Sitting of 21 November 1951

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

    Licences (Old Age Pensioners)
    Miss Elaine Burtonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will reduce the cost of radio licences for all old age pensioners.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): The Government regret that they are unable to give old age pensioners preferential treatment in this respect.
    Miss Burton: That is the same answer as one of my hon. Friends received last week. Could not the Assistant Postmaster-General look at the matter again? It is a very small request; it is only asking for a reduction in part. Would he please look at the matter again?
    Mr. Gammans: The licence now works out at two-thirds of a penny a day, and if a reduction were made to a halfpenny it would certainly not make much difference. May I remind the hon. Lady that successive Governments have looked at this very sympathetically, but have always come to the same conclusion.
    Miss Burton: I am sure the Government would not wish to suggest that any reduction in the expenditure of old age pensioners would not be good at the present time.

    Wenvoe Station
    Mr. Raymond Gowerasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied that work on the television transmitter at Wenvoe, Glamorgan, is being carried on with all possible expedition; and whether he is now in a position to state when the transmitter is likely to come into service.
    Mr. Gammans: Work on the television station at Wenvoe is being carried on as quickly as possible, but it is too early to say when the station will come into service.
    Mr. Gower: Will the hon. Gentleman study every possibility of accelerating progress?
    Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. S. S. Awbery: Has the Minister made any provision for the distribution of television sets in the area covered by this new station?
    Mr. Gammans: The Post Office is not responsible for the sale of television sets.

    North-East Area
    Mr. Rupert Speirasked the Assistant Postmaster-General when he anticipates it will be possible to provide a better broadcasting and television service for residents in the North-East of England; and, in particular, when work will be resumed on Pontop Pike television station.
    Mr. Gammans: The best hope for an improved sound broadcasting service in North-East England lies in the use of very high frequencies, but owing to defence and economic requirements it is too early to say when this will be possible. For the same reason I am unable to forecast when work will be resumed on the Pontop Pike television station, but it will be as soon as circumstances allow.
    Mr. Speir: Is it not a fact that there are two transmitters at Holme Moss, one a main transmitter and the other a low-power transmitter, and cannot consideration be given to using the low-power transmitter for Pontop Pike?
    Mr. Gammans: That is another question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down.
    Mr. Charles Greyasked the Assistant Postmaster-General why a wavelength has been made available for the United Nations whilst for a considerable time this facility has been refused for the North-East coastal area.
    Mr. Gammans: At the request of the United Nations the proceedings of the Sixth Session of the General Assembly are being relayed for about 4½ hours during the day time by the B.B.C. transmitter at

    361
    Daventry on the wavelength 464 metres. These relays have been made possible by a temporary re-arrangement in the B.B.C.'s European Service which normally uses this wavelength during the day. The wavelength continues to be used for the Third Programme from 6 p.m. onwards.
    Mr. Grey: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that people in the North-East have felt the full effect of a disgusting Home Service transmission from Stagshaw, and that when in July, 1945, the B.B.C. commenced to operate for the North-East on the frequency transmitter for Northern Ireland it was explained that the arrangements was only of a temporary nature until a further wavelength was secured? Is he aware that since then a wavelength has been secured and yet the North-East has been denied this facility? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]
    Can he tell us how long North-East folk will have to tolerate this disgusting state of affairs, or whether they have to reconcile themselves to the fact that what was said at the time to be a temporary arrangement is now to be permanent?
    Mr. Speaker: Supplementary questions should be kept short.
    Mr. Gammans: The matter raised by the hon. Member does not really arise from this Question. The only solution is the introduction of a very high frequency.
    Mr. Edward Short: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree there is no community of interest, as far as local affairs are concerned, between Northern Ireland and the North-East of England? Does he not agree that this very populous and very important and highly productive area of the country should have its own wavelength as soon as possible?
    Mr. Gammans: I agree about the hon. Member's second point. I hope he does not ask me to express an opinion on the first point he made.

    Merioneth
    Mr. T. W. Jonesasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he has considered with the British Broadcasting Corporation what steps will be necessary to give television coverage to the county of Merioneth; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gammans: Even if it had been possible to complete the B.B.C.'s original plan for giving a reliable television service to about 80 per cent of the population, Merioneth would not have been covered. Fortunately, the B.B.C. has had reports that the Sutton Coldfield Station is being satisfactorily received in parts of the county of Merioneth.

    Kirk o' Shotts Station
    Mr. Thomas Steeleasked the Assistant Postmaster-General when the new television station at Kirk o' Shotts will be in full operation.
    Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. hopes to begin experimental transmissions on low power as soon as the radio link with Manchester is available; this is expected to be in February, 1952. It is too early to say when the station will be in full operation.

    Interference (Motor Vehicles)
    Mr. C. R. Hobsonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General when regulations under the Wireless Telegraphy Act will be made to deal with interference to television reception from petrol-driven vehicles.
    Mr. Gammans: No decision has yet been reached. For new vehicles it is essential before making regulations to be sure that supplies of suppressors will be available to manufacturers. As regards vehicles already on the road, we wish to proceed as far as possible by voluntary methods.
    Mr. Hobson: Do I understand now that the only reason why interference from these vehicles cannot be suppressed is due to the shortage of suppressors?
    Mr. Gammans: That is in respect of new vehicles.

    Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what progress is being made with the plans to provide television for the people of Aberdeen and the North of Scotland.
    Mr. Gammans: Aberdeen is one of the five low-powered stations which it was decided to postpone indefinitely and no work will be undertaken there at the present time. But the B.B.C. has gone so

    363
    far as to carry out tests with a view to finding a site for a television station near Aberdeen.
    Mr. Hughes: Why has it been postponed indefinitely? What prospects are there of Aberdeen ever having a television service?
    Mr. Gammans: The decision to postpone it was taken by the last Government. I can give no idea when work will be put in hand.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Will my hon. Friend make sure that all these people in the rural areas in the north get telephones first before the equipment is used for the purpose of television?
    Mr. A. Woodburn: Would the hon. Gentleman inquire whether the apparatus has already been purchased for the low-powered stations and whether the saving which will eventually be effected will be commensurate with the loss of service which will be experienced by the people in these distant areas?
    Mr. Gammans: My information is that it has not been purchased.

  POST OFFICE

    Sub-Postmasters (Pensions)
    Mr. Peter Remnantasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what pensions are received by sub-postmasters; and what is the basis of arriving at that pension.
    Mr. Gammans: Sub-postmasters are not eligible for pensions under the Superannuation Acts, but they can qualify for gratuities under certain conditions laid down in the Act of 1949.
    Mr. Remnant: Does the Minister realise that despite the recent increase in salary these sub-postmasters rank among the worst paid officials in the country? When economic conditions improve, will he look favourably on some improvement either in their salary or in their pension?
    Mr. Gammans: I suggest that the hon. Member should look at the Regulations under which sub-postmasters can get gratuities. They are somewhat complicated, but I will send him a copy if he cares to read them.

    Public Relations Staff
    Mr. E. H. Keelingasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many persons are employed in the Post Office Public Relations Department, and at what annual cost; and what were the figures before the war.
    Mr. Gammans: I assume the hon. Member refers to the public relations staff at Post Office headquarters. This numbers 40, including clerical, at a salary cost of £28,000; these figures include three special men on productivity and four from Cable and Wireless, at a total salary of £6,500. Before the war, the staff was 69 at a salary cost of £26,500; these included the film unit (now with the Central Office of Information) numbering 33 at a salary cost of £10,500.
    Mr. Keeling: Can my hon. Friend say whether, in view of the need to reduce national expenditure, any economies in Public Relations staff are under consideration?
    Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir. The question of reducing the cost of the Public Relations Department is under investigation.
    Mr. Hobson: Am I to understand from the Minister's reply that the Public Relations Department of Cable and Wireless is completely integrated with the Post Office?
    Mr. Gammans: There are four members from Cable and Wireless who are included in the figures I have given.
    Mr. Richard Adams: Does not the Minister feel uncomfortable through being surrounded by so many Public Relations officers in view of his previous strictures on them?

    Facilities, Newport
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for a telephone kiosk and additional letter boxes to be erected in the new Gaer Estate at Newport, in view of the recent increase in population in this area.
    Mr. Gammans: A telephone kiosk will be erected in the Gaer estate as soon as the necessary wayleaves have been obtained from the local authority; the provision of an additional letter box has been delayed by supply difficulties, but it should be in position in a few weeks.

    Overseas Forces (Free Parcels)
    Rev. Llywelyn Williamsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many free postage air parcels were carried to the troops in Korea and the Far East last Christmastide.
    Mr. Gammans: Sixteen thousand four hundred and thirteen.

    Staff Associations (Recognition)
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottomasked the Assistant Postmaster-General when the report of the committee inquiring into the claims of breakaway unions in the Post Office will be issued; and if he will give an assurance that he will not recognise E.O.T.A. or any other such breakaway union prior to the findings of the committee.
    Mr. Gammans: I hope that the committee's report will be available early in the New Year; meantime I can give the assurance asked for.
    Mr. Winterbottom: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask that he should communicate the text of that reply to his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury?
    Mr. F. J. Erroll: In view of that brief and satisfactory reply, can my hon. Friend tell us what is its purpose and give a reason for the letter from the E.O.T.A., received by many of us this morning, to the effect that he had already turned down their application?
    Mr. Gammans: I have seen this letter from the Engineering Officers' (Telecommunications) Association which attributes to me a statement that I have absolutely refused to recognise their union. That is completely untrue because this is the first statement I have made on their union either in this House or outside. I hope they will have the courtesy to apologise. A trade union that makes irresponsible statements of this sort certainly does not do its case any good.
    Mr. Hobsonasked the Assistant-Postmaster General how many non-recognised staff associations, below 40 per cent. representation of the respective grades, have made application for full trade union recognition; and if he will state the names of such organisations.
    Mr. Gammans: Seven staff associations have applied for recognition, or for extended recognition; their names are as, follows:

    Engineering Officers (Telecommunications) Association,

    National Association of Postal and Telegraph Officers,

    National Association of Telephone Supervising Officers,

    National Guild of Motor Engineers,

    Telephone Sales Supervising Officers' Association,

    National Guild of Telephonists,

    Telecommunications Traffic Association.

    Information about their current membership figures is not available, and I cannot therefore say how many are below 40 per cent. representation of their respective grades.

    Official Cars
    Mr. Anthony Fellasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what reductions he is making in the number of official cars attached to the headquarters of the Post Office Department.
    Air Commodore A. V. Harveyasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many official cars are now available in the pool at headquarters; and what reductions have been made in the past month.
    Mr. Gammans: The headquarters pool of cars has been reduced from 14 to nine.
    Mr. Fell: Is my hon. Friend aware that his action in bringing about this considerable saving will be highly thought of throughout the country, and that it shows that this Government are going to do this job quickly?
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that these reductions could probably have been made months or even, years ago?
    Mr. Woodburn: Would the hon. Gentleman take careful note of the amount of time wasted by officials through immobility?
    Mr. Gammans: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this reduction would not have been made if it had led to any reduction in efficiency. The reduction has taken place by the pooling of cars, including the pooling of the car previously used by the Postmaster-General.

    Hearing Aids (Repairs)
    Rev. LI. Williamsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the financial basis between the Post Office and the Ministry of Health for the work done at the Cwmcarn factory for the repair of hearing aids.
    Mr. Gammans: Repair work on hearing aids at the Cwmcarn factory is being carried out experimentally under a noncompetitive order on the basis of a schedule of estimated prices for specific repair operations. Post Office costs including an addition of 12½ per cent. to cover overhead charges, will be borne by the Ministry of Health.

    Terrington Committee
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General when the findings of the Terrington Committee are likely to be issued.
    Mr. Gammans: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on this point to the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom).
    Mr. Johnson: I gather from the Minister's earlier comments how satisfied he is with E.O.T.A. May I ask if he is aware that his comments now will make E.O.T.A. more satisfied with him than his former comments did?

    Postage Stamps (Design)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will consider the issue of special and individual designs in postage stamps for Scotland.
    Mr. Gammans: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this could be done with great benefit to the trade and industry of Scotland,.and with considerable profit to his own Department by the sale of such stamps to stamp collectors all over the world?
    Mr. Gammans: There has been no previous request for this except from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and there are very great difficulties in the way. May I point out to him that already on the existing stamps Scotland has pride of place by the thistle in the top right hand corner?

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Additional Apparatus
    Mr. Errollasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will consider permitting approved individuals and firms to install additional telephone apparatus at the addresses of existing telephone subscribers, and so reduce the delay and expense of such work being carried out by Post Office engineering staff.
    Mr. Gammans: I can appreciate my hon. Friend's point of view on this subject, but he will understand that there are serious technical and administrative difficulties in making a general arrangement on the lines he suggests. I am, however, examining how far such approval might be given in special cases.

    Facilities, Cardiff
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inadequate telephone facilities available for the residents in the Caerau and Ely Racecourse Housing Estates, Cardiff; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gammans: A kiosk was provided on the Ely Racecourse Housing Estate on 7th November. There are now five kiosks in or near these two estates, and these should meet requirements.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister suggesting that the five kiosks are in the Caerau and Ely Racecourse Housing Estates, or in the other part which is by far the bigger? I believe he will find that there is only one on the Caerau estate.
    Mr. Gammans: I am suggesting that there are five kiosks in or near the estate.

    Existing Lines (Transfers)
    Mr. Adamsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what arrangements exist to enable a current telephone subscriber to take over another existing line upon removal to a new address.
    Mr. Gammans: A removing subscriber is normally allowed to take over an existing line at his new address; the only exceptions are where waiting applicants in the immediate locality have stronger claims to the use of the line. If the hon. Member has in mind any particular case of difficulty, I shall be glad to make inquiry.
    Mr. Adams: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware I have already sent him details of a constituent precisely in the position I have described?
    Mr. Gammans: The hon. Member will have a reply.

    Sale Exchange
    Mr. Errollasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will issue a statement of the progress being made with the extension to the Sale telephone exchange; and how soon are would-be subscribers in Sale likely to be connected up.
    Mr. Gammans: Installation of equipment in the extended exchange should begin next spring, but it is too early to say when the work will be finished and applicants provided with service.
    Mr. Erroll: Will my hon. Friend do all he can to hurry up the work?
    Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir.

    Byron Exchange, London
    Mr. F. P. Bishopasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many subscribers have been added to the Byron telephone exchange this year; and how many applications are now outstanding.
    Mr. Gammans: One thousand and twenty-five subscribers have been added and 1,778 applications are outstanding.
    Mr. Bishop: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor promised me more than a year ago that 2,000 subscribers would be added to this exchange within 12 months? Will he try to see whether more rapid progress can he made?
    Mr. Gammans: The extension of the building necessary for the extension of the exchange is due to begin on 1st January.

    Merioneth
    Mr. T. W. Jonesasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the number of telephones installed in the county of Merioneth during the 12 months ended 31st October, 1951; the number of outstanding applications; and to what extent adequate construction is in progress to meet the demand.
    Mr. Gammans: The number of telephones installed is 135; and the number of oustanding applications is 357. I regret that our limited resources do not enable us to provide sufficient plant to meet the demand as rapidly as we should like.

    Excess Rentals
    Mr. Desmond Donnellyasked the Assistant Postmaster-General in what cases it is the policy of his Department to charge excess rentals to telephone subscribers who live beyond a certain distance from the nearest telephone exchange; and how this is computed.
    Mr. Gammans: Excess rental is normally charged where the subscriber's premises are more than three miles radial distance from the nearest telephone exchange. The additional annual charge is £1 3s. 0d. for each furlong beyond these limits.
    Mr. Donnelly: Am I to understand from the hon. Gentleman that the charge is computed from the telephone exchange itself or from the three-mile limit?
    Mr. Gammans: It is computed from the telephone exchange itself.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is that not rather unfair? Would the hon. Gentleman consider arranging it so that a man who lives three miles and one furlong from the telephone exchange does not have to pay the excess when a man who lives two miles seven furlongs away does not have to pay any rental at all?
    Mr. Gammans: I will look into that point.

    Accounts, North London
    Mr. Thomas Brownasked the Assistant Postmaster-General why bills sent out by the Northern Telephone Area for telephone calls on the Archway Exchange have not been delivered; what was the total of the bills concerned; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
    Mr. Gammans: The loss of these telephone accounts is as yet unexplained, but inquiries are continuing. Accounts for some subscribers on Enfield exchange as well as for some on Archway are concerned, the total amount involved being £13,620. Duplicate accounts are being sent out.
    Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman consider introducing a full-scale interdepartmental inquiry into this inefficiency?
    Mr. Gammans: A departmental inquiry was instituted long ago.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    M.I.G. 15 Aircraft (Engines)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what opinion has been formed as a result of examining the engines of M.I.G. 15 fighters as to what technical benefits have derived from our sale to the Russians of Nene engines.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Nigel Birch): Examination of captured parts of M.I.G.15 engines has shown that M.I.G.15 fighters are powered by engines which are copies of the Nene. Some of these have been developed to give increased thrust. It is thus reasonable to suppose that the Russians have derived substantial benefits from the sale to them of the Nene engines.
    Hon. Members: Shame!
    Mr. Shepherd: Is it not the fact from my hon. Friend's answer that the sale of these engines was not merely an act of foolishness but that it struck a real blow against the free world?
    Mr. Birch: I think it was certainly unfortunate.
    Mr. E. Shinwell: In view of the disclosure made by the Minister about the benefits alleged to have been derived from the sale of the Nene engine, will the Minister disclose the whole of the facts which have now been made available to the air experts?
    Mr. Birch: What facts has the right hon. Gentleman in mind?
    Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Gentleman will make inquiries and sees fit to make the necessary disclosures he will discover that his statement is a travesty of the facts.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw!
    Mr. Birch: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that this answer has been most carefully vetted and prepared by the Ministry.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, and is the Minister of Defence who is now present aware, that the statements made to me by the intelligence experts are contrary to the statement made by the Minister?
    Mr. Birch: I say that my answer was based on information supplied by our intelligence experts.
    Mr. Woodburn: Has the hon. Gentleman communicated with the Ministry of Supply, which was the Department responsible, and is he aware that the experts of the Ministry of Supply stated that it was quite impossible that the Russians could learn from these engines anything that they did not already know?
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this matter at this moment.

    Princess Flying Boats
    Mr. Ralph Morleyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he can now make a statement on the future of the Princess flying boats.
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement on the future of the Princess flying boat.
    Mr. Birch: I regret that I cannot yet make a statement.
    Mr. Morley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was originally intended that these flying boats when in operation would be based on Southampton Marine Airport? Can he give an assurance that that is still the case?
    Mr. Birch: I am not able to give any assurance about anything to do with the Princess flying boat at this moment. My noble Friend is well aware of the urgency of a clear decision in this matter, and it will be made as soon as possible.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that if these flying boats were available today they could be of great assistance to our country, and will he try to come to an early decision in this matter?
    Mr. Birch: I have said that a decision will be arrived at as early as possible.

    Auxiliary Personnel (Grants)
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why the claims made by Royal Auxiliary Air Force personnel during their three months' call-up, in respect of loss of wages, have not been met.
    Mr. Birch: Members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force called up for three months received Service emoluments together with a special bounty. No undertaking was given that any difference between Service emoluments and civilian wages would be made good, but National Service grants were paid in 192 cases where it was clear that hardship would have resulted from the call-up.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Does my hon. Friend realise that some airmen were down by as much as £3 10s. a week? Will he investigate whether or not certain airmen have resigned their positions in the squadrons as a result of their loss of pay?
    Mr. Birch: Maximum National Service grants are £3 a week, and therefore for men earning very high wages or salaries clearly there is a loss, but I think my hon. and gallant Friend must agree that that is unavoidable

    Personal Case
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the reason for the delay in paying 1298452 L.A.C. P. D. Bennett, No. 11 School of R.T.G.C.T., Royal Air Force, Hednesford, Staffordshire, his pay and ration allowance money; whether he is aware of the hardship this delay has caused; and what steps he is taking to remedy this.
    Mr. Birch: Owing to an unfortunate series of administrative errors, L.A.C. Bennett was not given the usual advance of 14 days' pay and ration allowance before he went on terminal leave, nor was the money due sent to him by post when it should have been. L.A.C. Bennett should by now have received a money order for £20 and, in accordance with the usual practice., he will be sent the balance owing to him on 26th November, the last day of his service in the Royal Air Force. I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing this case to my notice, and I very much regret any hardship which was caused to the airman concerned.
    Mr. Thomas: While I thank the Minister very much for that reply and ask him whether he is aware that my constituent has received this money, may I ask him if he will now take steps to prevent such a thing happening again?
    Mr. Birch: It was due to one of those unfortunate series of incidents which occur from time to time. I have looked into the matter myself, and I do not think it will occur again.

    Pilots (Glider Training)
    Mr. Geoffrey de Freitasasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what proportion of those who qualified as Service pilots in 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950, respectively, had previously qualified as glider pilots.
    Mr. Birch: I regret that the information requested is not available.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some years ago the practice was instituted of having some cadets take gliding instruction before flying instruction? Unless figures like these are available it is impossible to assess the value of preliminary gliding training.
    Mr. Birch: Pilots' records do not show whether they have had gliding experience before flying. On the other hand, as the hon. Gentleman knows, considerable tests have been carried on at Cranwell and elsewhere into this matter, and these are perhaps the best tests, because one can carry straight through to see what is the value of gliding training.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is because no such records are kept of a pilot that I put down the Question?
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) was formerly Under-Secretary of State for Air and should have kept the records?

  MANCHESTER—LONDON AIR SERVICE
  Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Civil Aviation when it is intended to introduce a regular air service between Manchester and London.
  The Minister of Civil Aviation (Mr. John Maclay): It is intended to introduce a service in April, 1952.
  Mr. Erroll: Does the Minister realise that in view of the great unpunctuality of the train service on this route this air service will be most welcome?

  OLYMPIC GAMES TEAM (EXPENSES)
  Miss Burtonasked the Prime Minister if, as many members of the public would like to support financially the sending of a British team to the Olympic Games next year, His Majesty's Government will authorise the issue of special stamps for this purpose at, say, 6d. and 1s.; and if he will take steps and initiate discussions for such stamps to be on sale early in the new year at places most convenient for the public.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): There are a number of organisations who have sought the same facility, for example those connected with tuberculosis, cancer research, and the blind; and it would be impossible to help them all and invidious to choose between them.
  Miss Burton: May I, with respect, ask the Prime Minister whether we are comparing the same things? Is he aware that I have stamps here which were issued by the Governments of Greece, Belgium, France, America and Switzerland for this purpose, which carry a surtax; and I am asking whether this Government would agree to such a thing being initiated in this country. May I, furthermore, ask the Prime Minister, if he cannot say "Yes" today, if he would allow people to look into this and report to him on the matter?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure the Question put down by the hon. Lady and her supplementary will turn the attention of those concerned in the direction she desires.

  SERVICE PERSONNEL (RETIREMENT BENEFITS)
  Captain Robert Ryderasked the Prime Minister whether, arising out of the substantial increase in pensions and terminal grants now paid to Service personnel qualifying on or after 1st September, 1950, he will include in these benefits those who by their terms of service would have qualified for this had they not been disabled prior to that date.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson) yesterday in a written answer, the position of men who left the Services before the operative date of the recent improvements in retirement benefits cannot be considered in isolation from that of other State pensioners.
  Captain Ryder: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we are faced here with a very real anomaly? Will he kindly look into this matter again, because it imposes great hardship on a person who, for instance, was seriously disabled in Malaya or somewhere like that shortly before this arbitrary date was fixed?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is one of the difficulties which always attaches to fixing arbitrary dates.

  U.S. AIR FORCE (BRITISH BASES)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will now take steps to terminate the arrangement by which United States atom bombers are based in this country, in view of the dangers of retaliatory bombing to the people living in the crowded cities of Britain.
  The Prime Minister: Certain bases and facilities in the United Kingdom were made available by the late Government to the United States Air Force for the common defence of the United Kingdom and the other countries who are parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. This arrangement will continue so long as it is needed in the general interest of world peace and security.
  Mr. Hughes: When this arrangement was entered into, was not the right hon. Gentleman highly critical—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—because of the dangers it meant to the civil population of this country? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to sacrifice the civilian population of this country to American strategy?
  The Prime Minister: When this arrangement was made we, then on the Opposition side of the House, supported the Government in the matter and we shared with them, having regard to the difference between Government and Opposition, a large measure of responsibility for this extremely important and, I think I characterised it. "formidable" act.

  KOREA

    British Prisoners of War
    Mr. T. Dribergasked the Prime Minister what action is taken in regard to the pay, allowances, and personal effects of Service men taken prisoner in the Korean war, including men originally reported missing or killed and subsequently unofficially reported to be prisoners; and what special arrangements are made for the maintenance and welfare of the families of these men.
    The Prime Minister: Pay and allowances continue to be credited to a prisoner's account. Dependent relatives receive the same allowances and allotments from pay as they were getting before the man was taken prisoner. The welfare organisations would consider sympathetically cases of particular hardship. Personal effects are sent to the next of kin or other authorised representative. This also applies to men reported missing or killed and later presumed to be prisoners.
    Mr. Driberg: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has yet been able to look into the matter which he was good enough the other day to say that he would look into—the question of paying some part of the special Korea gratuity to the families of these men?
    The Prime Minister: I will look into it and I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the point. If he is not satisfied perhaps he will put another Question on the Paper.
    Mr. John Profumoasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will make representations through the appropriate channels to ensure that the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Forces in Korea, shall not authorise the issue of statements affecting the lives and safety of large numbers of British troops without prior consultation with the senior British military representative in that theatre.
    Mr. J. Rankinasked the Minister of Defence if he will make representations to the United Nations Organisation to ensure that official statements concerning the lives of British prisoners of war shall not be issue before he has been consulted.
    The Prime Minister: The nature of General Ridgway's statement of 17th November, which has been fully reported
    378
    in the Press, shows that no such representations were or are needed.
    Mr. Rankin: But in view of the fact that these Press statements do and must cause a great amount of distress amongst the relatives of missing men, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it advisable in these circumstances that he should be consulted before these statements are made public?
    The Prime Minister: I really do not think I could lay down that principle. The great mass of the Forces engaged in Korea are provided by the United States. The overwhelming sacrifices of blood loss has fallen upon them. The general commanding, in whom we have gathering and growing confidence, General Ridgway, has himself rebuked an utterance which he considered was calculated to cause unnecessary alarm and despondency, and has himself given out figures which are much more moderate and much more authoritative, but, nevertheless, extremely painful.
    Mr. Profumo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the original announcement was made it was made by a junior officer at General Ridgway's headquarters about these atrocities to prisoners, and it was at that time assumed that those may have affected British lives? Lest that sort of situation does arise again in future, will my right hon. Friend make representations that this sort of announcement should not be made without consultation with the senior British representative in the theatre or the command?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think I can make any further statement on that point.

    Christmas Parcels
    Mr. G. A. Pargiterasked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the desirability of our troops in Korea receiving parcels with the minimum of transport delay, he will arrange for a reduced air mail postage rate for Christmas parcels.
    Mr. Ernest Popplewellasked the Minister of Defence the cost of providing the free air mail parcel service to the troops in Korea last Christmas time; and what would be the cost of a similar concession this year.
    Rev. Ll. Williamsasked the Minister of Defence whether he will make similar arrangements this Christmas to those made last year to convey by air one postage-free parcel to the troops in Korea.
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Defence whether he proposes to make available the same special free parcels facilities for troops serving in Korea at Christmas as were given last year.
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Defence if he has now reached a decision concerning the suggested Christmas concession of postage-free parcels, air mail, to His Majesty's Forces in the Far East; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: The cost of last year's concession was about £37,000. We hope to repeat it this year, at an estimated cost of £58,000 if the maximum advantage is taken of it; but, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office explained on my behalf in the debate on the Adjournment last Thursday, certain practical transport difficulties remain to be overcome.
    Major H. Legge-Bourke: Has my right hon. Friend also considered making these facilities available to troops who have been moved to Egypt in recent weeks?
    The Prime Minister: We will look into that.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 12 months ago he regarded the concession as a cheese-paring one? Has he changed his mind?
    The Prime Minister:If it were then a cheeseparing one, at any rate the right hon. Gentleman should be satisfied that this time less cheese is pared, so that the sum is much greater. On the other hand, he may have his anxieties as to whether it is not a sign of the rise in the general cost of living in all directions.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: One could understand the right hon. Gentleman's reply if he had really agreed to provide more than one free air parcel.
    Mr. Pargiter: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that nothing whatever stands in the way of these parcels reaching our troops by Christmas, because there is some alarm about possible transport delays?
    The Prime Minister: We shall do our best to carry out the policy indicated.

  .280 RIFLE
  Mr. Woodrow Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to attend a test in which the relative performances of the.303 rifle, the new British.280 rifle and American.300 Garand rifle are compared.
  The Prime Minister: As I have already stated, I shall be making a statement on this subject to the House before we rise for the Christmas Recess. I hope I may be permitted to be the judge of how I gather my information.
  Mr. Wyatt: First of all, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the fact that he is reconsidering the use of the new 280 rifle has caused great distress throughout the whole British Army? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it has. Secondly, will he assure the House that before abandoning it, before he allows it to be superseded, he will at least have a look at it? Will he also bear in mind that if he does not interfere with the arrangements already made, this rifle can be in full production within two years and can easily be supplied to British troops long before any new American rifle can be invented?
  The Prime Minister: I do not want to embark upon a detailed argument on this subject until we have a chance of debating it.
  Mr. Adams: Could we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that if such tests are arranged he and his colleagues in the Cabinet will still be standing by their targets?
  The Prime Minister: May I compliment the hon. Member on his wit, even though it is not original?

  MINISTER OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND
  Mr. William Rossasked the Prime Minister (1) when it is proposed to raise the Minister of State for Scotland to Cabinet rank;
  (2) if he will explain the duties and powers of the Minister of State for Scotland.
  The Prime Minister: The Minister of State will work as the Secretary of State's Deputy, mainly in Scotland, and he will have oversight of all the Scottish Departments. He will concern himself specially with industry and development, the peculiar problems of the Highlands and Islands, and general aspects of local government. In addition, for the present he will deal directly with education matters.
  While the Minister of State is not a member of the Cabinet he will, as necessary, be invited to attend meetings of the Cabinet on behalf of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his speech in Glasgow during the election he gave a promise that the new appointment would carry Cabinet rank? As this Minister is to be subordinate to another Cabinet Minister, and is to receive £1,000 a year less than even the present cheap rate for Cabinet Ministers, how does the right hon. Gentleman manage to make these things agree?
  The Prime Minister: There is a lot of questions mixed up in that one supplementary but, dealing with the one about any pledge I made about the Minister's being of Cabinet rank, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Minster is of Cabinet rank, but that not all people of Cabinet rank are in constant attendance in the Cabinet. A very usual practice and custom has grown up around that point. The three Service Secretaries of State are of Cabinet rank, but they do not attend the Cabinet, except on special occasions.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a very long time since the Secretary of State for Scotland was not a member of the Cabinet?
  Hon. Members: He is.
  The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for Scotland is a member of the Cabinet. We are discussing the Minister of State in another place who shares his work and divides his duty as between the different countries—I am glad to have convinced the right hon. Gentleman.

  MINISTRY OF MATERIALS
  Mr. Maurice Edelmanasked the Prime Minister his intentions in connection with the future working of the Ministry of Materials.
  The Prime Minister: I am not proposing to make any immediate change in the present arrangements.
  Mr. Edelman: Does that mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman will shortly be creating a new Minister of Materials?
  The Prime Minister: No. I have no such immediate urge.
  Mr. Edelman: Would the right hon. Gentleman, then, say which Minister in the House of Commons will be responsible for answering Questions dealing with the procurement of materials?
  The Prime Minister: I am almost sure I answered that yesterday.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: As the Prime Minister has no immediate necessity for an "urge," I hope that there will not be some immediate necessity for a purge so far as he is concerned.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. George Chetwyndasked the Prime Minister which Minister in the House of Commons is responsible for questions on the work of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and for the Medical and Agricultural Research Councils.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made after Questions yesterday.
  Mr. Chetwynd: On a point of order. This was one of the Questions which was deferred at your request yesterday, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman answered the first part dealing with the scientific and industrial research, but not the second part.
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could put down another Question.
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry if I am not fully armed on that particular point. If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down I will make sure it is answered satisfactorily.

  OVERSEAS FORCES (POSTAGE RATES)
  Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Defence whether he will make some concession to the parents of serving officers and men in Korea and Malaya in view of the high charges for parcels and papers.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made during the debate on the Adjournment last Thursday by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office, from which he will see that substantial concessions are already in operation for postage rates to the Forces overseas.

  MINISTRY OF FOOD

    Fat Stock Shows (Auctions)
    Captain J. A. L. Duncanasked the Minister of Food why he has not given the same concessions regarding the auctioning of fat cattle at the Scottish Fat Stock Show as he has given to the English show.
    Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncanasked the Minister of Food why equal treatment in the auctioning of stock has not been granted to Edinburgh and London at their forthcoming fat stock shows.
    The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): Arrangements for the disposal of fat stock exhibited at this year's Smithfield Show are experimental, but if they are successful and are well received by both producers and butchers I will willingly consider extending the arrangements to Edinburgh and other fat stock shows.
    Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend conduct these experiments both in Edinburgh and London contemporaneously and so relieve the feelings that Scotland is being treated differently from England?
    Major Lloyd George: That certainly would not be my intention. I do not know whether it is possible at this stage to extend these arrangements to Scotland, or to other centres, this year, for they were come to some time ago, but I shall be very happy to look into the matter.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend not agree that—perhaps as was usual in the past—the Ministry of Food have entirely forgotten about Scotland?
    Major Lloyd George: I can promise my hon. and gallant Friend that from now we shall remember it very much more.

    Points Rationing
    Sir Richard Aclandasked the Minister of Food whether he will reintroduce points rationing in the near future.
    Mr. Adamsasked the Minister of Food what steps he is proposing to take, following the cut in food imports, to ensure the fair distribution of scarce foods; and whether he intends to re-introduce the points system for non-rationed foodstuffs.
    Major Lloyd George: I shall of course watch developments closely; but I do not intend to reintroduce points rationing.
    Sir R. Acland: In view of the cut in unrationed foods, no doubt necessary, what steps will the Minister be taking to make sure that the restricted supplies available are not directed to those areas where higher prices can be paid for them?
    Major Lloyd George: The food retailers have for a very considerable time had to deal with goods in very restricted supply. They have very great experience, and I feel that they have handled this extremely well.
    Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that the points system of allocating scarce non-rationed foodstuffs has worked very well in the past, and what assurance can he give that, if he refuses to introduce this system again in the future, well-to-do people will not be able to buy these foods at the expense of those who are not able to pay for them?
    Major Lloyd George: That, of course, we shall watch very carefully, as we always have done. In so far as the points rationing scheme is concerned, there are many things to take into consideration. The scheme costs the Ministry about £380,000 a year with 1,000 staff, and that does not include the expenses to the trade which needs to employ many more people.
    Mr. Donnelly: is it not a fact that many of these foods which have been cut under the import restrictions announced did come under the old points rationing quota, and is there any assurance that there is to be price control on the limited supplies coming into this country, so that there will be no steep rise in the cost of goods now becoming scarce?
    Major Lloyd George: I do not think It is true to say that the tinned goods we are bringing in fit in exactly with the old points rationing scheme, What is cut is the more expensive hams, which, I understand, hon. Gentlemen on the other side did not mind so much when it was first announced. With regard to the others, I do not think there is any need to do anything in the way of control, but I am watching the matter very closely.
    Mr. Adams: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Soft Fruit (Imports)
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that growers of soft fruit and tomatoes in the Clyde Valley have in the past suffered from foreign dumping, since the suspension of import by open general licence has hitherto been timed without due regard for the lateness of the Scottish season; and if he will take steps to remedy this.
    Major Lloyd George: I am not aware that growers of soft fruit and tomatoes in the Clyde Valley have suffered from foreign imports in recent years, but if my hon. Friend would send me details I will look further into the matter.

    Tinplate Production
    Commander R. Scott-Millerasked the Minister of Food if he will state the total production of tinplate for the first six months of 1951; and the estimated requirements of tinplate for the home canning of fruit and vegetables.
    Major Lloyd George: I am informed that tinplate production in the first half of 1951 was about 355,000 tons. As regards the second part of the Question, it is not possible to make an accurate estimate of all potential requirements, but they certainly considerably exceeded the 33,000 tons which it was possible to allocate.
    Commander Scott-Miller: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that last year the needs of the home canning industry were not met owing to the export of tinplate, and will he ensure that the same thing does not happen again this year?
    Major Lloyd George: I will certainly do everything I can to meet that position. Of course, the requirements are very much greater than the supply. If we take the requirements of tinplate for all food products, they were very much higher than the figure of 33,000 indicated.

    Fruit and Vegetables (Marketing)
    72. Mr. Winterbottomasked the Minister of Food what steps he proposes to take to link more closely the productive and distributive prices of fruit and vegetables, as promised in the Conservative manifesto.
    Major Lloyd George: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) on 12th November.
    Mr. Winterbottom: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the reply on the date which he mentioned indicates unfamiliarity with the trade, and will he read the reports of the various commissions in respect of fruit and vegetables and think again?

    Marmalade Making (Sugar Allowance)
    Mrs. Eirene Whiteasked the Minister of Food what extra sugar will be available for making home-made marmalade.
    Major Lloyd George: I am maintaining the weekly domestic sugar ration at 10 oz., the level to which it was raised from the beginning of this year For the reasons given in my reply to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) on 14th November, I regret that I cannot make an extra distribution for marmalade making.
    Mrs. White: As there may well be a few housewives in the country lulled into a sense of false security by the presence of Lord Woolton in the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman give the widest possible publicity to this statement, so that we shall not reach the marmalade making season and expect to have more sugar?
    Mr. Robert Crouch: Will the Minister make it known that he found the cupboard empty before he arrived at the Ministry of Food?

    Brewing Commodities
    Mr. James Hudsonasked the Minister of Food what amounts of barley, maize, other grain, sugar, glucose, etc., hops, etc., were devoted to brewing in the last year for which figures are available; and the comparable figures for 1938 and 1945.
    Major Lloyd George: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hudson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman able to say whether there is a considerable allocation of sugar to the manufacture of liquor, and does that amount to several weeks' rations of this article?
    Major Lloyd George: I am afraid that I am not expert enough to make a calculation per week, but in view of what the hon. Gentleman asks, taking 1938, 1945

    Home-made Beer: Quantities of Materials used by Brewers for Sale

    Year ended 30th September

    Malt

    Unmalted Corn

    Rice, Rice Grits, Flaked Rice, Maize Grits, Flaked Maize and other similar preparations

    Sugar including its equivalent of Syrups, Glucose, Saccharin, etc.

    Hops

    Preparations of Hops

    Hop Substitute

    cwt.

    cwt.

    cwt.

    cwt.

    cwt.

    cwt.

    cwt.

    1938

    …

    9,378,888

    14,194

    688,086

    1,894,773

    277,846

    145

    29

    1945

    …

    10,435,212

    245,751

    1,332,032

    1,784,064

    244,822

    714

    139

    1950

    …

    9,094,097

    56,174

    454,500

    1,285,877

    232,979

    114

    90

    Converting malt into terms of cereals on the basis that 4 cwt. of cereals produce 3 cwt. of malt the total cereals used in each of the above years was:—

    Tons

    1937–38

    660,000

    All types of home grown and imported cereals, including maize and rice.

    1944–45

    775,000

    Home grown barley and oats.

    1949–50

    632,000

    Home grown barley and oats. Maize for brewing export beer only.

    Empire Sugar Purchases
    Mr. Bernard Braineasked the Minister of Food how much sugar was purchased by his Department in 1950 and 1951 from Commonwealth sources and non-Commonwealth sources, respectively.
    Major Lloyd George: The quantity of sugar purchased by my Department was as follows:

    1950

    1951

    tons

    tons

    Commonwealth sources

    1,662,000

    1,490,000

    Foreign

    1,372,000

    1,452,000

    388
    and 1950, there has been a steady decline in the consumption of sugar.
    Mr. Hudson: Is it true that there is still five or six weeks' ration even after the decline?
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend not agree that by the export of these liquors a larger amount of food is imported than would be possible with the five weeks' rations which the hon. Gentleman speaks about?
    Mr. James Glanville: Is the Minister aware that the workers engaged in the heavy industries are very anxious that he should not submit to any pressure from my hon. Friend on this side?
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend also aware that a large quantity of sugar is used in cordials as well?
    Following are the figures:
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend give the House an assurance that he is taking from British Guiana, Mauritius and Jamaica every ton of sugar that those Colonies can offer to the Mother Country?
    Major Lloyd George: There is an agreement, as my hon. Friend knows, which is now being discussed by which we are taking as much as we possibly can, and the total this year which shows that the Commonwealth figure is down is due to the disastrous trouble in Australia when we lost so much sugar.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether Jamaica has delivered the full amount of sugar expected?
    Major Lloyd George: I cannot answer that without notice, but I think she has.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: When are private buyers to be sent out to find the sugar?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Major Lloyd George: The answer to that is, the sooner the better.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Do I understand the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to mean that he wants to bring to as early an end as possible the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement?
    Major Lloyd George: I most emphatically deny any such thing.
    Hon. Members: What does it mean?
    Major Lloyd George: I rather gathered that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remark was that he was looking for sources of sugar other than what we have today.
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Food the average price of sugar purchased by his Department in 1950 and 1951 from Commonwealth sources and non-Commonwealth sources, respectively.
    Major Lloyd George: Whereas Commonwealth sugar was bought at one agreed price covering shipments throughout the year, our purchases of foreign sugars were made under widely varying conditions. It would therefore be misleading to attempt to give figures.
    Mr. Braine: Is it not a fact that on balance more was paid for foreign sugar than for Commonwealth sugar? In view of the dual need to keep prices down at home and encourage Empire production, can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether he will be prepared to give a guarantee to colonial producers that he will take 100 per cent, of their production at remunerative prices after 1952 rather than only 70 per cent.?
    Major Lloyd George: I must repeat that the matter is now under discussion with Commonwealth and Colonial growers and that the present price is one which has been agreed to by all Empire growers and they are perfectly satisfied with it.

SCOTTISH QUESTIONS
The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Discussions have taken place through the usual channels in regard to Scottish Questions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has responsibility for Scottish affairs covering a wide field and it is felt that special arrangements should be made to ensure that Scottish Questions are reached on one day before the House adjourns.
In the exceptional circumstances it has been agreed through the usual channels that Scottish Questions be brought to the top of the list on Tuesday, 4th December. Then, after the Recess, Scotland will resume its normal place in the list, and become second on the first Tuesday when we meet and first place on the following Tuesday.
I wish to stress that this is a special arrangement, made in unusual circumstances, and I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be good enough to accept these proposals, which must not be considered in any way as a precedent.
Mr. A. Woodburn: I should like to express, on behalf of the Scottish Members, our thanks for this concession to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). It was a very long interval, and this will certainly satisfy Scottish Members.
Mr. J. Rankin: May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I appreciate the satisfactory way in which he has met the protests which were made from this side of the House?
Mr. John Wheatley: Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State for Scotland has the responsibility for four Departments, the counterparts of which are the responsibility of five Ministers in England who deal with Local Government, Planning, Housing, Agriculture, the Home Department, and Health, will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to an arrangement for Questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland being put down on more than one day each week?
Mr. Crookshank: That is quite a different question. At the moment I am only dealing with facilities before Christmas. I am very much obliged to the right

391
hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) and to the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) for the kind words they have used about our efforts to solve this problem.
Mr. S. O. Davies: Could the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when he proposes to make the same arrangements for Wales?
Mr. Wheatley: Does not the Leader of the House agree that the question which I put is inter-related to the matter with which he has dealt, and that it might be for the convenience not only of Scottish Members but of other Members if Scottish Questions were placed throughout the week? Will he be prepared to consider the matter, if need be, through the usual channels?
Mr. Speaker: These matters are usually arranged through the usual channels, and if any variation is desired the request is made through the usual channels.
Mr. T. Driberg: On a point of order. Even if these arrangements are made through the usual channels, is it not possible for back benchers to ask the Leader of the House questions about them, as they affect all Members of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I was trying to get the House to pass on to the next business, because these arrangements were come to through the usual channels and they can be varied if necessary. But if the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has a question to put he can do so.
Mr. Driberg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Leader of the House if he can say which Minister is likely to be displaced on Tuesday, 4th December, by this unusual arrangement, which may indeed be necessary, and if he will give an undertaking that no Minister will be displaced whom there will have been no opportunity of questioning orally before Christmas?
Mr. Crookshank: To the best of my recollection it is the Minister of Works who is passed over. He does, of course, take the place of the Secretary of State for Scotland on the same day, so that should time permit he will be available to answer such Questions as are on the Order Paper.

CENTRAL AFRICAN TERRITORIES (FEDERATION SCHEME)
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Central Africa.
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are convinced of the urgent need to secure the closer association of the three Central African territories; and they believe that this would best be achieved by federation, which they regard as the only form of closer association likely to meet the requirements of Central Africa.
As the House will be aware, a conference attended by my predecessor and the former Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and by representatives of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, was held at Victoria Falls in September to consider the scheme for federation of the three territories put forward by the London conference of officials last March.
His Majesty's Government have studied the statement issued at the conclusion of the Victoria Falls Conference, the text of which is being made available today in a Command Paper (Cmd. 8411) and are in full agreement with it. In their view the recommendations of the London conference of officials achieve the two essential aims of any scheme of closer association they provide effective and representative machinery, both executive and legislative, for the handling of common Central African problems, and they contain full and adequate safeguards for African interests.
His Majesty's Government would accordingly favour a scheme of federation between the three territories on the general lines recommended in the officials' report. They believe that such a scheme would be in the best interests of the African as well as the other inhabitants of the territories. They recognise that African opinion in the two northern territories has declared itself opposed to the proposals in the officials' report; but they trust that, in the light of the assurances agreed upon at the Victoria Falls Conference, and of the economic and other advantages of closer association, Africans will be prepared to accept them.

393
The assurances agreed upon at the Victoria Falls Conference are, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, of great importance. It was unanimously agreed that, in any further consideration of proposals for federation, land and land settlement questions, as well as the political advancement of the peoples of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, both in local and in territorial government, must remain as at present—subject to the ultimate authority of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom—the responsibility of the territorial Government and Legislature in each territory and not of any federal authority.
It was also unanimously agreed that the Protectorate status of the two northern territories should be accepted and preserved, and that this excluded any consideration now or in the future of the amalgamation of the three Central African territories, unless a majority of the inhabitants of the three territories desired it. His Majesty's Government fully endorse these conclusions, and in any federal scheme would ensure that these rights should be formally embodied in the constitution.
His Majesty's Government take the view that the statement of the Victoria Falls Conference which excludes amalgamation of the three Central African territories without the consent of the majority of the inhabitants, should apply equally to amalgamation of any two of the territories or any part of them.
His Majesty's Government wish, finally, to draw attention to two other conclusions of the Victoria Falls Conference. First, there was general agreement that economic and political partnership between Europeans and Africans is the only policy under which federation could be brought about in the conditions of Central Africa, and that any scheme of closer association would have to give full effect to that principle. Second, the Conference expressed grave concern at the dangers which would flow from any weakening or dilution of the British connection and British traditions and principles in the three territories and agreed that they should be so strengthened as to ensure that they should continue to prevail. His Majesty's Government regard these conclusions as of the utmost importance.
394
His Majesty's Government are most anxious that there should be no delay in reaching final conclusions on the future relations of the Central African territories. The Victoria Falls Conference agreed that before decisions could be taken by Governments further discussion within each territory and between the four Governments would be required. The Conference therefore adjourned, and expressed the hope that it could reassemble in London about the middle of 1952. His Majesty's Government endorse this hope and propose that the resumed conference should take place about July of next year. They will do all that they can to help ensure that the intervening period is used to the best advantage for the necessary discussions in Central Africa.
Mr. James Griffiths: I welcome the inclusion in this statement of the very important assurances which were agreed upon at the conference at Victoria Falls and which are of the utmost importance.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions. First, I would ask him and the Leader of the House that we might have an early opportunity of debating this matter in the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is very essential now that the debate should be at a very early date, in view of the statements made by Sir Godfrey Huggins this week, in which he made references to the behaviour of the Africans, and, incidentally, of myself, at this conference, which statements are likely to damage seriously the prospects of this matter being discussed in Central Africa in the right spirit?
I have two other questions. First, in the statement issued at the close of the conference, which I am very glad is to be published as a Command Paper, it is indicated that at the conference itself African representatives for Northern Rhodesia made a very important suggestion upon which, in my view, the success of this matter eventually may depend. It was that they would be prepared to consider federation on the basis of the London proposals, if, in the meantime, between now and the next conference, discussions took place in Central Africa between representatives of Europeans and of Africans, in the setting of Northern Rhodesia, to define the principle of partnership and to seek agreement upon its implementation.

395
When I was Secretary of State I urged upon the Governor and both parties how important it was to begin those discussions at once. May I ask whether they have begun and, if so, what are the prospects of agreement?
I would further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to a report in "The Times" for today that the Governor of Southern Rhodesia has arranged, presumably in consultation with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, to come to London for discussions. May I ask, if there are to be discussions, whether the right hon. Gentleman realises the very great importance that no discussions should take place either in London or in Africa on this matter, in the absence of African representatives? An experience that one of my predecessors and I shared very fully is that this matter has been bedevilled by conferences of white people, both in Africa and in this country, with black people shut outside. May I also ask, if Sir Godfrey Huggins is coming to this country, if the right hon. Gentleman will consider very seriously the essential necessity of inviting African representatives, if it is to succeed, because the consent of the African is absolutely essential?
Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman has asked three questions. I hope I have got them aright. The first question concerned a debate. That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Before these discussions reach finality there will, of course, be opportunities for raising the matter, but, naturally, not before the House adjourns. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]
The second question was whether the Northern Rhodesian discussions, which are, of course, welcomed by His Majesty's Government, have begun to take place. I understand that they will shortly be taking place. The answer to the third question is, of course, that I could not presume to say that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia is coming here with the permission of Ministers. He is perfectly entitled to come here when he wishes. I hope that he will always be welcome; but I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Griffiths: On the last question, perhaps I might put this point. The an
396
nouncement in the newspaper is that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia is coming here to discuss this proposal about Central Africa. Therefore, I want again very strongly to press the right hon. Gentleman, and on the Prime Minister, if I may, to consider very carefully what I have found in my experience. Conferences of this kind at which Africans are not present will make success impossible in this field.
On the question of the debate, may I ask that it shall be before this House rises for Christmas? The only reason why I press this point is that these references to Africans, who behaved in a very responsible way at this conference, will be taken up by them. I share very fully their view, and I have some responsibility, because I persuaded the Africans to come to the conference. It is very important that the unfortunate impression created in this country, Africa and elsewhere by the statement of Sir Godfrey Huggins should be fully debated in this House, and I really press for a debate before Christmas.
Captain Charles Waterhouse: Does not the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia speak for both coloured people and white people?
Mr. Gordon Walker: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on a point in paragraph 5 of his statement, which refers to the importance of strengthening the British connection and traditions in this part of the world. The statement ends by saying:
"His Majesty's Government regard these conclusions as of the utmost importance."
I take it that the Government are in favour of them and support them, and do not just regard them as of importance. This matter is of very high importance in that part of the world, and it was one of the things that both Africans and Europeans agreed upon quite clearly at the Victoria Falls conference.
Mr. Lyttelton: I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that when we say that we regard the conclusions as of the utmost importance we support them, and we believe that the continuance of the British connection and traditions can best be brought about by federation.
Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of order. May I ask what Motion we are debating, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It is customary to allow a certain number of questions after a statement has been made, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no Motion before the House.
Mr. Griffiths: I want once more to press the question of a debate to take place soon in regard to this conference. I share very fully in the recommendations that the Conference made, and I am anxious to see this resumed conference a success; but statements have been made upon which I cannot remain silent, and I would much prefer to say what I have to say in this House and in debate. I would ask the Leader of the House to believe that it is of very great importance here and in Africa that a debate should take place before the House rises.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The Government and I will take note of the wish expressed by the Opposition in reference to this matter, but I cannot make a statement offhand about it now.
Mr. James Johnson: Is the Secretary of State for the Colonies aware that Sir Godfrey Huggins, speaking on Monday of this week in Salisbury, Rhodesia, described the Victoria Falls conference as "a native benefit society led by the Secretary of State," my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. [HON. MEMBERS: "Llanelly."] Is he further aware that in the inspired newspaper the "Daily Telegraph," Sir Godfrey said that this Government would take a more realistic attitude towards federation of Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland than did their predecessors? What does this mean? Will he kindly dissociate himself—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking the Secretary of State to interpret a statement made by one for whom he is not responsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think we ought to pass on. There is no Motion before the House. We cannot debate this matter now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

PRIVATE MEMBERS' TIME
3.50 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I beg to move,
That,—

(1) save as provided in paragraphs (2) and (5) of this Order, Government Business shall have precedence at every Sitting for the remainder of the Session;

(2) Public Bills, other than Government Bills, shall have precedence over Government Business on the following Fridays, namely 1st, 15th and 29th February, 14th and 28th March, 25th April, 9th and 23rd May, 27th June and 11th July;

(3) on and after Friday, 9th May, Public Bills other than Government Bills shall be arranged on the Order Paper in the following order:—Consideration of Lords Amendments. Third Readings, Considerations of Report not already entered upon, adjourned Proceedings on Consideration, Bills in progress in Committee, Bills appointed for Committee, and Second Readings;

(4) the ballot for unofficial Members' Bills shall he held on Thursday, 29th November, under arrangements to be made by Mr. Speaker, and the Bills shall be presented at the commencement of Public Business on Wednesday, 5th December;

(5) unofficial Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government Business on the following Fridays, namely, 8th and 22nd February, 7th and 21st March, 4th April, 2nd and 16th May, 20th June, 4th and 18th July; and no Notices of Motions shall he handed in for any of these Fridays in anticipation of the ballots under paragraph (6) of this Order;

(6) ballots for precedence of unofficial Members' Notices of Motion shall he held after Questions on the following Wednesdays, namely, 30th January, 6th and 20th February, 5th and 19th March, 23rd and 30th April, 28th May, 18th June and 2nd July; and

(7) nothing in this Order shall prevent unofficial Members giving Notices of Motions for leave to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business) or presenting Bills under Standing Order No. 35 (Presentation or introduction and first reading) after the presentation of unofficial Members' Bills referred to in paragraph (4) of this Order has taken place.

Last Thursday, the House will remember, I made a statement in which I explained the proposed arrangements for Private Members' time, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was good enough to express himself satisfied, so far as came within his province, with those arrangements. I said that it would be necessary to table a Motion. The Motion set out on the Order Paper,

399
and which I have moved, is the one to which I refer.
It is of some importance that it should be accepted without delay, if we are to be able to keep to the time-table and place in the Lobby a list on which hon. Members may sign their names in order to ballot for Bills next Tuesday and Wednesday, as a preliminary to the Ballot itself on Thursday.
I think the Motion is self-explanatory, but, if there are any questions which hon. Members wish to put to me, I will do my best to answer them. I hope the Motion will commend itself to the House.
Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: As I understand under the terms of this Motion, if an hon. Member of the House is out of the country on Parliamentary business, say, in Australia or at Strasbourg next week, he can get another hon. Member to put down his name for the Ballot, but, if he is lucky in the Ballot, he has to be here in person on 5th December to present the Bill to the House.
I am not asking for any delay in this matter, but I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider amending the Motion to allow an hon. Member who is out of the country on Parliamentary business, if lucky in the Ballot, to present a Bill by proxy on 5th December.
Mr. Crookshank: This is quite a novel suggestion. Doing anything by proxy in this House would be a breach of our tradition, and I am not at all sure that the suggestion would be acceptable to hon. Members as a whole. Of course, if it is, and it is conveyed to me as such, I am in the hands of the House, because this is Private Members' time, but it would be necessary to put down a further Motion in that case.
Mr. de Freitas: The point I am making is that an hon. Member must, of course, not only be out of the country but out of the country on Parliamentary business, such as in Australia or as a member of an official delegation.
Mr. Crookshank: I quite recognise that, but an hon. Member might fall sick and not be able to come to the House, or he might have an accident. Once we start on the business of proxies, we are opening a very wide door.
Mr. Herbert Morrison: I only want to say that, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, these proposals do follow, I think substantially, what was done last year, with a slight improvement or amendment—anyway, it probably is an improvement—and we think that, generally, they should be acceptable to the House.
Question put, and agreed to

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RETIREMENT OF MR. SPEAKER CLIFTON BROWN (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel Sir Charles MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That the annual sum of four thousand pounds he granted to His Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, the said annuity to be settled in the most beneficial manner upon Colonel the Right Honourable Douglas Clifton Brown, lately Speaker of the House of Commons, to commence and take effect upon the thirty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, and to continue during his life.—[Mr. Crookshank.]
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  BORDER RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  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 II 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).
  Resolution agreed to.

  BORDER RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

SUPPLY
Considered in Committee.
[Colonel Sir Charles MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1951–52
  CLASS IX

    VOTE 15. MINISTRY OF MATERIALS (TRADING SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £47,966,470, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenditure of the Ministry of Materials on trading services and assistance to industry.

RAW MATERIALS
3.58 p.m.
The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): It is with considerable diffidence that I rise to address the Committee for the first time from this Box as spokesman for a Department which is not my own—although very closely connected with it—and with whose work I am not yet as familiar as I shortly hope to be. I propose, if it is agreeable to the Committee, to cover the position broadly in my opening speech, and then later, if necessary, to deal to the best of my ability with any questions which hon. Members may wish to put on matters of detail.
This Supplementary Estimate is required to enable the Ministry of Materials during the current financial year to carry out the trading functions laid upon it by the Ministry of Materials Act, 1951. I do not expect that it will give rise to controversy, or, at any rate to party controversy. The Committee will appreciate that the Estimate follows directly on from the operations of the previous Government, and, indeed, was largely worked out when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) was in charge of the Ministry.
The Estimate amounts to approximately £48 million. I should like to make it clear at once that these figures are cash figures only. They have no relation to

403
any profit or loss on trading which the Ministry may make during the year. They are quite distinct from the trading accounts, which are kept on a commercial basis and which will be presented to the House in due course. The amount for which I ask asking today is not a financial charge upon the taxpayer. It is working capital, which will go back to the Exchequer in due course.
The Committee will recall that when the Ministry of Materials was set up in July last, it took over the trading functions of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply for a certain number of essential and scarce materials. The provision originally made by the Committee for this purpose was a token sum of £10 only. That was because the receipts from sales of raw materials in which the Ministry trades were expected to exceed the cost of purchases by some £3 million, which would then have been paid back to the Exchequer.
That was the position estimated by the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade at the end of last year, and the Ministry of Materials adopted the figures when it was set up, since it was too early in the financial year for it to be practicable to recalculate the estimates. It now appears, mainly owing to changes in the world supply position, that expenditure will exceed receipts during the year by the sum now asked for.
As the House will see from the details of commodities set out on page 8 of the Paper, the net expenditure is almost entirely in respect of non-ferrous metals and jute. In the case of non-ferrous metals— that is, copper, lead and zinc—the world supply position became exceedingly difficult in the latter half of last year. Industry in this country was only kept supplied with its essential needs by drawing on the stocks which had been accumulated, and by a system of allocation to consumers. Receipts from sales then exceeded new purchases, and some £32 million was in fact returned to the Exchequer by 31st March last.
Since then, pressure on world supplies of these materials has to some extent relaxed. An international allocation system has been introduced for copper and zinc under the International Materials Conference, and we hope that this will in time lead to a further easing of our situa-
404
tion. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary informed the House last night, the value of the International Materials Conference is fully appreciated by His Majesty's Government, and it will continue to receive their full support.
As a result of all these developments, the Ministry hopes to be able to build up its stocks of non-ferrous metals during the course of this year to at least a minimum safe operating level. A large part of the provision which I ask the Committee to make this afternoon will, therefore, be represented by additional stocks of these materials.
In the case of jute, which covers also jute goods, we depend for our supplies mainly on Pakistan and India. The trade deadlock between those countries, which lasted from September, 1949, to February last, led to our purchases of jute goods falling short of our needs by a very considerable extent. This was due to the fact that Dundee only supplies part of the United Kingdom requirement of jute goods—hessian, and so forth—and the remainder is imported from India. Indian jute products mainly depend on supplies of raw jute from Pakistan. As production of jute goods in India fell, drastic cuts had to be imposed in this country, and here again stocks were reduced to a very low level.
Since the signing of the trade agreement between India and Pakistan in February last, supplies have begun to come forward, although at much higher prices, and the Ministry has been able to buy enough to meet current requirements. Here, again, it is hoped to build up stocks, both of jute and jute goods, to a more satisfactory level by 31st March next, and that is the purpose for which this additional sum is required.
Of course, the reverse process has taken place in the case of tungsten ore or wolfram, for which the Committee will see that a reduced gure is submitted. This was due to the fact that supplies of tungsten ore have now become increasingly difficult to obtain. We only started to buy on public account in July, and it is quite clear that there is no possibility of expending the whole sum previously allocated for this purpose this year. We hope, however, to be able to buy enough to meet essential requirements and to build up some stock.

405
Coming to the second sub-head, a sum of approximately 750,000 is included in respect of Loans to Producers. This is to enable provision to be made to implement a contract now being negotiated with the Aluminium Company of Canada for additional supplies of magnesium for defence production. A loan will be made to the Company to enable it to expand its capacity, which will be repayable by the supply of magnesium over the period of the contract.
The total amount under these sub-heads is just under £48 million. I hope that in these remarks I have succeeded in explaining what are the reasons for which I am asking the Committee to approve this Vote.
4.6 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Strauss: I congratulate the Minister on the clear, concise and able way in which he has explained this Supplementary Estimate. I know from experience that it is not always too easy to do that. There is a tremendous amount of background to these Votes, and it is very difficult to sort out the things which are really important and to present them in a lucid way to the House. The hon. Gentleman has succeeded very well indeed.
I have little, if any, comment to make on the speech which he gave us or upon the Supplementary Estimate which is before the Committee today. It is interesting to note that, on the whole, stocks have risen. Imports of a number of materials have been greater and, of course, that has had some effect on the balance of payments problem. This aspect of that problem should be borne in mind. Otherwise, the hon. Gentleman's explanation has been full; he has been fair.
These figures are, of course, the result very largely of the activities of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Materials during the months when he exercised that function and, prior to that, the activities of my own Department before the Ministry of Materials was set up. In view of the full account which the hon. Gentleman has given and the apparent approval which he gives to the actions taken by my right hon. Friend and myself, I have no further comment to make, but it may be that some of my hon. Friends might like to ask the Minister some questions.
4.8 p.m.
Mr. Peter Roberts: There is one point which exercises my mind and the minds of other hon. Members. That is the reference in the Supplementary Estimate to paper and to timber. We notice that the credit for paper has gone down by £2 million and that timber remains more or less constant. I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to elaborate this in detail this afternoon, but it would be interesting for us to know whether he is to give us any indication of the policy of his Department regarding future trading in these commodities. I feel that the principle of locking up Government money in this way, which money might well be left to private trading, is not a principle which should commend itself to the Government and to hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
The Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member that we are considering a Supplementary Estimate and that we cannot discuss the policy already agreed to by the. House.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: On that point, Sir Charles, it is true that it is a Supplementary Estimate, but it is a Supplementary Estimate in somewhat unusual circumstances, because the original Estimate was £10 and the Supplementary Estimate now required is the difference between £10 and £48 million. It is obviously in order to discuss the difference, and only the difference, and not the original Estimate, but when the difference is as wide as all this one would have thought that the width of the debate was a little more generous than on occasions when the amount of the supplementation is much smaller proportionately to the original grant.
The Chairman: I quite agree with the way in which the hon. Member has stated the case, but, nevertheless, the policy has been agreed and we can only discuss the reasons why the amount is so much increased.
Mr. Roberts: The point I am trying to make is this, Sir Charles. My hon. Friend, in opening the debate, mentioned that the sum was not a charge upon the taxpayer as such; as I understood it, it was money which would be paid back to the Treasury. That was the remark my hon. Friend made, and it was to that remark that my argument was, I hope, being attracted.

407
My point is that this money may not, in fact, be repaid for a very long time if the policy of trading of his Department continues.
I want to press my hon. Friend to this extent. The money will be repaid to the Treasury when these funds are wound up —that, I suppose, is the ultimate object of the remark which he made. It depends, therefore, on how long the trading continues as to the length of time that this money is to remain at the disposal of his Department. It was to that narrow point, Sir Charles, that I was wanting to address my remarks and I shall not go wider than that.
I should like my hon. Friend, when he replies, to assure me that the question of coming to the House to ask for this money to be put to the use of the Department will not be a recurring event, or will recur only so much as it is necessary, in his opinion, that these buyings of stocks should remain under the authority of the Department.
4.12 p.m.
Mr. George Chetwynd: There are only two points that I should like to make. First, it seems that we are, rightly, committed to the International Materials Conference, and it would seem that if we are to get the best value from participating in it, the Government will be right in carrying on State trading in these materials. I should like an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that that is the policy that the Government are intending to pursue.
My second point is that a large increase is being asked for. Is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to break it down into two parts, and to give figures to show how much extra materials we are getting in this increase and how much the increase is due to the terms of trade worsening against us?
Mr. Walter Fletcher: I should like to ask a question about the jute figures. The explanation given by the Minister, which was of events for which the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), on the benches opposite, has taken full responsibility, did not seem to me to be quite sufficient or to fit in with the known facts.
It is perfectly true that there has been a difference of opinion between Pakistan, which produces the jute, and India, which
408
processes it, but before the period which is under discussion 800,000 bales of jute were allocated by Pakistan to India and were started to be processed. Surely during that period, when the price of jute was a good deal lower than it is now, it would have been possible for jute to have been purchased which could afterwards have been processed either in India—in Calcutta and in the various jute mills there—or else in Scotland.
Does not this enormous increase—the largest, I think, of the whole Paper; it goes up to £31 million—conceal a great error of omission on the part of the late Government in failing to buy the jute, because they did not, apparently, realise that whether it waited or not for a little while to be processed did not matter very much, and that it was certainly a very good thing to have it ready to be processed?
The late Government must have known also that there was a great bottleneck in shipping in Chittagong, which is the port of origin, and which is about the slowest loading port in the world. Therefore, this Supplementary Estimate may conceal one of the very greatest errors of judgment, for which the Minister has no responsibility. Will the hon. Gentleman, at some time to suit his convenience, be able to let the Committee know whether the surmise I have put forward has any substance, whether the buying was not delayed far too late, and whether, in consequence, we are not for the end products. such as gunnies, hessian and so on, going to pay much too much?
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Edelman: May I congratulate the Secretary for Overseas Trade on his presentation of the Supplementary Estimates? I had the privilege of following him when he made his maiden speech and I am glad to have the opportunity today, for the second time, of congratulating him on a maiden performance.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the International Materials Conference, which everyone agrees is one of the most forward-looking international organisations at the present time. One of the difficulties from which it suffers is that certain commodities have not been associated with it, in particular rubber, tin and wool and, as rubber has been mentioned in these Estimates, I wish to make refer-

409
ence to that commodity. I think one of the greatest causes of Anglo-American misunderstanding is the fact that some of the primary producers in the Commonwealth have not played their full part in association with the International Materials Conference.
We have all seen how in the last year or so, particularly in regard to a commodity like sulphur, how much of the disagreement which existed between us and America it was possible to iron out because there was a commodity committee for sulphur associated with the International Materials Conference. The result is that today sulphur is no longer a problem. But, in regard to tin and rubber, we have a different situation. The producers of tin and rubber—producers of both are in our own Commonwealth—although they have been organised in study groups and other organisations, have not been willing to play their full part in the International Materials Conference and that has been one of the great difficulties in the I.M.C.
I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it will be the policy of the Government to encourage by all means which lie in their power the primary producers of tin, rubber and wool to take part in these commodity committees and so strengthen the work of the International Materials Conference, which, as is well known, was initiated by the former Prime Minister last December.
4.18 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: I wish to support the plea that the item for nonferrous metals should be broken down into its component parts. I put this question—and I am not posing as an expert in the matter—because I understand that of the four metals involved only tin is what I would call a sterling commodity.
Since the beginning of this financial year, tin has fallen considerably in price, whereas copper, lead and zinc, which are dollar commodities, have risen sharply. Those four items are all bulked together in one figure of £18,751,000. I would remind the Committee that the sterling commodity, tin, cost at the beginning of the year, in April, £1,340 a ton and today it is down to £940 per ton. At what price have we been buying this commodity? Was it at £1,340 a ton, or nearer to today's price? It is important
410
from the taxpayers' point of view to know if our money has been spent wisely and if we have gone into the market at the right time. It is also of great importance to the people in the Commonwealth who are producing the commodity.
I remind the Committee that just after the beginning of the year the price of tin touched its highest price of £1,620. On the other hand, the prices of the three metals that are controlled by the dollar markets have risen since the beginning of the financial year, since we began to spend this money. The prices look like going still higher and the balance of trade is moving against us largely because of these factors. At the beginning of this year copper was £210 a ton, whereas today it is £227 a ton, lead was £160 a ton and is now £175 a ton, zinc was £160 a ton and is now £190 a ton.
Has this money been spent at the lower prices, or are we spending the taxpayers' money at top prices? When did we go into the market and what caused the Ministry to decide to go into the market? Was it that they thought world prices were changing in our favour, or that our needs were so great that we must-re-stock? The Minister said with regard to non-ferrous metals that pressure since March, 1951, on world markets had now been somewhat relaxed and he hoped because of that that we would be able to build up our stocks. From the figures I have given it would not seem that pressure is being relaxed and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree, it would be an extraordinary thing if markets relaxed when prices are going up. I think the Minister should give the Committee some explanation of that.
Another question I wish to ask is in regard to the jute position. There again I would remind the Committee that. whereas only in October, 1950, the price of jute was £110 a ton, in April, at the beginning of the financial year, it was up to the peak price of £255 and today it has gone back to £165. The Committee are being asked to agree to a Supplementary Estimate of £31 million. Has the purchase of jute been at anything near the peak of £255 a ton, or more round the price of £165 a ton? I think the Committee are entitled to that information and, in no spirit of hostility, I ask that when the time comes the Minister should give it to us.
4.22 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: No one would suspect the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) of asking questions of his Minister in any spirit of hostility. I hope, therefore, if I ask a number of similar questions, no more hostility will be attributed to them than to those asked by the hon. Member. Probably it is no secret to the Committee that the hon. Member and I do not always take the same view about things, but on this occasion I am bound to say that, although not precisely the same, the lines on which we have been thinking have been similar.
Normally, in considering a Supplementary Estimate, one is able to find by a few direct questions—and perhaps to find out from the opening statement without asking questions at all—what it is that has led to the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate. It is no criticism of the Minister that we could not derive that information altogether from his speech. I agree with all those who have complimented the hon. Gentleman on the lucidity and fullness of the explanation he made, and I hope I might, without impertinence, join in those compliments.
But what we cannot find in these circumstances is whether we are buying more materials than we contemplated when we passed the original nominal Estimate, or are getting less materials, We do not know whether the movement of prices has been such as to lead to our spending a great deal of money on fewer goods than we originally thought we would get for it, or whether it is the other way about. We are dealing with quite a substantial sum of money. We are dealing in this Supplementary Estimate with nearly £50 million in circumstances when there is, by common consent of the whole Committee, a necessity for reducing our expenditure and particularly for reducing our international expenditure—our expenditure on dollar account. It is vital for the Committee to know how this matter is progressing; how it fits into the general world picture of raw materials supply and world prices.
I have never belonged to the group of some hon. and right hon. Friends who sometimes argue as though they believed —although I am sure they do not believe—that it is this country's rearmament alone that is putting our dollar
412
account into ever-increasing deficit out of surplus. If other conditions remained the same and all the other countries went on re-arming at the rate at which they are now re-arming while we did not spend any additional money, I suppose the rise of world prices would be unaffected and we would suffer from it in our dollar account whatever the purpose for which the raw materials we bought were to be used.
Nevertheless, it is certain there has been an enormous increase in world prices of these raw materials since first we contemplated these purchases, since first this original nominal Estimate was agreed to in the Committee and in the House—
Mr. Osborne: With the exception of tin.
Mr. Silverman: With the exception of tin, which was due to quite other causes a little while before. It is no secret, nor matter of controversy either, that that wide, rapid and serious rise has been due to one result of the world rearmament programme, namely, the intensification of competition for an amount of raw materials which does not increase and could not increase over the period for which the extensive competition provides.
What we are anxious to know is how far this Supplementary Estimate contributes to the general intensification of competition—what the rise of prices has been and whether our own taking part in it has made the rise of prices higher, or more rapid than otherwise it would have been. If it should turn out—as it may well do—that all the countries of the Western world and some others enter the market at the same time for a limited amount of raw materials and compete with each other with only inadequate checks and the amount of raw materials does not increase, all we would do in the end would be to get fewer goods for more money.
Mr. Osborne: Surely the hon. Member will agree that it is not the countries of Western Europe competing one with another which is the dominant factor, but whether America is in the market or not which determines whether prices go up or not.
Mr. Silverman: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I thought I said the Western world; if I said Western Europe I meant the Western world.
This is a classic case, on the international level, of the absence of controls and of rationing and allocations. The purchaser with the longest purse gets the most and, by reason of that, he sends up the price against everyone else. If the result of the examination were to be that these Estimates, compared with the amount that other countries are spending over the same period in the same field, showed that the net effect has not been to increase the amount of raw materials and not been to increase the proportions in which they are required by the various countries but only to increase the prices at which they are required, so that in the end we get no more goods for a lot more money, that would be a pointer to a number of things.
One would be the general policy on which we are engaged. If that were so it would prove a very powerful reinforcement to the argument of those who say that this re-armament programme, whatever its justification or lack of justification in principle or politics may be, cannot be achieved. The very size of this Supplementary Estimate, unless it can be explained otherwise than my questions may indicate, would seem to show that the race is being run faster, but over the same ground, and that the position of the contestants has not greatly altered.
The other consideration of general policy which may be indicated, if the answer to these questions went in a certain direction, would be whether the time had come for having something very much more effective than the international body to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) referred. I agree with him that so far as it is there, and exercises some kind of control, it is an advantage, but I would not have referred to it in terms of quite such generous praise as he did. It would seem to me, if all we have been saying about this is anything like correct, that the necessity which is really intimated is for a very much more universal and stringent control of supplies and allocations of those materials; not only among the nations who happen to agree together at a particular period on common defence, but also among all the nations of the world.
414
All those materials, and I shall not name them, are equally valuable in a great many other connections than rearmament. These are materials which, if we were not using them for armaments, would be used for much more constructive purposes. The general rise in world prices to which we contribute in this way, without deriving much material advantage from it, might lead even the most backward of us to realise the necessity, not merely for maintaining automatic control of these things, but for establishing a real international control under a system of fair shares among all the nations of the world.
4.32 p.m.
Mr. John Grimston: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) very far, because the item to which I wish to refer, non-ferrous metals, has not gone up in price to the extent he would have the Committee believe, and to the amount on which he based his argument.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) will not be surprised that I am speaking again on non-ferrous metals in which, I should tell the Committee, I have a private interest. The Minister claimed, as is quite true, that the bulk of the £18 million for which he is asking in the revised Estimate represents the further financing of stocks. But a very significant amount of money is also represented by the margin in that metal for refining and subsequent processing which can be performed both in this country, in the United States and elsewhere.
Part of the policy of the former Minister of Supply and the former Minister of Materials was to average the prices charged in this country for non-ferrous metals. That policy had two very serious results which I hope the present Government, and particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will investigate, for the following reasons. By averaging the prices in this country the home manufacturer is today being charged about £7½ million above the price which a corresponding range of American manufacturers is being charged for the same metals, thus inflating our costs in this country. We are consequently put at a disadvantage in the export trade
There is an even more serious objection, as I see it. There are certain pro-

415
cesses which can be performed in this country and can equally be performed in the United States. I refer particularly to the refining of copper. Under arrangements made by the former Minister, long-term, or fairly long-term, arrangements have been entered into for the refining of this metal to be done in America. The effect of that is to force our refineries to work shorter hours than they would otherwise work, and to have work done in America for which we have to pay in dollars, and which could perfectly well be done in this country.
I believe that the cost to this country for every year on this one point alone is between one-third and one-half a million pounds, almost entirely payable in dollars. I do not expect the Minister to know the details in the same way as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall ought to know them, but I am convinced that by this arrangement we are having to pay between one-third and one-half a million pounds worth of dollars every year unnecessarily. By altering our arrangements, by introducing an added measure of flexibility into our over-rigid system, we could save those dollars quite easily. This is the kind of saving which I am certain free enterprise trading would make, were it allowed to do so, and I ask my hon. Friend to look into that particular matter.
Mr. A. J. Irvine: I wish to express the anxiety which I now feel, but which I did not feel at an earlier stage in the discussion, and which derives very largely from what has been said by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I hope that the Secretary for Overseas Trade will be able to indicate quite clearly to the Committee how far these revised Estimates are due to the additional bulk of purchases and how far to movements in price. I conceive that to be an important matter, and I would be grateful if he would clarify it.
4.37 p.m.
Mr. Robert Crouch: I feel that one of the principal duties of a back bench Member is to see that moneys are properly spent. This Estimate of nearly £50 million has involved a great deal of work, industry and thought on behalf of many people in this country
416
to provide the Department with the money for which they are now seeking power to spend. I hope, therefore, that that money which has already been spent has been well spent, and that the amount which is still to be spent will be used by the people in charge of it with every care to see that they get full value for the money; because it is public money they are spending.
Having obtained these materials I hope that every care will be taken to see that they are properly used, and not wasted. We are living in an age of scarcity of raw materials and, therefore, I hope that these materials will be properly used Looking at these Estimates I see that while jute is the material on which the largest amount of money has been spent, fertilisers, I am glad to see, take the third place. Fertilisers are the raw material of our agricultural industry. If we are to get increased production from our grassland, if we are determined to produce more meat and milk, it will be necessary for us to use a greater quantity of fertilisers than at present. It is from our grassland that we shall obtain an increase in meat rather than from the importation of larger quantities of coarse grains. Those will have to be used for the smaller livestock.
I suggest to the Minister that he should see that the people who receive these materials should use at least 2½ per cent, of them for research. I know that research work is going on very rapidly today, but I consider even more care and attention should be given to this very important question of whether we can in the future make better use of whatever material it may be than we do at present.
Mr. Thomas Cook: I hope that the Minister will endeavour to get as much jute as possible. It is a vital commodity, not only for our re-armament programme, but also for the export trade. I am pleased to see that jute figures largely in the Estimates. I was rather surprised at the point made by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher), who questioned, by inference, whether we had bought at the wrong price or at the wrong time. As one who from time to time did try to get jute supplies for this country by various means. I would inform the Committee that it is one of the most difficult commodities to obtain, and I hope

417
the Minister will endeavour t
o get as much as he possibly can.
4.41 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Strauss: Before the Minister replies, I would ask him to deal with two points of criticism made by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston). He suggested that the consumer in this country has to pay more than is necessary because of the policy of the late Government in averaging the price of nonferrous metals, the consumer being charged the average cost price plus a certain amount for distribution and expenses. The hon. Member alleged that, as a result of that policy we are at a disadvantage compared with the American consumer.
I do not know whether the Minister has yet had time to go into it, but if he has I would ask him to comment on whether it is not the fact that, because of our shortage of materials, we have had to buy a number of parcels from abroad above the normal standard price of these various non-ferrous metals; and that the alternatives were for the Government either to subsidise the price and allow the consumer to have the metal at the world standard price, the U.S.A. price, or to average the price of the purchases and let the consumer have those purchases at that average price. I would also ask the Minister if he does not consider that that was the sensible and proper thing to do; and that the only alternative, a subsidy, was really quite out of the question?
Mr. J. Grimston: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the argument he is now advancing applies to copper as well as zinc? I know that it applies to zinc, but in regard to copper these special purchases were not made. The extra charge in this country hitherto is represented by freight increases over the Atlantic of these lots sent to America for refining.
Mr. Strauss: I was coming to the refining point in a moment. I was dealing merely with the suggestion that we should not have averaged the price of purchases and so put the consumer at a disadvantage. I do not think that is true and the alternative would have been to make a substantial subsidy, which would have been unjustified.
With regard to refining the copper in the United States, the hon. Member sug-
418
gested we had done wrong and it was unnecessary. I should like the Minister to say whether it is not a fact that the metal was refined in the United States, because it was not possible to get it refined anywhere else. We did not want to send metal out there to be refined, because it cost dollars and was altogether inconvenient. We went into the matter very carefully on a number of occasions with the various interests concerned and there was no other way of dealing with the matter.
If there were some other way out at the moment it would be very desirable and we should be very pleased to hear it. Perhaps the hon. Member will say if there is some new method of getting the copper we want in this country without sending it to the United States to be refined and if it is not a fact that up to now there has been no alternative and that we have had to incur dollar expenditure much against our will because there was no other way out?
Mr. J. Grimston: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that on 4th July his Ministry, as it was at that time, wrote a letter, which I have here, saying that they were very concerned at the rate of refining in this country and asking for it to be reduced?
Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member will not expect me to check a letter sent by my Ministry on 4th July without some reference to my Ministry, which I am not able to do now, and without looking into the whole circumstances of the letter.
Mr. Grimston: I was merely asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought the letter bore out the argument he has just put forward.
Mr. Strauss: The policy about which I have just been speaking was the policy which my Department had been pursuing, and I cannot possibly defend or explain a certain letter which was sent. I agree that a sentence taken out of it would appear to lead in some other direction, but it cannot really be so because the policy which I have stated was the policy pursued by my Department throughout.
4.47 p.m.
Mr. Hopkinson: A number of questions have been put to me, and many of them are of a very technical character, but I shall do my best to reply to them. First

419
of all, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and other hon. Members who have very kindly congratulated me upon my remarks. As to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the effect on our balance of payments problem, I will certainly bear that very fully in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) referred to paper and timber and asked why they were included in the Supplementary Estimate. The position with regard to paper is that we have a revolving credit under which we pay the Finnish producers an advance of £3 million at a time in respect of pulp production, and it was estimated that the amount which we had paid to them would be sufficient to last until the end of next March, but, on later consideration, it is thought better to allow for an outstanding amount of £1,500,000 to be available to the Finnish producers for this purpose. In the case of timber, the sum is a small one, but, of course, even if softwood timber is handed back to private trade, we shall be involved with contracts for some months to come and these are bound to figure in the Supplementary Estimates.
Mr. P. Roberts: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he think, therefore, that as these payments are repaid a greater credit will appear and that we shall get a good deal more money in up to the end of the year, or will the figure be the final figure for the period? If there is to be payment to his Department for the stocks, I should have thought that the money would have been greater.
Mr. Hopkinson: The answer is that as the stocks are eventually sold the amount will be reduced. We cannot apply this to a certain period. We cannot say exactly when the stocks of timber will be sold. They will not necessarily be sold in the period to which the Supplementary Estimates relate.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the last point? It is difficult to follow. As I understand, the credit we expect to get from the revolving fund is now put at £1 million instead of £3 million. I could not quite follow the reason for the reduc-
420
tion in the credit and, therefore, the increase in the Supplementary Estimate. We should be much obliged—we realise the hon. Gentleman's difficulties this afternoon—if he could give a little fuller explanation.
Mr. Hopkinson: The Finns have always required advances on contracts for the purchase of pulp, the importers and the banks being unwilling to give large credits in the present circumstances of political insecurity, and, to ensure supplies, his Majesty's Government have in the past—the right hon. Gentleman knows this better than anyone else—advanced £3 million at a time to cover firm forward contracts, the credit being repaid by pulp deliveries. The Finnish Reserve Bank agrees to repay any part of the advance not redeemed by pulp deliveries.
It was originally estimated that no advance would be outstanding at 31st March next, the amount outstanding at 31st March, 1951, being repaid this year, but it is now thought safer to allow for £1,500,000 outstanding. There is no question of default. The amount outstanding will depend on the state of deliveries of pulp at the end of March. I hope that answers the question, but, if not, perhaps I may look into it and give the right hon. Gentleman a further answer.
Mr. Gaitskell: I think I have understood it. Does it imply that the deliveries of pulp are likely to be smaller than we should otherwise suppose?
Mr. Hopkinson Mr. Hopkinson indicated assent.
Mr. Gaitskell: That is not the result, I take, it, of any decisions on restriction of imports, but something that arises out of the physical scarcities in Finland?
Mr. Hopkinson: I think so. I believe that that figure was worked out under the previous Government.
Mr. A. J. Irvine: Before the hon. Member sits down—the whole Committee appreciates the manner in which he has dealt with these matters—will he say, something in the most general terms in respect of the question raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, as to how far the revised Estimates are due to changes in the levels of prices and how far they are due to changes in bulk purchase?
Mr. Hopkinson: I shall attempt to deal with a number of other points if the Committee will bear with me for a time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley also asked for an assurance that the purchases by the Ministry of Materials would be handed over to private trade. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), asked for an assurance in an exactly contrary sense. My impression from the Chairman's ruling is that it would be out of order for me to go into that matter in any detail as it involves a question of principle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher), asked why jute was to be bought in the next few months when it could have been bought during the period when deadlock existed between the Indian Government and the Government of Pakistan. The answer is that we delayed buying in the hope that the matter would be resolved. We kept fairly steadily to our normal buying of jute during that period. As a matter of fact, I understand that, probably by not going in to buy then, the late Government made a good deal, because it is hoped that the price of jute will now be falling and that when we come to sell the jute we shall be able to average the prices out and sell it at a lower price than would have been the case if we had bought earlier.
Hon. Members have asked whether the increase in the Estimates was due to the increase in prices or to the fact that we were to receive additional stocks. I have not got the figure for jute, but I have it for non-ferrous metals, and in that case the additional cash of £18,751,000 is due to additional stocks costing approximately £17.5 million and to a rise in the value of the basic stock of approximately £1,250,000. I hope that that answers the query.
Mr. Gaitskell: Can the hon. Gentleman give a similar breakdown for other materials? I think this is the most important matter raised in the debate, and the hon. Gentleman's answer suggests that this applies to other materials also and that the major reason for the Supplementary Estimate is the increase of the quantity of imports. That is a very satisfactory answer, and if he can say a word about other materials we shall be grateful.
Mr. Osborne: Can my hon. Friend answer the specific point I put to him about how much of the extra supply has come from the sterling area tin and how much from the dollar-priced non-ferrous metals?
Mr. Hopkinson: The question of tin does not enter into the Supplementary Estimate, for tin is bought on private account. However, I can give some breakdown figures for the other nonferrous metals; approximately £4 million for copper, £9,500,000 for lead, and £4,500,000 for zinc. As I have said, we have not been buying tin.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), referred to questions arising out of the International Materials Conference. As I have said, we fully intend to support the work of the conference in every way we can, for we fully recognise its value, and we also recognise the interest which the hon. Member has always shown in the matter. I assure him that he can count on our continued interest. However, tin does not come into these Estimates, and in the case of rubber the amount is only a very small one, being a hangover from the days when rubber was being bought on public account.
Mr. Edelman: Without wishing to press the hon. Member unduly on this point at the present moment, may I ask him to bear in mind in future that tin, rubber and wool, in so far as participation in the I.M.C. is concerned, are the three most important commodities for the future successful working of the conference? Will he bear that in mind when he discusses with the Colonial Secretary the question of bringing all these elements into the working of that organisation?
Mr. Hopkinson: I fully recognise that what the hon. Member says is right, but he will admit that they are the most difficult commodities and that they give rise to problems of very great difficulty involving not only this country and the Commonwealth but also the United States and other interests. However, I will certainly bear that in mind in the future.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), also made some kind remarks. I believe that I have covered many of his points while he has been out of the Chamber. The remainder

423
are of a rather general nature, and I ought to say that I shall take note of them and bear them very much in mind, for it would be difficult for me to answer them and remain in order. I do assure him that I take note of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston) raised some very technical questions about copper refining and the averaging out of prices. I have not had very long to familiarise myself with the work of the Department and I should hesitate to dive into the argument on these very difficult points which is going on between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall and my hon. Friend. However, I will study the matter, and I hope that on a future occasion I shall be able to take more part in the discussion.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £47,966,470, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenditure of the Ministry of Materials on trading services and assistance to industry.

CLASS IX

  VOTE 16. MINISTRY OF MATERIALS (STRATEGIC RESERVES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,455,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenditure of the Ministry of Materials in connection with the procurement and maintenance of strategic reserves.

STRATEGIC RESERVES
5.1 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: I do not think that anyone in any quarter of the House would disagree with the policy of building up strategic reserves, but I wish, while agreeing that it is urgent that we should build up our stocks in a rearming world, to ask the Minister whether any thought is being given by His Majesty's Government and the American Government to what is to happen to world prices in a disarming world.
Unless some thought is given to that matter now, I can see, in three years'
424
time, the greatest slump the world has ever experienced. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is present—and if attention has not so far been given to this matter—I would impress upon him the necessity for giving consideration to it before the crisis comes upon us.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: As I am in most unexpected agreement with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), I cannot let the occasion pass without acknowledging it. He has put his finger, very surprisingly —to me at any rate—upon one of the most serious aspects of trying to do this kind of thing in an unplanned world. What he points out is perfectly correct. There is this sudden rush for things that do not increase, there is a rise in prices and many nations are driven into enormous financial economic difficulty or into solvency while the cost has risen without getting very much for it, and then, when the fever has abated, there is the drop the other way.
Here we find a very classical example of this constant succession of booms and slumps which is the misery of the world and which is inherent in the whole of the system in which the hon. Member for Louth spends the rest of his life outside politics.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has asked a really important question on this issue—
The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot debate policy now.
Mr. Hughes: I have not yet asked my question, Sir Charles, which is whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give an answer to the question put to him by the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. C. R. Hobson: I do not know whether it is too late at this stage to ask for a definition of non-ferrous metals, but on looking through the list on page g I see that there is quite a number of them.
The Chairman: We have passed that.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,455,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenditure of the Ministry of Materials in connection with the procurement and maintenance of strategic reserves.

CLASS I

  VOTE 4. TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments, including additional salary payable to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the salary of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, and the salary and expenses of the Secretary of State for the Coordination of Transport, Fuel and Power

NEW MINISTERS (SALARIES)
5.6 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I think it would be to the convenience of hon. Members if I gave a short description of this Supplementary Estimate because it relates to certain of my colleagues in the Government whose activities, both future and present, I have much honour in describing to the Committee. I trust that I shall be able to convey the spirit and purpose which effects the political appointments for which the Committee is today asked to make provision.
The Supplementary Estimate, as the Committee will observe, calls for a token sum only, and deals with three appointments, that of a Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power, of a Minister of State for Economic Affairs and with the staff required by the Paymaster-General in order to carry out the duties which he has undertaken. Those are the three provisions which, I understand from reading the paper carefully, are in order for our discussions. I think these matters can be described quite simply, but I will endeavour to give the Committee a picture of the sense of public service in which these duties will be undertaken.
The great Departments of State, admirable though they are and efficient as they are, require a certain positive effort of co-ordination if they are to carry out their activities successfully and with due regard to what the other Departments are doing. That is necessary if there is to be a general harmony in the policy of the Government. We can, of course, expect a general coordination in Government policy to flow from three main things. One is the unity
426
of purpose and outlook which, naturally, brings us all together in His Majesty's Government at the present time in a united Ministerial team.
The second force which needs coordination is the position of the Prime Minister himself, whose sphere of action is as wide as that of the Government as a whole, and the third the activities of the Cabinet and the responsibility of the Cabinet to whom all major questions of policy must be brought. I think all that can be taken for granted by the Committee. It must also be accepted, I think, that in our modern State, with the great increase in the functions and activities of the Government, there must also be some machinery for providing a rather closer co-ordination in particular spheres.
This problem has faced all Governments since the First World War and the methods adopted for dealing with it have varied with the different Administrations which have succeeded one another and according to the different circumstances of the time. One method much favoured under the late Government has been to have a series of committees under the Cabinet dealing with different fields in which a number of Departments were involved. I understand that this method was highly favoured by the late administration, although, following precedent, they did not give any detail of the membership of these committees outside their own private circle.
In speaking to the Committee this afternoon I am in a similar position to that in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite found himself when he was in my place. I do not intend to give the membership, the chairmanship or any part of the constitution of Cabinet committees, and that would be according to precedent. But, subject to that limitation, which is a limitation in gauging the whole picture and one which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite will accept, I think I can give a picture about how all this work will fit in together. We think there is a supplementary method to the committee method which can be followed with advantage. This is particularly the case with regard to transport, which includes civil aviation as well as road, rail and sea transport, and the great scope of the field of fuel and power.
The interplay of activities between these great public services which are so

427
vital to the future of this country result in problems of co-ordination or bring together all problems common to all of them and arising all the time. Here, we feel we need the attention of a single person—not a committee of people all of whom have other things to do—but someone free to devote his time wholly to the task. He must see that general policy on the whole of this field which I have just described develops smoothly and harmoniously.
Here, of course, is a great responsibility to perform, as hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will be the first to realise. But we are fortunate in having in His Majesty's Government for this task the unrivalled knowledge of my noble Friend whose salary we are considering this afternoon. This knowledge has been gained during a lifetime of experience of these particular matters, and his career was signalised by very special services rendered to this country during the last war under the Coalition Government. I surely cannot be accused of special pleading if I say that in our view "there is nothing like Leathers."
The welding together of these particular subjects under my noble Friend has, in our view, many advantages. The problems of coal and transport—I can speak from my own experience, having been in office a short time—are perhaps two of the greatest now pressing upon all of us, whatever our opinions at the present time. They underly the whole of our economy, and success in dealing with them will lighten our burden everywhere else. Indeed, here is a sphere in which coordination—whether it be inland transport of coal or transport of coal coastwise, or coal for export, and, though it is sad to say it, coal for import—is absolutely essential.
Despite the structure of committees which we understand existed under the late Administration, we do not think that they satisfactorily succeeded in keeping these conflicting interests in step. Therefore, we have decided to take this particular step, and we are very fortunate to have the services of my noble Friend at our disposal and at the disposal of the country. Another advantage which we see in this arrangement is that all the major industries nationalised since the war—other than the Iron and Steel Corporation which I must remind the Com-
428
mittee will soon be free—are now within the field of one co-ordinating Minister. We have hopes that this will mean the speedier settlement of issues common to more than one of the great public corporations.
We have seen many other advantages, but I hope I have said enough to the Committee about this particular appointment. But what I must say is that we attach the greatest possible importance to retaining the direct responsibility to Parliament and to this House of the Ministers in charge of the two particular Departments. Their direct responsibilities over the public corporations are imposed upon them by statute, and they will be able to answer on all these matters within their particular charge in this House or before the Committee. We have no intention of disturbing, but rather of encouraging this arrangement.
The Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fuel and Power, who are actually in charge of the business of Government in their respective fields, are Members of this House and will continue to answer here. Hon. Members will no doubt wish to know a little more about the relationship between this particular sphere of transport, fuel and power, and other fields of Government activity and economic life. The only coordinator whom we would be in order to consider under this Supplementary Estimate is that of the Secretary of State whose duties I have been describing. The right hon. Gentleman and others opposite may ask who is to co-ordinate the coordinators themselves. In order to fit into his scholastic background, I will put it in Latin:
"Quis coordinat ipsos coordinatores?"
That is a very important question to which I think an answer should at once be given, and I shall be able maybe to satisfy the Committee on this point. My noble Friend the new Secretary of State and I, for example, work together, as he will do with others, on all these problems which raise wide financial and economic interests. I, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, am deeply interested in both getting and exporting more coal, as also in the future prospects of transport generally, and I should like to say to the Committee that during the short time I have been in France since I took office nothing has been more enforced upon my mind

429
than the importance to the Treasury, to the national economic situation, to our solvency, and to our good name than getting and exporting more coal.
Therefore, the Committee may take it that I am fully and completely in touch with my noble Friend on these matters. So that we may be even closer in touch, We have arranged that he shall have the fullest possible help from the staff in the Treasury itself, as well as from the staffs of the two Departments concerned; and for this reason he will not need a staff of his own, apart from a small private office. Co-ordination—to use this word which is inevitable in this connection—will thus be assisted at what is called, in the jargon of Whitehall, "the official level," and then, on final questions of policy, at the appropriate Cabinet committee or at the Cabinet itself. Thus we shall all be in the picture and be able to have our say at the appropriate moment. In fact, this Government will work as a team in the interests of the country as a whole and in pursuing these vital matters to improve the economy of the country at the present time.
Now I come, so to speak, nearer home, that is nearer to the Treasury, to the appointment of a Minister of State for Economic Affairs. Here again we have an example of the flexibility which is so important in all these arrangements, and for which our Constitution provides. This appointment will have caused no surprise to the late Government which at one time had an Economic Secretary at the Treasury and at another appointed a Minister of State for Economic Affairs. The present appointment has much in common with this latter, that is the Minister of State for Economic Affairs.
In present circumstances, when the economic problems are so vast, complicated and pressing, we feel that we need a Minister in this field, and I have little doubt of the great value he will be to me at the Treasury at the present time. He will have the freest and most complete access to the Treasury staff and papers so that he can not only advise me on questions of general finance and economic policy, but also help me within the Treasury itself. In particular, his work will lie in the field of our financial relations with overseas countries, including trade and payment negotiations and
430
our exchange control administration. I thought the Committee might like to know this in order that they might have a clearer picture of my right hon. Friend's work. I am sure that hon. Members who have questions to raise in this field will find his approach sympathetic and will value the advice he will give.
One of the manners in which my right hon. Friend will be able to assist me is in attendance at meetings of international organisations. I need hardly say I personally look forward to close co-operation with my colleagues of the North Atlantic Council and of the Council of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and other international bodies. But, inevitably, there will be occasions when my responsibilities to the House of Commons and my duties in the Treasury make it impossible for me to leave London, and then it will be of great advantage to us all to have a Minister of State to represent this country in my place.
I now turn to the last head, which is the office the present Paymaster-General is setting up to enable him to carry out his duties. At the outset, I would remind the Committee that the Paymaster-General has decided not to draw any salary at all, so there is a saving to be set against this additional cost. This decision is in accordance with the character and sense of public service of my noble Friend, of which again we had full evidence during the war. Those who have had the opportunity of working with him since can equally pay tribute to that sense of public service which motivates all his actions.
I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) made an unfortunate statement on 7th November when he referred to a
"… miscellaneous crew of astrologers and economic charlatans …"—[OFFICAL REPORT, 7th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 259]
These, he said, were going to assist the Government. I can only say that that observation should be treated with the contempt it deserves, and that the right hon. Gentleman's familiarity with the Sunday Press is no doubt causing him to confuse Lyndoe with my noble Friend.
As the Prime Minister informed the House the other day, the Paymaster-

431
General will in future be responsible for advising him on atomic energy research and production. The Prime Minister is now considering what adjustments should be made in the statutory responsibilities of the Minister of Supply in this important respect. In addition, the Paymaster-General, with the assistance of the staff which is now to be provided, and which will only be a small one, will undertake the analysis and interpretation, for the benefit of the Prime Minister, of the statistical data on which, in these days, so many of our most important decisions must be based, particularly those concerned with our military preparedness.
The Committee may be interested to know—though it may disappoint some critics who may speak later—that this new staff will not supplant the Central Statistical Office which, as the Committee knows, is part of the Cabinet secretariat and is responsible not for advising on policy but for ensuring that the statistics collected by Departments are kept on a common basis, as well as for the regular publications, such as the monthly Statistical Digest.
In this connection I might recall to hon. Members a passage from an essay by Mr. G. D. A. MacDougall in a publication entitled "Lessons of the British War Economy," edited by Mr. D. N. Chester. Dealing with the Prime Minister's Statistical Section during the war, he said:
"It may be thought that other bodies, such as the Central Statistical Office and the Economic Section of the Cabinet secretariat, could perform many of these duties. This may be so, but it is worth recording that during the last war, whilst there was close and cordial cc-operation between these bodies and the Prime Minister's Statistical Section, there was little overlapping. Nor, I think, did members of the three bodies have any feeling that effort was being duplicated in a wasteful manner."
I am certain from what I have seen of the plans that are being made for this Department in the future that great aid will be given to the whole of our efforts and, in particular, to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Paymaster-General's small staff therefore will take material from the Central Statistical Office as well as other information available to the Government and will assist the Paymaster-General in inter-
432
preting it and in basing his advice upon it. I hope this gives the Committee a sufficiently clear and short account of why these arrangements have been made and the advantages we expect to derive from them.
I referred earlier to the need for flexibility, and before I sit down perhaps I can stress again its great importance in all these arrangements. If circumstances change and if we find that changes in or further developments of the present plans are necessary, they will be made but, for the situation as it is, we believe that these arrangements have been made in good order, are well conceived and serviceable, and as such I commend these Supplementary Estimates to the Committee.
5.24 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I am sure we are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for, at any rate, having given us some information about the structure of the Government's Administration. We have had a good deal of difficulty since the new Government was formed in finding out exactly what was to be done by different Ministers, and we must be grateful for small mercies. But I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he still leaves many questions thoroughly unanswered. I propose to put a number of these questions to him in the hope that perhaps he may be able to catch your eye later on, Sir Charles, and enlighten the Committee.
As the right hon. Gentleman says, these token Votes arise from three appointments —the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power—a rather lengthy and clumsy phrase, if I may say so, for the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to use—
The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I hate the word "coordination."
Mr. Gaitskell: Let me say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that of course we all agree that co-ordination is needed: and I do not think that, so far as it went, there was anything in what he said about the way that it is to be provided with which we would disagree. Clearly, the Prime Minister is overriding

433
within the Government. He can intervene and co-ordinate as much as he likes. Clearly the Cabinet has co-ordinating functions, but that still leaves open the very vital question of what other methods should exist for co-ordination and whether those proposed by the Government are the right ones.
I should like to begin by making a few remarks about the token Vote in connection with the appointment of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs. Of course, we have no criticism to make of this post. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, we ourselves made such an appointment, and I was the holder of it. But I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he made that appointment, had very much in mind, I think, the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for economic co-ordination and because of that responsibility, if I may say so, exceptionally heavy burdens fell upon him. I think my right hon. Friend's idea was that therefore a Minister of State was a suitable appointment to assist him in carrying out those functions, and later the Economic Secretary to the Treasury helped me in that way.
Therefore, the first question which, once more, I must put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to which I have still not had a clear answer, is whether it is still the case that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the Minister responsible for economic coordination. I hope he will be able to give us an answer on that. He evaded it once or twice—we do not complain about that—but he has had a little more time to settle down now and we should like a considered answer.
It is important in this connection, because although the right hon. Gentleman said the Minister of State for Economic Affairs was going to specialise on questions of overseas finance, which seems perfectly sensible and indeed carries on the arrangements we had that the Economic Secretary took on that sphere of activity, the right hon. Gentleman did not say whether the Minister of State for Economic Affairs was to have any coordinating functions himself. For instance is he concerned at all with the Central Economic Planning Staff, which I presume still comes under the Chancel-
434
lor of the Exchequer? I have read in the newspapers that Sir Edwin Plowden is going to stay on, serving this Government as he served the late Government. For my part, I welcome that decision. If that is so, one must ask whether the planning machinery of which Sir Edwin Plowden was the head remains exactly as it was. Is it still within the Treasury and if so who is in control of it at Ministerial levels? Is the Chancellor himself handling it on his own, or is he assisted by some other Ministers outside the Treasury?
Again, going a little further into detail, I would seek elucidation on these matters. One of the functions the Economic Secretary performed in the last Government was to act as chairman of the Raw Materials Allocation Committee which the right hon. Gentleman will remember was originally set up about 1940 and has remained in existence ever since under various Ministers of State. Is the Minister of State for Economic Affairs chairman of that Committee? It would be helpful if we could be told if he is doing that job. If not, and if it is not out of order, it would be helpful if we could be told who is doing that job.
Another important function which fell to my hon. Friend as Economic Secretary—he took it over from me as Minister of State for Economic Affairs under the late Government—was, at any rate, the preliminary work on the investment programme. We know that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies does not believe in investment controls, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am glad to say, takes a different view, so far as I could gather from his speech during the debate on the Address, and therefore, if, as I presume, his views on this are to be followed, there will arise some vitally important questions. He told us that there is to be a very strict control over building, especially that part of building which is not concerned with houses. But some vital decisions will then have to be made—which industries are going to be cut as far as building allocations are concerned. Who is going to handle all this, does it fall to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, and if not who does do it?
Then we should also be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us

435
whether there are any particular types of Question which should be put down to the Minister of State for Economic Affairs. That is a matter of convenience to hon. Members. It used to be the arrangement that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, for instance, answered Questions generally on Thursday with the Financial Secretary, whereas the Chancellor answered them on Tuesday. Could we be told whether that arrangement will continue?
I come lastly, as far as this particular appointment is concerned, to the question of salary. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman receives a salary of £3,000 a year as in the case of other Ministers of State. That is the figure in the Estimate, and I do not think there can be any misunderstanding. Presumably, therefore, in his case there is no question of any voluntary cut. I presume, therefore, that he is also in the same position as the Ministers of State in the previous Government so far as the right to draw Parliamentary salary and expenses is concerned. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would like to tell us that now. It would be convenient if we could just clear up this matter straightaway.
Mr. R. A. Butler: If it suits the right hon. Gentleman, I should prefer a generalmopping up operation at the end of the debate.
Mr. Gaitskell: Then I must continue with my questions. As I say, the Ministers of State drawing salaries of £3,000 a year have, under the Ministerial Salaries Act, 1946, been entitled always to draw £500 a year as Parliamentary salary and, if they could satisfy the Inland Revenue authorities, have been able to claim the whole of that as Parliamentary expenses. That is the position, and I take it that it continues.
The Prime Minister The Prime Minister indicated assent.
Mr. Gaitskell: We now have a rather strange situation because the right hon. Gentleman told us, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) yesterday, that the Ministers who are now drawing salaries of £4,000 a year, whether or not they are entitled to draw the Parliamentary salary, are not going to do so. We were glad to have that piece of informa-
436
tion. I think perhaps it might have been given to the House a little earlier, but never mind.
But now we have a rather curious position, because Ministers of State with £3,000 a year can, if they satisfy the Inland Revenue about their Parliamentary expenses of £500 a year, achieve a larger net salary than the Ministers who have previously been paid £5,000 a year. It certainly is a rather peculiar outcome at this initial stage. One would have thought there might be some feeling among Ministers on the Government Front Bench about this situation, and there might be almost a rush to become a Minister of State. But I am glad to see that the Prime Minister had evidently fully thought all of this out in advance before he reached his conclusion.
The Prime Minister: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I foresaw this anomaly and considered that it might well be taken in its stride.
Mr. Gaitskell: I think it is a little surprising, if I may say so, that the right hon. Gentleman did not make this position fully clear earlier on. After all, it is really a most unusual thing that Ministers who are supposed to get £5,000 a year, and who are fully in charge of Departments, should be getting less than subordinate Ministers.
The Prime Minister: The spirit of envy is not one to be cultivated.
Mr. Gaitskell: The proposition could be carried a great deal further, and a larger cut might be imposed upon the £5,000 a year salaries. There should be some relationship of a kind which one can justify, according to functions and experience and so on, between the salaries paid. Now we are left with this most peculiar situation. I am bound to say that I should be surprised if it really can be left like that, even for the period of re-armament during which, I understand, the cut in the £5,000 a year Ministers is to apply. I leave that conundrum with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I do not think the Civil Service would think very much of this kind of arrangement. Supposing, for example, the undersecretaries in the Treasury found themselves, by reason of some cut of this kind applied to the Permanent Secretaries,

437
actually better off than the Permanent Secretaries, I think there would be a good deal of trouble, and I do not feel that it can be left like that.
Now I come to the question of the Paymaster-General and his staff. I am still not clear about the extent of his functions. As I understand it, the Paymaster-General does not inherit the Lord President's functions in relation to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Medical Research Council and the relationship between science and the Government generally. That remains with the Lord President of the Council.
Then one must ask what exactly is the Paymaster-General doing? We know he is advising the Prime Minister upon atomic energy, and that is natural enough, because he has been Chairman of the Advisory Committee at Harwell, some part of the atomic energy establishment, for some considerable time. Lord Cherwell, of course, is known to be a strong opponent of the present arrangement under which the atomic energy projects come under the Ministry of Supply. He made a speech in another place on this subject on 5th July. It was not entirely clear what he was proposing in place of the present arrangements, but he obviously wanted a greater degree of freedom from Treasury control so far as the atomic energy projects were concerned.
I understand the Government are thinking this matter over still, and I will only say this to the Prime Minister: I hope that before he moves the atomic energy responsibility from the Ministry of Supply he will consider very carefully in full consultation with all concerned, because sometimes even expert scientists from outside do not really see the picture as a whole. I do not think that the question of exactly what set-up is appropriate to develop atomic energy is a party political issue. It is obviously a matter of what is best common sense. There is no difference at all between us on the ends involved. But I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I hope he will be very cautious before he makes any change.
Now I come to the question of the relationship of Lord Cherwell, the Paymaster-General, with the economic side. As I understand it, he is not in charge of the Central Statistical Office, nor of the Economic Section of the Cabinet Secretariat. They remain responsible directly
438
to the Prime Minister. But they also, I trust, have the same close relationship with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as existed under the late Government. I should like to take this opportunity, if I may be permitted, to pay a tribute to both those bodies who did work of inestimable value for the late Government, both as statisticians and economists in the Treasury. I say "economists in the Treasury" because they were so often there, although technically they were part of the Cabinet Office Secretariat. Nevertheless, I gather that Lord Cherwell, the Paymaster-General, is to have some separate staff on this matter. I must say I am still a little puzzled with that.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted a statement in an essay by Mr. MacDougall which implied certain praise for the work of the staff under Lord Cherwell during the war. I think he might have told the Committee that Mr. MacDougall was a member of that staff and he would rather naturally he inclined to say they had done a good job and that there were no complaints about them. But I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that that is not a statement which would be accepted wholeheartedly by many other persons who worked in the Government service either during the war or afterwards.
There is really a considerable amount of confusion and overlapping if one has too many different economic advisory bodies. I can only hope, if this is decided, that happy personal relationships between the persons concerned will serve to surmount the confusion that I fear will otherwise result.
The Prime Minister: This is not a question of economic advisory functions. It is a question of statistical advisory functions. At the beginning of the late war each of the Departments, especially the Service and Supply Departments, had their own statistical data. Great differences arose in their methods of calculation. Hours were wasted in the Committees because they were arguing at cross-purposes, the same words and figures not meaning the same things. So then we established—I was largely guided by Lord Cherwell in this—a uniform system which exists today, by which the basic statistics are presented by each Department upon a common foundation. That is of enormous value and simplification.

439
But in addition to that, I formed for myself, even before I was Prime Minister in the war, a statistical group under Lord Cherwell to give me independent advice on the figures, and to present me with the figures and the charts, week after week and sometimes night after night, of the changes which were taking place. Without that I could not have taken a great many of the detailed measures which I was able to take and which can be proved to have been advantageous.
Now with this vast confused scene far more complicated than anything we have -had before, without the simplicities which war introduced, I feel I am fully entitled, with the responsibilities I bear, to have the opportunity of a body—it must not be a large body at all—which will present to me statistics dealing with every Department and which will enable me to make such comments and ask such questions as I think suitable.
Mr. Gaitskell: Nobody would question that the Prime Minister must have every possible facility for understanding the extremely complicated problems which the Government have to handle. It is not in our minds to question that. What we are questioning is; when there is already a Central Statistical Office which did not exist, if I remember rightly, at the time when the right hon. Gentleman made these changes, and when there is already an economic section directly responsible to him composed of admirable expert economists, whether it is really desirable to put another Minister between him and them when the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be his main adviser on economic questions. That is our difficulty.
The Prime Minister: It is not economic; it is statistical.
Mr. Gaitskell: Statistics are merely the tools with which one measures changes and developments in all sorts of fields. But are we to understand that economic questions will be excluded from the province of Lord Cherwell altogether? If that were the case I admit that much of my argument would disappear, but from what I have heard that is not the case.
The Prime Minister: Lord Cherwell is a member of the Cabinet. I had great difficulty in pursuading him to become
440
one. He was quite willing to serve as an independent assistant and aid. I value very much his advice. He has the same rights as any member of the Cabinet to express his views on all sorts of questions, including economic questions. That is how he handles the machine of which he is head. He presents the statistics to me and in no way overrides the general statistical department but merely enables me to do the work I am expected to do.
Mr. Gaitskell: I must say, nevertheless, that it seems to me to be a most extraordinary example of duplication. Here is the right hon. Gentleman, who has, directly responsible to himself as Prime Minister, a large statistical staff, a most excellent body of economists, and he brushes them all on one side and calls in the Paymaster-General saying, "Now recruit some staff of your own to present these statistics to me," leaving the Chancellor of the Exchequer out on a limb. I have very considerable anxiety as to how this thing will turn out. We certainly wish the Prime Minister to be as fully briefed as possible, and I hope that personal relations, as they sometimes do, will smooth out a really bad settlement.
The Prime Minister: What a presumptuous remark.
Mr. Gaitskell: the right hon. Gentleman is being a little unreasonable. I did not even say if I was referring to Ministerial relations. He need not jump to conclusions.
I have also a number of questions to ask about the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power. I repeat that we are agreed on the need for economic co-ordination, but is this the best way of doing it and is there a special need for co-ordination in this field which justifies a full time Cabinet post? That, I think, is the real issue which we have to consider, and that leads us to the important question, what exactly in this field is the Secretary of State going to co-ordinate? Where does the special need arise between the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Minister of Transport? The Chancellor of the Exchequer was extremely vague on this subject, and I must put a number of further points to him to try to elucidate the matter.

441
I have been asking myself where special co-ordination was needed here. For instance, is the Secretary of State to decide the price of coal which is supplied to the railways? One might say that that is a case where co-ordination would be appropriate. I do not know. But if he does he will at once come up against the difficulty of how to settle the price of coal sold by the Coal Board to the railways. The Minister of Fuel and Power has still, I think, an agreement with the Coal Board under which any price increase has to be referred to him without bringing into account the price at which coal is sold to everybody else, including industry generally, the household consumer and, of course, export prices.
Many other Ministers are concerned with this. The Minister of Supply is very much concerned, the President of the Board of Trade is very much concerned, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is intimately concerned. Therefore, it seems to me that this is not a case where it would be at all tolerable for the Secretary of State to decide this thing on his own. Clearly, he cannot settle the freights which the railways charge for carrying coal because that it settled by a tribunal, so that he has no function there. Equally, it would not be appropriate to settle the scale of investment in these two industries on their own, apart from any other consideration. I have already referred to the very urgent problem of determining the investment programme for the economy as a whole, which I think must fall to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no purpose in having a Secretary of State determining a little bit of that programme on his own.
It may be there is more to be said for co-ordinating activity on the question of the supply of wagons for coal. That has been a prominent problem over the last few years. There again if—and I hope it will not come to this—it is found that special arrangements are needed in order to ensure a flow of coal to industry, to merchants, to consumers and so on, and on that account to give a priority over all other forms of traffic, is that a thing which the Secretary of State should settle on his own? Again, other Ministers are bound to be closely concerned.
Imports and export of coal were referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. Transport is important there, but again
442
the question may arise—we discussed it a week or 10 days ago—as to what sort of interference is likely to follow with the imports of other commodities. Supposing the Minister of Fuel and Power is anxious to import coal and says to his Secretary of State, "Now we must give an overriding priority for this." He cannot take such a decision without taking the Minister of Supply into consultation, without taking the President of the Board of Trade into consultation on timber, and without taking the Chancellor of the Exchequer into consultation because of the very serious consequences to the balance of payments that would follow. The right hon. Gentleman laughs and says he cannot understand me.
Mr. R. A. Butler: As I said in my opening remarks, there is complete agreement that there should be consultation with all Ministers vitally concerned. That is exactly what happens in any good Government, and particularly in this Government.
Mr. Gaitskell: What we are discussing is why there should be a special need for co-ordination in this field. For the right hon. Gentleman to say, "Of course we shall have co-ordination and consultation" is no answer to that. There might be dozens of Secretaries of State co-ordinating this, that and the other, and yet we can have just the same answer. Obviously, gas and electricity have nothing to do with transport, and there is nothing special there which would fall for co-ordination.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that the new Secretary of State would be in charge of the socialised industries, excluding steel, which he said would soon be free. We do not yet know precisely what are the proposals which the Government are going to put forward, but we understood that they did not intend simply to throw it back to uncontrolled private enterprise. We were assured that there was to be strict control and supervision, and it may well be in those circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman should not exclude steel from this list.
Then there is the Post Office, which is also a nationalised industry. There is the Cotton Board coming under the President of the Board of Trade. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot make a person Secretary of State for the co-ordination

443
of Fuel and Power and Transport and say, "Now because he is that, he can handle the nationalised industries" and leave the other Ministers out.
I am bound to say I have come to the conclusion that I cannot see any real justification on co-ordination grounds for a full-time Cabinet post here. One is bound to conclude that the real reason for this is supervision rather than coordination. That implies something rather serious. It implies lack of confidence in the ability of the two Ministers concerned to manage their own affairs. Why should these over lords be brought in on top of right hon. Gentlemen opposite? I should like to ask a question to clarify this position.
The Prime Minister: Why then did the late Government in 1945 continue in time of peace the system of Minister of Defence, under which the heads of three Service Departments were all represented in the Cabinet by a Defence Minister and were in exactly the same position as are those Ministers about whom the right hon. Gentleman is talking now?
Mr. Gaitskell: Because the case for coordination there under one Minister was an overwhelming one, and we had been pressing for it for years before the war. I should like to explain to the right hon. Gentleman why I do not think there is any case in these particular instances. Could we have answers to some of these questions?
What is the relationship between the officials of the Departments concerned and the Secretary of State? Has he any officials of his own? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say not. Did he say that when the Ministers go for consultation they will bring their officials with them? Is he saying that the Secretary of State has access to the officials without going through the Minister? That is really a most vital point from the point of view of the functioning of the Government machine. Again, does the Secretary of State have the right and will he in practice see the nationalised boards on his own, or is he going to accompany the Minister and his staff always? I am trying to help right hon. Gentlemen, because they will find themselves in a very difficult position unless they get this clarified.
The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am glad to have the help of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. C. R. Hobson: And he will need the help of the miners, too.
Mr. Gaitskell: I would not expect the right hon. Gentleman to blackguard his superior in public at this stage.
Then I should like to ask where the dividing line is between the responsibilities here. The Prime Minister gave us an interesting answer to a Question yesterday, when he said:
"Questions on the more important matters of policy, which are the concern of the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power, the Paymaster-General, or the Lord President, … and which cannot be dealt with by a Departmental Minister, should be put down to me."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 20th November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 231.]
There are a number of other cases as well. That does imply, does it not, that there are a number of questions which the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer? What sort of question has the right hon. Gentleman in mind here? For example, the Minister of Fuel and Power announced recently some changes in the coal rationing arrangements. Does that fall entirely within his own sphere? Is that something for which he had to get permission from the Secretary of State or could he decide it on his own? What are the sort of things which he cannot decide on his own which are matters of important policy, and which apparently have to be answered by the Prime Minister. Let me say to the Prime Minister—I realise the difficulty of answering hypothetical questions of this kind, but I want to try and find out what he has got in mind, and I hope we will get some guidance from the Chancellor when he comes to reply.
There is the question of the relationship of the Secretary of State and the Ministers to the Cabinet. Part of the argument for a co-ordinating Minister has often been that he represents his Department in the Cabinet. I do not think that that is a very sound argument. I must ask a question, are the two Ministers present in the Cabinet when issues of fuel and power or transport are discussed?
The Prime Minister: Are we to be asked to lay down strict rules to be made

445
public for the method in which we, as a Government, conduct our internal business and what Ministers are to be asked and when? Such impudent demands have never been made before.
Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman will have to get used to a vigorous and constructive Opposition. He must understand that we are probing the reasons for these appointments, and one of the reasons which has been put forward is responsibility in the Cabinet. It is a perfectly serious reason. Why should we not discuss it? I am saying that I do not think it is a very good answer, and I was asking whether the two Ministers were to be present when their affairs were being discussed. If they are the case for their being represented in the Cabinet disappears entirely, and if they are not I say it is a disgraceful thing and completely undermines their position in the Government. I am surprised that they took on the job at all if that is really the case.
I hope we shall have some assurance on that. In the late Government Ministers who were not in the Cabinet were always present when their affairs were under discussion. I hope that that arrangement will be continued. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that on another occasion many years ago he expressed the view, with which I agree, that there was not much to be said for Ministers without portfolio brooding over problems over which they had no direct control.
Our feeling about this whole arrangement is this. I repeat that the organisation of government is not a subject on which one wishes to be dogmatic, and certainly it is not a matter of party principle, but I think there are three sound principles which ought to be followed. First of all, if we are to have an efficient administration there should be no blurring of responsibilities, and if the Minister of Transport, for instance, is not to know what is his responsibility and what is the responsibility of Lord Leathers it is going to make for bad government. [Interruption.] Is it not?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is an expert.
Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman really should try to follow my argument instead of descending so early in
446
the night to abuse of that kind, The second principle that, I hope, the Chancellor will observe is that there should be no needless delay in reaching decisions; and the third is that there must be proper co-ordination to secure first of all—and this, I know, the Chancellor agrees with, because he mentioned it—that the implications for other Ministers of one Minister's decisions are fully understood, and, second, of course, collective consideration, which is normally done in the Cabinet, of any questions of major policy.
Our criticism is that we believe that in this set up responsibility will be blurred, and that there will be needless delays without securing any real gain in coordination because the co-ordination that will be needed is on a wider scale involving a number of other Departments, and can be done far more effectively through the committee system to which the Chancellor referred. Confusion is likely to be all the greater because of the doubt of the position of the Chancellor in this matter of economic co-ordination.
I am bound to say that many of us feel that here, as in other cases which we are not discussing now, there is really just a device by the Prime Minister to bring his old friends into the Government. I am not complaining that he should wish to do that. It is natural enough. It is awkward for him when so few of them are in the House of Commons, but I do put it to him that he should consider whether there is not some way of taking counsel with these gentlemen which does not involve so much danger of administrative confusion and personal misunderstanding.
6.4 p.m.
Mr. Edward Shackleton: I think the Opposition are particularly glad to see that the Prime Minister has himself come down for the Committee to defend the extraordinary appointment of his noble Friend Lord Cherwell. Those hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee who spent some time at Oxford are, of course, gratified to see any Oxford man entering the Cabinet, but the diversions and variations in the activities of scientists these days are going beyond all reason—with Professor Pontecorvo going to Moscow and Professor Lindemann entering the Cabinet of the right hon. Gentleman, and though none of us wishes to detract—
The Prime Minister: This is very insulting.
Mr. Shackleton: The right hon. Gentleman has used the phrase "impudent."
The Prime Minister: On a point of order. Is it not very insulting to compare one of His Majesty's Ministers with Professor Pontecorvo?
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): It is better that the hon. Member should confine himself to the issue before the Committee.
Mr. Shackleton: The Prime Minister knows perfectly well—or would, if he were not feeling so heated on this subject—that that was a lighthearted remark of mine. [Interruption.] Certainly it was. It is the right hon Gentleman who has used the words "presumptuous," "impudent," "insulting," when we are seriously trying to examine appointments he has made; and if he had not taken this attitude perhaps we should be able to conduct this debate in a better humour.
The truth of the matter is that the Prime Minister wishes to have a personal chief of staff. We fully understand that, and there is no reason why he should not have his personal adviser and operational research section as he had during the war. However, there are some difficulties which arise. I should like to know what is to be the rôle of the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government in matters of defence. We have been told that the Paymaster-General is responsible for the analysis of statistics and figures which are produced by the Central Statistical Department and particularly by the Defence Departments, and we should like to know whether, in fact, the figures which are given to the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Defence will also receive the special interpretation of another Cabinet Minister—because that is what appears to be the case.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman should have taken the advice of his friend Lord Cherwell in this matter, and accepted his services as a personal adviser without making him a member of the Cabinet. After all, there are many examples in history of strange appointments of this kind. We can recall Cardinal Richelieu had his Grey Eminence, and that the Cardinal's spiritual and political adviser also fore-
448
swore wordly goods and went without a salary. Hon. Members will also recall that this other Grey Eminence entered Rome on foot, and that appears to be the example which the Paymaster-General, like other Ministers here today, are to follow under the new edict.
None of us begrudges the Prime Minister for one moment the best advice he can have. I think, though, that he has established a very questionable precedent in making an appointment of this kind, and I think that he should give very serious consideration as to whether he should not follow the advice of his noble friend, and have him act merely as a personal adviser, a neighbour, who can help him, and whose advice he can take, across the garden wall from No. 11 Downing Street.
6.9 p.m.
Mr. Richard Adams: I could not quite understand the Prime Minister getting so excited and upset when my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), compared the activities of Professor Lindemann with those of Professor Pontecorvo because, after all, they are both disappearing behind an "iron curtain" and we shall never hear about the activities of either of them. I should like to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) in asking one or two questions about these fairly nominal Estimates before the Chancellor puts on his cap and assumes the character of Mrs. Mop, as he told us.
Mr. Frederic Harris: Why not get on?
Mr. Adams: The first question I should like to address to the right hon. Gentleman is also for the Financial Secretary who, I am sorry to see, has departed. The other day in the debate on the Defence Regulations the excuse used by the Financial Secretary for not having any new ideas on the subject was that he needed further time to consider them. In the light of that explanation the other day I should like to ask the Financial Secretary, through the Chancellor, why it is that within a week or so—on 9th November—he was able to authorise and sign the paying away of £88 million? I should have thought that it would have required a little longer to consider all that expenditure.

449
The Chancellor said, in his eulogy of his noble Friend that there was "nothing like Leathers," but he should have completed the phrase, that there was nothing like leathers for repairing a down-at-heel Government. I am a little at a loss to understand the Chancellor's diffidence in explaining his relationship with the co-ordinators, because though he is too shy to say anything about it, it is surely clear in these Estimates that he has control over one co-ordinator, because in paragraph I of the first Supplementary Estimate it is stated that—
"… in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments including … the salary and expenses of the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power."
Therefore, it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is in charge of one of the co-ordinators, and we can only assume that when the other Estimates come along we shall find that he is in charge of all the co-ordinators.
Sir Herbert Williams: The Prime Minister is the First Lord of the Treasury. Therefore, they are all subordinate to him.
Mr. Adams: Like most of the other interruptions of the hon. Member, that does not add anything to the matter we are discussing. If he had been here in the Chamber when the Chancellor was speaking, and when my right hon. Friend was speaking, he would have been able to follow things better.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South, was trying to get an explanation from the Chancellor as to what is the chain of these co-ordinators. We want a functional chart. The Prime Minister said that his noble Friend in the other House would produce some charts for him. One of the things we should like is a functional chart showing the chain of control in the Government.
We all know as well as the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), that the Prime Minister is at the head of these chains of co-ordination, but what we are trying to establish is who, under the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, is next in the line of control, or whether these other noble co-ordinators are floating around loose, being responsible to no one except the statistical department which is to be run by the Professor. That is what we are trying to ascertain.
450
That is the first point. I think we have established, with the aid of this printed document, that the Chancellor—unless he contradicts his own printed word—is, in fact, in charge of these co-ordinators. I agree with my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister that the title of the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power is very long and unwieldy. I would suggest that, following modern examples, such as in N.A.T.O. and O.E.E.C., we should refer to this noble. Lord as the S. of S. for the C. of T.F. and P.
The next point is: Why is there no mention of the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury? We understand that there has been a reduction in the salary and allowances of the First Lord of £3,000, from £10,000 to £7,000. Surely that ought to be reflected in the Supplementary Estimates. I should like to ask the Chancellor how that £3,000 is to be allocated? The Prime Minister's salary, in the past, has been made up of £6,000 taxable income and £4,000 allowances. This reduction of £3,000—is it all out of the £4,000 tax free expenses?
The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot inquire into that on this Estimate. It cannot be discussed because it is not in the Estimate.
Mr. Adams: That is just the reason why I am inquiring. Why is this not in the Estimates? Because this has been announced, and surely we have a right to know whether these savings are out of tax free expenses or whether they are out of taxable income?
The Deputy-Chairman: That is certainly out of order on this Supplementary Estimate.
Mr. Adams: On a point of order. Erskine May, on page 716, 15th Edition, states that when a Supplementary Estimate refers to a new service, discussion on that Supplementary Estimate can go as is wide as on the original Estimate.
The Deputy-Chairman: That concerns savings, which cannot be discussed.
Mr. Adams: That is what I am trying to find out. No savings are shown here. I am not discussing savings: I am asking why savings are not shown, and I should have thought that was a matter of policy on which we were entitled to an answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member will look at the top of page 5, he will see that the savings are shown there.
Mr. Adams: If I may take up that point which I was going to make later, it is a significant tribute to the work of the previous Labour Government that the saving in the Treasury and in the Scottish Office is precisely the same, £1,250. That is why I want to know what has happened to this £3,000 which the Prime Minister is supposed to have lost, because it is not accounted for at all. I hope that the Chancellor will give an explanation when he comes to reply. I will now leave that point. I do not want to offend against your Ruling, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but I think that I have made my point quite clear to the Chancellor, and, with his usual courtesy no doubt he will let me have an answer when he comes to do the mopping up.
The next point which I would like to put to the Chancellor is this: The payments to the new Ministers, according to the footnote on page 4, are being paid, at the moment, out of the Civil Contingency Fund. What happens if the Committee refuses to pass this Vote tonight? Do we ask the hon. Gentlemen and the noble Lords to pay the money back into the "kitty" or do they go away scot free without the sanction of this House?
While my right hon. Friend was speaking, the Prime Minister interrupted. My right hon. Friend was making what, I thought, was a very interesting point about the new scale of payments to the Cabinet Ministers. I must say that I was very surprised to find that a junior Minister who gets £3,000 plus £500 Parliamentary expenses is, in fact, being paid at a higher rate for the job than the senior Minister in charge of him. That is government by topsy-turvey methods if ever it was. The Prime Minister interrupted my right hon. Friend, in what, I thought, was a very energetic intervention, to say, "We have no spirit of envy amongst us." I invite the Committee to consider this point. A spirit of envy is very much akin to the problem of incentives.
Look at the new set-up, which the Prime Minister said that he prepared very carefully. Look how the incentives are to operate in the Cabinet. We are going to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer
452
trying to do the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs out of a job because he will get more money by going down into his job instead of staying in his own. The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs will have no inducement to become Chancellor of the Exchequer because he knows that, if he did, he would get less money for doing it.
Is that the new way in which this Conservative Government is to apply incentives to industry? Will they say to general managers, "You should get less money than the assistant managers so that the assistant managers will have a greater inducement to get your jobs, because they will thereby get less for doing them"?
My next point is this: I was very unhappy about the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheer up."] I must say. Mr. Hopkin Morris, that I was unhappy mentally. I can assure hon. Members opposite that whenever I glance across at their faces, a terrific surge of joy goes through me; a far greater surge of joy than the urge referred to by the Prime Minister just now. If I may pass from that interruption—and the night is still young—I want to turn to the Prime Minister's explanation of the functions of his own statistical office, to be run by the Paymaster-General. Again, I think that his explanation showed how completely lacking in real co-ordination this new Government will be. Let us see what the set-up is to be.
We have, first of all, the Central Statistical Office. They, presumably—and I shall be glad to have the Chancellor's attention, because this is a point which he has to consider—will get their figures from the Departments; in other words, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and so on. They will pass through their statistical figures to the Central Statistical Office. That office will prepare statistics which will be used by the Chancellor and the economic planning unit. Where do the co-ordinators come in? Are the coordinators to prepare a separate set of figures to do the co-ordinating for us, or are they to use the figures prepared by the Departments and take them on trust?
What is this new statistical office, set up in the back room for the personal use of the Prime Minister, going to do? From where will they get their figures? It seems to me that at any Cabinet meeting

453
in the future Ministers will be confronted, and confounded, with at least four or five sets of figures. The Chancellor will produce a set of figures on which he will base his economic arguments, to put before the Cabinet. Then the Prime Minister will turn round and say, "I do not accept your economic arguments because my Friend the professor has prepared another set of figures which enable me to repudiate the figures which you have given us."
Mr. Edward Short: Continual references have been made to "the professor." Do I understand that Jimmy Edwards is now in the Cabinet?
Mr. Adams: I can assure my hon. Friend that that would be perfectly in keeping with the other appointments. I was referring to a lesser known professor who is, of course, Lord Cherwell.
What is to happen at the Cabinet meetings? The Chancellor will come forward with economic proposals based upon statistics which presumably he will get from the Central Statistical Office. He will correct me if I am wrong. When he gets to the Cabinet meeting he will be confronted by the Prime Minister with another set of figures, and those of us who have had experience of statistics—and I may claim modestly to have had some experience—well know that it is possible to go on producing sets of figures none of which will ever correlate with another set.
I can assure the Chancellor that it will be quite easy for the Prime Minister to produce a set of figures which will make him look stupid and confused. It does not end there. If they are to discuss transport or fuel and power any morning, the Ministers concerned will have their own set of figures. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend says, provided they are allowed to come, or perhaps they will be kept outside on the doormat and allowed to push their figures through the letter-box. If they are to discuss fuel and power or transport, are the Ministers concerned to have the opportunity of presenting a paper showing their figures? Even if they can use their figures, the setup of the noble co-ordinators at the Cabinet table will have another set of figures which will agree neither with the Chancellor's nor with the Departments concerned.
Sir Williams: I have often wondered how the Economic Survey was produced. I have always been inclined to call it "Old Moore's Almanac." Now we have the complete explanation.
Mr. Adams: There is a lot in that observation, because if the hon. Gentleman had been attending to this debate he would have heard the Chancellor refute the charge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) that the Cabinet was to have a Lyndoe in the set-up. In the present Cabinet they will need a Lyndoe, a Naylor, and "Old Moore's Almanac" to get the figures sorted out. One can imagine that, after looking at all these figures, the Prime Minister will sweep them on to the floor and probably send for Lyndoe and, no doubt, get as good an answer as he would from this mass of confused figures and statistics. The only chance of sound government, based on proper statistics, is to have a functional line leading through to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: Would the hon. Gentleman claim that the late Government had a proper system of statistics, giving reliable information, because, if so, and if he cares to go through the Economic Surveys for the last five years, he will find that almost every group of forecasts given in the Economic Surveys were falsified by events?
The Deputy-Chairman: It would not be in order for the hon. Member to answer that question.
Mr. Adams: I have no objection to the interruption. I see that the hon. Gentleman confirms what I was saying. It is true that when one is dealing with masses of figures, errors can creep in. due to the different calculations being made, and it is also true that there were errors in the Economic Surveys. But look at what is going to happen in the future. These margins of error will be doubled, trebled and quadrupled, because all these figures will be coming in from different sources, which are completely unco-ordinated. It really is confusion worse confounded.
I thought that the Chancellor looked very sympathetic when my right hon. Friend was speaking, and I think that he is fully alive to the criticism which we

455
have been making that, in order to get a satisfactory Government system, it is necessary that the figures and statistics should be properly co-ordinated. That is all we are asking. We are asking for proper co-ordination of the statistics, and the only hope of getting that is for them to be fed through the Central Statistical Office, as in the past, and for the Chancellor to take them and draw his economic conclusions from them and make a proper report to the Cabinet.
I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and he will have our support if he needs it—to try and persuade the Prime Minister to do away with this professor from Oxford and his private statistical office which will make confusion worse in the counsels of the Cabinet. If he will do that—and I am glad, as I said at the beginning, to find that he is in charge of the co-ordination of the co-ordinators—and if he will take the further step of sweeping away this private statistical department, there is some hope that the Government, which has shown in answer to Questions during the last few days that it is a Government of second thoughts, will have second thoughts about the statistical set-up. There may then be some hope that it will do better than its achievements in the last week or so suggest.
6.29 p.m.
Mr. M. Philips Price: I wish to raise a matter concerning the expenses and incidental payments of the Paymaster-General. We have here a sum of £250. Every little makes a muckle. In addition, there is the salary of the advisory staff of the Paymaster General, amounting to some £3,200. I want to know why this huge sum is being asked for. What are the increased functions of the Paymaster-General?
I see that it was reported in the Press a little while ago, and I quote from "The Times," that the Paymaster-General is to be responsible for the co-ordination of scientific research and development. Questions have been put to the Prime Minister in the last day or two about this, and it has been indicated that some additional responsibility is being placed upon the Paymaster-General in respect of scientific matters. I suggest that this is not the answer. Up to date, this has gone very well. Up to now the Depart-
456
ment of Scientific Research and the Medical Research Council has been answered for by the Lord President of the Council. Furthermore, questions on work concerning atomic energy have been answered by the Minister of Supply.
The Paymaster-General is a scientist. I am not questioning his ability, but I suggest that to appoint a scientist to look after another scientist is not the wisest thing. The tendency is for scientists to fight like wild-cats. It is very much better to have a political leader, a member of the executive, in charge of scientific matters rather than a scientist.
In my view, this increased expenditure, which is brought about by the increased powers of the Paymaster-General, is unnecessary and should not be incurred. The House of Commons is here to see that every penny is spent properly and, if money is spent unnecessarily, we should raise the matter. Science is extremely important in these days. Thanks to the last Government we have the Welfare State, and the problem now is to make the Welfare State work. The Welfare Stag will work if the national income is rising, and nothing will assist that more than the application of science to our national life. The co-ordination of science in the best possible way is, therefore, a very important part of our public life. The point I have in mind concerns the organisation of science and why the increase shown in the Estimate is necessary. I think it is not necessary, and I should like to see it removed.
6.32 p.m.
Mr. A. Edward Davies: I wish to ask a question about the office of the Secretary of State fog the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power. One of the significant facts about these Government changes, as explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, was that they remove much of the power and responsibility from this House to another place—and that is my principal complaint about this proposal.
If we assume that the Chancellor's noble Friend is responsible for the coordination of transport, fuel and power, who is to answer Questions in this House relating to his proposals? It has been said that the Departmental Ministers will take account of the problems which affect their own Departments, but I submit that that is not a satisfactory explanation, be-

457
cause while the Minister will know something about his own Department, or should know something about it, and will have some responsibility for it, there will be Questions which are marginal and which are not the responsibility of any Departmental Minister.
As a House of Commons man, I think this delegation of power from this House should be deplored. I share the views about these changes which were expressed in "The Economist" on 3rd November. They said:
"To have a senior Minister concerned with general Government policy in relation to the nationalised industries is sound in conception. …. [The success of] further experiments with this grouping device depends largely on the ability of the subordinate Ministers to work effectively with the coordinator. They have, in effect, to be a committee collectively responsible not only to the Cabinet but also to the House of Commons. In this respect it is a pity that in all these first experiments the co-ordinating Cabinet Minister is a peer who will not he able himself to expound general policy "—
and that is the point I am making—
"to the Commons. It is indeed a wider weakness of Mr. Churchill's Cabinet that so many as six of its 16 members sit in the House of Lords. Whatever its advantages in personalities and in freedom from the ties of Parliamentary duties in a closely divided House, that is hound to weaken the explanation and defence of Government policy at the point where it commands the widest public attention."
They go on to make some criticism of the appointments themselves.
I am primarily concerned about the opportunity to question policy, to ask where we shall look for our information and to ask where the responsibility will he placed in these matters of coordination. In fact, this description of the co-ordination of transport, fuel and power is itself surprising because, as I understand it, the present Government are not seeking to co-ordinate at all; they are seeking to decentralise. In the case of transport, the idea is not to co-ordinate; in fact, the Government are seeking to break road transport away from rail and water transport. In fuel and power, their idea seems to be not to co-ordinate but to decentralise.
These are most important matters. I submit that it is not good enough that so much power should be in another place and that we should apparently have no redress for anything which is done there
458
and no opportunity to question day-to-day matters which are of vital importance to the economy of the country.
6.37 p.m.
Mr. A. J. Irvine: I desire in a very few words to support the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), with every word of whose speech I agree. I think nobody in the Committee denies the need of co-ordination between the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Fuel, but we are not satisfied that that can best be achieved by superimposing a new Minister. It seems to us that in large measure this is an administrative matter. There ought to be, throughout, the closest and most consistent liaison and contact between the National Coal Board and the Transport Commission, between the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Fuel and Power; but in our view this problem of co-ordination, which is of vital importance, can be solved without resort to this stratagem of the over-riding Minister.
We have been told time and again that when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite came to that side of the Committee we should have every kind of departmental economy and saving, yet the first thing we discover is the creation of a new Ministry, with a purpose in mind which we believe can be achieved in other and better ways. In the last Parliament, and in the Parliament before that, hon. Members on both sides of the House met real difficulties in the matter of putting Questions concerning both the coal industry and the transport industry. The new appointment, to which this revised Estimate bears relation, puts an additional difficulty in our way in that connection. Answers to Questions of that kind will become even more inaccessible and difficult to obtain than before.
We were told yesterday by the Prime Minister that it was his intention to answer Questions for the Secretary of State Co-ordinating Transport and Fuel and Power, but the right hon. Gentleman has already all the responsibility of his office of Prime Minister and in addition, is Minister of Defence. Is it to be suggested that he is now to take, in addition, all these fresh, heavy responsibilities and difficulties?

459
Moreover, the co-ordinating Minister will not always be in another place. In the next Cabinet, if this appointment continues, the Secretary of State for the Coordination of Transport and Fuel and Power will, as likely as not, be in this House. Will it not be an unusual situation when that occurs, when we have the Minister of Transport in this House, the Minister of Fuel and Power in this House and the Minister co-ordinating them in this House? How are we to know to which of these three we should put our Questions? How are we to know who is responsible for what?
These seem to me to be real difficulties. It seems to be a perfectly fair inference to draw—and that is all I desire to do—that the reason why this office has been created lies in the desire of the Prime Minister to have the assistance of Lord Leathers in this vital matter. The fact that he is in another place was a difficulty which was solved by the creation of this new appointment. I do not go further than to say that the new appointment conies ill from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who spent so much of their time persistently emphasising the need of saving and of economy in the administration of Departments.
6.41 p.m.
Mr. Austen Albu: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine); it is awfully difficult to understand how these arrangements can lead to any saving in administration. It is quite true that the Supplementary Estimate is not a large one, but I should have thought the piling up of these co-ordinating, supervising Ministers must eventually lead to very much larger Government expenditure.
Behind the facetious heartiness of the Government Front Bench while my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), was speaking, I detected a serious disquiet. I think there is no doubt at all but that he pierced the chinks of their armour. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will slide out of it somehow, in his usual manner, but I do not think that will in any way relieve his mind of the anxieties he must be feeling
If we are to use rude words, it would be presumptuous of me to talk about
460
Government administration and the structure of Cabinets, although I must say I thought it was, to use another rude word used by the Prime Minister, impudent of him to attack my right hon. Friend who, after all, has had considerable experience and who, as a matter of fact, has had an experience which the Prime Minister has never had—that of working as an official in a Department, as well as that of being both a junior and senior Minister. I thought my right hon. Friend's criticisms of the structure of the present administration must be taken seriously.
The subject with which I wanted to deal was that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), who has played such a distinguished part as Chairman of the Parliamentary Scientific Committee. I must apologise to the Committee in that I had to leave the Chamber for a few minutes while he was speaking and I may repeat something of what he said. Those of us who are interested in scientific matters are very seriously disquieted by the appointment of the Paymaster-General and by the new arrangements which have been established for the administration and the discussion of scientific matters. At the present time there is perhaps nothing of more importance than the development of our scientific resources and the development of technology in this country. If I may say so—and I hope I shall not be out of order—I was very much disappointed that no reference at all was made to this in the Gracious Speech.
Apart from the statistical section—and I will not go into that, because the appointment of a strongly political scientist to run a sort of private enterprise statistical section seems an extraordinary arrangement—we have been informed that the Paymaster-General's main activities are to be in the field of the development of atomic energy. Next, we have the Lord President of the Council, who is still to retain his traditional functions, although of course he is not in this House; and then we have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Works, who is to answer in this House for scientific matters.
We all like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works. He is an unassuming, serious and intelligent Member of the House, but I do not think

461
scientific matters should be relegated in the House of Commons to the Parliamentary Secretary to a Ministry which is not normally considered to be a senior Ministry. That is not good enough. Perhaps it is because the Government do not consider that this House is a suitable place in which to discuss scientific matters. Perhaps they agree with the opinion of—
Mr. R. A. Butler: On a point of order. I do not want to disappoint the Committee later by being unable to answer this point, but I was not aware that the representation in this House or in the Government of scientific experts is in order on this Supplementary Estimate.
The Chairman: I was on the point of stopping the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Albu: I am dealing with the special office of the Paymaster-General and with the functions that he has, or may have, in reference to scientific matters. I am coming to the end of this particular part of my argument, but I would quote what was said by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies when he stated, as quoted in the "Observer" of 21st October:
It was vitally important that scientists and other experts should be in the House of Commons, hut to ask them to face an ordinary Parliamentary election was fair neither to them nor to the constituency."
He said this in the reference to university representation. What seems to have happened is that the Government have taken the scientific experts out of the House of Commons and put them in the House of Lords.
Mr. Philips Price: Is it a fact that reference to the Paymaster-General and to his functions is out of order? I have just made a speech in which I referred to that matter, and I have not been called to order. Cannot my hon. Friend go on and raise this matter?
The Chairman: I was under the impression that the hon. Member was talking about the Ministry of Works.
Mr. Albu: It is extremely difficult to talk about the administration of scientific matters or to carry on criticism and discussion of them in this House if one is not allowed to refer to the great variety of Ministers who have been appointed to
462
deal with scientific matters. I was referring to the anxiety which some of us feel at the appointment of a scientific expert to a supervisory post—
The Chairman: This is not in order on this Supplementary Estimate.
Mr. Gaitskell: On a point of order. It would surely be in order for my hon. Friend to refer to the functions which Lord Cherwell has exercised in connection with atomic energy, which is the subject to be attached to the office of the Paymaster-General. These are matters in which we are concerned, and, in so far as they are connected with atomic energy, would it not be in order for my hon. Friend to discuss them?
Mr. James Hudson: Further to that point of order. Is it not true that you have been gravely misled by the Chancellor himself, who intervened on this point? It has been clear to us—at least I think it was clear—when we listened to the speech of my hon. Friend and heard long references to the scientific character of this appointment of the Paymaster-General and its relationship to other Departments, despite what the Chancellor said just now about these functions—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Co-ordinating functions?
Mr. Hudson: I do not know whether they are co-ordinating functions or not, but they are the scientific functions of the Paymaster-General and they should be in order in this discussion.
The Chairman: Yes, but not in relation to the Ministry of Works.
Mr. Albu: The real point I am making is that I find it extremely difficult to see how one can separate scientific matters from the development of atomic energy. I should have thought that in the modern world the development of atomic energy would play an increasing part in scientific advance. We have already seen the report of the new use for heating that has been made of atomic energy at Harwell, and we all hope that in this way we may eventually solve some of our fuel and power problems in this country I should have thought it was extremely difficult for the Paymaster-General to exercise his functions in regard to atomic energy unless he was also concerned with the field

463
of general science. It was on those grounds that I was making my remarks
I do not know whether it would be wrong to refer to some of the reasons why we have doubts on this matter. They partly arise out of some of the things that have been said by the Paymaster-General. I want to refer to a matter of very great importance indeed, on which I would like the Chancellor to say something when he replies, that is, the subject of scientific and technological education. This is a matter in which he himself is extremely interested, I know. I want to know whether the Paymaster-General, in his capacity as supervisor, to some extent, of scientific development in the country, will have any influence at all over the future of technological education.
This happens to be a matter in which the Paymaster-General's views are contrary to the more generally expressed views. I understand that they are also contrary to the policy which was about to be developed by the late Government of upgrading a number of technical colleges into higher technological institutions. I have put a Question on this subject down to the Minister of Education. It is of considerable importance to us to be able to know, in view of his very great interest in this subject, whether it is one of the matters which the Paymaster-General is going to cover—I was going to say "meddle with"—and over which he will have some supervisory authority.
It is important that we should discuss this matter and I hope that we shall soon have another opportunity of doing so and that the Government will soon make their policy known. It makes it very difficult for us to discuss these matters when we know that the two Ministers in the Ministry of Education have no particular interest in these matters and that the main Ministers who are interested are not present. I think that is a fair criticism and that we are justified in making it on this particular Supplementary Estimate.
6.54 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: One of the surprising things about this debate is that hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House seem to have no views to express on the novelties in the
464
machinery of government which are the subject of this Supply Estimate. It is the more surprising, since hon. Gentlemen opposite are now the custodians of the principles of fair shares, that they have nothing to say about the tangle of salaries which the abatement of the pay of senior Cabinet Ministers has left behind.
I want to submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, despite what his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the Government cannot leave the situation where it is. All this comes from what I believe to be an unconsidered but dramatic gesture in the cutting of the salaries of the senior Ministers. We see in this Supply Estimate that the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power, although on a nominal salary of £5,000, is to receive during the period of temporary abatement, £4,000 per year. A cut of £1,000 a year on a gross salary of £5,000 is, on the face of it, an impressive sacrifice, yet when we examine it more closely we see that at the most the actual sacrifice of the Ministers concerned is not £1,000 but only £300, and that in certain circumstances, if a Minister were liable for Surtax at the top rate, his sacrifice would be as small as £25.
I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question yesterday on the effect upon the abated salaries of Section 3 of the Ministerial Salaries Act, 1946. He was kind enough to reply to me in writing as follows:
"None of the Ministers concerned intends to ask for any salary or allowance as a Member of the House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 21]
That is clear enough and, if I may say so, fair enough, because otherwise, had the Ministers concerned taken advantage, as I think they probably could have done, of Section 3 of that Act, and drawn the £500 additional remuneration that the Act entitles them to, and had they exercised their rights as citizens to claim expenses against that emolument, some of those Ministers might have been £200 a year better off than before the cut was made. The assurances of the Chancellor mean that none of the Ministers concerned will assist in creating such a palpably ridiculous and fraudulent situation.
We now come to the consequences of that Section of the Act upon the remuneration of the Minister of State for

465
Economic Affairs. He is to draw, under this Supplementary Estimate, a salary of £3,000 a year. Under Section 3 of the Act he is entitled to draw an additional £500, that is, one half of the normal salary of a Member of Parliament. That gives him a gross sum of £3,500. If he exercised the right to which I have referred, and which all Members of Parliament do exercise, I expect, of setting against their salaries legitimate expenses incurred in performing their duties as Members of Parliament, it is conceivable that the Minister of State for Economic Affairs would receive £150 a year more net than the Secretary of State for the Coordination of Transport, Fuel and Power. If he were to claim against the additional £500 only one half of that sum as expenses incurred in the performance of his duties as a Member of Parliament, he would be only £12 a year worse off than if he were the Secretary of State himself.
I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this anomalous position, which the Prime Minister brushed aside and said would be taken in its stride, should be cleared up. We have no spirit of envy on this side of the House. Still less have we any vexatious intent; but right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—
The Chairman: This position should be cleared up on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
Mr. Houghton: When a Supplementary Estimate is presented to us we are entitled to ask what will be the effect of salaries for Ministers put in the Supplementary Estimate and what is to be the actual relationship, in terms of remuneration, between one Minister and another. That is a point I am submitting to you, and I have made it. I merely ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to apply his mind to this anomaly and to endeavour, if he can, to give us his assurance upon it. I hope he will be able to say that Ministers of the Crown drawing £3,000 a year will not draw the additional £500 which they would be entitled to under Section 3 of the Act of 1946. That will, of course, carry the genuineness of this dramatic gesture of saving a little further down the scale.
I have only one further observation to make, and that is in relation to the provision for "Secretarial, etc., Staff" under the heading "Salaries," on page 5. Pro-
466
vision is made for the current financial year of a smaller sum of £1,510 for the provision of "Secretarial, etc., Staff," to the Secretary of State. Does not this provision raise a serious question as to what the Secretary of State is really going to do? Has he, we ask—and this is a simple question capable of a perfectly straightforward answer—personal coordinating functions, or is there an office for co-ordination under the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power?
The relationship between permanent civil servants underneath a Minister, whether he be a co-ordinating Minister, a Cabinet Minister or a Member of the Government not in the Cabinet, is an important aspect of the smooth and harmonious interchange of opinion and consultation with the permanent civil servants operating under the direction of their Ministers. It is important to know whether the co-ordinating Minister will have staff and equipment to co-ordinate, or whether he will merely have a kind of overriding but personal supervisory function over the three Ministries concerned. I fail to see how the provision of such a small sum for his secretarial staff can give him the necessary assistance and equipment to co-ordinate.
I know that on previous occasions when people have asked, "What does the Secretary of State for the co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power do?" the reply may have been that "He coordinates transport, fuel and power," which some would regard as a complete answer to a perfectly silly question; but it is important to know whether there is any substance in this co-ordination or whether it is an office of what I would call "omnibus personal prestige."
7.1 p.m.
Mr. R. A. Butler: I hope the Committee is now ready to come to a decision and let us have the Supplementary Estimate. We have had a good debate, and, in so far as I can, I shall do my best to answer the questions which have been put to me. The Opposition have clearly enjoyed some rollicking fun, led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds. South (Mr. Gaitskell), and, if this is the way in which they wish to celebrate their liberty, we certainly do not grudge them the criticism which they have put to us, but rather we think that they are kicking

467
over the traces very nicely, and we enjoy it almost as much as they do. After this debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has another Supplementary Estimate to move, and, as we are all trying to do Scotland pretty well before Christmas, I hope that we may reach that Supplementary Estimate as soon as possible.
Before we do that, there are one or two matters which I must answer, and, before I take some of the more detailed points put to me by the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to give the Committee my general impression of the debate. My general impression—I believe that it is one which will be shared in the country—is of the extraordinary manner in which the Opposition, led by the right hon. Gentleman, discount any altruistic motive whatsoever in His Majesty's Ministers or their supporters. This has been most clearly illustrated by the remarkable manner in which directly the right hon. Gentleman reaches the other side of the House on changing from this side he and his hon. Friends immediately grasp out for the profit motive.
Mr. Adams: Is it not just as remarkable that as soon as the Conservative Party reach the other side they abandon the profit motive?
Mr. Butler: I was about to say that this is rather a remarkable fact, and I do not think it will escape the attention of the interesting periodicals which specialise in studying the constitution of Government that practically every argument from the benches opposite has concentrated on the question of money and the relationship of the income or salary drawn by one Minister or another. It really is an illustration of the way their minds work. It is exactly the same as happens in the case of certain newspapers; when a man is appointed they take special care to put in his salary without considering whether he has the character and other forms of ability for his job.
We on this side of the Committee do not judge people entirely by the salary or wages which they receive; we judge them by their character and ability to perform their tasks. I am particularly glad that it has fallen to my lot tonight to defend the Supplementary Estimate for the salaries and the other rather small expenses—this is not a big Supplemen-
468
tary Estimate—of two of my noble Friends and one of my right hon. Friends, who, I think, are thoroughly suited for the duties which they have to perform.
A number of extraordinary ideas were expressed by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Adams), who made himself responsible for the statement "that he hoped that the coordinators were not floating around loose, being responsible to the professor." No doubt that is a delightful zoo-like picture of how the Government was conducted before we came in, but in this case the word "professor" might have applied to the right hon. Gentleman opposite who, unlike this Government, prided himself, as did his predecessor, whose character we still remember with affection and regard—Sir Stafford Cripps—in concentrating upon himself the whole responsibilities of Government and having everybody else floating loosely around.
That is not the conception of Government which we on this side of the Committee have. Our conception of Government is that we are a team. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has tried to make out that there is a complete change, for example, in the functions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that there is a complete change in the strength and purpose of the Treasury. He has asked questions. If he does not wish to try to make that out, let him not continue with it.
As far as I am concerned, the Prime Minister remains the First Lord of the Treasury, I remain the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Treasury remains the Treasury with undiminished strength, including the planning staff to which he referred, and we remain a unit which, fortunately, can serve other Ministers besides ourselves. Policy decisions are taken to the appropriate Cabinet Committee and, if they have to be resolved after that, to the Cabinet. This is the system of government, and it is tied together from top to bottom, and I think it results—provided that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can make some allowance for the happy personal relationship which exists on this side—in a happy and profitable system of conducting the country's affairs.
The right hon. Gentleman must be the first to realise that I am not in a position

469
to tell him who is the Chairman of the Raw Materials Committee or the Allocation Committee or any other committee, because, as I said in my opening remarks, it is not according to precedent that a Government should declare in public how its own domestic committees under the Cabinet are run. He accepted that when I spoke, and so I am afraid that that precludes me from describing in any more detail how these internal committees are run.
In regard to investment controls, which was his question No. 3, I would only tell him that there is clearly great public interest in the matter and a great sense of anxiety as to how this is to be run. I can assure him from my own knowledge of how this is being run that it will be run with a sense of responsibility, and if I can help the Committee or the House in any way in answering questions or otherwise I shall be only too glad to indicate how policy has been pursued in this matter. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is a regional organisation which is exactly the same as when he held office. This organisation balances the claims of one Department with that of another, and it is this organisation which we propose to continue, and under the organisation which we have at headquarters I feel certain that justice will be done
Mr. Gaitskell: I was concerned with the central organisation and the central decisions which have to be taken upon investment Do I understand that those decisions will continue to be taken in the same manner as they were under the previous Government?
Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Gentleman has any doubt, will he put a Question down to me? I think I can then reassure him on the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the Questions which will be put down to the Minister of State for Economic Affairs and to the Financial Secretary. If he and his hon. Friends will continue to put Questions down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I shall normally answer on Tuesdays, as has been the practice, and my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend will answer normally on the other days, particularly Thursdays.
470
The right hon. Gentleman will notice tomorrow that Questions dealing more with economic matters than with those matters which are usually associated with the work of the Financial Secretary will be answered by the Minister of State for Economic Affairs. So we shall be continuing more or less the practice which the Committee and the House understand. In the event of my absence due to any conference abroad or anything of that sort. I feel sure that the Committee will be very well satisfied with the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs assisted by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
There has been some further confusion about the duties of the Paymaster-General. In particular, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), asked questions about the Paymaster-General and his alleged supervision of scientific development. That was also pursued by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu). Those questions deserve an answer. I intervened because I thought that the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works was nothing to do with the Supplementary Estimate, and I think I proved to be correct; but it is not incorrect to ask questions about the duties of the Paymaster-General.
If I may repeat my opening remarks, the duties of the Paymaster-General do not consist of anything which would take away from the responsibility of the Lord President of the Council. That was the subject of one question put to me. The duties of the Lord President of the Council remain substantially the same in respect of scientific, industrial and other research as they did under the late administration. Nor does the Paymaster-General either aim or hope to control scientific developments in toto in this country. Nor does he aim to control and absolutely supervise the whole of atomic energy and development.
I said in my original remarks that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was considering how the development of atomic energy under the Ministry of Supply would continue. When my right hon. Friend is in a position to give an answer he will give one, and then it will be absolutely clear what the position is, Meanwhile, the Paymaster-General is

471
there to help advise the Prime Minister on these vital matters with which he is connected. But I beseech the Committee not to exaggerate. The Paymaster-General is to have a staff of a very few people indeed, who are there to help him advise the Prime Minister and to collect the statistics about which the Prime Minister spoke earlier in the debate. So it would be an exaggeration if hon. Members on either side of the Committee were to try to invest him with powers which he does not wish to have.
Another question asked how the Secretary of State would co-ordinate steel, transport, fuel and power. In the case of steel, the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that we envisaged a certain type of board, but I am not in order in going into that today. In the case of fuel and power and transport, I must return to the example I used in my opening remarks, namely, that when we are obliged —it may well be through the negligence of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—to consider importing American coal in the winter, which is the worst possible date for doing it, there is no exercise which demands more co-ordination as between the transport services and the interests of coal as a whole. That is a particularly good example of where the Secretary of State can assist in the coordination of a vital subject as between the various interests.
The Opposition have tried to make great fun of the position of the Ministers of Fuel and Power and Transport vis-æ-vis the Secretary of State. They have first endeavoured to ask whether the Ministers go to the Cabinet or not. That is answered by my refusal earlier to disclose how the business of Government is run—any more than the right hon. Gentleman would have done it when he was in power. But what I can say is that besides discounting any altruistic motive at all—I should have been glad to see some recognition from hon. Members opposite that the Paymaster-General had given up any salary; some recognition in the debate of this fact would at least have been generous—the Opposition seem to be keen to substitute for personal relationships, without which no Government can run, what one hon. Member opposite described as "a functional chart."
472
All I want to say in concluding the debate on this Supplementary Estimate is that, in our task of serving our country, we in this Government depend on the goodwill of a team of friends working together. We do not depend upon functional charts nor, if I may say so to my noble Friend the Paymaster-General, on an undue number of statistics. It is on the human relationships that we shall depend, and it is those human relationships which will ensure our success.
I can only say that as Chancellor of the Exchequer I am well satisfied that these arrangements make my task lighter than it would otherwise have been, and in looking back on the burden borne by my predecessor and by Sir Stafford Cripps, in serving the country at the present time I can think of no happier way of easing the very heavy load which rests on my shoulders than the arrangements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
7.16 p.m.
Mr. Gaitskell: If I may detain the Committee for just one moment. I must say that I did not feel that the right hon. Gentleman has answered to our satisfaction the very many questions that we put on this important matter. I was very careful in my earlier remarks not to make any personal attacks on the noble Lords or the right hon. Gentlemen whose salaries we are discussing—we are not concerned with personalities. We are concerned, of course, with the set-up, the administrative machine, and the functions which are to be performed by these Ministers, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman seems to have left untouched the major points in our criticism.
What were those points that we made? First, we do not feel that what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the position of the Treasury, so far as economic co-ordination is concerned, is in the least clear. We still do not know where the vital decisions in economic planning are to be taken.
I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the custom to disclose the detailed membership of Government committees, and I did not press him to do that, but I think it has been the custom—it certainly was in the last Government—to reveal to the House the name of the Chairman of the Materials Committee. That is a matter which vitally affects a

473
great many hon. Members so far as their constituencies are concerned, and I should have thought that, at least, we might have had that information. Nor is it clear to me even now—I should have thought that he could have told us—just what is the function of the right hon. Gentleman so far as the investment programme is concerned.
As regards the Paymaster-General, I still cling to the view, which I expressed earlier, that the additional statistical staff that he needs is superfluous. There are statisticians in the Central Statistical Office who are of extremely great merit and who can quite well prepare the charts which the Prime Minister needs; and
there are economists in the Economic Section who are quite capable of commenting on them if the Prime Minister so desires it. Finally, as regards the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport and Fuel and Power, the right hon. Gentleman has made no attempt whatever to answer the, I admit, rather large number of questions which I put to him about the case for this particular appointment. In all the circumstances, therefore, I suggest to my hon. Friends that we should now take this matter to a Division.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 297; Noes, 219.

Division No. 5.]

AYES

[7.20 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Colegate, W. A.

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

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Alport, C. J. M.

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hay, John

Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Cranborne, Viscount

Heath, Edward

Arbuthnot, John

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

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Crouch, R. F.

Hicks-Beach, Maj W. W.

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

Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

Higgs, J. M. C.

Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)

Cuthbert, W. N.

Hill, Mrs. E (Wythenshawe)

Baker, P. A. D.

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Davidson, Viscountess

Hirst, Geoffrey

Baldwin, A. E.

De la Bère, R.

Holland-Martin, C. J

Banks, Col. C.

Deedes, W. F.

Hope, Lord John

Barber, A. P. L.

Digby, S. Wingfield

Hopkinson, Henry

Barlow, Sir John

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Baxter, A. B.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

Horobin, I. M.

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Donner, P. W.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Bell, P. I. (Bolton, E.)

Doughty, C. J A.

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Bell, R. M. (Bucks, S.)

Drayson, G. B.

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lowisham, N.)

Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Duthie, W. S.

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

Bennett, William (Woodside)

Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Hurd, A. R.

Birch, Nigel

Erroll, F. J.

Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Bishop, F. P

Fell, A.

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

Black, C. W.

Finlay, G. B.

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Bossom, A. C.

Fisher, Nigel

Hylton-Foster H. B. H.

Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Fletcher-Cooke, C

Jennings, R.

Braine, B. R.

Fort, R.

Johnson, E. S. T. (Blackley)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Foster, John

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

Fraser, Hon. Hush (Stone)

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W.

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Kaberry, D.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Galbraith, T. G. D (Hillhead)

Keeling, E. H.

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Gammans, L. D.

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P. G. T.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Lambert, Hon. G

Bullard, D. G.

George, Rt. Hon Maj. G Lloyd

Lambton, Viscount

Bullock, Capt. M.

Glyn, Sir Ralph

Langford-Holt, J A

Bullus, Wins Commander E. E.

Godber, J. B.

Leather, E. H. C

Burden, F. F. A

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

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

Butcher, H. W

Gough, C. F. H.

Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

Butler. Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Gower, H. R.

Lennox-Boyd. Rt. Hon. A. T.

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Lindsay, Martin

Carson, Hon. E.

Gridlev, Sir Arnold

Linstead, H. N.

Cary, Sir R.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Llewellyn, D. T.

Channon, H.

Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

Lloyd. Rt Hon. G (Kings Norton)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Harden. J. R. E.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Lockwood Lt.-Col. J. C.

Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N)

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

Clyde. Rt. Hon. J L.

Harris. Render (Heston)

Low, A. R. W

Cole, N. J

Harrison, Lt.-Col J H. (Eye)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Perkins, W. R. D

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Storey, S.

McAdden, S. J.

Peyton, J. W. W

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

McCuilum, Major D.

Pickthorn, K. W. M

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Studholme, H. G.

Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

Pitman, I. J.

Summers, G. S.

McKibbin, A. J.

Powell, J. Enoch

Sutcliffe, H.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

Maclay, Hon. John

Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Maclean, Fitzroy

Profumo, J. D.

Teeling, W.

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Raikes, H. V.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P L. (Hereford)

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Rayner, Brig. R.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Redmayne, M.

Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

Remnant, Hon. P

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

Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Renton, D. L. M.

Thorneycroft, Rt Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

Robertson, Sir David

Tilney, John

Markham, Major S. F.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Touche, G. C.

Marlowe. A. A. H

Robson-Brown, W.

Turner, H. F. L.

Marples, A. E.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Turton, R. H

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Roper, Sir Harold

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

Ropner, Col. L.

Vane, W. M. F.

Maude, Angus

Russell, R. S.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Maudling, R

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Vosper, D. F.

Maydon, Lt. Cmdr S. L. C

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Sandys, Rt. Hon D

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

Mellor, Sir John

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Scott, R. Donald

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr R.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Nabarro, G. D. N

Shepherd, William

Watkinson, H. A

Nichols, Harmar

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Nicholson, G.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Wellwood, W.

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

White, Baker (Canterbury)

Noble, Cmdr. A H. P

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Williams, Charles (Torquay)

Nugent, G. R. H

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Nutting, Anthony

Snadden, W. McN.

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Oakshott, H. D.

Soames, Capt. C.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Odey, G. W.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Wills, G.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Speir, R. M.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S

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

Wood, Hon. R.

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

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

York, C.

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

Stevens, G. P.

Osborne, C.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Partridge, E.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Brigadier Mackeson and Mr. Drewe.

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Chapman, W. D.

Glanville, James

Adams, Richard

Clunie, J.

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Albu, A. H.

Cocks, F. S.

Greenwood, Rt Hon Arthur (Wakefield)

Allen, Scho'efield (Crewe)

Collick, P. H.

Grey, C. F.

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Cook, T. F.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Griffiths. Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Cove, W. G.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Awbery, S. S.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Crosland, C. A. R.

Hamilton, W. W.

Baird, J.

Crossman, R. H. S

Hardy, E. A.

Balfour, A.

Cullen, Mrs A.

Hargreaves, A.

Bartley, P.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Hastings, S.

Bence, C. R.

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke N.)

Hayman, F. H.

Bonn, Wedgwood

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Herbison, Miss M

Beswick, F.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Hobson, C. R.

Bing, G. H. C.

Deer, G.

Holman, P.

Blackburn, F.

Delargy, H. J.

Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

Blenkinsop, A.

Dodds, N. N.

Houghton, Douglas

Blyton, W. R.

Donnelly, D. L.

Hoy, J. H.

Boardman, H.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hubbard, T. F.

Bottomley, A. G

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Bowden, H. W.

Edwards. John (Brighouse)

Hughes, Cledwin (Anglesey)

Bowles, F. G.

Edwards. Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Hughes, Emrys (S Ayrshire)

Braddock. Mrs. Elizabeth

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Brockway, A. F.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Brown, Rt. Hon.George (Belper)

Fernyhough. E

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Finnburgh, W

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Burke, W. A.

Finch, H. J.

Janner, B.

Burton, Miss F. E

Follick, M.

Jay, D. P. T.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Foot, M. M.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Callaghan, L. J.

Forman, J. C.

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

Carmichael, J.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Jenkins. R. H. (Stechford)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Gaitskell. Rt. Hon H. T. N

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Champion, A. J.

Gibson, C. W

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

476

477

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Oldfield, W. H.

Sparks, J. A.

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Oliver, G. H.

Steele, T.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Orbach, M.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Oswald, T.

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R

Kenyon, C.

Padley, W. E.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Key, fit. Hon. C. W.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)

Kinley, J.

Pargiter, G. A.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Parker, J.

Sylvester, G. O.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Paton, J.

Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

Lewis, Arthur

Pearson, A.

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Lindgren, G. S.

Peart, T. F.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

MacColl, J. E.

Poole, C. C.

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

McGhee, H. G.

Popplewell, E.

Timmons, J.

McGovern, J.

Porter, G.

Tomney, F.

McInnes, J.

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Turner-Samuels, M

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

McLeavey, F.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

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

McNeil, Rt. Hon H.

Rankin, J.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Reeves, J.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon John

Mainwaring, W. H

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Manuel, A. C.

Rhodes, H.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Richards, R.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

Mayhew, C. P.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Wigg, G. E. C

Mellish, R. J.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Wilkins, W. A

Messer, F.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Wiley, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

Milner, Mai. Rt. Hon. J

Ross, William

Williams, David (Neath)

Mitchison, G. R.

Royle, C.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Monslow, W.

Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Moody, A. S.

Shackleton, E. A. A

Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

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

Morley, R.

Short, E. W.

Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)

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

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Mort, D. L.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

Moyle, A.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Wyatt, W. L.

Mulley, F. W.

Slater, J.

Younger, Rt. Hon K

Murray, J. D.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Mr. Hannan and Mr. Arthur Allen

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments, including additional salary payable to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the salary of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, and the salary and expenses of the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power.

CLASS 1

  VOTE 27. SCOTTISH HOME DEPARTMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Scottish Home Department and the salary of a Minister of State; expenses in connection with private legislation; expenses on, and subsidies for, certain transport services; grants in connection with physical training and recreation, coast protection works, services in Development Areas, etc.; grants and expenses in connection with services relating to children and young persons and with probation services; certain grants in aid; and sundry other services.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
7.25 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): Perhaps I ought to say a few words in explanation of this Supplementary Estimate. I do not intend to enter into any long discussion and I do not intend to be controversial in handling it, because I hope that it will be more or less generally agreed that the step the Government propose to take in this matter is one for an improvement in the handling of our Scottish affairs.
There have been various changes in the course of time in the set-up of the Scottish Office and its organisation. I do not intend to go further back than the year 1885, which I think is perhaps early enough for the general wish of this Committee. In 1885, under a Unionist Government—Lord Salisbury's Government at that time—there was established the Office of the Secretaryship for Scotland, which had been in abeyance for reasons I will not go into now. At any rate, I think that was a right and proper step and one which was welcomed in Scotland.

479
In 1926, under another Unionist Government, the office of Secretary for Scotland was elevated to that of a Secretary of State and that is the position today. There has been little change since 1926 so far as I am aware. A number of hon. Members on this side of the Committee have taken an interest in this matter and have given a great deal of thought to it over a period of time. As Leader of the party, the Prime Minister set up a committee to consider how we could make improvements for the better control and administration of our affairs in Scotland. I had the honour of being the chairman of that committee, which contained at least two ex-Secretaries of State. We reported in November, 1949.
One of the suggestions made at that time was that there should be a Minister of State for Scotland who would be in a position to assist the Secretary of State, whoever he might be. It was suggested that he should be a Privy Councillor and should receive Cabinet papers as a right; and if summoned to the Cabinet, or if deputising for the Secretary of State, he would be present as an equal. It was suggested that he should be designated Minister of State for Scotland in the same way as today we have a Minister of State for Foreign Affairs.
I do not say that this is the end of the improvements which we wish to make, because perfection is, of course, difficult to achieve. But I believe that this is a step in the right direction and will assist those who hold the office which I have the very great honour to hold at the present time.
I am glad that sitting behind me is a previous Secretary of State for Scotland, and sitting opposite me are two right hon. Members of this House who were Secretaries of State immediately before me, and the former Lord Advocate. I feel, therefore, that this Committee is well adorned in that respect, and no doubt we shall have the benefit of their views and advice. Those who have held the office of Secretary of State for Scotland will agree that the work of that Minister has increased during the past years. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) who, to my knowledge, has had experience of the Scottish Office dating back 29 years, has considerable experience of
480
this matter. He was on the committee which made these suggestions.
A matter in which I think this arrangement will be of considerable help is in having more or less resident in Scotland a Minister of high rank, what, in my day, when I was Chief Whip. was known as a Minister above the line. Ministers above the line are not necessarily in the Cabinet, but they receive Cabinet papers and are fully informed as to policy in that respect. Being in Scotland, a Minister of State would be in a position to relieve whoever holds the position of Secretary of State of a good deal of travelling which, I think it will be agreed, is a heavy burden. It would be a great help in expediting the conduct of Scottish business because the Minister of State would be resident in Scotland and be able to meet, in St. Andrew's House, representatives of industry, local authorities and other bodies, such as, for example, the Highland Panel, with very little delay, and he able to hear their views.
While I must make it absolutely clear that the responsibility for taking decisions rests, and must rest, with whoever holds the Office of Secretary of State, nevertheless, there could be, and I think we already have evidence of the fact that there will be, a genuine saving in time and travelling; because with modern communications, the telegraph, telephone and teleprinter, and so on, it is easier for my noble Friend, when in Scotland, to communicate directly with me. I think that time can be saved and that decisions can be reached more expeditiously by the method which we propose.
It will, of course, be the duty of my noble Friend to deal with Scottish business in another place, as well as to be resident in Scotland to a great extent. That does not mean that I have no intention of visiting my native country. I shall go there whenever possible. It is not necessary for me to explain to the Committee that it is not always very easy for an hon. Member of this House to absent himself during the working week when the House is sitting. That is a difficulty which confronted hon. Members in the last Administration and which would appear likely to confront hon. Members in the present Administration. But at other times, and when I can, it

481
will be my duty to be in Scotland as much as possible, and that will be my intention.
I do not think the Committee will expect me to go into a lot of detail, but, to make the position quite clear, I would say that it is the intention that while the responsibility rests on me, and I have to be in London a great deal, the Minister of State will be able to supervise the co-ordinating of work in the Departments in St. Andrew's House by keeping in touch with the work of every Department in Scotland, and in continuous contact with local authorities and other bodies in the widest range of Scottish affairs. He will be in a position to assess Scottish requirements. He will keep me directly informed, and take such steps as he can in the ordinary administrative field, which will, I think, lead to improvements and to an acceleration in the conduct of our business.
It is early in the day to make a pronouncement now, but I believe that in the light of experience we shall be able to achieve an improvement in the management of our affairs. I am only too happy to say that I feel myself to be extremely fortunate in having my noble Friend to undertake this important work. We have worked together in the past and I am quite satisfied we can work amicably together in the future. Given a little time and experience I think that the proposed new set-up will prove to be of genuine assistance.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Hector McNeil: My first pleasure is to congratulate and felicitate the right hon. Gentleman in his post. There exists between his office and the Opposition a degree of tolerance that is not always shown to occupants of these benches, and, when I say that we hope to display this tolerance towards him, I do not mean in any way that we will fight any the less fiercely or be the less vigilant on matters of substance and principle to us. There are times, in Committee and in this House, when, as we know from experience, the most important thing is to be Scottish, and, on these occasions, the right hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that affection and tolerance towards his office will be manifested by my hon. Friends and myself. I said upon these occasions; there will be other occasions.
482
I wish that I could start tonight in a warm and benevolent frame of mind about the appointment of the Minister of State for Scotland. I am afraid I have a complaint, and quite a serious complaint, the justice of which, I am fairly certain, the right hon. Gentleman will admit. It seems to my hon. Friends and myself that this business has been conducted in a rather gauche fashion. Within a fortnight, we have become quite used to the addiction of His Majesty's Government for peers, but we think it a little odd that the Government should not so have arranged their business that a change of this kind might first have been discussed by the Commons and not by another place.
It is particularly true that, on Scottish questions, there is in our country—and I am very happy that it is so—an insistent jealousy of the rights of this House, and, when we come to discuss a new appointment like this, it is, to say the least of it, gauche when we find that the principle and the office have been discussed in another place. I think that this business might have been more properly arranged.
I am very grateful for the information which the right hon. Gentleman has offered us, but I am afraid that it scarcely goes far enough. Some of my hon. Friends, not intimately acquainted with this business, might unwittingly have concluded that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about a Committee of this House when he spoke about the recommendations offered by a committee which carried on it two former Secretaries of State for Scotland. [Interruption.] Of course, quite unwittingly, yes, but I think I should put my hon. Friends and other hon. Members right. This committee, however important it may be in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman, is of no importance to this Committee. It was, of course, a small Tory Party committee which was committed to produce some Election literature, and that it did.
I think I might summarise our attitude by saying that we are not enthusiastic about this appointment, because it is difficult to see at this stage—and, with great respect, it has not been made clearer by the right hon. Gentleman—the exact and substantial contribution which it is claimed this appointment will make towards the better government of Scotland. At this stage, it looks—and, apparently, it seemed to the noble Lord yesterday—

483
like a piece of window-dressing, whose functions we might see developed, but not very ornamental window dressing, as we think on this side of the Committee.
However, in the meantime, provided our questions are reasonably answered, as I am sure they will be, we are prepared to suspend judgment until we see how the idea develops. The problems of the Scottish Office, as we all know, whether we have been in that office or not, are complex and extensive, both in their administration and policy-making aspects, and we have never attempted to suggest for a second that these arrangements could not be improved. So, while being cautious and, naturally, reserving our Parliamentary right to come back to this business, we will, meantime, be prepared to suspend judgment, so that impartial but very careful examination can be made as the scheme develops.
I said that we are anxious to know what are the intentions of the Government at the outset of the scheme, and I hope I was not being discourteous when I suggested that it looked a little like window-dressing. My fears about window-dressing are in no way allayed by a report which appeared in "The Scotsman" yesterday, dealing with the noble Lord who is the Minister-Designate. I think he is still the Minister-Designate, until we approve his salary and his staff, and so it might be convenient for me to call him the noble Lord.
It is a fairly long story, with which I will not bore the Committee, and I should be surprised if it appeared quite unknown to the Information Office of the Scottish Office. I do not know if any facilities were afforded, but I should be surprised if they were completely unaware of its preparation. We are told:
"Something akin to a breeze of re-invigoration has begun to blow through the corridors of St. Andrew's House."
Is this due to the arrival of a Secretary of State with such a distinguished name as the right hon. Gentleman opposite? Is it due even to the strange advent of a Government without a majority? Not a chance. It is due to the arrival of yet another peer with a Tory ticket in his hand. We are told:
"In the mere ten days since he took over his task in St. Andrew's House, Lord Home has already established a reputation as the
484
busiest Minister St. Andrew's House has known for many years."
As a commoner and a Scotsman, I must come to the rescue of the right hon. Gentleman. It is really rather rash to consider that, in 10 days, breezes have blown open the doors of St. Andrew's House, and that the reputations of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) and of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and even of poor Mr. Tom Johnston, a distinguished former hon. Member of this House, are just wiped out.
Lord John Hope: And yours, too.
Mr. McNeil: I do not complain about that.
Here is the noble Lord, and I do not think I can better this quotation:
"Every day during the last week, he has had meetings with heads of departments and staff conferences, familiarising himself with the intricacies of Scottish affairs and administration, and gaining the respect of permanent executives by a ready grasp of realities and the quality of open-mindedness."
In my limited experience, that frequently means that he is a Minister who does not disagree with the permanent staff.
Perhaps I do the Scottish Office an injustice, but according to this elaborate editorial column—there is another gem here —the noble Lord is not even to have a Christmas season—he is going to have a busy "Yuletide" season. The whole list suggests to any impartial reader that nothing he has done or nothing he intends to do marks him off from the office of an additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary. Naturally, we in this Committee are worried because we are asked to find a new office and a new staff and to spend further public moneys by a Government which came in on an economy ticket in order to create—and this not by the usual method—an additional Parliamentary Secretary.
I am bound to say that the statement made by the noble Lord yesterday in another place does nothing at all to dissipate this impression created by "The Scotsman" and by a previous Press conference held by the noble Lord. He said yesterday in another place:
"I am going to make one claim on the credit side at once, and that is that I must surely embody one of the quickest fulfillments

485
of an Election pledge in British political history."—
a somewhat arrogant claim, but I suppose we can permit him that because it seems likely to be the only one—
"My office has been charged by the Secretary of State with certain particular responsibilities for the welfare of the Highlands and Islands, and for the orderly development of Scottish industry and for close relations with the local authorities."
He then went on to say:
"As deputy to the Secretary of State, it is already clear to me, in the short time that I have been in office, that I can do much to help to expedite the business of government and efficient administration by being on the spot,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th November, 1951; Vol. 174, c. 394.]
—an ambiguity which he might have avoided with a little care.
It will be plain to the Committee that with the exception of the one phrase relating to industry—to which I will return later—the duties of the noble Lord are only those which a Secretary of State might normally delegate to one of his Under-Secretaries, such as the receiving of deputations, particularly from local authorities, the vetting of schemes and projects, the encouragement of industrial operations, and the supervision of sectors of work in the Scottish Office. These are jobs which an Under-Secretary of State in the Scottish Office and in other Government offices does in the normal way.
The noble Lord makes great play—and the right hon. Gentleman referred to this—with the fact that he will be more or less constantly in Edinburgh. I admit that that will, perhaps, prove an advantage, but it also leads me to the question to which the right hon. Gentleman referred when he read out from the Conservative Party document the functions of the Minister of State. If the noble Lord is going to find his main rôle in Edinburgh or in remaining in Scotland, I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever is to reply, would be good enough to explain to us what exactly is the rôle of the new Minister of State in relation to the Cabinet.
He is, as we have been told, of Cabinet rank. We were also told that when he appeared at the Cabinet he would sit as an equal, which I find a little difficult to understand, but, whatever it means, he is something short of being a member of the Cabinet. Does he attend the Cabinet at all times when Scottish affairs are being discussed, or only when he is summoned,
486
and, if so, summoned by whom and at the request of whom? Is it at the request of the Secretary of State?
Mr. J. Stuart: It would normally be in my absence should I be unable to attend.
Mr. McNeil: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but that does not take us any further forward in understanding what are the peculiar novel duties of this Minister of State. After all, that would be the normal experience of any Parliamentary Under-Secretary; he would go to the Cabinet to deal with a subject from his Department when his Minister was unable to be present. He might do so even if his Minister were not a Cabinet Minister, but merely a Departmental Minister, so that this does not make the Minister of State any different again from all other Parliamentary Under-Secretaries.
It is usual, I believe, in these modern times for Parliamentary Secretaries to have access to the minutes and papers of Cabinet and ministerial committees concerning their own Departments. Moreover, they normally attend, as we have agreed, in their own right—and not as anything new or novel—ministerial committees dealing with subjects concerning their Departments or the affairs which they supervise on the delegation of the Minister, and, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, they would attend in his absence.
Therefore, these attendances on ministerial committees, these deputisings for a Cabinet Minister, and this access to Cabinet papers are nothing new. There is no addition to normal governmental practice, and, except in the provision of an additional body, there is nothing new so far as the government of Scotland is concerned.
Quite plainly, if the Minister of State is not going to take up the duties either of his Minister or of one of his Under-Secretary colleagues in attending such meetings he will be, I would suggest, hopelessly out of touch with Scottish business. He will be a minor permanent Under-Secretary charged with certain administrative supervision, but having no part in policy-making. When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the use that can be made of the telephone, the teleprinter and the telegram in the delivering of decisions, I would point out to him that these means of communication can be

487
employed in exactly the same way between the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary or between the Secretary of State and the Permanent Under-Secretary when it is a question of the Secretary of State taking a decision and the machine operating it.
The noble Lord, the Minister of State, added a little to our difficulty in understanding this subject because he said:
"It is vital to Scotsmen that the Secretary of State should he free and have full time to take his part at the highest level of Cabinet discussion and decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th November, 1951; Vol. 174, c. 395.]
I do not know what that means, unless it means the obvious in which case it is difficult to understand why it was said in that context.
Does it mean—and I do not think it does—that the noble Lord is going to the Cabinet to deal with Scottish affairs? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State says not, and that the noble Lord only goes there when the right hon. Gentleman is absent. If that is so, in what way is the Secretary of State relieved to deal with these very important duties? I say they are of tremendous importance. Both in and out of the office which the right hon. Gentleman at present occupies I sometimes felt that the Scottish public were a little unfair, or perhaps a little impatient, towards their Secretary of State.
The Scottish public must understand that the ability of their Secretary of State to demand the attention, and perhaps sometimes the benevolence, of his Cabinet colleagues towards Scottish affairs will largely rest upon the reputation and prestige which their Minister builds for himself as a full Cabinet Minister. There cannot be a kind of second-class Cabinet Minister for Scotland. He has to be of equal status with his colleagues. I have sometimes thought —and I would be glad to support the right hon. Gentleman in this matter—that the Scottish people must bring patience and perhaps a warm indulgence towards understanding the rôle of their Secretary of State in discharging his part in the Government and in the government of their affairs.
But strange as this statement reads, here we have the assurance of the Secretary of State that the Minister of State,
488
in the meantime, is not proposing to do anything for him in the Cabinet or in the discharge of his Cabinet tasks that was not previously done by the Joint Under-Secretaries. Therefore, I should like the Secretary of State, or whoever replies, to tell us precisely what is new in the relationship of the proposed Minister of State to the Cabinet and to the ministerial committees. I should like him to tell us in what way this precisely differs from or is superior to the arrangements previously carried out by the Joint Under-Secretaries and their relationship to the ministerial committees and to the Cabinet.
It would be also germane to the question, if not immediately relevant, if the Secretaries of State could find time to tell us before we dispose of these proceedings to whom we should address ourselves by Questions, by letter and by personal approach upon different subjects in his now fairly expanded team. We had a reply from the Prime Minister which helped this afternoon. We had a reply from the noble Lord yesterday which, if I may say so with great respect, did not help at all. He informed their Lordships that there were various departments in the Scottish Office, and, strangely enough in a Scottish Minister, he missed out completely the Department of Education. The Prime Minister put that right this afternoon. It will be very helpful if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State would tell us how he is to divide the work, to whom Questions are to be put, how we should make a personal approach and where to in the case of the Minister of State.
There is one other question which is rather more important. The noble Lord the Minister of State, discussing this yesterday in another place said he would supervise the orderly development of Scottish industry. I concede immediately that this is an important task. Does the Minister of State mean more by that statement than that he will accept the task of consulting, stimulating and supporting such excellent organisations as the Scottish T.U.C. and the Scottish Council for Industry, both of whom do magnificent jobs? If he is going to do no more than see that some of the big gaps in Scottish industry, created primarily by 50 years of Tory neglect, are filled by new and light industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. Nobody in this

489
Committee will argue otherwise than that the unbalanced and haphazard development of Scottish industry, as of industry in South Wales, was due to Tory casualness. If the Minister of State, with his organisation, will do no more than that, then once more there is nothing new, except that the Secretary of State is parting with the duty which was carried out by the two previous occupants of the Office themselves.
If I may offer the right hon. Gentleman a piece of friendly advice, I say to him, from my own experience and the experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling, that in the end this co-operation between the Scottish Office and such organisations as the Scottish Council for Industry will frequently depend upon the ability of the Secretary of State to inject himself at the highest level, even at Cabinet level, to see that the correct decisions are taken and that Scotland has her place in these developments so far as they spring from changes or development in Government policy.
It would be a mistake to leave that to a junior Minister. But this statement might mean a little more. The noble Lord the Minister of State for Scotland yesterday threw in a sentence or two which I find it fairly difficult to understand. He said, at the end of his speech:
"Therefore, we intend, so tar as the nationalised industries are concerned, to take such measures as will establish in Scotland the most appropriate machinery to serve the Scottish needs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th November, 1951; Vol. 174. c. 396.]
That is a strange sentence. Are we therefore to understand that, despite the King's Speech, despite undertakings given by the Minister of Supply and the Minister of Fuel and Power to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Government now have some intention towards nationalised industries other than iron and steel and transport? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, if that is the case, how it came about that a junior Minister in another place in a casual, off-hand statement enunciated this new policy of the Government?
But if it means—as I suspect it means —nothing, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will indicate that and we will say no more about it, provided he answers this point: that I take it even in the case of steel and transport the right hon. Gentleman does not intend or anticipate
490
that the Minister of State—designate shall have any Governmental role in the discharge of these industries. I presume, further, that we shall still address our Questions relating to these industries to the existing Ministers. A change of this kind would be a very great departure indeed, and one very difficult to follow.
I hope that we shall get answers to these three groups of questions. We on this side hope for the very best from this development, although we fear there will be a bit of a muddle. I respectfully suggest that it might have been better to delay the appointment until the limits of the job have been worked out and defined. That is a normal governmental practice. It is a little unusual to come to this Committee and ask for funds while the Minister-designate explains his hopes in another place. We shall have to wait and see how this develops. It would have been much better if this Committee had had a precise statement from the right hon. Gentleman. I am not blaming him for not having the information. Indeed, it is a little unfair to send a Secretary of State to the Front Bench armed with nothing but a party pamphlet.
It would have been better, and we on this side would be much happier to discuss this matter constructively, because we are all desperately concerned to improve, wherever possible, the method of Scottish government and to do anything that contributes to the welfare of Scotland and her people. Therefore, at this stage, provided our questions are answered satisfactorily, we shall not oppose but will keep in touch with the right hon. Gentleman, anxious to understand this development so that we may later examine it, with the details before us, in a constructive frame of mind.
8.17 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: The statement we have just heard from the former Secretary of State for Scotland deserves a little underlining. I agree that the Government have been far too hasty in bringing this matter before us; I do not think they have thought out what advantages, if any, will be gained by this appointment. It would appear that there is only one election pledge that they can fulfil, and so they rush in with this.
Major D. McCallum: What about the Socialists' pledge in 1945?
Mr. Ross: I do not know whether the Government fancy that Scottish people will accept the proverb "Never look a gift horse in the mouth." If they think that simply because we are getting something thrown to us from the Tory table, some little devolution crumb, we shall make no effort to examine what we are getting, they are making a great mistake.
I complain also at the fact that although this matter was mentioned in the Gracious Speech, we have heard nothing at all about it in this House until today. In fact, this is the first time we have discovered that the Secretary of State for Scotland could even speak. The people of Scotland were beginning to wonder whether he possessed that faculty, and we congratulate him on having been allowed to break his silence.
We started this Parliamentary Session by being told how serious the situation was and that even Cabinet Ministers had to sacrifice £1,000 a year from their salaries.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Twenty-five!
Mr. Ross: We will take it just as it looks. Now we have the Government telling us that we have got to spend £3,000 a year on a completely new appointment. It is going to be a disappointment to many people in Scotland. There is a feeling in Scotland that we must bring the Government nearer to the people and that we should have greater democratic participation in government. But is anyone going to suggest that the appointment of a Minister of State who cannot answer Questions in this House, who is in another place altogether, will contribute anything towards that end? I ask, in view of the serious warnings about finance, Is this the time to spend £3,000, or is this the way to do it?
What is the Minister of State going to do? So far as we can judge from the Secretary of State, he is going to be a glorified public relations officer. He is going to meet industrialists and members of local authorities. What is he going to do after that? He will evidently get on the teleprinter and ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what he has got to do.
We have been told by a noble Lord in another place that ultimate responsibility rests upon the Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not know how often the Sec-
492
retary of State is in Scotland, but I can tell him that the folks in Scotland have not changed. If representatives of the local authorities come to see the Minister of State and he does not satisfy them, they will immediately ask to see the Secretary of State for Scotland. In other words, we have only got a buffer, and instead of getting speedier decisions we shall have matters prolonged and further delayed.
If this appointment is to effect anything, surely it must give us speedier decisions. The man on the spot is going to decide. But the man on the spot has not the responsibility for decision. He does not create Government policy. He is only the interpreter, the co-ordinator. It is a piece of nonsense to tell us that we shall get quicker decisions from the man on the spot. So far as I can see, we are getting a very expensive office boy in Scotland. We used to hear something from hon. Members opposite in the last Parliament about "jobs for the boys." I think we are now back to "jobs for the blue-blooded boys." I do not mind them having jobs, provided the jobs will create better administration in Scotland.
This throwing in of an extra Minister between the people of Scotland and the Secretary of State will not give us speedier decisions, and it will not provide the clear-cut responsibilities which we could well do with. If the people are not satisfied with the new Minister's answers they will go straight to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State, despite all his hopes, will find himself travelling to Scotland as often as before; indeed, I hope so, because that is where his job lies.
What are we getting with this appointment? We are getting a Minister of State in another place who cannot be questioned in this House. In other words, this is a back door entry into the Civil Service. What is the new Minister of State going to do that cannot be done by the present Permanent Under-Secretary of State? He may be able to create a breeze, but he will certainly not give us any better administration. All I know is that an extra £3,000 is going to be spent by the party who were going to cut down Government expenditure, the party who had their Press blazon forth the fact that they were sacrificing £7,000. Now they are spending extra. I want to know whether we are going to get value

493
for it. We have already been told the relationship of the new Minister of State to the Secretary of State. He is going to be the underling of the Secretary of State.
What is to be the relationship with the Under-Secretaries of State? We have two, but this Government, which intends to cut down expenditure, is to give us another we are to have three Under-Secretaries. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not four?"] Yes; why not four, or five? This extravagant Government might as well give us four. For the money we are paying for the Minister of State, we could have another two.
Mr. J. Rankin: "Jobs for the boys."
Mr. Ross: What will be the position of these three Under-Secretaries? Are they to be responsible directly to the Secretary of State for Scotland, or are they to be responsible to the Minister of State? Remember, according to his own statement in another place, the Minister of State also has departmental responsibilities, although we again heard the new word "co-ordination" today from the Secretary of State for Scotland. In another place the Minister of State declared that he had:
"particular responsibilities for the welfare of the Highlands and Islands, for the orderly development of Scottish industry and close relations with the local authorities."
Which of the Under-Secretaries will be displaced by the assumption by the new Minister of those responsibilities? The fact is, the Government have no idea at all about what is to go on.
Mr. Lewis: They never have.
Mr. Ross: This is a Scottish quarrel. What was said in another place by the Minister designate sums the position up:
"I think we shall have to work out this scheme as we go along,"
He went on to say:
"The Secretary of State will give me as wide a discretion as he can, particularly on administrative matters."
That means nothing at all. He continues:
"We shall have to work it out and see how it goes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th November, 1951; Vol. 174, c. 394–6.]
As far as I am concerned, the quicker the whole lot go the better for Scotland.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: I am quite certain that all Scottish Members would support a Measure for more streamlined administration, or for the creation of another office if it would be for the benefit of Scotland. All of us on this side of the Committee are especially zealous for the welfare of Scotland. After the speech we have heard from the Secretary of State, however, I am afraid we shall need many more assurances than he has given so far before we are convinced that this new appointment will lead to any further strength in the application of Government to the lives of the people of Scotland.
I have heard nothing from the Front Bench opposite today which would lead me to believe in any way that the application of this new appointment to the homes and lives of the ordinary people will bring about any improvement—and as far as I am concerned that is a supreme test of any new appointment. I want to know, from the right hon. Gentleman what will be entrusted to this new Minister. I understand from the Press and from the speech made by the noble Lord who has been given this post that he is to have special responsibilities for the Highlands and Islands. I am keenly interested in the Highlands and Islands, and have often been in the Highlands, and I want to know what this statement means.
After all, we know that under the present Scottish Ministers there is complete control over the services of forestry, agriculture and fisheries. These three Departments are committed to one Under-Secretary. Another Under-Secretary is responsible to the Secretary of State for education, housing, health, fire services, police and civil defence. In what way will this new appointment give any additional power in the application of these services to the people of Scotland? We have not had the slightest inkling in the Press, in the speech made by the noble Lord in another place, or from the Secretary of State today that there will be any difference.
No information has been given to suggest that the new Minister of State will have decisive authority—that he will be able to decide anything. Unless the occupant of this office has authority to decide on his own volition that such and such a

495
thing can be done, or that something else can be done, then the office does not strengthen administration at all, and certainly it will not meet the wishes of those sections of the population of Scotland which have been asking for a strengthening of the Scottish Office, in personnel, in order to try to bring the Government nearer to the lives of the people.
I am especially concerned about the application of the new post to the Highlands and Islands and to their welfare. Those of us who are interested in the Highlands and Islands recognise their importance—and I am glad to see in his place the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum), who is responsible—[Interruption.] Well, he ought to be responsible for these things. I know many of the problems of the Highlands and Islands.
All Scottish Members know that the main problems concerning the Highlands and Islands are tied not to the Scottish Departments but to English Departments—or perhaps U.K. Departments is the proper term. As I understand it, these Departments will not be affected in any way by the creation of this new post. When a problem arises with application to Argyllshire, or to any of the other northern counties, in relation to transport, for instance, the new Minister of State will have nothing to do with it at all, because the responsibility will rest with a U.K. Department. That is my interpretation of the position. Perhaps the Secretary of State can inform me otherwise.
We want further information about this. Will the Minister of State lift the telephone and contact a Minister in a U.K. Department here? I suggest that an official could do that quite as well. The creation of a new post seems to me to be a spendthrift policy. That is all it is. Furthermore, in the Election, the party opposite committed themselves to another principle which has application to the problem of transport—and I am choosing transport from many other examples as a subject which is the responsibility of a U.K. Department. The Government are pledged to take the more lucrative road haulage side of the industry away from the transport services of the country and to return it to private enterprise. This is going to have dire consequences for the Highlands and
496
Islands because British Railways operating in the Highlands of Scotland today are already operating quite uneconomically. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are pleased to see enforced the principle—
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member is carrying the debate too wide and must revert to the appointment of the Minister.
Mr. Manuel: With great respect, this appointment is, we have been authoritatively informed, related to the welfare of the Highlands and Islands, and it is agreed on all sides that transport is related to the welfare of the Highlands and Islands. Therefore, I submit that my remarks so far as transport is concerned are in order.
The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member may not argue the hypothetical duties of the Minister, but only what the duties are.
Mr. Manuel: Until we are informed of what these duties are, I am afraid that I cannot argue them. I do not know what they are. We have not been told —unless the Chair can inform us?
The Deputy-Chairman: The Chair cannot.
Mr. Manuel: None of us knows what they are. If I may be permitted to deal with the question of transport, which is awfully important so far as the Highlands are concerned, I would say that the railways are running quite uneconomically in the Highlands at the present time. We have had hon. Members opposite frequently asking for lower freight rates and lower passenger rates, but now they are taking up a course that they advocated at the last Election, that the lucrative road haulage side should be taken away from the nationalised industry. That is going to work against what they have been advocating, for it is going to mean higher rates in the Highlands, and they will thus do a dis-service to their constituents by fleecing British Transport of its more lucrative side.
I think that hon. Members for the Highland constituencies ought to have second thoughts about this, and recognise its implications for the Highlands and Islands—for the Highland crofters, and for the sheep farmers so far as the conveyance of stock is concerned, and so on.
The Chairman: I cannot quite see what all this has to do with this Supplementary Estimate.
Mr. Manuel: With the greatest respect, Sir Charles, as one of your constituents, and as you are one of mine, I think we could agree on the importance of discovering what are the duties under the new appointment on which money is to be paid. Surely it is relevant, if we are to vote £3,000 for this appointment, to ask what work is to be accomplished, before we agree on the rate for the job. I have been trying to find out just what the implications are for the Highlands and Islands, and what they are for transport in those areas. However, if I am getting out of order, I will proceed to my next point.
It appears to me, as we have had no indication at all of the duties of this new Minister of State, that this matter has been hastily thought out, and the appointment made because of the election promises made in Scotland, that a new office would be created, and to placate certain sections of Scottish opinion which have been arguing for more devolution. I quite agree with devolution. We are agreed that we should get government down to the lives and the homes of the people.
This appointment has been made simply because the Tory Party in Scotland have had to try to redeem this particular election pledge. I feel that it is because of that that they have thrown this sop to the people—a sop which, I am convinced, really means nothing at all. We shall see no benefit from this new appointment, and we shall have to have further thoughts before Scotland derives any benefit at all from such a post as this.
8.42 p.m.
Major D. McCallum: It surprises me that hon. Members of the other side seem to find something to wonder at in the Government's decision to fulfil their election pledge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] One of many, and many have been fulfilled, and it surprises me that hon. Members opposite should wonder at it, although they deliberately failed to keep their own promise of the 1945 election, when they promised home rule for Scotland.
The Chairman: I think we should try to keep the debate to the matter of the Supplementary Estimate.
Major McCallum: Reverting to the appointment of the Minister, I do not understand why there should be this misunderstanding about what the Minister is likely to do. Presumably he is going to take charge of Highland and Island affairs. He will travel about the Highlands and Islands and be able to make decisions and recommendations to the Secretary of State on the conditions he finds.
What happened under the last Government? During the Summer Recess either the Secretary of State or one of his UnderSecretaries—or, I believe, even the late Lord Advocate—embarked on a fishery cruiser and cruised round the Western Isles and some of the western and northwestern coasts. That is their looking after the Highlands and Islands. I am glad to learn from Press reports that already the new Minister is making contact with an organisation known as the Advisory Panel for Highland and Island Affairs—next month, in the winter, not waiting for a fishery cruiser.
Mr. John Wheatley: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman admit that frequently Ministers in the previous two Governments went to the Highlands and Islands Advisory Panel and were present during their deliberation?
Major McCallum: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says "frequently," I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague came up to Inverness to meet the Highland Panel in the summer of last year. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) also visited the Panel in Inverness in the previous year. For the purpose of looking after the affairs of the Highlands and Islands, I welcome the appointment of a Minister who will do so. It seems to me that in view of all the promises made by hon. Members opposite in their various election campaigns, particularly that they were going to bring in some form of home rule for Scotland, they ought to welcome this appointment and not find fault with it. That is the point I want to make.
I welcome the Government's decision to appoint this Minister, one of whose duties will he to look after the affairs of the Highlands and Islands From that, we sincerely trust that means other than

499
were found possible by the previous Government will be found for the betterment of the Highlands and Islands.
8.47 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: There is one matter that perturbs me very greatly, and I am certain that it will perturb everyone in Scotland who is interested in Scottish education. I learned today from the Prime Minister that the new Minister of State for Scotland is to have some responsibility for education. From what the new Minister of State said in another place yesterday, there was no indication at all that he then even knew that he had any responsibility for Scottish education.
Mr. J. Stuart: I can assure the hon. Lady that he did know of that, although, maybe, he did not refer to it. He did know because it was made quite clear to him at the time when he was taking up this office, and the Prime Minister was, of course, quite correct in his answer today.
Miss Herbison: If the noble Lord did know that he was responsible for education, in outlining his duties yesterday he did not mention it, and that will cause more serious perturbation in Scotland than if he had not known it, because it shows very clearly indeed that the Minister of State, who at the present time is to be responsible for Scottish education, did not think it of sufficient importance to mention it in another place yesterday.
Mr. Stuart: As the hon. Lady knows, whatever Under-Secretary or Minister of State supervises these matters, they will still remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
Miss Herbison: I do not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman, but if that applies to education, it applies to every other thing for which this new Minister of State is responsible. Therefore, the new Minister of State must consider these other things for which he is responsible much more important than education. We in Scotland have always been proud of our education. We have always considered it to be one of the most important aspects of Scottish life. It is very difficult indeed to find out exactly what are the duties of the new Minister of State, but I think that, like the other new Ministers, his main job is co-ordinating.
500
We have also two Joint Under-Secretaries, and we are told that these new appointments will make it possible for decisions to be reached much more quickly. Without greater information from the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot see how that will happen. What is the set-up? We have a Secretary of State upon whom ultimate decisions must always rest for Scottish affairs. We have beneath him this Minister of State and, I take it, the Joint Under-Secretaries come beneath the Minister of State. When I was Joint Under-Secretary of State I had only one step to go to get a decision on some matter. What I fear is that if one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State feels that a decision ought to be reached, he must go to this new co-ordinating Minister, make his case to him, and then the new co-ordinating Minister must go to the Secretary of State, who will ultimately make the decision. If that is the case it will not lead to decisions being come to more quickly, but will lead quite definitely to decisions being hindered.
There is another point in which I am interested. We are told that the Minister of State is going to pay particular attention to the Highlands and Islands. The criticisms of the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) were most unwarranted. In the first place, the Highland Panel, which has done such very good work, was set up on the initiative of a Labour Secretary of State.
The Minister of State is going to have not only responsibility, or a watching brief, for the Highlands and Islands but also for industry in Scotland. I make the plea that my right hon. Friend made when he spoke in this debate. I come from an area in Scotland where we suffered very much indeed because our people depended on one heavy industry. Employment in that area has been greatly improved as a result of our efforts during the last six years. Whether it is the new Minister of State or the Secretary of State for Scotland, I hope as much initiative will be shown in. and as much attention given to, industry as was given by Labour Secretaries of State. I do not ask for any more initiative or attention than that. I and the people I represent will be content if we get the same initiative and attention from the new Secretary of State and from the new Minister of State.

501
In addition, this new Minister of State is to have something to do with the nationalised industries. The miners in worth Lanark will wonder what he is wing to do about the mining industry in Scotland. They will be wondering if he is going to attempt to go back to the old district basis in this industry. If he does I can assure him that there would be much criticism and great fear amongst the miners in my constituency. It may well be, as my right hon. Friend said, that he may not know what is going to be done about the nationalised industries. There have been so many statements by Scottish Tories about decentralising the nationalised industries that we feel that this was as good a wicket for the new Minister of State to bat from yesterday as any other.
The last point I want to make is this—we are told that the Minister of State is going to perform the function of meeting delegations from local authorities on housing, education and many other matters. These people who come from local authorities are people who know their subject very well. They expect to find a Minister who knows his side of the subject just as well. Is this Minister of State going to take the place of the Secretary of State or one of the Joint Under-Secretaries who usually met these delegations? The Joint Under-Secretary of State responsible for housing at least knew what he was talking about.
Is this Minister of State going to find out the whole of the background of any problem or subject that a delegation from a local authority wishes to discuss? If he does not know it, members from local authorities will be alive to that fact in a minute or two and they will demand to discuss the matter with someone who knows something about it. These are all questions on which we ought to have firm answers before we decide to allow this Vote to go through.
I come back to where I started. There are many problems in the educational world and, as a Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, one of my departments was that of education. Much of my time and energy was given to that department. As a teacher, I knew many of the education problems facing our people. I knew the Scottish educational system. Does this noble Lord know that system? Does he know very much about it, or is that one of the matters that he had to get
502
down to learning? From fear of that hard work which he must do, did he forget all about it yesterday, when he was mentioning his duties? Scottish teachers and parents, and all who are interested in education, will be very disappointed indeed that neither of the two Joint Under-Secretaries of State have been given responsibility for that subject.
The Government seem to have shown very little appreciation of the importance of education in our way of life. They have divided the other departments between the two Joint Under-Secretaries, but education was an orphan or step-bairn, of not very much importance, so they handed it to the Minister of State, alone, with all the other hypothetical duties. It is difficult indeed to find someone from among the Scottish Tories who would be greatly interested in Scottish education. I have looked very carefully into this matter. I find that of the 35 Tory Members for Scotland 21 were educated in England, and nine of them were education in Scotland. One of the Joint Under-Secretaries is one of these Members. As far as I can find—
The Chairman: I do not think that this point arises in connection with this Supplementary Estimate.
Miss Herbison: I should like to submit that this point is very relevant to the matter. The Minister of State is responsible for education. I have been trying to suggest that there is probably someone better at the Scottish Office at present to undertake this responsibility. In my researches I found that one of the Joint Under-Secretaries was wholly educated in Scotland. I believe it was in Fifeshire. I found that the Secretary of State himself has had no connection at all with Scottish education, and that the other Joint Under-Secretary at least started his education in Scotland but did not find it good enough, presumably, and so transferred to England. I have not been able to find out how many of the nine Scottish hon. Members who were educated in Scotland have taken steps to see that their families are also educated in Scotland.
Most sincerely, I have great fears about this matter of Scottish education, which is very dear to my heart, and I suggest to the Secretary of State that it will give much greater hope to those who are interested in Scottish education if the Department of Education is given to one

503
of the Joint Under-Secretaries and not left in the hands of the noble Lord.
9.0 p.m.
Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I commend the proposed appointment if only from the point of view that this will be the first time that we shall have a Minister one of whose special duties is to look after the Highlands and Islands. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), mentioned certain matters concerned with Highland development which ought to be dealt with. These are, of course, likely to be dealt with when we have a Minister whose duty it is continuously to travel round the Highlands and see the problems at first hand.
Mr. Manuel: Does not the noble Lord agree that in the past six years there has been more development in the Highlands than we have had hitherto, and is it not passing strange that this appointment should be made after we have had greater development than ever before?
Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I do not agree at all. The basic problems the solving of which will make Highland development possible have not been tackled. There is the matter of freight charges. The railways are running at an uneconomical rate. The late Government appointed a committee to inquire into freight charges and then said that nothing further could be done until 1954. Until these problems are tackled in earnest we cannot expect the Highland development which is possible.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Is not the matter of freight charges the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, and is not the noble Lord out of order in going into questions affecting the Minister of Transport, who is not concerned in the debate?
The Chairman: I have several times tried to keep the debate in order, and I thank the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) for his assistance. The Supplementary Estimate is concerned only with the salary of the Minister of State. If we rove over the whole of Scotland we shall be out of order.
Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: With respect, Sir Charles, I submit that one of the duties of the new Minister
504
will be to see the conditions which exist in the Highlands, when he will find transport looming as the biggest obstacle. He will thus have to make the strongest recommendations and must have the weight in the Cabinet to say that something must be done.
Mr. McNeil: He is not in the Cabinet.
Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Then his right hon. Friend must have weight in the Cabinet. It has been said that he has no decisive authority. The Highland Panel had no decisive authority but merely had to advise the Secretary of State. I maintain that a person who can travel round with the authority of a Minister of State will have far greater weight in the managing of Scottish affairs.
We must recognise that we have failed badly in developing the tremendous assets which we have in the Highlands and Islands, and anything in the nature of devolution, which the appointment will undoubtedly bring, is likely to bring the development much nearer. Never before have we had a Minister who had among his duties the task of looking after the Highlands and Islands. This, in itself, is likely to bring enormous development and enormous extra food production nearer reality.
9.5 p.m
Mr. Hector Hughes: So many hon. Members want to speak that I propose to make my argument very short. I am sure that the sympathy of the House will go out to the Secretary of State because of the invidious position in which he has been placed. He has been put by his Government and by his party in the position of presenting to the Committee an inchoate plan which has not been put before Members in the normal way. I am sure the Committee will agree that if this plan is of any importance, it should have been adumbrated in the form of a White Paper giving the reasons for the plan, the scheme, the machinery, and the general set-up of it. We have nothing of that sort before us.
The first we know of the plan is that the new Secretary of State comes before the Committee tonight and gives us a very bright and interesting little address, with no concrete realities in it at all—no machinery, no set-up, nothing to indicate what are to be the duties of the new Minister of State. In those circumstances,

505
the sympathy of every Member of the Committee will go out to the Secretary of State for the very invidious position in which he has been put. I submit that the Committee are not in a position to decide upon this issue at all. We have not sufficient facts before us, and until we have sufficient facts I think that this debate ought to be adjourned.
9.7 p.m.
Mr. John Rankin: There has been some expression of disapproval that this debate has been inclined, in the words of one speaker, to "rove all over Scotland," but quite frankly, that is what helps to keep it in order, because we have appointed a Minister whose function, in the words of one Member of the Government party—I think, the hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton)—is to roam all over Scotland; and I fail to see why we should not accompany him on his journey. I think it is the very terms of the appointment which have caused the Members of the Opposition in particular to follow that fruitless journey.
One interesting feature of the debate, so far as I have observed it, has been the boiling enthusiasm which has been shown on the other side of the Committee for this appointment. The silence of hon. Members opposite has been most remarkable. Only two have dared to break the Trappist vow which has been either taken by, or imposed upon, them tonight, and both those hon. Members confined—[Interruption.] I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), wants to interrupt, but I will sit down if he wants to lend a hand.
Both the hon. Members who have intervened in support of the Secretary of State —and I felt sorry for him for a long time, because he seemed to me to be, like Alexander Selkirk, left alone in an island of almost complete silence; both those hon. Members—and one of them now has disappeared—confined themselves purely to justifying the appointment on the ground that the noble Lord is to bring home Scottish affairs to the people of Scotland. Actually, their justification was on the narrower ground that the new Minister of State would look after the Highlands and Islands. That was their solitary justification.
506
Neither of the two hon. Members who have spoken from the Government side seemed to realise that for five years we have had a Highland Panel looking after the affairs of the Highlands and Islands under the very efficient chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan). That Highland Panel has now completed all the plans that are necessary and all we are waiting to see is how much money the Tory Government will give to carry out the plans which have been prepared by the Panel for improving living standards in the Highlands and Islands. The plans are there so that if that is the only justification for this appointment—so far it has not been justified by anything we have heard—although I agree with the ex-Secretary of State that our position will be not to condemn it but to watch carefully what is going to happen—
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will the hon. Member tell us also whether those plans which he said the Highland Panel had approved had been also approved by the late Government?
Mr. Rankin: Most certainly; in fact, the Highlands and Islands plans were enthusiastically welcomed by the late Government.
Mr. Stewart: Would the hon. Member be kind enough to indicate first, in what publication one could find those plans and, secondly, where one could find the precise approval of them by the late Government and their intention to carry out those plans?
Mr. Rankin: Yes, everything has been put on record in the White Paper issued by the late Government and the hon. Member can get that on application. I hope he will find time to read it, because if all rumour is true he may have occasion to spend some time on it.
I wish to remind the Committee of the place from which this novel suggestion first came. It was a place in Glasgow which is very famous—[An HON. MEMBER: "A maternity home?"] No not a maternity home. Most Scottish hon. Members, will have heard of Ibrox Park. It will not be unfamiliar to the hon. Member for Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett)—[An HON. MEMBER: "What happened there?"] Wonderful things happened there and not the least is that which we are now seeking to put into operation.

507
To that great field the present Prime Minister came on one occasion and, when he was speaking to an audience in the grandstand, someone whispered to him, "What about Scotland?" and he said "Oh, we will have a Minister of State for Scotland with full Cabinet rank." That was the first time we heard of that particular policy for Scotland and now, as far as I can gather, the idea of full Cabinet rank has disappeared. It has been buried as so many other hopes have been buried in that particular football field.
As far as I can gather—and my knowledge of the hierarchy is somewhat limited —like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who is leaving the Chamber, it has nearly disappeared. Now this office has lost some of its status and it is merely "of Cabinet rank." That is a great fall indeed. With that fall has gone other happenings as well, because we got the idea, when the Prime Minister was speaking on that evening, that there was to be some power attaching to this particular appointment. Now we learn tonight that the only thing this gentleman is to have is responsibility. He is to have no power whatsoever, and as my right hon. Friend the ex-Secretary of State has said, that does not distinguish him from an Under-Secretary of State.
An Under-Secretary of State has plenty of responsibility, but no power. This Minister is to have exactly the same thing at double the salary. That is the Tory form of economy. If there are any powers which do attach to this position could we have a direct answer to this question: Is he on a higher status than an Under-Secretary, and if so, can he give instructions to the two Under-Secretaries who exist and the three who may presently come along? I think we are entitled to an answer to that question.
I welcome this sign of activity with regard to the Scottish problem of administration. I think it will be accepted on both sides of the Committee that there is a problem. I will not enter into the legislative aspect in case I am ruled out of order, but at least I may say that there is in Scotland a problem at the administrative level. If this will help to contribute to a solution, or a partial solution, of that, then we will welcome it; but I think it is the wrong way to approach the question.
508
I agree that what we have to deal with is not the creation of another step in a new sort of hierarchy, but a devolution of the powers which already exist at the administrative level in Scottish affairs. It is along those lines that I think the problem should be approached, but that is not a subject for debate tonight, but I consider we are, as individuals, entitled to state the lines along which we believe the problem of bringing some order into Scottish administration should be tackled.
I do not welcome this appointment, but while I am critical of it I will offer no opposition to it; and in that I think I voice the feelings of most of my colleagues. We shall certainly watch, if with a measure of sympathy yet with critical eye, how this appointment will work out and in what way it will contribute to the easement of Scotland's administrative difficulties.
Mr. W. G. Bennett: I rise only to make one point absolutely clear. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), has inferred or suggested to the Committee that, because only two hon. Members on the Government side have spoken, there is perhaps some opposition. Silence on this side means consent; on the other side, there are some hon. Members who simply love to hear their own voices. With them, it does not matter whether it is for or against; they must get up and talk. We are wholeheartedly behind this appointment, and I wish to assure hon. Members opposite of that fact. We will support that view in the Lobby, if need be.
9.20 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I do not think I have listened to a more confused and vague debate than in the last hour or two on this Scottish question. Indeed, the only thing that is definite about this new Minister of State is that every week he is going to get £16 as the rate for the job, which means that he is assessed at three-quarters of an ordinary Cabinet Member. He will go into the Cabinet, I presume, as the proletariat from Scotland.
I have been searching to find out what are the motives for setting up this new Ministerial post. I believe that the main motive is simply that it was, to use an expression used by the Prime Minister, one of those that happened to be stuck into the Tory Party manifesto. The

509
Minister Designate, in his speech in another place yesterday, preened himself because this was a promise that had already been fulfilled, but the dumping of another body in St. Andrew's House, even a noble body, does not mean that an election promise has been fulfilled.
I believe that that promise to appoint a Minister of State for Scotland was stuck into that manifesto simply to appease the Nationalist sentiment that exists in Scotland. I believe it was said in the debate in another place yesterday that approximately 3½ million out of the 5 million population of Scotland had signed the Covenant, and that the Tory Party thought that here was a good chance to cash in on that Nationalist sentiment. Therefore, they stuck this proposal into their election manifesto.
I cannot see—certainly, not after the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland—any evidence at all of a carefully thought out plan on what the functions of this new Minister are to be. The noble Lord himself, the Minister designate said, in another place yesterday:
"The Conservative Party have given considerable thought to these matters over the last few years,"
and then, almost immediately after, he said:
"I think we shall have to work out this scheme as we go along."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 20th November, 1951; Vol. 174, c. 394–6]
So they have been thinking about it for years, and now they are going to feel their way.
From this side of the House, we have been asking and asking in vain what are the functions of this new Minister of State. I have been through the files of "The Scotsman" to find out what these functions are supposed to be, and I find that the new Minister has been referred to in these terms. He has been described as a deputy of the Secretary of State, as an ambassador-at-large, as an expediter, as a clearing house for Scottish problems —that was his own phrase—and, lastly, he has been referred to as a Scottish ginger group and brains trust rolled into one, and all this for £3,000 a year. That is another implementation of a Tory election promise to get value for money.
It is perfectly true, as the Secretary of State sid in an intervention when my hon.
510
Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) was speaking, that the new Minister is going to be in charge of education. But it was a grievous omission on the part of the new Minister in another place, when he knew that all eyes would be turned on his speech, to miss out education, one of the most important functions of any Minister either in Scotland or the United Kingdom as a whole, and we, of course, regard that as a reflection of the attitude of the party opposite to the value of education. The declared functions of the Minister of State, according to the Secretary of State in "The Scotsman" of 10th November, are as follows:
"The Minister of State will concern himself with industry and development, the Highlands and Islands and general aspects of local government, plus matters of education."
He is going to be a very busy man, especially if included in those duties he is going to tamper with the nationalised industries as well.
We on this side agree, of course, that another Minister is necessary, but if the Government are to follow the matter out to its logical conclusions, then they should also agree to the suggestion put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley), this afternoon, that we should have an extra period during the week for Scottish Questions in this House. In any case, if an extra Minister is desirable, it would surely have been infinitely better to have had that Minister in this House where he could be questioned.
We know, of course, the reasons why that appointment was not made from this House. We have only to look at the back benches on the Government side to find adequate reason for that, and, of course, another explanation is that the small majority of the Government in this House explains the lordly appointment. As "The Scotsman" quite admirably put it on 2nd November,
"The Earl of Hume will be able to attend to Scottish business here without the Conservative Whip becoming anxious about the Government majority."
As I say, we have to wait and see what this Minister is going to do. A "breeze through St. Andrew's house" is no policy at all, and the Ministers now sitting on the Government Front Bench will be sitting on that egg until next Easter. We must wait and see what develops between now and then, and, meanwhile, we will

511
accept the assurance of the Minister of State Designate given in the other place that he means well.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. John Wheatley: On this occasion when we are discussing for the first time in this Chamber, the establishment of a new Minister in Scotland, it is rather surprising, and perhaps disturbing, that so little information and support have been forthcoming from the Government benches. We started off with what I might describe as a rather jejune statement from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was certainly characterised by a lack of circumstantiality, and there has been a very limited and certainly not vocal support from a few of the back benders opposite who do not normally intervene in constitutional matters.
Those of us with experience in previous Parliaments waited in vain for a flood of oratory from certain notable Members on the Government Benches, and I wondered where was the militant nationalism of the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel GommeDuncan), a nationalism which apparently is not appreciated by official national parties in Scotland. And where was the voice of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), himself a previous Secretary of State for Scotland and a Member who took on his broad but unfortunately unofficial shoulders the responsibility a fortnight ago of explaining his party's policy in the House with particular reference to the new Minister of State?
Remarkably silent was the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), whose racy contribution was greatly awaited, bearing in mind his staunch Conservatism which frowns upon anything new and untried. But most significant of all perhaps has been the nonintervention of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), whose discursive reviews of the debates are of great assistance to those charged with the duties of winding up; and I am sure the Secretary of State for Scotland will be very much regretting that he did not have the assistance of his hon. Friend.
We heard nothing even from the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T.
512
Moore), whom we are glad has been able to return to his Parliamentary duties along with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel). We were surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr was not here to give us the benefit of his views. The Committee knows that at this time of the year he cannot plead a headache which necessitated his taking an Ascot powder.
Why should there be this silence? Is it because of some new discipline in the Tory Party, or is it because in their heart of hearts they have no confidence in the creation of this new Office? We on this side are not prepared to condemn this new creation out of hand. We think it right to give it a fair trial, reserving our right to criticise or approve it or, if occasion arises, to applaud it according to the results.
But to get a proper judgment we must know more about it. Not only we here but the people of Scotland are anxious to know more about it, and I hope we shall get the information from the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with my hon. Friends that when this proposal was first put forward by the Tory Party in Scotland it seemed to be in pursuance of an effort to allay criticism and to solicit support from the nationalist body in Scotland. Doubts were entertained as to whether this was merely a piece of window dressing or a serious attempt to improve the administration of the Government in Scotland.
That no detailed consideration had been given to the status, powers and responsibilities of the new Minister is evidenced by the lack of information on those topics on each and every occasion this appointment has been discussed. I would repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Fife. West (Mr. Hamilton) said, that even the Minister himself yesterday in another place was obviously quite deficient in knowledge of what was involved in this appointment when he said:
"I think we shall have to work out this scheme as we go along."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, House of Lords, 20th November, 1951; Vol. 174, c. 396.]
We have been told the new Minister has been charged by the right hon. Gentleman with certain particular responsibilities for the welfare of the Highlands and Islands.

513
In two interventions which came from the Government back benches, one from the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll and another from the hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcom Douglas-Hamilton), an effort was made to suggest that the appointment of a Minister of State was necessary in order that the proper stimulus should be given to the Highlands and Islands Advisory Panel—a stimulus which they said was lacking in previous administrations.
Might I remind them and all hon. Members opposite—since they are not here, presumably they will at least have the courtesy to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT what I am saying—of what the "Inverness Courier" said on this subject in 1948. May I also, for the benefit of hon. Members who do not know very much about the various newspapers in Scotland, impress upon them that the "Inverness Courier" is not a Labour paper. It says:
"We consider it only fair to state that the present Secretary of State for Scotland "—
at that time my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn)—
"and his two predecessors in office, all of them Socialists, have proved themselves much more genuinely interested in the welfare of the Highlands than any of their predecessors in the last 50 years."
It ill becomes these two Members who pretend to have an interest in the Highlands to close their eyes to the great work which has been going on in the Highlands during the past six years under the administration of the Labour Government, and to suggest that the Highlands and Islands were so neglected by Secretaries of State in the Labour Government that the appointment of a Minister of State was necessary in order to provide proper attention for that purpose.
Lord Malcolm Douglas - Hamilton: Since the areas of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty were allocated as an industrial site, how many industries have been brought there?
Mr. Wheatley: The responsibility for taking industry into the Highlands under the development plan is that of private enterprise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members ought to familiarise themselves with the structure of these schemes before they dissent from what I am saying.
Lord Malcolm Douglas - Hamilton Lord Malcolm Douglas - Hamilton rose—
Mr. Wheatley: May I just finish? Accordingly, if the responsibility lies anywhere it lies with private enterprise which was not prepared to go into that area. There is an aliveness and a virility in the Highlands and Islands today which were seriously lacking under previous Tory administrations. However, I think that what I have said is sufficient to indicate quite clearly that the charge that it was necessary to have this Minister of State with special responsibilities for the Highlands and Islands because of the neglect of duty in the past by Socialist Secretaries of State, is completely unfounded.
According to the information which we can obtain from devious sources and as a result of much research, it appears that the further duties of the new Minister-Designate are to ensure the orderly development of Scottish industries. We would like a little more information on how he is going to do that, in relation not only to the nationalised industries but also to private industries. One also gathers that the new Minister is to ensure close relations with the local authority and he is to be largely resident in Scotland so that he will be an the spot. I would just repeat my right hon. Friend's comment on the unfortunate ambiguity of that particular phrase.
There seems to be some doubt even in the minds of hon. Members opposite as to where this Minister is going to be, because according to our information from the Press and other sources, he is to be largely resident in Scotland, in St. Andrew's House, to meet deputations, to deal with the various Departments and to carry out in St. Andrew's House the duties which would otherwise be carried out by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Highland Members of the Government party seem to think he will spend his time peregrinating about the Highlands.
Mr, James H. Hoy: On a bicycle?
Mr. Wheatley: I am not sure how he will get about, and a bicycle has a rather unfortunate connotation. I presume that he would have some other form of locomotion. He cannot be in both places at one time, and what we want to know

515
from the right hon. Gentleman is this: will the new Minister spend a considerable part of his time traversing the country or will he spend the bulk of his time in St. Andrew's House?
Great publicity has been given to the creation of this new office. My right hon. Friend exposed the weakness of all that Press information. Had it taken place in America it might have appropriately been described as ballyhoo. I am surprised that one surprising item of publicity has been omitted. A former Secretary of State for Scotland, many years ago, said that the normal habitat of the Secretary of State for Scotland was a sleeper between Edinburgh and London, the only additional furnishings being two geranium pots and a framed motto on which were inscribed the words, "Home sweet Home." I understand that the geranium pots are now to be found on either side of the entrance to St. Andrew's House and the framed motto, "Home sweet Home," on the outer door of the Minister's office. There is some dispute whether the wording will be more appropriate if painted in blue or if done in fretwork.
We want much fairer and fuller information on various points. We want to know more fully the place of this new Minister in the Government heirarchy. We want to know his responsibilities and functions. We want to know more fully his powers and we want to know about his answerability to Parliament, either direct or vicariously. My right hon. Friend has posed questions about the new Minister's status in relation to the Cabinet and the Cabinet committees. If both he and the right hon. Gentleman are present at the Cabinet—he in his own right, as the Prime Minister indicated this afternoon, and the Secretary of State in his own right—which of them speaks for Scotland; and if they have divided voices, whose voice will carry the day?
I can only repeat the question posed by my right hon. Friend. Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the Committee in what respect the duties, responsibilities and powers of this new Minister differ in any way from those of an Under-Secretary of State? An endeavour has been made to place him somewhere between the junior and senior Ministers,
516
and it seems to me that the only description which would tit is a sort of Ministerial teen-ager, but we have to know exactly where to any extent his duties and responsibilities differ from those of an Under-Secretary.
We also want to know whether he has power to make independent decisions. If so, has he the power to do so in all cases? If he has not the power to do so in all cases, but only in some, we want to know which. If he makes decisions on the spot, which apparently is the idea which has been percolating through the various channels, and these decisions are contrary to the views of the right hon. Gentleman or the Government, what is the position? Will there be prior consultation between him and the right hon. Gentleman or the Under-Secretaries of State on matters of policy before he makes these decisions? Or is he to be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West, indicated, an ambassador at large with plenipotentiary powers? We are entitled to know these things, and to know exactly where the answerability lies.
If at conferences he makes decisions which are to be challenged in Parliament, is the right hon. Gentleman, and the right hon. Gentleman alone, the person who will be answerable in Parliament for them? This will put the Secretary of State for Scotland in a very awkward position—or may do so—because, by giving these alleged powers to the new Minister it may be that not only are the Government derogating from the existing powers of the Secretary of State, but making him responsible for decisions which were not his decisions but those of a Ministerial colleague of an apparently co-equal status.
If he is to have meetings with the local authorities in Scotland to discuss matters such as housing, health, education, local government, or with the National Farmers' Union in Scotland to discuss agricultural matters, or with the various fishery associations to discuss fishery matters, is he going to relieve the right hon. Gentleman and his Joint Under-Secretaries of all responsibility in these matters, or are they still to retain the responsibility of meeting delegations from these bodies?
If the result of this appointment is to make the one Minister in Scotland who

517
meets these bodies the new Minister of State, that system will deprive the Secretary of State and the Joint Under-Secretaries of the direct and intimate contact with these bodies and their problems which are of inestimable value to any Scottish Minister, and particularly when these Ministers have to come to Parliament to discuss in Parliament these particular problems. They will be deprived of that intimate knowledge which is so invaluable, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, in the circumstances, this is wise. There is just the danger that this new procedure may isolate the other Ministers, and particularly the Secretary of State, from real contact with Scotland.
It has been said that he will have close contact with industry in Scotland. That will embrace, presumably, not only the nationalised industries but private industries. We know that the new Minister has already attended a meeting of one board of a nationalised industry in Scotland. If he is acting as the Government representative, and as a Minister with full power, at those meetings, putting forward Government policy, is he then representing the Secretary of State for Scotland or some other Minister in the Government? If he attends meetings of the Gas Board or the Electricity Board, is he representing the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Fuel and Power? We are entitled to know that.
If he goes to a meeting of one of the other various industrial bodies in Scotland is he there representing the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Labour—or, perhaps, the Minister of Supply or the President of the Board of Trade? These things are important for this reason, that we are entitled to know whose representative he is on these occasions, because if there is answerability to the House of Commons we want to know whether to put Questions down to the Secretary of State or to these other Ministers. Has this point been thought out, or is that something that will be discussed as things go along and take their course?
So, too, with the question of transport in relation to the Highlands and Islands. If, as a result of his meetings with the Highlands and Islands Advisory Panel, the new Minister-designate puts forward Government policy that is accepted and carried out by that Panel in pursuing
518
their investigations into Highland matters, will the person who will have to accept responsibility for that in the House of Commons be the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Transport, or will they both have to await the decision of the Co-ordinating Secretary of State in another place?
There is only one other point which I should like to ask in relation to the Estimates themselves. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at the Estimates, he will see that there is an Estimate of £1,260 in respect of the salary of the new Minister, less a saving on other salary items of £1,250, leaving a net amount of £10. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Committee where the savings on the other salary items are taking place?
Finally, may I say that before we can approve of this Estimate we must get a much clearer and comprehensive picture as to the functions, duties, responsibilities and answerability of the new Minister? If the experiment proves successful, then in the interests of Scotland we shall give it all due credit. If it advances Scottish administration, then no doubt, as in the case of other improvements which have been tried and found worthy of carrying on, this will be carried on by successive Governments—such as the Highlands and Islands Advisory Panel—because at the end of the day we are all thinking what is the best for Scotland, and we want to give this a fair trial.
If the right hon. Gentleman should succeed, we shall be very pleased indeed in the interests of Scotland, but we reserve the right to exercise fair and full judgment on the experiment, and, in order to do so, we must have an answer to the various questions which have been posed in the course of this debate.
9.52 p.m.
Mr. J. Stuart: I think that we have had quite a full discussion on this Estimate. I have endeavoured frequently to explain the intention of the Government in appointing this new Minister of State, but I will, of course, do my best to answer the questions put to me during the course of the debate.
I would say, at the outset, that the real point, I think, in having this new Minister may be defined by saying that in him we hope to have a Minister resident in Scotland, as I said in my opening

519
remarks, because, for well-known reasons, the Secretary of State cannot always be in Scotland himself. We do, therefore, genuinely hope and believe, not that this is a bit of window-dressing, but that it will lead to better administration and to more speedy decisions in many realms of our Scottish affairs. I must, however, reiterate that in all these things the Secretary of State for Scotland, whoever he may be, must and does retain the responsibility for all the Departments which come within the Scottish Office.
I would like to clear up one possible misunderstanding with regard to my noble Friend, which was referred to earlier, I think by the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil). I do not wish to misinterpret anything he said in any way about the unfortunate fact, in his view, of the debate in another place taking place before this matter had been first discussed in this House. I say, quite frankly, that it was not the desire of my noble Friend, and that the debate in another place was due entirely to the fact that a Motion was put down by a noble Lord, Lord Calverley, who sits on the Labour benches, and it was, of course, necessary to make a reply.
Mr. McNeil: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. Perhaps he will correct me if I was wrong. If there was any attempt by the normal methods to have a debate on a Motion put down by a noble Lord on our side of the House deferred then, of course, I owe the right hon. Gentleman an apology.
Mr. Stuart: I did not mean that. I do not want it to be thought that my noble Friend was trying to stage a debate in another place in order to discuss his own functions. It came upon us in that way because this Motion had been put down for discussion yesterday.
A number of points have been raised this evening, some of which I should like to answer. The presence of the Minister of State in another place has been referred to, and I think it is right and proper that a Minister for Scottish affairs should be able to report and handle them in the other place. It is an additional advantage to have my noble Friend occupying his new position there. It has not always been possible to achieve this, and it is very satisfactory that it should be so now.
520
The right hon. Gentleman, in talking about my noble Friend's responsibilities and functions, seemed to indicate as did other speakers, that he was in the position of an additional Under-Secretary. I want to make it quite clear that that is not so. The two Joint Under-Secretaries of State are sitting on the Front Bench with me tonight. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) has been charged, as has been the case in the past, with housing, health, police, fire and those particular aspects of our administration. My hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) is dealing with agriculture, forestry, and fisheries.
My hon. Friend the noble Lord omitted yesterday to refer to the fact that he is responsible for education; but he was charged with that originally. He has had a number of discussions and conferences already in the Scottish Office on the subject. It is unusual for a Government to be criticised for acting with speed in carrying out its programme, and as Secretary of State I am content that I should suffer the criticism that in the Scottish Office we are making headway already.
Mr. Wheatley: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the functions of the Joint Under-Secretaries and of the Minister of State, will he explain what is the difference between the functions in regard to their respective Departments?
Mr. Stuart: The new Minister of State has an over-riding or full supervision under the Secretary of State. He is now being asked specially to handle education and the Highland and Islands' problem. We have not yet come to the end of the improvements which we hope to make in connection with our Scottish administration, but I do not think that it would be in order for me to go into them at this stage. I can assure the Committee that we have other proposals in view which we hope will further improve our affairs.
Mr. McNeil: I know that this is all new and we are anxious to understand it, but if the Minister of State has a disagreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) as head of the Scottish Home Department—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is hypothetical."] It is not. It happens in all kinds of administration. Does the

521
Minister of State, in that case, take the decision as Minister of State or does he by-pass himself and go to the Secretary of State? How can he supervise and be Departmentally responsible at the same time.
Mr. Stuart: I did say that the Secretary of State must retain responsibility, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that very well because he had to do it himself. The Under-Secretaries of State handle specific subjects, and in the event of any difference arising between the Minister of State and an Under-Secretary of State the matter would, of course, go to the Secretary of State for decision.
Mr. McNeil: Then they are all equal.
Mr. Stuart: The Minister of State is not equal to an Under-Secretary. He is a Minister of the kind whom we used to call "above the line." He is a Privy Councillor and he has access to Cabinet Ministers. He is there to help in handling affairs in Scotland as expeditiously as possible.
It does not mean that he takes major decisions without reference to me, any more than it would be possible for me, as Secretary of State, to take certain major decisions without reference to the Cabinet. It seems to me that a great many difficulties are being thought up. I have a sincere belief that this arrangement will lead to quicker decisions and to an improvement in administration. It is too early to say. We must see how the thing works, but I have no reason to suppose there will be any more friction between the new Minister of State and the Secretary of State than there has been in the past between the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State.
I was asked whether the Minister of State would handle all deputations in St. Andrew's House himself. I am going North at the end of this week, all being well, and I have meetings to carry out there myself. If an Under-Secretary were in Scotland at the time, and there was a meeting with the National Farmers' Union or the Scottish Development Council, there is no reason why he should not be present, as well as the Minister of State or myself, if I were there. It will help in meeting on the spot deputations or representatives of local authorities, so as to handle these matters more expeditiously.
Mr. Hector Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has said that there are other features about this new office of State which are not before the Committee and which may emerge at a later stages, Does he not think it is very improper and wrong to bring an incomplete scheme of this kind before the Committee, and should it not be postponed until all the definitions of the appointment are made clear?
Mr. Stuart: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I was not referring to the new Minister of State but to other possible improvements, quite apart from them.
I was asked whether the Minister of State had any particular functions with regard to industry, and to whom Questions should be put. He will meet and acquaint himself with the various problems. He is not to be confined and imprisoned within St. Andrew's House, but he will go round the country and have meetings outside so as to acquaint himself with our problems. I hope to do as much of it as I can myself in such periods of the year as the Sittings of Parliament will permit, but, for obvious reasons, it will not always be possible for me, in present circumstances, to leave London in the middle of the week.
As regards transport Questions, until legislation is passed by this House affecting any of these industries, whether they be nationalised or otherwise, Questions asked on those affairs will be put down to the appropriate Minister in the ordinary way, as has been done up to date. There is no legislation or anything else before the House at the moment in any way affecting that.
Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman has adumbrated some further developments consequent on the proposed change. Will a comprehensive picture of all the consequent developments proposed for Scotland be produced, in due course, in the form of a White Paper?
Mr. Stuart: I have not thought about that. This is only one step—"one step enough for tonight"—but we may reach that stage later. I shall be very glad to consider such a proposition.
I hope that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), will forgive me if I say that I thought he was unduly pessimistic. I do not foresee innumerable

523
disagreements among the Scottish team. We have all worked together in the past and I hope and believe we shall be able to do so in the Scottish Office in the future. At any rate, I sincerely believe that the proposal is well worth a trial, as I personally think it will be helpful.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), asked whether the Minister of State dealt with all Departments. The answer is that he will interest himself in, and assist in the handling of, all Departments. I believe I have already answered that point.
Mr. Manuel: With regard to United Kingdom Departments for transport and other matters relating to the welfare of the Highlands and Islands, how will the right hon. Gentleman approach problems when the ultimate responsibilities are outwith Scotland?
Mr. Stuart: As the hon. Member knows, there is the Panel, and the Minister of State will meet its members at a very early date. That is very important. If, as the hon. Member said, so many of these matters are for Ministers outside the Scottish Office, it is not in any way—both my predecessors will agree—outwith the realms of possibility that a Secretary of State for Scotland should endeavour to bring some pressure to bear on other Departments.
Mr. Manuel: But can the Minister of State?
Mr. Stuart: The Minister of State can discuss his views with me, and I hope we shall find ourselves in accord upon such matters. I was coming to that point and had not meant to omit it.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), referred to the omission of reference to education from the speech of the Minister of State yesterday. I have dealt with that. I can assure her that the Minister of State was informed some time ago, because I was responsible for informing him. The hon. Lady also asked if the Under-Secretaries need go to the Minister of State before going to the Secretary of State. The answer is that when the Under-Secretaries and I are in London, as we are at the moment, it is much simpler and speedier for them to come to me. There is, therefore, no need for them to go to the Minis-
524
ter of State before going to the Secretary of State, but the Minister of State will he informed of any decisions which are made.
I hope I am answering the various points to the satisfaction of the Committee. As one hon. Member remarked, I have not had a great deal of practice in the art, but I took some notes and the Committee will be glad to hear that I am gradually ploughing my way through them. The hon. Lady, who is not now present, also referred to the educational qualifications of the Scottish Members on this side of the Committee. I do not wish to go out of order, Sir Charles, but I only say to her that I believe it is possible to be educated outside of Scotland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Only just."] I am not claiming to be a highbrow myself, but I know many hon. and right hon. Members in the House who have been very well educated, even in England. I do not think that that is a terrible disaster—at any rate, let us hope for the best.
In so far as the handling of educational matters in Scotland is concerned, as I have already indicated, we have not yet completed a scheme for the re-organisation and improvement of Scottish administration, and I hope that before we are very much older we shall be able to bring another improvement before the House.
Mr. Ross: We are quite satisfied so long as we do not get the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn).
Mr. Stuart: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) for his sympathy. I always welcome sympathy and good wishes, as I feel that I may require a good deal of them.
I hope I have answered, in the main, all the points which have been raised. I do not want to repeat myself, but I do not see many points which I have not answered. The right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley), in winding up the discussion from the Opposition benches, referred to the fact that my hon. Friends behind me and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) had not taken part in the debate. But surely hon. Members opposite do not want approval to be repeated. I am glad to say that right hon. and hon.

525
Members on this side approve of the suggestion which is now before the Committee, and we do not want simply a repetition—I am trying to avoid it myself. The right hon. and learned Member asked me some very fair questions on the subject, and I have, I hope, endeavoured to answer most of them.
It is as well that a great many of my hon. Friends did not speak, otherwise it would have taken us a very long time to get this Supplementary Estimate. We have already had a considerable debate, of great interest. One thing, however, I must repeat: I believe that this proposal we are making is a good one and that it will help in the better administration and control of our Scottish affairs. At any rate, I am sure that it is well worthy of being given a fair trial, and I hope that the Committee will now agree to give us the Supplementary Estimate.
Mr. McNeil: The right hon. Gentleman has been very patient and courteous, and I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friends when I acknowledge that. May I press him upon one point, however, and upon one point only? The noble Lord threatened, or promised, yesterday, in the debate in another place, more legislation, more Measures, affecting nationalised industry in Scotland, and seemed to infer a relationship of his office to these changes. Are we right to assume that the Government are not anticipating at this stage any other measures affecting the nationalised industries than those about which we have already been told —steel and transport—and has the Minister of State, as presently anticipated, any relationship to these changes in Scotland?
Mr. Stuart: I think I can answer the right hon. Member. At present, there are no proposals for dealing with nationalised industries, apart from steel and transport, but the right hon. Member should not be surprised if, in the course of this Parliament, other proposals were produced at a later date affecting other industries.
Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Scottish Home Department, and the
526
salary of a Minister of State; expenses in connection with private legislation; expenses on, and subsidies for, certain transport services; grants in connection with physical training and recreation, coast protection works, services in Development Areas, etc.: grants and expenses in connection with services relating to children and young persons and with probation services; certain grants in aid; and sundry other services.
Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow.
Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS
Considered in Committee.
[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
Resolved,
That, towards making good the supplies granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1952, the sum of £88,421,490 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.
Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
Lords Message [20th November] relating to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, be considered forthwith. —[Mr. Drewe.]
Lords message considered accordingly.
Select Committee of six Members appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, together with the Memoranda laid and any representations made with respect thereto under the Act, in the present Session.
Captain Duncan, Mr. Forman, Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson, Mr. Janner, Mr. Keeling and Mr. Oliver.
Power to send for persons, papers and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House.
Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Drewel]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

GREAT WEST ROAD (TRAFFIC)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Heath.]
10.18 p.m.
Mr. Reader Harris: I wish to begin by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport for the courtesy he has shown by coming here tonight to reply to the matter I wish to raise.
I wish to detain the House for a few moments about a matter which is causing a great deal of alarm and despondency in my constituency of Heston and Isleworth. I refer to the Great West Road which runs through the northern half of my constituency. It also runs through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) who may have a word or two to say about it in a few moments.
The point I desire to raise is the fact that the Great West Road, in the view of my constituents, is becoming something of a danger. They feel about it so strongly that in the course of the last week or two some hundreds of them got together in a local hall and voiced their protest. The general feeling is that traffic tends to move along the Great West Road too fast for the safety of the residents. Most of the road which runs through my constituency is flanked by houses, though other parts are flanked by factories. The residents in the houses flanking the road feel unsafe whenever they wish to cross the road, which they have to do because the road, so to speak, bisects the community.
There are eight or nine crossings on the Great West Road at which the traffic is regulated by traffic lights. These traffic lights are in themselves not particularly satisfactory, though I will say a word about that presently. The main trouble is that the traffic going along the road goes so fast in between the traffic lights—and I would say that the traffic lights are on average about half a mile to three-quarters of a mile apart—that when the traffic lights turn red against the traffic a large number of vehicles just do not trouble to pull up.
When a vehicle is travelling 50 or 60 miles an hour and the driver sees the
528
lights go yellow it is an intolerable nuisance to have to pull up; so what he always does is to put his foot down on the accelerator and increase his speed to 65 or 70 miles an hour and hope to beat the lights. This beating of the lights goes on so persistently that not only are my constituents getting alarmed about it, but I am getting alarmed as well. I am afraid that unless something is done there may be a by-election in Heston and Isleworth —and in Spelthorne as well, because my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) has to travel along the Great West Road to get to his constituency. And it may well be that there are a number of other hon. Members who have to travel along the Great West Road to get to their constituencies or their homes.
This beating of the lights is becoming quite intolerable. I have been nearly killed when travelling in my own small car when I go across various crossings notably the one where the Lampton Road crosses the Great West Road, and where Vicarage Farm Road crosses, and where Victory Road crosses. They are three particularly bad spots. The distance between the traffic lights is just sufficient for vehicles to be able to get up a really good speed and that is why they are—
Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Are there no police patrols? This is a most disturbing picture which the hon. Member is painting, and it would appear that the Home Office ought to be represented here as well.
Mr. Harris: The police patrols are relatively few and far between. As the hon. Member will know there is a great shortage of police, but I will say a word about the police in a moment. My main worry is the vehicles beating the lights. The distance in between the lights is just enough for them to be able to get up a really good speed, and that is why though there may not be a very large number of accidents, often there is very nearly an accident, and occasionally one does occur.
I have five points which I wish to make this evening. The first is that the residents of Heston and Isleworth would very much like to see a speed limit along, at any rate, part of the road. I am not suggesting a speed limit along the whole of it, as it is a main artery and a lot of traffic does go along that road. But if we could have a speed limit along the

529
part from the Osterley Hotel to Vicarage Farm Road it would be of great assistance to the residents in my borough.
If it is not possible to have a speed limit on that part of the road I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is possible for a roundabout to be constructed at the Lampton Cross-roads. There is a fair amount of land available at that spot and it would be physically possible to build such a roundabout. We note with interest, and with some pleasure, that a roundabout has recently been constructed on the extension beyond the Great West Road, on the Bath Road up from Cranford, and a roundabout does have the effect of slowing down the traffic.
A further suggestion which I would put to the Parliamentary Secretary is that if possible the traffic lights should be moved back away from the crossings. At the moment the traffic lights are hard on the crossings and the traffic, when it does pull up, is right at the very edge of the crossings. So when my constituents cross the road, when the lights are against the traffic and in their favour, they have to walk with their coats brushing the radiators of vehicles which are lined up like a lot of chariots waiting for the word to go, and to rush off at the moment the lights turn yellow.
When the lights turn yellow all the cars jerk forward about a yard. It puts the "wind up" my constituents; they do not like it. If only the traffic could be held about 10 yards back, it would give them a little breathing space and enable them to cross before the vehicles are upon them. This is a most important point.
When we have got traffic like that on a main artery like the Great West Road, which has no speed limit, the psychological effect of drivers going at great speeds when the lights turn red is one of intense annoyance. They are simply fuming, and, when the yellow light comes on preparatory for the green, there is a general "revving-up" ready to go, like a lot of wild horses. It would be of great assistance, therefore, if the lights could be moved back, or the line at which the traffic must stop could be set back, in order to give my constituents a little more chance of getting out of the way.
The fourth suggestion which I would make is that it would be of great assistance if the duration of the lights
530
could be lengthened a little, so that the period of time which pedestrians are given in order to cross would be longer. At the Vicarage Farm Road crossing, the period of time on the average is 17 seconds. That may seem a long time, but it is not very long when one considers that the traffic is almost on top of where one has to walk to cross the road, and, for elderly people in particular, it is not a very long time.
My fifth suggestion is that, in two or three places, it would be desirable that there should be adult patrols. At the moment, there are adult patrols at Thornbury Road and the crossing near St. Francis's Church, because there are schools there. There has been a policeman on duty at Thornbury Road in the morning and again in the afternoon, but he is only there if his duties permit, and the local police say that there is such a shortage of police that they cannot guarantee his attendance on all occasions. We think that an extension of the adult patrol system would be of assistance.
Lastly, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would bear in mind that there is always trouble in crossing the road at Osterley Station, which is a very dangerous place. The station is built on the side of a slight incline, and vehicles coming up on the other side are quite unable to see anyone crossing the road in front of the station. This crossing was so dangerous that a railing was put up right down both sides in front of the station for about 100 yards. That meant that, if one wanted to cross the road, one had to cross a very high iron bridge, which was not a very sightly object, but was no doubt useful and may have saved some lives. It meant, however, that one had to climb steep steps, and elderly people do not use it. The solution in that case is a subway under the ground and a long sloping ramp.
Those are some of the points which I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would consider, because this is a matter which causes much disturbance to people living in that part of the borough, and I think they are acting reasonably in making some protest.
10.28 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: I want to confirm the rather sombre picture of the perils of the

531
Great West Road which the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) has painted to the House.
I do so as an ex-constituent of the hon. Member and a resident of Cranford. It was always a source of anxiety to my own wife when our children had to cross the Great West Road at Cranford, and I well remember the inhabitants of that little community frequently asking that something should be done by the Ministry of Transport. Indeed, I myself raised the matter during the period of the last Administration.
I venture, from this side of the House, to confirm the fact that the hon. Member opposite has raised a matter of real importance, and one which has caused grave anxiety to the communities which adjoin the Great West Road.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. P. B. Lucas: I should like to intervene briefly to support the plea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) because I think there is a strong case for the introduction of a 30-mile-an-hour limit along certain sections of this main road. In my constituency there are three considerable housing estates on the border of the Great West Road, the main one being opposite the site on which British Overseas Airway Corporation's resplendent building now exists. From the many letters I have received from constituents and parents living on this estate, I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that there is considerable anxiety in the public mind as to the danger to children in the neighbourhood.
There are two brief proposals which I should like to put forward. First, I would suggest that a 30-mile-an-hour speed limit be introduced for 1.42 miles eastwards from Boston Manor Road to the roundabout at the end of Chiswick High Road and, second, that traffic lights should be placed at the junction of Clayponds Avenue and the Great West Road where I consider the danger to children to be the greatest. These are two small requests and I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that he will find my constituents very grateful to him if anything can be done in this matter.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. Beresford Craddock: I should like, in just one minute, to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend, because he mentioned my constituency of Spelthorne, and because I use the Great West Road a great deal. There are two points to which I would draw attention. First, the lighting at night is particularly bad, and the road is full of "blind" spots, liable to cause serious accidents.
During the past year, I have witnessed some very dangerous occurrences, and although there is an Order which rules that no motorist, except during fog or snow shall use a fog lamp which is more than two and a-half feet from the ground, one invariably sees vehicles with both headlamps on, and a fog lamp blazing. That is probably due to the bad lighting, but more attention to the regulation in this respect would help the very dangerous conditions at night.
10.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): On yesterday's Adjournment Motion, the House discussed affairs on our railways; to-night, we turn to matters concerning our roads, and may I say at once to my hon. Friend who raised this matter that he has placed me in familiar territory because this great highway is the gateway to the West Country, leading to Reading, Newbury and Marlborough, and across the Wiltshire downs to Bath, until the traveller reaches his desired goal in the fair city of Bristol.
But it is the "upper reaches," if I may use that term, to which we turn our attention to-night. Hon. Members will know that this is one of the earliest of the arterial roads to be constructed in this country; it was built shortly after the First World War, and designed to avoid the narrow and congested streets of Brent-ford and Hounslow. Throughout the length of the road in my hon. Friend's constituency of Heston and Isleworth, there are dual 30-feet carriageways, cycle tracks and footpaths. It carries an enormous volume of traffic, and although the last complete census was as long ago as 1938, the figure then was 33,946 tons in every 16-hour day, both commercial and private; and pilot censuses taken since the last war suggest that there has

533
been a sizeable increase even on those figures.
There are traffic signs at Syon Lane, Wood Lane, Thornbury Road, Lampton Road, Sutton Lane and Vicarage Farm Road. During the two years 1949–50 there were 24 accidents, six of which proved fatal, involving pedestrians; and 184, of which five proved fatal, to other road users. During the past six months there have been 10 accidents involving injuries to children, but only two of these were to pedestrians, one of them at school time, and seven involving pedal cyclists, and the House will be glad to know that none of these proved fatal.
I will now take the hon. Gentlman's suggestions seriatim. The first was that from the Canal Bridge to Vicarage Farm Road there should be a 30 miles an hour speed restriction. To impose a speed limit on this main arterial road, possessing as it does a dual carriageway, cycle tracks and foot paths, would run counter to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Road Safety. While all accidents are deplorable, the record of this highway compares favourably with others of its kind, and a speed limit on this two-mile stretch would not be justified.
Indeed, were it to be imposed the traffic might well be thrown back through Chiswick and Hounslow, thus defeating the whole object of the construction of this arterial. Pedestrians have only to look out from one direction, and traffic signals are placed at all important intersections. I must inform my hon. Friend that no representations have reached the Ministry of Transport for some years now regarding the imposition of a speed limit on this length of road.
My hon. Friend's second proposal was for a roundabout at Lampton Road crossing, and he told us that the land was available. Yes, but it is extremely expensive land to acquire and would need a very large financial outlay. Nor is it believed to be justified. as all the other important junctions are signal controlled.
I now turn to the proposal that the traffic lights might be set back in each direction at each crossing because of the difficulty which pedestrians find when the lights turn green. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that the Ministry's standard position for the stop line at signals is six feet from the pedestrian
534
crossing, and there is no reason to depart from this standard of installation on the Great West Road. May I point out that to increase the distance would also increase the delay to traffic and add to congestion because it would then be necessary to lengthen the amber phase very considerably.
This, in turn, would delay opportunities for the pedestrians to cross. However, I would inform my hon. Friend that as a result of his representations on this matter the agent authority, which is the Middlesex County Council, have now been asked to set back the stop to six feet from the pedestrian crossing in four places —Thornbury Road, Lampton Road, Sutton Lane and Wood Lane, where they are at present less than that distance.
As to the question of adult patrols, or, as I prefer to call them, escorts, where children cross, there has been no demand made for these at all, except at one point —Thornbury Road—and here, as the hon. Gentleman informed us, a police officer has been stationed since the 6th of this month—possibly one of the beneficial results of the change of Administration which took place recently. This police officer has been stationed since that date at Thornbury Road at the times of school assembly and dispersal. I will check up as to whether that has been strictly observed; that is certainly our intention, and we will make representations on that score if it is not observed. The Great West Road is not considered generally suitable for the use of patrols owing to the volume and speed of the traffic.
My hon. Friend's last point dealt with the length of signal timing at crossings. The signals are set at various timings by the police, and while the red signal allows sufficient time for most pedestrians to cross the trunk road, I quite agree that there is potential danger if they are halfway over either carriageway at the moment when the signals change, as the three-second amber signal is, of course, insufficient interval for them to cross. Since my hon. Friend called my attention to this important matter, the Ministry's engineers have been reviewing the timing of the signals to consider the introduction of what is known as the "all-red phase," when the red light shows not only on the main highway but on the tributaries as well, so that all traffic is halted at cross roads.
Mr. Harris: Excellent.
Mr. Braithwaite: That is under review at this moment. It is believed that this all-red phase may prove of considerable assistance to pedestrians. It is our view that along this road the signals should be uniform, to overcome the confusion and, indeed, the danger on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, and by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), who, I think, confirmed the description of the conditions that there prevail, although I think he was talking of a stretch of the road a considerable distance further down from my hon. Friend's constituency. No doubt the conditions there are of much the same kind. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) mentioned the same point.
I will look into the matter of the road at Osterley Station, and ask for a report as to conditions there. As to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock), he did not give me notice of it, and, although I make no complaint of that, it is for that reason that I have not been able to look
536
into the question of the lighting of this road to answer him. However, I can assure him that I will look into this question—
Mr. Beresford Craddock: Thank you very much.
Mr. Braithwaite: —and that, as a result of his intervention tonight, the lighting will be gone into without delay.
The authority in this matter, this being a trunk road, lies, of course, with the Ministry of Transport. Those who have taken part in this short discussion will, I think, feel that they have served a useful purpose in raising it if I tell them that, in consequence of it, and of the approach which has been made to our Department tonight, our divisional road engineer will hold discussions without delay with the local authority and with the police, with a view to ensuring the greatest possible degree of safety upon this important Highway.
Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.

POST OFFICE
  Savings Bank Books
  Savings Bank Books
  Identity Cards (Production)
  Identity Cards (Production)
  Stamps (Colour)
  Stamps (Colour)
  Overseas Forces (Christmas Mail)
  Overseas Forces (Christmas Mail)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Cinema Projection, London
  Cinema Projection, London
  Reception, South-East England
  Reception, South-East England
  Kirk o' Shotts Station
  Kirk o' Shotts Station
  Holme Moss Station (Reception Survey)
  Holme Moss Station (Reception Survey)
  HEARING AIDS (POST OFFICE CONTRACTS)
  HEARING AIDS (POST OFFICE CONTRACTS)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, CARDIFF
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, CARDIFF
CIVIL AVIATION
  Air Services, Cairo
  Air Services, Cairo
  Passengers (Statistics)
  Passengers (Statistics)
  .280 RIFLE (U.S. REPORTS)
  .280 RIFLE (U.S. REPORTS)
  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Sugar Ration
  Sugar Ration
  Christmas Meat
  Christmas Meat
  Committee, Barking (Resolution)
  Committee, Barking (Resolution)
  Imported Food (South Wales Ports)
  Imported Food (South Wales Ports)
  Soft Fruit Prices, Scotland
  Soft Fruit Prices, Scotland
  Food Production and Consumption
  Food Production and Consumption
  Tuberculosis Sufferers (Fats)
  Tuberculosis Sufferers (Fats)
  Rations (Calories)
  Rations (Calories)
  PERSIAN STUDENTS (BRITISH AWARDS)
  PERSIAN STUDENTS (BRITISH AWARDS)
  GERMANY (WEARING OF UNIFORMS)
  GERMANY (WEARING OF UNIFORMS)
KOREA
  Cease-Fire Proposal
  Cease-Fire Proposal
  U.N. Prisoners of War
  U.N. Prisoners of War
  NIGERIA (FIRE FIGHTING RESOURCES)
  NIGERIA (FIRE FIGHTING RESOURCES)
CENTRAL AFRICA
  Federation Scheme
  Federation Scheme
  Basutoland Delegation (U.K. Visit)
  Basutoland Delegation (U.K. Visit)
  Northern Rhodesia (Immigration System)
  Northern Rhodesia (Immigration System)
WEST INDIES
  Grenada (Riot Damage)
  Grenada (Riot Damage)
  British Honduras (City Council, Dissolution)
  British Honduras (City Council, Dissolution)
MALAYA AND SINGAPORE
  Secretary of State's Visit
  Secretary of State's Visit
  Wages Council Bill
  Wages Council Bill
  TANGANYIKA (CONSTITUTION)
  TANGANYIKA (CONSTITUTION)
  FALKLAND ISLANDS (BRITISH TITLE)
  FALKLAND ISLANDS (BRITISH TITLE)
  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (COLONIAL COMMITTEES)
  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (COLONIAL COMMITTEES)
ROYAL NAVY
  Naval Ordnance Inspection Department
  Naval Ordnance Inspection Department
  Contracts (Admiralty Policy)
  Contracts (Admiralty Policy)
  Out-Workers, Portsmouth and Plymouth
  Out-Workers, Portsmouth and Plymouth
  WALES (GOVERNMENT)
  WALES (GOVERNMENT)
  ANIMAL POISONING (USE OF STRYCHNINE)
  ANIMAL POISONING (USE OF STRYCHNINE)
  HOVE TOWN CLERK'S LETTER (DELAYED REPLY)
  HOVE TOWN CLERK'S LETTER (DELAYED REPLY)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  War Damage Claims
  War Damage Claims
  Pensions (Post Office Workers)
  Pensions (Post Office Workers)
SCOTLAND
  Housing, Edinburgh
  Housing, Edinburgh
  Police Uniforms (Tax)
  Police Uniforms (Tax)
  Houses (Statistics)
  Houses (Statistics)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Married Quarters (Statistics)
  Married Quarters (Statistics)
  Roads, Lincolnshire (Public Access)
  Roads, Lincolnshire (Public Access)
AGRICULTURE
  Horse Population
  Horse Population
  Great Britain (Food Cultivation)
  Great Britain (Food Cultivation)

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

MESSAGES FROM THE KING
2.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have the honour to present two Messages from the King, signed with his own hand. The first Message is as follows:
"I have received your Addresses praying that the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and the various Defence Regulations and enactments which you specify be continued in force respectively for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two. I will give directions accordingly."
The second Message reads as follows:
"I have received your Addresses praying that the Patents (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1951, and the Registered Designs (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1951, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before Parliament. I will comply with your request."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.38 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of informing you that the Foreign Affairs debate will be interrupted al about 4 o'clock, when Lord Ismay will make a statement on the closer association of Central Africa. A further statement I have to make is that we shall continue with the Foreign Affairs debate until it is finished. In other words, we shall not adjourn for dinner but sit right on, as we did last week.

FUTURE OF BECHUANALAND
2.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government when it will be possible to report on the visits of the official observers to Bechuanaland and to announce the Government's policy in the matter.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (LORD ISMAY): My Lords, the reports of the observers who went to the Bechuanaland Protectorate in August are among the papers on Bamangwato affairs which I am at present carefully studying. Until I have made myself fully conversant with this complicated problem, I cannot make any statement on Government policy. But I hope to publish the observers' reports at an early date.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply.

THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION
2.40 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON rose to call attention to the international situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in opening this debate on the international situation, I should like to begin by offering my congratulations to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, on his appointment as Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office. I think that perhaps the noble Marquess who leads the House and I can understand better than most noble Lords the feeling of satisfaction and pride which the noble Marquess must have experienced when he found himself appointed to the great State Department in which his father served as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I will not say that I hope the noble Marquess's stay there will be a long one, because I suspect that I might be accused by noble Lords on the other side of political insincerity. What I can do is to say that I hope that his tenure of office will be as interesting officially, and as happy personally, as was my own.
The Foreign Secretary since he took over his high office has made two major speeches, both of which we welcome. There was, quite naturally, throughout the world, widespread interest in those first pronouncements of the policy to be pursued by the new Government. For six years, Labour Governments have been responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, and their principles and aims were well known; but with the change of Government there were many, not only in this country but elsewhere also, who wondered whether there would be any important change in British policy. Were we to have what is known as a strong foreign policy, and, if so, what would it involve? It seems that we need no longer wonder or speculate. We now know from the Foreign Secretary's speeches that the basic principles and aims of British policy in world affairs will not undergo any radical or material transformation. I listened to the Foreign Secretary's speech in another place on Monday, and even on Persia it seemed to me that the peaceful settlement which he hopes may be reached and the nature of that settlement correspond closely with what the late Government sought to obtain. I hope I am right in my assessment of Mr. Eden's speeches, and that the policy which he intends to follow will be substantially that to which the Labour Government sought to give effect; for on the basis of such a national policy it should be possible to have broad national unity, which would strengthen his hands in his work for peace.
There is no dispute about the cardinal problem in international affairs being the East-West division of the world. That is the root of most of our international difficulties and tensions. But I think I can say that it was not of our seeking or making. I do not believe that the primary cause of it is to be found in the opposing philosophies of East and West, though that is a factor. We have it on the authority of Premier Stalin that there is no reason why the Communist East and the free West should not be able to exist side by side. That is what we want. If we have doubts whether Premier Stalin means what he has said, it is not because we are endowed with a double dose of original sin; it is because Russia's policies and actions belie his words. We have only to look at some of the causes of the deplorable in-
406
ternational situation: frustration of peaceful progress under the United Nations because of the unreasonable use of the veto by Soviet Russia; war in Korea because of Communist aggression; the delays in getting an Austrian Treaty because of Russian obstruction; the continued denial of unity to Germany because Soviet Russia insists on keeping her iron grip on the Eastern Zone; and the costly and burdensome rearmament programme which the Western Nations have had to shoulder because of the maintenance by Russia of armed forces and armaments far in excess of peace-time requirements. This is only a part of the formidable list that could be cited.
As Mr. Eden said, it is the depth and width of the forbidding chasm that separates East and West, mentally as well as physically, that is so disheartening for the present and so alarming for the future. Somehow or other that chasm has to be bridged, somehow or other the deadlock of minds has to be broken, before we can move into a more promising international climate. The difficulty is to get at the minds of the small group of rulers in Russia who dictate policy and who alone have the power to change or modify it. For that reason I personally have come to the view that it would be a mistake to rule out altogther a meeting at what is called "the highest level." The question of the timing of such a conference, if it were found to be desirable, would obviously require careful thought. I do not imagine that any one of us would regard the immediate future as the right time. I recognise that one of the strong arguments against such a meeting is that it would, like other conferences, involve the risk of failure, and failure in this case might even deepen our anxieties. But if we find that the deadlock between East and West cannot be broken by normal diplomatic and conference methods, would it not be wise to consider whether an effort should not be made to get things moving through a meeting of national leaders?
But the need for such a high-powered effort may not arise. As the defence strength of the West increases, it may enable satisfactory results to be achieved by the method of Foreign Ministers' and other conferences called to deal with definite and limited problems. That is the method which Mr. Eden regards as most promising, on the basis of his

407
formula of "preparation, conference and agreement." That is the traditional and well-tested method of negotiating international settlements, and there is no reason to suppose it would not prove successful in these difficult times were the Soviet Government to participate with the sincere intention of collaborating for genuine agreements. I have faith to believe that if a successful start could be made along those lines on a particular problem, it might prove the beginning of a developing process that would gradually lead us all on to firmer ground. But patience and perseverence are called for. I do not think that any one of us expects any sudden change in Soviet policy or any swift transformation of the present international situation.
The Foreign Secretary has explained in another place the present state of negotiations in Korea for a cease-fire and an armistice. The position seems to be a little more hopeful than it appeared to be a short while ago. Agreement on the military demarcation line has been reached and attention is now being turned to the two questions of supervision and release of war prisoners. If success at this first stage is achieved, there will then be the opportunity to negotiate a peace settlement for Korea itself. Agreement on that would open the way for the third stage, which would be to consider other important political issues in the Far East which will still have to be settled. It would be impossible, I think, to exaggerate the relief that would be felt throughout the world if peace and co-operation were established in this important area, or the beneficial effects it would have on the relations between the Western world and the great continent of Asia. A successful outcome of negotiations on Korea and the Far East might, indeed, open the path to other agreements on problems nearer home. We share in the hope that there will be a successful outcome to the present negotiations, and that the United Nations representatives will do their utmost to assure that successful result.
My Lords, we on these Benches also wholeheartedly welcome the disarmament initiative taken by the three Western Allies. Huge armaments are not only a symptom of international tension; they are also a cause of international tension. I do not think that any of us really
408
regards massive armaments as the best way to ensure peace. I noticed in the Daily Telegraph the other day the following statement:
"There is no Western Power, least of all this country, which would not be overjoyed to be relieved of the present burden of building up defensive strength."
I am convinced that that view is true, and that it represents the feeling of all Parties in Parliament and of the people in the country. And I am sure that it is a matter for national satisfaction that His Majesty's Government have closely identified themselves with this new disarmament initiative.
In the light of post-war experience, there will be general agreement that the linking of conventional with atomic weapons is not only a sensible and constructive proposal but a necessary one if progress is to be made. What is required is a scheme that will be fair to all, will be foolproof, and will deny to all nations alike any possibility of snatching an advantage by evasion. If there is to be real disarmament, there must be confidence both in the plan and in its implementation. Disclosure, verification and control, and the proposal that each stage must be faithfully fulfilled before moving on to the next stage, go a long way to providing these necessary safeguards. The aim is an all-in and an all-fair plan for the regulation, limitation and balanced reduction of all armed forces and armaments. I feel that the three Governments deserve our thanks and approval for the practical lead that they have given at the United Nations. I hope that they will not relax their efforts to get an agreed scheme. While we must recognise both the political and technical difficulties involved, to get an arms pact would be an outstanding achievement, and one that would make a decisive contribution to the pacification of the world.
We are agreed that in existing conditions we cannot afford to let up on our defence programme. Its economic and social effects are so serious that no reasonable mind could suppose or suspect that we were undertaking it except as an imperative duty. It is a demonstrable consequence of Russia's policies and actions. We shall go on bearing the burden because we must and as long as we must, not for aggression, not for a preventive war, but to prevent war and to enable the British Government to speak

409
and negotiate on a basis of equality with Soviet Russia. We need have no doubt that that is both right and prudent. What is called "the peace-loving policy of the Soviet Union," we are told by Mr. Beria, one of the Politbureau rulers of Russia, "is based not on weakness but on strength," and the Soviet Union's "armed forces have all types of the most up-to-date weapons." How, then, can we be accused of evil intentions if we, too, seek to put ourselves in a position of strength, so long as a disarmament plan has not been agreed to and put into operation by all armed and arming Powers?
My Lords, we support the Government in their decision—which was also the decision of the late Government—to stand by the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty until some new arrangement is made for the defence of the Suez Canal and the Middle East area. It is right that the four Powers responsible for the new Middle East defence scheme should proceed with their plan, despite its summary rejection by the Egyptian Government. We are living in an anxious world in which collective defence on a regional basis, entirely in harmony with the principles of the United Nations Charter, has perforce had to be developed. The European and Atlantic Powers have found it necessary to set up the North Atlantic defence community, and the underlying reasons for that are identical with those which have led to the proposal of a Middle East defence organisation. No one in the West wishes or seeks to interfere with the sovereign rights of the Middle East countries, but, in my view, no independent nation which is a loyal member of the United Nations can evade its share of responsibility for the collective maintenance of peace or defence against potential aggression, especially when its own security is at stake.
What has been proposed in the Middle East does not involve the acceptance of any obligation which we and a large number of other independent nations have not already accepted under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. If there is to be pooled security, there must be pooled defence. We share the hope that the Egyptian Government will have second thoughts; that they will seriously examine the proposals which have been submitted to them, and that wiser counsels will prevail. As I have said, these pro-
410
posals are consistent with the principles and the basic obligations of the United Nations Charter. On the other hand, the action of the Egyptian Government in denouncing unilaterally the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty is contrary to the Charter, and I would add that loyalty to international engagements is in itself an important protection for the smaller Powers. I would also stress that the 1936 Treaty would come to an end with Egyptian acceptance of the Middle East collective defence plan.
The accusation that Britain is actuated by motives of imperialism is completely false. No nation in modern times has clone so much for the attainment of independence by other nations. I hope that Egypt and other Arab States in the Middle East have taken note of the statement made by the Pakistani Foreign Minister last week at the United Nations General Assembly. The words of this distinguished Moslem statesman must surely carry some weight. In the course of his speech Sir Zafrullah Khan pointed to the courageous example of Britain which, he said, had shown a measure of political faith unprecedented in constitutional history in having agreed to the creation of the sovereign States of Pakistan, India, Burma and Ceylon. Arab states in the Middle East will no doubt remember similar helpful action nearer home by this country. There is one hard fact which neither the Egyptians nor the Western nations can afford to ignore. It is certain that, without British help on a massive scale, Egypt would have been overrun and laid waste in the late war, and it is simply illusory to believe that Egypt, which occupies a key position in the Middle East area, could in the reasonably foreseeable future build up and maintain defences which would give her security from a major military aggressor.
That position is not peculiar to Egypt. It applies to other countries which have not hesitated to join in collective defence efforts for their mutual security. No question of derogation of sovereign rights has been involved. I am sure that we all realise what a serious thing it would be if the nations co-operating for the collective defence of the Middle East were faced, not only with a non-co-operative Egypt, but with a hostile Egypt. What we want is a friendly and co-operating Egypt, and I hope that terrorism will be

411
called off and that there may be a resumption of conversations—as there must be sooner or later—which will lead to the willing association of Egypt with her friends and allies for the benefit of the security of the whole Middle East area.
I wish now to say a word about Germany. The German problem is the clearest proof in Europe of the chasm between East and West. There is perhaps no issue upon which an agreed solution would contribute more effectively to easing the present strained situation. In view of the Paris Conference of deputies in the summer—a Conference which proved to be completely abortive—the prospects of an early agreed solution cannot be held to be bright, but there can be no doubt that what the vast majority of the German people, in the East as well as in the West, desire above all else is the unification of their country. They have a passionate longing to be together again as members of one family, living on the basis of unity with freedom. That is a very natural and understandable longing. The enforced division is, in my view, an international wrong as well as a national injustice. But unity will never be brought about so long as Soviet Russia bars the road to unity.
It remains to be seen whether a helpful step in the direction of unity will be taken as a result of the United Nations discussion on the proposal to appoint an international Commission of Investigation to determine whether conditions exist in the Federal Republic, in Berlin and in the Eastern Zone for the holding of free elections. The Federal German Chancellor has declared that the foremost object of the policy of his Government is the restoration of German unity in a free united Europe, and that such unity must come from the free decision of the German people as a whole. That has been one of the aims of the three Western Allies for a long time, and they sought to obtain agreement on it at the meeting of the four Foreign Ministers in Paris in 1949. Their efforts then were in vain, because the Soviet Government would not agree to co-operate. The present proposal would not, of course, bring unity, but it would be an important first step. Whether the Soviet delegate will continue to play according to past form, or whether he will use the opportunity to display a more co-operative attitude remains to be
412
seen. But if agreement can be reached it would be welcomed, not only throughout the whole of Germany, but also throughout Europe.
The object of Western Allied policy towards Germany was stated by the three Western Foreign Ministers after their Conference at Washington last September to be the inclusion of a democratic Germany, on a basis of equality, in the Continental European community, which itself will form part of a constantly developing Atlantic community. They also said that they would instruct their High Commissioners to negotiate mutually acceptable agreements with the Federal Government which would have the effect of completely transforming their relationship with the German Federal republic. Discussions on the European Army have since been going on in Paris, and the results of these discussions will no doubt be reported to the North Atlantic Treaty Council at its meeting in Rome next week.
But at the same time negotiations have been carried on in Bonn on the Treaty which is intended to give Germany equality. I know that there were some difficult and complicated problems to be resolved before the master agreement and the series of contractual documents could be completed. I do not know whether the major agreement has yet reached its final stage, subject to decisions which may be taken at the meeting of the four Foreign Ministers in Paris to-morrow.
It may be that what the Conference is intended to do is to discuss the points upon which agreement has not yet been reached, with a view to the Allied Foreign Ministers giving new instructions to their High Commissioners in the light of agreement on principles in Paris. I do not ask for information at this stage. I wish only to express the hope that the three Western Foreign Ministers will go as far as they can, and as speedily as they can, to bring the negotiations to a point where, to use Mr. Eden's words, we shall have approached a normal peace-time relationship with the Government of Bonn. Part of the decision at the Washington Conference was that the political agreements and the agreement for a German armed contribution to Western defence should come into force simultaneously. So far as I am aware, that is still the intention. If, however, there is to be a long interval

413
between the completion of the political agreements and the signing of the European Army treaty, that would, in my view, be a good reason for reconsidering this part of the Washington decision. Once the political agreements have been completed and signed, to delay their operation for any length of time would, I believe, seriously diminish the value of a most important political development.
I realise, of course, that these are matters on which the British voice is only one of several; but when the Western Allies, rightly, chose a policy of progressive liberalisation towards Western Germany, and rejected the policy of keeping a tight grip on a defeated enemy, they decided that German democracy was worth encouraging and supporting, and that a democratic Germany had a place in the free West. To end the Occupation, to replace the High Commissioners by Ambassadors, to transform in law the Occupation Forces into Western Defence Forces—as, indeed, is already the fact—and to give Federal Germany the status of equal partnership with the West, will be a stroke of enlightened statesmanship. I will add only that we welcome the renewal by His Majesty's Government of the invitation to Doctor Adenauer to visit this country. But for the General Election his visit would already have taken place. I believe that such a visit will have a beneficial effect on the friendly relations and growing understanding which have been developed between the two peoples.
The last point to which I wish to refer is the application of Italy for membership of the United Nations. We are in full agreement with the Government's cordial support of Italy's request. By all accepted tests Italy's rightful place is in the United Nations, and I hope that a favourable decision may be reached at the present session. I go further: I hope that we shall soon see an end to the policy of exclusion of applicants on grounds which are not in harmony with the Charter. I remember that in one of our Foreign Affairs debates—I think it must have been some time last year—the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party, or his distinguished colleague the noble Earl, Lord Perth, spoke in favour of the universality of the United Nations and deplored the vetoing of nations who wished to become members. I forget how many such States there are but they are a good number,
414
some behind the Iron Curtain and some in the free West. I believe that this exclusion is contrary to the spirit and intentions of the Charter, and that its practical effects are bad. I hope the Foreign Secretary will do all he can to put an end to this policy of exclusion, and that he will stand by the principle of universality, which can be made effective only by dealing with the accession of new members strictly on the basis of the Charter. We want neither exclusions nor horse trading on a matter which should be above disagreement and veto within the world organisation for peace.
My Lords, I realise that there are many problems which have not been touched upon; but I also realise that there are a large number of speakers to follow me. As a member of the Party which believes in fair shares for all, I hope that I shall receive some approval from your Lordships for not taking an undue amount of the time of this debate. I beg to move for Papers.
3.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has surveyed the whole field of present-day foreign affairs, as is customary on such occasions by the spokesman of the Opposition Front Bench; and he has done so with admirable concision and brevity. There have been some complaints from one or two quarters during the present Session about the inordinate length of speeches that is now sometimes experienced by your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is one of those who protested, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was another. The best after-dinner speech has been defined as one that is shorter than anyone had even dared to hope. I do not know whether the same test should apply in a speech in a legislative Chamber; but undoubtedly concision is a virtue, and undoubtedly there have been departures from it in your Lordships' House—particularly from the various Front Benches, including my own and in my own person, for I also must plead guilty. Therefore, I do not propose to attempt a complete survey and will deal with only two points.
My text for the first will be a paragraph in the gracious Speech—and this debate is really an extension of the debate on the Address, for we have postponed until to-day any special references

415
to foreign affairs. The gracious Speech said:
"My Government will faithfully support the United Nations as the World instrument for peace and security."
That seems to me to be the essence of the whole matter, and the most important thing of all is to exalt the United Nations as the one hope of securing harmony and the maintenance of peace in the world. But if it is to be a world instrument it must itself be universal; and my first point is identical with the last which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, namely the necessity of completing the membership of the United Nations. The noble Lord was good enough to refer to a speech which I made in your Lordships' House in July of last year, when I stated as fully as I could the arguments in favour of this proposal. I returned to the subject again, when the occasion offered, in September of last year, but I received at that time no support from any other quarter, inside this House or out of it, so far as I can recollect. We may find the first step to a world détente if only all the nations can be brought together to conferences of the United Nations. They could then talk among themselves and fully express their differences; and each one could be called upon, in the full glare of world publicity, to defend any actions that it may take.
At the present time, fourteen States are excluded. Immediately after the ending of the war, when the United Nations was first founded, Spain was excluded from membership, for the reason that the present régime in. Spain had been founded with the support of the Axis Powers, and was still so closely associated with those who had been the aggressor States. Those considerations have passed into the historic background. The Axis has disappeared; its very name is almost forgotten. Surely the time has come when that embargo on Spain should be lifted. In 1947, two years later, Roumania, Bulgaria and Hungary applied for membership, and they were all excluded by the votes of the Western Powers, for the reason that those countries were not observing the Charter with respect to human rights. In reprisal, the Soviet vetoed the admission of Italy, Finland, Jordan, Portugal, Eire, Austria and some other States. The present Government of
416
China has been excluded, and the seat allocated to China in the Security Council is held by the so-called National Government of China, although that Government represents no part of China except the island of Formosa. With respect to the exclusion of States for the reason that they are not observing the Charter on human rights, we cannot possibly enforce by international action our own ideologies in the internal politics of other countries. Although those three countries were excluded because they had undertaken by treaty to observe those civil rights, which made their non-observance an international matter, it is of very doubtful wisdom to bind nations by treaty to carry on certain internal policies and then hold them guilty of infractions of international law if they do something in their own internal affairs which we dislike and which is forbidden by those treaties. Indeed, the conception of the United Nations purports to forbid that, for one of the paragraphs of Article 2 says:
"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State …"
As to the internal treatment of their own subjects by Russia, Czechoslovakia, Poland or any of the other nations that are associated with the Soviet, I do not know that they differ in any degree from that of which Hungary, Roumania and Bulgaria have been guilty. Yet, no one would for a moment suggest expelling Russia and these other States. Why then should we exclude others which have adopted exactly the same policy? If Russia and her associates were to withdraw from the United Nations, and if the present Government in China, instead of being an applicant eager to come into the United Nations, were to refuse to come in, that would be the greatest blow which the United Nations and the world could suffer, for one half of the whole of the globe would be excluded from its purview. And just as the League of Nations collapsed, mainly, because the United States never joined and because, later on, Germany and Japan withdrew, so the United Nations would collapse because its membership was only partial and, as might be said, partisan.
Twice I have brought this matter before the House, as I have said, with no support. Public opinion, however, appears to be moving, for I read in a leading

417
article in The Times only a few days ago paragraphs deprecating these exclusions and counter-exclusions and using these words:
"There is a strong case for abandoning this undignified bargaining … and for agreeing to admit all nations who can fairly claim to be independent and who are not engaged in a war of aggression."
Evidently that means China in present circumstances. But as soon as the Korean question is settled, undoubtedly the seat which belongs as of right, under the terms of the Charter, to China—that is, to China, not to any particular Government of China—must be occupied by the Government which is governing practically the whole of that vast territory.
Then there is the statement made two days ago by the Foreign Secretary on this very point, and I venture to quote it at length—it is well within the rules of Order in this House—because it is of the utmost importance to this question and to the whole situation. Mr. Eden said:
"We in this House and in this country deeply regret that Italy is still excluded from the United Nations where, by every standard, she deserves a seat. We shall continue to do our utmost to secure her admission."
When an honourable Member interrupted to say
"And others too."
Mr. Eden replied:
"Yes, and others."
He went on:
"I approach these problems with a new mind and I agree with the honourable Member. I have certain views about this problem, which I am not going to put forward this afternoon. I will let them develop a little bit. It is desirable to have others, but I do not like bargains of that kind very much. I should like to see the United Nations much more representative than it is at the present time. How that can be done is a matter on which I am not going to embark at the present time."
Last night the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs returned to the point, reasserted his view and re-emphasised what he had already said. I am sure that those who share these opinions will be greatly encouraged by the forthright statement which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in which he is clearly speaking on behalf of the powerful Party which he represents here to-day. I venture to ask the Government and, more particularly, the Leader of the House, Lord Salisbury, who is himself one of the founders of the United Nations,
418
having been at the San Francisco Conference together with Mr. Eden, whether he thinks there is any prospect of carrying into effect a policy such as has been adumbrated both by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and by myself, that of making the United Nations what it was intended to be at the outset—the Parliament of Man.
Unhappily, however much we may desire to exalt it, the United Nations has proved useless to take any military action needed in any conflict involving one of the great Powers. In the Charter, a long section of ten Articles is devoted to provision for establishing a Military Staff Committee of the United Nations, consisting of the Chiefs of Staff of the Powers represented in the Security Council. They arrange for contingents to be furnished by members whenever the Security Council think that military action is necessary. Those Sections were of great value in the case of Korea, and swift and effective action was, in fact, taken, under the magnificent leadership of the United States. But when it comes to any possible Third World War, how is it conceivable that the United Nations could take steps beforehand, through a military commission, when one member of that Commission would be the great Power which, in the opinion of the majority of the members of the United Nations, could be the only cause of a Third World War?
How can they sit down to make plans for armies and navies and an air force to put down an aggressor, when all of them know in their own minds that the possible aggressor is himself one of the members of that particular Staff Committee? In such circumstances, we have had to abandon hopes that those Articles of the Charter could be put into force, and the peace-loving members of the United Nations, the democratic members, have had to form regional organisations, or to maintain such unities as we have already achieved, the British Commonwealth itself, for example. The chief of these organisations is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation: that is the principal body to ensure joint defence in any possible world war.
Now I come to my particular point—the relationship of this Organisation to the European movement and to European Union. European Union cannot, in itself, be a substitute for the North

419
Atlantic Treaty Organisation. You may stretch the Atlantic to Turkey and Greece, but you cannot attempt so much violence to geography as to stretch Europe to cover America; and since the United States is the main factor in any measures for joint defence, it is obvious that our attention must be mainly devoted to the North Atlantic Organisation, rather than to the European Union. Nevertheless, the European Union is obviously good in itself. Anything that brings the nations together and provides for common action is an advantage to them and to the world. The European Union is a very fine conception, and it ought to receive the greatest practicable measure of support from this country. But how this Organisation is to develop is not yet clear. There must be some political organ which will have authority to carry out measures agreed upon by the members of the European Union; it cannot remain merely as it is.
It was only yesterday, I think, that we read that the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, had nominated the eighteen members to go from this country to take part in the Assembly, which is now about to sit at Strasbourg. My noble friend Lord Layton is one of the Vice-Presidents of the Assembly, and he is there at the present time, otherwise he would be addressing your Lordships, instead of myself, from this Bench. These eighteen members are nominated by the Prime Minister personally, after consultation with the other Parties. They are not nominated by this Parliament; still less are they elected by the people. They have no representative authority of any sort or kind. They go as individuals. Consequently, while the other organ of the European Union, the Council of Ministers, represents Governments, and, therefore, what they say carries authority behind it, the Assembly does not yet do so.
There is evidently a quite proper and natural desire that some more formal organisation should be established for the Council of Europe. There are three possibilities. One is that the European Union should consist of a grouping of various functional authorities—those carrying out the Schuman Plan on iron and steel; an authority dealing with transport, with inter-European trade, and
420
another dealing with currency exchange; that those should grow into one single whole, and that there should be one political authority emanating from them. That is one possibility, a functional body. The second is that there should be some kind of federal organ. That term has been very loosely used, in particular in France. It appears to mean any kind of organ that can be created, including a number of different States. That is a very loose and, as I think, improper use of the word "federal." According to political science and international lawyers, a federation is a body of States such as exists in the United States of America, Canada, Australia, the Argentine and elsewhere. It consists, in the first place, of a single body for the whole area, a Legislature elected directly by the people of the whole area, with an Executive to act for the whole area, and, simultaneously, a number of separate local legislatures and executives within the area, the functions of government being divided between the two. One has exclusively one set of functions, and the other exclusively the other set. The federation deals with foreign policy and defence, army and navy, and so forth, in peace and war, conscription and international trade and tariffs; the local States deal with other matters. It is of enormous importance that in regard to this question of Europe we should know whether or not we are working towards a federal conception in that sense. That is the second alternative. The first is functional, the second is federation.
But there is a third possibility which is hardly ever mentioned—namely, confederation. Confederation means that all the various Parliaments remain as they are and function as they are, but that there is created a new central body to which certain functions should be given. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that our thoughts should be in the direction of confederation rather than of federation. To my mind, a Federation of Europe, like a United States of Europe, and on similar lines, would be quite impossible, certainly in this generation and probably for a long time to come. It would mean that this Parliament in Westminster, the French Parliament in Paris, and others in Brussels and Rome, or wherever it may be, would all continue in existence but would have nothing to say on questions of foreign policy, defence,

421
conscription, the finance that belongs to them or international trade. All those matters would be handed over to this central Federal Parliament of Europe, which would be directly elected by the whole of the peoples together, Britain providing perhaps fifty constituencies, Germany so many, France so many—a conjoint Parliament like the Parliament in Washington and a cosmopolitan Government of the same kind. I feel perfectly convinced that, however desirable such a step may be in theory, and however valuable it would be as a step towards a Government of the world, it would never be agreed to by this Parliament or by any other of the Parliaments of Europe. Consequently, it would only rouse false hopes and an enthusiasm that would never be gratified by achievement. In planning for the future we may have to depend for some time on the functional bodies, or we may be able to secure a confederation which should be a combination of the present Parliaments, though not a supercession of the present Parliaments and Governments.
Those are my two points. I would add a supplementary word on an entirely different question. I shall be very brief. I have nothing novel to say, only to express my full support to His Majesty's Government for the steps that they are taking with regard to Egypt and the Sudan. There, I think, there are no disagreements in the nation—a very different state of affairs from that with regard to Persia. Here we are standing upon International Law, the sanctity of treaties and the supremacy of the United Nations, and on the principle that if Egypt has any grievance it should be settled in the ordinary course of law, and by established procedure. With regard to the Sudan, the Condominium was set up fifty years ago because of the action by Great Britain in sending a great army and of the victory at Omdurman. The Egyptians had been driven out by the Sudanese in the previous decades. That army was victorious and a new Government had to be appointed in the Sudan.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I interrupt the noble Viscount to ask him whether he is aware that three-quarters of the troops engaged were Egyptian and that nearly all the expenses were borne by Egypt?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Three-quarters of the troops were Egyptian. I am not sure that if there had been no others there would have been any victory; the precedents of previous expeditions by Egypt might again have been repeated. However that may be, the Joint Government was established, in fact. There was an agreement—and one party cannot by itself break that agreement. If there is a partnership and one partner chooses to withdraw, the other party carries on; he is not obliged to abandon all his own rights, interests and duties. I say "duties," for we have undertaken duties to the Sudanese people and we hive set up there during fifty years, mainly through our own officers—men of great ability—what has been a model Government in Africa. And we have given pledges that that Government shall not be changed without the assent of the Sudanese people. We have brought the people a long way towards self-government and there is now a Legislative Assembly. That Legislative Assembly has, within the last few days, passed a resolution of strong protest against the course taken by the Egyptian Government, which the Sudanese Legislative Assembly wholly rejects. There must be consultation with the Sudanese people, and that consultation must take a form that may make it genuine and effective. It must be carried out in ways suited to the traditions and the present social organisation of the Sudanese people. I trust that this policy of adhering strictly to our pledges and right of consultation will be maintained in another part of Africa—the South African Protectorates—where similar pledges have been made on the full authority of successive Governments. I hope that these pledges will not be broken arid that that trust will not be betrayed.

CLOSER ASSOCIATION IN CENTRAL AFRICA
3.42 p.m.
LORD ISMAY: My Lords, may I interrupt the proceedings of the House in order to make a Statement which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies? The subject is closer association in Central Africa, and the Statement is as follows:
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are convinced of the urgent need to secure the closer association of the three Central African territories; and they believe that this would best be achieved by federation, which they regard as the only form of closer association likely to meet the requirements of Central Africa. As your Lordships will be aware, a conference attended by my predecessor and the former Secretary of State for the Colonies, and by representatives of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, was held at Victoria Falls in September to consider the scheme for federation of the three territories put forward by the London Conference of officials last March.
His Majesty's Government have studied the statement issued at the conclusion of the Victoria Falls Conference (the text of which is being made available to-day in Command Paper No. 8411) and are in full agreement with it. In their view the recommendations of the London Conference of officials achieve the two essential aims of any scheme of closer association: they provide effective and representative machinery, both executive and legislative, for the handling of common Central African problems, and they contain full and adequate safeguards for African interests. His Majesty's Government would accordingly favour a scheme of federation between the three territories on the general lines recommended in the officials' report. They believe that such a scheme would be in the best interests of the African as well as the other inhabitants of the territories. They recognise that African opinion in the two northern territories has declared itself opposed to the proposals in the officials' report; but they trust that, in the light of the assurances agreed upon at the Victoria Falls Conference, and of the economic and other
424
advantages of closer association. Africans will be prepared to accept them.
The assurances agreed upon at the Victoria Falls Conference are, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, of great importance. It was unanimously agreed that, in any further consideration of proposals for federation, land and land settlement questions, as well as the political advancement of the peoples of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, both in local and in territorial government, must remain as at present (subject to the ultimate authority of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom) the responsibility of the territorial Government and Legislature in each territory and not of any federal authority. It was also unanimously agreed that the Protectorate status of the two northern territories should be accepted and preserved; and that this excluded any consideration now or in the future of amalgamation of the three Central African territories unless a majority of the inhabitants of the three territories desired it. His Majesty's Government fully endorse these conclusions and in any federal scheme would ensure that these rights should be formally embodied in the constitution. His Majesty's Government take the view that the statement of the Victoria Falls Conference which excludes amalgamation of the three Central African territories without the consent of a majority of the inhabitants should apply equally to amalgamation of any two of the territories or any part of them.
His Majesty's Government wish, finally, to draw attention to two other conclusions of the Victoria Falls Conference. First, there was general agreement that economic and political partnership between Europeans and Africans is the only policy under which federation could be brought about in the conditions of Central Africa, and that any scheme of closer association would have to give full effect to that principle. Second, the Conference expressed grave concern at the dangers which would flow from any weakening or dilution of the British connection and British traditions and principles in the three territories and agreed that

425
they should be so strengthened as to ensure that they should continue to prevail. His Majesty's Government regard these conclusions as of the utmost importance.
His Majesty's Government are most anxious that there should be no delay in reaching final conclusions on the future relations of the Central African territories. The Victoria Falls Conference agreed that before decisions could be taken by Governments further discussion within each territory and between the four Governments would be required. The Conference therefore adjourned and expressed the hope that it could reassemble in London about the middle of 1952. His Majesty's Government endorse this hope and propose that the resumed Conference should take place about July of next year. They will do all that they can to help ensure that the intervening period is used to the best advantage for the necessary discussions in Central Africa.
3.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT JOWITT: My Lords, I should like to thank the Secretary of State for making this Statement at this early opportunity. Obviously, it deals with a matter of the greatest importance, which merits and shall receive our closest study and consideration. I am sure the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will agree that this is eminently a proper topic on which we should have a debate. I do not think there is any urgent hurry and I am not suggesting a debate before the adjournment, but if I may make arrangements with him when we return after Christmas, I think he will welcome and think it proper that we should have a full debate on this important, difficult and interesting question.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I rise only to say that I agree entirely with the noble and learned Viscount. It is desirable that there should be a debate on this question. There is no special hurry, as your Lordships know, because the proposed Conference will not take place for six months or more. I suggest that the noble and learned Viscount should communicate with me, through the usual channels, after Christmas.

THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION
3.51 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, I am very conscious that there are members of this House who between them have had long and intimate contact with almost every aspect of foreign affairs. Indeed, their aggregate personal experience would constitute no small part of that diplomatic experience of centuries which, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State indicated last Monday in another place, has been so precious an asset to this country and so valuable a contribution to the councils of the world. I have only very recently been projected by a kind fate into that field and at a moment which can scarcely be regarded as either placid or uneventful, and therefore, in entering for the first time upon a debate on the subject of foreign affairs, I would respectfully desire to take the opportunity to assure your Lordships that it will be my zealous endeavour to keep the House as fully informed upon all such matters as fall within the province of the Foreign Office as the complex and delicate nature of many of the subjects may at the particular moment permit. If I am sometimes obliged at least to appear more reticent than the House or I myself would desire, I can only hope that the reticence will be ascribed to discretion rather than to discourtesy.
I do not for one moment attempt to parade that approach as being in any way a notable innovation. It will only be following the example of, amongst others, my immediate predecessor, who was always ready to give to the House in general, as well as to individual members of it, the fullest information at his disposal. May I express my own deep personal gratitude to him for the kindness of his references to me with which he opened his speech upon the Motion in his name? Although it is to some extent a diversion, perhaps I may add this one personal coincidence for the interest of the House. When my father became Secretary of Slate for Foreign Affairs in 1931, it was his lot to take over from Mr. Arthur Henderson, with Mr. Anthony Eden as his Under-Secretary, and now

427
we get the three names again involved, even though, unfortunately, some of the persons are different.
VISCOUNT JOWITT: A family business!
THE MARQUESS OF READING: A family business. I entirely agree with the thesis advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in his speech, that it is, as it obviously must be, greatly to the public advantage if the area of foreign policy can be, within necessary limits, sheltered from the storm of Party conflict. There may come moments at which opinions on some issue may so far diverge that criticism becomes necessary, and certainly in those circumstances no Party could resent criticism from the Opposition. But, at the same time, I think the noble Lord would agree in his turn that the late Administration, throughout almost the entire span of its life, had the benefit of the steady cooperation in foreign policy of the Opposition Parties, and that it was a source of solid strength to that Administration in dealing with other Governments.
There can be little doubt that a united nation is able to make the most impressive contribution to the United Nations. That leads me to say this: there is at times a perceptible tendency in some quarters to depreciate or deride the United Nations Organisation, to hold it up as merely a platform for the exchange of insults or as a forcing ground for the propagation of intrigues. Yet ultimately such a view can be sustained only by emphasising their failures and ignoring their successes. Nobody to-day regards the letters U.N.O. as standing for "Utopia Now Open," but those who profess to doubt whether U.N.O. has any reality need surely look no further than Korea, where forces from sixteen different nations are ranged under a United Nations Commander in a struggle to defeat just the kind of aggression that the United Nations Organisation was created to resist. Nor, leaving out of account for a moment all other advantages of personal contact and discussion, do I know of any other audience than the United Nations Assembly before which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could have delivered his memorable speech of last week and in so doing have made so
428
immediate and universal an appeal to the nations of the world for reason, moderation and good will.
It is at least to be hoped that his plea for the abandonment of the practice of adding rhetorical insult to political injury may evoke some response from those at whom it was directly and deservedly aimed. Russian and satellite practice in this regard is no doubt all part of the technique of toughness. Yet I doubt whether any one of us who, as an individual, may fall, however inadvertently, into the error of adopting such an approach to those who differ from him, feels in retrospect that his tactics have advanced his cause. One would like to hope that the time had now come when a similar reflection might influence the policy of nations. One of the difficulties—and it is not a difficulty altogether to be lightly discounted—is that even when the Russians speak in a polite language, in so many respects they and we do not speak the same language. At this time, apparently, there is not current behind the Iron Curtain the same international political vocabulary as is current on our side. Only the other day someone who had recently attended an international conference at which delegates from the Iron Curtain countries were present told me that when a resolution was put to which some of the Iron Curtain delegates objected, and the Chairman expressed his intention of taking a vote, they immediately announced that nothing would induce them to participate in so undemocratic a procedure. Once you get up against the initial difficulty of not speaking a common language in these matters, it obviously greatly enlarges the gap beyond its already formidable limits.
I do not for one moment differ from the analysis of the situation in regard to the difference between East and West which the noble Lord gave in his opening speech, but our problems at the moment do not spring exclusively from Communism. I suppose that we all hoped that the militant and virulent type of nationalism in Germany and in other countries which was one of the prime causes of the late war would have proved to be one of that war's most welcome victims. But, though its sphere of influence may have shifted, its spirit unhappily survives. Whereas patriotism infers a love of a man's own country,

429
nationalism apparently involves a hatred of everyone else's. It is always deeply impregnated with xenophobia, and though that characteristic may prevent nationalistically minded countries from embracing Communism as being an alien and imported creed, it does not facilitate our desire to live beside and among them in peace and harmony. Yet there is an old saying that "it takes all sorts to make a world," and our purpose is not to interfere in the internal politics of other nations, but to persuade them that, however widely the nature of their régimes and ours may differ, we can still fruitfully and amicably co-exist and co-operate for the benefit of mankind at large.
If sometimes we are inclined to be depressed by contemplation of the inflammable material with which the world is charged to-day, we can perhaps take comfort from the thought that there are also a large number of international bodies working together in a wide number of spheres with a remarkable measure of agreement and thereby making a continuous and growing contribution to mutual understanding and concord. I may perhaps add, as a result of my own brief experience in relation to these bodies, that it is no good to-day for a novice to endeavour to confine himself to learning the A.B.C. of foreign affairs; he is compelled at a very early stage to go through the entire alphabet and try and sort out the innumerable permutations and combinations of letters by which these various bodies are now designated. The House will, I think, agree that it is greatly to be hoped that, even if there are already a number of bodies, and perhaps because there are already a number of bodies, there will soon be added to such bodies the Disarmament Commission envisaged by the latest proposals upon limitation of armaments which last week were put by the United States, France and ourselves before the General Assembly of the United Nations in Paris. May I interject that copies of the Resolution setting out the precise terms of those proposals can be obtained from the Printed Paper Office by anyone desiring to study them at leisure and in detail; and I may perhaps add that further light is certainly thrown upon them by Mr. Acheson's luminous exposition of their provisions on Monday last.
430
It is not for me at this early stage of my initiation to attempt any what is sometimes called aperçue d'horizon upon the state of the world, even if the ground had not already been so exhaustively covered during the past two days by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. In any case, my noble friend the Leader of the House will wind up the debate and can then set for himself as extensive an itinerary as may then be required. I shall try for the brief remainder of my speech to confine myself to answering, so far as I can, the specific questions and dealing with the specific matters which have already arisen.
May I begin by for a moment stepping backwards out of this debate to the debate upon the Address, and taking up a question which was put by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Jowitt, in regard to the position under the Colombo Plan? The position there is this. The Report on the Colombo Plan which was published last November reviewed the six-year programmes drawn up by India. Pakistan, Ceylon and the British Colonial and Protected Territories of South-East Asia. The total cost of executing those programmes was estimated at the not inconsiderable figure of £1,868,000,000, of which £1,084,000,000 will have to be provided by external finance. Shortly after that Report was published, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the United Kingdom contribution over the six-year period may amount to well over £300,000,000, which would include releases from sterling balances, and the following other contributions have also since been announced: from Australia at least £25,000,000 sterling, of which £7,000,000 will be available in the first year; from Canada, 25,000,000 Canadian dollars for the first year; and from New Zealand, £1,000,000 sterling for each of the first three years. It must be borne in mind, too, that in addition 237,000,000 dollars have just been appropriated by Congress under the Mutual Security Programme for economic aid to South and South-East Asia in the year 1951–52. It is plain. I think, that this appropriation is of great importance to the economic development of South and South-East Asia, and will contribute powerfully towards those objectives which the Colombo Plan has in mind.

431
These contributions fall somewhat short of the original estimates of the needs of the area for the first year or so, but the movement of world price levels during the last year has altered the balance of payments of the undeveloped countries which are members of the Plan in their favour, and the figures in the original Report are therefore now out of date. But on a purely tentative estimate, it is now hoped that there will be sufficient finance available in 1951–52 to enable those countries to carry out their development programme for the year. Confirmation of that must await the next meeting of the Consultative Committee. On that basis, I can only assure the noble and learned Viscount that His Majesty's Government are extremely conscious of the need to proceed with the economic development of South and South-East Asia, and that they will continue to give full and firm support to the Colombo Plan. Indeed, they are now considering, in conjunction with other Governments concerned, whether a meeting should not take place at an early date at which the Committee can meet to discuss the progress made hitherto and to lay down lines for the future. Although last year Burma, Siam, Indonesia, the Philippines and the Associated States of Indo-China were invited to take part in the Plan, hitherto only the three Associated States—that is Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam—have decided to do so, and the Plan therefore remains to a large extent a Commonwealth affair. Nevertheless, we have again made further approaches to Burma. Siam, Indonesia and the Philippines and we await their reply. That, I hope, gives the noble Lord information as to the present progress of the position under the Colombo Plan and, at the same time, the Government's decision to go as far as possible to implement it.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in the course of his speech dealt with the question of Germany, in which I know that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, have taken a very close and active interest in past years, when they were, in their turn, members of the Government. This matter has been very considerably discussed in another place in the last few days, and I do not want to develop the position at any length. But as regards the one particular matter which
432
the noble Lord raised—the question of elections—he will remember that we put to the United Nations Assembly (at the suggestion, I think, of Dr. Adenauer) the proposal that elections should be conducted under the supervision of a United Nations Commission. Although the idea was not enthusiastically received by the Russians, at the same time one may hope that it will find its way on to the agenda and, in the end, will prove to be an acceptable method of dealing with the problem. The suggestion which came from the other side of the border, from East Germany, that elections should be carried out under the supervision of the four Occupying Powers, looks a little too much as if it meant that each Occupying Power should supervise the elections in its own Zone, and we have some hesitation as to whether that would be satisfactory in all four Zones.
The noble Lord was good enough to welcome the proposal—which indeed is not a new one—of Dr. Adenauer's visit to London. As he knows, Dr. Adenauer is to-morrow meeting the three Foreign Secretaries in Paris. Certainly it is our intention, as it was the intention of the previous Government, to proceed as rapidly as possible but, at the same time, with all the necessary care, towards the greater integration of Germany into the comity of European Nations. The noble Lord knows that, towards that position, there are at the present moment at work the two bodies to which he referred, the one dealing with what might be called the military aspect, and the other with the contractual arrangement, which is envisaged as altering the relationship between occupier and occupied. Obviously, that is not so easy a piece of negotiation that it can be very swiftly completed. At the same time, it is not a treaty; it is a contractual arrangement between the nations concerned, and they have to give some attention to the preservation of certain powers which, in spite of the conclusion of the agreement, they may still think it necessary to retain. Subject to that, one hopes that the steps being taken to advance that matter and bring it to a conclusion will not be long delayed. The sooner it comes the more greatly we shall be pleased, provided always, as I say, that it contains the safeguards which we hold to be essential for the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, dealt also with the question of Egypt, and I

433
was grateful to him for the support which he gave to the attitude we have so far adopted in regard to Egypt, and also to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, for his endorsement of that view, both in regard to Egypt and to the Sudan. I had the privilege of repeating in this House the other day a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place, and I think that Statement of our attitude gave general satisfaction to both Opposition Parties in the House.
May I deal for a moment with the questions which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, raised in regard to a United Europe, and to the application of what has come to be called the doctrine of universality in regard to the United Nations Organisation? With regard to the position which the noble Lord, Lord Layton, raised the other day, here I think it is right to say that it is not due to any uncertainty about the position taken up by the British Government that there may have been what appears to be slow progress in connection with the Schuman Plan and the European Army. There are steps which had to be taken in regard to ratification of the Treaty which have not yet progressed very far. There are, of course, a number of difficult problems which have to be surmounted before any agreement on the military aspect can be reached. The general attitude was clearly stated by the Foreign Ministers in the Washington Declaration of September 14 last, and all the information we have is that it is perfectly clearly understood on the Continent. It is not our intention actually to enter into membership of those organisations, but we do desire to help, and we have shown our desire to help by providing observers to assist in the negotiations which have been going on under both those heads.
VISCOUNT JOWITT: This is a very important matter. I think I understood the noble Marquess correctly. When he said "those organisations" he means that it is not our intention to allow our troops to enter the European Army. Have I understood that aright?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: What I mean is that we are not prepared at the moment to enter either of those organisations, the Schuman Plan or the European Army plan. We have, how-
434
ever, attended both meetings as observers, and we wish to be associated as closely as we may for the practical purpose of carrying out those plans once they are established, while, at the same time, not forgetting the peculiarity of our own position in regard to our relations with the Commonwealth countries and with our eyes upon the Atlantic. I hope that that may to some extent clear up the position. I do not want to go into the matter in much detail because, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, it had received much attention from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, both in his opening speech and, also, in his closing speech, which the noble Viscount did not read. Perhaps I may be allowed to read an extract. In his speech [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; Vol. 494, Col. 40] my right honourable friend said, referring to a speech of Mr. Younger, which had preceded his:
"He"—
that is, Mr. Younger—
"referred to the importance of ensuring that the United Nations should not become an anti-Communist alliance. I am in absolute agreement with him in that. Not only am I in agreement with him, but, as I think he probably noticed, there were some sentences in my opening speech in Paris which showed clearly my view on that point, and though I do not want to be drawn further at the moment I will say that I would like wider representation at the United Nations than there is now, even though that means that it must often come from the two different points of view."
Of course, the position is not quite so simple. I do not want to indulge in any prophecy but there has been a submission of an advisory case to the International Court of Justice, which has given two opinions as to the legality of the position as to the constitution of the United Nations, so to speak; and those two advisory opinions have still to be surmounted. I think I may leave it with the indication that my right honourable friend gave, that he certainly had not closed his mind to proceeding somewhere along the road of wider representation.
The other matters, I think, have been dealt with to a large extent in the speeches made by my right honourable friend in another place. I do not want to incur the reproach of having taken up too much time in your Lordships' House in the early stage of this debate. I hope that. so far as it is possible, these replies

435
cover in the main the topics which have been raised up to now. For the rest, I can say only what I think is obvious: that we shall direct all our efforts to the two complementary aims of the preservation of peace and the maintenance of the rule of law. Your Lordships will, I am sure, agree that these aims are inseparably united, for when peace is disturbed the rule of law is at once imperilled; and when the rule of law is violated, peace is, in its turn, assailed. Yet the unalterable fact remains that the preservation of peace is the prerequisite to the survival in any recognisable form of that civilisation which, with all its defects, has over the centuries led mankind along an upward road.
4.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I should first apologise to the noble Viscount. Lord Samuel, for having interrupted his speech. There was no disagreement that the welfare of the Sudanese is the prime object of our policy; what I thought was that we must have a debate on the subject at some time. I also felt that the information we have up to now is sketchy and inadequate, and that the noble Viscount's remarks were less than generous to our Egyptian Allies in the joint campaign which was led by Kitchener. I congratulate the noble Marquess. Lord Reading, on his first speech from that Bench as a representative of the Foreign Office. We all welcomed the tone of Mr. Eden's speech. It was a great relief to hear that he was trying to check the full momentum of fostered hatred. I hope that we have come to the end of the calumny and slander which have prevented many people from making their honest contribution to the peace of the world by expressing their views. Furthermore, it was very encouraging to hear Mr. Eden say that in his judgment the best thing we could do would be to consider some field of endeavour in which there was a hope of progress. That was a helpful and encouraging suggestion. On the present occasion I am going to follow Mr. Eden's advice and deal with one thing only—the Middle Eastern defence scheme. Perhaps I ought to make it clear that I speak for myself; as I listened to my noble friend Lord Henderson, I thought it very necessary to make that point.
436
We have in the Eastern Mediterranean a Four-Power Defence Pact, which means that we are so arranging our forces there that in the event of an attack we shall be ready with our defences. Only a few days ago I was presiding at the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference at Istanbul. While I was there I spoke to many Turks. It is necessary for us, I think, to understand the Turkish approach to Middle Eastern affairs. It is not the same as the Arab approach; indeed, it differs widely. I apologised jokingly to one eminent official for having participated in the Gallipoli Expedition. He said without a flicker "We have forgotten all that; what we remember is the fidelity you showed in the Crimean War." It does not matter to the Turk whether the head of the Russian State is called the Emperor, or the Tsar, or Joseph; he is concerned with protecting himself against his powerful northern neighbour. The other members of the Pact are, of course, the United States, ourselves and France. I do not want to give offence, but I should not have thought the introduction of France would do much to sweeten our relations with the Arab States. But the curious thing about this Pact is that there are no Middle Eastern States in it.
I have been round that part of the world and talked to some of the people of the Middle Eastern States. One surprising thing is that, whilst some of the leading men are conscious of the world situation, most of the people are not thinking in terms of Russia at all. They say, in effect, that there may be a war but, if so, it would be a flatter for the "quality," not for people such as themselves. They say that they have their own local problems, and that they will try to keep out of the war. One of their local problems is their quarrel with the Jews, and the other is the occupation of the Canal Zone. If I can suggest any line of action or say something that might help in those directions perhaps I shall be faithfully carrying out Mr. Eden's suggestion.I will say first a word about Israel. Israel is a fundamental element in the restoration of the Middle East. If things go on as they are in the Middle East there may well be revolution. It is not possible for that area to continue with the standard

437
of life and the difference between rich and poor which at present exists there. No social structure would stand it. In Israel, the most striking thing about it is not only the gigantic and heroic efforts now being made. En Israel nobody is doing nothing; everybody is working and they have managed to establish, at a cost of great economic sacrifice, a standard of ordinary life which is much higher than and most encouraging as compared with that of their neighbours. For instance, a man carries your bag to the ship. He is clean, efficient and quiet, and he refuses a gratuity. It is rather different from the scuffling underpaid porters that one knows so well in any other Mediterranean port. You can see it right down from Israel to Beersheba and from Beersheba down to the Gulf. Anything that can be done to let Israel be the leavening that will leaven the lump is well worth the attention of mankind.
The second thing is the problem of Arab refugees. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Arabs on this question of refugees. It is a very hard thing that the refugee problem should have been laid upon their doorstep. It is not of their making. Even a scanty reading of history will make it clear that it is not Islam that has persecuted the Jews. Worse infamies against the Jews were perpetrated by our own Christians centuries ago, and it is not fair that the Arabs should carry the burden of the refugee problem. I will not go into the question of how the refugees got there—it was a most foolish and wilful war which brought them there to Jericho and to other places. Something must be done to help them. If you go into Israel you find that the country is packed by these aluminium and tin huts sixteen feet by ten feet, new clean huts and each packed, but the doors are still open. Is anybody going to say that Ben-Gurion is wrong to keep the doors open? Would any man who is a true Jew say, when there are gathering clouds over the world: "I will shut the door of a Jewish home?" It is the first time that they have had a home since the destruction of the Temple. Nobody would say that, and yet that very fact makes it physically impossible to receive back these people. Therefore, I say that it is not fair that that burden should be laid on the Arabs.
What is the answer? It is said that 400,000 of these people come from German-occupied countries. They are
438
the flotsam and jetsam of Hitlerism. They have to be accommodated. Moreover, the noble Earl, Lord Manvers, the other day raised the question of property—I am not talking about the restoration of individual property; I am talking about the taxation laid upon the Jews. If one could assess in money the guilt of Belsen and Dachau, I am informed that 1,500,000,000 dollars worth of money has been taken away from the Jews. Would it not be a good thing if, before we again set up the Reichstag, which in the past has not been remarkable for its devotion to democracy, we asked the Germans to make a contribution to the damage that has been done to world Jewry? It would take time, and might affect the quarrel between the Arabs and the Jews. At the same time, the Arabs and Jews that I have spoken to, men in authority and of influence and knowledge, have told me that they have not the faintest intention of attacking the other side. They fear that the other side will attack them. It is the old business in miniature, and if one could, by this non-aggression Pact offered in Paris the other day, get this problem out of the way, then we should begin to see that united Middle East which is the only solid base for a Middle Eastern pact or Middle Eastern defence against aggression.
I come now to another point—that is, the Canal. We have offered our assistance, on the Pact as offered, to all the Arab countries and we have done it with a prospectus (if I may use that term without offence) of a most attractive kind—"Give us the facilities for our troops to come in, and we will undertake that nothing we do shall impair in the least your sovereignty. The troops will go there in good will." What do they all say? These people are Arabs. They say: "Apply that in Egypt. How can we trust you when you still persist, against the wishes of the Egyptians, in having your troops stationed on the Canal?" Perhaps the noble Marquess will let me continue. I fear that he dissents on that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do dissent.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is a normal relationship. This Treaty of 1936, which is the only time the Egyptians have ever put pen to paper in a Treaty, was a great triumph for Mr. Eden. The Egyptians signed it because they were

439
terrified of the Italians—that was one reason. Their signing was also due to the fact that we occupied the Citadel of Cairo and the barracks of Kasr et Nil. That is always a factor when you are negotiating. But, in my judgment, as regards that Treaty, they are in default in denouncing it and in failing to co-operate in the way that is laid down in the footnote to Article 8, or one of the Articles.
I want to ask the noble Marquess this question: How do we stand about this Treaty? I cannot understand the position and I ask for information. So many things have been said about it. We are allowed under the Treaty to have 10,000 men and 400 pilots in a specified area called the Canal Zone. May I refer to my own association with this area some five years ago? This matter has been "on the carpet" for a long time. We were due to get out of Cairo in eight years. In 1936 we did not go because of the war, and the Egyptians did not mind: it was all as between friends. The problem now is not as between friends but as between litigants. I want to ask the noble Marquess what force we have in Fayid. I cannot understand why we have this enormous force on the Canal. Are we going to fight the Russians or the Egyptians? Why does the Secretary of State for Air have to announce that he has just sent 10,000 men to Egypt by air? I do not know. I am not a soldier, but I cannot understand whom we are going to fight.
At the same time, I may ask the noble Marquess this question. Are our actions taken under the Treaty? In the gracious Speech, it was said:
"We shall proceed to assert our rights under the Treaty,"
and the Treaty says 10,000 men. Are we to have x thousand men more? Have we some right to do this or is it the same right that enabled Wolseley in 1882 to take Cairo with a squadron of Cavalry? Does this Treaty terminate in 1956? I understand that it does. Do we then start with a clean slate? If so, it does not matter. Five years is nothing. But a great deal has been said to indicate that the Treaty will not terminate in 1956. Anyhow, a Note was issued by the Foreign Office, saying there was no provision for unilateral denunciation at any time. If that means before the termination of the Treaty, cadit qtœustio; there
440
is nothing in it. But if it means that we are going to keep the soldiers there, Treaty or no Treaty, then I think it requires some elucidation.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and many other speakers, have adduced a new argument. In some way there is a moral obligation to accept forces if a body calling itself "the free world" insists on imposing it. I should like to have a little clarity on that point. We are told that we ourselves have agreed to American bases in Britain, so why should the Egyptians complain at having British troops? That is the argument. But suppose that we did not want the American bases? Would it be a moral delinquency to the free world if we asked the Americans to move the atom bomb bases somewhere else? It is dangerous to suggest that there is a moral obligation which enables strong Powers to impose bases upon weak Powers without the consent of those weak Powers. I hope that when he replies the noble Lord will deal with this matter.
My Lords, there are some soldiers present, and I hesitate to deal with the strategic question. In 1946 I spent a good many months on this question, and I should like to ask what is the military value of having these men in Fayid, performing their own labour and boycotted by the Egyptians? We talk about the Suez Canal. The Canal has become a sort of magic word. It was not the Canal that made Egypt a strategic centre. In the time of Alexander and Napoleon, Egypt was still a strategic centre in the world: the Canal had nothing to do with it. I am not saying that the Canal is not useful, although I believe that for about half of the last war it was not operated. In any case, it does not do to be too much obsessed with this idea of the Canal. Here, in peace time, to hold our position on the Canal we have to have these massive armed forces, expensive to maintain and being boycotted locally. In time of war, if we take the position as it is now, and as relations are at present between ourselves and Egypt, we should have to operate there by means of railways, every foot of which would he liable to sabotage. So the Middle East base comes to nothing in a military sense. If it were decided to land at Aleppo or Alexandretta, it would be impossible to get from Alexandretta without picketing every inch of our supply line, because the

441
people are our enemies. Therefore, I put this question to the Government: Is not the good will of the countries who are cooperating of some military value?
As regards the soldiers, I have looked up and I remember well a wonderful letter which was sent by the noble Marquess's grandfather to Lord Cromer—in our family we were not his supporters; we had a photograph of Mr. Gladstone in our parlour. This letter said:—
"I would not be too much impressed by what the soldiers tell you about the strategic importance of these places. It is their way. If they were allowed full scope they would insist on the importance of garrisoning the moon in order to protect us from Mars."
That is the sort of common sense that we are accustomed to associate with the noble Marquess's famous grandfather.
I hesitated a great deal before venturing to address your Lordships' House on this subject, because we are surrounded by Ambassadors, people who know Egypt well, by Secretaries of State and by all sorts of people of great knowledge and vast experience. But I have had my own experience to which I shall refer. I have been there. I have known Egypt for forty-eight years. I had the great pleasure of entertaining Zaghlulo when he came to make himself tiresome to Lord Curzon. From April to October, 1946, I was engaged in attempted Treaty revision on behalf of Mr. Bevin in co-operation with Sir Ronald Campbell. During the time I was there I lived in two palaces in a terribly hot summer, and I had 150 servants. I was not allowed to go out without an armed escort, because of the recent murder of Lord Moyne. In order to pass the time, in addition to reading, I had a series of solo lunches to which all the Egyptian leaders were invited. They are willing and friendly people. Sometimes these solo lunches and the conversations lasted far into the afternoon. I had lunch with Conservative leaders and Popular leaders. They were most genial and, in their hearts, great friends of this country, and nearly all of them had been occupants of British prisons. I learned from them what they really thought, and if there is one fallacy which is likely to lead this country to dishonour and shame it is the belief that these agitations in Egypt are just a student affair.
442
Why do the Government not call this off? We are not dealing with anything of that kind at all. We are dealing with a great patriotic movement. We have all seen such things. I have seen a lot of them. I was in the South African war, and I saw the Irish rebellion. My noble friend will remember that I tried to be Secretary of State for India. We must distinguish between crime and national feeling. Both have much the same manifestations, but they are quite different. You can always suppress crime, because public opinion is always with you. You can never suppress patriotism, because public opinion is always against you. Therefore, if we are going to proceed on the basis of the firm hand, the multiplied forces and so on, we are heading for disaster. Parliament will shortly be going away for seven weeks. I do not know how the situation in Egypt will develop in that time. I know that we desire friendly relations, but those can be based only upon one thing, and that is that no troops of any nationality are stationed in the independent Kingdom of Egypt without the consent of the Egyptian people. It may be said that that is just sabotage, that it will ruin our chances. But that is not so. In 1946, with the help of Mr. Bevin, we arrived at some such arrangement, and the soldiers consented to it. We had an arrangement by which our troops went away, and a joint military board was set up; and when the occasion arose we went back, in whatever force was necessary, to a willing and co-operative Egypt. I say that that, at any rate, is a pointer to something that might be of help in the present difficulties.
Secondly, when I hear Conservative speakers talking about the Commonwealth of which we are all so proud, they all seem to forget that we are the greatest Asian Power, and that in our Commonwealth there is the greatest Moslem Dominion in the world—Pakistan. My noble friend referred to some remarks about what we had done in India. We are proud of our achievements. But he did not mention that in Karachi there had been demonstrations on behalf of Egypt. I am not blaming him but the Government when I say that I was amazed that in Mr. Eden's speech there was no mention of the fact that in the last fortnight the Foreign Minister and

443
the Prime Minister and the Governor-General of Pakistan have all offered their help. All we can offer is this skinny Middle-Eastern Pact, to which no Middle-Eastern people are attached. We can have it, but we must learn that in the Middle East, as in Asia, the people are demanding freedom: and in the Mediterranean, as well as elsewhere, freedom can be demanded only by free people.
4.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down made the observation in the course of his speech that he was addressing your Lordships with some misgiving. I can assure him on behalf of all your Lordships that he has qualities of head and heart which will always make us anxious to hear anything he may have to say, even if, as I suppose may be the case, my noble friend who leads the House has some observations to make that will not be in complete agreement with everything the noble Viscount has said. All the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon have shown the immense assistance it has been to the House to be debating the subject of foreign affairs under the shadow of the comprehensive and able review given a day or two ago in another place by the Foreign Secretary, to which the noble Lord who introduced the Motion and the noble Viscount who spoke last paid very generous tributes. For it has had this merit: that against a background of the world picture—and no debate on foreign affairs can have for its theme anything less than the world—noble Lords have been able to select topics on which they feel strongly or have particular knowledge and can give your Lordships the benefit of their judgment. I hope I may exhibit, if not a vast store of knowledge, at least a similar measure of restraint, for I desire only to address myself to one subject.
In the briefest possible words, I wish to lay before your Lordships a few reflections that have formed themselves in my mind as the result of a two months' visit to the United States, from which I have just returned, and in the course of which I had the opportunity of much discussion with Americans of all sorts, right across that immense continent. If any justification were needed for my venturing to impose on your Lordships by speaking for a few minutes on that topic, it would
444
be because of my conviction that at bottom, when much has been said on various topics that we may discuss in this House, such as how best to treat the problem of Germany, what may be the right solution of the problems of Indonesia or the Far East, how best to organise the forces of the Atlantic community, and the like, the whole fortune of the world ultimately depends on what is the broad opinion held in the British Commonwealth of Nations of the United States and on the broad opinion held in the United States of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
I hope I shall not be thought to be unduly presumptuous in making so large a statement and claim, but the conclusion that was left in my mind as the result of the opportunities I have had in the last two months—a conclusion which I checked to the best of my ability with those with whom I came in contact—was that on the international side of thought in America the mould was much more firmly set than would have been held to be in the case even two or three years ago. The large lay-out of the world and its implications seemed to me—and, as I say, my opinion was supported by that of those with whom I came in contact—to be very much more widely recognised by the great hulk of American citizens, with the result that any open advocacy of isolationist policy in the United States is to-day extremely rare. I wish we might all realise what an immense revolution in American thought that is. Any man who had predicted, even ten years ago, that that would be the position in 1951 would have been predicting something that to many Americans—indeed, to most Americans—would have seemed a fantastic illusion, and to a great many Americans would have seemed a most horrifying nightmare. Yet that thing has come to pass. And if we are to give a large share of the credit where credit is due, let us generously give it to Molotov and Vyshinsky and the wise planners of the Kremlin, for they have had a great deal to do with it.
That does not mean that Americans are happy about the rôle that world events have forced upon them. Indeed, how could any nation be happy, facing the cruel sacrifices of Korea, especially in the light of the revelations of the last few days. Still less does it mean that there is not violent criticism of the

445
Administration in the foreign field—there is. But where such criticism is made it is, in my judgment, criticism rather of methods than of purpose. A man will criticise the methods of the Administration while emphasising all the time that he is as concerned as anyone else to secure the purposes to which the Administration is endeavouring to work. By and large, I think it does mean that the broad obligations of new responsibilities in the sphere of world leadership are widely accepted by the majority of the American people. With that I would couple this observation, which, I think, is not always appreciated at its full value in this country. While I think that what I have tried to say is true, I believe it is also true that the American acceptance of these new responsibilities of world leadership is largely, if not always consciously, based upon the assumption of continuity of partnership with the British Commonwealth of Nations. If that observation surprises any of your Lordships, I would say it is at least certainly true that the world situation would be very differently viewed now in the United States if the people there did not feel that that partnership was something on which they, on their side, could count. I do not think that there are any words either too generous or too great to acknowledge what has been done by America in her relations with this country—through the war, by Lend-Lease, and, since the war, through Marshall Aid.
Whilst saying that—and no one in the world feels it more strongly than I do—I do not suppose that any responsible American would attempt to delude any British visitor or himself with the idea that they had done those acts from any motives of pure philanthropy or simply with a view to creating a kind of large Santa Claus effect. They, like we, are intelligent enough to know that the recovery and the strength of the British Commonwealth of Nations is an essential and vital element in the security of the United States. Therefore, in my judgment, this partnership between the two, of which we speak so often, is something essential to both, and something to which each has a perfectly distinctive contribution to make. Moreover, I conceive it to mean something in regard to which my friend Mr. Herbert Morrison has no need
446
whatever to be afraid of this country becoming the 49th State of the Union, any more than Colonel McCormick of the Chicago Tribune has cause to fear (as I think he has feared from time to time) that the United States may become the latest and the largest of the British Dominions. I think these things cancel one another. I think it is on that basis of recognised partnership, of mutual value to both sides, that the Prime Minister, when he goes to Washington in January, will have a great acclaim.
It does not follow from all that, however, that everything in the garden is beautiful. I should like to mention one or two things which in my judgment are less than beautiful. First, there is, as an earlier speaker recognised, the fact that for America China is always a tender spot, and it is a very tender spot to-day. I think any divergence of policy in that field—and here the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who introduced the Motion, was quite emphatic—needs, and will need, the most careful handling. I do not believe there is any short cut out of such divergencies as exist to-day, and they must probably wait a better and different atmosphere for treatment. Nevertheless, the utmost care in the handling of them will always be necessary. The attitude that American opinion will take towards this country and the British Common wealth will, in the long run, depend largely upon the judgment they form about the efforts that we are making, first to help ourselves, arid secondly, to help Western Europe to resolve, in whatever may be thought the wisest manner, the real obstacles that exist in the way of closer and more effective unity.
Lastly, I should like to mention a consideration which has formed itself in my mind and which, although not generally stated in public, I feel is of some importance. Many Americans to-day appear to me to be greatly puzzled by, and resentful of, criticism of their international action. Being themselves very conscious of motives of the utmost benevolence, they see themselves the target of attacks based on mistrust and misrepresentation, and all expressive of a certain measure of dislike. Americans are much more sensitive to dislike than we British are. The reason is not difficult to understand. Up to a comparatively few years ago it

447
was possible for them to adopt the posture, on some Olympian height, of detached and rather disinterested virtue. Being outside the hurly-burly, they were fairly comfortable, and were able to assert high purposes that were everybody's admiration and to feel that, if only other people were actuated by the same high motives, all troubles would be at an end. That was a very enjoyable situation in which they found themselves so long as it might last. But all that has now altered. They find it impossible to step down into the market place without stepping into opposition to something or somebody. What has been for us for centuries past a practice and a habit, and something to which we have been well accustomed, is quite new to the American people, and for that reason they mind it very much more than we do. The importance of that seems to me to be simply this: that it is right that we here should be aware of this attitude, because that is part of the setting in which the dangers of the future are to be appreciated, and it is important that we should appreciate them correctly.
In my opinion, those dangers of the future do not arise from what I would call differences of method in the pursuit of a really common policy—and by "common policy" I mean a policy concerning the ends of which each partner has real confidence in the other. For example, I do not think that the recognition of Communist China, annoying as it was to America, or the American approach to Franco, annoying as it was to us, really matter unduly, because each is at bottom convinced, I hope, of the main purposes the other is trying with it to pursue. Therefore, these divergencies in the foreground of our policies do not seem to me to be of vital importance, unless they come to be set against the background of either loss of mutual respect for each other's character and capacity, or mistrust of the ultimate goal to which the endeavour of each is being directed.
On the first point, mistrust of each other's character and capacity, the requisite elements for mutual respect will readily suggest themselves to all your Lordships, and I need not dwell on them. I add only this: in my view this country need not fear any loss of respect for its
448
position in the world if it is able to show, as I think my right honourable friend the Secretary of State did show the other night, that we know quite clearly what we want to do, and that we are endeavouring to follow a consistent course for its achievement. As regards the second point—namely, the mistrust of the ultimate goal to which the endeavour of each may be directed—I feel bound to say, in all frankness, that the suggestion that the United States are less sincere than ourselves in pursuit of peace, and that we are in danger of being dragged at their heels into an unnecessary war, is a suggestion that anyone knowing American opinion to-day regards as fantastic—as fantastic as what I understand, though I was not here, was said in the Election about the Prime Minister himself being anxious to have a war. It is quite fantastic and bitterly resented in the United States, and in certain circumstances it is capable of doing real harm.
I therefore beg all whom my words may reach to remember how voices and echoes get magnified in the passage across the Ocean. I hope that the leaders of all Parties will be, as I am sure they will be, at one in condemnation of that kind of thought and speech, and will make their feeling plain to those who look to them for guidance, so that we may make it plain to the whole world that those discordant voices in the wilderness are not the authentic voice of Britain. I say that because I cannot doubt that thoughtful men of all Parties, as they look out upon the world to-day, must realise that the friendship between these two great democracies may well spell to the world the difference between safety and destruction. If they feel that, they will also feel that no effort on the part of any of them can be too great to ensure that that partnership endures.
5.10 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken always makes a profound impression on the House, but I cannot recall hearing, even from him, a more enthralling and absorbing speech than the one to which we have just listened. I have no doubt that it will be studied in many places and for a long time. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not attempt to follow him in a field where his authority is unique and I hope that I shall be forgiven, also, by other noble Lords, all of

449
whom have interested us greatly in different ways, if I stick to a prepared line rather more than is usually attractive or even justifiable in the middle of a debate. My reason for doing so is that I propose to speak entirely about Germany. I have not spoken on that subject, in which I take a passionate interest, for nearly four years in your Lordships' House. I desire to be brief, and therefore perhaps the House will allow me to proceed along this course. I should just say that I am speaking entirely in a personal capacity. I hope that nothing I say will embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, or any other noble Lords. I follow the admirable example of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, in perhaps expecting a little more latitude than when I was a Minister. Further, I should add that I am not speaking as the provisional Chairman of the Anglo-German Association which is in process of being formed.
In this effort to be brief I propose to leave out vast and vital topics, topics of social and economic questions included. On the question of Germany's economic progress I would say only that there was what is called a miraculous transformation in June, 1948. That, of course, coincided almost to a few weeks with the appearance in power of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and my own withdrawal. It is not for me to explain that away indeed, I should not have paid much attention to it, except that in civil aviation, within a few weeks or months of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, succeeding me, the Corporations began to pay their way. When that sort of thing happens twice, it makes one think—to say no more. I shall not even deal with such an important question as that of war criminals, a matter about which I have strong views, and which I believe is to be discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, later in the debate.
I intend to confine myself to one aspect only—namely, the right Allied political policy, in the broadest sense, and in particular the right British political policy towards Germany to-day. We have great and honoured Allies, but none of us desires—and, for that matter, I feel sure none of our Allies would desire it—that our British policy should be a mere mean between, or merely resultant of, the policies of our Allies. In my view, the right British attitude to Germany to-day can be summed up in three propositions—
450
and I mean them literally. The first is that we should offer friendship to Germany, not, of course, as a sufferance; not in any exclusive or bilateral sense, but on precisely the same footing as we offer friendship to our other respective neighbours. Secondly, that such a policy of friendship is an urgent duty, in the first place on moral grounds, and secondly, on grounds of strategy—or, put more bluntly, on grounds of our own national safety. Thirdly, I submit that such a friendship is impossible unless and until we treat the Germans as complete equals, not only individually, which most of us do and have done for a long time, but as a nation, which, of course, is still far from the case at the present time.
I lay particular stress on the moral claims of this policy, because they are inevitably obscured just now by so much strategical thinking. For six and a half years we have interfered in countless ways, though to an ever-diminishing extent, with German life. In the long run, such interference would have been justified only by its effect on the German mind and soul. We have claimed—I have made the claim myself before large German audiences, and I expect the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has made it—that we have been acting throughout as a trustee. Amid many mistakes, including, no doubt, a large number of my own, and many misadventures, we as a country have persisted in the effort to live up to that claim. When history comes to be written, it will be concluded, I believe, that under the devoted and inspiring guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, we British have accomplished much during the last three and a half years. In the last few years the Germans have proved, first in the regions, and then, when it was formed, in their Federal Government, that they can make democracy work. Their leaders of all Parties, men like Dr. Adenauer, Dr. Schumacher, Herr Arnold, Dr. Reuter, and Herr Brauer, to mention only a few, have proved themselves, I venture to say, as good democrats as any similar number that could be found in any country in Europe. The Germans, in my experience—certainly the best Germans—have not been slow to pay tribute to the political help that we British have given them.
But now, six and a half years after the surrender, the time has come when any

451
further one-sided, imposed, interference must do more harm than good. Therefore, in the discussions now taking place between the Western Allies and the Germans we should, in my strong conviction, press for the discontinuance of any controls on the internal or the external activities of Germany, unless they are either accepted by some, at least, of the Western Allies in their own case, or are welcomed by the Germans in their own interest. An example of the latter is the continued presence of Allied troops on? German soil, which the Western Germans actually desire. So much for what I call moral argument.
I should now like to say a few words—and they will be very few—on diplomacy and strategy. Whatever the merits or demerits of Potsdam—and I am not on record, in so far as I existed politically, as having offered any constructive alternative at the time—three immense developments have occurred since that time. First, the progress—which it was open to doubt at the moment of Potsdam—of a genuine German democracy, of which I have already spoken; secondly, the menace presented by Soviet Communism to the free world; and thirdly, the emergence of a European ideal. These last two developments, as I see it, have in their turn combined to produce three far-reaching results. Between them they have dismissed all possibility, even if we had desired it, of indefinitely subordinating the Germans. It is impossible, after all, to hold back the Russians with one hand and hold down the Germans with the other.
In the second place they have greatly increased the importance of securing active German assistance and friendship. The military and diplomatic arguments to this effect are too well known to require repetition in this very brief review. Thirdly—and this is perhaps a case of good coming out of evil—there has emerged a clear new prospect of reconciling German equality of status with security for her neighbours. The various discussions on the various plans for European integration are familiar to the House. But whether we are thinking of the Schuman Plan, the European Army or even the mere fact that the Western Germans to-day desire the presence of
452
Allied troops on their soil in self-defence, surely we are granted an opportunity such as was denied the toiling statesmen throughout those years of 1918 to 1939. If we follow the right course to-day—and I hope the Government will follow it; I have certainly no reason to suppose that they will not—we can satisfy Germany's natural, human and, as I would say, moral claim, not only without endangering, her neighbours but in a manner indispensable to the defence and security of those very neighbours. It is not often that the points of view of the moralist, the soldier and the anxious statesman trying to ward off future perils, so happily coincide.
I can do no more this afternoon than touch on the deep-rooted and, at the same time, very topical question of German unity which is never far from any German's mind. I hope and believe that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester will be discussing that question later on. Certainly there is nobody whose name stands higher in Germany than that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, for reasons which will be familiar to all of us in view of what he has done during the last few years. I am sure that German unity is the aim of the present British Government, as it was of the last. I offer only two observations. The first is that the time has gone by when German unity could be secured on a Potsdam basis of Four Power control. When German unity does come, as one day I am sure it will, with great benefits not only to Germany but to Europe, Germany must clearly enter as an equal partner whatever grouping exists. Secondly, whatever happens now or later, we must on no account discourage what I believe to be the desire of the great majority of Germans for an ever greater intimacy with the West will only add, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, that no country has a more obvious and natural interest than Germans, in that reconciliation between East and West which, in spite of everything, remains the common object of us all. To put the matter in the crudest possible way. if another war broke out—which God forbid!—there is no country which would suffer quite so much as Germany.
What I have said may seem very general to those confronted with the prac-

453
tical complexities of the various negotiations in progress, to which I wish all success. But I have always found myself—I do no know whether others have—that in German arguments the really difficult disagreements over what appear to be details usually spring from concealed differences over fundamentals. Once you can clear the fundamentals, then the details move forward apace. As regards fundamentals, I am not dissenting from what I conceive to be the trend of the policy of the Government, as expressed in those elevated and deeply earnest speeches of the Foreign Secretary in another place, but I am trying to indicate an emphasis, an urgency, a conviction, not merely as to where we ought to arrive as some future date but as to where we ought to arrive at once. Speed, if ever it was, is of the essence of this particular business, for I fear that to proceed at any pace except the maximum is never to get there in a spiritual sense at all. I am not talking mainly in strategic terms, though the strategic case for speed is surely overwhelming; nor mainly in diplomatic terms, though I know of no diplomatic problem more urgent. Thank Heaven our High Commissioner, Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, is so good and outstanding a man! I am thinking of what I mentioned earlier, of the mind and soul of Germany, and, may I venture to add with great respect, the mind and soul of our own country.
Many Englishmen and Englishwomen have made a great and lasting impression for good on Germans during the last few years. Members of the Control Commission come first into our minds—some of them members of your Lordships' House—but also one thinks of the many high-minded well-intentioned visitors from this country, and one does not forget the many people here who have welcomed Germans, including prisoners of war in the early days, into their homes. I would say that the benefit has not been entirely on one side. I myself believe that there are few limits to what the good will and initiative of voluntary societies and private citizens in both countries can accomplish on behalf of Anglo-German understanding. On the Governmental plane, from everything I hear, Mr. Morrison's visit to Germany made an excellent impression. We all await with the keenest pleasure the visit of Dr. Adenauer, a real
454
German statesman and a truly great European.
But behind all that, conditioning all that, lie the great decisions of policy which would face any British Government in power in the immediate future. Has not the time come, six and a half years after the surrender—if I remember rightly, the occupation of France ended three years after the end of the Napoleonic War—to take the important steps forward which I know are being, discussed, a new departure in spirit which will be understood not only among experts and diplomats, but among millions here, in Germany and everywhere. We have held out the right hand of friendship to Germany quite a number of times—I have done so myself on occasions—but somehow I fear that the left fist has always seemed to be clenched for a counter—blow should it prove necessary. Has not the time come—and I appeal to the noble Marquess—to hold out both hands unreservedly at last? Has not the time come to say and prove in action that we are ready to treat not only individual Germans but the German country on a friendly and normal—which can only mean an equal—basis? I know the question put in that way may sound very general and even vague, but the answer translated into deeds will certainly be lost on no one in Germany. For good or for evil, its effect will be indubitable and enduring. In my view everything depends on making the new contractual relationship something in which from its first moments the great mass of self-respecting Germans can take a pride, and not something they have to be ashamed of or apologise for.
I recognise the difficulty of much more being said by the Government this afternoon, and I am not looking for any concrete pronouncement from the noble Marquess. But I beg him, and through him I implore the Government, in the critical times ahead to give an affirmative, a cordial and effective answer to this plea, one which will uplift the hearts of all who are witnessing, as they are, with intense sympathy a great people's struggle to redeem themselves, to lift themselves out of the mire, and also one which will uplift the hearts of the still wider circles who pray continually for a strengthening of all those forces which are operating in the world for peace.
5.30 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I see that there are still eight speakers on the list, and accordingly I will endeavour to be as brief as I can. I propose to speak on only two subjects—Egypt and Malaya. But before proceeding to do so may I be allowed to refer to a point made by the noble Lord who has just sat down—that concerning war criminals? I understand that Mr. Shigemitsu, my old friend, has been liberated. I am sure that all his friends will rejoice as I do. I knew him very well indeed; we were colleagues in China for many years, including the period when Japan took action against the Chinese around Shanghai. I can only say that during all that time his sentiments were quite admirable, and I was all the more distressed when I heard that he found himself in the dock with the rest; I could hardly bring myself to believe it. J therefore rejoice, as I am sure all his friends rejoice, that Mr. Shigemitsu has at last been liberated. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, is to touch upon this point later. I realise that it is a very contentious subject.
Last night I was thinking over the sort of line upon which I might address your Lordships. This morning I was looking at two organs of the Press. The first was The Times, and it contained an article which opens with these words:
"All is quiet in Ismailia. The ugly situation that developed at the week-end has been ended by arrangement between the local authorities on the two sides. … "
I turned to another paper and saw a message from Cairo dated yesterday, Tuesday, which said that a Note had been addressed to us containing certain charges. I should like to read the paragraph as published—I am not responsible for the translation: indeed, I hope that it is a mis-translation. The Note says:
"It is undeniably demonstrated to the Egyptian authorities that numerous British civilians, elsewhere in the city of Ismailia, participated coldly and deliberately in the massacre of innocents—firing on the population and the Egyptian police force from windows and balconies of their houses and apartments,"
"These British civilians are guilty of the most abominable crime against the inhabitants and police of the city which has given them hospitality."
Your Lordships will observe the situation reads somewhat differently from that stated in the other and presumably earlier report. The later has, I presume, still to be confirmed. But if this latter report
456
is correctly reported, what could be more provocative or more dangerous at the present time? This is surely a direct incentive to violence. I must say that when I read this I was considerably alarmed.
Like, I suppose, most other noble Lords, I have felt a sense of relief during the last few weeks that at the helm of foreign affairs there should be a man (I am proud and glad to say that I have served many years under him) who has the necessary experience, technique and knowledge to such a fine degree as our present Foreign Secretary. I do not think anybody in this House will disagree with that statement. Mr. Eden has something which is not only the result of experience but which is inborn in some people, and that is what the French call doigte, which may be translated as "touch." It is of great importance to know when to do a thing, and why it should be done. That is vital in foreign affairs. Your Lordships may also remember that Mr. Eden is something of an Oriental scholar. I believe that in his youth he took Middle Eastern Oriental languages. I can remember seeing him reading texts in Persian and, I believe also, in Arabic. It has even been whispered that he once composed a Persian poem. Such a knowledge of the language is a very great advantage, for it is of great importance that the Foreign Secretary of the day should know something of the type of mind with which he has to deal. That specialised knowledge must be of great assistance to Mr. Eden.
The situation in Egypt obviously is extremely bad. It is no good blinking that fact. I believe that the policy enunciated in his speech as Secretary of State in another place, is right: we have to stand firmly on our Treaty rights. There can be no doubt about that. At the same time, nobody in his senses can be pleased at the situation with which we are now faced. It is a distressing and unpleasant one. I do not pretend to have any inside knowledge of these matters; I speak only of what I have seen in the Press. Yet I cannot help feeling that there may be small chinks of light here and there. For example, there has been, so far as I have seen, no suggestion that any portion of the Egyptian Army has been involved in any incident up to date. That is borne out in the statement in The Times to which I alluded

457
earlier. Our Commander-in-Chief, General Erskine, must have been in touch with the Egyptian military authorities to have arranged that the Egyptian police shall be disarmed. I repeat, nowhere has it appeared that up to date the Egyptian Army has been drawn into this most unfortunate affair. I hope this will continue. In passing, I should wish to pay my tribute to General Erskine and his troops. They have withstood provocation of an extreme degree. Those of your Lordships who have seen rioting may know what it means to have to stand up to the throwing of brickbats, broken bottles and other unpleasant implements—to mention no worse. It is difficult to maintain a high level of restraint in such circumstances: and that is just what our people there have had to put up with. Your Lordships will agree that the conduct of our troops has been altogether exemplary.
There is another chink of light, it seems to me, though. as I have said, I speak without any inside knowledge. The summary dismissal by Egypt in an almost insultingly short space of time of the four-Power proposals made in Cairo does not seem to have made a good impression in the surrounding Moslem States—quite rightly, too. After all, this proposal is a great departure—indeed it is an enormous departure. It is an offer to include on an equal footing all these Middle East States in this new system of defence that we are building up. To me it is beyond measure distressing that the Egyptians should so summarily have dismissed this offer, because it is a big departure; it is a really big affair, yet it was just thrown in the mud and not even considered properly. I cannot believe that in the various capitals of the surrounding Moslem States they can be very happy about that. That is coupled with other factors. True, it is only a straw in the wind and it may not be even that. Yet there might be in it something helpful. And let us remember that amongst the surrounding Moslem States there is one man—I am talking now of five or six years ago—who stood out head and shoulders above everybody in the whole area: I mean King Ibdn Saoud, a great statesman and King of Saudi-Arabia. He is no longer so young as he was at the time of which I speak, but at that time he exercised a restraining and healthy influence. I can quote cases where he did so. At the risk of indiscretion I may even inform your Lordships that
458
there was a moment when, on reports which came to some of our authorities, it was considered a good thing to invite him to join the war on our side. It was done against my advice. He was invited and he refused; and he refused for very goods reasons. Although he was such a staunch friend of ours he saw at that time that he could be more valuable as a friendly neutral than as a co-belligerent.
I come to Egypt itself. I am not going to mention names—it would be most unwise to do so—but I know of several Egyptian statesmen who are not happy at the present turn of affairs. One hopes that so long as things do not get worse—and they must not be allowed to get worse—the time may come when something may emerge along such lines. The difficulties are enormous. We all know what "face" means to Orientals. It is a term primarily derived from China. Yet every nation has its "face"; we too have our "face," and it is a very big one. We do not like being humiliated, and we also can be quite touchy. These people have got themselves into a state of frenzy. of surexcitation, of nationalistic growing pains. It must be very difficult at the moment—in fact it is almost impossible—to see how, without loss of "face," which is always fatal, a solution can be found. It certainly cannot be found very quickly. To return to where I began, I personally am all the more glad that at this time of trial, strain and test it should be our present Secretary of State who is handling it, because he alone has certain qualifications which should help him to handle this tangle successfully.
Now just a word on the Sudan. I was delighted to hear the declaration which was read by the noble Marquess on the Sudan, for let us remember this. The inhabitants of the Sudan are there "for keeps"; they and their children and their grandchildren will be there. So they naturally have an eye on the future. It is all very well for us who are there now, and who perhaps will not be there tomorrow, to look at it one way; it is quite another matter if one's personal fortunes and the safety and security of oneself and of future generations are at stake. In other words, no one, naturally, wants to be left in the lurch. It is a very human feeling. Therefore I felt that declaration was excellent. I was only sorry that it had not been made earlier, because I

459
know that when I was out in those parts there was a time when the Sudanese just did not know where they were. A great many of them were groping for some grain of comfort and sustenance and support; they did not know what line to take. Therefore when the flow of propaganda and such like reached them from the north, some of them, who I think otherwise might not have done so, sat on the fence. All the more reason, then, to welcome the declaration which has just been made by the Government. I am sure that it will make a great difference. The Sudanese are grand people—we all know that. The one thing that I trust will not occur is the holding of a plebiscite on the conditions which appear to have been so far suggested: that all officials should be withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Suggested by the Egyptian Foreign Minister.
LORD KILLEARN: Yes, most definitely. That would mean pandemonium. It would be insanity. You can imagine the whole government of the country stopping—and then what? The Sudan is not quite a normal country. The pagan South are not so highly educated politically as we here are and they are very much dependent on their officials to keep them straight and run the administration. I mention this point only to emphasise the absurdity of the proposal. I was indeed surprised to read in the Press—it cannot surely be true—that the Secretary-General of the United Nations was supporting this proposal. If he did, he cannot have known the facts of the local situation.
I have already kept your Lordships longer than I intended. So I will pass hurriedly to my other subject, Malaya. Malaya is not strictly foreign politics, but the Rules of Procedure of this House are so delightfully lax—if that is the appropriate word—or better, elastic, that one can bring into a debate almost anything one likes. Malaya plays a considerable role in the whole question of our foreign policy. I am already on record twice on that subject—I had forgotten what I said but I looked it up two nights ago—first, on April 13, 1949, and secondly, on April 15, 1950—it is rather curious that there
460
was just one year in between. I appear on both occasions to have been so venturesome as to address your Lordships on the subject of Malaya. Reading through what I then said, it seemed to me—though this sounds conceited—that I put it rather well. I said that the situation was pretty desperate, for the reasons which I then gave. That was two years ago and there was a tendency in some quarters at that time to say, "This man is an alarmist. He is over-painting the picture." But I was not. I knew that at the time, because understatement is always better than over-statement.
Unfortunately, events have proved up to the hilt that what I said then was not inaccurate or alarmist, was not an exaggeration, and the situation in the two years which have since elapsed has become even worse. I still come back—am still unorthodox—to the same solution which I came to then, namely, that extraordinary times require extraordinary measures and extraordinary men. In other words, with the machine that you have out there you are putting too much of a strain on the set-up. We English are peculiar people; we are indeed very odd people. We have certain attributes that others have not to the same extent. One of them is that we get on with each other and that we can make work things which I doubt whether any logically-minded people could make work. I venture to say that the governmental machine, the régime, out there is totally unsuited to a time of crisis such as the present: it is not really workable in a time of peace. though somehow it has creakingly worked.
Will your Lordships first think of what it consists? There is a Commissioner General at the top. Unless his powers have been altered since I was there, he has no executive authority. That must be difficult for him. He is responsible to two masters, the Foreign Secretary and the Colonial Secretary. Under him, or next to him, or with him, are four Colonial Governors—I am not sure that there are not five, but at least there are four. One is called the High Commissioner for Malaya, then there are the Governors of Singapore, Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak. Each of those Governors has to report to the Colonial Office; at the same time presumably copies go to the

461
Commissioner General, and the Commissioner General, with his function of coordinating, no doubt makes his voice heard. So it goes on. My Lords, honestly, is that the sort of structure which is at all fitted to cope with a national emergency? Can it be? It cannot be. Therefore, I had a considerable feeling of relief when it was announced that the Colonial Secretary was going out to Malaya: first, because the situation clearly is extremely unpleasant and must be urgently dealt with, and secondly, because, having worked with the right honourable gentleman in Cairo, I know that he will take decisions swiftly and act upon them quickly and if necessary drastically. He has that determination, which is so much wanted. I still hold that the true solution lies in a supreme authority, able to get on with the job and given full authority to get on with it. That is the right answer.
My Lords, I have come to the end of the few remarks I had to make. It all comes to the same thing: that really successful diplomacy is silent diplomacy; that is to say, if you are successful the thing never comes out. The test of your success is the lack of publicity. In other words, you should have vision to see or to try to see a little ahead what is going to happen and then take your measures to see that it does not happen. The more successful you are, the less limelight you get, and the less risk there is of a clash. Therefore, I would put, first, vision. Then I would put fairness, and by "fairness" I mean that your first job is to serve the interests of your country fairly; and, subject always to that, your local client should know that, if he can convince you that he has a good case, you are ready to put that case up to your principals. That leads to confidence. Then I come to the last of my ingredients to successful diplomacy, namely, that your fairness must be linked with firmness. You must know what your policy is. You must know clearly from home what your instructions are, what your authority is, and what you have got to do; and when you know that, you must be firm about it. I am speaking now as the man at the other end of the wire. You are the captain on the bridge of the ship; the navigation is left to you. But you have your sailing orders. You have to decide how best to navigate. How you actually
462
get to your destination is a matter for your own discretion, so long as you keep within the limits and bounds of your instructions. For that, you must be clear what you are aiming at, what your instructions are; then follows determination to put them through, fairly but firmly, but always giving the other fellow credit for what he has to say on his side—and that may often be quite a lot. My Lords, I have detained you long enough.
5.55 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords. our debate to-day has taken place with the advantage of our having been able to read and study the two days' debate which has taken place in another place. I noticed one salient fact about that debate—namely, that really nothing new was said. The Foreign Secretary really told us nothing. He said nothing which has not been said before, and he told us nothing which has not already appeared in the Press. I am not entirely surprised about that, because if it is true that the new Chancellor of the Exchequer has found the Treasury till rather empty, I understand it is also the case that the new Foreign Secretary has found the Foreign Office cupboards uncomfortably full of skeletons which have accumulated during the past three years. Indeed, I have been told that even the housemaids' closets have been pressed into requisition in order to accommodate the superfluity of skeletons. But the fact that the Foreign Secretary's statement contained nothing or very little that was new, did not at the same time prevent that statement from being extremely impressive and from giving a great sense of reassurance, due to the qualities of the man himself. Quite recently, since the Election, I have travelled through three countries, and on all hands I found that the Foreign Secretary's qualities of integrity, experience and knowledge inspire respect and beget confidence.
I noticed another thing in the debate, in the speech of the former Foreign Secretary, Mr. Morrison. He said that there was no change in policy. Well, perhaps there has not been much time in which to effect changes in policy. But sometimes it is the case that a change of man can be almost as important as a change of policy. Indeed, I myself have known warships which have not done at all creditably under one captain, but have become extremely smart and efficient

463
ships under another captain. But the particular point that struck me about that remark of Mr. Morrison was that, if indeed there has been no change of policy under the new management, it seems rather to destroy those remarks about warmongering and about the Prime Minister rubbing his hands in front of the microphone at the prospect of trouble in Egypt. Those remarks seem to me to have been proved to be merely Party electioneering, for if there were no change of policy how would such statements possibly be justified? I am bound to say that I think that Mr. Morrison, knowing that the possibility of a defeat at the polls existed, with a consequent change in the Foreign Secretaryship, was extraordinarily irresponsible to hang round a possible successor charges of warmongering, which would simply feed material into the hands of the enemies of this country. I was very glad indeed to see that one of the most respected members of Mr. Morrison's Party—namely, Mr. Glenvil Hall—was at pains during the Election to dissociate himself from that form of propaganda, and I am quite sure that many other members of the Party felt the same way as did Mr. Glenvil Hall.
My Lords, this afternoon very little has been said on the subject of Russia. I should imagine that that is because we are all getting rather tired of the performances of the Russian representatives at various conferences. There was the Russian reaction to the disarmament proposals which were put forward by America, France and ourselves—proposals which, even if they required discussion and possible amendment here and there, were nevertheless obviously completely fair and put forward with a great sense of justice. They were dismissed by Mr. Vyshinsky with the charge that the Atlantic bloc were thirsting for a third world war, and that American policy is aimed at a new war, a new stream of blood. Really, how does one go on in face of that sort of thing? In view of that, I was very surprised indeed to find Mr. Crossman informing us: that rearmament has got more to do with Washington than with Moscow. How that can be squared with the remarks of Mr. Vyshinsky, I really do not know.
All we ask from Russia is co-operation. We do not wish to indulge in a crusade
464
against Communism in itself. Our relations with Yugoslavia alone prove that fact. We are willing to deal with and to negotiate with a Communist country, but, like all free nations, we quarrel with Kremlin imperialism using Communism—and I doubt if the men in the Kremlin have any personal belief in Communism at all—as a tool for aggression. However, we have to face the fact that Russia has now rejected a perfectly fair and square proposal for disarmament, a proposal which, in effect, said: "Let us have the cards on the table all the time, face upwards." That has been rejected. Russia prefers, apparently, to be the leader of the mad dog pack of nations. I think the matter can be well summed up in the words of an American official who said: "Russia has got so used to putting in phoney nickels that she would not know how to use a good one" I think that that is about the situation.
I feel some diffidence about saying a word on the subject of Egypt, after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, who speaks with such vast experience and knowledge of the country. The situation is, indeed, as the noble Lord said, an extremely awkward one. After all, we are not in this business as an individual country; we are a member of the United Nations. We are also an integral part of Western defence, and Western defence simply cannot afford to be driven out of the Middle East and North Africa, leaving a vacuum for Russia—which, unlike nature, adores a vacuum. We have to maintain the bridge between Africa and Asia and to guard an area where at present Russia has no satellite States, but where fanaticism, racial hatred and abject misery combine to make a cauldron simply seething, not merely with discontent, but with revolution. It is that abject misery of the Egyptians which, I believe—I am probably uttering a commonplace—is the cause of the present situation with which we are confronted in Egypt. There you have this abject misery; a few rich at the top, and, below, this great population of 23,000,000, densely packed into that comparatively small area and living below the level of their very animals. The result is that mob violence has risen and has been directed against the Government and all foreigners. "Kill the Jews," "Kill the British," "Down with

465
Acheson, "and so on—those are the cries that are uttered.
It is very natural—and I believe that Lord Killearn would confirm what I say in this connection—that in such a situation the Government of Egypt try to canalise that mob violence off against the foreigner, to divert it from themselves, and, in particular, to direct it against us. And that has led to the revolutionary situation which exists. If Egypt were to accept our offer, then the mob violence would be turned against her Government, because there would no longer be a scapegoat foreigner against whom to direct it. The Middle East Command, as now constituted, may, in the long run—but I fear it will be a very long run—ameliorate the situation in Egypt and the Middle East. If it can achieve peace and security in those areas, then social and economic progress will follow—but I agree it will be in the very long run. The establishment of a Middle East Command must be accompanied by a clear intimation that the West seeks to promote the sovereignty and independence of the Middle Eastern. States and to relieve poverty, ignorance and disease, which infallibly make for revolution.
I think it is a very hopeful sign that President Truman has acted promptly by appointing Mr. Edwin Locke, with the rank of ambassador, as co-ordinator of economic and technical aid in this area between the Mediterranean and the Arabian seas, and has given him 160,000,000 dollars to spend in order to strengthen the economies of the Middle East States. What has been happening in the past is that we have been developing a defensive strategy in this area while neglecting signs of economic strain, such as caused the Persian kettle to boil over, and the West has not been co-ordinating its political and economic policies in that region. As a result we have had crisis after crisis, which we have attempted, in each case, to solve by ad hoc policies. But ad hoc policies are no proper foundation for the conduct of foreign affairs; they must be conducted upon the principle of foresight.
Now, I venture to put this question to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. I regret that I have not given him notice of it, but he may think it worth while to say something about it. We are at the present moment in Egypt the
466
target of all the attacks and all the violence, although, as I have said, we are acting very largely in the cause of Western defence, and we are also a member of the United Nations. Is there some intention of taking this affair of the Treaty to the United Nations and getting a United Nations declaration upon it? It seems to me that if we did that, we should be in a much stronger position, and that the Egyptian Government might well hesitate if they found themselves confronted with a decision of the United Nations upon the subject of that Treaty, accompanied by our perfect willingness as an individual country to negotiate a new Treaty and accompanied also by a most honourable and generous offer—as it is—to Egypt to take her place alongside the great Powers of the world in the organisation of Western defence. I merely ask if something of that nature can be done, so that we do not alone remain the target of the attack in Egypt, but that Egypt is confronted with a decision of the Atlantic Powers and of the United Nations. I know of the Foreign Secretary's argument about bases—that it would be no shame upon Egypt to accept arrangements with us similar to those which we have accepted with America about bases here. That is perfectly true. But if stupidly, or foolishly, Egypt refuses to agree open-handedly, we cannot go on keeping troops of one nation indefinitely in the territory of another nation which does not want to see them there. That state of affairs will, sooner or later, have to come to an end.
My Lords, I am endeavouring to speak very briefly for I know how many speakers there are to follow me. But following what the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, said, I should like to say just one or two words about the approaching visit of the Prime Minister to the United States, a visit which I think we may say we hope will redound—in every sense of the words—to our credit. Mr. Churchill certainly enjoys great popularity in the United States. I went to Washington at the time when Mr. Attlee was on his way to visit President Truman. I remember that when I arrived at the airport I was passed very swiftly through passport control, through quarantine and through the immigration authorities and the customs. I was not asked to open a bag, my passport was not even looked at, and, in the course of the whole business, I had only

467
one question addressed to me, and that was: "Why did you not bring old Churchill over with you?" He certainly enjoys great popularity, but at the same time he might find the climate just a little more bleak than he has been accustomed to, because, although I do not say it is too serious as yet, there is a growing opposition to lending more money to Europe. In some quarters it is said that Mr. Churchill has taken over an insolvent concern and is coming over to America to ask for help in reconstructing the business. Many American businessmen, like the man in the song, are reciting:
"My taxes are high and my profits are small."
They do not feel in a particularly generous mood. They think that Europe has had about enough from them in help. I am not saying that that is a general feeling, but it exists. They are very tired of the recurring crises in this country and in Europe and of having to launch the lifeboat so repeatedly. They want to see Europe getting on a sound economic basis and they do not like to see a country living above its income. As I think the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, said, they wish to help only countries which are determined to achieve a stable economy by their own efforts as far as possible and by avoiding extreme policies which produce disequilibrium. In those circumstances, I think Mr. Churchill must expect a certain amount of misrepresentation, which he will certainly be able to correct, because it will be said that he has come to extract hard-earned dollars much needed by hard-working men, and steel and raw materials which are seriously needed by American industry.
Speaker after speaker has emphasised to-day that we are faced with a difficult and complex situation. I feel more and more that we are faced by questions in our foreign relations which are almost impossible to answer. After all, there are doors to which there are no keys We are in difficulties with Russia, China, Persia and Egypt. Is it possible to make any offer to Russia that we have not already made, or any offer to China about the Korean trouble which has not already been made, or any new offer to Persia or to Egypt? In every one of these instances we have gone to the limit of conciliation. How can we go further without sacrificing not only our own interests but those
468
interests of which we are part guardians with the Commonwealth? I keep on asking myself the question: What more have we to offer than we have already offered in each of these critical and complex situations? There is a Spanish proverb of which I have always been fond, which says that if one goes on knocking on a closed door, the Devil will open it. If we tried to go much further in conciliation, we might find ourselves in a very uncomfortable position. If these problems are not solved and remain to confront us with such dangers. I think the responsibility clearly lies upon other shoulders than our own.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, is going, to deal with the question of war criminals. I feel a personal interest in that because I took part in a debate initiated by the noble Lord on the subject of Shigemitsu. The noble Viscount, Lord Jowitt, will perhaps allow me to say that he was not quite at his best in answering that debate. It happened that General MacArthur took a different view of the subject than the noble and learned Viscount, and Shigemitsu has been released. In the course of that debate I said that vindictiveness is not an English trait. What we like is a good fight, and the principle of shaking hands after the fight is ingrained in us from our schooldays upwards. Vindictiveness and long-drawn-out rancour ill become this country.
6.16 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, after spending fifty years close to the heart of British government, I have listened with absorbed interest to the able speeches on a variety of topics, the history of which I have been privileged to watch grow, but I do not propose at this hour to be drawn into any of them. I am going to have a one-track mind and open up a new question. After giving notice to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, I am raising briefly a question which. though pertinent to our foreign policy, has not yet been mentioned in any recent debates in either House—namely, the question of clemency for war criminals in ex-enemy countries. I shall confine myself to the international aspects, as distinct from the controversial judicial and moral aspects, on which my views are well known. My choice of that subject conforms to the excellent plan of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to tackle

469
and solve "definite and limited problems" one by one and thereby to reduce the international tension.
In the war crimes question we have a definite and limited problem, the solution of which is not difficult and would greatly diminish, at any rate, a grave risk of international tension al a key point in the policy of the Atlantic Treaty Organisation. May I develop that theme? In the international situation the outstanding feature is, of course, the deplorable division of the world into two camps, Communist and non-Communist. That has already resulted in protracted and gruelling wars—small wars, but wars which collectively draw too many troops to distant theatres. Even more dangerous than the present hostilities is the precarious situation along the line of the Iron Curtain, where the vast plains of Eastern and Central Europe lend themselves to the deployment of big battalions which, as we have seen in Korea, still count for a great deal. To counter that threat, the Atlantic Pact Powers, after weighing all aspects, have rightly sought the co-operation of Western Germany, pending, one hopes, the formation of a united Germany. The German population, predominantly Christian and non-Communist in character, are gradually realising that their interest coincides with our own, and that their security can best be assured by associating themselves with the Atlantic Pact nations, in order to establish the balance of power, with no offensive or war-like aims whatsoever, but solely to secure peace.
If that plan is to succeed, the closest co-operation and mutual respect is necessary between Germany and the Atlantic Pact Powers, and especially with this country. A certain amount has been done, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, mentioned, and Dr. Adenauer's visit should do a great deal of good. But more is required. As stated in the declaration issued on October 20, after the recent session of the Atlantic Treaty Organisation at Ottawa:
"All obstacles which hinder co-operation on an equal footing should be removed."
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, said something of the same kind, as also did the noble Lord. Lord Pakenham. Probably the greatest obstacle to wholehearted co-operation is the perpetuation of the war crimes policy,
470
and the retention in prison of so many condemned prisoners. The subject is essentially a human one, capable, if neglected, of arousing fierce and sustained resentment, or, if generously handled, of starting a genuine reconciliation. We cannot hope for mutual trust between nations, and especially their fighting forces, which is vital to the operation of the plan, so long as the principal German leaders, and a great number of lesser folk, are kept in prison. How should we feel to-day, and in this House, if the situation had been reversed—and it was a near thing at one time—and our political leaders, as well as Admirals of the Fleet, Field Marshals and Marshals of the Royal Air Force were for years and years to be kept locked up in custody in the Tower of London under German guard, with hundreds of less important people in prison elsewhere? I am certain that we should flatly decline to ally ourselves to those who were treating us in this way until that humiliating and ever-present stigma had been removed.
What I am urging, then, in the vital interest of ending tension and securing efficient, wholehearted co-operation with Germany, is an end to the war crimes policy. It has had a good run, and any advantages that it may have possessed must have been realised by now, and there is no benefit that I can see in continuing it. Already, of course, a certain amount of clemency has been shown, and I think that was greatly stimulated by the debate that was initiated here in May, 1949, by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester. In the British Zone the clemency inquiry started in August, 1949, about two months after the debate; and, so far as I can ascertain, it resulted in the release of only about 124 prisoners, out of 560-odd, by June, 1951, when responsibility for clemency was transferred from the High Commissioner to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Since then I have had no news. In the American Zone the process began later, in March, 1950, but was more rapid. After a year, out of 28 death sentences no fewer than 21 were commuted, and there were large reductions in many other sentences, resulting in many releases, after allowing for time already served. In Japan, General MacArthur's admirable clemency regulations were issued early in 1950. After a number of minor Japanese war criminals had been freed, Mr. Shigemitsu,

471
who has been referred to by several noble Lords, was released on parole exactly a year ago to-day, on November 21, 1950; and exactly a fortnight ago, on November 7, having earned the maximum credit for exemplary behaviour under the regulations, his sentence expired. Judicially, I am glad to say, he is now completely free. There have also been some spectacular releases of German Generals in Belgium, and of at least one in France. It seems that clemency is rather in the air.
Your Lordships may ask what more can be done. People who have been concerned in the revision of sentences tell me that, with the best will in the world, little progress is possible on present lines. It is desperately slow, as I have shown, and they are blocked by certain very much criticised features in the legal instruments under which the trials were held, although, as I have said, I do not want to be drawn into discussion of those. Some more rough and ready method is necessary if we are to make progress. Of course, the simplest plan is often the best plan, and the simplest plan would be to amnesty the lot. Unfortunately, we do not stand alone in this matter, and I think other methods will have to be considered. On the whole, with these very delicate discussions going on in Paris, I thought it better not to go further into details. However, I have some ideas on the subject, and if the course were deemed appropriate I should like to submit some proposals direct to His Majesty's Government. To-day, however, I am concerned only with establishing the principle of clemency.
In that connection, with your Lordships' permission, I will read one or two extracts from speeches by one whose authority to speak on this question cannot be challenged—namely, the most outstanding figure in the world at the present time, the present Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill. The first extract is from a long speech he made on the Address on October 28, 1948. That speech seems rather to have been lost sight of, because I should certainly have brought it up in 1949 had I realised that it had been made. Mr. Churchill said [OFFICIAL REPORT, COMMONS; VOL 457, Col. 256]:
"Revenge is, of all satisfactions, the most costly and long drawn out retributive persecution is, of all policies, the most pernicious.
472
Our policy, subject to the exceptional cases I have mentioned, should henceforward be to draw the sponge across the crimes and horrors of the past—hard as that may be—and look for the sake of all our salvation, towards the future. There can be no revival of Europe without the active and loyal aid of all the German tribes. … "
The second extract is much more up-to-date. It is from a speech made at Dover on receiving the Freedom of the City on August 15, 1951, which I saw reported in only two papers. The speech was as follows:
" … It is a characteristic of our people so often in the hour of victory to throw away with one hand what they have gained so painfully with the other. I am quite sure it is our interest and our duty, and if you like our Christian duty, to do the best we can to blot out and sweep away the hatred and vengeance of the past."
There was also a short allusion to the subject, rather on the same lines, in a speech made at Liverpool on October 2, 1951. It is a little more controversial, but I do not quote it in a controversial spirit:
"The Government have, after long delays, adopted a more conciliatory policy to Western Germany, and now seek German military assistance against the Soviet menace. But they kept up their demolitions of factories and trials of German generals so long after the end of the war as to rob their present attitude of any sign of magnanimity and of the priceless advantages it may sometimes win for the victors."
Those words, my Lords, will
"touch the hearts of men and bring them back to heaven again."
They will encourage the hope that Britain has come back to the principles of decency and charity for which we fought the war. But words must be followed by deeds, for
"Hope deferred maketh the heart sick"
and we must not delay too long. I do not expect a complete answer to-day, and I have raised this matter mainly to get it on record.
6.33 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the usual custom was that on rising at this time one used to say, "At this late hour I will not unduly detain the House," and I will follow the usual custom. I begin by expressing my regrets to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, that I unfortunately had to keep an old appointment with my deputy-Leader in another place, who is the ex-Foreign Minister, because as I was speaking to-day I thought I had better keep the appointment and try to pick his brains a little. I have read what I could of the noble Marquess's speech

473
on the tape, and I shall read it in full tomorrow with. I am sure, pleasure and enlightenment. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, for what he said about the poor efforts of myself and my noble friend Lord Brabazon to try to curtail the length of speeches. If the noble Viscount will look at the times of beginning and ending of speeches in the OFFICIAL REPORT I think he will find that there is considerable improvement, and I shall certainly deserve a vote of thanks from the three Chief Whips, who are the main sufferers on occasions when many speeches are too long.
The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, will forgive me if I do not follow him. He will know the reason—it is because I also wish to follow the example of brevity. I will touch on only one subject. I gave notice of this last week, but I was told that it was rather delicate to raise it in the debate on the Address because of certain negotiations, and was asked to put off my remarks until to-day. Since then. I see that there have been references to the State of Israel by the Foreign Secretary and by my right honourable friend Mr. Herbert Morrison. I propose to discuss the part of Israel in the defence of the Middle East, her relations with the British Commonwealth, and the future prospects and happiness of the people of Israel. As I have said, there has been brief reference to this subject in another place, both in the first speech of the Foreign Secretary, and also one short, but important, reference by my right honourable friend Mr. Herbert Morrison.
We are all talking strategy in these days. The distant rumble of the guns is almost heard. Everything now has to be co-ordinated or arranged or considered from the strategical aspect of affairs. The tremendous event of the re-emergence of the State of Israel as an independent nation has been one of the greatest episodes of our time. Some of the finest minds in our political world—including the late Lord Balfour, the present Prime Minister, the late Earl Lloyd George and many others—have worked as Gentiles for the consummation of this tremendous event. I, myself, for thirty years have ventured to try to convert Gentiles, agnostics and doubters by pointing out that not only was the re-creation of this State important from the religious, his-
474
torical, political and sentimental point of view, but it also had important strategical aspects. I have used that argument again and again for thirty years in both Houses of Parliament and outside, and in the United States of America as well. At last I hope that people are beginning to see the strength of this argument.
Remember that the State of Palestine—now the nation of Israel—first of all occupies the main land passage between Asia and Africa, and for centuries that alone has given it tremendous strategic importance. Secondly, it is on the main air route from Western Europe and Britain to India and Australasia. Thirdly, from there you can safeguard the Suez Canal. Now, during all those years, my friends and I have argued that we were backing the wrong horse, as we have so often done, irrespective of Governments—I repeat: irrespective of Governments—in thinking that we can rely indefinitely on Egyptian friendship, Egyptian dependence upon us, and the non-emergence of Egyptian nationalism. We have pointed out that danger and no one would listen. At the Foreign Office and in the other offices and Ministries concerned—and this, I am sorry to say, affected all the Governments in turn—there was this fixation for the romantic Arabs who were going to be our great friends in the Middle East, these Moslem States which were going to be such a bulwark, first against Italy, then against Germany and now, I suppose, against Soviet Russia. Look at them now. In Moslem Persia we all know what has happened. In Iraq there is rising nationalism and xenophobia, and but for the accident that there happens to be a friend of ours in the highest office—I hope this will not lead to his assassination—there would be violent anti-Western feeling in Syria. We have heard from my noble friend, Lord Killearn, and others with great knowledge, including my noble friend Lord Stansgate, of what is happening in Egypt. Your one sure friend, the one people who have the Western outlook, the one people who will stand by you, are the Jews in Israel, whose re-emergence as a nation many shortsighted people, in their ignorance and prejudice, tried to check and hamper.
Have we learned our lesson now? Do we yet realise that in this Moslem sea, this Arab sea—we have good friends in Pakistan and Ibn Saud has been men-

475
tioned as our faithful friend, but apart from these Moslems the one sure island of Westernism is this small State of Israel. Now they have been invited to come into this proposed arrangement for the defence of the Middle East; and, as is not to be wondered at, it appears that there are some hesitations and doubts in Israel. For one thing, this new Government have their economic difficulties. They fought on four or five fronts against the neighbouring Arab peoples armed with British weapons and encouraged, I am sorry to say, in certain exalted quarters. They must still maintain a large army. They have opened their frontiers to every Jew from every country. Any Jew could come in, and they did their best to try to settle all those Jews and give them work and a home. It is a policy which has almost ruined the State, coming, as it has, on top of a considerable military effort. It is not unnatural that there are these hesitations about throwing in their lot immediately with Turkey, France, the United States and ourselves. Another reason is that many of their co-religionists are on the other side of the Iron Curtain and they are still hoping to give them refuge and sanctuary. Nevertheless, I believe that the orientation of Israel is towards the West. The culture, the traditions, the education, the habit of life and the outlook are Western; they are our natural friends and Allies. What they need above all is economic help.
So far, that State has been largely kept in being, has been kept viable by the tremendous contributions of Jewry throughout the world—in the United Kingdom, the United States, South Africa and elsewhere. Wherever there are communities of Jews they have contributed to this great work and helped these unfortunate refugees from Nazism and anti-Semitism in many countries. But, in spite of the generous contributions which have been pouring in, the State is almost ruined economically. A well-known and experienced diplomat representing one of the States with a mission accredited to Israel was asked what could happen: how they could net out of their economic difficulties. He replied that the difficulties were insurmountable at present; they would he overcome: but how they would be overcome he did not know.
But in the meantime the State of Israel needs help. There you have, apart from
476
the Turks, the best native army, the best fighting force, in the whole of that area—as they have shown. They deserve economic help from ourselves and from the other members of the Western Alliance. I hope this appeal will not fall on deaf ears, and that the Government will consider this matter. We know the Prime Minister's history on this matter. He has always been sound on this question—it is one of the few things in which I have always agreed with him. I hope there will be a bold turn in our policy, so that we can hold out an offer of real help to this infant State of Israel. They need help quickly. Let me hold out a few material baits. At Haifa there is the finest harbour in the Levant. Then there are those great aerodromes available, and a position from which you can hold the Suez Canal against all threats and all dangers. I would go further. I am not now speaking only as a member of the Labour Party and certainly I am not enunciating any official Labour doctrine, but I believe in, and my friends have advocated for years, a much closer association between the British Commonwealth and this new emerging State of Israel.
I point to the precedent of India. India is a Republic in name; it has a President. India is independent from every point of view; and yet we have, thanks to the genius and courage of one man, the present Leader of the Opposition in another place, an India which remains loosely, but I believe steadfastly and permanently, within that curious organisation known as the British Commonwealth. If that is the case with India, I do not see why in time Israel may not also become a part of the British Commonwealth on similar terms. If that is called Imperialism and an example of expanding the British Commonwealth, I think, nevertheless, that there are very good arguments for it, and I am prepared to meet the charge. It could have been done a decade ago, or two decades ago. If twenty years ago there had been a right policy in Downing Street and a little encouragement from the other side of the Atlantic amongst American Jewry, we might have had a Palestine which would have been a British Dominion—to the great content of the Palestinian Arabs, so many of whom are now helpless and impoverished refugees. We lost our chance then and we lost it ten years ago.

477
If we are not to lose it in the future it means a good deal of fresh thinking on both sides of Downing Street—and it is time there was a little fresh thinking. I am glad the Government are having a long Recess; it will give them time to think. I am glad, too, that so many high offices are held by members of your Lordships' House, for they, too, will have more time to think than those who have to contend with the hurly-burly of the House of Commons. Vision is needed; and without vision the people perish.
6.47 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has rendered a great contribution to this discussion on international affairs by bringing forward the subject of war criminals. I should like to follow him in emphasising the need for a reconsideration of the present position of these war criminals. I have been active in this matter for a long time, both by word of mouth and by correspondence; and I wish to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for the attention which he gave me in the days when he was at the Foreign Office. There are many anti-Nazis who are greatly exercised about this question, simply on the grounds of justice. I realise that the question has now to be looked at with a due regard to the revival of the Nazi movement which is now taking place, and I should not wish that unregenerate Nazis who have committed grave war crimes should now be set free. But most of the war criminals undergoing sentence in West prisons—I think about 200—are not in this category; and I believe that, given the will and the impetus from the highest authority, it should be possible to make a comprehensive, systematic and swift review of these cases with a view to the release of those who could be released without danger, and the reduction of the sentences of those whose sentences ought to be reduced.
There is no doubt of the gravity, as well as the complexity, of the international situation, but there is one feature which, I suggest, is not sufficiently realised. While the Soviet Union is fully armed and the Allies are rearming on a large scale, neither in the Soviet Union nor among the Western Powers is there a decided or agreed political strategy. On the Western side, the result of the first year of Western rearmament has
478
seen a remarkable change in the balance of world power. But political consciousness has not kept pace with the growth of military strength. Without an agreed political strategy, the Western Powers might be tricked or divided, or rush blindly into an atomic war. On the Eastern or Russian side, there were signs of divided counsels in the Kremlin before rearmament began. For example, in 1948, when Europe was at Russia's mercy, there were good grounds for thinking that there was a military party in favour of an all-out attack, and a propaganda party which believed that the Communist victory which was being won in Asia could be won without war, by threats, promises and penetration. And that party prevailed.
Since rearmament, the signs of indecision on the Eastern side are, I suggest, clearer. As the episode of the Soviet delegation to San Francisco for the Treaty of Japan, the zig-zag tactics of the truce negotiations in Korea, and Marshal Stalin's new reference to atomic control all suggest, the Communist leaders do not yet seem to have made up their minds between a policy of speeding up aggression, with the risk of a general war, and a policy of trying to slow down the pace of Western rearmament by a proof of their own peaceful intentions—and even by real concessions. In these circumstances, the formulation by the Western Powers of an agreed political strategy is of first-rate importance for the world, and it seems to me that British experience over many centuries gives Britain the special responsibility for the initiative in the formulation of such a policy. What should that policy be? It is idle to expect an early all-round settlement of outstanding problems, foolish to pin faith now in a great peace conference with everything on the table. Something much more moderate and definite is required. We have a choice now, in the making of which every step taken helps. Broadly, the choice is between a policy of steady advance towards successive settlements in different fields, by a combination of economic, political and military factors, and the policy of piling up armaments to a climax, with a view to demanding an overall settlement by the tactics of an ultimatum at a fixed date. The crux lies in Europe and in Germany, the centre of Europe. I welcome the words which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and his

479
appeal for a new spirit in the attitude of this country and the allied countries to Germany, especially this insistence on the attitude of treating Germany as an equal. It is the unity of Germany which is the testing point.
In yesterday's issue of The Times, your Lordships may have noticed a report of conversations in Berlin between Bishop Dibelius, the head of the German Evangelical Church, and Herr Grotewohl of Eastern Germany, following conversations between Bishop Dibelius and Chancellor Adenauer referring to the unity of East and West Germany. I have known Bishop Dibelius for twenty years, and since the war have often discussed the future of Germany with him, and with many other Germans in responsible positions. I have no doubt at all that, so long as East and West Germany are divided, there will be trouble in Europe. The reunion of East and West Germany is vital to the cause of peace, arid the continued schism can only be a seed of war. Knowing some of the difficulties and delicacies of the situation, I hope there will not be too much haste in these particular conversations with Herr Adenauer. I realise that the enrolment of German divisions in a Western Powers army has much to be said for it as a weapon against Communist aggression, but there are many difficulties lurking. The possible gain therefrom might be more than offset by the danger to German morale, through the German fear of Germany being not only, perhaps, the battleground of contending world Powers but the scene of civil war between Eastern and Western Germans. Nor must we forget the real danger of a military passion once again taking control of the German people, and the genuine fear of a militarised Germany which is held by both France and Russia.
In the conversations which Bishop Dibelius had with Herr Grotewohl, reference was made to Herr Grotewohl's offer of free elections in East Germany, for a general election throughout Germany for an all-German assembly. It is true that such an offer, if it is to be of value, must be publicly backed by the Soviet Union, but the interest is that Herr Grotewohl's offer went just far enough to show that the Russians might make a binding offer and were considering the possibility of closing the Communist; régime in East
480
Germany. If such an offer were to come from Russia in precise and binding terms, it would confront the Western Allies with their first chance of having a Communist satellite régime destroyed, not by a war but by the peaceful power of the ballot, and of seeing the triumph of freedom over totalitarianism achieved in a great country with all of Europe looking on.
I would go further and say that, if Germany could be united in a free democracy, then the collapse of the Communist régime in East Germany, as the result of free elections, would be bound to make a profound impression on all other satellite States in Eastern Europe. If a watertight offer were made, and endorsed by Soviet Russia, with conditions of adequate preparation for free elections, thorough control of the election itself, proper safeguards and guarantees for personal safety, both before, during and after the election, in my opinion, it could not be lightly turned down. It could not simply be described as unacceptable without a reason being given. Towards this object the policy of the Western Powers should, I believe, be first directed, under the influence of a British lead. More will follow as time goes on. Later (I know it must be later; it can only rightly be later), the starting of peace negotiations with Germany would depend upon Russia signing the Peace Treaty with Austria and withdrawing all Russian forces from that country. But this policy of steady advance towards successive settlement in different parts of the political field, by negotiation from sufficient strength over a period of years, requires great effort, great patience. It may be prolonged and will make big demands on our staying power, but it is hope for the future.
I mentioned an alternative policy. I know the making or the choosing of a policy must take time, and every step taken is part of the choice. But the question is, in which direction are the Governments of the West looking? The alternative policy is the piling up of more and more armaments as rapidly as we can to a maximum, with a view to achieving a new overall settlement by a big diplomatic "show-down." To certain temperaments in certain moods this may be attractive, but there are at least three decisive arguments against it. First, the belief that you will ever get an overall

481
final settlement by force of arms conceals a fallacy. Even if we knew what such an overall settlement requires, especially with regard to Asia, there is no reason to believe that, however far reaching the concessions, it would be final unless the West kept up a considerable defence effort, military, political and economic, or the Soviet régime in Russia itself were destroyed, which is inconceivable without a Third World War. Secondly, exclusive concentration on vast rearmaments in the end undermines the foundations of Western political and economic strength. If Russia were to offer more specific and serious concessions—of course, they must he tested and probed to the utmost—the need to answer them will grow. This is a factor which no democracy can ignore. Thirdly, the piling up of more arid more arms for an early climax carries the tactics of an ultimatum with it which may, if rejected, either lead to humiliating political defeat or aggressive war. That is, indeed, a gamble with the destiny of mankind.
In this latter connection I should like to call attention to a certain danger which appears to be raising its head once again with regard to atomic weapons. In December, 1950, President Truman, after conversations with Mr. Attlee, issued a statement in which he expressed the hope that world conditions would never call for the use of the atomic bomb, and assured Mr. Attlee of his desire to keep him informed of further developments which might change the situation. Mr. Eden on December 14, when this was reported in another place, suggested that machinery was required to act as a liaison between the United Nations and the commander in the field. No more was heard of any possible use of atomic bombs then. But recently, not on the side of the Government but on the side of representatives holding important positions, the language has been less restrained. On October 5 last, Mr. Gordon Dean, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, in a speech to the University of Southern California, said:
"We have definitely entered on an era when we can use atomic weapons tactically as well as strategically."
He urged that when a situation arose where the use of any kind of weapon was considered justifiable, serious considera-
482
tion should be given to the use of the atomic weapon
"provided it can be used effectively from the military standpoint and that it is no more destructive than is necessary to meet the particular situation."
Mr. Alfred Friendly, the well-informed correspondent, in the Washington Post on November 11, only the other day, said:
"There has been heavy public pressure to use atomic weapons in Korea and Congressional agitation to this enl, growing in recent weeks, will probably increase. For the notion of annihilating the Red Chinese and North Korean enemy with an atomic inferno is an appealing one. But, according to Government sources who are most Concerned with the problem, here are some of the reasons which deflate the idea"—
and he proceeds to set them out. For example, they would reduce the stockpile, it would be uneconomic, it is unsuitable terrain, and it would be bad propaganda. I mention that only to show that it is not any kind of responsible opinion of the Government in the United States, but that there is a certain amount of public pressure in certain large sections of the American people—not, I hope, characteristic. I simply call attention to that danger I have no doubt from what was said in another place yesterday, that the Government is fully alive to this problem. I would only say that such a terrible use of an atomic bomb, as a preventive weapon, whether on Asiatic or European human beings, would do incalculable moral harm to the whole Western cause.
My Lords, in what I have said, posing the choice broadly as it seems to me, I do not in the least suggest that the Government have the latter alternative at all in their minds. All I am saying is that every step at this moment counts in the direction in which we are going or are to be drawn. Times are grave, beyond our thought. The chasm between East and West is deep and `vide. It is for us on the Western side to rise to the height of our ideals. I am convinced that the British Government has a great part to play in the leadership of the West. The policy which I trust they will foster and advance is a policy making for justice and peace. a policy of proceeding by successive stages to the ultimate goal in a firm, patient, calm spirit very congenial to the British temperament arid, as I believe, capable of being most worthily executed

483
and upheld by His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
7.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, looking back over the years since I first became associated with foreign affairs in another place, it seems to me that the debates which have taken place in both Houses of Parliament this week equal in importance, if they do not transcend, any discussions on international affairs that have taken place within living memory. To the problems of the West which predominated a generation and more ago, have been added the tremendous problems of the Middle and Far East—all intertwined, one with the other. The responsibilities which rest to-day upon His Majesty's Government, as indeed they did upon the late Government, are indeed tremendous. I hope that I shall evoke greater gratitude from your Lordships in respect of the length of my speech than did even my noble friend on my left, who asked that your gratitude should be extended to him.
In the few remarks which I shall address to your Lordships I propose to travel out to the Far East. It is a subject in which I have taken great interest for a considerable number of years, since it was my privilege in early manhood to serve on the Manchurian border. My next encounter with that part of the world was in another place when I spoke on the Treaty of Peace Bill for giving effect to the Versailles Treaty in the year 1919, and pleaded the cause of China. I pleaded that the acquisition by Japan of Tsingtao and the Kiaochao territories should be rejected by the Peace Conference, and I remember saying at the time that, were that acquisition not rejected, the Province of Shantung would turn the future for a hundred years. It has turned it for the last thirty years, and I think it is quite likely to turn it for a considerable period of time still to come. I remember that, as I developed my theme, the House began to empty—slowly at first, then very rapidly—and I think that one of the very few Members left in the House towards the end of my speech was my noble friend on my left. The only reason he remained was that—as usual to the great benefit of the House, and as generally happened on most days of the Session—he was waiting to catch the Speaker's eye.
484
Let me now come, if I may, to the Far East and to the position in Korea to-day. I do not propose to deal with the conversations and negotiations that are taking place with regard to an Armistice. but I notice that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his speech in another place, said:
"For our part, we earnestly hope that these fresh proposals will lead to the early conclusion of a secure and genuine armistice and the restoration of peace in Korea "—
as, of course, we all do. He went on:
"If that is achieved, the way will then he open for discussions of a political settlement of the Korean problem, and then, perhaps, for a wider settlement of ether problems in the Far East."
I wonder why the Secretary of State used the word "perhaps." I am not asking the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to give me an answer, nor, indeed, am I posing any questions to him to-night. But I hope that that word "perhaps," which seems rather ominous to me, does not entail that in the negotiations for a wider settlement any conditions are to be imposed which—let me put it bluntly—ought not to be imposed. I do not propose to deal with them now or to detail them, but I refer to such conditions as the entry of China into the United Nations on terms to which she could not agree, and other conditions of that nature.
A further point arises in this connection, and it is this. When the Foreign Secretary says that "perhaps" there will be discussions for a wider settlement of other problems in the Far East, we know, of course, that those discussions must come—as we hope will be the case—once an Armistice has been arranged. How are those discussions to be conducted? Again I am not asking the noble Marquess to give me an answer to-night. I am just expressing thoughts which are passing through my mind on this subject. How are these discussions to be conducted? Are they to be conducted through a Commission of the United Nations, in which this country may play a minor part? After all, we have had examples of decisions emanating from the United Nations with which a great many people in this country are in disagreement. The Resolution which has been passed by the United Nations defining China as an aggressor nation was not in accordance with the views, as I understood them, of the late Government. The telegram

485
on which the Resolution was based has not, I am given to understand, been included in the White Paper which dealt with that particular aspect of the Security Resolution.
VISCOUNT JOWITT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment to say that we always regarded it as quite plain that the North Koreans were the aggressors, and that China came to their assistance. I said that so many times, and it seems to me quite unarguable.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Very well, but on what evidence was that based?
VISCOUNT JOWITT: On evidence which everyone in this House knows.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Not on the telegram which said the Chinese were aggressors.
VISCOUNT JOWITT: I do not think the noble Viscount needs a telegram to make certain that after aggression had been started by the North Koreans the Chinese came in to support it: the evidence is in the number of our men who were killed.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lords are at cross-purposes.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I do not think the noble and learned Viscount is speaking of the same Resolution. I am talking about the Resolution in which the Chinese were named as aggressors, and not about the original Resolution in which the North Koreans were named as aggressors. I am sorry that I have not with me the telegram on which that Resolution was based. Having given expression to the opinion that the Chinese were aggressors, the next thing to do, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Perth and by Sir Benegal Rau, was to elect them under the terms of the Charter to a seat in the United Nations. That was not done.
I come back to the point of the method under which the negotiations which must follow the Armistice are to be discussed. It is obvious that when we come to these negotiations the interests of Great Britain may differ from those of the United States. In his interesting speech the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, told us that
486
there may be a possibility of divergencies of policy between ourselves and the United States. In the speech which he made to the Pilgrim Society of New York about eight days ago he further said that in discussions of this nature we should choose our words. He continued:
"When we differ, do it in friendship and realise that an occasional difference of opinion is not an unhealthy sign."
We all subscribe to these admirable sentiments. I hope that in these negotiations for a settlement in the Far East the breathing space which we are enjoying to-day has been employed by His Majesty's Government in discussing the various points of difference there may be between ourselves and the United States in regard to a Far Eastern settlement.
As I have said before in your Lordships' House, I hope that a distinction will be made between Communism in China and Communism in Russia. In a speech I made in your Lordships' House on July 31, I said that it was fantastic to suppose that Mao and his associates would allow China to be dictated to by a lot of foreigners in Moscow. I see that in an article in the Sunday Times, Sir David Kelly, who was until a few weeks ago British Ambassador in Moscow, after saying that the big question of the future is Russian relations with China, continues:
"All I can say is that the Chinese representatives who come lo Moscow are treated on a different and higher plane than those of European satellites and that the whole Chinese background suggests that there can be no question of Pekin being pushed around by Moscow."
I hope these matters will be taken into consideration by His Majesty's Government when they are considering a solution of the great problems that wait to be decided in the Far East. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer. We find ourselves to-day in circumstances which in certain eventualities may lead us into the horror of a devastating struggle. I think we must accept that. Unless we do so we may not take the necessary precautions to meet and overcome the danger, if it come. On the other hand, we must all earnestly hope that solutions to the vexed problems which confront us will be found, so that mankind can go forward into a real era of peace and of steady progress along the road of civilization.
7.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT JOWITT: My Lords, this debate occurs in your Lordships' House after two days' discussion on foreign affairs in another place, two days which have been distinguished by two remarkable speeches by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Notwithstanding that fact, I think anybody who has listened to the speeches here to-day will realise that this House has a distinctive contribution of its own to make, which it has surely made to-day. I should like to congratulate the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, on his speech. We all know him to be one of the most brilliant speakers in the House, a master of wit and epigram—two qualities which, if they get at all out of hand, are apt to be rather dangerous in discussing foreign affairs, of which I had some experience for the last six and a half years. If the noble Marquess will allow me to say so, I thought to-day he succeeded admirably. I was much more satisfied with his speech to-day than with his speech on the last occasion, and I hope this is the kind of speech we shall hear from him. I would warn him of this: as speaker on foreign affairs in this House, he will find that the Foreign Secretary always says, "No, this is not a convenient time on which to have a debate." When I used to press Mr. Bevin, he used to say, "There is no convenient time on which to have a debate on foreign affairs." And if the Under-Secretary has anything to say at all, the Foreign Secretary in another place will inevitably say that he must say it first. The task is not an easy one, but I am sure the noble Marquess will do it as well as it can possibly be done.
That I am right in saying that this House has a distinctive contribution of its own to make is exemplified by such a speech as that which we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Halifax—a truly remarkable speech with which I humbly but entirely agree. During the last five or six years I have been over to America on several occasions, and I have discussed these problems, in my own small way, with members of the American Bar Association, of which I have had the honour to be an honorary member for some twenty years. They are, as we all know, a most influential body of men. The difference between the feeling for this country (I think my dates are right) in 1946 and this year was quite remark-
488
able. The problem was far easier and far better to deal with. I respectfully agree with the noble Earl that this idea that we may be dragged into an aggressive war at the heels of America is the vaguest moonshine: first of all, because they would not seek to drag us into such a war; and secondly, because, even if they did, inconceivable as it may be, we should not be dragged. Therefore, I venture to think we may leave out that proposition.
We have all enjoyed, too, the speeches of the noble Viscount. Lord Stansgate, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and the noble Lord, Lord Killearn. I am not one of those who assent to the proposition which I think my noble friend Lord Strabolgi enunciated, that there must be some kind of a definite limit to a speech. I do not think this House objects to speeches being long provided they are well-informed, constructive and sincere. Speeches of that character we most certainly have had to-day. Neither does the House in the least mind—at least, I do not—if any noble Lords on these Benches have a little venture on their own and do not conform completely to the orthodox Party view. I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, although I did not agree with it. Certainly it gave food for thought, and I think it all to the good that the noble Marquess should apply his mind to the sort of questions which the noble Viscount asked.
I am not going to keep your Lordships long, because I have no fresh contribution to make, and at this hour, when we are all anxious to hear the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, I think the best thing I can do is to sit down. I should, however, like to say just a few words on a matter of which the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, started discussion today—namely, the subject of war crimes. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Winster, thought that when we discussed this matter on a previous occasion I was below my form. I am rather consoled, however, because I did not realise that the noble Lord thought I had a form below which it was possible to fall. Of course I agree that "vindictiveness long drawn out" is wrong. But why add the words "long drawn out"? Vindictiveness itself is wrong. And when Lord Hankey told us that he was going to

489
establish the principle of clemency, may I most respectfully remind him that the principle of clemency was established 1,950 years ago'? Of course I agree that if it is possible to review these cases, and release people who ought to be released, that should be done. But do not let it be thought that His Majesty's judges, when they send anybody to prison, are offending against the principle of clemency, or are actuated by vindictivness. That is not so, of course.
LORD HANKEY: I did not say so.
VISCOUNT JOWITT: The noble Lord did not suggest it. It is not the mere fact that a man is in prison that justifies his release from prison: it is the fact that authority should always be ready to look at a case afresh, and if it finds reasons for exercising clemency, then it should be exercised. I do not suppose the noble Lord would want to go further than that, and certainly so far as that I should be very ready to go with him.
I was relieved to hear from the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, that there is no suggestion that we shall join in a European Army, and that our attitude with regard to that proposal is to be as it was with regard to the Schuman Plan. These questions are so fundamental that I feel, speaking for myself, that if Parliament is to be called upon to surrender part of its sovereignty, it ought to be done only after the people have been consulted at a General Election. I should be entirely opposed to this Government, or indeed, any other Government, unless this matter had been made a very plain issue before the electors, dealing with such a topic. I do not say that these things may not happen, but I do say that they are enormous questions on which obviously the country ought to be consulted.
Agreeing, as I do, with the general tone and tenor of Mr. Eden's speech, I have nothing more to say. I recall some of the aphorisms of Mr. Bevin to me. He always used to quote that old saying: "It is not a question of not taking risks. Any line you take involves risks. All you can do is to make up your mind which is the right risk to take." On the whole, it seems to me that Mr. Eden is making up his mind to take the right sort of risk. Another thing Mr. Bevin said to roe was that in foreign affairs more than anything else the quality needed is patience. Mr.
490
Eden, in his speech, seemed to me to show that he possessed that quality. Therefore, I am happy to think—I am not going into any of the minor controversial topics—that the broad issue that emerges from this debate is that this House is behaving itself as a Council of State, and that, in the main, foreign affairs are outside the realm of Party politics.
7.37 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I take it that the House will not wish me in winding up this debate to attempt another general survey of British foreign policy. That would be merely to re-duplicate what has already been done much better, first by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place, and here this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Reading. My purpose in rising is to answer, to the best of my ability, questions which have been quite properly put to the Government by noble Lords who have spoken, and I will, I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, be as brief as I can. These questions have covered, as was, I imagine, inevitable, considerable ground. There has been reference to the Far East; there has been considerable reference to Egypt; there has been reference to Middle East defence; and there has been reference to Europe and, in particular, to Germany. Very varying views have been expressed on all these topics. I was amused, as was the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Jowitt, to note that practically every speaker from the Opposition Benches, whether he spoke from the Front Bench or from the Back Benches, prefaced his remarks by saying that he spoke only for himself. I thought that a very welcome return to individualism, and extremely acceptable to us on these Benches.
Very little of the debate has been concerned with the Far East, but I feel I must say a few words about that aspect, and especially about Korea. I am afraid that I have nothing very encouraging to say about the progress of the armistice negotiations. They have dragged on, as we know, from week to week and from month to month, and, even now, they do not show any sign of coming to an immediate conclusion. We can only hope that, as the various difficulties are gradually moved out of the way, a moment will come when real progress can be made. I do not think one can say more

491
than that to-night. In the meantime, however, I should like on behalf of His Majesty's Government to express our absolute confidence in General Ridgway, who has shown most extreme patience and assiduity in trying to get an agreement. I should also like, as I am sure would all noble Lords, to pay a. special tribute to the United Nations troops, who have continued to perform their military duties under conditions which must be of a particularly trying kind.
I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, will forgive me if I do not enter into the wider issues which he raised, not because I do not think they are important or because I did not find what he said about them interesting, but because, as he knows, these questions are extremely delicate. I do not want to go beyond what has already been said by the Foreign Secretary or to say anything which would arouse controversy here or elsewhere. I would, however, say this with regard to the Resolution which branded China an aggressor. I do not want to go into the events which preceded or followed it, but with regard to the actual Resolution I should have thought there was no doubt at all that it merely recorded a self-evident fact, and in that I agree entirely with what was said by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Jowitt.
There is also the question of Persia. This was a subject on which certain very highly coloured flies were thrown over to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, in the debate last week which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said to-night, was a precursor of this. I should very much have liked to reply to what he said, but personally—and I am sure the House will agree upon this—I do not think it will be helpful to us if we continue to wrangle on this subject. I am certain that the main object is to see what can be done to find a way out of the deadlock which at present exists, on a basis honourable to both countries, and I think we had better leave it at that.
Now I come directly to Egypt, which has played a much larger part in our discussions this afternoon. As your Lordships know, I adverted to this subject in my speech on the debate on the Address last week, and there is not a
492
great deal that I can add regarding the general attitude of His Majesty's Government. I would repeat—if, indeed, it is necessary for me to do so—that, just like our predecessors, we have no imperialistic motives in our attitude towards this unhappy dispute. We are only concerned, first, with the sanctity of treaties, and, secondly, with the defence of the free world, which is, after all, a vital consideration, not only to ourselves, but to our sister nations of the Commonwealth and our Western Allies. We are not in the Suez Canal Zone for our own pleasure. It is indeed an extremely expensive commitment at the present time, but pending other arrangements—which we still hope may be concluded—we must remain there; and, in doing so, we have the sanction of the Treaty of 1936.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, asked me a number of searching questions on this Egyptian problem, and I should like to thank him for his courtesy in giving me notice of the questions he intended to ask. The first question, as I understand it, was this: Is it right that the obligation imposed on Egypt to accommodate troops on the canal is imposed solely by the Treaty and ceases in 1956, or does it persist after that date? I think that was the question. I would suggest to the noble Viscount, with all deference, that the form of his question is in fact a little misleading. The position, as I understand it, is this: under Articles 8 and 16 of the Treaty of 1936, if either party after 1956 is asked by the other party it must agree to negotiate on a revision of the Treaty. If direct negotiations between the two parties fail, then it must agree to have recourse to arbitration, either through the League of Nations—I am quoting the actual provision of the Treaty but, of course, in actual respect those words are no longer applicable, because the League of Nations no longer exists—or, alternatively, through such other procedure as may be agreed by the two parties. Pending the decision of the arbitrator who is selected, the Treaty continues in its present form. There is no provision, so far as I know, which would allow of unilateral abrogation of the Treaty, either by Great Britain or by Egypt. That is the answer as I have been able to obtain it to this question of the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am grateful to the noble Marquess. I should lust like to ask this further question: If unfortunately this dispute persists in 1956, shall we be in the position of saying that although the Treaty has terminated its twenty years, we still have a right to maintain our troops on the Canal?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As I understand it, the position is that if the Egyptians come to us in 1956 or after and say that they would like to have a revision of the Treaty, we can either agree to direct negotiations with them or we can say that we should prefer reference to an arbitrator. In that case, both parties would have to accept the final decision of that arbitrator, whoever it might be. Pending the decision of the arbitrator we should be fully entitled to remain where we were. That is the information I have received.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am most grateful to the noble Marquess, because this is a very difficult matter. We talk a great deal about the independence of Egypt, and it now appears that Egypt is not and never will be independent, because she will never he able to get rid of the troops unless some arbitrator agrees on some reference which the noble Marquess has not defined.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount must remember that this was a perfectly freely negotiated Treaty. I know that he does not accept that, but I was in the Foreign Office at the time, and no pressure was brought upon Egypt. It was rather a difficult negotiation which went on for weeks and months, but which was freely negotiated, and Nahas Pasha made a perfectly plain statement in the Chamber of Deputies afterwards in which he made that clear. Therefore, if the Egyptians want to alter the provisions of the Treaty now—and I do not criticise that—they must do it through the ordinary form prescribed by the Treaty which they signed.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Will the noble Marquess allow me to put a question to clarify something he has said which may prove to be a point of importance in the future? He said that the Treaty provided that, after the due date, if there were any disagreement it should be referred to the League of Nations. The League of Nations is no longer existent.
494
Alternatively, it should be referred to an arbitrator. The question I want to ask is: is the United Nations the inheritor of the status of the League of Nations in a matter of that kind, as it is in a great many matters?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I myself asked the same question as the noble Viscount, and the information I received was that in this particular case—I am not making a general observation—it is not the inheritor. Therefore, we have to fall back on the second alternative provided in the Treaty.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am very grateful to the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, asked me a second question. He asked whether power exists in the Treaty of 1936 to exceed the prescribed number of troops in the Canal Zone and, if not, under what power recent reinforcements have been sent. As I listened to him, I could not help thinking that this question seemed to show a strange misunderstanding of the position. He seems to suggest that by increasing the number of troops in the Suez Canal Zone we are infringing a Treaty to which Egypt is still adhering, and that we are bound by the provisions of a treaty by which they are equally hound. But that is not the position at all—the opposite is the fact. By abrogating the Treaty, as they thought right to do, it is the Egyptians themselves who have taken illegal measures under the Treaty, to deprive us of our own rights under that instrument, and the increase in our forces is merely for the purpose of maintaining those rights which accrue to us under the Treaty which was quite freely signed between us and Egypt. That, to me, seems to be clearly the position, and to say that we are breaking the Treaty is to put it exactly the wrong way round. We are maintaining our rights under the Treaty and Egypt has abrogated it. I would also say in this connection that I seemed to get the impression when the noble Viscount was speaking—and he will correct me if I am wrong—that he feels that this Treaty of 1936 was imposed on Egypt. I was sorry that he said that, because it is a thing which has been said outside, and it has created a very wrong impression. I repeat once again, it was

495
freely negotiated; and it is much better that we should continue to look at it on that basis.
The noble Viscount asked me a third question, which had reference to my speech on the debate on the Address last week. He asked whether, when I made a reference to the establishment of American bases in Great Britain, I meant to imply that the obligations on us are the same as those imposed on Egypt in respect of forces on the Canal. Well, of course the circumstances are not identical. The presence of British troops on the Suez Canal is specifically legalised by the provisions of the Treaty. The presence of American airmen in this country—no doubt the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Jowitt, will correct me if I am wrong—is the result of a voluntary agreement concluded between the late Government and the United States Government. But the purpose for which both the agreements were made is, I maintain, the same: they are both examples of joint co-operation by two sovereign States with the aim of buttressing international peace. Personally I can only regret that the spirit which inspired the Egyptian Government in making this arrangement in 1936 has apparently given way since to what can be described only as a narrower nationalism.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, questioned the military value of the Suez Canal. He said he did not believe that it had any strategic value.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is going rather far. I only pointed out that the strategic value of this area was recognised long before the Suez Canal was cut.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:
That is as it may be; but the noble Viscount would not deny the strategic value of the Canal.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a view which is shared by every strategic expert in the free world at the present time. The noble Viscount quoted an extremely trenchant letter from my grandfather to Lord Cromer, written between sixty and seventy years ago. I thought it very characteristic of certain sections of the noble Viscount's Party: they live
496
obstinately and unrepentantly in the distant past. My grandfather was very much of a realist, and I am certain that if he were to look now at the cleavage between the Communists and the free world he would see very clearly the strategic value of Egypt and of the Canal Zone. Of course, by far the best way out of the present impasse would be for Egypt, even now, to show herself willing to enter into negotiations with the four sponsoring Powers on joint defence for the Middle East. If the Egyptian Government were to modify their present attitude and agree to that, I am quite sure that they would not find His Majesty's Government backward in co-operating in the discussions. I can only hope that they will find themselves willing and able to do this.
That brings me to the Four-Power proposals for defence of the Middle East. These, of course, are closely allied to the Egyptian problem, and they were referred to by Lord Stansgate and by other noble Lords. The purpose of these proposals, as my noble friend Lord Reading has said, was the same as that of the military aspects of what has come to be known as N.A.T.O. The object is to provide machinery for sovereign States in vitally important areas, without any derogation of sovereignty, to co-operate freely for the joint defence of the area. The value of a scheme of that kind should need no justification by me or by anybody else. There is no suggestion that the Middle East Command should interfere with problems and disputes within the area of the Command; nor is it suggested that the Supreme Commander should be empowered to move forces in the territories of States taking part without the agreement of the States concerned. What is envisaged is clearly voluntary co-operation for a common object.
I would entirely agree with Lord Stansgate that one of the greatest dangers to peace to-day, not only in this area but everywhere, is the tendency of countries during years of comparative peace to try to adopt a detached attitude, in the hope that, if war ever comes, they can keep out of it. In fact, as we all know from the experience of the last thirty years, that is quite impossible. If a world war breaks out everybody will be sucked into it. Moreover, there is no doubt that, were one of these States invaded, the first thing it would do would be to appeal to the

497
United Nations for assistance. If that is true, as I believe it to be, then it is merely common sense that plans should be completed now to enable such assistance to be given effectively. States must not expect to get advantage out of international organisations unless they are prepared to accept the full obligation of membership. That cannot be said too often. It is for these reasons that we must all regret the decision of the Egyptian Government up to now not to co-operate. I believe that if that attitude of non-co-operation persisted on their part, or on the part of any other Middle Eastern States concerned, they themselves would be the greatest sufferers. I hope sincerely that after further consideration they will modify their present views. If they will only do that, a new sense of stability will be created in one of the main danger areas of the world.
Questions in this connection were raised by both Lord Strabolgi and by Lord Stansgate touching the position of Israel in relation to the Middle East Command. As these noble Lords will probably know, in the original communication which was sent to the Middle Eastern countries, Israel was included. But no specific invitation to join has yet been sent to Israel or to any other country. I understand, however, that it is the full intention of the sponsoring Powers that Israel should have the opportunity to cooperate with others if she so wishes. I hope that noble Lords will not ask me to go any further than that to-day.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am afraid that I must make one observation. You cannot expect Israel to co-operate and take all the risks concerned in this matter unless you give them some help economically and thus assist them to maintain their forces and be powerful.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have heard of other States who refuse to co-operate unless they get some financial assistance. It is not a position which applies to Israel alone.
LORD STRABOLGI: We have had plenty ourselves.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a matter which will have to be discussed when the time conies. With regard to the actual position with relation to the Command, I have said as much as I can this afternoon.
498
Now I come to Europe, and especially to Germany. Here the ground has already been so fully covered by the two speeches of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and by that of Lord Reading that there is very little I can add. The Foreign Secretary dealt with the unhappy response, or lack of response, by Mr. Vyshinsky to Allied proposals for disarmament. He also said in another place that the Allies were examining the Soviet counter-proposals. Whatever we may feel about the proposals, it is right that they should be properly examined. He also explained the negotiations for the future of Europe, to which Germany should make a contribution as an equal partner, and he spoke of a new contractual relationship, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, referred this afternoon, between Germany and the Occupying Powers, which is to take the place of the present Occupation Statute. All those negotiations, as noble Lords are aware, are at present proceeding. They have not reached a stage at which it would be useful if I made any statement—if, indeed, any statement could be made.
I would, however, make just this comment: that His Majesty's Government are convinced that these negotiations provide Germany with the best means of fulfilling her legitimate aspirations, while safeguarding the common interests and security of the other members of the European community. We fully understand and share the desire of all Germans for the reunification of their country and will support them in all efforts to bring about such reunification on terms that are acceptable to the Germans themselves and compatible with those ideals of individual and national freedom which the Western countries share in common. Meanwhile, we and our American and French partners are pledged to maintain our essential rights and our forces in the Federal Republic and in Berlin in the interests of international peace and stability and the defence of the West. That statement, I realise, having listened to him, perhaps does not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, would like; but there are many of us, I am sure, who feel that in this matter there is an "inevitability of gradualness," and it is hopeless to go too fast—indeed, it would not be practicable. I hope, however, that the clear statement

499
made will go some way to satisfy him. He devoted much of his speech to this particular question this afternoon, as was natural, because, as we all know, he speaks with a very special knowledge of this particular problem. In any case, I can assure the noble Lord that I will bring everything he has said to-day to the notice of the Foreign Secretary.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:
Then the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester, raised a question about the future of those who had been convicted of war crimes. Here, again, a definite statement as to future policy is much more than they will expect from me, but they will, I am certain, like to know that the whole question of German war criminals is under the active consideration of His Majesty's Government and will, no doubt, form a part of the general negotiations over Germany which are impending.
My Lords, I have tried, in the time at my disposal. to answer the questions which have been addressed to, me by noble Lords who have spoken. They have been many and various, and inevitably it has not been possible for me to deal in detail with all the points raised. But I hope very much that the House will feel that I have at any rate done my best to cover the ground. I agree with what I think was said by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Jowitt, that in more ways than one this has been an extremely satisfactory debate. Above all, as so often before, it has served to make clear that, though we may disagree on individual issues—and perhaps that is inevitable—on the main principles and purposes of British foreign policy we all remain united. I thought that was clearly apparent from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who opened the debate.
We all believe, in the first place, in the closest and most cordial relationship between the British Commonwealth and the United States, to which the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, referred in the very moving speech that he delivered to us this afternoon. We all regard that as absolutely vital. For this conjunction, this close co-operation, or whatever you
500
call it, between the British Commonwealth and the United States, constitutes the one effective counterweight to the pressure which is being brought against the free world by countries further East. If freedom is to survive, there must be a partnership, an absolutely confident partnership, based not only on mutual sympathy, but also on mutual interest; and anything, that impairs that partnership or that sympathy and understanding will be disastrous for the whole free civilisation. It is for that reason that I hope, in particular, that not only all of us who are fortunate to be here this afternoon but those in wider circles who have the opportunity of reading the noble Earl's words will ponder them, because I believe they represent a very important contribution to thought at the present time.
Secondly, we all believe in the maintenance of an enduring peace through the United Nations and the ancillary institutions which are connected with it. On these two aims all our hearts are fixed. It is in relation to those basic aims that we must consider our actions in all parts of the world—in the Far East, the Middle East, Europe and wherever danger threatens. But I would just say this. I hope that we shall not delude ourselves into thinking that enduring peace can be secured merely by dodging each crisis as it arises. Peace, if it is to be a really solid thing, must rest on far sounder and stabler foundations than that. It must be based on the acceptance by all countries, great and small, of a common standard of conduct, a common respect for law and, above all, a recognition that in an interdependent world none can prosper unless all prosper.
It is easy to say that; and I realise that we are all still very far from that ideal. Human nature is extremely imperfect. National ambitions and ideological hatreds still play too large a part in the moulding of national policies. While that unhappy position persists, we have no option but to provide ourselves with the necessary means to deter potential lawbreakers from disturbing the peace. In passing, I would say to the right reverend Prelate, if I may, that I hope he will not disturb himself too much about the irresponsible use of the atomic bomb. He quoted statements which had been made by, as I understand it, comparatively

501
junior people. But the Foreign Secretary, who has had access to the same material as the late Prime Minister had, gave a most confident assurance on this point, just as the late Prime Minister did on a former occasion in another place. Therefore I do not think that we need worry too much about that.
But, to return: the establishment of this general standard of conduct must form the object of all our policy. That is the reason for our rearmament and that is the reason for the measures which we and other law-abiding countries have felt obliged to take in Korea and elsewhere. I quite agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that rearmament by the Western Powers will never, by itself, provide the cure for our present differences and difficulties. But what it can do is to create a climate which encourages a resort to reason, instead of a resort to force. It will, I can assure your Lordships, be the object of His Majesty's Government, in conjunction with their Allies and, above all, with the United States, that, while we must rearm—and we cannot avoid rearming—we shall equally and at the same time pursue the larger aim of settlement
502
by agreement, in the firm faith that sooner or later, though it may be a long way ahead, hatred and suspicion will give way to mutual understanding. It is in that faith that I hope we shall all, in all parts of the House, go forward, trying, as the Foreign Secretary said in his speech, to find a decisive solution for each individual problem as opportunity offers, but looking forward, too, to that happier future when the present unhappy divisions give way to a larger unity, and when, if I may quote a very fine phrase which was once used by Lord Balfour,
"the boundaries of nations become, not the lines which divide them, but the links that hind them together."
8.11 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, we have listened with very great interest to the speech which has just wound up what I think has been a very interesting debate, and I think noble Lords will agree that there is nothing left for me to do but formally to ask leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eight o'clock.