from this House that we have not endeavoured to do something in order to improve the position of the men on the Korean front.
  Now I come to the question of post-free Christmas parcels inaugurated last year. Under this system post-free Christmas parcels up to three pounds were permitted to men in the Services in Korea and for those in Malaya who left this country after the last date of posting for surface mail. I can say this, that my

  1305
  right hon. Friend hopes to be able to repeat that system again this year.
  Mr. Hobson: I am rather alarmed at the use of the word "hopes". Why is not it possible to give an assurance?
  Mr. Hutchison: I was coming to that point, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed. I cannot give a definite promise at this stage. The matter is under most sympathetic review, but with the pressure of the Far East and the Middle East which has developed recently, transport difficulties have been encountered. As I say, I hope they may be able to be overcome, but I cannot go beyond that statement tonight.
  I cannot hope that hon. Members will be completely content with this, indeed I am not content myself. Having served in various theatres in various wars, I know how important it is to the man in the field to know that he has not lost the consideration and the sympathy of those at home. But we simply cannot face the increased expenditure in which we would be involved by the scheme which the hon. Lady has in mind. One Minister after another has had to refuse it. The concessions already being given are, I think, greater than is realised by the public. If it was necessary to refuse these concessions early in 1951, it is certainly not easier to grant them now.
  The hon. Lady said that she hoped that time would be spent willingly on this matter. Certainly, my time will not he grudged, but it is much more difficult to find the money. I end by saying that when a decision has been made on the free Christmas parcels scheme, an announcement will be made. In that rather indefinite, and, I am afraid, perhaps in her view unsatisfactory, position I must leave the question.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: First I wish to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for War for dealing very ably with a most difficult problem. In the last Parliament I myself had to deal with
  1306
  this question from the Despatch Box before the War Office finally realised that the cost of sending parcels to the Forces was their responsibility and not that of the Post Office.
  The point that rather alarmed me was that I failed to see why a categorical assurance cannot be given that Christmas parcels may be sent free to the Forces in Malaya and Korea. I realise the increased commitments due to the increased number of Forces now in Egypt and the Middle East. But one must realise that the cost of sending parcels to Egypt and the Middle East is considerably less than the cost of sending them to Malaya and Korea.
  There is a further point of importance. Greater use can be made of the surface route to Egypt and the Middle East because the time taken is shorter. Therefore, I think that there is still a special case for Korea and Malaya. I know that the hon. Gentleman, with his real sympathy for those men who do the fighting, will use his great powers of persuasion to try to get his right hon. Friend to approve the free postage of parcels for Christmas scheme for Malaya and Korea.
  If that gesture was made, it would be in line with what happened last year, and it would be fully appreciated by the troops serving in those dangerous theatres of war.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. S. S. Awbery: On almost the last day before the Summer Recess this matter was discussed and a promise was made that the Minister would consider, not only the question of parcels, but the sending of newspapers. A promise was made to see whether the boys who wanted newspapers from home could receive them quickly by allowing the senders to take advantage of the cheap air mail rate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider newspapers at the same time as he considers parcels.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes past Ten o' Clock.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Opticians (Registration)
  Opticians (Registration)
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Disputes (Statistics)
  Industrial Disputes (Statistics)
  Remploy Factory, Cleator Moor
  Remploy Factory, Cleator Moor
  Staffordshire and Cheshire
  Staffordshire and Cheshire
  Older Persons
  Older Persons
  Leggett Committee Report
  Leggett Committee Report
EDUCATION
  Primary Schools, Radnorshire
  Primary Schools, Radnorshire
  Voluntary Schools
  Voluntary Schools
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  School Meals Service
  School Meals Service
  Dental Service
  Dental Service
  Church Schools (Grants)
  Church Schools (Grants)
AGRICULTURE
  Executive Committees (Farming Operations)
  Executive Committees (Farming Operations)
  Derelict Land, Huntingdonshire
  Derelict Land, Huntingdonshire
  Farm Price Review
  Farm Price Review
  Output
  Output
  Electric Milking Apparatus
  Electric Milking Apparatus
  RIVER OUSE (FLOODING)
  RIVER OUSE (FLOODING)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Profits (Taxation)
  Profits (Taxation)
  School Requisites (Taxation)
  School Requisites (Taxation)
  Co-operative Societies (Shareholding Limitation)
  Co-operative Societies (Shareholding Limitation)
  Customs Duties (Statistics)
  Customs Duties (Statistics)
  Korea (Duty-Free Parcels)
  Korea (Duty-Free Parcels)
  HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
  HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
  BAMANGWATO CHIEFTAINSHIP
  BAMANGWATO CHIEFTAINSHIP
  BASUTOLAND DELEGATION (U.K. VISIT)
  BASUTOLAND DELEGATION (U.K. VISIT)
  BECHUANALAND (TSHEKEDI KHAMA)
  BECHUANALAND (TSHEKEDI KHAMA)
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (REPORT)
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (REPORT)
  CRUELTY TO CHILDREN
  CRUELTY TO CHILDREN
POLICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Widows Pensions
  Widows Pensions
  GENERAL ELECTION (POSTAL VOTES)
  GENERAL ELECTION (POSTAL VOTES)
  DISFRANCHISED VOTERS, CARDIFF
  DISFRANCHISED VOTERS, CARDIFF
  FIRE SERVICE (WAGE CLAIM)
  FIRE SERVICE (WAGE CLAIM)
  WELSH FINANCES
  WELSH FINANCES
  WELSH ADVISORY COUNCIL
  WELSH ADVISORY COUNCIL
  RENTED PROPERTY (TENANTS' USE)
  RENTED PROPERTY (TENANTS' USE)
  CHILD (VISIT TO AMERICA)
  CHILD (VISIT TO AMERICA)
  DRIVING OFFENCES (DRUNKENNESS)
  DRIVING OFFENCES (DRUNKENNESS)
  ELECTORAL REFORM
  ELECTORAL REFORM
  APPROVED SCHOOLS (EPILEPTIC CHILDREN)
  APPROVED SCHOOLS (EPILEPTIC CHILDREN)
  REMAND AND DETENTION CENTRES
  REMAND AND DETENTION CENTRES
  SCOTLAND (INFANT AND MATERNAL MORTALITY)
  SCOTLAND (INFANT AND MATERNAL MORTALITY)
  ROAD MAINTENANCE BRISTOL
  ROAD MAINTENANCE BRISTOL
  RETIREMENT PENSION INCREMENTS
  RETIREMENT PENSION INCREMENTS
  WAR-DAMAGED TOWNS
  WAR-DAMAGED TOWNS
  ESTABLISHMENT, BAHREIN (COST)
  ESTABLISHMENT, BAHREIN (COST)
  BUILDING PROGRAMME
  BUILDING PROGRAMME
  NATIONAL DRIED MILK
  NATIONAL DRIED MILK
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Tuberculosis Treatment (Cost)
  Tuberculosis Treatment (Cost)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Medical Auxiliaries
  Medical Auxiliaries
  Teaching Hospital, Cardiff
  Teaching Hospital, Cardiff
  COAL MINES (LOCOMOTIVES)
  COAL MINES (LOCOMOTIVES)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IN MALAYA
2.35 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given them private notice—namely, whether they have any statement to make on the terrorist ambush in Perak yesterday, in which two British and nine Asians were killed, and on the derailment of the mail train from Singapore in which four Asians were killed and nineteen injured; and whether in the opinion of His Majesty's Government these are evidence of the start of a major Communist campaign.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the incidents to which the noble Lord has referred are indeed serious and I am sure noble Lords in all parts of the House will join with me in deploring the loss of life involved. Noble Lords will be glad to know that His Highness the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negri Sembilan fortunately escaped injury. I should not like to say that these two incidents indicate a major change of tactics by the terrorists; but the fact that they are able to mount attacks of this kind indicates that their striking power remains high and underlines the continued seriousness of the situation. Noble Lords will understand if I refrain from any further comment on the situation in Malaya until after the return of my right honourable friend from his visit.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his statement. I am sure that we on this side join with him in deploring the loss of life and also in extending our sympathy to the relatives of those who have lost their lives. I am very glad to hear the noble Lord say that His Highness the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negri Sembilan was
252
not injured. I hope the same applies to his son. Both are old friends of mine, and it is gratifying to know that they escaped injury. There is one question I should like to ask the noble Earl. From the newspaper account it appears that there was an armoured train preceding the train which was wrecked, and that between the time the armoured train passed over the lines and the mail train from Singapore arrived several hundred feet of the lines had been removed. Would the noble Earl look into that situation, because on the face of it it seems rather inexplicable?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to that point. I will certainly look into the matter.
VISCOUNT JOWITT: My Lords, may I assure the noble Earl that if any stronger action is needed to maintain law and order, he may be perfectly satisfied that he will have the support of this side of the House?
ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
2.41 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved on Tuesday, November 6, by Lord Blackford—namely, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth—
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I rise to continue the debate upon the Motion before your Lordships' House, that an humble Address be presented on the gracious Speech, which was read to us so well and so charmingly by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. Before I proceed I should like to offer my congratulations to the proposer and seconder of this Motion—to the proposer particularly, because I had the pleasure of congratulating him upon his maiden speech in your Lordships' House. I have always considered that upon that occasion

253
I was a little too critical, and therefore I think I can now repay the debt that I have always felt I owed him by congratulating him upon what is one of the best speeches I have heard in this House for quite a long time.
Now I am going to try to follow the precept of my noble and learned Leader in what I consider to be the expressed and unexpressed desire of all your Lordships, not to be partisan, not to be factious or capriciously critical. I know that it will fall to my lot to deal with some of the more contentious matters in your Lordships' House, and perhaps this self-imposed ordinance will be tested highly. This afternoon I intend to devote my remarks to two items in the gracious Speech, one which I can wholeheartedly commend and the other which I shall wholeheartedly condemn.
As I have listened to a number of the speeches made in your Lordships' House and read a number of the speeches made in another place, it has been borne upon me, as I am sure it must have been upon all your Lordships, that the crux of this country's economic problem to-day is greater production, and that the essence of that problem is man-power. The gracious Speech draws attention to the lack of skilled man-power. The right honourable gentleman the Minister of Labour said in another place that that was his greatest problem, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, in a speech on the first day of this debate in your Lordships' House, said one very potent thing:
"Produce more for export and I shall then he enabled to buy more food."
With that I quite agree. But over the last decade or two this country has developed an economy which has had an emphasis on non-producers and a discouragement for producers, until to-day, by and large throughout this country, of the whole of the working population approximately one-third only are producers and two-thirds are non-producers. If we take the current figures, we find that of the 22,500,000 people in this country in civil employment—the highest number our country has ever known—8,750,000 only are in our manufacturing industries, the industries upon which we have to rely to provide us with the exports to sustain our very life. And a great many of those 8.750,000 are non-producers, because one
254
of the alarming phases of British manufacturing is the large content, the growingly large content, of non-productive labour. When you turn to the number of employees in the distributive trades, in the professions and in the financial and miscellaneous services, you find there are 6,500,000 people employed in those, shall I say, relatively non-productive occupations.
Can this country at the present time afford this luxury? Because it has two very great drawbacks, First of all, it lessens our production, and, secondly, it makes the cost of living that much higher. Your Lordships have heard from me in this House upon many occasions when this great problem of the gap between the cost of production and the price which the consumer has to pay has been under discussion. You have also heard far better speeches by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who has had quite a number of things to say upon this subject. I remember his last speech in the economic debate in your Lordships' House, when he drew attention to the restrictive practices that are prevalent right the way through distributive industry and which artificially heighten prices to the consumers of this country. That is a matter which I am sure must engage the very serious attention of His Majesty's Government.
In this connection, I quote from a speech which the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, made when he was Minister of Food during the last war. This is what the noble Lord said:
"In passing, I might as well say what is obvious, and that is that for many years I have studied the retail and the distributive trades of this country. I have no doubt at all that they represent one of the expensive and luxurious factors in our national life."
That is true to-day even more than it was then, and I wonder whether we can go on with this wasteful distributive system. Every Government since the First World War has burked this issue. The noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, produced a very valuable Report in 1922. I myself, some years afterwards, made a modest contribution to thought on the question of the cost of agricultural marketing. That Report is languishing in the pigeon-holes of a Government Department. I make no complaint about that, because I understand, on excellent authority, that all the best Reports have

255
to stay in pigeon-holes for quite fifteen or twenty years to mature—either that or to allow the intellect of the legislators to catch up with forward thinking. It is for one reason or the other. I would beg His Majesty's Government to give attention to this question of the growing and all too artificial gap between the cost of production and the price the consumer has to pay.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whom, if he will allow me, I should like respectfully to congratulate upon the honour which he has received—and no one could be more worthy of that honour—is a man who has done a considerable amount of practical farming, and I know his views, oft expressed as they have been, on the question of horticulture marketing. Unless something is done to prevent exploitation and reduce the number of intermediaries between the horticultural producers and the housewives, there will be some serious repercussions upon the producers. That is why I commend the paragraph in the gracious Speech which says the intention of the Government is to introduce a measure:
"for strengthening and widening the activities of the Monopolies Commission."
Within the last twenty-four hours we have seen the Report of the Monopolies Commission on their investigation into the activities of the electric lamp ring which mast be a surprise to many. But the Report comes as no surprise to those of us who have been a lifetime in industry. Industry is riddled with such restrictive practices as are there exposed. I should like to ask the Government whether they will be able to make a statement in the not too distant future on what action they propose to take in regard to that Report, and if they will let me know when it is convenient to them I should like to put down a Question before the Recess.
I am attracted by a suggestion made in the current issue of the Economist to which I draw the attention of the Government. The Economist suggests that there are well-established restrictive practices, including resale price maintenance, which should be declared by law to be against the public interest, and if any industry or trade wishes to practise them it should go, as the Economist says, "to the Monopolies Commission for absolution." I do not condemn all price fixing.
256
Price fixing is not wholly bad, and the "perfect competition," as likened by the classical economists, is not wholly good. It is neither black nor white. I can only hope that the Government will consider the suggestion I have made, because these restrictive practices form one of the great evils at the present time.
As the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, is now in the House and as I have already quoted with commendation and wholehearted agreement from a speech he made, I should like him to consider whether, in our present circumstances and in the difficult task he has before him, we can afford to have a distributive system in this country which contains the anomaly of paying butchers not to distribute meat. I have no doubt there may be good reasons why that is done, but if private enterprise wants to have the gains of private enterprise, it must also be willing to shoulder the risks.
I turn to the other part of the gracious Speech, and where I come to the test of my self-restraint. I have listened to every debate on transport in your Lordships' House since the 1947 Transport Act was passed, I have taken part in most of them, and I have listened to a majority of the debates on transport in another place. I have heard a wholesale and wholehearted condemnation of the nationalised transport system. According to noble Lords and members of the Government Party in another place, it has not even a soul to be damned. Now, after three years of criticism and tearing to pieces the nationalised transport system, the gracious Speech comes forward with the Government's proposals to rectify all these wrongs. What are the proposals contained in the gracious Speech and those enunciated by the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary? Viewed against the whole problem they do not even assume the dignity of "chicken feed." The transport problem which confronts this country is admitted on all sides to be one of our most vital problems. Transport was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in that excellent speech he made in opening the debate on the Address in another place, to be one of the essentials for an increase of productivity. Yet after three years of solid and careful thinking by all the supposed transport experts who advise them, the only thing that the Party opposite can

257
propose is that we must hive off a part of road haulage to private enterprise. If that proposal is the sum total of Government thinking, I can only say, in the words of the young people of to-day, "They haven't a clue."
Before I offer any criticism in detail, I should like to wait to hear the detailed proposals of the Government. I condemn their declared policy for its complete and utter inadequacy to grapple with the problem confronting the country. I hope that the detailed proposals will not follow the desires of the body officially representing the private hauliers. I see from a trade journal that one of the spokesmen of the road hauliers, while dismissing with a wave of the hand the fact that the State will lose £25,000,000, admits that the compensation paid to the road hauliers by the British Transport Commission will amount to £75,000,000—a figure I quoted in your Lordships' House at the time we debated a Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and which was questioned by noble Lords on the other side of the House, but which was correct then and has been proved to be correct now.
After saying that the State would lose £25,000,000, and that one or two sections of private industry would have their picking, the spokesman of the Road Haulage Association then said that they would put the rest of the assets up for auction. That may be the opinion of the spokesman of the Road Haulage Association, but I venture to suggest that the right honourable gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will have a very different opinion. That is all I am going to say upon that score. I am quite willing to allow any proposals of the kind that are mentioned as being those advanced by the Road Haulage Association, or any proposals of the kind that have been mentioned in another place by the right honourable gentleman, the Home Secretary, to be beaten out upon the anvil of the Ministry of Transport: that is the best place to hammer that lot out, behind those four walls, a place I know rather well.
But what is the problem? What is the future pattern of transport and the future policy to put that pattern into practice? I must confess that many of us who have been intimately connected with this matter over the last few years are bitterly disappointed that no pattern
258
of the transport requirements of this country has emerged, and that no forceful policy to put that pattern into operation has been forthcoming. And honesty compels me with reluctance to agree with the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport when he says that integration has not even yet started. That is the position which faces us to-day. What is going to be done about it? We have got to do a terrific amount of honest thinking about this, and thinking must precede precipitate action. We cannot even intelligently plan the meagre capital investment available before we know whether we are going to base the future of our transport system on the rail or on the road, or which proportions on each. One of the troubles we are always up against in this problem is that there are far too many people in this country who look at transport as an end in itself, and not as a means to an end. Transport has got to serve the industrial and social economy of this country.
It was for the purpose of finding out what the future pattern of transport should be, what was the correct pattern, and what was the correct policy required to put that pattern into operation that transport was nationalised, with the agreement fundamentally of all political Parties. That was the prime job of the British Transport Commission, and it has not yet been carried out. There was never any question amongst the political Parties as to whether the railways were to be brought under nationalisation. The only question that ever caused any dissent was as to what content of road haulage should be brought in. I venture to suggest that the pattern which does emerge must have its basis upon the railways. That is the only system of transport that will move huge bulks of merchandise and people, though I cannot pretend for a moment that it will continue to operate all its present routes. There are hundreds of miles of railway lines in this country which are redundant and uneconomic. But again, one of the problems is that if the British Transport Commission want to tear up a length of railway line and has not had any traffic on it for an appreciable time, as soon as they make the proposal to shut it up it becomes, in the eyes of those people who have never used it, the most important arterial piece of railway in the country.

259
This is the problem facing the Government: What is the pattern of transport? How are you going to divide up your capital investment? At the present time we are falling between two stools. The railways have been starved of capital equipment. The noble Lord, Lord Wool-ton, in his business capacity knows that you cannot expect to have a prosperous business with antiquated and worn-out equipment; and much of the railway equipment is worse than antiquated and worn out. On the one hand, the railways are not getting their fair share of capital investment, and the roads are not getting any at all. The Government must make up their minds which way they are going, whether they are going to base the future on the one system or the other, or a mixture of both, and how they are going to do it. I would beg of them not to toy with this "chicken feed". If I were to cast off the restraint I have imposed upon myself I might be tempted to say why this is being done; but I will refrain, because it makes no contribution to the problem.
I would make this suggestion to the Government. To formulate this pattern and to formulate this policy was our conception of the task of the British Transport Commission. It has not emerged. I doubt if now the British Transport Commission can ever do it. As time has gone on they have become bogged down into a morass of operational detail, the like of which few of us on either side of the House ever thought to see. I have come to the conclusion that there are so many things that must be said to the British public on this problem, and so many facets of the problem that must be unravelled by impartial minds, that there is only one thing to do, and that is for the Government to appoint an impartial and independent inquiry to see what is the right pattern and the right policy. Whether or not it should take the form of a Royal Commission I do not know. There was an inquiry into one aspect of it which I think did a tremendous amount of good. The Guillebaud Committee, in a small way, did a tremendous amount of good in enlightening British public opinion. Until we can get this transport problem settled, His Majesty's Government's efforts to increase the productivity of this country are going to be set at naught. We
260
have a peculiar problem. We are the most industrialised country in the world. Our road and our rails are only the conveyor lines between one factory and another, and they cannot be the shuttlecock or the rag football of either political Parties or vested interests.
Apart from that, there are one or two other problems to which I think His Majesty's Government must address themselves immediately. There is the question of public accountability of the State Corporations. I am delighted that His Majesty's Government have set up a Committee to inquire into how the procedure of Parliament can be altered so as to make it more free for public debate in both Houses. On this lack of public accountability I believe that Parliament itself has to take a large share of the responsibility. When they were setting up the principles of the Transport Act, both Houses were so anxious to prevent Parliament, Ministers or Ministries, from too frequently digging up the tree to have a look at the roots that they swung the other way, and divested Parliament of the power it should have. Consumer committees and councils are all very well, but they will never take the place of the greatest consumer council of all, Parliament. Parliament is responsible to the people. We did not intend to set up these nationalised boards in these ivory towers, but that is what has occurred, and that is one thing to which I suggest His Majesty's Government should address itself.
There is one other matter, and that is the position of the Transport Tribunal which is playing such a prominent part in the headlines of the newspapers to-day. May I draw your Lordships' attention to this one fact? The basic provision of the Transport Act is that the British Transport Commission shall so arrange its affairs that it shall
"Secure that the revenue is not less than sufficient for … meeting … charges taking one year with another"
and build up proper reserves. In other words, in plain English the Commission must run at a profit. I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, would be here this afternoon. I asked him specifically to be here, because I wanted to say all these things in front of him. He told me that he had a very urgent engagement.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: What was it?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Cabinet business.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is the Cabinet sitting?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The Cabinet is not sitting, but the business arose out of Cabinet affairs. I make no complaint. The noble Lord did not mean to be discourteous to me, but whether other noble Lords think that the noble Lord responsible for the co-ordination of transport should have been here is for them to express. Perhaps I can say it to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, or the noble Marquess the Leader of the House.
I have put what, in my view, is the overriding provision in the Transport Act, and yet at the same time we put in that Act a provision that though we charged them with responsibility for making a profit they had to go to an independent Tribunal to fix a substantial part of their revenue. What is happening? The position to-day is that, while the British Transport Commission have one claim being heard before that Tribunal, they now have a £14,000,000 impost upon them, and have to prepare another case for a further increase in their charges. This means that all the time the British Transport Commission have to be in the red, or approaching the red, before ever they can go to the Transport Tribunal and ask for an increase in their rates. On this occasion they propose to short-circuit the Act—and there is a short-circuit clause which allows them to do so. But they cannot go on. How can one expect a huge concern with those responsibilities to be made subject to this annoying delay, which, incidentally, not one other nationalised industry has to suffer, and which none of their suppliers has? The suppliers can put up their prices every day in the week, but it means a lag of sometimes from six to nine months before a case is prepared to the Transport Tribunal and before they can get a satisfactory increase in their revenue.
I know the difficulties of doing away with the Transport Tribunal, but I should think there could be devised a method affording some flexibility. We must devise some such method. I ask noble Lords who are so anxious to hive off some of the fruitful part and the profit-earning part—because they are the only parts
262
which are going to be concerned—to reflect on this fact. The capital of the British Transport Commission is £1,180,000,000, and interest and loan charges, amount to £44,000.000 per annum. That is guaranteed in principal and interest by the taxpayer of this country. That is a sobering thought for anybody who wants to have an auction sale of the taxpayers' assets.
I could not help being impressed by what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said when he dealt with economy—about pruning Government expenditure. He said: "We intend to see that economies are made in the public corporations." I agree with him absolutely. It shocks me, as someone who has spent his life in industry, that the spokesmen on these boards can keep on saying that there is no worth-while economy which can be made. A man who says that does not know the first principle of his job, because I know that any noble Lord on either side of the House who has had any experience of industry will agree that the chief profit architect in any industrial concern is the man who looks after those economies which are so insignificant as to escape the attention of everybody else. In the British Transport Commission there are still economies which can be made. I am not saying for one moment that it is possible overnight to effect an economy of £14,000,000 which would wipe out the impost of this latest wage award. If one could do that there would be something seriously wrong. I was always brought up on the creed that twelve pennies make a shilling and twenty shillings make a pound, and that the man looks after the pence and the pounds look after themselves.
I have tried to ask the question: What is the Government problem? It is a very big problem, because as time goes on the position has been bedevilled by quite a number of things. I have made my suggestions because I honestly believe that that is the only way to start to put this right. If the Government will do that they will have the good will of all noble Lords on this side of the House, for there is one thing from which, I think, your Lordships' House is singularly free and that is the distorted mentality that wishes to make Party political capital out of these difficulties. We all want our transport system to be a success. There is no

263
noble Lord sitting on the Government side, though he may know how to turn eggs into omelettes, who has ever yet found a satisfactory way of turning omelettes into eggs—not even the noble Lord, Lord Wootton.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): I never tried.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords I have told you my frank opinion. I hope His Majesty's Government will take heed of these remarks, because the industrial and social economy of this country depends not upon giving away a few million pounds to a little vested interest but upon making the transport system work in the interests of everybody concerned.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask whether it is intended to send to Lord Leathers and inform him that his duty is in this House?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, the noble Viscount has raised this matter before. I think the House should know that the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, took every step which courtesy demanded. He has this afternoon to be at an extremely important meeting, and it is, in my opinion, in the interests of the country that he should be at that meeting. He cannot, of course, be in two places at once. He gave quite proper warning to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I myself spoke to the noble and learned Viscount who is leading the Opposition about the difficulty. Though we are delighted to see the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, as the watchdog of the nation in this matter, the Government must be the final judge upon where it is most important for Ministers to be.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Ministers of the Crown have a duty to the higher House of Parliament. To say that Lord Leathers cannot rearrange a committee to attend this House and that he spoke privately to Lord Lucas of Chilworth does not excuse him from his Parliamentary duties. Whether or not I am vigilant has nothing to do with it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount has a very high standard for other people. I can remember many
264
occasions when the late Government were in power on which Ministers were not able to be in Parliament absolutely every day. The noble Viscount is in a sense rebuking his own Party in complaining of this matter of daily attendance. Many a time during the last six years have I noticed the absence of Ministers, or the presence of junior Ministers only, but I have never criticised them because I know Ministers have their duties to do elsewhere.
3.24 p.m.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, as one who was intimately associated with railway legislation thirty years ago, I am much tempted to follow the remarks of the last speaker. I am also much attracted by many of the liberal sentiments with which he interspersed his speech. But there are other speakers who will probably deal with the transport problem and I am anxious to refer, very briefly, to what I think is an even more urgent problem. The subject of foreign policy is to be discussed in this House on Wednesday next. Unfortunately, I shall be unable to be present on that occasion, as I have to be in Strasbourg for the whole of next week; but I am very anxious to press upon His Majesty's Government that they should make a clear statement upon what seems to me to be one of the most crucial points of international politics. I therefore ask your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments if I break the general thread of the debate for a few minutes to speak on the paragraph in the gracious Speech which says:
"My Government will make it their first duty … and, in concert with other members of the Commonwealth, the United States of America and our European partners, will share in a supreme effort to build a more tranquil and prosperous world."
Throughout the world the change of Government in Britain has given rise to the hope of a fresh peace initiative from Great Britain. Nowhere is this hope more marked than in Europe, where the Prime Minister's record and personality have created a keen sense of expectancy. This is due not only to the great prestige that Mr. Churchill enjoys in the liberation of Western Europe; it has been much enhanced by the remarkable foresight and leadership he has shown in post-war years and to the correctness of his diagnosis. I will mention only three points in this connection. His initiative at The Hague Conference brought to the front the whole

265
question of the existence of a Council of Europe which, in spite of many doubts, came into existence just fifteen months after than Conference. Exactly one year later it was Mr. Churchill who urged the admission of Germany into the comity of Europe; and again, twelve months later, the German delegation took their place at the Council of Europe at Strasbourg. On the second occasion it was Mr. Churchill who raised the issue of the European army. Again, thirteen months later, it was avowed as the official policy of the Foreign Ministers of the United Slates, France and Great Britain.
Against that background it is a little unfortunate that almost the first statement of the new Government has been one that involved a sudden severe cut in our imports from Europe. If the estimated reduction is in fact realised, our total imports from Western Europe will be reduced by something like 25 per cent. That is a very drastic cut. For three years British Chancellors of the Exchequer have preached to Europe the doctrine of the "liberalisation of trade" and the removal of embargoes and of quantitative restrictions generally from inter-European trade. As a result of this pressure something like 75 per cent. of the imports, other than Government imports, of France, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland and Eire, and in our own case 90 per cent., have been freed from these quantitative restrictions. The Government's decision will reduce the area in which our trade can move freely to 60 per cent. again. Whatever justification there may be for this sharp change—and I am not challenging it—it is a backward step and we must be fully alive to the dangers it involves. It is true that under the liberalisation code we are entitled to put back these restrictions in a time of emergency; but if we are entitled to do this so also may other countries, nearly all of whom have had their trade balances distorted by the world-wide rise in the price of raw materials. Countries whose products are suddenly banned from the British market must either find markets elsewhere or import less in order to protect their own trade balance. There is a very real danger of starting a series of competitive embargoes, just as happened at the crisis of the economic difficulties of 1931.
I was therefore extremely glad to hear yesterday from the noble Viscount. Lord Swinton, that the greatest care had been
266
taken to reduce to a minimum the harmful effects on our European associates; to explain, as we are bound to do under the liberalisation code, why we have done it; and, if possible, to provide at the earliest possible moment for their restoration. While the present economic crisis lasts, we must recognise that the task of economic co-operation will inevitably be under severe strain, and that strain will pass only if His Majesty's Government succeed in their major purpose, which is to alter the whole climate of the international situation.
May I say that my picture of the state of European opinion would not be complete if I did not also add that, even before the General Election, European statesmen had observed what they regarded as a definite, if slow, evolution of opinion in the British Labour Party in the course of the past twelve months? They had observed with great appreciation the suggestion made by Mr. Morrison in August last, that past and present British Chancellors of the Exchequer should speak on behalf of the O.E.E.C., introduce this November the Report on the economic state of Europe and speak for Europe before the Assembly of the Council of Europe. But circumstances have changed. I do not know what arrangements will be made in that context, but the fact that the late Foreign Minister had himself proposed that British Chancellors of the Exchequer should try to give a conspectus of Europe's problems to the Assembly of Europe seemed to them to be a definite advance.
In that connection, by far the greatest attention has been paid to the communiqué issued by the three Foreign Ministers in Washington on September 14. The principal points in this declaration are:
"(1) That the three Governments aim at the inclusion of a democratic Germany on a basis of equality in a continental community which itself will form a part of a constantly developing Atlantic community."
I am not going to quote the whole of the declaration, but it will be seen that one point of which they are in favour is that Germany should take her place in a European community as part of the larger whole. The declaration goes on:
"(2) That the Foreign Ministers of France, the United States and Britain welcome the Paris Plan"—
as I said just now, proposed thirteen months previously by Mr. Churchill—

267
"(for a European army) as a very important contribution to the effective defence of Europe, including Germany.
(3) Britain desires to establish the closest possible association with the European continental community at all stages of its development."
There are other clauses but those are the major ones. There are many ambiguities in this statement but it implies, first, that Britain will not obstruct or discourage the closer union, whether in a federation or otherwise, of the continental countries of Western Europe, even if she herself cannot take part. Secondly, it means that Britain will endeavour to associate herself with this European community as closely as her obligations to the Commonwealth and to the United States permit. In spite of its vague and, in some respects, puzzling terms, this statement has been hailed, in the words of a distinguished French statesman, as
"undoubtedly a milestone on the road towards the realisation of the European idea."
But, of course, what our European friends want to know is what is meant by the "closest possible
association with the European continental community." The question arises in the case of both the Schuman Plan and the proposal for a European army. I am not going to say anything on those questions specifically, for I have bored your Lordships on the subject many a time in the past twelve months; but each of them, in its own way, raises that question of how Britain can associate herself with an international organisation on the Continent of Europe.
May I state, therefore, in a series of propositions the situation which is presented to Europe? I think my propositions represent accurately, certainly as accurately as I can find it, the state of European opinion. First, unity is essential for Europe—unity in defence, in a common or at least harmonious policy in international affairs, and unity in its economic life, so that Europe can enjoy, as America enjoys, the benefits of a great and expanding market. But perhaps the most potent argument for unity—and, to my mind, it is supreme and overriding—is that a unified Europe is essential in order to create a setting within which Germany can take her place in full equality among the nations of Europe. It seems to me that those four propositions make it axiomatic that we must in some form, in some way, get the unification of
268
Europe. But there is a footnote to that assertion, which is that unity in Europe is not in any way in conflict with the conception of the North Atlantic community: a democratic Europe must, indeed, be closely associated with the North Atlantic community. That is a statement that emerges not only from this side of the Atlantic: it is the view of America. After all, it was General Marshall himself who in 1947 insisted that Europe should "put its house in order" and look at its combined resources before he would consider Marshall Aid. Precisely the same point
was made by General Eisenhower in London four months ago, when he said that it would be difficult to overstate the benefits, in these years of stress and tension, that would accrue to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation if the free organisations of Europe were truly a unit. There is no issue on that question on either side of the Atlantic.
The second point that arises is how to bring about that unity. At first sight, it may seem that the simplest way is for Europe to adopt a federal constitution, on the lines of that of the United States —and, indeed, some European Governments seemed at first to be ready to do that. But, for reasons which I need not develop now, Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries were not prepared to become members of a constitutional federation which would involve a general transfer of sovereign power. There remained open, then, two possible alternative courses: one, that those countries with Great Britain should form a small and limited federation. Alternatively, a union or federation could develop step by step by the creation of ad hoc bodies or international institutions for specific purposes. In the course of the debates a year ago at Strasbourg, it became clear that at that time the chief States of Europe were not prepared to adopt the first course, and create what became to be known as the "little federation," unless Great Britain was in it. In order to preserve the unity of the community of Europe, the Assembly accordingly accepted this second alternative. But up to the present that second alternative has made very little progress. The only specific institution which is about to come into existence is the organisation for the joint guarantee of human rights. It is an immensely important institution,

269
and that convention may have very great political effect in Europe, seeing that the whole question of human rights, including political rights, is one which at this moment is posed by the discussion as to whether Germany is to be united and is to hold free elections, and, if so, upon what basis. It would be a great advantage if the decisions of that convention were already on the Statute Book, as I hope they will be in two or three months' time.
The other two examples to which I have already referred, the Schuman Plan and a European Army, are making slow progress, mainly because Europe does not know where Great Britain really stands. Are we ready to participate in these limited undertakings, or are we only going to cheer from the sidelines? That is the crucial question which faces Europe. Many Europeans, including some Frenchmen, are afraid of a defence system which would be almost entirely composed of a Franco-German force, especially if, in the course of time, pressure from the East were relaxed and the attention of European countries were turned in other directions. I cannot pursue that point further, but there is a great uneasiness, and an unreadiness at present to assume unity through the system of smaller groups. Here, therefore, is the dilemma of Europe. Great Britain has turned down, and by its action has postponed indefinitely, the question of a constitutional federation of Europe. A year ago Mr. Bevin, in conjunction with his colleagues on the Committee of Ministers, approved the alternative concept of piecemeal unification, if I may call it that, through specialised authorities. But Europe does not yet know whether Britain is really prepared to enter, even on that limited and restricted basis, the fields of defence and of economics. If that negative attitude is maintained, Europe will again be faced with the choice either of launching these plans with a limited number of participants or of devising a somewhat looser form of organisation.
Again, at this time many countries in Europe will have their doubts about participating in this limited field, and therefore I think His Majesty's Government may take it for granted that before very long, and almost certainly arising out of the Assembly of the Council of Europe later this month, a new and urgent appeal,
270
in some form or another, will be addressed to the United Kingdom, on the ground that without British participation there will be only a truncated Europe, unworthy of the name. To that appeal His Majesty's Government will have to give a very considered answer. It will be asked that a fresh effort should be made to bring about a solution of these problems of defence and economics, in a way in which Britain can play its full part, even if it means a more elastic plan than any which our friends would themselves wish to adopt.
That is the question that is posed to this country. This afternoon, I would stress that it is most urgent that it should be answered very quickly, because the sands are running out, particularly in regard to the situation in the most crucial part of Europe—that is to say, Germany. Western Germany will very soon regain her sovereign independence. The sentiment of unity between East and West Germany is growing every day. The position is taking shape. A new shape of Central Europe is slowly beginning to emerge. Is it emerging in the way in which we desire it to emerge? We have had the opportunity of preparing a place for Germany in the European community, but it is not yet ready for her, and, unless we move quickly, all our efforts will be outstripped by the course of events. That is why I most strongly urge His Majesty's Government to make their policy clear, and to give guidance on this vital matter, in the course of the debates which will be held in both Houses of Parliament early next week. I say "early next week" because next Monday a conference will take place at Strasbourg between, on the one side, a delegation of fourteen members appointed by the President of the American Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and, on the other side, a similar delegation appointed by the Assembly of the Council of Europe. Its purpose is to discuss the progress, problems and prospects of the Union of Europe and its relation to the Western World.
This Conference has the support of the State Department in America and of the Committee of Foreign Ministers in Europe, and I think it is the first time in history that such a meeting of representatives, officially appointed by their Parliaments, has met to discuss inter-con-

271
tinental relationships, and to consider what the parliaments on either side of the Atlantic can do about it. The European delegation will be able to assure their American visitors that real progress has been made in the last two or three years. That is indeed true. Europe's economic organisation, brought into being as a result of Marshall Aid, has created the E.P.U., has brought about a very considerable liberalisation of trade, has created the practice, as a regular routine, of laying production programmes on the table for all to comment upon and criticise. Some progress has also been made in pulling together and streamlining the confusion of international authorities that have grown up since the war. But the machinery of co-operation, as I said at the outset, is going through a very testing time, owing to the crisis brought about by rearmament and looking into the future, as I said just now, the future evolution of Europe is obscure. What prospects of future progress can those who speak for Europe at that Conference hold out to our American friends? The answer must depend upon what is said next week in Parliament here. His Majesty's Government, I believe, have at this moment a unique opportunity of saying the word which will influence the conflicting currents of opinion in Europe in the right direction, and to give a fresh stimulus to the evolution of a Europe strong enough to take its proper place as one of the effective pillars of the Western World.
3.48 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down into European affairs, but I should like to refer to some interesting points which have been made on transport by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Amongst other things, the noble Lord raised the question of compensation which has been paid to road hauliers for the acquisition of their businesses. I am quite certain that the Government will not propose that the taxpayer should be saddled with a loss. On the other hand, I think that it should be remembered that the road haulage section of the Transport Commission has been losing money, and good will has of course been dissipated: and therefore the assets are cer-
272
tainly not worth what they were when they were taken over.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Surely, if the noble Lord is going to follow that line of argument, then we shall have a really good contentious debate, because for the first time in the history of the road haulage side of transport the interest on the capital has been guaranteed by the State.
LORD TEYNHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to continue my argument. I feel sure that an equitable arrangement might well be made between the Transport Commission and those hauliers who wish to go back into the industry. It must not be forgotten also that before the operation of the Transport Commission these road haulage industries were making money and the Government were deriving substantial benefits from taxation of the profits. This, of course, has now disappeared. On balance, I would say that it should be quite possible to make such an equitable arrangement so that there should be no ultimate loss to the taxpayer. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that an alteration of the twenty-five mile limit at present enforced on the independent hauliers, will not by any means solve the transport problem as a whole. The noble Lord has said it is "chicken feed." Of course it is only a first instalment. Your Lordships will remember that I recently had the honour of introducing a Transport Amendment Bill which passed through all the stages of this House, and also received a Second Reading in another place. My primary object in introducing the Bill was to give justice to the road hauliers. But apart from the question of justice, we believe that road haulage work is essentially a matter for local application, so that industrialists and traders can make their own arrangements with those people who thoroughly understand the work that is required. We on this side of the House have always contended that the whole set-up of the Transport Commission was wrong and incapable of establishing a properly integrated transport system.
Why do we say that the Transport Commission cannot carry out these duties? I will be quite frank and say that the Transport Commission could not really begin to carry out their duties properly unless the "C" licence holders

273
were included in the co-ordinated system. On the other hand, we maintain that every man should have the right to carry his own goods in his own vehicles if he wishes, and this is a right that should never be taken away from him. Therefore we say that on the basis of the Transport Commission we shall never obtain an efficient transport system. On the figures alone, it becomes obvious that it would not work. There are 800,000 "C" licence holders as against 40,000 vehicles owned by the Road Haulage Executive, and we maintain that, however well organised the Transport Commission might be, and even if it included the "C" licence holders, the establishment would be so unwieldly that efficiency would deteriorate. In fact, we have seen this happening when even the 40,000 vehicles have been under central control. Complaints have been pouring in from industries about slow deliveries, increased costs and so on. I was very glad to see that His Majesty's Government have directed the Transport Commission, through the Road Haulage Executive, to postpone the acquisition of operators which may be now pending and at their option, for a period of six months. This will, no doubt, provide time for the introduction of a Transport Amendment Bill, and I think it is only fair that these operators should receive this protection while such a Bill is under consideration.
It may be asked, why should not this action be retrospective? I think the answer is that His Majesty's Government have no powers to cancel acquisitions already made. But, of course, if operators who have already been taken over wish to re-enter the industry, they must look to legislation for re-entry, and I have little doubt that His Majesty's Government intend to embody a suitable arrangement in the Transport Amendment Act. I would also like to say that I welcome the indication given by His Majesty's Government that they propose to bring the Transport Commission within the ambit of the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933, so that the vehicles of the Transport Commission will be subject to the licensing authorities. As your Lordships are aware, the licensing authorities are responsible and impartial bodies, who, I think, can well be trusted to have regard to any special duties or responsibilities of the Commission, and, of course, there is the additional safeguard of the Appeal
274
Tribunal. The application of the principle that both the Transport Commission and the independent road hauliers should come tinder the licensing authority will have to be worked out in consultation with both parties before legislation can be brought forward. I am sure that His Majesty's Government have every intention of carrying this out, and I think it will lead to a progressive improvement in the road transport service of the country.
I should, however, like to suggest to His Majesty's Government that until such time as a Bill to amend the Transport Act is introduced the Transport Commission should be authorised to re-issue permits for long-distance work which, as your Lordships are aware, were cancelled recently by the late Government, with the effect of injuring trade and industry already. I have no doubt that the noble Lord who is in charge of the co-ordination of transport, fuel and power will quickly examine the whole organisation of the transport system. But I cannot help feeling that we have reached a stage when something more than a departmental inquiry is necessary. In fact, I am rather inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that a Commission should be set up immediately with a view to examining the best method of producing a really efficient transport system in this country—which we have certainly not got at the present time.
On the other hand, I suggest that it would be most unwise to delay any action in implementing the proposals which have been put forward by His Majesty's Government for the re-establishment of road haulage services on an efficient and workable basis. We have seen that nationalisation of road transport has failed dismally and is not the method for efficient operation. But we must not forget that the railways must enter largely into any reorganisation of the transport system as a whole. And I would say that it is essential that many of those archaic Acts which surround the railways should be removed as soon as possible. I should also like to throw out one suggestion, and that is that the railways, under the Transport Commission, should be relieved of the capital charges and maintenance costs in connection with the railway track, and in this respect placed on a somewhat similar basis to that of the roads. We

275
might then be able to evolve a more equitable set-up between the two transport systems. We might even class some of the railway tracks on a somewhat similar basis to that of the roads, such as trunk road class 1, class 2, and so forth, where different Exchequer contributions are made.
I know that there is a tendency in some quarters to think that the railways are obsolete. How could they be obsolete when our present road system is quite inadequate to carry the traffic? The cost of reorganisation of the roads would be prohibitive at the present time, and will be for many years to come. I suggest that there is plenty of traffic at the present time for both road and rail, if the two systems were placed on a more equitable basis and competition on the right lines could be established. I hope that His Majesty's Government will give their very serious attention to working out a complete reorganisation of the transport system. Transport is the life-blood of the nation, and if allowed to deteriorate too far it will bring all kinds of unwelcome repercussions on trade and industry, and may well interfere seriously with our export trade. I know it is a tangled skein, and one which may be difficult to unravel, but I am sure that all Parties will welcome a new and constructive approach to this vital problem.

FUTURE OF THE SUDAN
4.0 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, interpose at this moment in order to communicate to your Lordships a Statement just made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place on the subject of the Sudan. The Statement is as follows:
"In view of the uncertainty caused in the Sudan and elsewhere by the Egyptian Government's unilateral action in purporting to abrogate the 1936 Treaty of Alliance and the two Condominium Agreements of 1889, His Majesty's Government find it necessary to reaffirm that they regard the
276
Governor-General and the present Sudan Government as fully responsible for continuing the administration of the Sudan.
"His Majesty's Government are glad to note that the Sudan has for some time been, and is now, moving rapidly in the direction of self-government. In their view, this progress can and should continue on the lines already laid down. His Majesty's Government will therefore give the Governor-General their full support for the steps he is taking to bring the Sudanese rapidly to the stage of self-government as a prelude to self-determination, and now await the recommendations of the Constitution Amendment Commission. His Majesty's Government are glad to know that a constitution providing for self-government may be completed and in operation by the end of 1952.
"Having attained self-government, it will be for the Sudanese people to choose their own future status and relationship with the United Kingdom and with Egypt. His Majesty's Government consider that the attainment of self-government should immediately be followed by active preparations for the ultimate goal of self-determination. They will support the Governor-General in his efforts to ensure that the Sudanese people shall be able to exercise their choice in complete freedom and in the full consciousness of their responsibilities.
"His Majesty's Government, with whose support the Sudanese Government have brought the Sudanese people to their present stage of progress, are confident that they will work with united enthusiasm towards their goal. His Majesty's Government meanwhile guarantee the defence and security of the Sudan during the intervening period."
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I am sure we have listened with great interest to the Statement made by the noble Marquess. It would be improper for me to comment on it at this stage, but I feel certain that in all parts of the House it has been heard with interest and, in general, with approval.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I should like, as is customary, to join in thanking the noble Marquess for the

277
Statement which has just been made reaffirming in clear and definite terms the policy of His Majesty's Government in the matter of the Sudan. The House will be discussing in the very near future all questions of foreign policy, and this will no doubt be one of the most important topics to be discussed. On this occasion it will be sufficient if I state, as I am sure my noble friends on these Benches would wish me to state, their full concurrence with the terms of the declaration which has been made.
ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
4.4 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, resuming the debate on the gracious Speech, I notice that a considerable number of your Lordships desire to take part in the debate to-day, and therefore I am sure that noble Lords who preceded me in this debate will excuse me if I do not follow their interesting speeches but confine myself to one issue, with a few factual comments upon the economic and financial situation and a few words regarding the remedies proposed by the Government. It is not necessary to be an economist to realise that a nation, like an individual, cannot consume more than it produces unless it begs, borrows or steals, or runs down its stock of commodities. In other words, we have to cut our coat according to our cloth. Of course, we must bear in mind that the amount of cloth is not fixed. We can increase it by increasing our productive effort, and it will be reduced if the terms of trade turn against us in the world market, that is to say, if the prices of goods we sell do not increase as much as the prices of the goods we want to buy.
Before we come to the differences between us, which I will show presently cut right across Party lines, I should like to see how far we all agree. I do not know anyone who dissents from the view that production must be keyed up to the highest pitch that is physically and humanly possible. The Government. the Opposition, the industrialists, the T.U.C., the financiers, the Economists and the
278
farmers are united in the view that we must grow more food, mine more coal, produce more steel and more industrial commodities, always bearing in mind the limitation of raw materials and the frailties of the human frame and human susceptibilities, about which we must not be too impatient. I think we can all agree, too, that, when we take into account the immense difficulties of the post-war period, the progressive increase in production since the war has done great credit to the people of our country, helped or hindered, according to one's point of view, by the activities of the late Government. Even so, our present situation is such that still greater effort is required to-day. Now the question arises whether, when production is stepped up to the maximum amount, the full programme of rearmament, the full expenditure of the Government and the full personal consumption of the people are all compatible with one another. As I see it, there are three divergent views on that issue. The first is that they were incompatible from the time that rearmament was stepped up and remain so at the present time. The second is that they were compatible at the time when the enlargement of the rearmament programme was decided upon but that owing to the progressive deterioration of the terms of trade and other things they have become, or are tending to become at the present time, incompatible. The third view is that there is nothing to worry about, that we can go on broadly as we are, and that things will right themselves somehow. Let us see where we all stand. It may surprise some people, I think, to find themselves with rather strange bedfellows in these categories.
I start with the Economist newspaper, which perhaps takes the strongest view that these things were never compatible. I associate with it—I see that he is not here to-day—the noble Lord, Lord Brand. I do not wish to misrepresent him in his absence, but I think he may be taken as sharing the view, to a very large extent, of the Economist: that the full rearmament programme, the expenditure of the Government and the Welfare State were never mutually compatible. But, strange as it may seem to the noble Lord and the Economist, I am bound to put them into the same category as Mr. Aneurin Bevan and Mr. Harold Wilson, who both

279
take that same view. The only difference between those two Members of the other place, former Ministers of the Crown, and the Economist and the noble Lord, Lord Brand, is that, while agreeing as to the fundamental fact, Mr. Aneurin Bevan and Mr. Harold Wilson take the view that, if something has to give way, it must be the rearmament programme, whereas the Economist and the noble Lord take the view that it must be the Welfare State. At any rate, that is how I interpret it: I am not trying to read into the noble Lord's statement anything I do not think it should bear.
Jumping the middle group for the moment, and coming to the third group, I think there are a large number of people up and down the country—unthinking people— who take the view that there is no need to do anything in particular, and that they can afford to wait. Of course, it is true that if you do nothing in particular, if you allow inflation to proceed and you judge your success by whether your monetary target is reached, inflation will of itself provide on paper a theoretical balance. But what will have happened, in fact, is that both the rearmament programme and the Welfare State, in terms of reality, will have suffered a diminution, and the balance will result only in cutting down both those two elements in consumption.
I now come to the middle group. I venture to think that in that middle group are included the late Government and the present Government, who both take the view that, subject to careful pruning and to doing some unpleasant things, the balance can be made effective, and both the Welfare State and the rearmament drive can be carried out broadly as they were originally intended to be. The main difference between the two sides of the House in this matter is, therefore, not one of fundamental reality, but of emphasis. The difference is that whereas noble Lords on the Government side of the House seem at times to take the view that, whatever happens, the rearmament programme must be sacrosanct and must not be diminished by a single item, noble Lords on this side of the House tend to take the view that the Welfare State must not be diminished, and that that, in its turn, is sacrosanct.
280
Noble Lords opposite say: "Of course we are right, because unless you can defend the country, everything goes: you had better come down to a crust rather than be defeated and overrun by a foreign foe." But noble Lords on this side have an adequate rejoinder to that. They say that only a healthy and well-nourished people can produce the output which will create rearmament; and only if they are healthy, well nourished and reasonably contented will they be prepared, if necessary, to fight for the standard of living which they have had. The further question arises: supposing the situation gets worse, and we should agree that both these things are incompatible, what is to be done? What usually happens in British life is that, where it is absolutely necessary to find a solution, it is generally found by a certain amount of give-and-take. Broadly speaking, what I should expect to happen would be that there would be of necessity a cutting out of non-essentials of both types of production in favour of the essentials, which both sides are so anxious to maintain. I, for my part, would certainly not be willing to see the Welfare State cut away in the insistence upon a rigid doctrinaire view of the sacrosanct character of the rearmament programme.
I should like to turn from that matter to one part of the Government's programme which was enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day in another place, and which has been referred to by several noble Lords in this debate—namely, the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with inflation, partly by the old mechanical method of increasing the bank rate and partly by increasing other rates for short borrowing. I have no desire to exaggerate the consequences of this step. If it is regarded in isolation, it is admittedly a very small step. Those who support it do not claim for it that, by itself, it will do much to check inflation; those who oppose it do not claim that it will do much damage. The increase in cost to the Exchequer has been put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself (the figure has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Pakenham) as some £25,000,000 gross and less, perhaps not more than £10,000,000 or £15,000,000. net—I am not concerned whether it is more or less. It is a serious amount, but not a terribly large amount.

281
Further, though there is no direct connection between short-term rates of interest and long-term rates of interest, I do not think anyone would deny that the action of the Government and the Bank of England in this matter has had some influence on the continued fall in the value of securities on the Stock Exchange. Noble Lords who follow the figures will have seen that practically ever since the result of the Election was known the price of securities has almost uninterruptedly been coming down. I am not one of those who make a great deal of that. I do not believe that that necessarily reflects lack of confidence in the Government, and I think the use of the words "reducing the credit of the country" is rather misplaced. But what I do say is that I am quite sure—because I have seen it happen on many occasions—that if a Labour Government had been in power at this time many Conservative papers would have flashed headlines, and written tremendous articles saying that this was a sign of the lack of support in the country for the Labour Government. They would have calculated how many tens of millions of pounds—I am not sure that it would not have been hundreds of millions of pounds—the total value of the national securities had fallen owing to the return of a Labour Government. If, therefore, I do not make any attempt to censure the Conservative Government for this result, I do hope that it will be borne in our favour in days to come, when the Labour Government are returned; and I hope that the Leaders of the Conservative Party will equally, as I am doing, set their face against any attempt to tar the Government of the day merely because on one or two days running securities fall in value on the Stock Exchange.
It is not all that which alarms me. This action, taken in isolation and as a single event, does not worry me very much. I am alarmed about two things: first, that this action is called a signal and, secondly, that it is described as an instalment. In order not to run any risk of being misunderstood, I should like to quote two passages—one from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and one from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his speech, was defending his action against the charge of its being too small and insignificant. He dealt with one reason, and then
282
he said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; Vol. 493, Col. 206):
"My second reason for deciding upon a gradual step is that those with whom I have had the good fortune to work agree with me that any sharp attempt to try to switch to drastic deflation would he unwise."
The noble Lord, Lord Brand, was very much more explicit. He said this:
"This I regard as a very important development, and I hope it will be gradually developed. If it is, it should exercise a general influence in a disinflationary direction. Personally I also support the Bank of England hr beginning in a moderate way. The City is like a man who has lost the use of his legs, for a good many years and is just beginning to walk again. He has to take things quietly until he knows how to use his legs again."
The deduction that I draw from those two statements—and I do not think unjustly—is that one cannot treat this increase in the bank rate, and the increase in other rates, as a final and single step. It has to be judged as the first in a series of steps, and what I want to know from the Government—and I think I am entitled to know in the interests of industry in this country—is, if it is an instalment or a signal, what is it a signal of? If it is a gradual step, what further step is it leading up to?
I am old enough to remember—as I, think, a good many noble Lords in this House remember—the 'twenties of this century and what happened at that time. Then, as now, there was a period of inflation, and the Bank of England, in order to check the inflation, put up the rate of discount. Of course, the rate was put up a great deal higher—I am not suggesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put it up anything like so high. The Bank of England put up the rate of discount and continued holding up the rate of discount until prices began to comedown. They toppled down, and the whole principle was carried to a further conclusion a few years later when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—who happens to be the present Prime Minister —determined to go one better and to restore the gold standard and, in his own words, "to make the pound look the dollar in the face." That was a very grand and splendid idea, but what was the result of the deflation produced by the Bank of England's policy of putting up and keeping up the bank rate and the Chancellor's action in restoring the gold standard and raising the pound still further? We had perhaps the most serious

283
depression, the greatest slump in industry, and the greatest period of unemployment in our history. I do not suggest that that is what is going to happen now.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT SWINTON):
This is so important that I think the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt for a moment. I do not know whether he heard my speech yesterday, but if not I would ask him to read it, because I gave a very carefully considered answer on this point. I am not saying that the increase in the rate would always remain at one half of 1 per cent. Nobody would say that. But the suggestion is now being made that this will be, and is intended to be, the prelude to what I may call the complete and sole use of the monetary system as a disinflationary weapon. I said this quite definitely yesterday—and if the noble Lord looks at Column 174 of the OFFICIAL REPORT he can see it:
"Some noble Lords have suggested—I think it was yesterday—that if the bank and discount rates are changed at all, the new rate should be much higher to make the rate effective. The short answer to that is that we have no intention of allowing monetary technique to become the dictator of economic policy. Nobody is asking or expecting the monetary weapon to do the whole job. It is being enlisted as a useful and necessary adjunct to the other measures which the Government are taking to rectify the economic situation."
That was a very carefully considered statement, and I can assure the noble Lord that that is definitely the policy and intention of His Majesty's Government.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for his intervention. I am bound to tell him that I had a number of engagements yesterday afternoon. I came down to this House as early as I could, but I did not hear his speech and in view of a great many other activities I have not had the time to read it in detail. I shall certainly study it in greater detail now.
What the noble Viscount has said certainly goes some way—a good long way perhaps—to meet the point I was making. It may quite well be true, and I do not doubt for a moment, that that is the intention of the Government. But what I am alarmed about is lest the Government should, by taking this first step, be admitting the essential value of
284
a mechanical monetary approach to the problems by which we are beset to-day.
I was going on to say—and I do not think it will conflict at all with what the noble Viscount has very properly intervened to remind me—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man with whom I have been associated, though in an opposite Party, for a great many years. He is a man of considerable judgment and independent mind. It may be that he will be able to resist the pressure which will be brought upon him by that side of financial policy which desires (I do not think the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will disagree with me here: I think he said it in the course of his remarks yesterday) who wish to see the bank rate going up and staying up in order to achieve certain things.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There is a great deal the other way.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sufficiently independent to resist that pressure. I do not think that even the noble Viscount would suggest that the present Chancellor is a man of more independent mind than the Prime Minister, and it was the Prime Minister who introduced the restoration of the gold standard. Later on, when it had proved the disaster which I foresaw, he admitted that he had been over-persuaded by his officials to take this course, and not knowing as much about finance then as he knew later, he regretted that he had been so over-persuaded. Therefore, all the vigilance of the Government will be required in order to prevent this happening in the present instance.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Once bitten, twice shy!
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am very glad that that is so. I am delighted to hear the noble Viscount, speaking with all the authority of a member of the Government, remind me of that fact. But the point is whether we propose to say to industry "You have got to diminish your activities, because you are going to be charged more" or whether we are merely going to say "We are putting up an amber light but we have no intention of reinforcing it with a red light later—it is only our method of drawing your attention to the fact that you had better proceed with a little caution and not attempt

285
to do too much. Otherwise we have no desire to limit the activities you pursue which turn out to be in the interests of the country." Therefore, though I regret that I had not read the speech to which the noble Viscount has drawn my attention, I am not sorry that I have brought this matter a little further into prominence. I have given the Government my warning, that if they were to take any steps to attempt to rule the industrialist through the money market they would he doing a great disservice to the country; they would be creating unemployment, and ruining industrialists; and they themselves would rue the day.
4.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, in speaking after the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat, I feel myself under a certain inhibition—though it is not the first time I have had that honour—because as I see him speaking I have the vision of him at Eton for six years, sitting next to my father as a schoolboy, and that always leads me to treat him with an even greater respect than perhaps other noble Lords treat him. The noble Lord is qualified to speak on this matter of the bank rate and I am not. But if all the criticisms from Opposition Benches referring to this matter had been made in the terms which the noble Lord employed, and had been limited to the matter which he used, there would, I think, have been little resentment on this side of the House or anywhere in the Conservative Party, because, so far as I understand it, there is little difference between him and the Government on this matter.
What some of us resent, I think, is not what he has said but what other members of his Party have said. We do not complain that a highly technical matter should be the subject of debate. We do not ignore the possibility that a decision on such a technical matter could be carried too far, and we welcome the warning given in that spirit. But the attitude of Opposition supporters in another place and in the country has not been the same as that of the noble Lord and of other noble Lords on that Front Bench. While these noble Lords were making courteous and seemly criticisms I happened to be speaking on the radio with a prominent Member of the Opposition in the Lower House, who, speaking not in the rarified atmosphere of this
286
House or even in the more turbulent atmosphere of another place, says, in effect, not that on a somewhat technical matter a questionable decision had been taken but: "The bankers are the supporters and backers of the Conservative Party, and what has been done has been done not for any public purpose whatever, but in order to put money in the shape of increased profits into the pockets of their own supporters." That is the charge; and that is the kind of thing that will bring Parliament into contempt if it is pursued. I hope that the wise words of the noble Lord to-day will reach a much wider audience.
I was interested—and I think the House was interested and pleased—to hear the earlier part of the noble Lord's speech in which he analysed various categories of persons and opinions with regard to the relative values of our rearmament programme and what he called the "Welfare State." I was not quite sure into what category I myself fell or, to use his own felicitous analogy, in what bed I was compelled to sleep and with what companions. I should fully agree with him that it is part of the rearmament programme that those who are benefiting from the Welfare State should continue to feel themselves supported by the community. I do not think there would be any difference between the Parties on that matter. It is vital, if NC are to defend ourselves, that there should be no section of the community, rich or poor, and no part of the country, which does not feel itself to be an organic part of the whole. For that purpose the apparatus of the Welfare State is just as much an essential part of our rearmament programme as the provision of guns themselves. Indeed it is, I should have thought, vital that in such a situation there should be no part of the community at all that is led to believe that it is regarded by any other as "lower than vermin." We are all part of one country, and the Welfare State, if its assists that sense of organic unity, is an integral part of our rearmament programme.
Where I venture to criticise the noble Lord's speech on that aspect of the matter would be in this direction. Granted that the rearmament programme and the Welfare State have to live together, and that neither will succeed without the other, then, quite clearly, the whole economic and political and social life of the

287
country is thereby subjected to a strain. There are priorities between different kinds of armaments and there are priorities between different kinds of welfare. We are gradually coming to learn that one of the main obstacles to future improvements in welfare in one direction may be the expenditure of money on welfare in another direction. When the economy is under a strain, clearly each separate branch of welfare must be scrutinised to ascertain whether the money is being spent on the best possible kind of welfare and in the best possible kind of way.
If I venture to criticise noble Lords opposite, and certainly members of the Labour Party elsewhere, it is to say that they tend to regard the various categories of welfare and the various degrees of expenditure authorised in their heyday between 1945 and 1950 as something sacrosanct, which can never be altered or even questioned. That, in my belief, is a dangerous and fallacious way to approach the problem. The truth is that the Welfare State does involve many new categories of political thinking. The plan of welfare itself implicit in the various methods introduced is to some extent old-fashioned and out of date, and the effect of some of the measures, taken singly and in conjunction with one another, is found to produce a situation which is the opposite of welfare, and, in a period of strain, when the whole economy has to be carefully tested and each item religiously scrutinised, I hope that noble Lords opposite will not regard that matter as entirely sacrosanct and free from criticism. The moral of the recent General Election I think is this. The traditional Parliamentary system in this country depends for its success undoubtedly upon the existence of two main Parties, but it depends for its success none the less upon the existence of an amorphous body of persons whom we politicians are rather apt to refer to disrespectfully as "the floating vote"—people who are actually open to persuasion by reason, extraordinary as this may seem. The moral, and the rather startling moral, of the recent General Election is that that body of "floating voters" has dwindled to alarmingly small proportions, to proportions indeed so small that the working of the whole machine is coming to be endangered by reason of their reduced
288
numbers. What is really startling is the extraordinarily small number of people who, after all that expenditure of oratory and argument, seem to have had their opinions swayed at all in either direction. The vast majority had made up their minds a long time ago as to how they intended to vote, and they voted as they had made up their minds, despite what any of the orators said. I do not think that any sincere lover of our Constitution really regards that as a favourable development. It may be that we could have helped it but, in my judgment at any rate, it is something which gives ground for apprehension, and not rejoicing, on either side.
I certainly hope that this Parliament will at least not be disturbed in its existence until some indication of an appreciable change of public opinion in one way or another is apparent, because I can conceive of nothing less advantageous to the public interest than a series of General Elections, each of them successively resulting in slightly different variations of stalemate. I also hope—and in this I am perhaps a little less optimistic—that whilst this Parliament does last, be it a short time or a long time, the machine will somehow be made to work by some degree of restraint on both sides. I shall, with respect, have a few suggestions to make about that, because, if it does not, it is not the Parties who will suffer; it is the Parliamentary machine to which both Parties are sincerely devoted. I must say that some of the developments, notably in another place, which have occurred since the opening of this Parliament have filled me with a certain degree of disquiet. I am bound to add that some of the speeches coming from the noble Lords opposite have not altogether reassured me, although I should make a notable exception in the case of the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat. Your Lordships will remember the parable of the mote and the beam. That easy parable has been invoked on both sides but always in reverse—always with the object of pointing out the beam in our neighbour's eye whilst modestly disclaiming the existence of any mote in our own—an unauthorised if not totally unfamiliar use of the parable.
I want to say one or two controversial things. I hope I may be forgiven if I do

289
so without invoking either the mote or the beam. In the first place, I must say I utterly fail to understand the charge which is levelled against the Government that they have run away from their Election pledges. There are at least two omissions from the gracious Speech—the university seats and the reform of your Lordships' House. I myself heartily endorse the first omission and regret the second, as I gather did the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. But the reasons which led to those omissions seem to me to be in the highest traditions of our public life. When a Party is elected with an immense majority in the Lower House, quite obviously its first preoccupation under the Constitution must be to carry out the legislative programme contained in its Election manifesto. That the Labour Government did in 1945, to the great disaster, as I believe, of the country. But there could be no constitutional objection to their doing so. When, however, a Party is returned to office or to power by a relatively narrow margin, its first duty and preoccupation must be to make the Parliament machine work as well as possible. I myself in another place voted against the abolition of the university seats and bitterly protested; but had His Majesty's Government declared in the present gracious Speech their intention to carry out their Election pledge, I should certainly have felt bound to vote against them, because I consider that that would be an action wholly contrary to the needs of the situation. I should have felt no sense of inconsistency in acting in that way. I myself did not appreciate the necessity for making the other omission but, whilst not appreciating the arguments which have led the Government to make it, I think the motives which have underlain the decision have been beyond reproach.
When it is said, however, that the Government, who are the declared enemies of control and regulation, have acted somehow inconsistently or dishonourably in imposing a number of drastic controls when first they were elected to office, I must say I think the criticism is wholly lacking in force. No one has ever pretended—certainly no one in my experience has ever pretended—that controls and regulations are not necessary to deal with sudden crises. It is certainly our view that they ought not to be part of
290
the permanent philosophy of government in easy times. While they may be necessary to deal with shortages,
and, indeed, whilst Socialism itself may be an excellent way of sharing misery, it is not a good way of creating abundance. That is the philosophy upon which we proceed. It may be right or it may be wrong, but I can see no base whatever in the charge of inconsistency which is placed there. That, surely, must equally apply to the cuts in food imports. No one can pretend that a long trend of policy, continued perhaps for six or seven years, can be reversed in a moment.
It is said that we were unwise in including a promise of a target of 300,000 houses a year in our Election programme. I have always thought that that was a perfectly reasonable inclusion. We have at the moment engaged in our building industry as many people as were engaged in it before the war. It must be a matter of mathematics that those people, if they are not doing nothing—I do not suppose for a moment they are doing nothing—if they were better organised could produce as many houses as they were producing before the war. Nor can it be suggested that shortages of materials have led to the reduction from 300,000 houses to 200,000 houses, because, if that were the explanation, the men would have been stood off. The explanation must be a lack of productivity, and it is reasonable for a Party seeking office to say that, that being certainly and demonstrably the case, they will make it their business to aim at a restoration of the pre-war level. But when it comes to be said that because we put it in our Election programme we must be expected to produce that figure by the end of next year, that seems to me to be wholly unreasonable.
Some of us in the last Parliaments whose recollections go back to the war years have memories of many shortages in weapons of war. In 1940 and 1941 there were terrible shortages of weapons of war coming out of our factories. We realised, however, that even under conditions of mass production, from the time when the decision was taken to the time when the machinery came into the hands of the pilots or the gunners was a period of perhaps eighteen months. But houses are not mass produced in that sense. The organisation of the housing industry is much more complex and on a much more

291
individualistic scale than our great mass production industries, and to suggest that because a figure of 300,000 houses was included in an Election programme we are somehow breaking faith with the electorate because we do not achieve it at once, seems to me to set oneself on a lower standard of intellectual integrity than should be expected from public men.
I listened yesterday with great respect to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to whom I have given notice that I was going to criticise his speech. He has asked me to say that he is suffering from a complaint of the teeth which compels him to be absent while I criticise him. I must say, with all friendliness to one who has been a lifelong acquaintance of mine and for whom I have a great deal of affection, that sometimes I think he uses his undoubted and extreme personal charm to get away with statements which are intellectually quite indefensible. I do not grudge him his ability to get away with things; I do envy him his personal charm; but I think it is fair to criticise statements which are indefensible. I heard him say yesterday that noble Lords on this side of the House, and indeed members of the Conservative Party in general, wanted to see wealth distributed more unequally in this country, and that that was the principle upon which they proceeded. I could hardly believe my ears until he added a sentence (which apparently escaped the notice of the official reporter) that he himself had been brought up in that belief. Until that moment I had thought that he was rather a loss when he left the Conservative Party; but having heard him say that, I must say that on the whole I think we are better without him. It is true that he never gave voice to this sentiment in public when he was a member of the Conservative Party, but then he explained that that was not the sort of thing that one said.
I should like to assure your Lordships that so far as I am aware—I do not know how far I speak for members of the same Party as myself—those are not the sentiments of the Conservative Party. I think the difference between the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and the members of this Party is simply this: of course we recognise that human need must be catered for, that public necessity must be met, and that
292
taxes should be imposed to meet human need and public necessity. We recognise as a fact that such taxes cause a change de facto in the distribution of wealth in the country, but we altogether refuse to accept a view of the functions of Parliament or Government which render these a kind of divine dispenser of good things, bound to distribute in one proportion or another these good things according to some preconceived plan of what is just. On the contrary, we think that the justification for taxation lies in the meeting of human need, of human right and public necessity, and in nothing else.
I must add that I thought his example of the profits tax was a singularly ill-chosen one, because, whatever else may be true of the profits tax, it is not primarily an instrument of redistribution at all. The iniquity of the profits tax lies in the fact that it is unjust as between members of the same class, and not that it is unjust as between members of different classes. You may have £1,000,000 a year in the Funds and not pay a penny profits tax. You may carry on business and make £1,000,000 profit and never pay a penny profits tax. You may receive in rent £1,000,000 a year and not pay a penny of profits tax. But own £5 worth of shares in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited and you pay at the full level. The criticism of profits tax does not lie in the fact, if it be a fact (which I doubt), that it is in any sense a redistribution of wealth between the wealthy and the poor. The criticism of profits tax lies in the fact that it is a tax unregarding of total means, creating an injustice as between exactly similarly placed members of the community.
My Lords, that is the kind of criticism which, when it is made, I am bound to say can do nothing to assist the progress of Parliament in its present political situation. Our prime function must be to prevent the passion and strife of the Parties from obscuring the real nature of the issues with which we are faced. Indeed, they tend to obscure them because the great Parties in the State are preoccupied with the debate, which seems to go on year after year, about the respective merits of free enterprise and socialism. Of course that is an important and valuable debate, but it would be idle to pretend that the future of this country is going to foe determined in one

293
direction or another as a result of that discussion. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has now put in an appearance. I understood him to be suffering on a bed of sickness. I should have postponed any remarks I was making about his speech had I known he was going to be here. I can only hope that the misfortune from which he was suffering has now happily passed off and that the small operation has been successful.
The strife between free enterprise and socialism is at any rate in some measure irrelevant to the problem with which we are ultimately confronted, important as it may be. I ventured to suggest to your Lordships' House in the debate on foreign policy at the end of July that ultimately this country had to face the following challenge. This is a highly organised community, vulnerable, dependent, precariously balanced upon the economic structure of the world, having built up a material standard of life upon the existence of material and political factors which no longer obtain. How can that community continue to enjoy that standard, whatever the distribution of wealth, whatever the organisation of industry, in the latter part of the twentieth century? That, I believe, is the problem with which we are ultimately faced. It is a problem of long endurance which has been too long ignored by the political Parties in the State. Whether we are talking about unemployment before the war, or whether we are talking now about the shortage in our balance of payments; whether we are discussing the foreign situation or our relations with the United States or even Russia, it is that problem at the back of all things, and not the wickedness of the Socialists or the wickedness of the Conservatives, that ultimately we ought to discuss. The real function of this Parliament will. I hope, be to preserve before the face of the country this real challenge and the real issues. It was, I think, for that reason that I particularly welcome the remarks of Lord Layton about the European situation.
If I conclude, in the fear that I have trespassed on your Lordships' time too long, with one more controversial reflection, it is because I think that in view of the challenges which have been set out, some person speaking from the back Benches on behalf of the Party or as a
294
member of the Party of which I am a member, should clearly state what Conservative aims are, as I see them. We believe, as I see it, that the Welfare State is possible without Socialism. We believe that publicly-organised social service is good and that privately-owned industry is also good, and we see nothing incompatible between those two principles. We believe it is possible to have fair shares for all without constant recurrence to class hatred or political sadism. We believe that an adequate measure of planning is possible without abandoning essential individual liberties. Yes, and we believe that security for this country and prosperity for this country are possible in the end by the use of faith and courage, without a constantly increasing and crippling burden of taxation.
These aims are aims which will not be fulfilled in the next six months. Are we to be accused of insincerity or breaking our promises because we sometimes refer to them? It is not necessarily an ill thing to look up from the stony track we are passing along to broader vistas and higher peaks which we hope to ascend. It may be that we shall fail in our endeavour—it is only too easy to fail in a difficult task. But that does not mean that the endeavour was mistaken or that these are objectives which should not be attempted. The complaint we have of the Party opposite lies not merely in—as we believe—the incompetent way they have handled the affairs of the nation. It lies in the fact that they have been pursuing objectives radically different from those which I have sought to define. No doubt they have done so from the best of motives. But we believe, however good the motive, the intention was none the less misguided; and if we go on in this endeavour, as we shall go on, I believe that in the long run—it may be in this Parliament, it may be in twenty-five or thirty years' time—the objectives and the ideals that I have stated as worthy of attainment will none the less be attained. I believe they are in fact the only ideals and objectives in our internal policy which are worth attaining or worth trying for at the present time.
5.2 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I feel that the noble Viscount has begun to apologise for the Government rather prematurely. They have been in office

295
for only some three weeks and it is rather hasty of him to begin anticipating criticisms before we have a chance to see what they do. I agree very much with one part of his speech—indeed, I agree with several parts, but with this one in particular—and that is the part in which he said that in view of the Government's narrow majority and the political situation generally, it was the duty of everyone to do everything possible to make the Parliamentary machine work. As one who has been here a little longer than he has, I should like to tell him that this House of Lords will not work at all unless we find some way of curtailing speeches. If we continue to tolerate speeches of the length of some of those to which we have been listening during the last three days, the whole thing will break down. I am hoping that the noble Viscount will join or found a union of Back Benchers of all Parties to curtail Front Bench speeches.
I rise primarily to congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Address. With regard to the noble Mover, I was with him in another place and very often I used to follow him in debates in the last Parliament here. Strangely enough, he usually gave me an uneasy feeling that I was agreeing with him. I congratulate him and I also congratulate the noble Viscount who seconded the Address. I knew his father in both Houses of Parliament. His son is certainly a worthy successor here; a good example of the hereditary system which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, decried yesterday.
In the speeches which have been made in this debate some well-deserved tributes have been paid to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Addison, and there have been sincere expressions of sympathy with him in his unfortunately prolonged sickness. I should like, as one of the few who were with him in this House before 1945, to draw attention to a special aspect of his brilliant Parliamentary career. One or two speakers—quite unintentionally, I am sure—seem to have given the impression that the House of Lords portion of Lord Addison's career started only in 1945. As a matter of fact, he entered this House some years earlier. In May, 1940, we formed a Coalition Government after the Norway disaster, and the then Leader of the Opposition—it was a very small Opposition—Lord Snell, joined the Government.
296
There was some talk then of no Opposition being necessary. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and every other experienced Parliamentarian believe that an Opposition is necessary under our Parliamentary system, and that is particularly so with the House of Lords. I was Chief Whip of the Opposition at the time, and I persuaded Lord Addison (he was not then in very good health, but he made a remarkable recovery and had a wonderful "Indian summer") to leave his semi-retirement and lead the Opposition. Under great difficulties, he did it, as all those who were in the House at the time will agree, with great efficiency, and with that charm and erudition which we all expect of him. So his services to your Lordships' House have been very long and honourable. I hope that he will presently be able to resume them.
This has been a very remarkable debate, as I think your Lordships will agree. And I have noticed this about it—I wonder whether the same thing has occurred to Viscount Hailsham: I mention him only as a Parliamentary connoisseur, but of course there are many other noble Lords to whom the same applies. The speeches made by my noble friends on this side of the House—particularly that of my noble and learned friend the acting Leader of the Opposition, Lord Jowitt—speaking without Government briefs, have been better than the speeches they delivered when they spoke with Government briefs; while the speeches from the other side have improved now that occupants of the Front Bench are using Government briefs. I do not know whether the same thing has occurred to Lord Hailsham. I should be glad to have his expert opinion afterwards.
As for the Government themselves, I have great sympathy with them. A couple of days ago my business took me to the House of Commons and, in the Lobby I met a very old Member of Parliament of the Conservative Party. He hailed me and said: "Hello, Kenworthy, do you remember congratulating me on my maiden speech in this place a quarter of a century ago?" I said: "Yes, I remember it very well and I recall that you made a brilliant speech." I then said: "What do you think of things here now?" He said: "I do not like them at all. I do not like our Government." "But," I said, "it is your Party that is in power." He replied: "Oh yes, I know

297
that, but look at that fellow Butler—he's a Socialist." My friend then went on to give me the pure milk of Conservatism, which, I must say, differed somewhat from that which was given in the passage with which the noble Viscount wound up his interesting speech.
But, as I say, I am very sorry for this Government. As my noble friend, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who of course speaks with much greater weight than I can, has pointed out, they are in a terrific dilemma. Just think what they have promised to do, or are going to attempt. They have to maintain the social services and increase the export trade (the noble Viscount did not mention the latter, but I know it is in his mind). They have to increase house-building—that we have heard about—and at the same time the nation has to carry out the greatest programme of arms expansion ever attempted in peace time in this country. And we cannot hope—I trust that we shall not even attempt to do so—to rely on borrowing more money from the United States of America. What is going to happen? It would be possible to carry out that programme under complete Socialism, which of course we did not attempt to establish in the years when we were in power, but I do not think it can be done under capitalism. I think that was the bearing of the very important contribution which Lord Pethick-Lawrence made to our debate.
I notice in to-day's issue of The Times newspaper a report from their Paris correspondent about what has been happening in Paris at the meeting of the executive bureau of the Temporary Council Committee of N.A.T.O. I do not know whether other noble Lords, including the occupants of the Government Front Bench, have read this also, but no doubt they are aware of what has been moving. If I may just epitomise the last two passages of the report, they show what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been trying to do. Regarding Britain the report says this:
"The conclusion is that she cannot carry out her programme even on the present scale if the dollar deficit goes on increasing at the same rate."
That is a very important statement, if it came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and the report is apparently authoritative. It goes on to say:
"The measures recently announced by Mr. Butler may check this increase but assistance
298
from the United States is also essential, in the view of financial experts, if the balance of payments is not to get completely out of hand."
I heard Lord Brand's speech on Tuesday. May I say, for the edification of my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, that I wrote him a note saying I proposed to comment on his speech to-day, and I had a very courteous reply, in which he said that he had been called to Paris on business but would read my speech. I have no doubt that he will also read my noble friend's speech, with great advantage. The noble Lord, Lord Brand, said that it was to be hoped that we should not attempt to borrow more from the United States of America. This continued borrowing and staving off of the evil day will carry us nowhere. If some of the bright economists on the Conservative Benches would address themselves to that problem, they would do a great service to their country. I am sorry for the Government when its perfervid supporters, like the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, have already begun to apologise for them. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Brand, many times, with great pleasure, but I always notice that after he speaks on finance, which is the only matter he speaks upon, Consols drop half a point next day. On Tuesday he spoke too late for me to instruct my stockbroker, but again Consols dropped half a point. However, as I say, I agree with what the noble Lord said about the necessity for getting rid of the idea of going to borrow more money in Washington.
I was surprised at another thing which the noble Lord said, and I am sure it must have been a slip. He said, after stating that we were in an inflationary period:
"But in inflation, as your Lordships know, saving is a mug's game …"
I have always believed that saving was one of the ways of checking inflation and I hope it will be the policy of this Government, as it was of the last, to encourage popular saving in every possible direction. The savings of private citizens can be a great hedge against inflation and for that remark to come from the noble Lord, Lord Brand, with his tremendous authority as a banker and financial expert, was very unfortunate. I hope that when he reads the report of my speech, he will write one of his rare but precious letters

299
to The Times correcting that possibly unintended impression.
We have heard in the debate a great deal of advice about how the Opposition should behave. I am not sure whether that advice is much needed. The great present task of the Opposition, as I see it, is to prevent a third world war. If that is also the object of the Government, which I hope and believe is the case, then our task is to assist them. The Foreign Secretary seems to have made a good start in Paris. I hope that he will be able to put an end to this appalling system of using international conferences for public slanging matches between the leaders of great peoples. They are undignified, harmful and extremely dangerous. The old secret diplomacy was bad when secret commitments were entered into, committing peoples without their knowledge; but the old private negotiations of diplomacy were a far better method and if we are going back to that method, I congratulate the Government. I hope that I do not embarrass the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, by congratulating him on his appointment to the important position of spokesman of the Foreign Office in this House. I hope he will agree with me that the sooner we can carry out our real negotiations in private, and leave aside altogether these international competitions in abuse, the more chance there will be of raising the temperature of the cold war and of decreasing international tension.
I have said that the most sacred duty of the Opposition, and of the Government, is to prevent a third world war. The danger period will be in two or three years' time, when this immense rearmament programme is beginning to show results on both sides of the Atlantic. My noble friends and I have the greatest confidence in the President of the United States and his immediate advisers, but there is a strong and vociferous party in America, which has its counterpart here, which, when these immense armaments are available, may be tempted to embark on perilous courses, to start what they call "getting tough" with the Russians and the Chinese. It is in two or three years' time, when the Western democracies find themselves immensely strong, as a result of the greatest armament programme ever embarked upon in peace time, that we shall want sage counsels,
300
cool heads, and great moral courage. If this Government are then in office—though these things are always uncertain—I trust only that they will show these qualities.
5.17 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I should like to associate myself entirely with what my noble friend Lord Hailsham said about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I find myself substantially in agreement with everything he said, except on one main issue, with which I think it is legitimate to differ from him—that is, the obvious fear innate in what he said that the recent financial measures taken to check inflation are an introduction to a repetition of what happened in the early 'twenties. It is natural that those fears should exist. I do not share them. I rather doubt whether, in his heart, the noble Lord shares them. I think perhaps he expressed the views that he did as a warning, and if they were an admonition they were as welcome as everything else he said.
There was one point which the noble Lord omitted, in his analysis of the various camps, or beds, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, called them, into which we fall in this present situation. May I ask him this rhetorical question? Does he share the view that measures have to be taken to-day to check the inflationary route on which we are embarked? I am sure he does. He would be singular and, I believe, alone in the world, if he did not think so. After all, similar steps are being taken in practically every one of the major countries in the world. It is perhaps a point of criticism that we have embarked on these overt measures, including the signal to which the noble Lord refers, rather later than, for instance, the United States; but in doing what we have now done, we are only following a line which has become blatantly necessary everywhere in the world in order to achieve at any rate stability of prices, if not some improvement in the value of money.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, appeared to be afraid that this first stage—and he quoted two speeches which appeared to indicate that this might be only the first stage—would be followed inevitably by other stages which might, as that policy got under way, produce the result which he feared. Surely the answer to that is that, so long as one proceeds

301
by stages, and not by imposing a drastic remedy at the very outset, one has the opportunity of stopping at each stage when the result sought has been achieved. The merit of proceeding gradually seems to me essentially this: that you can watch the result of the policy which is being adopted at each stage before proceeding to the next. It may be that this particular stage is insufficient for the control of credit; it may be—I know nothing about these things; they are all in the realms of the future—that another similar stage will have to be followed. On the other hand, it may not. It may be that the warning that has been given and such power as is also inherent in the measures that are being taken, will be sufficient to produce the check which is what we are all seeking.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As the noble Lord asked me a question, I should like to answer it. The danger is that these steps are rather in the nature of a time bomb which goes off after a delayed action. That is largely what happened in the 'twenties. The action was so long-delayed, the Bank of England continued with the high rate, and even increased it, and by the time they thought to bring it down it was too late to stop the disaster.
LORD RENNELL: That is perfectly true, and I do not differ from the noble Lord's words in any way. But I suggest that only by a considerable overemphasis of the metaphor can the very modest rise in the bank rate, and such modest financial measures as have been taken be described as a delayed action time bomb. I would agree with the noble Lord in that perhaps the measures that have been taken have been too long delayed, and should have been taken before; but I cannot feel that the steps that are being taken are in themselves likely to lead to anything like the developments which the noble Lord fears. But this question of prices and the value of money seems to me to lead us inevitably to a consideration of the major difficulty in which we are placed in this country. We in this country, of all the major countries in the world, are most dependent on international trade and, above all, on international opinion. The credit that we enjoy in the conduct of our affairs, depends, in the end, on what other people think of us; what measures we take to rectify a position
302
which may look black to us, but which looks equally black to those who are observing us from overseas.
What, crudely, is the position, in which we find ourselves, and which is well-known to everyone in the world to-day? We are a small, rather overpopulated island, which has few natural resources. Compared with any of the other major countries in the world we in these islands are singularly deficient in natural resources. There are, in fact, only three material resources, as I see it—coal, our soil and climate and the sea. There is, of course, a fourth, which is not a material resource: that is, our capacity to work and to produce. Of coal I will say only this. It is obvious that an improvement in coal output would have a direct and immediate material effect on our balance of payments. Of the sea, I will say only that it seems to me that we are still using the sea to our great advantage, and to the great advantage of the world. But the third material resource, our soil and climate, seems to me to have been essentially neglected in the debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House in the last two days and in another place. If, by increasing our exports of coal, we could do much immediately to rectify some part of our balance of payments, so equally it follows that if we could diminish our imports of food quickly we should be materially better off from one month to another, and from one year to another. I believe that that can be done. The reason I believe it is the thing of all things which ought to be done is that not only in the immediate perspective of our balance of payments but also in the long-term perspective of our situation, the food position of this country is the most vital and important, and far and away the most dangerous, element that we face.
Let us suppose that by the international action which is being taken to check inflation we arrive at a stability of prices, or even achieve a substantial fall in the prices of world commodites, and thus improve the value of our respective moneys. It does not seem to me that that will necessarily bring with it any economy in the value of the food which we have to import. I say that for this reason: the world population is increasing faster than the world production of food. If it is an accepted fact among economists that the price of commodities as a whole

303
depends upon financial conditions and circumstances, it does not follow that all prices that go to make up that whole depend upon financial conditions and circumstances. There is such a thing as an absolute scarcity value attributable to a commodity, or a group of commodities, which will alter the relative value of that commodity or those commodities to the whole. The main danger facing us in this country, with the low food production which we have (I do not mean to say that it is not improved, but it is low compared with what we need) is that, in view of the increasing world population and the relative decline in world food production, we shall never in our life-time, or in the generations to come, see an appreciable fall in the, amount that we have to pay for the food we import. It therefore seems to me that, even if we get a fall in world prices by the financial and other measures which are being envisaged, we are not likely to see, on the present basis of our imports, a fall for any great length of time in the amount that we have to pay for our food. We might, indeed, see a continuous rise year by year, even if we had a considerably greater measure of deflation than the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence or I should wish to see anywhere.
What are the conclusions to be drawn from that state of affairs? They seem to me to be that almost the first priority in production in this country should be our own domestically produced food. Here we face a situation which is, to say the least of it, disquieting. Your Lordships may have seen in The Times on Monday of this week a very adequate, if not very long, summary on food production in this country. If I may read one sentence of it to your Lordships, it will indicate the line that for a moment I wish to pursue. That article said:
"During the past year grain crops were reduced by 430,000 acres in England and Wales and only just maintained in Scotland. The potato acreage fell. Dairy cows are fewer and, most significant, the number of calves being reared has fallen by 150,000. Sheep numbers have also dropped and poultry stocks are barely maintained. Pigs alone have shown a continuing increase and have now reached the highest figure recorded since 1938."
Those figures, of course, need qualifying, and may require revision in a year or so's time after the two disastrous harvests which we have had and an equally dis-
304
astrous spring. But the fact of the matter is that the spurt in agricultural production from 1947 to 1950 did not reach the same degree of development as it did during the war in 1940 to 1944.
Food production in this country is not going up, and two or three measures of economy taken by the late Government have, in this respect in particular and in this context, to my mind been very misguided. It is possible to increase very substantially from one year to another, by lime and fertilisers, the production of food in any country on a given acreage. The abandonment of the fertiliser subsidy and the reduction of the lime subsidy are elements which can certainly lead to a decline in food production here at a moment when our balance of payments requires that the maximum should be produced and that we should buy less. My feeling is that not only can production of food on our given acreage be increased, but that the acreage on which food is produced can also be increased, and can be increased very rapidly.
Visitors from the United States and, above all, visitors from Europe, while commenting favourably on much of our farming in this country, still remain, in my experience—and I think it will be the experience of all of your Lordships—surprised at the amount of land which is still not cultivated or is barely cultivated. This land, which is described as marginal land, is land in many cases which has been cultivated and which has gone back. There are hundreds and thousands of acres of that land in the United Kingdom which could, even in twelve months, produce some food, and, in three or four years produce a great deal. I am well aware of the measures taken and proposed in the reclamation of land which has gone back, in the improvement of hill farming. But I contend—and I have seen from my own experience—that that is too slow a method of achieving what we have to achieve in a very few years' time. If we are going to decrease our imports of food and maintain our present standards of living, that land has to be brought under cultivation, and brought under cultivation quickly and immediately. I believe that can be done, but I do not believe that the present measures of subsidy for the reclamation of land are anything like rapid enough or sufficiently efficient.

305
In a great many cases neither the landowner nor the tenant enjoy the spare capital which is necessary to start a scheme before they can get a subsidy. The delays in getting a subsidy are well known to all noble Lords who have ever tried to get one. They run into months and sometimes years. In all humility, I want to propose for consideration a method which I believe would achieve a result very much more quickly. It will be well known to your Lordships that in the eastern part of England, where land has been reclaimed by major drainage operations, the land pays a drainage rate which is either met by the owner or by the occupier, or by both. I believe that those rates, high as they are in many cases, are paid willingly, because without the drainage the land would become worthless: it would be under water and, in fact, in a great many cases there would be no land. I want to suggest that His Majesty's Government should consider whether the improvement of hill farms, the reclamation of marginal land and, above all, the access roads to those lands, could not be improved by direct Government work, county by county, and the expense recouped over a period of thirty to forty years by charging that land an improvement rate. I believe that even if that were started now an appreciable quantity of land could be reclaimed by next spring, at a time when in the countryside there is a substantial amount of machinery available for the purpose which could be utilised and which is not being utilised. I do not believe that that machinery will be utilised under private endeavour or private initiative. I believe, on the other hand, that the county agricultural organisations could, under proper measures, undertake that work, and charge the capital cost against a rate on the land.
I believe that that is a measure which could produce an immediate result, just as I believe that the restoration of the fertiliser subsidy is an absolutely essential element to-day in increasing the food production of this country next year. It is in 1952 that our greatest need to modify in our favour our balance of payments will arise. I venture to suggest that no measure, however small, should be left untaken at this moment that could produce an immediate effect on our balance of payments by reducing the amount
306
of food which we have to import from a diminishing world supply.
5,38 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend has spoken in that vein, because I find that my remarks are going to be supplementary or complementary to his. The general public are apt to think that this crisis is just another crisis, this time brought on by rearmament. Of course, as we know, it is nothing of the kind. It is the dawn of realism. For the first time, 50,000,000 people realise that they have to live in this small island and find their food and full employment out of the resources which they themselves can command. That has never happened yet. Before the war, our population was 5,000,000 fewer, and there were always at least 1,000,000 unemployed, which reduced the demand on consumption. It never happened after the war because, for years now, the larger population has been eased by enormous sums of money borrowed and given from abroad.
This great effort which has to be made has got to succeed. If it does not succeed I can see only three solutions in the long term. First, we may become an old age pensioner of the United States. Secondly, anything up to one quarter of our population of all age groups will have to emigrate. Or, thirdly, we shall go in for a course of ever-increasing regimentation until we end up with something which is in effect Communism. One of the greatest factors with which we have to contend at this moment is undoubtedly the terms of trade. We have to export far more than before the war to provide the same volume of imports. Before the war the terms were too favourable, and I think the very favourableness of the terms was a factor in the obstinate problem of unemployment which distressed every manufacturing country in the world. But now we have swung from one extreme to another, and we are equally threatened by unemployment and under-nourishment caused by the very unfavourable terms of trade. Moreover, with Germany and Japan coming into world markets the position will become worse, because by their aggressive selling they may well force down the price of our exports; and, on the other hand, by their competing for raw materials they may well also drive up the price of our imports. So that that

307
factor is a doubly adverse one which we have not yet faced.
Is this situation ephemeral, just the result of rearmament and stockpiling, or not? I venture to think it is not. If one has full employment it does not make all that difference if one's factories are engaged on producing the material of war rather than the material of peace. Of course, stockpiling undoubtedly sends prices up, but when the piles are full there is a corresponding or greater reaction. No, the trouble is that there are not enough raw materials being produced in the world—and the figures show it. Not only has the supply not kept pace with the increase in population; by far less has it kept pace with the enormous increase in the capacity of machines to consume; and it has not kept pace with the volume of money to buy which is in circulation in the world. The other day the Secretary of State for the Colonies was quoted in a newspaper as saying that high wages and high production is the only way for us. We all agree with that, but for the higher production we must have a great deal more raw materials than we have at the moment. Every time a new machine is put into a factory it releases labour, and if we are going to have full employment that labour must be moved to something else; and we have got to have more raw materials than when the machine was installed. That rather simple point has escaped the notice of a great many people.
Before the war we had too many raw materials. Now the balance has swung the other way. I wonder why. I think one possible explanation is that, since the war, all the Governments of the world have been so obsessed with fighting the battle of unemployment in 1931 that they have unduly fostered industrialisation all over the world; and they have unduly boosted the purchasing power of the masses without producing any corresponding increase either in the volume of primary materials for industry, or the extra food required. In some countries the monetary increase has been by simple multiplication by the printing press. In this country the weight has been on redistribution of income, and inflation has been the by-product.
How does one get production of primary products? In the first place it is by investment, and the traditional investors
308
in producing primary products all over the world were the British middle-classes. They did the job so well that before the war their enterprises produced more raw materials than the world could consume. When you redistribute income, you take from the traditionally saving classes and hand out to the traditionally spending classes, and so you tend to get a diminution of investment. The noble Lord, Lord Brand, is often calling our attention to the shortage of equity capital—a long name for what I am describing. Then, also, the transfer itself increases demand for, as Lord Keynes said, it is the poorer classes that spend the largest percentage of their income on imports. So the transfer in this country has been a double stimulus to adverse terms of trade, for it has created demand and diminished the investment in supply. What are we going to do about it? I am dealing only with the long-term measures. If we cannot solve the problem in the way we want, it will solve itself in nature's way which is by pricing products out of the reach of consumers through inflation, and the fixed income classes are then thrown to the wolves. We have somehow to revise our investment policies and persuade others to do the same. Lord Brand has pointed out how difficult this is, because we have literally no money at all to invest overseas, as we have an adverse trade balance. Nevertheless, some investment has been going on, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul; and we shall have to go on doing that.
The drying up of private investment sources has been substituted to some extent by international and by statal and para-statal bodies; but so far the results of these operations have not been particularly promising. We have had the World Bank, the Colonial Development Corporation, the Overseas Food Corporation, the finance Corporation for industry and so on. It seems to me that their more pronounced successes have been in the field of industry, in the consuming of raw material; and their great failures have been in the producing end—in the raw materials. Fortunately, however, we have a legacy from the past in the innumerable companies of all sorts, sizes and descriptions based in this country, which have for generations been producing the primary products all over the world. We must do our utmost by our fiscal policy to continue to induce these companies

309
to put forth their utmost endeavours. They have done a good job in the past and they are the best instruments for doing it now. But, above all, we must see that they have every inducement to remain beneath the British Flag and we must reverse the tendency, notable of late, for companies domiciled in Britain to take unto themselves wings and fly away, because if the company is based in Britain we find it all the more easy to get the raw materials it produces.
Then we have to do what we can in the field of our own raw materials—coal and food. My noble friend, Lord Rennell, covered the subject of food thoroughly. I should like to call attention to one sentence from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, in this House which I should have liked to see put round the other way. I wrote him down as saying:
"If we cannot import, then we must grow it here."
I should have preferred him to say:
"If we cannot grow it here, then we must import."
LORD WOOLTON: I agree.
LORD HAWKE: Perhaps after a period of counter-co-ordination from the Minister of Agriculture, the noble Lord will be using the other language!
LORD WOOLTON: I very willingly accept it now.
LORD HAWKE: Many of the Governments of the world are aware of this paramount need for food production, but they are still pursuing fiscal and economic policies in many cases entirely to the contrary. They are pursuing policies which are still leading to the denudation of population from their land, and they are continuing to industrialise heavily without there being the necessary raw materials to supply the industries. All these international bodies which have been created are quite useless unless in grave matters of this sort they can persuade their members to act in a common-sense way to help get the world out of the mess. It is not only here that we have a Welfare State. Welfare States are potentially inflationary—everybody admits that—and they can only be workable on an expanding economy. Everybody acknowledges that and talks about the expanding economy, the new productivity, and so on. But we do not
310
hear nearly so much about the concomitant necessity to produce more primary products. To sum up in a few words, man has multiplied all over the world and has increased his need for food. He has also greatly increased the consuming capacity of his machines for primary products, but he has neglected to grow that food and has neglected to provide those primary products. We, as a great importing nation, are the first people to suffer, and it is we who have to give the lead to the others to reverse this state of affairs.
5.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I was asked yesterday how long I intended to talk advising the Government. That is a good idea—to advise the Government! It is not my intention to do that this evening, but I do want to draw the attention of the Government to a serious omission from the gracious Speech. I ask the Government to consider the point I am about to raise—and I shall not take more than five minutes doing it. Not being a politician, but an independent member of your Lordships' House, I have not to think or pretend to think that all the acts of the last Government were wicked and wrong. I do not think that at all. I think many of the Acts which they introduced were most valuable and overdue. Having said that. I can go on to reflect upon what I consider is the sin, not of commission but of omission. Before I go on, I wish to say that I am not trying to criticise the various ex-Ministers. I believe that they did their best, as far as their limitations would allow them. The "nigger in the woodpile" is the Treasury, which so often practises being "penny wise and pound foolish" or, to use a saying which is more familiar to me, "spoiling a ship for a ha'p'orth of tar."
The nation has just celebrated Remembrance Day. Noble Lords attending this House and coming through St. Margaret's Churchyard saw many evidences of that celebration. They will have read large placards saying: "We will remember them" and "Lest we forget." Most of us have repeated those sayings in church with due solemnity, and really meaning what we said. But the fact is that, except on one or two days in the year, we do not remember those who fell: we have forgotten. I do not believe for one moment that the nation wishes to

311
forget them, but the people look upon the Government as being the body to carry out their good intentions, by making restitution to the widows and orphans of those who fell—women who have to carry on in the same way, despite the loss of their breadwinners. I am not going into the details of what these widows and orphans are allowed in the way of pensions and allowances. Suffice it to say that they were fixed in 1946, and nothing has been done since to adjust those pensions or allowances and to bring them into some sort of relation with the value of money at the present time and the rising cost of living. Yet it is not necessary for me to recall to your Lordships' minds the rises that have been handed out all round in those five years: some sections of the community have had two or three increases, all due to the rising cost of living. To-day, wage talks are going on, and I read in the newspaper that £150,000,000 a year is involved if the full claims are granted. These claims are in respect of people like railwaymen, mine workers, firemen, engineers, shipbuilders, dockers and so on. They are all involved, and all the black-coated professions, too, have had rises to meet the rising cost of living. Tribunals are now meeting to discuss these rises in wages, and although they may not grant all that is asked, they will certainly grant some, if previous inquiries into this subject are any portent of what is to be done now.
The men who fell in battle, the soldiers who died, were all members of these trades or professions. Had they lived they would now be experienced men, and still more valuable in the trades which they followed. Yet their widows and orphans have been allowed to struggle along on their 1946 pensions, and nobody seems to care very much about them. I submit that there is only one way in which these people can receive justice, can receive what is their due—it is not charity: it is their due. This country owes it to them to see that they are put in such circumstances that they can live comfortably and do not suffer unnecessary hardship. I know of a woman who has to get up at half-past five every morning to get four children washed and breakfasted and off to school. Then she has to go to work for eight hours in a factory, and she comes back in time to
312
give the children tea and put them to bed. How can that woman influence the upbringing of her children?
I suggest that the only way to meet this situation is now to fix another basic amount for the pensions and then to give a Government Committee or the Minister, or whoever is responsible, authority every half-year to review the circumtances, and, if necessary, to do something about those pensions to keep them related to the cost of living. This principle is acted upon in various activities, and I advise its use here. If we are to keep our promise that we will not forget those who fell, that is the only way to do it. Processions to the Cenotaph and the placing of wreaths are all empty gestures if we do not do something about the widows and orphans of those who fell. Some of these people are living among others far better off than they are: they have to try to keep up a standard of living similar to that of their neighbours, neighbours who are often granted these extra rises in pay. I ask the Government to do what they can for these people, inarticulate and unorganised as they are.
It is important in every way that they should not be brushed aside. Every widow struggling against adversity in the country is a deterrent to any recruiting for the Regular Forces. To quote the need for economy as a reason for not giving these pensions recalls the man who, in danger of going bankrupt for £50,000, bilks some poor little tradesman of £5 which he badly needs. What a "dirty dog" we should call him! I do ask the Government to consider this fact: not merely to say that they will consider it in due time, but to do something about it now. It is a great fault of their predecessors that they have done nothing of this sort. Let the Conservatives show what they are going to do for these people. It is not an unimportant matter, because these people are natural sources of information and this is a problem which is troubling not only a very large section of the community, but a section which is not the least valuable to the country.
6.1 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I am sure that every one of your Lordships will have heard with great admiration and great sympathy what fell from the noble and gallant Earl, and will hope that His Majesty's Government will

313
pay attention to his plea. Most matters within the range of the gracious Speech have occupied your Lordships' attention during this debate. I have only two matters in domestic affairs and one in the Imperial field on which I wish to speak quite briefly. The first is the matter of housing. It was said in another place this week that the people of Britain desire two things most passionately: one is peace and the other is homes. It is hardly possible to exaggerate the importance of speeding up the building of houses, and we are all glad that housing plans have been exempted from the decision to hold in abeyance the starting dates for all new building projects. It is not possible to go anywhere now without having the need for more houses brought to one's notice as a very pressing affair. I come from a rural as well as an urban part of the world, and I am sure that the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council, who knows the county of Sussex well, will agree that more houses are essential for the countryside, both for the development of rural life and for the production of food under satisfactory and decent conditions.
The need is everywhere the same. How often does one, especially in parishes and amongst the social workers, come across the plea of those who, wish to marry or are newly married, That they may have somewhere of their own in which to live. More homes will make a real difference to the work, the morals and the contentment of the people. I hope, as all your Lordships hope, that the Government will take all means in their power to build ever-increasing numbers of new permanent houses, with designs fulfilling the requirements of the Dudley Committee, but nevertheless producable within a smaller total superficial area; and that those conversions and adaptations which were more numerous in the early postwar years may be still further encouraged. I am sure that those who live in the new houses already erected, and many others, too, are grateful to the late Government for what they have done. This is a matter in which all Parties will unite as it is a common national interest to all concerned, and not only to those in the building industry.
Another domestic matter to which I wish to refer is one that has received less attention in general debate than housing—namely, education. It is a great satis-
314
faction that the creator of the Education Act of 1944 is Chancellor of the Exchequer. The importance of education to the British nation can hardly be over-emphasised. G. M. Trevelyan, in his Social History of England, commenting upon the Education Acts of 1870 and of 1902, said:
"Without these two Acts the British people would have been quite incapable of taking their place in the competition between the nations, due to the increase of scientific invention which has been going on during the last sixty or seventy years."
Without those Acts we should have been more or less a semi-barbarian herd of people. In the six years since the Act of 1944 there has been an immense improvement in the educational development of the country, and I think we ought to give great credit to the former Minister and to the late Government for what has been achieved. I have plenty of evidence of the wonderful strides forward in my own diocese, the county of Sussex, during those six years.
This was an Act agreed between all the partners in education and the different political Parties. It would be a real tragedy if the operation of that Act, bearing in mind its past history, were to be substantially slowed down. Of course, one understands that in the stress of the times there must be economies, but I would express a most earnest hope that the fabric of the educational structure will be kept intact. Mr. Butler made some very interesting statements on education just before and in the context of the recent General Election. One was that of course we can afford no frills and that to-day we must concentrate on essentials. But amongst those essentials he said that the first priority was the primary school. He spoke of great anxiety due to overcrowding.
I understand from The Times Educational Supplement of October 19 that by the end of 1953 it is necessary to provide 1,000,000 more places than were existing in 1947. But considerable progress has, in fact, been made to supply those 1,000,000 more places, for over 500,000 were in use this summer and 410,000 are now under construction. That is very heartening. More teachers at the rate of 30,000 a year are required in order to deal with the great addition of pupils resulting from the working of the Education Act; and we have the legacy of the

315
insanitary and inadequate buildings which Mr. Butler mentioned. In his statement, he said that it is possible to secure simplification of the buildings without sacrifice of good standards, and such simplification and, therefore, such provission of new buildings on this basis, is called for.
There is a further point which Mr. Butler did not mention but which I am sure was in his mind. Many of your Lordships will have noticed time after time—and I am sure the noble and gallant Earl who has just spoken is very familiar with the phenomenon—that many young men who go into the Forces are hardly literate. The proportion of illiterate boys and girls and of young men and young women is rather alarming. That may be due, as has been suggested by an educational expert, to the fact that more emphasis is now laid on the primary stage as a way towards the higher stage and the secondary stage than was laid on elementary education when we had the "three R's" as a basis of the curriculum. But I venture to suggest that the prevention of children leaving our schools illiterate is rather an urgent matter. No doubt it requires more teachers and fewer children in the classes. Mr. Butler also called attention to the importance of grammar schools, the significance and value of which turn very much not only on the rewards but on the status of the teacher, and to the opportunity for inventiveness given by the modern schools. He added that technical schools and technical colleges are so important that we cannot afford to be without enough of them. I think that that programme put out by the constructor of the Education Act of 1944, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is a very hopeful programme, and we shall rely on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be true to the spirit of the former Minister of Education. In that statement, Mr. Butler also spoke about the way in which the Education Act, through some of its provisions, had given more of a meaning to life in the teaching of children. A religious basis of education is now enshrined in the English law and our task is to give it a greater reality.
There is one important detail—and it is only a detail—to which I would refer for a moment, and that is the problems of the voluntary schools. Mr. Butler said
316
that unquestionably it is the right course to adjust difficulties not foreseen when the 1944 Act was passed and so relieve the burden of church communities within the framework of the Act. There have, of course, been various statements about the Act from various angles, and it is well known that the Church of England desires nothing outside the four walls of the Act. But certain provisions are called for, some of them administrative, such as, for example, asking for a more liberal interpretation of the Minister's discretion in Section 67 (4) of the Act. Some amendments which are within the four walls of the Act are also required with regard to displaced pupils being more widely defined, the supply of new schools with a controlled status where it is convenient to the local authority, and the enlargement of existing controlled schools. These are technical matters which I know are in the Minister's mind, and I feel certain that, subject to agreements being reached between those principally concerned, there should be no difficulty in principle about them.
My last word is about the Empire. Much has been said during this debate —I think every day—about Colonial development. The words which have fallen from the lips of successive speakers—often expressing points of view which are opposed—are very encouraging to those who believe in the future greatness as well as the existing resources of the British Empire. I have, like many others, had the happy experience in the last two or three years of visiting a number of British Dominions—Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and even India and Ceylon, though of course I spent shorter times in those countries. I found this experience most exhilarating. Burke once said that England was inclined to shrink into her narrow self when she was in reality the angel of Europe and the tutelary guardian of the human race. One would hardly claim such exalted prestige for this country at the present moment. Nevertheless, I wish there were a new awareness at home of the greatness of the whole inter-Dominion position and relationship. My brother-in-law, a distinguished ex-Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, is now in Australia, visiting universities there. He wrote to me the other day making this remark. A young man, a native of Australia who had recently visited England, said to him: "I think you English people are too

317
diffident and too timid with regard to England. You seem to think and speak as though England was everything, instead of looking at the British people who occupy the whole of the British Empire. "Its life really extends to every part of the world, through the British Colonies and through the British Dominions.
What is wanted is not to infect those fortunate Britishers who go out to Australia, Canada and New Zealand with the greatness of the new British scene, but to infect those who live at home with that greatness. And it would be a most happy thing, I believe and hope—and I think the noble and learned Viscount. Lord Jowitt, will agree with me about this— that there should be a much greater interchange of visitors from both sides; people from here going out to the Dominions and people from the Dominions—especially teachers—coming here. The visit of Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth has struck the imagination of the Canadian people, and her visits will strike the imagination of the peoples of Australia and New Zealand when she goes to those countries next year. What is wanted is a sort of reverse operation so that she, coming back to this Island and her home, should infect the British people with a new sense that the British Nation is not confined to the British Isles; that it extends to all our peoples who are linked together by the wonderful bond—never more highly prized than now—of the British Crown.
6.20 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for not following on the lines of his speech. I can assure him that I listened to what he said to-night with even more sympathy than I usually feel when I listen to his speeches. After three long days of discussion, he would be a vain man who would expect to add anything original to what has been said by so many experienced and able statesmen. I do not flatter myself I can do that, but I should like to comment on some of the observations made in the debate. Before I do that I should like to make it clear, because a good deal of what I have to say will be critical, that I feel an admiration for the speedy and drastic way in which the Government have set about the handling of this exceedingly difficult situation. I think most of us do. I was impressed by the sacrifice of a substantial part of
318
Ministerial salaries, which was announced at the same time. I say that because I have been rather upset by some carping criticism which has been directed at that by some of my friends. I for one appreciate the gesture which the Government have made at a difficult time.
I should like to add to what I said about the speed with which the Government have set about tackling this problem that I am very glad to learn from the evening papers, which frequently tell us in Parliament what we might have been expected to learn from the Minister himself, that the Minister responsible for the co-ordination of food and agriculture is already at work on the problem of agricultural and horticultural prices. Your Lordships will have read an article in The Times last week, in which there was a disturbing indication of a falling away in production on the farms. That is borne out by all the talks I have had with farmer friends. This is most emphatically a time when there should be a strong increase in food production, rather than a falling away. This is an important matter and I am glad that the Government are going to tackle it soon, whether or not I agree with the way in which they do so.
I should like next to say a few words about the speech of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. As is almost invariably the case, I enjoyed it immensely as a work of art, but I was surprised to hear such a note of acerbity towards the Opposition used by a distinguished statesman asking for their good will. That is hardly the best way of securing the sort of co-operation for which the noble Marquess was asking. After building up an admiration of the noble Marquess for the statesmanlike way in which he has handled many difficult problems over recent years, I was surprised that he should have given way to the attitude of a political chieftain. When he asked us to believe that Lord Woolton's broadcast on the subject of people wanting more red meat was merely a statement of fact, he was speaking for the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, but I was surprised that he should expect anybody to accept a statement of that kind. Earlier in his speech, the noble Marquess asked what was meant by a political "googly." Perhaps he intended that reply as a political "googly" I assure him that an ineffective "googly" is more

319
easy to hit for six than any other kind of ball. I think his "googly" was hit for six, and although it is not for me to advise him and those who sit with him on the other side of the House, I feel that they would be more likely to persuade the electorate if they said that they cannot give the people more red meat because the money is not there than if they said they never made any sort of promise that the people should have more red meat.
The part of the noble Marquess's speech in which he was definitely unfair to the late Government was that in which he complained that, in effect, the Conservative Government had been left by the late Government a wicket so worn that it was almost impossible to play on it. This is a serious charge. Up to the end of last year this wicket was in extraordinarily good condition, and as my noble friend Lord Pakenham pointed out, for the first time for something like twenty-years this country was paying its way. The noble Marquess knows perfectly well that the most substantial material alteration between the position in 1950 and the position now is that the enormous financial power of the United States has been thrown into the world markets for raw materials. That is the main reason why the pitch is so worn. In his heart the noble Marquess knows perfectly well that it is nothing the late Government have done over the past months, but the ill-considered eruption into the world markets of the United States buying agencies.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to some of the remarks I made, as is perfectly proper for him to do. At the beginning of his speech he said, and I am grateful to him for saying it, that he had been much impressed by the rapid and drastic steps we have taken to deal with the situation that exists. I do not say that the situation was created by the late Government. The noble Lord is now saying there was nothing the late Government could have done. They could have done what we are doing now.
LORD CHORLEY: That was not the point which the noble Marquess made in his speech. It is perfectly clear that the deterioration of the situation has been caused almost entirely by this eruption
320
into the world markets of American buying agencies, an eruption which the late Government did their best to control at the time of the visit which the former Prime Minister paid to Washington, rather less than a year ago. My noble friend Lord Pakenham dealt most effectively with that point. He gave the noble Marquess a fast and well-pitched ball which spread his wicket in all directions. If the noble Marquess will excuse my continuance of his cricket simile, I think that at that stage he ought to have retired rapidly to the pavilion.
Another significant item in the changed situation has been the deterioration of our balance of trade with European countries, and up to a point the late Government must accept responsibility for that, because of their rather precipitate acceptance of the policy of the noble Lords opposite of operating the general free import licence. It was that invitation to people to import all sorts of expensive foods and other articles from Europe which accounts for a good deal of our trade deficit. We freed the market too rapidly. I think that point was quite clearly made by the noble Lord, Lord Brand, in his speech, when he said:
"In addition, the freeing of European trade, which we agreed to a short time ago, has turned our surplus with Europe into a deficit, and has shown that the large buying power in the hands of the public here means at once a demand for much larger imports.…"
In spite of this, the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, was rubbing his hands, pointing out what an enormous increase in the imports of these expensive articles had been achieved, under the policy of freeing trade, in the hands of the private merchants who had thrown themselves so wholeheartedly into this trade—a trade in which such very large profits could be made—not apparently appreciating the fact that that was one of the reasons why we have this unbalance in our trade situation with Europe at the present time. The truth is that if you leave private traders to pursue their own ends in this way they are bound to look at the matter from the point of view of the profit they can make, and it is impossible for them to appreciate the effect that their actions will have on the real interests of the country as a whole. That is a matter which the Government have to look after. What the present Government are doing

321
is, in effect, to return to the earlier policy of the late Government and re-establish controls which, in my view, ought not to have been taken off quite so rapidly or so completely as they were during the last year or so.
Having referred to the most interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brand, I should like to say a word or two on the question of the bank rate, which has been debated a good deal during the course of these discussions. It is, of course, a rather technical problem, and I should not dream of intervening in such a business as this as a mere lawyer, if I had not had the opportunity within the last few weeks of being present at an important and interesting conference of bankers and economists in Rome. I was there as a lawyer, not as a banker or an economist. This problem was referred to in quite a number of the papers which were submitted at that conference, and, so far as I was able to judge, the representatives of the British banks who were there, some of the most eminent of whom submitted papers on this subject, did not in any way quarrel with the method of handling this problem which had been pursued, not only by the last Government, but by preceding Governments over the last twenty years. It was suggested, in effect, that this method of raising the bank rate was an old-fashioned method which was no longer needed because the whole structure of banking had changed n very substantial respects over the last twenty years.
I could not help thinking, when the noble Lord, Lord Brand, referred to the "Victorian hangover," and when the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh (whose speech I read with much interest) talked about "oiling the old machinery," that we were, in fact, going back to the use of machinery which had become obsolescent. If that is so, we are not likely to get a great deal out of it, and it is clear that we are going to spend a substantial sum of money. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, I thought quite properly, told us in his speech that we must not say, "This is only £1,000,000,£2,000,000 or £3,000,000," because really effective saving is built up from sums of that kind. Yet here the Government are proposing to give away a sum which has been taken as something in the neighbourhood of £25,000,000, in order to re-
322
establish a method of controlling finance which is of a completely general character and, in my submission, is an old-fashioned and out of date method. The general tendency, not only in finance and economics, but in all sorts of social and economic problems over the last years, has been to handle problems individually. I am quite sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, pointed out, that it is much better for the banks to be allowed to consider each individual request by their customers for finance in connection with their industry, business or commerce, on its merits, rather than to try and deal with it in a blanketing way of this kind, a method which hits the admirable project just as it hits the project which is not so admirable.
The debate in your Lordships' House has turned very largely on the economic crisis. There have been a number of exceptions to that, and the most important has been the question of the denationalisation of the iron and steel industry. I should like to say just a few words on that subject. In the first place, I must again rather criticise what the noble Marquess the Leader of the House said on this matter. In effect, he said that the 1950 Parliament ought not to have gone on with this project; that other projects for the socialisation of industry were thrown overboard. But he omitted to point out that this nationalisation of iron and steel was carried through in the earlier Parliament under a perfectly clear mandate which was given in 1945, and had nothing to do with the 1950 Election at all.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:What I said, first of all, was that the Bill as brought before Parliament went far beyond the Labour Manifesto of 1945; and, secondly, I said that the action of your Lordships' House had the effect of giving the electorate a chance of looking at this measure before it was actually implemented; that they did look at it, and at the other nationalisation measures; and the Government majority dropped from about 160 to 7. I said that, to my mind, that did not represent an affirmation by the electorate of the policy of the Government.
LORD CHORLEY: What the noble Marquess said is within the recollection of the House, and that is rather a longhand account of what he said in shorthand. I

323
do not think what he actually said would have conveyed that to the mind of any ordinary man. The point is that that Act was on the Statute Book before the 1950 Election was held. That being so, in my view, at any rate, the late Government were perfectly entitled, and, indeed, under a duty, to carry it into effect. It would be a most unfortunate thing (I feel that I could best express it in non-Parliamentary language, but I should not dream of doing so) if, as the political fortunes swayed from one side to the other, this great iron and steel industry should be nationalised and denationalised in turn. That would obviously do the industry very serious damage indeed. Therefore, I should like to support those of your Lordships who have advocated that some attempt should be made to come to a compromise on this problem. There are more methods of nationalising an industry than that used in the Iron and Steel Act. In some of the Scandinavian countries industries have been nationalised by the setting up of corporations, with boards of directors, in which the Government were heavily represented and in which the Government had a substantial financial interest, with the result that real Government control and real Government interest were achieved. I throw that out as one sort of method by which some kind of a modus vivendi might be reached in regard to this matter which we all appreciate is one of the utmost importance.
I have been rather surprised, during the course of this discussion, that comparatively little attention has been paid to the problem of coal which, to my mind, is the most important of all at the present time. One or two speakers referred to it—particularly, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in a very compressed reference; with all of which I agree, pointed out that coal is a most essential problem, and that if only we could increase the production of coal it would be a very great help. But unfortunately he did not go on to suggest how that could be done. Surely, a short-term increase of coal can be obtained only by the use of foreign labour. I was interested to read an article on education in a paper the other day and to come across this statement:
"We have in this small island few natural advantages. Our principal assets are coal and ourselves."
324
I think that is a very true and pithy statement.
If we could increase our coal production and our coal exports to what they were before the war, I will not say we should be well on the way to re-establishing our balance of payments, but obviously it would be a very important item. And as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, pointed out, it would also put us in a much better position for obtaining many of the raw materials which are so essential to us, not only in connection with rearmament but in connection with the whole fabric of our exporting industries. As I say, it appears to almost everybody that the only way in which this short-term aspect of the problem can be tackled successfully is by bringing in very substantial numbers of Italian miners. We know that in Italy there are tens of thousands of hard-working men who are prepared to come here and work. The difficulty is to persuade the miners in the out-of-the-way parts of the country in which they work that the bringing in of Italian miners in the way suggested will not be inimical to their interests.
The British miner is one of the finest men in the world. Anybody who has had the honour to serve in a battalion with miners, as I had for a short time in the First World War, will certainly subscribe to that view. Courage and tenacity are great qualities in the miner. They have to be persuaded—it is no good trying to force them—that the interests of the country make it absolutely essential that these Italian miners should come in; and come in quickly. What we have to discover is how to persuade them. I would suggest that the Prime Minister himself should go into the coalfields and try to get this fact across to the miners. No section of the community dislikes the Prime Minister's political views more than the miners do, but those very qualities of courage and tenacity which are so obviously the qualities of the miners are equally obviously the qualities of the Prime Minister; and however much these men dislike the Prime Minister's political views they have an enormous respect and admiration for his human qualities. I know in present circumstances that the demands upon his time are very gruelling, but I suggest that he should seriously consider going down into the colliery districts and putting it to the men that the vital interest and, possibly, the

325
very safety of this country require that these men should be brought in. It has been pointed out in the course of this debate that we are all in the same boat. The boat is certainly being tossed about on a very stormy sea. We must bring home to all our people that it is only if we all pull on the oars together during these next critical months that the ship will reach port in safety.
6.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we have come to the final stages of the debate on the loyal Address, and I should like to associate myself at the outset with all that has been said on this occasion, with more feeling perhaps, than on others, about the attachment of the House and the country to the Sovereign and to his family; to say how very much we appreciate the fact that he is making a recovery and to pay our general tribute to the magnificent work that he and his Queen and his family have done during this last fifteen years. We pray that he will continue to make progress in restoration to full recovery.
The proceedings have been enlightened a little to-day by a couple of interjections by my noble friend Lord Stansgate as to what is the proper etiquette in the treatment of your Lordships' House on such an important occasion as the debate on the loyal Address in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne. I appreciate the answers which the noble Marquess has given, but I want to say this at the outset. The noble Lord who we had hoped would be here happens to be a personal and sincere friend of mine, and his work in the course of the war one will never cease to appreciate. He is now to be in charge of very important policy-making, if he is to co-ordinate the departments both of Transport and of Fuel and Power. I wish to put this point to the Leader of the House for his very serious consideration. Perhaps not for decades have the debates in this Chamber emerged with such importance as in this present Parliament. We have reverted to the practice of having here a much larger proportion of Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of importance and experience—like the noble Viscount, who spoke so well yesterday—with Cabinet status but not inside the Cabinet. The heads of about nine important Departments are in
326
this Chamber, and it follows, almost as the night follows the day, that the debates which will take place here will take on a much wider and detailed examination of those Departments than has been the case before. The one weakness in the reply of the noble Marquess was the comparison he made. Before the Election there were only three noble Lords within the Cabinet. They were my noble and learned friend who sat on the Woolsack, my noble friend Lord Addison—whom we are anxious to see restored—and myself, with other noble Lords as Ministers of Cabinet status but not in the Cabinet. We had a great task to get through the work, with the continuous cross-fire —
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Assistance.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: —that we had to deal with from noble Lords opposite. We cannot regard it as fact that in regard to the examination of the work of a particular Department, the senior Minister should always be here to represent his Department. But when you have an occasion like a review of the whole policy of the Government, and due notice is given that the policy of a Department is to come under some examination, then I think it is equally important here, as was always the case in another place when I was a Member, that the Minister concerned should be present.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not in the least differ from what the noble Viscount has said. Broadly speaking, of course, the responsible Minister should be present in Parliament to answer for his Department. But in the present case I thought perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was a little sharp with us. After all, we have been in office about a fortnight, and during that time the noble Lord to whom reference has been made has had to tackle one of the toughest jobs that have to be met with, and he has had extremely vital meetings —one meeting in particular—to conduct. He did his best. He informed the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I informed the Leader of the Opposition, and we both felt distressed, but on this occasion it could not be avoided. I do not want noble Lords opposite to think that that is what must always happen. I entirely recognise the force of what the noble

327
Viscount has said, and it will be my object as Leader of the House to try to give effect to it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess. We feel happier now than before about the prospect. As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, the principal thing which has been under discussion has been the general economic situation. I think that, on the whole, my noble Leader would say that we have little to complain of in regard to the general tenor of the debate. I read the speech of the noble Marquess and I must say that I thought it a little sharp at times; but as I was unable to be present it would be wrong for me to try to interpret what was his mood and spirit in the making of that somewhat sharp speech.
I wish to establish the fact that there is in the country a widespread feeling—I find it in my own county; I have found it in London, and in contacts with representatives of movements with which I have spent my life—that there is an endeavour to present the economic position as being very bad compared with what had been expected. It is felt that there is an attempt to establish an alibi which would cover more drastic steps than those already proposed to deal with the economic situation. I hope that that is not the case. But I am sure that, from all records of the last six years, there can be no justification for any such general assumption. What the Government have to deal with is what was fairly indicated from time to time by my right honourable friend who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was that we were bound to experience very serious economic difficulties, which would require special measures, if the rearmament programme (and especially from the time that expenditure on that programme had to be stepped up to the figure of £4,700,000,000 over three years) was to be successfully carried through. The contention that the country itself was not sufficiently warned about it cannot now be held, according to the actual records.
I was impressed by the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech on November 7 in another place—which I think was a very able and clear presentation of the situation—made no such
328
charge. I think it is important that what he said should appear in the records. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"In his speech at the Mansion House my predecessor, on the best information then available to him, attributed much of the loss in the third quarter to abnormal and nonrecurring factors. So far as the third quarter was concerned those estimates were roughly correct, but some of the factors which we thought were exceptional have continued to operate. With the fuller information now available, and with the clearer view of 1952 which we can now take, our latest estimates reveal an underlying balance of payments situation even worse than had been previously forecast."
I think that was an able and fair presentation of the matter on the part of the Chancellor. He recognised that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer had made the position as clear as possible with the information then available to him. I believe it was the noble Marquess who asked why, if the position was growing as bad as it was, some action was not taken earlier.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That was what I said.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I very much appreciated the whole of the noble Viscount's speech and I have no reason to criticise it, except that that suggestion is not justified. The majority of the important measures now being taken by the Government—and rightly—to deal with the situation are the same, with the exception of the one which concerns the bank rate, as those which have been used throughout by the Labour Government. The specific measures proposed are based largely on the results of investigations carried out by a Committee set up by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. If your Lordships will refer to the speech made by Mr. Gaitskell in another place, following the Chancellor of the Exchequer, you will find a reference to that investigation which he had instigated before the third quarter. That is the actual situation, and it should be placed on record.
Much has been said about the other method of dealing with the situation—the use of the bank rate. The case was carefully and wisely put by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, earlier today. He spoke of fears concerning what may happen as a result of any threat to

329
use the bank rate as an instrument. It is a fact that there is a great deal of anxiety in the country. The Government would do well to go further still into this matter. Lord Pethick-Lawrence spoke of the gradual use of methods of that kind. I have been looking at a speech made in another place on November 8 by the Secretary of State for the Colonies—by no means an unqualified person to speak on such matters in relation to their effect on trade and commerce. In his speech he said:
"I have only time to say that even the right honourable Gentleman has not turned back all the pages of history, and that he will find that these traditional deflationary methods will make a substantial contribution to the objects which I think all parties have in mind."
That indicates to me that, whilst we are encouraged by the point which the noble Viscount made to-day, we feel there is a great danger that there will be a further resort to these deflationary measures and that will have a serious effect in many ways.
I have spent my life-time in connection with retail trading, and I am sure the Lord President of the Council will support me when I say that at the present moment the stocks in the retail trade can be valued at roughly three times the monetary value of stocks in hand in 1939, although the actual volume is no more —if, indeed, it is as large. Any special deflation engendered by methods of this kind would have a disastrous effect on internal employment, quite apart from the special production employment to which my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth referred to-day. So we do beg for some greater assurance to be given to the country at large, and to the other part of the commerce of the country which is so valuable, not only in stabilising employment but in yielding revenue to the State, that they may have some confidence as to how this matter is actually to be dealt with.
I have little more to say on the economic situation, in view of the limited time for which I want to talk, except this: that the Government will have great difficulty in finding any period of six years in the peace-time economic history of this country in which, faced with such disastrous problems and obstacles as the Labour Government found in 1945, the country made such a recovery as this
330
country has made. We have much independent evidence upon that point. If we are to come into the future handling of this great problem as a country in which all want to help, on the basis of a Council of State, we must get it settled straight away that we are not to be slandered, in the Press and other places, without justification. Take, for example, quotations which are known to Ministers opposite. Take Mr. Hoffman, who did a great work in helping in the reconstruction of Europe. He said:
"When I took this job in April it seemed to me that the goals which Britain had set in the first year were quite unattainable. The very gallant and successful fight which Great Britain has put up to build up her exports and hold down imports and thus achieve financial stability is one which commands the admiration of the world."
That is not a bad tribute. Let us take another. This is by Mr. Howard Bruce who was the Deputy Administrator of the E.C.A.:
"Your people had seven years of war. It is understandable that after your great suffering and magnificent effort were over you would tend to relax and to let down. But that was not what happened in Great Britain, Grimly, your people … refused to relax and went after recovery with the same courage and determination they had shown under bombing and on the fighting line. The extraordinary progress they have made has astonished the world."
We can afford, therefore, not to be too mindful of some of the slanders which are uttered about us by our own countrymen. We must get the position clear. Having said that, I would say to the noble Marquess that the situation is such that we understand it perfectly. We were there while it was developing. The situation is such that, if it had not been for the imperative need of this great new rearmament programme, we should have had permanently such a recovery in this country as would have engendered a standard of living for its people that would have been beyond all precedent in their history—and, moreover, one capable, on an expanding economy, of being carried into a higher and more stable state.
The gracious Speech from the Throne was described by
my Leader in another place as being "rather thin." I do not think that I can put any better interpretation upon it. There are one or two matters upon which, as it seems to me, we have not had any really effective reply. There is the question of steel. The

331
noble Marquess, whose speech I read with great care—I said I did not want to make a general attack upon it because I was not here at the time—said that the Government would denationalise steel for two reasons. The first was that it was in the best interests of the country, and the second that it was what the majority of the people wanted. But is it in the best interests of the country? I have been tremendously interested in steel from the time I took up representing the citizens of Sheffield in 1922. I have had to study steel a great deal since then, because I have been associated so long with the Service Departments and with trades interested in its use. I am bound to say that, in this great crisis through which we are passing, to attempt to do what the Government now propose to do may have disastrous consequences.
It is likely to hold up a great many of the developments that were going forward. It is certainly calculated to interfere with the rhythm of production from the workers' end, and, believe me, I speak for the Sheffield workers whom I represented for so long. I can tell you that they are by no means in favour of the Government's new policy. The workers in the industry have voted again and again for this Act, and the Government will not help the general policy which Labour wants to adopt in getting through our present economic difficulties by adopting what was called in another place a "purely doctrinaire attitude" to this matter. It is purely doctrinaire because, in spite of all that the noble Marquess says, we did pass this legislation with a great mandate in 1945. We waited until we were returned to power again only because this House was able to check the proper putting into effect of the will of the people as expressed in 1945. But, as we were returned again, we were perfectly entitled to go ahead with the administration of an Act which was on the Statute Book. That is a point to be remembered.
The other point I want to make is that it is disturbing to us, hearing the remarks quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, from certain transport authorities as to what may be done with the assets of a nationally owned organisation, when we wonder what is to be the future of the financial arrangements for steel. Of
332
course, we must wait until we get the Bill, and then we can discuss the matter in more detail. But can anyone tell me at present how on earth, without serious and substantial loss, the Government can deal with this redistribution to private owners of assets which have been taken over, of which the State has already undertaken the transfer and the scheme of which is well on the way to full operation? I would beg the Government, if in this situation they wish to have anything like action on the basis of a Council of State, not to pursue this disastrous policy.
The second point made by the noble Marquess is at least doubtful. He said: "It is what the majority of the people want." Is it? The Party we represent here is the Party with the largest vote in the country. It must be remembered that the mandate that was given in 1945 has been supported, so far as we are concerned, by 2,000,000 more votes than were cast for us in 1945–2,000,000 more votes. It may be said that of course there are the 700,000 Liberals, and so on, but that is the only balance that can possibly be found to make the case go the other way.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But that is a fallacy because, in adding the 700,000 Liberal votes, you have to remember that the Liberal Party were against the nationalisation of iron and steel. In that case, there is a majority—I forget exactly how much—of over 500,000 against the proposals. I did not attach too great importance to that in my speech. As I remember, what I did say was that it was a very far-reaching vote, as the noble Viscount will agree.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But what about the number of seats that we held in 1945? I should have thought there was no doubt about the 1945 position.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount has picked on the number of seats in one Election and the number of votes in another Election—which is quite different.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: There is always a difficulty in getting what I call the lowest common denominator between the two sides. At any rate, we have at least as good a case as the noble Marquess. I would pass next to two points—I will touch only

333
briefly on them—because I shall be unable to be here next week when the House is debating foreign affairs. I hope that in regard to foreign affairs we may get much nearer to a united national approach than seemed to have been adopted in recent months, which was a very great pity. To take the example of Persia, we are charged with having contributed to the present economic deterioration by weakness and vacillation in foreign policy. No one has yet been able to tell us what stronger action we could have taken. It is rather significant that in the very middle of the Election campaign the Daily Express came out with this specific statement:
"Let it be emphasised once more that there is no comparison between the situation in Egypt and that which existed at Abadan. True enough, vast property interests were involved in the Persian oil town as they are in Egypt. But the agreement with Persia conferred on this country no treaty right to send in troops and airplanes to defend our property. The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty does. For that reason the two problems, superficially alike, are in fact completely different from one another."
We had all kinds of gibes, almost canards, to answer upon that matter, but I have never yet heard the view of the Government as to what stronger steps could have been taken than were taken. I am anxious for the greatest amount of unity in regard to foreign affairs. So far I think the presentation of this country's case in Paris by Mr. Eden is one which we can heartily support, and we can promise further support if that kind of policy is pursued.
I come now to the question of defence. I was very glad to note that the noble Marquess has promised—I took it as a promise to my noble and learned friend who is leading us—that if there is a Secret Session in another place there will be one here also.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said that I understood that would be the case. I did not give a definite under-taking. I was not in a position to do that. But my view is that there will be one here if there is one in the other place.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: For that reason much of what I should have liked to say can wait for that to happen, because one can speak more freely in a Secret Session. We
334
have heard a great deal about the unfavourable legacies which have been left by us to the incoming Government. However, the present Government have one legacy which it will be difficult for them to deny—namely, that no incoming Government in peace time, with a threatening situation, has ever had handed over to them a National Service Scheme that has existed for the previous four years; assembled forces numbering between 800,000 and 900,000; equipment already well on the way for the rearmament programme; and an intensive and modern construction of equipment. Whatever other legacy they have been handed, the new Government have not been let down over that, although I observe that in an article in the Evening World of October 22, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"The Socialists thought that they knew better when they took office in 1945. They allowed Britain's defences to run down below the point of prudence and safety."
All I have to say about that is that no Conservative Government in my lifetime have ever taken greater steps, either quantitatively or qualitatively, for the defence of this country than have the Labour Government in the last six years. That point can be examined in more detail.
There is one point I should like to mention to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in connection with what was said yesterday. I do not want to take too long over it. I have quoted from the speech of Mr. Gaitskell in another place, and I refer to the question of restoring to private enterprise such matters as timber buying. In that connection, the Government must watch very carefully what effect the change will have on prices. If the noble Viscount does not have the quotation to which I have referred, perhaps I can send it to him.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Does the noble Viscount mean the quotation from Mr. Gaitskell's speech? If so, that is exactly the quotation which I answered at length yesterday.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What I am saying is that Mr. Gaitskell pointed out the extent to which, under Mr. Wilson's administration, the fact that timber was returned to private purchase in the European section did lead to high charges.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With great respect, although that allegation was made, it is most unfair. When half of the dealings in timber were returned to private purchase by the late Government, Mr. Wilson, who was then President of the Board of Trade (I think it was he and not Sir Hartley Shawcross), made it perfectly clear to the House that there would be a rise in prices—for two reasons. I think I am being quite fair in saying that the first was that the trade had been getting cheap timber from the Timber Control (I think it was actually being sold at a loss: it was old stock); and, secondly, because it was quite certain that world prices were going to rise. This certainly was one of the world's events. But when private purchasing was restored the timber trade set up central and local committees to watch whether there was any unfair rise in price or any unfair charge or profiteering. There has been no complaint to the committees. There is not a vestige of evidence that the timber trade have overcharged, and I hope that these innuendoes will not be made without evidence to support them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Well, I can find no basis of innuendo in Mr. Gaitskell's speech, nor have I made any innuendo yet. What I was going to say to the noble Viscount was in reinforcement of what I said to him yesterday—namely, that if it is to be the considered policy of the Government to return the whole of this business to private enterprise, in the existing trend of world prices it would be advisable for them to have machinery at least on hand, if not in operation, for the control of prices if there is any tendency towards an undue exploitation of the consumer. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing to ask and about which we ought to obtain an assurance.
The other matter I had intended to refer to I can deal with briefly. I think we ought to have some reply to-night to the case on transport presented by Lord Lucas. I do not know how far the noble Marquess is briefed to reply to it, but we are facing a really dangerous situation. There are all these enormous assets and liabilities in the possession of the railways, and their position can be preserved and they can be adequately co-ordinated in the general system of transport only by having a proper claim on the direction
336
of a considerable part, at any rate, of road transport. The fact is, of course, that the transport industry has been under examination by Committee after Committee over the whole of the last twenty years. I should think that the sum total of their findings is that after the 1914–18 war so many ex-Service men who were not properly looked after by the country took out individual lorries, and ran them all over the place, that they were shutting each other out. Such chaos was brought about in the road transport situation that something had to be done about it. To revert to that kind of chaos now would be tragic. What is going to be done? Is there going to be proper and adequate control of road transport? Is there going to be sufficient safeguarding of the position of the railways so that they can ultimately fulfil their essential functions of carrying the main body of heavy freight traffic and the main body of passengers? Those are services which must be maintained. Do not let us have references to deficits here and deficits there. There are whole branches of the railways system that have paid no dividend regularly, and in some cases no dividend at all, over a substantial period of years.
Before I close, I should like to say that it would be very reassuring if we could be given at as early a date as possible some idea as to what the general policy of the Government will be with regard to agriculture. The situation is certainly serious. I support entirely what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said on that matter yesterday, but I would go a little further with regard to his submission relating to marginal land and cattle. What is happening at the moment is that there is a tendency to get rid of dairy herds in the hope that a little more money may be made out of cattle and sheep raised with the object of providing meat. It is largely because people in the agricultural industry are no longer getting the margins which they were getting upon their dairy produce, owing to the increases in charges which have occurred during the last four years, that this change is taking place. This is certainly a matter of urgency and it must be dealt with if the industry is to be able to carry the new award of wages to the workers in it.
Finally, let me say that so far as we on these Benches are concerned we stand by the statement which the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the

337
Opposition made in another place, and which was, I think, reiterated by our noble and learned acting Leader here. In the serious situation in which the country finds itself, we on this side of the House have no desire to raise factious opposition. We will support anything within reason which is likely to lead to a solution of the difficulties which at present confront the nation. They are difficulties which, in the main, arise from the fact that we have in the midst of our struggle for economic recovery to arm at a pace at which we have never before had to arm in peace time. The two things have to be done together. We shall, of course, be entitled to examine with care all proposals that are put forward, and to debate them. We have had a much better pronouncement by the noble Marquess regarding the Government's intentions in the matter of Ministerial conduct, and if they will join with us in frank discussion of the nation's difficulties I believe that there will be unity and co-operation in this House which will be most valuable to the Commonwealth as a whole.
7.24 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, looking back through the mists of time to the moment when the noble and learned Viscount opposite opened this debate, now some three years ago—I beg your Lordships' pardon, three days ago; but it was a very permissible error—I seem to recall that he urged us to live individually rather than collectively. It was, perhaps, an unexpected exhortation coining from that side of the House, but, none the less, so far as we in our personal lives are concerned, that is exactly what we should desire to do: to live individually rather than collectively, and, indeed, to extend increasingly, as opportunity allows, the prospect of living individually rather than collectively to as many of the people of this country as desire to follow suit. As a Government, we propose to live both individually and collectively and for quite a considerable period of time, and, furthermore, to encourage the people of the country to make their effort individually and collectively towards the recovery of the nation, a recovery which could have such immeasurably beneficial consequences to the world as a whole.
338
The House has, during these last few days, covered a very considerable range and diversity of topics, and it is, of course, not only legitimate but proper that, at the beginning of a new Session, and with a new Government, that should be done. At the same time, your Lordships will not expect at the end of a three day's debate, after the Government has been for a period of a fortnight, or rather less, in office, any very precise or comprehensive answer to a number of the questions that have been raised. There will, indeed, be opportunity between now and the time when the House adjourns on December 7 for some of those questions to be raised in fresh form—particularly, I suggest, such a question as that which the noble Viscount has just raised. The question of agriculture, if he and his noble friends think fit, might well be a proper subject for a Motion as soon as an opportunity may offer.
There has been some criticism of the fact that the adjournment is coming as soon as December 7. I am very new to these matters, but it does so happen that I have lived most of my life among people who have been somewhat deeply versed in them. I have always understood that one of the main tasks of good government beside, if not indeed in advance of, legislation is efficient administration. Now, administration is an art and, like other arts, it requires a certain amount of preliminary study. After all, we are not in the position of having the Fabian Society's handbooks from which to learn ready-made Socialism or "Nationalisation without Tears". We have to make our own plans and work out our own policies in the light of the existing circumstances as we find them. Reference has been made to the fact that in 1945 a certain number of weeks, not much less if at all less than the adjournment now pending, were found necessary by the then incoming Government. It may be that if they had taken a little longer it would have been to their advantage, and we might have been spared some of the somewhat premature and precipitate legislation which was introduced to us in the earlier years of that Parliament. If it is thought that that is too acrimonious a phrase to use in this otherwise benign discussion which has been running, I would refer to a speech made by the right honourable gentleman who was until lately Minister

339
of Defence—Mr. Shinwell. At the time he was, I think, Minister of Fuel and Power. He said:
"There was far too little detailed preparation in nationalisation, and we found ourselves with legislation that had to be completed without the necessary blue-prints, on which we could have proceeded much more expeditiously in the right direction.
When the mining industry was nationalised, for example—this had been on the Labour Party programme for fifty years—we thought we knew all about it. The fact of the matter was, we did not.
In the preparation of legislation, we found ourselves up against extraordinary difficulties."
In the general survey and preparation of legislation and in the initiation into the art of administration, the period now proposed as a Recess is surely not excessive.
VISCOUNT JOWITT: My Lords, is the noble Marquess suggesting that the coal mining legislation, which was the first important Nationalisation Bill sent to this House, which the noble Marquess supported and which survives substantially in its present form and is not going to be altered, was one of those pieces of "premature and precipitate" legislation?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: What I am suggesting, on the authority of the former Minister of Fuel and Power, is that it is not a bad thing, before producing legislation of a complicated character, to take some time to prepare it, because in the end we shall gain in efficiency what we might lose by a certain amount of delay.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he thinks it necessary that Parliament should not sit in order to get this preparation? Is it not possible to prepare legislation while Parliament is sitting?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: It is not necessary that Parliament should not sit indefinitely. But it is not unreasonable that at an early stage of their taking over their offices Ministers should have a period in which to consider legislation and give their whole minds to it, without having to be distracted, as inevitably they are when the House is sitting, by the obviously very high claims upon them of the actual proceedings in the House. That does not seem to me to be an unreasonable attitude to take up.
340
May I come to a brief, and it must be a brief, survey of a long day's debate, and try to take it in the order in which the speeches were made? The innings was opened—as we have got into this cricketing phraseology in the course of debate—by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who proceeded to ask us what we were going to do about this and what we were going to do about that, what we were going to do about restrictive practices, what we were going to do about the abolition of what he called the "expensive and luxurious system" of distributive trades, what we were going to do about the Monopolies Commission, and so on. I very nearly sent out for a copy of Dod's Parliamentary Guide to refresh my memory, because I had at the back of my mind that the noble Lord had been a Minister in the late Government. I did not find it necessary to send out for the reference book because my recollection was correct. The noble Lord put that series of questions to us, but if he thinks they are necessary at the present time, why were they not answered before?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if the noble Marquess is taking that line of attack—and I am surprised that he does so—he should bear in mind that it was the late Government who took action in establishing the Monopolies Commission to inquire into restrictive practices. I commended the new Government for what it put forward in the gracious Speech, and hoped—and I put my hopes in the form of questions—that they would go along the lines indicated.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: if those were suggestions which the noble Lord was throwing out for our benefit for incorporation into future legislation, I am bound to say he did not put them in a form in which they could be recognised merely as suggestions for our benefit. He put them in the form of things which had long since been necessary in order that the whole scheme of things might be put into proper order. Therefore, if that was the impression we gained, it seemed to me quite permissible to say that if these things require to be done, why did you not do them? As regards the monopolies aspect, I can tell the noble Lord this much: that a Bill is now in course of preparation and it is hoped it will be produced early in the New Year. I do not doubt that such

341
suggestions as he put forward on the monopolies aspect will receive the consideration of those responsible for drafting the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I express my gratitude for the courtesy of the noble Marquess in saying that? That was exactly what I wanted him to say and that was the reason why I asked the questions.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Perhaps I might have been obtuse in my understanding of the angle from which the noble Lord approached the matter when dealing with the question this afternoon. I am not in a position this evening to deal with the very large question of transport about which the noble Lord asked, beyond the speech of my noble friend, Lord Teynham, who to some extent met the points put forward and with whose general line I certainly agree.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, in future are we to look to the Back Benches, distinguished, though they are, for definitions of Government policy?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, in answer to that, we from the Back Benches shall not hesitate to criticise the Government if we think it necessary.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: They are much better than the Front Bench.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I quite realise that the noble Viscount is a connoisseur of Parliamentary procedure.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I do not know who said that: it is French.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Is it really out of order or in any way inadequate for anyone speaking from this Box to say on behalf of the Government that he agrees with something which has been said from the Bench behind? That seems to me to be a very strange doctrine. Do we have to make the speech over again, or can we say that we accept an earlier speech that sets out the policy of the Government? I am quite unable to see what the noble Viscount takes exception to, except, as I say, that he has apparently, to our great satisfaction, appointed himself custodian of the proceedings of the House for this Session.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Hot stuff!.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My noble friend Lord Layton, who has a special interest in the subject with which he was dealing, was good enough to point out that he did not expect that the matter he raised should be answered, but that, owing to his inability to join in the debate on foreign affairs which will take place later, he felt it necessary to raise the question at this point. That position we entirely accept and we are grateful to him for raising it in the form in which he did. To move rapidly forward, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to whom I am obliged for his agreeable references to myself, was good enough to say that he hoped that the public slanging matches which have taken place now for quite a considerable time would cease. If the noble Lord has read, as I have no doubt he has, the speech my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made in Paris a few days ago, he will have seen that that was exactly the object of Mr. Eden's speech.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I did pay tribute to Mr. Eden's attitude in Paris, and I repeat it.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: No body could agree with the noble Lord more than we do, and I am indicating to him that this attitude has already been expressed by my right honourable friend in the speech which he made in Paris.
The noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, who I am afraid is not here—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes, he is.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I see he has changed his station. If I may say so, he made a very moving plea on behalf of a body of people for whom I personally have nothing but the deepest sympathy. One has had in different capacities in the course of two wars the opportunity of the closest contact with Servicemen of many different kinds, and nobody can feel more sympathy than I do towards their position. The ultimate decision, as the noble Earl will understand, is not mine. At the same time, I have no doubt that the Minister responsible will give serious consideration to what the noble Earl has said. He would not expect any pledge or undertaking at this stage, but it is valuable to have these matters raised and presented in so sympathetic a form

343
as he presented them to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, dealt with a certain number of economic matters which I think have largely been covered by other speakers in the course of the debate. He dealt in some detail with the position arising owing to the increased bank rate. He said that, as a lawyer, he was not going to deal with that matter had he not been to a conference in Rome on the subject. Unfortunately I, as a lawyer, have not been to a conference in Rome on the subject, and I propose to leave it, as it has already been discussed by my noble friend Lord Swinton and by others behind me in the course of the debate.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, made the last speech, and a great deal of it he very much enjoyed making. He read a series of high testimonials to his own Party, to his own great satisfaction and that of those behind him. May I say this on foreign affairs? The noble Viscount raised the matter of Persia. So far I do not think it had been mentioned, except by the noble and learned Viscount who opened the debate, who said that he did not propose to discuss the matter in detail because there seemed to be no great point in going back on ancient history. For this evening, anyhow, I propose to accept that attitude towards the matter, and not to proceed to re-open the whole very vexed question of Persia, on which one might be tempted to say unwise things.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I want to make it quite clear that I have no wish to make speeches which are likely to be detrimental to the proper prosecution of a sound foreign policy on behalf of the country. But when we are charged with having contributed to the economic position, about which there has been so much debate, by the affair at Abadan and the like, and by weakness and vacillation, we must he entitled to deal with that position objectively when the time comes.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not propose to be deflected from my determination not to enter into a discussion of that highly inflammable subject tonight. If the noble Viscount desires to raise it on some, as he may think, more suitable occasion, we shall endeavour to meet him. The noble Viscount also raised the question of steel, and accused us of
344
being doctrinaire in our determination to annul the Act which is at present upon the Statute Book. He found some difficulty in finding a common denominator to decide whether or not the country had been in favour of the original Bill. Our point always has been on this: first, that we think there never was a case for the nationalisation of steel; that we have never been provided with any arguments to suggest that such a case existed; that this House took exception to the Bill when it came up to them and inserted Amendments which involved the Bill being carried forward beyond the ascertaining of the result of the next Election; and that, as my noble Leader said earlier, the result of that Election in 1950 was not what could be regarded by the then Government as a very glowing tribute to the popularity throughout the country of the Iron and Steel Bill. If that was not a very glowing tribute, I do not know why the changing of a majority of six into a minority should be regarded as any more a signal that the country desires the Iron and Steel Act to be put into operation and kept in operation. So far from it being a doctrinaire opposition, we have always, as I said, taken the view that the Act was not an Act in support of which any sound argument had been put forward.
The noble Viscount said that the gracious Speech in general was rather thin. He went on in his peroration to point to the Forces which had been assembled and the preparations which had been made for rearmament by the outgoing Government. Considerable progress no doubt, one hopes, had been made. At the same time, if he is arrogating to himself and his own Party the entire credit for that situation, one must be permitted to say that it was to a very considerable extent the unqualified support which the late Government had throughout from the then Opposition which enabled them, in the face of not inconsiderable opposition from inside their own Party, to carry forward the programme which was regarded as necessary in the interests of the country. The noble Viscount said at the end that noble Lords in this House desired, as we do not doubt for a moment they do desire, to be vigilant and not factious. One has already sufficient experience of this House, although not a very long one, to realise the value that this

345
House can contribute to the general counsels of the nation, and at a time when certainly the affairs of the nation are not at their rosiest and when a very substantial effort will have to be made to get through the next months and the next years, we shall hope to deserve and to receive the support of noble Lords
346
opposite whenever, in their view, the Government deserve it.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with the White Staves.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.