Sitting of 28 November 1951

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

  STANDING ORDERS (AMENDMENTS)
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I beg to move,
  That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made.

  SCHEDULE
  Standing Order 132, line 3, at end, add:
  (3) The quorum of every such Committee shall be Three.
  Standing Order 188, line 3, leave out "Sessional or."
  Standing Order 209, line 1, leave out "or," and insert "the Private Bill Office and all."
  Lines 2 and 3, leave out "the Private Bill," and insert "that."
  Lines 3 and 4, leave out "in that Office."
  The House will remember that the week before last we passed a large number of Amendments to the Private Business Standing Orders. I should like respectfully to apologise for the fact that one or two were left out on that day, and I would like very much the House to pass them now, because we hope to have the book of Standing Orders reprinted during the Christmas Adjournment. The Amendments I am moving are more or less of a drafting nature, and it was owing to a clerical error, for which I apologise, that they were omitted.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Nigel Birch): I beg to second the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Canned Vegetable Contracts, South Wales
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what percentage of the Royal Air Force requirements of canned vegetable products were placed with canners in South Wales.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Nigel Birch): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his Question yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

    Air Facilities, Anglesey
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what consideration has been given to the existing air facilities in the county of Anglesey in the extension of the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Birch: The air facilities in the county of Anglesey consist at present of the airfields at Valley and Mona. These are used for flying training, and it is intended to increase this use in the near future.

    Post Office Services
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) the value of the services rendered by the Post Office to his Department for which no cash payment is made;
    (2) how many telephones are provided by the Post Office for his Department for which no cash payment is made.
    Mr. Birch: The estimated values of the services rendered during 1951–52 by the Post Office to the Air Ministry without cash payment are: telephone services (including teleprinter network) £4,265,000; telegraph services £17,050.
    I regret that it is impossible, without undue labour, to find out how many telephones are provided by the Post Office for the Air Ministry without financial recovery.
    Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: Does that include telephone conversations overseas?
    Mr. Birch: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can my hon. Friend say how these figures are arrived at, if a careful account is not kept of all the calls made?
    Mr. Birch: The hon. Member will see that the vast bulk of this money is for the radar reporting network and not for ordinary calls. I think that the question of how the Post Office arrive at the exact figure should be addressed to the Assistant Postmaster-General and not to myself.

    Greenham Common Aerodrome
    Mr. P. W. Donnerasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how much has been spent on Greenham Common Aerodrome up to 26th October.
    Mr. Birch: Up to the end of October, 1951, the Air Ministry had incurred expenditure amounting to about £157,000 on the present reconstruction project.
    Mr. Donnerasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the nature of the sub-soil at Greenham Common Aerodrome enables it to be used by heavy bombers for which it was designed and built; and whether or not it is proposed to use this airfield for this particular purpose.
    Mr. Birch: It is intended to use the airfield now being built at Greenham Common for the medium bomber squadrons for which it was designed.
    Mr. Donner: Is it not a fact that when the decision was taken to build this airfield by the late Government, after a Cabinet discussion, not a single Minister insisted on an investigation to ascertain whether the site was suitable for this aerodrome—for the whole of it and not merely for a part of it?
    Mr. Birch: There has been no subsidence in the runway. There has been some subsidence in the standings and taxi-runs. I think that it is too great an assumption to suppose that a big error has been made. There may have to be certain realignments of the subsidiary parts of the airfield, but I think that the main runway will be all right.
    Mr. Anthony Hurd: Can the Minister assure the House that a further review is now being made of the suitability of this site, and that he does consider that, in the end, it may be possible to make a satisfactory airfield for bombers of that type?
    Mr. Birch: The matter is now under the most careful consideration, and, as at present advised, I think that it will be possible to provide a suitable airfield for the bombers for which it was designed.
    Mr. Hurd: When will there be a final decision?
    Mr. Birch: There is no question of holding up the work. There is no evidence to suppose that the airfield cannot be used.

    Cadets, Canada (Clothing)
    Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hydeasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when, approximately, 150 Royal Air Force cadets who flew to Canada for training on 19th August, 1951, can expect to receive their heavy luggage containing their winter clothing, of which they are now greatly in need.
    Mr. Birch: Seventy-seven, Royal Air Force officers flew to Canada in August, 1951, to undergo flying training and each officer took 66 lb. of luggage with him.
    Additional heavy luggage for 37 of these officers was subsequently received at Cranwell, and on 2nd October this was all loaded on board s.s. "Empress of Scotland," which arrived at Quebec on 16th October.
    It was learned early this month that the baggage had not reached the officers. Urgent inquiries are being made in Canada, and I will write to my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as these have been completed.
    Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Is my hon. Friend aware that these officers have been put to considerable inconvenience, not to say expense, as a result of their winter clothing not reaching them, and can he in future see that incidents of this kind do not occur?
    Mr. Birch: I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for drawing my attention to this case. Clearly the arrangements have not been right or suitable, and I am going into the matter myself. I hope to make it right.

    Canal Zone (Egyptian Labourers)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the average weekly wage in British currency of unskilled Egyptian labourers

    1491
    employed by his Department on work at aerodromes in the Suez Canal area.
    Mr. Birch: Twenty shillings.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman consider giving them a little extra for Christmas?
    Mr. Birch: They are now receiving more than they did under the late Government.

    Regulars and Reserves (Recruitment)
    Air Commodore A. V. Harveyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many airmen have signed on for Regular engagement since 1st January, 1951; how many have volunteered for the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve since that date; and how these figures compare with the previous year.
    Mr. Birch: Between 1st January and 31st October, 1951, 30,208 National Service men volunteered for Regular engagements when they registered, or converted to Regular engagements while in the Service. The corresponding figure for 1950 was 10,136.
    Between 1st January and 31st October, 1951, 267 National Service men volunteered for the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve instead of passing automatically to the Class H Reserve at the end of their full-time service. The figure for the same ten months of 1950 was 39. These figures are not, however, strictly comparable, as the flow of National Service men to the Reserves was interrupted between October, 1950, and April, 1951, by the extension of the period of National Service from eighteen months to two years.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Would my hon. Friend agree that the recruiting of National Service men into the regular Air Force is very satisfactory, but that the number of men joining the Volunteer Reserve is not so good? Will he pay particular attention to methods of attracting boys from the A.T.C. into the Volunteer Reserve when they can join?
    Mr. Birch: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. Regular recruiting has been satisfactory; recruiting for the Volunteer Force has not been. This is under the most active consideration at the moment, and we are carrying out certain reforms which I hope will help.

    Korea (Russian Fighters)
    Dr. Reginald Bennettasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has any information as to what proportion of the Russia fighters now in action in Korea are propelled by axial-flow jet engines.
    Mr. Birch: Air fighting has taken place mainly over enemy-occupied territory in Korea. As a result, United Nations Forces have had few opportunities of examining crashed enemy jet aircraft. No aircraft examined has been propelled by an axial-flow engine.
    Dr. Bennett: Is it not a fact that although it has been thought for some time that the motive power of the Russian fighters derived from the Jumo Junkers axial-flow jet engines, it is now determined that the main bulk of their fighter forces are powered by engines of British origin and derivation?
    Mr. Birch: As I said in my answer last week, all the engines examined have been centrifugal flowing, and of the Nene type.

    Requisitioning Claim, Gosport
    Dr. Bennettasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when he expects to settle the outstanding claim in respect of chattels lost during the requisitioning of Bomb Ketch House, Hardway, Gosport, by his Department.
    Mr. Birch: This claim was first made in 1941 and dealt with by the Headquarters of Balloon Command. As the Command has been disbanded and many of its papers destroyed, it has not been possible to establish from Royal Air Force sources whether the amount claimed is justified.
    I am, however, having further investigations made, and I shall write to my honourable Friend as soon as I can.
    Dr. Bennett: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, might I ask him whether he realises that this voluminous correspondence has gone on since February last, and has been almost entirely one-sided?
    Mr. Birch: I am advised that the correspondence is likely soon to draw to a close.

  HELICOPTER DEVELOPMENT
  Mr. Norman Doddsasked the Minister of Civil Aviation what progress has been made in developing helicopter travel between the centres of large towns.
  The Minister of Civil Aviation (Mr. John Maclay): Helicopter travel between town centres involving flight over built-up areas must await the development of a helicopter with two or more engines.
  Mr. Dodds: In view of the progress that has been made in the development of twin engine helicopters of the type which would be required for flying to large centres, will the Minister do everything possible to encourage the authorities of large towns to set about making plans for a development of this highly desirable form of transport as soon as possible when it is a practical proposition, which is not far off now?
  Mr. Maclay: I am well aware of the potential importance of helicopter development, and I will see that the points made by the hon. Gentleman are borne in mind when considering facilities for the development of this form of travel.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Bristol 173 has now completed its preliminary flight, and if so when operational machines will be available for inter-city communication in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Maclay: I think my hon. Friend is referring to the Bristol 171, which has not yet started its development flights with B.E.A. It is expected to start them quite soon. I am advised that the earliest date when the Bristol 173 will come into proper production is, at the best, 1955.
  Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcock: Will the Minister consider the advisability of encouraging local authorities, in their planning for the future, to earmark alighting sites in their towns?
  Mr. Maclay: I am fully alive to that point and it is under discussion.
  Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: Would my hon. Friend not agree that, whereas in cities they have other forms of transport, this development should first be used between islands and between islands and the mainland?
  Mr. Maclay: I am extremely conscious of the importance of this development to Scotland.
  Mr. F. Beswick: Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that in the review of the aircraft programme indicated by the Minister of Supply, there will be no slackening but rather quickening of the development programme for helicopters?
  Mr. Maclay: I have every reason to believe that those concerned are fully alive to the importance of this development, and I will bear the importance of the hon. Gentleman's remarks in mind.

  ARAB REFUGEES, MIDDLE EAST
  Mr. David Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take in an endeavour to persuade the United Nations organisation to hasten their programme of relief and resettlement of Arab refugees; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. Basil Nieldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement as to the present arrangements for assisting Arab refugees from Israel; and in regard to compensation for loss of property.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): I apologise for the length of my reply.
  Arrangements for relief are the responsibility of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, on which His Majesty's Government are represented. They are, on the whole, satisfactory. According to my information, the health and general conditions of the refugees compare favourably with those of many of the normal inhabitants of the area.
  As regards resettlement, the House may recall that the principle of resettlement, without prejudice to the right of the refugees to repatriation and compensation, was affirmed in the United Nations General Assembly resolution of 2nd December, 1950, but the Agency cannot succeed in translating this principle into practice unless it receives the active cooperation both of the Middle East States where resettlement possibilities exist and of Member Governments who are able to

  1495
  contribute the necessary funds. His Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to achieve this.
  So far, programmes have been authorised by the General Assembly on a yearly basis. After consultation with the Middle East Governments concerned, the Agency are now preparing a longer-term programme, and their report will shortly be submitted to the General Assembly. In the meantime, the Agency, which began the resettlement programme in June, is surveying certain projects in Sinai and Jordan.
  Compensation for refugees is being dealt with by the Palestine Conciliation Commission. A General Assembly resolution of 14th December. 1950, directed the Commission to set up an office with the task of making detailed arrangements for the assessment and payment of compensation. An account of the work of this office will, it is understood, be included in the report which the Commission is due to submit to the present session of the Assembly.
  Meanwhile the Israeli Government have recently stated publicly their willingness to negotiate with the United Nations on the compensation question outside the framework of a general peace settlement. This offer is, however, subject to certain conditions, one of which is that they shall receive international financial aid for the purpose. It is expected that the offer will also be referred to in the Commission's report.
  Mr. M. Philips Price: Will the Under-Secretary of State bear in mind that the prospect of getting agreement with the Arab States to join in the Middle East Defence system very much depends upon a solution of this problem?
  Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend said, in his speech on the winding up of the foreign affairs debate on 20th November:
  "The United Nations must try to make a more effective attack upon this problem, for we should find that many of these hatreds which are so deep in the Middle Eastern minds would subside once that human problem was dealt with."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 344.]
  Mr. Nield: Would my hon. Friend be able to state what the British representation is on this relief committee?
  Mr. Nutting: Not without notice.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: Why has the report of the Economic Mission of the United Nations into this problem never been published, although the Mission reported in 1949?
  Mr. Nutting: I should like notice of that question.
  Major H. Legge-Bourke: While welcoming very much the statement which my hon. Friend has made, may I ask him whether the request of Israel for international financial support in order to assist in this matter involves any change in the policy which was frequently stated by His Majesty's Government in the last Parliament, that we still look upon Israel as in duty bound to make recompense to the Arabs?
  Mr. Nutting: I should like notice of that question.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the Minister bear in mind that the provision of capital for settlement is an economic proposition, and that for the last 30 years very large sums have been spent on keeping refugees alive when smaller sums given more quickly would have settled them and made them self-supporting?
  Mr. Nutting: I will bear that point in mind. As I said in my own speech in the foreign affairs debate we hope that the countries involved in this area will do more themselves to reach a settlement of this problem.

  RUSSIA (PRESS ARTICLES)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the wide publicity given in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics both in the Press and on the radio to his predecessor's article in "Pravda" if he will endeavour to arrange for a further article by himself to be published in the Russian Press explaining the policy of His Majesty's Government and emphasising the need for greater understanding and friendship between the British and the Russian people.
  Mr. Nutting: I have no doubt my right hon. Friend will consider any appropriate method of bringing about an improvement in international relations, but I would prefer not to commit him in advance to any specific project.
  Mr. Hughes: Would the Minister not agree that the previous Foreign Secretary set a very good example, and that "Pravda" not only lifted the Iron Curtain but published his article in numerous papers and in several languages? Is that not a good precedent for his successor to follow?
  Mr. Nutting: I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman tells me, and I am also aware that the ex-Foreign Secretary announced his desire to continue the exchanges and that there was no Soviet response whatsoever to his suggestion.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Can we get this matter clear? Is the hon. Gentleman who asked the question satisfied that the influence of "Pravda" in Russia is any greater than the influence of his own paper "Forward" in Scotland?
  Mr. James Johnson: Is the Minister aware that on these benches there is more support for a war of ideas than for a war of bombs, and that we should be most happy to see further developments in this matter?

  KOREA (PRISONERS OF WAR)
  Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reasons have been given by the United Nations Command for the ban imposed by them and continued since last February forbidding Press correspondents from freely interviewing prisoners of war released by North Koreans.
  Mr. Nutting: The Press is not denied access to released prisoners of war, but their questions must be confined to topics whose disclosure would not endanger the security of the United Nations forces. For this reason a security officer is present during these interviews.
  Mr. Davies: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware, and have these facts not been presented to his notice, that Press correspondents in the Far East, both British and of other nationalities, have protested most vigorously, not merely against the ban imposed by the censorship there, but on the tendentious and deliberately misleading reports which come from the Command in Korea?
  Mr. Nutting: I must most emphatically repudiate that statement and allegation of the hon. Gentleman. I have nothing whatever to add to my own reply, in which I have sought to inform the hon. Gentleman—for he has been grievously and grossly misinformed on this subject—that the Press has not been denied access to released prisoners of war.
  Mr. Bernard Braine: Has any information on the condition of British prisoners of war still in Korean hands been volunteered to his Department by those British subjects, including Mrs. Felton, who have freely visited North Korea?
  Mr. Nutting: That is another question.
  Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many prisoners of war in North Korea it is estimated by the United Nations Command were killed and wounded on the five occasions their camps were bombed by United Nations Air Forces between February and October this year and if he will publish the joint protest made last month by 1,362 British, American and other prisoners of war against this bombing.
  Mr. Nutting: The North Koreans do not observe the Geneva Prisoners-of-War Convention and have not informed the United Nations Command where any of their prisoner-of-war camps are located. It is therefore impossible for the United Nations Command to know whether any of their aircraft have made attacks in the area of prisoner-of-war camps, and I am consequently not in a position to say what casualties, if any, have been caused. I have seen a Press report of a statement on the subject alleged to have been made by United Nations prisoners of war. His Majesty's Government have no intention of publishing this report.
  Mr. Davies: Is not the matter contained in the Question sufficiently important for our own Foreign Office to break through the censorship and to take every possible step to stop these barbarities that are being practised there, under the name of the United Nations? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I shall certainly not withdraw.
  Mr. Nutting: I do not accept for one minute the allegation by the hon. Member that barbarities have taken place at

  1499
  the instigation or under the auspices of the United Nations Command. On the Question which he put to me, I would inform him that it is not customary for His Majesty's Government to publish or republish statements which have appeared in the Press.
  Mr. Martin Lindsay: In view of the prejudice implied in this Question, does not my hon. Friend agree that in war bombs unfortunately often fall upon places where they are not intended, in spite of all possible care which can be used to prevent it?
  Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir, I most certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. It is for that reason all the more regrettable that the North Koreans do not observe the Geneva Prisoners-of-War Convention and inform us where their prisoner-of-war camps are located.

  EUROPEAN ARMY (GERMANY)
  Mr. Desmond Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the position reached in the Paris talks on a West German contribution to a European army.
  Mr. Nutting: No, Sir. This subject is still under examination by the Paris conference which has not yet produced its report.
  Mr. Donnelly: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the conditions laid down by the then Prime Minister in his statement last February on West German re-armarnent still represent the policy of His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Nutting: That is an entirely different question.
  Mr. Maurice Edelman: In view of the Home Secretary's speech at Strasbourg this morning, are we to understand that the Prime Minister has now withdrawn from the idea of a European army, which he himself was the first to advocate?
  Mr. Nutting: I am merely answering a Question which asked me for a statement on the position reached in the Paris talks ion a West German contribution to a European army. I am not in a position to answer without notice a question on British participation or otherwise in that European army.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: Is the Minister aware that there is some concern on this side of the House about the pressure to integrate Germany into Western European defence before all possibilities of getting an election over the whole of Germany have been exhausted? Can he give an undertaking that there will not be precipitate action in this respect?
  Mr. Nutting: The hon. Lady will also recall, if she is seeking to be fair on this point—as I am sure she is—that it was at the instigation of the West German Chancellor that the British, French and United States delegations of the United Nations brought forward a resolution recommending an investigating commission in order that free elections might be held throughout Germany.
  Mr. Donnelly: In view of that answer does the Minister then accept the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle)?
  Mr. Nutting: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Lady.

  U.K.—SPAIN (VISAS)
  Mr. Ronald Russellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will start negotiations for the mutual abolition of visas between the United Kingdom and Spain.
  Mr. Nutting: This matter is being considered, but I am not in a position to make a statement at present.
  Mr. Russell: Is there any chance of getting these visas abolished before the next holiday season begins?
  Mr. Nutting: I sympathise with my hon. Friend in his desire in this matter. While it would be no doubt of advantage to British tourists to abolish visas, and perhaps before the next tourist season begins, there are also other considerations which must affect a final decision.

  EMBASSIES AND LEGATIONS (MOTOR CARS)
  Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many motor cars there are attached to the British embassies and legations; and how this figure compares with the pre-war total.
  Mr. Nutting: The number of vehicles supplied by the Foreign Office from official funds for the use of His Majesty's Embassies and Legations is 492. Before the war only the heads of diplomatic missions, which then numbered 54, were provided with an official car. Conditions abroad are now so different, however, that it is impossible to make a true comparison with the pre-war figure.
  Sir H. Williams: Why is it that conditions are so different that more people have to travel about in official motor cars than before the war?
  Mr. Nutting: For one very good rearon that the Foreign Service staffs abroad have considerably increased since before the war.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Would not the point and real intention of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) be met if only those people were appointed who were able to maintain a fairly luxurious standard and able to run cars of their own on a comfortable private income?

  JAMAICA

    Cigar Industry
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement upon the future of the Jamaican cigar industry, in view of the economic difficulties facing this country.
    The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. 'Alan Lennox-Boyd): I realise the importance of the cigar industry to the economy of Jamaica, and the Government are considering what can be done to assist it, consistent with revenue considerations and the international obligations entered into by the late Administration.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that when they were in Opposition the Conservative Party often talked about helping these industries in the Empire, and that we are very happy that they are to make a start?
    Mr. Nabarro: is it not a fact that the Jamaican cigar industry expects to sell practically the whole of its output in this country? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to exclude Havana cigars in favour of Jamaican cigars only?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As both the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) know, an Agreement has been signed with Cuba under which for the years 1952–53 a certain value of cigar imports will be taken. As I pointed out in my answer, this Agreement was entered into by the late Administration.
    Mr. John Rankin: Can we be assured that the views the right hon. Gentleman expressed when he was on this side of the House will guide him in any action he may take with regard to the Jamaican cigar industry?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member can be sure of that.

    Prisons (Overcrowding)
    Mr. R. W. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the overcrowding of prisons in Jamaica; and what steps are being taken to deal with this matter.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Government of Jamaica have sought to relieve overcrowding by the construction of additional buildings in the existing prisons and of a new "open" prison for 200 first offenders. I am asking the Governor for a report on the position and I will write to the hon. Member when I receive it.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that meanwhile overcrowding amounts in some instances to 50, 60 and sometimes 70 per cent. above what the numbers should be, and is he giving further advice with a view to relieving this serious state of affairs?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We very much hope that overcrowding will diminish partly through the provision of new facilities and partly through the decline in the amount of crime.

  WEST AFRICA

    Swollen Shoot Disease
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the compulsory cutting out of diseased cocoa trees was abolished in the Gold Coast; and what progress or the reverse has taken place since in preventing the spread of the disease in question.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Compulsory cutting out of diseased cocoa trees was suspended on 3rd April, 1951. The declared policy of the Gold Coast Government is to control swollen shoot disease at the earliest possible time. A new scheme of cutting out and rehabilitation grants was brought into effect on 1st September, and the Government are preparing to launch next January an intensive publicity campaign to secure the full support of the farming community. The new policy of the Gold Coast Government has not yet been in force long enough to become fully effective. Until the forthcoming campaign is over it will be impossible to assess the progress made.
    Mr. T. Reid: Has the suspension of the compulsory cutting out led to an increase of the disease or not?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Undoubtedly it has in certain areas. I think the Gold Coast Government are fully conscious of this fact, and I think everybody will have been glad to have heard in his broadcast on 28th June the words of Doctor Nkrumah, when he said, "If there ever was a test of our fitness to control our own affairs this is it."

    House of Representatives, Nigeria (Opening)
    Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will arrange for a small delegation of Members of the House of Commons to attend the formal opening Session of the new House of Representatives in Nigeria at the end of January, 1952.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If it were the wish of the House to send a delegation to Nigeria to attend either the formal opening Session of the new House of Representatives about the end of January or the first business Session about the middle of March, that would be very welcome both to the Nigerian Government and to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that earlier this year a delegation from both sides of the House, with a message from Mr. Speaker, was very well received in the Gold Coast and helped to cement the friendship between us? May I ask him to make approaches to ensure that a delegation representing this House goes to Nigeria on this occasion?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, I will bear that in mind. I endorse the statement that under the right hon. Gentleman's auspices a delegation went to the Gold Coast with the happiest consequences.

    Pensions Bill, Nigeria
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the voting in the Nigerian Legislative Council on the Pensions Bill which provided for expatriation allowances to be included in the assessment of pensions; and, what approximately, was the extra cost of this.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The voting was 31 to eight in favour, with two abstentions. Expatriation pay has, in fact, been pensionable since the Harragin Report was adopted by resolution of the Legislative Council in December, 1946. No question of extra cost, therefore, arises.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Raw Materials and Foodstuffs (Production)
    Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give further details of his proposals for developing the production of essential raw materials and foodstuffs in the Colonies.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend informed the House on 8th November that the scope for immediate increases in the production of raw materials and foodstuffs in the colonial territories is limited, and that most of our hopes must be concentrated on the midterm and long-term prospects. His Majesty's Government are now examining the different measures which can be taken to secure increases. This examination covers a wide field of Government action in this country no less than in the Colonies, and I do not expect that it will be possible to make a further statement at an early date.
    The commodities in which there is a prospect of increasing supply to this country in the short term are copper, cotton, manganese, petroleum, pyrites, sugar, timber, vegetable oils and oilseeds.
    Mr. Russell: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of His Majesty's Government is rather to create conditions under which private enterprise

    1505
    can develop the Colonies rather than that the Government should start schemes on their own?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I very much hope it will be the result of enlightened partnership between Government and private enterprise.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Does that reply mean that my right hon. Friend will freely support the import to this country from our Colonies of all foodstuffs available to come here?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like to know precisely what my hon. Friend has in mind. In general, we are only too glad to have supplies of foodstuffs from the British Colonial Empire in the interest of the Colonies and in our own interest.

    Deportations (Consultations)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the consultations with Colonial Governors in respect of deportations in the Colonies have now been completed; and what recommendations have been made.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The consultations initiated by my right hon. Friend's predecessor are still in progress, and I am not yet in a position to say anything as regards the outcome.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can the, right hon. Gentleman say when it is likely that the report will be made, in view, of the urgency of this matter?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Governors in the British Colonial Territories have a great deal to do at the moment. We are getting the information as quickly as we can, but it would be altogether wrong to press them to hurry it up.
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: The hon. Gentleman used the word "consultations." I think his predecessor used word "reviews." Can he say whether it is intended to have a full review and whether it is intended to publish the report when it has been received?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Our line is entirely in keeping with that of the previous Government. We shall have consultations with the Colonial Governments and, having had those consultations, we shall review the position ourselves.

  EAST AFRICA

    Makarere College (Explosion)
    Mr. C. J. M. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the effects on the efficiency of Makarere College of the recent explosion in the college laboratories; and whether he intends to make any grant towards the replacement of the equipment.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Until a survey now in progress has been completed the full effect of the explosion cannot be assessed nor can decisions be reached about the extent of replacement required. The matter is being urgently examined, and I will write to my hon. Friend when the survey is completed.
    Mr. Alport: In view of the importance of developing higher technical education in East Africa, will my right hon. Friend undertake that any requests for a grant will be considered very sympathetically by the Colonial Office?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think we had better wait and see if any request is made. I can assure my hon. Friend that the importance of this College and the work that it is doing is fully appreciated.

    Labour Force (Recruitment)
    Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement regarding the decision to recruit units of the East Africa Pioneer Corps for service in the Middle East.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With the desertion of unskilled labour in the Canal Zone an alternative source of supply had to be found and, at the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, the Government of Kenya and Uganda were asked whether they would agree to help His Majesty's Government by the raising of a labour force from their territories. Their agreement to this proposal, with which my right hon. Friend concurred, was gladly given and the necessary steps to raise this force are now being taken by the War Office.
    Mr. Alport: Will my right hon. Friend in conjunction with the Secretary of State for War ensure that special steps are taken to make certain that European officers and N.C.O.'s for these units are

    1507
    specially selected from those with a knowledge of African troops and of the problems of African labour?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that matter is very much in the minds of the Governments of Kenya and Uganda. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that an appeal has been made to Europeans with the requisite experience to fill the necessary commissioned posts.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    School Attendance
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the numbers of African children of school age in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, respectively; the numbers attending school; and the numbers who have completed the secondary stage in both of these territories.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will ask the Governors concerned for this information and communicate with the hon. Member as soon as their replies are received.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that when he does get these figures they will be disappointing?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that is a pretty gloomy thought. I do not think we are doing too badly. After all, we have the 1950 figures, and out of an estimated 468,000 children of school age in Nyasaland, 219,000 were at school; and in Northern Rhodesia out of 380,000 there were 165,000 at school. Considering the great difficulties in these territories, I think that is a pretty good start.
    Mr. Alport: Does my right hon. Friend realise that one of the reasons why these figures may appear to be disappointing. is the fact that teachers in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland find it more remunerative to get employment in Southern Rhodesia, and will he consider the conditions under which African education is undertaken in Southern Rhodesia with a view to finding out whether the two Protectorate territories can learn anything from the practice in Southern Rhodesia?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There may well be something in what my hon. Friend says,
    1508
    and that makes it more than ever necessary to consider in a favourable light the problems of federation in Central Africa.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that I asked this question last year. Is he further aware that in a wealthy firm in Rhodesia, exporting £20 million worth of base metals, there were only 17 African youngsters who had finished their secondary school course?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The policy of the previous Government and of the Colonial Office for some time has been to concentrate on primary education first, and that is the reason why there has been a comparatively small intake into secondary schools. "First things first" is the policy of the present Administration.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: When the Minister was replying to the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) he said that the education problem was a further reason for federation. Does he realise that the education of Africans will not be transferred to the proposed federal government, and that any such suggestion would lead to very strong opposition?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I did not say that it was a further reason for federation. I said it was a further reason for considering in a friendly light the problems raised by federation. Undoubtedly the difficulties and problems met by teachers in Southern Rhodesia may have some contribution to make to the problems in Northern Rhodesia, but there is no doubt also, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the education of Africans would fall under a different heading.

    Partnership
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the proposed discussions are to begin in Northern Rhodesia between representatives of Europeans and Africans to define the principle of partnership, and to seek agreement upon its implementation.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Governor has arranged a meeting on 3rd December at which the African Representative Council will be invited to say whether they are prepared to take part in consultations to define the principle of partnership. My right hon. Friend shares the view of his predecessor that in the conditions of

    1509
    Northern Rhodesia the policy of partnership is the only one which can succeed, and he sincerely hopes that the African Representative Council will agree to participate in the proposed consultations.
    Mr. Johnson: Does the Minister agree that it is only when these talks begin and continue that Africans and Europeans can settle down together in partnership, and that we can expect no satisfactory settlement of this problem of federation until these talks take place?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is why the Government took the first opportunity, on 21st November, of declaring their attitude towards the Central African federation problem.

  ROYAL NAVY

    H.M. Submarine "Affray"
    Wing Commander N. J. Hulbertasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, in consequence of the Admiralty decision not to proceed with the attempted salvage of H.M. Submarine "Affray," he will arrange for a memorial service to be held over the spot where she is located.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Commander Allan Noble): Memorial services have already been held, and it is not considered desirable to hold any further service at this late stage. On 17th April, 1952, the first anniversary of the loss, Flag Officer Submarines, in one of H.M. Ships, will visit the place where H.M. Submarine "Affray" lies, taking a wreath from the Submarine Service.
    Dr. Bennettasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will call for recommendations for awards to the divers and salvage staff engaged in the recent operations on the wreck of H.M. Submarine "Affray."
    Commander Noble: The Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth, has made a report to the Admiralty on this matter.

    Part-time Workers, Portsmouth
    Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consult with the Minister of Labour with a view to ensuring offers of suitable employment
    1510
    to those part-time workers at the Royal Marine tailoring depot at Portsmouth, whose contracts cease in December, and for whom his Department can find no further employment owing to the move to Chatham.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): In accordance with the normal practice, the local officers of the Ministry of Labour and National Service will be informed that there will no longer be employment for the majority of these part-time workers at the depot. I should explain that there is no contract between the Admiralty and these workers, who have been employed only when suitable work has been available.
    Sir J. Lucas: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety in my constituency on this subject? Will he do his utmost to see that recommendations are made to find these people employment?
    Mr. Digby: Certainly that will be done, and already provision has been made in cases of special hardship.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Michael Footasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give an estimate of how much public expenditure would be involved if all naval pensioners were to receive an increase in their pensions equivalent to those recently awarded to men who left the Service after 1st September, 1950; and what action he is proposing to assist those naval pensioners who did not receive the recent increase.
    Commander Noble: Approximately £1,000,000 a year. In reply to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder), on 21st November last.

  PRESS COUNCIL
  Mr. T. Dribergasked the Prime Minister what progress has now been made towards setting up a Press Council in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Press as unanimously approved by this House on 28th July, 1949.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): Proposals for the establishment of a Press Council are still under discussion between representatives of proprietors, editors and journalists.
  Mr. Driberg: Is not two-and-a-half years rather a long time to wait for the carrying-out of the wishes of this House as expressed on the date mentioned in my Question? Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to expedite these discussions, bearing in mind that the proposals made by the proprietors' were obviously entirely unacceptable and were no doubt intended to be so?
  The Prime Minister: Is not the hon. Member attempting somewhat to prejudge the course of these discussions by his concluding remarks? I should not think that he would accelerate them very much by making this element of discord. I hope that the discussions will proceed in the most friendly manner and will be consistently aimed at arriving at an agreed result.

  U.S. BASES (COST)
  Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Liptonasked the Prime Minister how much of the cost of maintaining United States bases and United States units in the United Kingdom is borne by the British Government.
  The Prime Minister: Costs specially incurred by His Majesty's Government on behalf of the United States Forces in this country are recoverable from the United States Government apart from those incurred on works services. Arrangements as regards works services are under review, but at present additional maintenance costs are borne by the United States Government and capital costs are shared.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much these works services amount to at the present moment?
  The Prime Minister: If I had notice I have no doubt that I could obtain the information, and I could also find out whether it is information which I ought to impart to the House.

  PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO U.S.A.
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Prime Minister what requests he will make for financial aid from the United States of America when he visits President Truman.
  The Prime Minister: As I have said previously, I do not think it would be fitting for me to make a public statement now about the questions on which I hope to have confidential discussions with President Truman.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of letting either this House or the people of this country have some general idea of the lines on which he is proposing to proceed?
  The Prime Minister: I should not like to fetter my actions in any way at the present time either in regard to what I actually do or what I say beforehand about what I am going to do.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole country is longing for the time when this country will not have to go to any foreign country for financial aid?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure we all agree upon that, but whether this is a particularly felicitous moment for stressing it I cannot say.
  Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the question of financial aid is really closely associated with the discussions taking place in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on sharing the burden of rearmament fairly between the different member countries?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I was hoping not so much to deal with specific points as to make sure that, as far as possible, on both sides of the Atlantic we are looking from our different angles through the same eyes at the many problems that lie before us.

  HOME GUARD (RECRUITMENT)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will make a broadcast appeal for recruits for the Home Guard.
  The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government are naturally considering the best means for obtaining recruits for the Home Guard. But I have no statement to make on the subject today.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Defence was absent from the first Home Guard parade last night? Is he now on open arrest awaiting court-martial?
  The Prime Minister: I was pursuing my studies into the Welsh language.
  Captain Richard Pilkington: In view of the events last night, can we hope to have more effective co-operation from hon. Members opposite towards the establishment of the Home Guard?

  CANAL ZONE (EVACUATED FAMILIES)
  Mr. Norman Coleasked the Minister of Defence what permanent arrangements have been, or are being, made for the accommodation of the wives and families of Service personnel being evacuated from the Suez Canal Zone.
  The Prime Minister: The great majority of the Service families evacuated from the Suez Canal Zone have, I am glad to say, been able to arrange accommodation of their own choice on arrival in this country.
  Those who have not been able to do so are being provided with temporary accommodation in Blackpool, which must, however, be released before the end of March, 1952. Any families who have not found permanent housing for themselves by that date will be accommodated in army hostels or permanent "Personnel Transit Centres," and the normal rules governing the length of stay at these places will be waived.
  Mr. Cole: In thanking him for that answer. may I ask the Minister of Defence whether he is satisfied that the permanent accommodation to be supplied is to be both suitable and adequate for these people, who have been passing through unhappy circumstances, so that they may have some degree of comfort when they come back to this country?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure the best possible arrangements will be made.

  RIFLE (STANDARDISATION)
  Mr. Michael Stewartasked the Minister of Defence what position has been taken up by His Majesty's Government at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference at Rome on the standardisation of a rifle and ammunition; and how far a generally agreed decision has been reached.
  The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government are reserving their position about the standardisation of a rifle and ammunition at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference in Rome, since the matter is still under examination.
  As I have already informed the House, I shall be making a statement on this subject before we rise for the Christmas Recess.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Press reports to the effect that the Secretary of State for Air, who is one of the Government's representatives at the North Atlantic Treaty Conference, has stated quite emphatically that His Majesty's Government intend to stand by the new. 280 rifle and ammunition?
  The Prime Minister: I have not seen details of reports at all, but I will reserve what I have to say on the matter until I make my statement to the House.

  MINISTRY OF FOOD

    Biscuits
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Food if he will give an estimate of the extent to which the quantity of biscuits manufactured in this country is likely to be reduced as a result of the cut in imports of sweetened fat.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): No, Sir. It is too early to judge, but I am pleased to say that manufacturers have already announced that they will make every effort so to use the reduced supplies as to have the least possible effect on total output.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that biscuit manufacturers are very dependent on these supplies of continental sweetened fat for the output of biscuits, which were already very inadequate before the import cuts, and, therefore, as the supply of

    1515
    biscuits is likely to be very seriously reduced, would he agree that we ought to consider a return to some points system for a fairer distribution?
    Dr. Hill: It is obvious that a reduction in the supply of this material will have its effect, particularly on the luxury lines and novelties in the biscuit field, but my right hon. Friend is assured by the trade that they will do their utmost to minimise the effect on the output of biscuits, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to re-introduce the points system.

    Meat
    Mr. William A. Stewardasked the Minister of Food if he will consult the meat trade with a view to restoring the procurement of our meat supplies through the services of the various meat trade organisations.
    Dr. Hill: My right hon. Friend is studying the whole problem and will certainly consult the interests concerned about it.
    Mr. Steward: Is the Minister aware that Sir Henry Turner, one of the greatest authorities in the meat trade, expressed the view some three months ago that, given six to nine months notice, the meat trade could produce adequate supplies at prices comparable with those which were being paid at the time?
    Dr. Hill: My right hon. Friend is also aware of, and will take into account, the views of the gentleman concerned, as of all other views.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that optimistic statements of that kind have been much out of fashion during the last month?

    Sprats
    Mr. Stephen McAddenasked the Minister of Food if he will discontinue the imports of Danish, Dutch and Swedish sprats, having regard to their effect upon the British sprat fishing and canning industry.
    Dr. Hill: No, Sir. The home canning industry is protected by a 10 per cent. ad valorem import duty.

    Public Relations Officer
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Food whether he has decided to proceed with the appointment of a public relations officer in his Department.
    Dr. Hill: I cannot yet add anything to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 12th November.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to say when the Minister will be able to make up his mind on this matter, which has been the subject of consideration by him for some weeks past?
    Dr. Hill: No, Sir, but it should not be long before the Minister is in a position to reply.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the Minister's relations with the public are worsening every day?

    Food Hygiene
    Dr. A. D. D. Broughtonasked the Minister of Food if he will take steps to encourage the use of hygienic methods in the handling of food, both in its preparation and in its serving, among food manufacturers and in catering establishments.
    Dr. Hill: Yes, Sir.
    Dr. Broughton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in today's Press it is reported that more than 100 girls were taken ill at a school yesterday and that the medical officer of health of the borough has suggested that the cause of the trouble was due to food poisoning? Does he, therefore, agree that this is a matter which should be regarded by the Government as one of urgency in order to reduce the incidence of food poisoning in this country?
    Dr. Hill: To the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I would reply that the Minister is aware of what has been reported in the Press. In reply to the second part, I can assure the hon. Member that very careful and urgent consideration is being given to this problem and to ways and means of dealing with it. In that consideration careful regard will be paid to the valuable debate initiated by the hon. Member some time ago.
    Dr. Broughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that before he presents any legislation to Parliament, or takes any other action, he will consult with the most interested parties concerned, such as the local authorities and representatives of the catering trade?
    Dr. Hill: Such consultation has already taken place.
    Dr. Barnett Stross: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he and his light hon. Friend now have legislation in mind, and can he say when they propose to bring it forward?
    Dr. Hill: Legislation is in the final stages of consideration, but beyond that I cannot go for the moment.

  B.B.C. TEMPORARY TRANSMITTERS (SOUTH-EAST ENGLAND)
  Mr. F. H. Haymanasked the Assistant Postmaster-General to what extent the proposed low-powered medium wave transmitter for improving the reception of the Home Service in South-East England is being proceeded with.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): I understand from the B.B.C. that temporary transmitters are already working at Brighton, Hastings and Ramsgate. The B.B.C. hopes to start transmissions from Folkestone early in the New Year.
  Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Gentleman now take steps to get the B.B.C. to give us better transmission facilities in South-West England?
  Mr. Gammans: I can inform the hon. Member, although he did not put it in his Question, that a low-powered transmitter has already been arranged for on a site near Barnstaple, and it is hoped that will come into operation some time early in the New Year.
  Mr. G. R. Howard: Can my hon. Friend say whether that transmitter will give us any better service than the present appallingly bad Home Service reception in West Cornwall?
  Mr. Gammans: I cannot say that in advance, but the idea of the temporary transmitter is to give a better service than South-West England is now getting.

  LONDON DOCKS (LABOUR DISPUTE)
  Mr. George Isaacs(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour if he has any statement to make on the situation
  1518
  in the London Docks arising from the dispute between the lighterage employers and the Watermen, Lightermen, Tugmen and Bargemen's Union.
  The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): Yes, Sir. I think it is desirable that the House should be informed about this dispute. A position has been reached where serious damage to the trade of the Port of London might result and essential supplies to the public might be affected.
  The present dispute has its origin in a claim for increased wages made by the two unions concerned, the Watermen, Lightermen, Tugmen and Bargemen's Union and the Transport and General Worker's Union. This claim was not accepted by the employers and the lightermen's union imposed certain work to rule instructions. Officers of my Department held a meeting of the parties, as a result of which it was agreed on 18th September that a committee of investigation should be set up to inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute. The lightermen's union withdrew their work to rule instructions so as to assist the committee in its task.
  The committee reported on 3rd October and found against one part of the claim relating to a differential payment for skill, but recommended that negotiations he resumed on the question of bonus payments. The Report was accepted by the employers and the Transport and General Workers' Union, but rejected by the lightermen's union, and on 11th October the instructions to work to rule were again imposed by them.
  Several further meetings were held with officers of my Department and although a number of proposals were considered it was not found possible to agree a mutually acceptable basis upon which normal work could be resumed and a final settlement reached. After the re-imposition of the work to rule certain workpeople were reported to the Dock Labour Board under the scheme and suspended. In the first case heard on 22nd November by the Tribunal appointed under the scheme the appeal by the Union against the suspension was rejected.
  The Union has now instructed its members to ban all overtime as from Monday last and I feel I must make it clear to the House that this instruction raises

  1519
  issues of considerable importance to the Dock Labour Scheme. Since Monday 413 men have been reported to the Dock Labour Board for alleged breaches of the Scheme. In these circumstances I invited representatives of the employers to see me yesterday and this morning I have seen representatives of the lightermen's union. I am also in touch with the Transport and General Workers' Union, who in addition to their interest in the lighterage section, represent the majority of the dock workers in the Port.
  I am now considering the position in the light of these discussions and I should like to be excused from making any further statement at present.
  Mr. Isaacs: I am painfully aware of the reason for the last few words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not want to press him unduly but I would ask him if he is alive—as I feel sure he is—[Laughter]—I put that the wrong way round, that is the worst of being a printer—to the need and the importance of securing a settlement through the established machinery within the industry, and will he continue his efforts with that in mind?
  Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir, I gladly give the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman seeks. Not only am I alive, but I am alive to that problem and that aspect of it.

B.B.C. CHARTER (RENEWAL)
The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a statement regarding the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The House is already aware that the Charter and Licence of the Corporation expire on 31st December, 1951. The Government have given preliminary consideration to the recommendations of the Broadcasting Committee, to the Memorandum on the Report presented by the late Government in July last, and to the views expressed in the debates which took place in this House and in another place in the same month.
The Government feel that it is impossible for them to reach final decisions on the important issues involved—particularly on those matters on which
1520
criticisms were expressed in the debates—in time for a new Charter and Licence for a term of years to operate from 1st January, 1952. The House will realise that when decisions have been taken, some time is required for the drafting of the documents and for the proceedings in Parliament.
The Government propose, therefore, to recommend to The King that a new Charter should be granted for a period of six months so as to afford reasonable time for the examination of the terms of a longer-term Charter, and for consideration by Parliament. A new Licence covering this period will also be issued.
The short-term Charter and Licence will incorporate the provisions of the documents now in force except for a variation in the financial arrangements. In the present economic circumstances, the Government have decided to adopt from 1st January the proposal of the late Government that the Parliamentary grant to the B.B.C. should be at the rate of 85 per cent. of net licence revenue, and the new Licence will accordingly provide for that percentage to apply for the extension period.
The Government propose to recommend to His Majesty the re-appointment of the Governors for six months, ending 30th June, 1952.
Mr. Herbert Morrison: We naturally take note that this is another case where the Government require a substantial period of time to make up their mind about a matter which was well before the last Parliament and was debated there. I do not make too much of it, because we are getting fully accustomed to the fact that this Government require a lot of time to decide anything.
But presumably the Government will, if there are material or notable changes, present another White Paper on their proposals, and I gather the House will have an opportunity of debating the matter before the new Charter is settled. One would have hoped that, at the end of six months, we would have been able to settle this matter. I presume, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us, that the re-appointment of the Governors for six months will include the Chairman of the Corporation?
Mr. Gammons: As to the latter part of the question, the re-appointment of the

1521
Governors is, of course, a matter for His Majesty the King. With regard to the first point which the right hon. Gentleman raised, if the proposals of the Government differ substantially from those of the late Government, then some form of White Paper will certainly be issued. So far as the Licence is concerned, that has to be presented to this House in any case.
Mr. John Profumo: Is my hon. Friend aware that the late Government took a period of about six months to try to make up their minds on this problem, and even then came to no conclusion; and that the Government's decision to take an adequate time to discuss and look into this very important problem will be very widely welcomed?
May I ask him if he is aware of the fact that there is a considerable body of opinion, not only in this House but in the country in general, that the new Charter should embrace a provision for the licensing of alternative broadcasting agencies, particularly in television, so that, in spite of cuts in revenue, there should be wider and better programmes without any further cost to the nation?
Mr. Gammans: The Government realise that there are differences of opinion, and they feel that further consideration of this matter is desirable.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to tell us the policy of the Government with regard to the recommendations of the Report on the subject of television?
Mr. Gammans: No, Sir; not at this moment.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Do we take it that the Government have now turned down the statement of policy made in the recent debate by the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the Chair?
Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman should suppose nothing of the sort.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We are to have a further statement on this matter in a short time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any statement to make with regard to today's business?
The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. As agreed this morning, we propose to ask the House today to take the following business:
Committee stage of Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown's Retirement Bill.
Committee and remaining stages of:
Public Works Loans Bill.
Japanese Treaty of Peace Bill; and then complete the Committee stage of the Home Guard Bill.
Afterwards, we shall take:
Report stage of outstanding Supplementary Estimates, and the formal Ways and Means Resolution, upon which the Consolidated Fund Bill will be brought in.
There are then the two Motions relating to Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Regulations.
It may be convenient if I state that, as I think the House is aware, we desire to take the Report and Third Reading of the Home Guard Bill after the Second Reading of the Ministers of the Crown (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Bill tomorrow.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he anticipates having to ask the House to sit very late tonight? He will realise that, when undigested legislation is brought before the House, it sometimes takes a little longer.
Mr. Crookshank: We are moving to suspend the Rule for Government business tonight.
Mr. E. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he recollects that, about 10 o'clock this morning, when we reached agreement that we should proceed with the remainder of the Committee stage of the Home Guard Bill tonight, I warned him that, if we found in the course of our deliberations that we were again plunging into the dark recesses of the night, we might have to make a further submission to him, because we do not desire to have a repetition of what happened last night.

SUSPENSION OF A MEMBER
Mr. Shinwell: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? You will recall that, during the Committee stage of the Home Guard Bill, an incident occurred when the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) came into conflict with the Deputy-Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means, as a result of which you were sent for. When you arrived, you adopted the customary procedure, as laid down in the Standing Orders, of naming the hon. Member.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, before the hon. Member could be asked to withdraw from the Chamber, a Motion had to be moved, in this case by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, although I understand that it does not follow that the Leader of the House should always move such a Motion. But, when the Leader of the House rose to his feet, at your request, to move the Motion, I ventured to rise to ask him a question which, in your discretion, you refused to allow me to do.
The purpose of my question was to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman whether, if my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, on reflection, thought it desirable to express his regret for what had occurred, leniency could be exercised. That was the purpose of my hon. Friends and myself. You, Sir, of course, were not aware of the nature of my question, but that was my purpose. On further consideration, some hon. Members, including myself, ventured to ask you whether you would consider the position in order to ensure that no injustice was done to an hon. Member—[Interruption.]—who, on reflection, wished to express regret for what had occurred.
I submit to you that that is a reasonable suggestion, and I wish to ask you whether you have given the matter consideration, and whether you can offer guidance to the House in order to avert an incident of that kind occurring again.
Mr. Speaker: We are so close to the regrettable events of early this morning that I would prefer, if the House agreed, to defer a complete reply to the right hon. Gentleman until tomorrow, when we can have the reports before us. I came into the House early this morning, having been sent for, in ignorance of what had taken place in the Committee and of the facts with which I was to deal. If the right hon. Gentleman will agree, I will consider the matter this evening and deal with it.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. In view of the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), may I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that your statement be delayed until next Monday—until the hon. Member returns?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman was asking a question for the general guidance of the House, and I can give that guidance in the absence of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.

BILL PRESENTED
  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
  "to enable the Minister of Transport to grant exemptions from requirements as to crew accommodation imposed under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1948, and the Merchant Shipping Act, 1950," presented by Mr. Maclay; supported by Major Sir Thomas Dugdale and Commander Galbraith; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 18]
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.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
MR. SPEAKER CLIFTON BROWN'S RETIREMENT BILL
Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(GRANTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS.)
3.50 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8 at the end, to insert:
"at interest rates not exceeding those prevailing on the sixth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-one."
As you will be aware, Sir Charles, the main purpose of this Bill is to authorise the National Debt Commissioners to make available to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for loans to local authorities the sum of £500 million, and it also permits the Commissioners to increase the aggregate of their actual loans and commitments to a total sum of £950 million.
I think it would be agreed on both sides of the Committee that this Bill would have been relatively uncontroversial but for the fact that on 6th November, following the speech in the House in the debate on the Address by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Treasury Minute was issued which has since been published as Statutory Instrument, 1951, No. 1955, the effect of which was to bring about the automatic increase on all loans to local authorities by the Public Works Loans Act of substantially higher rates of interest than those prevailing on 6th November last.
The rates of interest vary in accordance with the period for which the loans are granted by local authorities, but by far the most important of the increases made in the rates of interest charged is that whereby for all loans of more than 15 years the rate of interest was suddenly increased by the Government from 3 per cent., at which it had existed for a substantial period, to 3¾ per cent. I do not
1526
desire to traverse at any length the arguments addressed to the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, but it will be obvious that if the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, as I hope they will, then the main source of criticism against the Bill will disappear.
I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that when the Chancellor announced his intention to increase the rate of interest charged to local authorities from 3 to 3¾ per cent. something like consternation was created throughout the country. I am not sure whether the Committee realises that there is always a considerable time lag between the time at which local authorities obtain from the Public Works Loan Commissioners sanctions to borrow for housing, education, and other social purposes, and the moment at which they actually borrow the money.
It so happens that on 8th November, when the rate of interest was suddenly increased by such a large amount, the Public Works Loan Commissioners had already sanctioned some £420 million of loans to various local authorities. The effect of the change in the interest rate will be that this higher rate of interest will operate not only on all these new advances, but on the whole of those commitments amounting to £420 million which local authorities were authorised to take up and which they will be taking up as a result of that authorisation.
The effect of this increase in the rate of interest, as was pointed out during the Second Reading debate, must be one of three things in the field of housing alone. It must either involve a considerable increase in the rates which will have to be raised by local authorities or it will involve the Government in making up, by way of subsidies, the additional amount which will otherwise be charged to local authorities, or, again, it will involve a large increase in the rents which local authorities will have to charge to tenants of the houses and flats which are being built.
During the Second Reading debate we were unable to obtain any assurance from the Government that the amount which is being lost to local authorities by these increased charges will be made good by subsidies. In fact, the Chancellor said that the subsidies would be reviewed in consultation with the local authorities and that this increase in rates would be one factor, and one factor only, in that

1527
discussion. It is most significant that the spokesmen from the Government Front Bench signally failed to give any kind of assurance that the review of subsidies would compensate the local authorities for the additional sum they will now have to raise.
I think it would indicate the magnitude of the additional burden that will fall upon local authorities if I reminded the Committee that the result of putting up the interest rate from 3 to 3¾ per cent. is that for every £1,000 which local authorities have to borrow, they will now have to repay not merely £2,168, as they would if the rate remained at 3 per cent., but £2,527, which means that for every £1,000 borrowed the additional repayment at this higher rate of interest will be £360.
In view of what was either stated or implied by the Government Front Bench, last Friday it also follows that these increased rate charges will mean an addition to the amounts payable by tenants of local authority houses of something like 5s. a week depending, of course, upon the cost of the house. If one takes the standard cost of a house or flat in the London area, the additional burden placed upon the tenant will be of the order of 5s. a week, and in some cases it may be more.
4.0 p.m.
To indicate how widespread the increased burden will be, one has to bear in mind that the burden will not merely fall upon the tenants of all new council houses. Owing to the fact that a good many local authorities follow the practice of spreading the rents they charge over the whole of their housing operations, the increased rents, or some of them, are likely to fall upon all tenants of all council houses in the country. I hope that the Government spokesman will tell us whether that is the deliberate intention of the Government's policy.
We understood from the Minister of State for Economic Affairs on Friday that it is now the policy of the Conservative Government to make great and grave cuts in expenditure on the social services. The additional burdens which will fall on housing are only part of the cut which will follow in the social services, because, however the Government may try to compensate local authorities for what they
1528
will lose on housing, there is no suggestion of any kind that there will be any compensation for the additional burden which will fall on local authorities in the realm of education, land drainage and all their other social activities.
I gathered from what was said by the Minister of State for Economic Affairs last Friday that this is the chosen instrument of the Tory Party for bringing about cuts in the social services, and the object of the Amendment is to ensure that the Government live up to their Election pledges and do not reduce the social services. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted by the Government in the terms in which it now appears, because it is only in this way that the Committee and the country can have any assurance that our social services will be preserved by the Government.'
Mr. John Edwards: I rise to support the Amendment and to urge upon the Government the great need, to reconsider their attitude. It is not in order today to discuss the broad monetary policy of the Government from which this decision flows, which we regard as wholly misconceived and likely to hinder rather than help our economy. However, when the Government change the interest rate from 3 per cent. to 3¾ per cent. for all local authority purposes, issues of such importance to local authorities are raised that many of us want to raise our voices in protest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), drew special attention to housing, and on Friday the Financial Secretary told us that housing was the largest single item, being larger than all the other items taken together. It is clear that the final effect of the proposal must be felt by the tenants of council houses. Whether it will be felt by future tenants or present tenants is anybody's guess, because the situation will vary from locality to locality, depending on how the local authority arranges its rents.
There is a side issue concerning loans by local authorities to those who buy their own houses. Under the Housing Act and the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act local authorities have been lending money to those who wish to buy their own homes at the rate of one quarter of 1 per cent. above the prevailing rate of the Local

1529
Works Loans Board; that is, they have been charging 3¼ per cent. The effect of the change means that such people will have to pay 4 per cent. I know that the great bulk of the financing of the buying of houses is not done by the local authorities, but if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are really serious in their desire that people shall buy their own homes—I gather we are still to await the details of the conditions relating to house purchase—it may well be that in the future there will be. greater need for local authority assistance than in the past.
I have not made an estimate, but it is clear that the effect of the increased repayment which will have to be made by those who borrow from the local authorities will be to cut out a certain number of people who might otherwise be prepared to buy their own houses. I believe that this will be of such an order as to make the housing powers which local authorities now possess in respect of loans to would-be buyers of their own houses very much more difficult to operate, and I believe that the would-be buyers will be fewer than would otherwise be the case.
As to other services, it is clear that the increase in the interest rate must mean one of two things, that less work will be done or that the rates will rise. We have yet to see the shape of things to come in the field of local government economies, but, whatever the Government do, it will take time for the economies in the investment field to come into operation. Meantime, I am certain that the increase in the rate of interest will have the effect of increasing the rates to be paid by citizens all over the country.
I would remind the Financial Secretary that this has a consequence for the Exchequer as well, because, in a sense, the Exchequer is a ratepayer in every area to which a block grant is paid. Not only will rates go up but there will also be an increased charge on the Exchequer merely because of the increase in the interest rates. Without going over old ground again, I urge the Government seriously to reconsider the matter. I cannot believe that the Government get any advantages from this. They will discourage the local authorities, who have been doing their best in very difficult circumstances, and, unless second
1530
thoughts prevail, the final result may be disastrous.
Mr. Charles Pannell: The more I investigate the matter the more I appreciate how untenable is the Government's position, particularly in the sphere of housing. When the Committee deals with local authorities it tends to think in terms of counties and cities. I want to bring attention to the non-county boroughs, where the field of housing is the largest field left to them. In 1938 when I introduced a local budget in a non-county borough we controlled 54 per cent. of the expenditure of the rate demand, but 11 years afterwards that non-county borough controlled only 27 per cent. of its own expenditure, and the housing powers were the most considerable powers left to it.
During the Second Reading debate, on Friday, I gave some figures relating to 'borrowings under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards). I do not imagine that many people borrowing under that Act can be getting houses under £2,000 at present, and certainly not in London. Yet at 3¼ per cent. the annual charge would be £137 and, at 4 per cent., £146, which I make a 7½ per cent. increase.
The Financial Secretary said that he did not like the idea of a "hidden subsidy" and that he thought that local authorities ought to have money at the same borrowing rate as the Government. However, he will know that under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, local authorities are compelled to lend money at a quarter of 1 per cent. above their own borrowing rates. I believe that the same formula applies even in the case of the Housing Act, 1949, under which individual cases come before the Minister.
The Annual Report of the Board for 1950–51 reminds us that, to reduce the call by local authorities on the resources of the Board, or to postpone calls for as long as possible, local authorities finance their own capital expenditure from temporary surpluses of internal resources for such time as is considered prudent and from temporary borrowings on short-term at low rates of interests, within the permitted regulations. When a local authority embarks on a house building scheme, following the receipt of the loan

1531
sanction from the appropriate Government Department, it proceeds to finance the capital expenditure incurred on the scheme by raising short-term money at rates of interest between 1 and 1½ per cent.
This has the effect of reducing the charges on the housing revenue account during the period when large sums of money are being paid out but no rents are coming in. Before the advent of the 1945 Act, some local authorities used to raise about 10 per cent. of their loans in short-term money. It cost them a considerable amount of money when the 1945 Act was introduced.
In view of the Government's secrecy as to their ultimate intentions—the Government ought to tell us what they propose to do about monetary policy—local authorities are now faced with the problem whether they should abandon their present policy and proceed to enter into mortgage loans from the inception of the scheme, which would involve them in very substantial interest charges. All this uncertainty has a very disturbing effect on the authorities who are considering their schemes. I am of opinion that there should be an early announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I consider that it should have been made at the beginning of the proceedings on the Bill. Local authorities knew where they were when the previous Government was in power. No one is now in a position to pre-determine what shall be the attitude of the local authorities to this, but, as I indicated on Friday, if the suggestion from the Government is that any part of these increased charges is to be paid by the local authorities, the local authorities will take that very unkindly indeed.
In giving figures relating to the City of Leeds last week I tended to underestimate. I computed my figures on the basis of the actual subsidy. However, as the Financial Secretary knows, local authorities can, to a degree, fix their own subsidies, and I found that the figure was higher than the one I gave, and that it was I ld. in Leeds, and not 9½d. I also said that the average cost of repairing houses in London now was about £18 a year. I notice that the figure is not very much lower in the provinces. I understand that the annual repair charge for housing in Leeds is £15 8s. ld. I draw
1532
to the attention of the Financial Secretary the fact that from deficits on the housing repairs funds arises the cause of all the troubles concerning the rents of pre-war houses. The hon. Gentleman need only refer to the Reading case.
4.15 p.m.
There is one other aspect of this matter I should like to deal with shortly. On page 11 of the Report it shows that the fees received during the year 1949–50—the Report does not show the year 1950–51—from local authorities irrespective of Stamp Duties was £586,000 14s. 11d. and the expenses of the Board for the same year totalled £68,576 10s. 11d. Therefore, the profit made by the Board on fees was £517,444 4s. 0d. which was credited to the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might very well give an undertaking to review the Public Works Loans Fees Regulations at an early time with a view to relieving the local authorities of this sort of heavy burden, which is imposed upon them by the taking up of loans and making premature payments of amounts borrowed.
We heard a lot on this subject on Friday, and I still think we find ourselves in a dilemma through no statement coming from the Government on the subject. In view of that we are bound to say that this Bill will have the effect of increasing the rates already too high and also of forcing up the standard of living, making it more difficult for people who want to buy their own houses. By this act alone the Government are moving forward to that deflationary policy, which has always been favoured by hon. Members opposite and which, at the end, will bring us a full sized pocket of unemployment.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): I quite understand the very deep interest of hon. Members on this side of the Committee in this question of housing and the rents which the tenants will have to pay. I am a little shocked that not a single hon. Member on the other side of the Committee, many of whom spoke about rents when they sat on this side of the House, has the courage of his convictions to get up and say a word, all the more so when one considers that in the case of each of their constituencies this problem will be a real one within a short period of time.

1533
I would just mention the effect of this proposal in the constituency of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) who, unfortunately, has just left the Committee but who, I am sure, will be eager to speak on this subject later. have been informed that in the new block of flats which are about to be built in her area the rents will increase by 4s. to 4s. 6d. a week unless there are satisfactory increases in the housing subsidies.
I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a very serious matter. We are not only considering the effect of these loans upon housing, but upon other local authority activities. I remember how anxious hon. Members on the Government side of the Committee were, when in Opposition, to ensure that proper water supplies would be available and that proper sewerage schemes were carried out. There were regular questions and great anxiety displayed by them on this very real and serious issue. It is not very much use providing new houses for our people if we are not able to provide them with water supplies at the same time. I should have thought that many hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, who represent rural constituencies, would be particularly concerned about this matter.
When I look at the 76th Annual Report of the Board I find that while the loans for housing purposes far outweigh any others for other local Government activities, it is still true that those for water supplies and services came to the sum of £19 million in the last financial year. It is a matter of very serious concern indeed to the local authorities that here, at any rate, there is not even any offer of subsidy to help compensate for the extra charges which they will have to face.
I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether it is possible to agree that the local authorities when they come to discuss this matter—I am not sure whether they are now discussing it or not—with the Ministers concerned, that they would be able to raise not only the added charges that are facing them on their housing loans, but also the added charges that would face them on such matters as water schemes and other matters of equal concern. I hope that my hon. Friends will press this issue very strongly, because there is no doubt at all that there will be increasing feeling throughout the country on an issue, where there will be general
1534
agreement that the Government have taken the first possible opportunity to let down the very people that they have always claimed they represented.
I hope there will not be any question about the intention of hon. Members on this side of the Committee in pressing this Amendment as vigorously as possible. I trust that before long we shall have some information from the other side of the Committee, if not from the Minister responsible at least from some of those who sit with him on the Government Front Bench to show that they are still somewhat interested in the issues which are the concern of this Amendment.
Mr. R. Ewart: I want to mention one or two points which arise from the proposed increased rates, particularly as they affect my constituents in north-eastern England. I want to preface my remarks by suggesting that Parliament might be informed of the broad outline of policy of the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the question of increased loan charges, and that that matter will be mentioned at the suggested conference which will take place in January.
Of the many actions already taken by this Government which will increase the cost of living, their action about the loan charges is having the most disturbing effect in the country, because it hits at the very centre of our social service system and, in addition, it places local authorities in the dilemma of having to accept the one of two alternatives. Either they have to increase the rates in their area, which, in many cases, are large enough, or they will have to increase rents over the whole field of housing, particularly in those areas where the local authorities follow an equalisation course as so very many of them do.
I feel that the Minister of Housing and Local Government might tell us something of the policy which he proposes to pursue in the future because of this change in housing policy. Surely the Government, having agreed to increased interest rates, should have in mind what line they propose to pursue in their approach to the local authorities. It might very well have the effect in many districts, particularly in my constituency, that the very fine performance of house building, such as has been accomplished by Sunderland Corporation, who

1535
have built to date over 5,000 permanent houses, will have to slow down, or, alternatively, the shipyard and the factory workers, in the main working for moderate wages, will have to pay an increase in rent amounting to about 4s. a week.
Such a problem is vital both to the local authority and to those whom we represent. Yet we have had no communication at all from the Government as to what steps will be taken to relieve the local authorities of this additional burden. The only indication we have had as to what policy is to be pursued is that given by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls) who spoke on this subject on Friday. He said that because of the policy of the Government we should have to build houses of a lower standard than the present ones. He argued that though the cost would be lower the amount saved by the local authority would not be used to reduce the rents, but would offset the impact of the Government's proposals to increase interest rates.
In other words, the local authorities are being advised by the hon. Member to pursue a policy that would not increase the rents to the tenant, but which will give to the tenants for the same amount of rent an inferior dwelling to those erected since the war. Surely the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can tell us if that is the course which is to be pursued by the Government, and whether that is the line which will be taken by the Minister of Local Government and Housing when he meets the local authority representatives at the forthcoming conference.
The Chairman: We cannot, on this Amendment, go into any great detail about the standard of housing.
Mr. Ewart: But the fact that the Government's policy is going to bear so heavily on local authorities in their housing schemes leads me to raise this issue now, Sir Charles. It is a serious issue for it may well lead to a slowing down of the programme of the building of houses and to a different and lower standard of housing without any reduction in rental charges.
In view of your Ruling, Sir Charles, I do not want to develop the point too far.
1536
But I believe it will have a vital effect on the housing authorities of this country. They are to discuss this matter with the Minister at a conference in the near future, but my view is that Parliament should have been advised of the outcome of the consultations which have been taking place between the Departments concerned and between the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Treasury. Then we would have been able to estimate the Government's policy when it meets the local authorities in January.
Mr. James MacColl: My hon. Friends who have already spoken on this Amendment have laid emphasis on the very harmful effects which any increase in the rate of interest will have on the housing authorities and the problems with which they have to cope. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) that it is shocking—the relations of the new Government with the local authorities should have been begun so badly and that the local authorities are faced with a problem of this dimension. But I do not want to develop that point. I want to try to ascertain from the Government what are the real reasons which have prompted them to propose an increase of this sort.
It is because of my profound distrust of those reasons and my feeling that the Government are very woolly-minded on this matter—if I may with great respect use the phrase—that I support the Amendment, which proposes to tie them down to the existing rates of interest. It seems to me that the best statement we have had of the reasons behind this Amendment were those extracted from the Minister of State for Economic Affairs by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) during the debate on Second Reading.
4.30 p.m.
Everybody on this side of the Committee will feel profound regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, is not able to assist us this afternoon on this very complicated and difficult matter. I can only hope that hon. Members opposite are as disappointed as we are at his absence. With his usual lucidity, he would have led us through this rather difficult

1537
question. Speaking on Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"May I clear up this point? The primary object of this particular change is what may be called 'tidying up'—getting back to a real basis, and to see that the subsidies that are given are clearly visible and measurable, and not containing an element of concealed subsidy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 790.]
I hope that an hon. Member opposite with a grasp of these matters, possibly the Financial Secretary, will explain, in simple language, at what level the rate of interest has to be for it to cease to be a concealed subsidy. What magic is there in the figure now being proposed? Most people are under the impression, I think, that it is a simple problem of arithmetic: the Government borrow a certain amount of money at a rate of interest and lend it to the Public Works Loan Board who, in their turn, lend it to the local authority; and, therefore, to avoid a concealed subsidy we fix the rate of interest at the rate at which the Government borrow the money in the first place.
But that argument was completely deflated by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on Second Reading, who pointed out that the money used for this purpose was either not borrowed at all or, if it was borrowed, then it was borrowed as short money at a very much lower rate of interest than that at which the Public Works Loan Board lend to local authorities on a 60-year term. That simple argument, therefore, collapsed.
The right hon. Gentleman then produced what we might call a sort of "opportunity-cost" theory—that the rate of interest at which we had to lend money was the rate fixed by the alternative uses to which we might put that money if we had not had the embarrassing difficulty of having to help local authorities to build houses. If that is the theory, then, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North, pointed out that by lending money to development areas the Government can get 4 per cent. Why not fix the rate of interest at 4 per cent., therefore, if opportunity-cost is to fix the rate of interest? Why stop at that? The Treasury might be able to put all the money on a horse at 100 to 1. I am certain that the Financial Secretary, with his usual skill, would be able to devise an appropriate use of the money for that purpose. There is no
1538
limit to the alternative uses to which we might imagine we could put the money.
It is clear, therefore, that there is no fixed rate of interest at which the Government must lend this money in order to avoid a concealed subsidy. In fact, there is no such thing as a concealed subsidy of this kind at all. In default of some rather more clear explanation from the Government of what is the economic basis behind their argument, I think there is no case at all for the Committee to reject this Amendment. If the Minister of State for Economic Affairs could not give us an adequate explanation, I do not think it is likely that anyone else will succeed in doing it on behalf of the Government.
Having put up this curious argument about the concealed subsidy, the Minister of State for Economic Affairs went on to what I am sure most of us on this side of the Committee were uncharitable enough to feel was the real reason for this proposal. Again, he put it with his usual clarity when he said:
"this Measure…must be related to the general financial policy of the Government as explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 790.]
And, of course, as expanded and expounded by the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading, the object was to increase the cost of house building in order to reduce the enthusiasm of housing authorities for housing construction.
If that is the policy, if it is to be a disinflationary policy, I think we are entitled to ask the Government to be quite clear in explaining to us what they are trying to do. Is it their policy, by physical controls, to give housing a priority limited only by the shortage of building resources—to give the fullest possible facilities to local authorities to build houses; is that their policy? Or is their policy, by using financial controls, by the use of the interest rate as an instrument of economic policy, to see that local authorities are discouraged from building houses?
We must have an answer to that question before we can dispose of this Amendment. We cannot give the Government carte blanche to do what they will with the rate of interest until we know what is their policy on housing subsidies, because if their policy on housing subsidies is, on the one hand, that they

1539
intend to raise the price of houses but will provide the local authorities with the money to pay that price, then it seems to me that the whole procedure is extraordinary and futile and has no justification at all except on the rather curious argument about a concealed subsidy. If, on the other hand, the object of the Government is not to give a subsidy to an amount equivalent to the increase in the loan charges; if it is their object to increase the cost of housing to local authorities, as the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls) quite clearly thought was the Government's policy, then we should be told so quite clearly and categorically.
It is absurd that we should be asked at this stage to pass the Bill without an Amendment of this sort to safeguard the position of the local authorities. It is absurd that we should be expected to pass the Bill in its original form without the Government making clear what is the theory behind this proposal and what will be their subsidy policy, upon which will depend the whole effect of raising the rate of interest. If we do not know the subsidy policy of the Government, then we shall be agreeing to an increase in the rate of interest quite blindly and without any clear idea of why we are doing it.
We should be doing it without any clear idea of what the Government are trying to do and without any clear idea of what the effect will be on local authorities. We should be false to our duty and our trusteeship to the local authorities if we weakly permitted a thing like that to go through without being able to get from the Government a clear and positive statement of what they are trying to do.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): As we are in Committee it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I seek. at this stage, to reply to some of the points which have been made from the benches opposite. As I understand, this Amendment is intended in substance to be a method of reversing the decision of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to effect certain alterations in the rates of interest paid by local authorities on loans issued to them by the Public Works Loan Board.
1540
It is true that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who moved the Amendment, suggested that it should be accepted in terms. But quite apart from the main issue, with which I shall seek to deal in a moment, that would be completely out of the question, in view of the terms in which it is drafted. The Amendment seeks to add certain words to line 8, and if hon. Members will look at the text of the Bill they will see that, with the Amendment, it is far from clear whether the limitation which it is sought to impose upon the rates of interest chargeable on loans relates to moneys issued by the National Debt Commissioners to the Public Works Loan Commissioners or to loans issued by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the local authorities. What the result would be is far from clear, although I have no doubt, from the speeches I have heard, what the intention would be.
Mr. Douglas Jay: As a matter of grammar, I should have thought that it clearly means the latter, but if the hon. Gentleman will accept the substance of our proposal we shall be very glad to accept his drafting.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have already indicated to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I think it will be no surprise, that these comments are quite apart from the question of the merits of the matter, on which I shall seek to detain the Committee for a few minutes, a little later. I was merely pointing out that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington, East, is in terms which, at the very least—at the, most favourable to him—are ambiguous, when we consider what the effect will be. I do not base my objection to the Amendment on this purely procedural and drafting point, however. I have had far too much experience of drafting Amendments without the assistance of the staffs available in Government Departments ever to adopt that line against hon. Members opposite.
It may be possible in the course of this discussion to put the merits of this matter a little more into proportion than has seemed to be the case so far and than seemed to be the case in the debate on Friday. To listen to some of the speeches which have been made one would have thought that raising or lowering the rate of interest on these loans was a very rare operation. Indeed, one hon. Member

1541
sought to impute rather curious motives to it.
It may help to put the matter more into proportion if I point out to the Committee that since the original Public Works Loans Act of 1897 the rate of interest on these loans has been altered on no fewer than 42 occasions, under a whole variety of Governments. With those 42 variations, the rate of interest has ranged from 61 per cent. down to 2 per cent. An alteration has taken place on 42 occasions, up or down, during the last 55 years.
Mr. MacColl: I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates this point, but he should make it. Until the 1945 Act was passed local authorities could borrow in the open market. The rate of interest was, therefore, very closely linked to some ascertainable ratio. That is not the position today.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully appreciate that, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that the facilities offered by the Public Works Loan Board have been of the greatest value to local authorities and that local authorities have made use of those facilities over a great many years. If such disastrous consequences as have been suggested this afternoon would occur from any rise in the interest rate, it is surprising that those consequences have not occurred before.
The hon. Member will also appreciate that the effect, in all probability, is even less than it was before the Act of 1945. Before that, as he says, the local authorities could go to the market. Therefore, if the rate fixed by the Treasury was out of relation to the market rate—was too high—they would go to the market; and it must be a fact that the terms offered by the Public Works Loan Board kept fairly closely in touch with the market. The changes in the rates at which local authorities could borrow during that period are, in fact, adequately reflected in the figures of the rates of interest of the Public Works Loan Commissioners. They must, in fact, have kept very closely in touch or the local authorities would have gone to the market.
4.45 p.m.
It is a fact that there have been occasions when the rate has been as high as
1542
6½ per cent., and it is a fact that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they have been in office, have moved the rate upwards. I shall come in a few moments to the occasion when they did so in 1948, because I think it is extremely material not only because they did so, but because of the reasons which the then Chancellor of the Exchequer gave for their doing so. But they did so also in 1929, when, on 14th October, they raised the rate not to 3¾ per cent. but to 5¼ per cent.
Therefore, it really does seem that we are not discussing something with sinister implications rarely done in the history of this country. We are discussing a thing that has been done by every sort of Government, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, for a period of 50 years. I think it is material to get out of one's mind the feeling of perfectly natural and perfectly understandable excitement which this matter does seem to have aroused in the minds of a certain number of hon. Members opposite.
Indeed, the only difference, as I see it, in our handling of the matter is this. On this occasion this Government, unlike their predecessors, have coupled with the rise in interest rates a bringing forward of the talks with local authorities on the rate of subsidy. If there were any occasion on which one need not feel undue alarm it should surely be on the occasion when what has been done many times before by all Governments is done with, in addition, the special safeguard of the acceleration of the subsidy conversations with the local authorities, and with those conversations coupled with the action taken.
Mr. Leslie Hale: We really must have this point cleared up. Is the hon. Gentleman now suggesting that the subsidy will roughly be equivalent to the extra charge of the housing bill of the local authorities? If so, why did he talk about a rise of about 3s. 6d. in the rent of council houses as being a mechanical matter? Will a copy of the hon. Gentleman's speech be sent with the notices of the increase in rents? Or what is the method by which it is suggested that this point of view may be conveyed to the people who have to give up their homes because of increased rents?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman, I hope, knows me well enough not to believe that I should fail to deal with the questions raised from his own side of the Committee on that aspect of the matter. I hope also he knows me well enough to know that I do prefer to deal with this in an orderly manner. However, I will give him this assurance, that before I sit down I shall have discussed all aspects of the matter. I do hope that the hon. Gentleman, as a responsible Member of this Committee, will not, as he did a moment ago, seek to cause alarm and despondency by statements of that sort. I hope he will not, because the hon. Gentleman knows that what he says here and outside is listened to with respect by a lot of people.
Mr. R. T. Paget Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton): rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, I am not going to give way again on that.
Friday's debate did, therefore, seem a little out of proportion. This is not, as the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), said, the chosen instrument of the Tory Party. This is a quite normal procedure which has been undertaken by a great many Governments on a great many occasions.
I now pass to another aspect of the matter that was raised. It was suggested on Friday—I am glad to say that it was not suggested today—that the raising of the rates of interest to the Public Works Loan Board was, in some way or another, calculated to enrich bloated financial magnates. That suggestion does not bear a moment's analysis, because if hon. Members will contemplate the position they will appreciate that the rate of interest, whatever it is, is paid not to any private persons but is paid back to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, where it is available to be re-lent in subsequent loans, and its availability to be lent again in subsequent loans relieves the national Exchequer of the need to provide money that would otherwise have to be provided for these loans, and, therefore, the money in question goes to the general funds of the State, or, if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) prefers it, to the relief of the taxpayers.
Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman knows, and he would not disagree, that this has
1544
to be taken with the rise in the Treasury Bill rate—which we cannot discuss today—and that it is all one policy. Therefore, of course, the increased interest rate goes to the banks and other private financial institutions.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would agree with the hon. Gentleman only to this extent, that we cannot discuss it at length, as I understand it, even if we can discuss it at all, for we are concerned, on the hon. Gentleman's own Amendment, not with any general question of interest rates: we are concerned with these specific rates, and, as I understand it. Mr. Hopkin Morris—and I speak subject to your correction—the only issue that is in order in this debate, or, indeed, with which this Committee is at present concerned, is the rate of interest to be paid by local authorities to the Public Works Loan Commissioners. I shall be very happy to have the opportunity of discussing these matters on the appropriate occasions with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), but I cannot do so now because it is outside this Measure and outside the proposal now before the Committee.
The matter amounts, if no further action is taken—and I stress that—to a readjustment of burden between one side of public funds and another, the local and national. It has been coupled, of course, with the Chancellor's intimation that the normal discussions with the local authorities on subsidy would be brought forward from June and would take place in the near future. Therefore, we start on the basis that this is an adjustment of burden which, if uncompensated for, would be an adjustment in favour of the taxpayer as against the ratepayer, but it is subject to compensatory action being taken in the comparatively near future.
It is not a question here of any question of private interest. I was glad to be reminded by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards), who was previously associated with the Department with which I am connected, of the Exchequer's interest in this issue, and I can assure him that, as he did not forget that interest when he was at the Treasury, nor shall I. It is important for the Committee to appreciate that this is not a question of the allocating of private interests of individuals.

1545
The question really is this. Why should local authority borrowing be at a lower cost than other forms of public borrowing? What is the case for doing that? I yield to no one in my admiration for the work, particularly on social services, that is done by the local authorities. But, they are not the only people who do socially valuable work. The central Government work, through for example, the regional hospital boards, or other public services, is equally important.
What hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be arguing is that local authority borrowing should be singled out and given a special position at a lower interestrate than other public authority borrowing, and it does seem to me that no case has really been made out so far for doing this. It is an attempt at the argument of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North, is so fond—I have heard him use it three times, but I have no doubt that I shall have the good fortune, before the Sitting is concluded, of hearing it a fourth time—
Mr. Jay: Not today.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very disappointed.
The argument is also adopted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), and it is the argument that, if we are financing these loans out of a Budget surplus, we need not charge the same rate of interest as if we had to borrow the money. I think that that is the argument fairly stated. The snags in this argument, I think, are these. First, it proves too much. It is an argument, if it is logical at all, for an interest-free loan. Second, it is quite impossible to identify a particular part of a Budget surplus as having gone in any particular direction—as having been allocated to a particular source in this case, the local authorities.
Surely the real test, the practical test, that must be applied is the consideration of the true value, and, therefore, the right price of the loan—not so much the cost to the lender, but what the money would have earned if lent elsewhere on similar security. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Surely that is the practical test: what is the real value of the loan—unless we accept the argument, which I shall be coming to in a moment, that the local authorities should have it at below the rate cost?
1546
That there should be no discrimination in favour of local authorities as against all other public borrowers has been quite clearly the conclusion of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this Committee, culminating with Sir Stafford Cripps in the speech which I quoted on Friday. I think that what Sir Stafford Cripps said has such good sense and such cogency that the Committee will pardon me if I quote it again. He was asked a Question by Mr. Piratin, who was then a Member of the House of Commons but is no longer with us, and he answered:
"The present rates charged are 2 per cent. for loans of less than five years, 2½ per cent. for loans of five to 15 years and 3 per cent. for loans for 15 years and longer. The rates of interest charged to local authorities are fixed from time to time to correspond broadly with Government borrowing rates for comparable periods."
Mr. Piratin put a supplementary question asking:
"Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain what new circumstances have arisen during the last few months, since the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the very welcome reduction in interest charges, to make it necessary to inflict this further burden on local authorities?"
That is a phrase that seems a little familiar today. Sir Stafford Cripps replied:
"The Government borrowing rates for comparable periods have altered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 33.]
That is precisely the reason for this change now, and as, as always, Sir Stafford Cripps expressed the thought he desired to express in language of such clarity and such force, I do not think we can do better than quote those words as expressing what it is that is being done now.
I think the hon. Member for Battersea, North, fell a little below his usual standard of fairness last Friday when he referred to this. He said:
"The hon. Gentleman"—
he meant me—
"knows perfectly well that Sir Stafford Cripps maintained this rate of interest at 3 per cent., and my complaint is precisely that Sir Stafford Cripps's policy has been abandoned and the rate raised from 3 per cent. to 3¼ per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 754.]
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well from the words of Sir Stafford Cripps himself—and whatever one may think of

1547
Sir Stafford's views, he could make himself clear—that what he said was the reason for his action was, in his own words:
"The Government borrowing rates for comparable periods have altered."
I thought that it was a little below the very high standard that one always expects of the hon. Member for Battersea, North, to say that his complaint was that we were abandoning the policy of Sir Stafford Cripps.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. Jay: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it was the policy of Sir Stafford Cripps slavishly to follow the market rate of interest, how can he explain the fact that Sir Stafford Cripps notably refrained from doing so during most of 1948, the whole of 1949 and 1950?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No one has said that we should slavishly follow it. Obviously, too frequent changes cause inconvenience to local authorities. Broadly, it is necessary, in our view, that these rates should be fairly close relationship to the market rate, though if the market should fluctuate we cannot expect to follow it every month. I hope that will relieve the hon. Gentleman's mind.
The reason which has caused my right hon. Friend to take the action we are discussing this afternoon is really the same reason which caused Sir Stafford Cripps to take the same action then—the fact that it was desirable to bring the rate more into line with the Government borrowing rate for the same period.
Mr. Paget Mr. Paget rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry I cannot give way. That is a point that hon. Members, when they become so eloquent as they undoubtedly have on the wrongs of the local authorities, should reflect upon—that what is being done is consistent with the policies of Government on different occasions over a great many years.
The discussion last Friday and to some extent this afternoon, notably in the speeches of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh), and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) related to the discussions which are
1548
shortly to take place between the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the local authorities. All sorts of assurances were asked for.
Mr. Paget: On a point of order. May I make the point that if on a Committee stage, contrary to all practice, the Government will not give way when they are asked to, surely they cannot complain if the proceedings are long, because it is found necessary, instead of disposing of a point at once to make a speech about it afterwards?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have given way on a considerable number of occasions, and one is entitled, I think, to indulge in a certain selectivity, otherwise it becomes quite impossible to develop a coherent argument. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's complaint was particularly inapposite to a Committee stage when it is always possible, when a point has been put in a subsequent speech, for a reply to be made to it.
I assure him that if I did not give way on a complex argument, I did not intend any discourtesy to him, nor in fact do I deny him any opportunity of putting his point of view. If, when one is endeavouring to reply to six or seven speeches from the other side of the Committee, one allows oneself to be distracted from the theme of one's argument every time an hon. Member seeks to interrupt, one will get nowhere.
As I was saying, these assurances were asked for. Hon. Members will appreciate, if they pause to consider, how impossible it is, before discussions have even begun, to give definite assurances as to one aspect of their results. It really is quite impossible to have an effective discussion on matters of considerable importance and some difficulty if one of the parties to the discussion is to be bound in advance by precise and specific pledges as to what is to happen.
Sensible negotiations have to proceed on a basis of give and take, and if one party binds himself in advance he creates the greatest difficulty for himself. The assurance that I can give is the assurance which the Chancellor of the Exchequer went out of his way to give on 7th November, when he referred not only to the fact that these discussions were being deliberately brought forward from June, when they would normally have taken

1549
place, but to the fact that the increase in the interest rates would be one factor in those discussions. I do not think that hon. Members who have taken part, as so many hon. Members have, in complicated discussions of this sort really believe that it is possible in advance of the discussions to give the specific assurances for which they have asked.
Mr. J. Edwards: Let us be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The local authorities want to know where they are. The hon. Gentleman said that it is most unreasonable to ask for an assurance at this stage. There is only one reason why His Majesty's Government should not wish to give an assurance, and obviously it is that they do not intend to go the whole way in the compensation of local authorities.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman has himself taken part, not without distinction, in delicate negotiations. I said "not without distinction" I did not say with success. He knows perfectly well how impossible it is to conduct discussions if whole areas of the matters to be discussed have been decided in advance.
The hon. Gentleman says that the local authorities want to know where they are. Of course they do. The bringing forward of these discussions will help them to know where they are very much more quickly than would have been the case if the review had been left to take its normal course. It really is begging the question to say that local authorities who, in the near future, are about to enter into discussions with my right hon. Friend require to know where they are by way of assurances before those discussions begin.
I think that hon. Members, certainly those who have to deal with local authorities, will appreciate that they are pretty capable of putting their point of view and are not lacking in. forensic ability in the powers of persuasion on all those aspects of the matter which very naturally trouble hon. Members, because we all appreciate how important they are in the lives of our constituents and to the country. No one on either side of the House ignores that.
Surely, however, when these discussions are about to begin we must leave it for all matters concerned to be gone into in
1550
detail and sympathetically by those who represent the local authorities and my right hon. Friend. That surely is the proper position in which this House can, for the moment, leave the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We are entitled to our opinion on this. If, at the end of these discussions, the results seem to some hon. Members to be unsatisfactory, I do not think that the resources of Parliamentary procedure need be unduly taxed in order to enable the matter to be raised with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, that surely is the proper way to deal with a matter which does not, of course, as the Committee is aware, arise directly from this Bill.
I think that we have all tended to forget in the last day or two that this Bill does not fix the rate of interest. It provides the money, and it also authorises the commitments which are the foundation of the whole loan activity of the Public Works Loans Board. That is what we are concerned to do by this Bill. Indeed, that is the matter of urgency, so far as this Committee is concerned. We are concerned, if the Committee thinks fit, to provide the money and to authorise the commitments.
I would ask that after the matter has received such discussion as seems to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to be necessary and desirable, and after the interesting and important issue of the rate of interest has been thrashed out to hon. Members' satisfaction, hon. Members will recall at the end of it that the immediate task before us is to make available the money, and to authorise the commitments so that the important work of the local authorities shall continue without interruption.
Mr. Hugh Dalton: I think that hon. Members will agree that the speech to which we have just listened was profoundly unsatisfactory, and we shall certainly, without reservation, take the Amendment to a Division. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has given no guarantee that this increase in the rate of interest will not fall predominantly, if not completely, on the local ratepayers or rentpayers, as the case may be. The only phrase that he quoted was a repetition of the phrase used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that in discussions with the local authorities the increase of the rate of

1551
interest will be one factor—as no doubt it will be—along with a number of others.
Another factor is the Government's desire gradually to raise the rates of interest. This is one example of the dearer money, deflationary policy advocated for so long by the "Economist," which has at last this Government's support. For six years, we rejected the advice of Mr. Crowther, but the Government has fallen into his clutches. That is not denied.
It is clear, as has been frequently stated, that the rents of the new council houses will rise by approximately 5s. a week—in some cases a little less, and in others a little more—as the result of raising the rate from 3 per cent. to 3¾ per cent. Many of my hon. Friends with practical knowledge of local government have expressed the view that this has had a most disturbing effect—the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Ewart). said this in an excellent speech—on the local authorities at the present time and on their plans. I am only going to speak briefly because it is high time that we challenged the Government to a Division and found out how many of their supporters are still awake after last night.
I must, however, say something more about the practice of the Labour Government. I must say one more word on the subject of the policy pursued by Sir Stafford Cripps and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), when they were Chancellors of the Exchequer in the late Government. It is perfectly true that Sir Stafford Cripps on one occasion, in January, 1948, put up the rate from 21 per cent. which was what the local authorities paid when I was the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and they were much happier with that rate, and many local authorities look back with great regret to that time, when they were enabled to keep down housing costs by that means—to, 3 per cent.
It must again be put on record that although Sir Stafford Cripps raised the rate in 1948, neither he nor his successor raised it again right up to the end of the period of office of the last Government. Their policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North, has explained, was governed—and I speak with
1552
a little knowledge about this as one of their colleagues in that Government—by the view that housing was a most important public undertaking, and that in that matter in particular it was not desirable or right to follow financial pedantry to the point of raising the rate of interest charged to local authorities, even when the rate of interest at which the Government borrowed from time to time had fluc4uated upwards.
It was by his action in those three years, followed by that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South—a beneficent, sensible, wise action—that Sir Stafford Cripps encouraged local authorities to build houses at low cost and kept rents down. It is on their action over six years and not on the one occasion when the rate was put up only by one-half per cent. that the late Government will be judged.
5.15 p.m.
I shall ask my hon. Friends to divide, and to divide fairly quickly, because there is other business to come on. We shall divide on this issue in order to protect the public to the best of our power, to prevent the raising of the rents of council houses and to protect the local authorities from this unfortunate introduction of a new principle, so far as recent years are concerned, which cannot but act most adversely upon the finances of local authorities, upon the ratepayers, and on the interests of the tenants of these houses.
Mr. David Logan (Liverpool, Scotland Division): I am very surprised to hear the Minister, who has newly taken office, make such a statement on finance as he made today. I support the proposal which has been put forward on the question of the rate of interest. We are told that the rate of interest may be negotiated, but we know that at a certain date it was ¾ per cent. and that an increase of per cent, is now likely. I should like the Minister of Housing and Local Government to bear with me for a moment. There will be no imputations such as those which the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier in regard to his policy, because I am as anxious as anyone on the benches opposite to see an improvement in housing in the City of Liverpool.
I have been nearly 20 years on the Housing Committee in that city and it

1553
is a pleasure to find that during that period the City Council have been able to put up 76,000 houses. We have had 7,000 houses erected during the last five years. Our problem in Liverpool is the same as in the other blitzed cities. The old question of costs has disappeared and the fancy prices that now exist will militate against the prospects of the 40,000 people who are waiting for homes in the City of Liverpool, just as people are waiting for them in all the other industrial areas.
This problem does not affect only the Labour Party. I speak for the whole of the citizens of Liverpool, who will be very badly hit by any increased costs. The ordinary workers in the city cannot stand an additional 4s. or 5s. a week, nor the enhanced prices that have to be paid for the houses erected at exorbitant costs in the satellite towns. Unless we know what our liabilities will be, we will not be able to take up the allocation with which the right hon. Gentleman stated so liberally a fortnight ago that he will be prepared to make good the housing shortage.
We must get rid of the idea of trading and finance when it comes to the question of settling the poor or the middle classes in their homes. We are having degradation, misery and poverty, and we also have tuberculosis, simply and solely because we cannot house our people. Even if the money were free of interest, that would not be going beyond what ought to be done in regard to the housing of people whose homes have been blitzed. In Liverpool we have over 40,000 people on the waiting lists, and all the other surrounding districts are in practically the same position.
Even with an additional¾per cent., consider what an extra cost of 4s. or 4s. 6d. a week will mean in the smaller homes. I agree that economies must be effected, but not at the price of the poor. We have no right to effect economies which will prevent better homes being found. It is no use for any Minister, having criticised the Labour Government for not producing houses, merely saying that the Government will produce 300,000. I hope that they will do so; I wish them every success.
If there is to be a stranglehold on the various borrowing powers of local com
1554
munities, we shall never be able to get the houses built. With the present cost of materials, the shortage of labour, and the higher prices that have to be paid, the burden is too heavy. Even those engaged in administration in the City of Liverpool, who are doing the job well, will be handicapped to such an extent that they will be frustrated in their work. I hope that the Minister will take a more charitable and broader vision of the benefit of cheap money when loaned to local bodies. I hope that the negotiations of which we have heard will be successful, and that the lowering of money rates will be done as low as possible to enable us to house our people.
Mr. Paget: Whatever qualities the Financial Secretary may lack, effrontery certainly is not one of them. He excelled himself when he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) of spreading alarm and despondency. Surely the alarm and despondency was spread when we were told last week of the great and grave cuts—or was it great and grave economies, or great and grave savings? We still want to know what that statement meant. We have had many explanations. Why is not the Minister of State for Economic Affairs here to tell us? For a fleeting moment, like a nervous rabbit putting its head out of a burrow, he appeared on the corner of the Front Bench, but now he has bolted again.
When shall we see him? Why does he not come here? After what happened on Friday, the right hon. Gentleman is not treating the House with great respect. Of course, if we are to be told that the right hon. Member is absent only because he has gone away to resign, we shall both respect and sympathise with the explanation, which is a proper one, but if he intends to remain in his job, why is he not here?
I turn now to the arguments which the Financial Secretary described as "historic." He said how the interest rates had been changed from time to time. That was going into the days when the interest rates were not controlled by the Government. The great historical difference which has occurred is that interest rates today are really and substantially controlled by Government policy; and when the Government said that they are putting up these rates

1555
because interest rates have gone up, they are the people whose deliberate policy is putting up these interest rates. They say that we have to follow the interest rates. In fact, they have to follow them in the sense that they have to spin around chasing their own tails. It is the hon. Members opposite who are the people who have done this.
What is the general effect? Somebody the other day said, "This is a transfer between the ratepayer and the taxpayer." Substantially, that is what the Financial Secretary said. Somebody then said, "But the ratepayer, the rentpayer and the taxpayer are all the same people." Yes, they are the same people in the sense that a tiger and a cat are the same animal; they just happen to differ in their proportions, that is all.
Rent and rates form a larger proportion of the spending of the poor. Taxation forms a larger proportion of the spending of the rich, and to transfer a liability, as is being done, from the taxpayer to the rentpayer and to the ratepayer, is simply to transfer spending power from the poor to the rich. That is the basis of this whole proposal. It is a policy to transfer spending power from the poor, who, on the whole, support this party, to the rich, who, on the whole, support the party opposite. That is the reality of this policy, and that is what is being done.
It is said that this is deflationary. Merely to transfer money from the poor to the rich, however, is not in the least deflationary.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Several times the hon. and learned Member said, "Transferring from the poor to the rich," and is not making himself clear. What collection of rich people has he in mind? Is he talking about the Chairmen of the Big Five banks in person? Are they to receive this interest? Who are the rich about whom he is talking?
Mr. Paget: I am talking of those to whom taxation is a more important item in their spending than rents and rates; that is, on the whole, the rich section of the community. [Interruption.] The noble Lord says that it has nothing to do with taxation, but the Financial Secretary explained that this was a transfer of
1556
liability from the taxpayer to the ratepayer and that that is what is being done.
That process is not deflationary in the least. It only becomes deflationary if the money which is transferred from the ratepayer and rentpayer to the Exchequer is retained in the Budget surplus. That would simply mean that this is a tax. If it is deflationary at all, it is a tax levied on the council tenants, upon the ratepayers; a tax so unjust that the Government would never dare put it in their Budget and are, therefore, introducing this taxation by a back door and a financial juggle. That is what we are getting.
Again, it is said—and these are turnings and twistings to escape from the brutal fact that this is simply a removal of purchasing power from the poor to the rich—that this will make houses cheaper. It can only do that if it reduces the pressure of the demand for houses that is to say, if it results in a demand for less houses. Even then, it will only make houses cheaper if it results in such a reduction in the demand for houses that we pass the marginal point and there are fewer houses wanted than the building industry is capable of building. Only when we get that degree of reduction can it possibly affect the price of houses.
At the time, and the one time, when some encouragement is said to be given to those who want to build houses for themselves, we have this question of the rate of interest, and what people can do in this direction is being raised against them. Now that there is controlled interest, it is quite unnecessary to do this. It is not a financial question, sound or unsound. This is an instance of social legislation, of social policy, of penalising the poor for the advantage of the rich, and that is why we are objecting to this Measure.
Captain Christopher Soames: Would not the hon. and learned Member agree that a man earning, say, £7 or £8 a week, living in a council house and paying, for example, 18s. a week rent, if he smokes and drinks and has an odd pint of beer, is paying more in taxes than he is in rent for his house, and that it is not, therefore, true to say that it is those people who are paying more in rents than taxes?
Mr. Paget: If the effect of this proposal is to put 4s. or 5s. on to a man's

1557
rent, he will not save that 4s. or 5s. by any reduction in taxation. It is a question of the proportion. This is a thing which will favour those whose income mostly goes in taxation, and that is a very large number of people, as against those for whom rent and rates represent a large proportion of their income.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is always very dramatic when he addresses us, but I did not notice that his observations about the control of interest rates were received with any marked signs of assent by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), who was sitting just in front of him, or by the hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
The real difficulty about the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech is the difficulty which attaches to all the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon from the opposite benches. The difficulty is that they have all been premature. Hon. Gentlemen have discussed at great length what is going to happen when this change is made in rates of interest to local authorities, upon the assumption that the negotiations which we are told are to commence in a very short time will not take place at all. Most of the arguments addressed to the Committee from the other side would be more in place when the results of the negotiations are known to us. Until those negotiations have taken place there may or may not be force in the arguments which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have addressed to the Committee.
Those observations apply to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). But he was also concerned, as I understood his speech, with another and different aspect of this question. He claimed that the late Government had rejected the advice which was given by Mr. Crowther. But did they? Did Sir Stafford Cripps reject that advice when he raised the rate of interest on these very loans for the purpose of bringing it more nearly into line with the rate of interest at which the Government were able to borrow?
1558
The right hon. Gentleman went on to claim that local authorities were very pleased with his administration. But I must remind him that in 1947 there was almost a clean sweep of the members of his party at the local elections which took place in November of that year. I would not regard that as very striking evidence that the electors, at any rate, including a great many council tenants, were satisfied with the proceedings of the right hon. Gentleman, as he seems to consider that they ought to have been.
It is true, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says, that what the Government propose to do in regard to these interest rates is really identical with what was done by Sir Stafford Cripps in 1948. The hon. Member for Battersea, North, challenged that in the debate last Friday. He said that in the years which followed the change of interest the funds which are loaned to the local authorities were in fact not borrowed at all. It may well be that that was the reason why the rate of interest which Sir Stafford Cripps had fixed in 1948 remained unchanged between 1948 and 1950. These considerations really dispose of the main arguments which have been addressed to the Committee this afternoon.
I turn now from that aspect of the matter to consider for a few moments one or two of the other consequences which hon. Gentlemen opposite have said are likely to follow from this change. Last Friday many Members on the other side of the Chamber drew attention to the effect of these proposals upon the school building programme. We have not heard so much this afternoon about the effect on the building programmes of the education authorities. I expect that in the meantime hon. Members have been asking themselves how much of the additional cost in respect of new school buildings will actually fall on the local authorities. At present, the overall proportion of rate-borne and tax-borne expenditure on education is, roughly, 60 per cent. to the taxes and 40 per cent. to the rates.
If that is the case, the additional loan charge which will fall upon local authorities will be met to the extent of 60 per cent. by an increase in the grant, and the additional burden which will fall upon the education authorities will not be such

1559
a very serious handicap to their building programmes as some hon. Members on the other side would have had us believe.
The effect upon the cost of water supplies was referred to by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop). That is a very important matter. I am very glad that he referred to it. I want to remind him that very nearly half the water supplies in this country are provided by statutory companies who do not enjoy the advantage of borrowing from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Their capital requirements must be met from the market in the ordinary way. So far as those areas which are served by companies are concerned—
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to water undertakings in relation to the Public Works Loan Board. If he would refer to the last report of the Board he will see that about £10 million in the way of loans has been granted to water services.
Mr. Hutchinson: That may be perfectly true. I am going to deal with the water authorities who do have the advantage of borrowing from the Public Works Loan Commissioners at these very favourable rates. At the moment, I was pointing out that about 40 per cent. of the water supplied in this country comes not from local authorities at all but from statutory companies who do not enjoy the special advantage of borrowing from the Commissioners. These companies have to meet their capital requirements by borrowing in the market in the ordinary way. The proposals which the Government make to increase interest rates will have no effect at all upon them or upon their consumers.
I come now to the local authority undertakings. It is true that the cost of their capital requirements will be increased to some extent, but it does not necessarily follow that that increase will be passed on to their consumers in the form of increased charges. Many water undertakings have been very successful in absorbing increased loan charges on capital programmes without having recourse to an increased call upon their consumers.
Mr. Barnett Janner: If they were doing so well out of the enterprise, why did they not reduce their charges?
Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Member has only a limited knowledge of how water undertakings are managed. I suggest that he secures election to a local authority and becomes a member of the water committee. He will then find out how these things are done.
I was going on to say, before I was interrupted, that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, was discussing this matter without referring at all to the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944. He knows as well as I do that that Act is intended to assist rural authorities to extend their mains into those parts of their areas which have no main water supply and, if necessary, to provide those areas with the necessary sewerage, which must go hand in hand with water supplies.
The hon. Gentleman took great satisfaction in inviting the last Parliament to authorise very large sums under that Act to these rural schemes. The purpose of the Act is to enable a water supply to be brought within the means of the population in rural areas. It is no good saying that the increased cost in respect of capital charges may fall upon water undertakings in rural areas, without at the same time remembering that the charges may be relieved by the operation of a scheme under the Rural Water Supplies Act, 1944.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Are we to understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman supports increased subsidies to such water authorities as are likely to suffer under the scheme?
Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not done in that simple way. The purpose of the scheme is to bring water within the means of the persons who are to benefit by it. It has been very effective for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well how it is done, and so do I, and I really cannot occupy the time of the Committee by explaining it.
The main burden of the speeches to which we have listened has been directed, no doubt quite rightly, to housing questions. Let us wait and see the result of these negotiations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—before we conjure up too dreary and depressing a picture of what the result is likely to be.
Mr. Pannell: I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman a question. He is one of the vice-presidents, I believe,

1561
of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and he will therefore know of the negotiations which took place prior to the passing of the Act of 1945 of the Coalition Government, by which local authorities got all their money, subject to certain reservations, from the Public Works Loan Board. Will he not say that there was a strict understanding by the local authorities in all those negotiations that if they were compelled to go to the Board they would get money more cheaply than at the current interest rates?
Mr. Hutchinson: So far as I remember I was not vice-president of the Association of Municipal Corporations at that time. I have certainly no recollection that what the hon. Member suggests was ever one of the terms of the negotiations.
Mr. Pannell: Everybody else has.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: I feel that the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. G. Hutchinson), is such an expert on these subjects that he finds it difficult to bring himself down to the level of the Committee. Certainly, I found it rather difficult to follow his point and I prefer to go back to the speech of the Financial Secretary.
The Financial Secretary, speaking on this subject in the debate on Second Reading, addressed to us some long and complicated arguments and did not really clear up any of the doubts we had about this increase in the interest rate. The trouble is that the attitude of the Government to an increase in the rate is hopelessly disingenuous. They cannot make up their minds whether to put this proposal forward as a disinflationary measure or whether to argue all the time that it is merely an adjustment and, in the words of the Financial Secretary, that they are merely transferring money from one public fund to another.
The Financial Secretary was at considerable pains to argue the point that it is merely a transfer. If this is so, I cannot understand how his approach to this Measure ties up with the approach of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs who, on Friday, devoted the greater part of his speech to show how this Measure would be disinflationary and how it would help the general disinflationary policy of the Government.
1562
In view of what happened on Friday I must stress the point made by many of my hon. Friends and say it is most surprising that this afternoon the Minister of State for Economic Affairs has only visited us for about five minutes. After all, he was the central feature of that debate on Friday. He made an important speech to the Committee, and having made it with characteristic lucidity he had to intervene 18 times to explain what he had said. The whole debate was occupied with his speech, Ls interventions and replies from this side of the Chamber to interventions by him.
I think he ought to have come here and listened at least to the debate today if not have given us further assistance in deciding what this Measure involves. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his return from Rome has not compensated himself for not being able to control Lord Cherwell by insisting that the Minister of State for Economic Affairs shall not take part in this debate today.
I return to the point the Financial Secretary made in his speech. He argued, following on a point put very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), that the Government argument was that these local authorities should pay what my hon. Friend called the "opportunity cost." The Financial Secretary did not use that term himself but he put forward an argument which amounted to that. The rate which the local authority should pay for the loan was the rate the Government could get for lending the money to people who could offer an equally good security anywhere else in the country. If that is the argument it is one which proves too much. If that is so there really does not seem to be any point at all in fixing a rate of interest at which these loans are to be advanced. It would be much better to allow the local authorities to go to the market and pay what the market wants.
When he rests his case so firmly on the fact that these local authority loans must follow the rate of interest the Government have to pay, changing from time to time, the Financial Secretary opens up very dangerous prospects for himself. After all the 3¾ per cent., if that is to be the rate, is already out of date. Longterm interest for Government loans is above 4 per cent. at the present time.

1563
Government credit has been going very badly since the present Administration came into power. Gilt-edged has slipped very often. It is already above 4 per cent., and indications are that it may go further.
What we are seeking is not merely to save the local authorities this three-quarters of 1 per cent. but to protect them against a further increase which, on the case put forward by the Financial Secretary, seems certain in the comparatively near future. We regard that as a very serious prospect. The only argument the Financial Secretary put to the Committee in favour of the course of action the Government are taking is that in the last 50 years or so, under all sorts of Governments, there have been big fluctuations in the rate of interest charged.
I do not think that is a good enough argument. I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) put his finger on the weakness of that argument. He said that in these days we seemed to have a great deal more control over the market than we had in those days. The Financial Secretary could equally tell us that in the last 50 years unemployment had fluctuated between three million and 250,000. But the argument would not be used at the present time that it was all right if unemployment went up to one million because it had gone up in the past under previous Tory Governments. In these matters I think we feel that we are getting a little closer towards more control, that we can
go further towards a greater degree of control and do not want to go back to the old position.
This proposal is a very serious matter. Clearly, it will put up the rates on local authority houses and in that sense it will be the second prong of a two-prong attack the first of which was announced by the Minister of Housing and Local Government yesterday—to make need a less important factor in determining who gets a house. It is intended to allow many more houses to be built for sale. It is quite obvious that even if we are to have some need criterion there it will not be a sharper one than that applied to houses built for letting.
This will also mean that even as far as the smaller proportion of houses available for letting is concerned more and more people will find that their need is not sufficient to get them a house because even if their need brings them to the top of the housing list the additional money required to pay the rent may be too much for them to be able to afford. I think that this is a very serious matter and I hope that we shall press the Amendment to a Division and carry it.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn) rose in his place, and claimed to move,
"That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 223 Noes, 181.

Division No. 20.]

AYES

[5.55 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

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

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Deedes, W. F.

Alport, C. J. M.

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

Digby, S. Wingfield

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Bullard, D. G.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Arbuthnot, John

Bullock, Capt. M.

Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.

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

Butcher, H. W.

Donner, P. W.

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

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

Doughty, C. J. A.

Baker, P. A. D.

Cary, Sir R.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

Baldwin, A. E.

Channon, H.

Drayson, G. B.

Banks, Col. C.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

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

Barber, A. P. L.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Baxter, A. B.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Elliot, Rt. Hon, W. E.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

Fell, A.

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

Cole, N. J.

Finlay, G. B.

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

Colegate, W. A.

Fisher, Nigel

Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

Conant, Maj. R. J, E.

Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

Bennett, Or. Reginald (Gosport)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Bishop, F. P.

Cranborne, Viscount

George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

Black, C. W.

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

Glyn, Sir Ralph

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Crouch, R. F.

Godber, J. B.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

Gough, C. F. H.

Braine, B. R.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Gower, H. R.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Brooke, Henry (Hempstead)

Davidson, Viscountess

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Schofield, Lt.-Col W. (Rochdale)

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

McKibbin, A. J.

Scott, R. Donald

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

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Scott-Miller Cmdr. R.

Hay, John

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Shepherd, William

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

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

Head, Sir Lionel

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Heath, Edward

Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Higgs, J. M. C.

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

Snadden, W. McN.

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Markham, Major S. F.

Soames, Capt. C.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Marples, A. E.

Speir, R. M.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr S L. C.

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Mellor, Sir John

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Holt, A. F.

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Waller

Stevens, G. P.

Hopkinson, Henry

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Horobin, I. M.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Stoddart-Scott, Col M.

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Storey, S.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

Studholme, H. G.

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

Nugent, G. R. H.

Summers, G. S.

Hulbert, Wing Comdr. N. J.

Nutting, Anthony

Sutcliffe, H.

Hurd, A. R.

Oakshott, H. D.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Odey, G. W.

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

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

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

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

Thornton-Kemsley Col. C. N.

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

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

Tilney, John

Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

Partridge, E.

Touche, G. C.

Jennings, R.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Turner, H. F. L.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Perkins, W. R. D.

Turton, R. H.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Vane, W. M. F.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Kaberry, D.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Powell, J. Enoch

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Lambton, Viscount

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)

Leather, E. H. C.

Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

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

Raikes, H. V.

Wellwood, W.

Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

Rayner, Brig. R.

White, Baker (Canterbury)

Lindsay, Martin

Redmayne, M.

Williams, Charles (Torquay)

Linstead, H. N.

Renton, D. L. M.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Llewellyn, D. T.

Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Wills, G.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Roper, Sir Harold

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

Ropner, Col. L.

Wood, Hon. R.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Russell, R. S.

York, C.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

McCallum, Major D.

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Drewe and Mr. Vosper.

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Grey, C. F.

Albu, A. H.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

Awbery, S. S.

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Hamilton, W. W.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hargreaves, A.

Balfour, A.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Hastings, S.

Bartley, P.

Deer, G.

Hayman, F. H.

Bence, C. R.

Dodds, N. N.

Herbison, Miss M.

Benson, G.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hobson, C. R.

Beswick, F.

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Holman, P.

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

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Houghton, Douglas

Bing, G. H. C.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Hubbard, T. F.

Blackburn, F.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Blenkinsop, A.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Blyton, W. R.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Boardman, H.

Ewart, R.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Bowden, H. W.

Fernyhough, E.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Brockway, A. F.

Finch, H. J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Fletcher, Eric (Islington E.)

Janner, B.

Broughton, Or. A. O. D.

Follick, M.

Jay, D. P. T.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Foot, M. M.

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

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Forman, J. C.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Carmichael, J.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Champion, A. J.

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

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Clunie, J.

Gibson, C. W.

King, Dr. H. M.

Cocks, F. S.

Glanville, James,

Kinley, J.

Coldrick, W.

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Cove, W. G.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

Lindgren, G. S.

1566

1567

Lipton, Lt.-Gol. M.

Oswald, T.

Sparks, J. A.

Logan, D. G.

Padley, W. E.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

Paget, R. T.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

MacColl, J. E.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Stross, Dr. Barnett

McGhee, H. G.

Pannell, Charles

Summerskill, Rt Hon. Edith

McGovern, J.

Pargiter, G. A.

Swingler, S. T.

McInnes, J.

Paton, J,

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Pearson, A.

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Popplewell, E.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Porter, G.

Timmons, J.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Price, Joseph T (Westhoughton)

Tomney, F.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Price, Philips (Gloucester, W.)

Turner-Samuels, M.

Manuel, A. C.

Proctor, W. T.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Pryde, D. J.

Viant, S. P.

Mikardo, Ian

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Wallace, H. W.

Mitchison, G. R.

Rankin, John

Watkins, T. E.

Monslow, W.

Reeves, J.

Weitzman, D.

Moody, A. S.

Reid, William (Camlachie)

West, D. G.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Morley, R.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Williams, David (Neath)

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

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

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

Mort, D. L.

Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Moyle, A.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

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

Mulley, F. W.

Short, E. W.

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Murray, J. D.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

Slater, J.

Yates, V. F.

Oldfield, W. H.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Oliver, G. H.

Snow, J. W.

Orbach, M.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Holmes.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 221.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Mr. Jay.
Mr. E. Fletcher: On a point of order. Am I to understand, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that you do not intend to call the Amendment standing in my name, in page 1, line 13?
The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, that is so. It is beyond the scope of the Bill and is, therefore, out of order.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Jay: I want to ask the Financial Secretary a few questions about the figure of £500 million which appears in Clause 1 (1). I apologise for pursuing the Financial Secretary further if he has had rather a less good night's sleep than he would wish, but I am afraid that there are one or two questions that I must ask.
In his speech on Friday the hon. Gentleman explained that this figure of £500 million is the figure of the loans which the Bill authorises local authorities to make. He added that the annual rate of advances actually made this year was a little more than £350 million. He then told us that in the present year that rate will not be substantially greater. That did not surprise me at all. But I want to direct the attention of the Committee to this: it is the rate of actual advances made, as opposed to the total authorised, which measures fairly nearly the actual amount of work done by local authorities.
It therefore follows from the Financial Secretary's statement that the Government must have already decided that they do not intend to build appreciably more than 200,000 houses this year. If anyone in the Committee doubts that, I ask him to look at the figure in this Clause and the figures given by the Financial Secretary.
It is, of course, true, as we learned yesterday, that this year more houses are to be built for sale both by local autho
1572
rities, apparently, and private builders. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members may not yet have examined the figures very closely.
Some of the local authority houses built for sale, and many of the private houses, will be financed through public works loans. There can only be a large gap, I ask the Committee to notice, between the total of advances made during the year under this Clause, and the total building of new houses during the year, if a large proportion of those new houses are bought by persons with private capital of their own, or advanced through some form of private borrowing.
The Chairman: On the Motion that the Clause stand part, we are limited to what is in the Clause and cannot deal with how the money should be spent.
Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir Charles, but I am dealing with the figure of £500 million and the explanation the hon. Gentleman gave us about the figure. I think that, if I may continue a little further, you will agree that it is in order for the Committee, since it is asked to agree to this figure, to understand the implications of it and how it is made up.
If the hon. Gentleman is telling us that a high proportion of the houses to be bought will, in fact, be financed in some private way—not through these loans—he has openly admitted that the Government have largely abandoned altogether the principle of allocation according to need. I am not suggesting that that is so. Despite the statement of the Minister yesterday, and on the evidence of the figure in the Clause, I do not—not yet anyway—think so hardly of the Government as to suppose that they have gone as far as that.
But, in that case, it follows that the total of advances made under this Clause—and comprised within this figure of £500 million—remains a fairly good measure of the total of new houses to

1573
be built this year. The Financial Secretary on Friday, commenting on this figure, corrected my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), on this point; and he made it clear that we must distinguish in looking at it between what he called immediate borrowings and commitments. That is why I am now following his guidance and examining the figure of immediate borrowings or advances.
The Financial Secretary explained to us, in showing how the figure of £500 million was made up, that of the total of £336 million advanced so far this year—that is an annual rate of £350 million—some £241 million is on account of housing and the remaining £95 million is for other purposes. That is not in dispute. In effect, two-thirds of the advances are made for housing purposes. It therefore follows, from the Financial Secretary's own figure, that the Government cannot be intending even now to build many more than 200,000 houses this year, unless they are to make catastrophic cuts in school building and other types of local authority work.
Supposing, on the figures the hon. Gentleman gave us on Friday, that the Government's real intention were to increase house building this year by only 10 per cent., that is to say to barely 220,000, they would then have to increase the figure for total advances during the year by something like £24 million and that, since the total is not to be materially higher, would have to come out of the £95 million available for schools and other purposes. Therefore, according to the Government's own figures, given us in connection with this Clause, unless the Government are proposing to cut schools and other local authority building work by something like 30 per cent., it is quite clear that they cannot be planning to build this year even as many as 220,000 houses. That seems to me to be the arithmetic which follows from the figures the hon. Gentleman has given.
I do not believe that even this Government can contemplate a sudden 30 per cent. cut in school building and all other local authority work. It would surely hardly be practicable even if they were to propose it. Therefore, I have no doubt, on the figures in this Clause, that the Government have no intention—and they know it—of even trying to build appreciably more than 200,000 houses
1574
this year. If that is not so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman, or his colleague from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, will tell us, here and now, how many houses the Government do intend to build this year?
I think the Financial Secretary and his colleagues by now must know enough about the Government machine to realise how this figure of £500 million in the Clause has been made up. He must know that there exists by now in his Department, and in other Departments, a figure representing the number of houses which the Government propose to get built in 1952, and that the figure of commitments and advances in this Bill, and given in connection with this Clause on Friday, must have been based on that definite figure.
I therefore reach this conclusion—the hon. Gentleman can tell us where the mistake is, if there is any mistake—that unless and until he or one of his colleagues gives us the figure of the actual number of houses they are planning to build this year, we can only conclude on their own figure that the Government have already decided to build hardly, if any, more houses than 200,000 this year; secondly, that the figure of 300,000 houses was merely dangled before the electorate as a piece of deception; and that the Government are too cowardly to admit the actual figure which they are planning to build this year.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think I can answer the point the hon. Gentleman has made without detaining the Committee for very long. I think I can do so by pointing out the fallacy in his arithmetic. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that the building programme is a continuous process and that the financial side of it is determined, not only by the advances, but by the advances plus the commitments which the Board enters into." The hon. Gentleman quoted, with complete accuracy, but without complete comprehensiveness, the figures in the Bill. He quoted one of them, £500 million and my reference to it. He did not, however, invite the attention of the Committee to the fact that, whereas under the Bill he introduced last year, the total permitted for advances plus commitments was £850 million, under this Bill the figure is £950 million. I hope that that will put his mind at rest.
Mr. Jay: Surely the hon. Gentleman can see that that is totally irrelevant. I mentioned that figure on Friday, and I was perfectly well aware of it. But the figure which measures the actual number of houses built during the year is the figure of the advances made; and, on the basis of that, I put forward my argument. Therefore, the answer he has given is no answer at all.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the process. Perhaps I may put it again, and he will forgive me if I take a little longer this time. What the Board does is this. It is authorised to enter into commitments, which are necessary because various approvals have to be obtained before the actual advances are made. It enters into commitments on which the local authorities make their plans.
Therefore, the financial basis—and that is all I am strictly concerned with in this matter—upon which any building programme is started is not simply a figure taken by itself—the figure of advances—it is the figure of advances, plus commitments. I do not want to weary the Committee by repeating what I have already said, but all hon. Members will appreciate that the combined total is £100 million more than the combined total in last year's Bill.
Mr. Janner: I am afraid we could not possibly accept the explanation given by the Financial Secretary on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
I cannot see how anyone can possibly accept a Clause of this nature, giving a blank cheque to the Government, without having some kind of explanation as to the manner in which this sum of £500 million is to be used. I think it highly relevant to the issue of the Clause standing part of the Bill that we should inquire of the Financial Secretary, or someone else who can give an answer, as to what is really intended to be done if this £500 million is permitted by the Committee as an issue by the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the purposes of local loans.
I should not be prepared to be a party to the acceptance of this Clause unless I were assured that it was to be of benefit to the local authorities concerned.
1576
Wherever we look we find today local authorities complaining that they will be placed in a great difficulty in consequence of the terms of these advances. Last night I casually picked up the "Western Mail" and found that two local authorities, Llanelly and Aberystwyth, complained about the loan that it was intended to produce for their benefit, or otherwise.
The passage read as follows:
"Calling the attention of Llanelly Finance Committee to an item of £45,000 in connection with a public works loan…"
which arises, of course, if we accept this Clause—
"Mr. Glanville Williams said 'The Government's decision is going to have a very bad effect upon every public authority. It will mean that our rates will be increased and the rents of council houses raised from 3s. 3d. to 5s. a week.'"
A similar view was given in regard to Aberystwyth.
6.30 p.m.
It is not only those two councils. There are other councils throughout the country, as the hon. Gentleman must surely know, who are of the same opinion. The reason is because at the present time they are not aware of how they are to be met with regard to the rate of any interest which is to be required of them under those loans. The acceptance of these loans is a matter of concern, not only to the local authorities, but to every hon. Member of this Committee. Because if this is accepted, and if perchance—
The Chairman: I would point out to the hon. Member that there is on the Order Paper an Amendment dealing with the rate of interest and that that has nothing to do with the Clause now under discussion.
Mr. Janner: With great respect, Sir Charles, the Committee cannot possibly be expected to agree to the acceptance of a Clause which says that a sum of £500 million may be issued by the National Debt Commissioners without being told what it is for, or how it is to be used, and what interest charges are to be made.
How can the Committee possibly come to any conclusion on a Clause like this unless they have some idea of how the money is to be used? I say it is highly relevant, particularly if we know that not only people in council houses will be

1577
charged higher rentals if the interest is higher, but that the whole of the rent control system will be attacked; because additional rates which have to be paid will be charged to the tenants not only of council houses, but also of other houses.
The Chairman: That was the point I was making. I have to be guided by the rules of debate, and on the question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we can discuss only what is in the Clause. The hon. Member knows that quite well.
Mr. Janner: Naturally I bow to your Ruling, Sir Charles, but I am trying to persuade you to see, if I possibly can, my point of view with regard to the absurdity—if I may say so with respect—of any Committee of this House accepting a Clause which is so absurd as to say, "We will allow £500 million to be loaned by the National Debt Commissioners," just like that, without knowing what on earth for. No House of Commons and no Committee could possibly be expected to accept a Clause of that nature.
The Chairman: Yes, but I have to be guided, not by common sense, but by Erskine May. On page 538 he has laid down, perfectly clearly, that:
"Debate upon this question must be confined to the clause as amended (or not amended)…"
I am afraid we cannot go beyond that.
Mr. Janner: That being the case, I say, bluntly and categorically, that I am against the acceptance of a Clause of this nature which has nothing within it to indicate how the money is to be used, what it is to be used for or what interest rates are to be charged for it. I think it would be criminal for the country to accept a Clause of that description knowing full well that if that money were accepted a vast number of people in this country would be deprived of considerable benefits which have accrued to them before this money was accepted.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: The explanation given to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), by the Financial Secretary was very hazy and most unsatisfactory. The Clause we are considering refers to a sum of £500 million which it is proposed to place at
1578
the disposal of the Public Works Loan Board for advances, not commitments undertaken, but for loan advances in the coming year. I think the Committee is entitled to hear from the Financial Secretary how that £500 million will be allocated during the coming 12 months.
We must understand that although last year the sum of £500 million was similarly placed at the disposal of the Public Works Loan Board, they actually advanced, in round figures, only £335 million out of that sum in loans to local authorities for a variety of purposes; and so there was a balance of £165 million not taken up, or not issued by the Board. Again, included in this figure is the most important figure for housing. Again speaking in round figures, an amount of £225 million was advanced last year by the Board specifically for local authority housing schemes.
I consider that the Financial Secretary ought to be in a position to explain to us exactly the effect of the policy of his right hon. Friend regarding housing allocations in the future—on the basis of fifty-fifty for local authority houses and houses built by private builders for sale or to let—is likely to have on the amount of loans advanced by the Public Works Loan Board. I contend that in the coming year it will not be £225 million for advances to local authorities for housing purposes, but an amount substantially lower than that. The Financial Secretary should be in a position to tell us, because we have heard that the Government are to aim at a target of 300,000 houses a year.
If the Financial Secretary is thinking of giving the explanation that the Board will expend more money to local authorities for housing purposes out of the £500 million, I would remind him of what was said by his right hon. Friend on this point on 13th November:
"The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland then asked when we should reach our target…He asked me at that Box if we should reach it in 1951. My answer is, 'No.' Nor, I fear, in 1952."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 852.]
So the Government view is that they do not expect the amount of money advanced for housing from the Public Works Loan Board to be very much more than the sum which appears in the accounts of the Board for last year. I think we are entitled to ask the Financial

1579
Secretary to explain the implications of the new housing programme of the Government and its effect on the expenditure of the Board.
In my view the estimate of £500 million given here is fantastic, because if this new policy on housing is to be pursued it means that advances to local authorities for housing purposes must be substantially lower next year than last year. That, in turn, makes good a case for the reduction of the amount of £500 million to a lower figure.
It must be remembered that the Minister of Housing and Local Government tells us that the policy of the Government now is to grant 50 per cent. of licences to private builders as against 50 per cent. of houses built by local authorities. In other words, private builders may now build an equal number of houses for sale or to let. The effect of that on the matter we are discussing is that it inevitably means the reducing of the number of houses built directly by local authorities and that means reducing the amount of loans applied for through the Public Works Loans Board; because if the number of private licences is increased the financing of that private side of the housing programme does not affect the functions of the Board. The finances for private building will come from different sources altogether.
Mention was made of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act and to some extent it may be affected. But most private builders who build houses for sale do not go to the local authority for advances. They have arrangements with building societies and other people to finance their schemes; and I think that the increase in the private building of houses will call for a reduction in the amount of money advanced by the Public Works Loan Board.
It is, therefore, vitally important that the Government should explain to us precisely what they are proposing to do with this £500 million. I maintain that they do not know; that the Financial Secretary has not the foggiest notion of what is to happen to this £500 million or in what way the new policy of the Government of housing will affect loans advanced by the Public Works Loan Board to local authorities.
1580
Before we pass from this Clause we should have a cast iron statement from the Financial Secretary that the number of dwellings built by local authorities last year, which secured advances of £225 million from the Board, shall not be cut down; that the local authorities shall not be deprived from carrying through the housing programme they have already agreed upon; that those undertakings shall not be sabotaged by causing local authorities to run down their housing development in order to give more licences to private builders to build houses for sale.
It is no use the Financial Secretary saying that a lot of these houses built by private enterprise will be let, because the figures in the Housing Returns do not show that at all. The number of houses built by private enterprise to let, as against the number built for sale, is most insignificant. I would again press the Financial Secretary to give a clear and realistic statement of how this money is to be disposed of in the coming 12 months; and to give to the Committee an undertaking that the amount for local authority housing schemes will not be interfered with in the coming year, or that their programmes already laid down will not be reduced to provide more licences for private builders.
If he can give us a guarantee that the housing programme next year will not be reduced so far as local authorities are concerned, and that advances by the Public Works Loan Board for housing next year will be at least as much as last year, if not more, he will go a long way towards satisfying some hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has put a number of cogent and searching questions to the Financial Secretary, but I doubt whether he will obtain any satisfaction. Nevertheless, it is certainly worth while, in the public interest, that questions of that kind should be addressed to the Government, so that the general public may realise the unsatisfactory features of the Clause which we are now asked to accept. All I know about the effect of this Clause is that, so far as the borough of Lambeth is concerned, it will raise the rents of council houses and flats by 5s. 6d. per week.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is directing attention to a subject which, as I understand it, does not come within the Clause—rates of interest. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is allowed to develop that subject, it will be inevitable when I come to reply that I shall have to deal with it, and I would like to have your guidance, Sir Charles, in finding out if I shall be permitted to do so.
The Chairman: No, the hon. and gallant Gentleman certainly would not. I have tried to explain to the Committee that we may only deal with what is in the Clause, and I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to confine himself to that subject.
Dr. Horace King: Further to that point of order. Surely the Clause mentions the provision of a loan of some £500 million. That must be lent at some rate of interest.
The Chairman: There is nothing at all in the Clause about the rate of interest. There was an Amendment, which was negatived, and there is nothing about the rate of interest before the Committee. We really cannot have a discussion on it. That is according to the Rules of Order.
Mr. Scholefield Allen: May it not be in order, Sir Charles, to ask what is the rate of interest or whether the money will be lent interest-free?
The Chairman: I do not know about that, but the rate of interest is certainly not to be discussed.
Mr. Janner: Further to that point of order. I hope that you will give us an opportunity, Sir Charles, of seeking your advice at a later stage, after you have perhaps had an opportunity of consulting Erskine May. It would be an absurd thing to have a Clause referring to a loan, as we have here, and not be able to discuss what the loan is about and what rate of interest is to be charged. We cannot possibly deal with the Clause unless we know the basis of the loan itself, and, to me, it seems incredible that such a rule should have been fixed at any time. If it has been fixed, could you direct us so that we may get the rule changed?
The Chairman: I am only carrying out the Rules of Order. The hon. Gentleman
1582
asks if there is any opportunity of changing them. I am afraid not. On Third Reading, the position will be exactly the same as it is now. I am afraid that that is the rule, and that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am anxious to follow your ruling, Sir Charles, and my comment is that every local authority and every ratepayer will be out of pocket as a result of accepting.
There is one other point to which I should like to direct the attention of the Financial Secretary. We now have a Government which is pledged to a policy of economy—"great and grave cuts and savings"—and, in connection with this Clause, I want to put to the Financial Secretary a suggestion which, I hope, will help the Government to effect some of these "great and grave cuts," as they have been mysteriously described, or not described, so far. I hope my suggestion will help the Financial Secretary and the Government to achieve some economies.
As a matter of fact, since the present Government came into power and until now, the House has been asked to provide more money over and above what was required in the past. The Clause refers to a body known as the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and they are a number of highly reputable people who constitute the Public Works Loan Board. A very important thing happened in connection with the work of the Board when the Local Authorities (Housing Loans) Act of 1945 came on the Statute Book, and the changes that were made in the functions and the duties of the Public Works Loan Board by that Act are now beginning to make themselves manifest.
In my submission, and in the hope that the Financial Secretary will make a note of it for future use and investigation, the Public Works Loan Board has ceased to serve any useful purpose whatsoever, especially in view of the 1945 Act, to which I have referred. What happens when a customer goes to the Board and asks for a loan? The customer is invariably a local authority, and, when a local authority goes to the Board for a loan, three separate bodies intervene or have a say in the matter.
First of all, there is the particular Government Department which sanctions the loan. It may be the Ministry of Health.

1583
The Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Ministry of Education, or any one of a variety of Government Departments which act as the sanctioning authority to enable the local authority to obtain the loan. Then, we get the Treasury coming into the picture, especially by virtue of the powers vested in the Treasury under the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act and, in addition to these two very important sections of Government administration, we get the Public Works Loan Board, consisting of these highly eminent and reputable gentlemen, the Commissioners.
The last report of the Public Works Loan Board, was made available to hon. Members only a few years ago, and it is the report for 1950–51. I respectfully suggest, for the attention of the Financial Secretary, that, in future, arrangements should be made to enable hon. Members to have the annual report of the Board in sufficient time to enable them to study the document with the' care and consideration which it deserves, so that when this particular Bill comes before the House, we shall have some kind of background knowledge or information as to what the Board has been doing during the preceding 12 months. That must be for the benefit and convenience of hon. Members, and I am glad to note that, by an approving nod of the head, the Financial Secretary seems to think that there is some validity in that point.
When I examined the 1949–50 Report of the Public Works Loan Board, I found that there were some 13,000 applications, and that £292 million had ben advanced. Out of those 13,676 applications, which gives some idea of the extent to which the Board acts as a kind of controlling and governing body, only one parish council was unsuccessful, in an application involving £1,923. In that case, too, the unfortunate parish council was unsuccessful in its application only after the Public Works Loan Board got in touch with the Treasury to make quite sure that it was safe in rejecting that particular application. Out of a total advanced of £292 million, only one application involving £1,923 was rejected.
When we come to the annual report of this body, which has just come into the Library of the House, we find that, last year, the number of applications for
1584
advances has gone up and that not one single application from a local authority has been unsuccessful. That means, of course, that the sanctioning Government Department and the Treasury have taken good care to see that the local authority cannot or does not get as far as the Public Works Loan Board if there is anything wrong with the application, so that what the Board does I do not know.
All I know about the activities of the Board is what is contained in a very thin pamphlet. In the old days, the Public Works Loan Board used to issue an annual report of 80 or 90 pages, but it has now come down to about 12 pages, with a few tables of statistics and appendices. If we look at the estimates on this matter, in which I have no doubt the Financial Secretary must be interested, we find that the Board has a staff of 93 persons, whose wages last year were nearly £46,000. If we add to that the amounts included in the estimates of other Departments in connection with services provided by the Board, the total is brought up to over £74,000.
It seems to me that the work of the Board has become quite unnecessary and that the National Debt Commissioners or one or two rooms at the Treasury could handle the whole situation to the benefit of the taxpayer and with savings to the general costs of administration. I cannot possibly expect the Financial Secretary to give me any assurances on the points that I have put to him, but what I do ask of him is that, if he holds his present office for the next 12 months and he finds it once again necessary to come to the House and ask us to agree to some further advances or further perpetuation of the Board, he will, in the meantime, have satisfied himself that this body serves a useful purpose. If not, I hope he will agree that it ought to be abolished.
The work carried out by this organisation could just as well be carried out by the Treasury exercising general control over the operations of the National Debt Commissioners, who, in the course of their duties, are just as capable, subject to Treasury control, of making the further advances that are necessary to local authorities.
Dr. King: Within the very narrow confines which your illustrious predecessor laid down for the discussion of this Clause, Sir Charles, I want to declare my

1585
opposition to the Clause as it stands, because I regard it as the main part of the Bill whose objects are to lower the standard of living of millions of our people and, at the same time, to raise the standard of living of some others.
If I may paraphrase the speech with which the Parliamentary Secretary introduced this Clause, I would say that it and, indeed, the Bill itself, seeks to rob the ratepayer to benefit the taxpayer, the Government having robbed the taxpayer by other measures in order to benefit the banker and financier. As this Clause is the instrument by which part of that policy is carried out, I want to declare my opposition to it.
The bankers of this country have for a long time declared that it is their policy to check the personal consumption of millions of people, except bankers and financiers, and two alternative methods seem to have occurred to the financiers and business men. One was that advocated by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer when they said that local authorities should be sent to the bankers to borrow their money more expensively, and the other is the policy which this Government is carrying out in this Clause and in various other acts of policy, which have gained the commendation of the "Westminster Bank Review" in its current issue, which praises the Government's policy in regard to the bank rate, the Treasury Bill rate and the Public Works Loan Board.
Mr. John Hay: On a point of order. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in referring to this particular topic of interest rates again? I would submit that it is out of order, and has nothing whatever to do with this Clause.
The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King), was not present when I gave the previous Ruling. The rate of interest does not arise on this Clause.
Dr. King: I am sorry if I mentioned the rate of interest. I mentioned the Bank rate as an illustration of something else which had taken place in regard to Government policy.
The Chairman: There is no mention in this Clause either of bankers or rates of interest.
Dr. King: May I say, then, Sir Charles, that I am opposed to this Clause because it has gained the approval of the bankers of this country, because, indirectly, it benefits those who live on interest, and because its effect must be to raise the rents and so lower the standard of living of millions of people? I also oppose it because it is an instrument by which the Government prevent the local authorities from carrying out vital social expenditure on behalf of our people.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. E. Fletcher: I feel that we ought not to part with this Clause without having a further word from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I had every intention of rising and, indeed, I was only waiting until the hon. Member for Islington. East (Mr. E. Fletcher), whom I saw rise, had made his speech. I shall certainly do so at a reasonable opportunity.
Mr. Fletcher: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The knowledge that he is to reply will enable me to put my questions to him because I know that the Committee will wish, as he will, that we should not leave this Clause in the obscurity in which it will be left unless we have some further explanation from the Financial Secretary about the figures in it.
I am sure, Sir Charles, you will be very glad to know that I do not propose to make any reference to rates of interest. I propose to confine my few remarks to trying to elucidate what is the policy of the Government with regard to the figures in Clause 1. Take the figure of £500 million. Surely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), pointed out, this figure must have been chosen because the Government must have had a clear idea of what their housing policy for 1952 was. and the Committee and the country are anxious to know what are the Government's real plan as regards the number of houses to be built in 1952.
They have already thrown overboard the target figure they proclaimed in their Election manifesto, because, after all, the measure of their housing achievement in 1952 can only be determined according to the amount of money which they provide for housing. They have provided precisely the same figure for borrowing

1587
by local authorities as was provided last year. In fact, they have provided less because the amount to which the Public Works Loan Board is committed is larger than it was on previous occasions. The Board is already committed to advance £420 million out of the £500 million which the Government are providing, and as the hon. Gentleman knows a larger proportion than ever before of that sum is for purposes other than housing.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North, pointed out, at this time last year as compared with the £241 million provided for housing, £95 million was available for other local government purposes. But thanks to the policy of the late Government, provision was made during the year 1951 for extending not only housing but also the social services of this country other than housing. That is why we find—and I am quoting here from the figures given by the hon. Gentleman himself—as he pointed out, that of the £416 million, which I think should be £420 million—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman for a moment. It is a very small point. The £416 million is up to 31st October, and the £420 million is up to a date early in November.
Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Let us take the figure as being £416 million. I ask the hon. Gentleman to observe that of that sum which represented the total commitments at 31st October, while £260 million was for housing, £156 million was also provided for other local government purposes, thanks to the policy of the present Opposition when in power.
We understand that the present Government are to cut down on all social services and notably on education. This is not the time to go into the very grievous cuts which are foreshadowed in education and which are creating great alarm among all education authorities throughout the country. We shall come to that. But be it noted that the Public Works Loans Board is committed to an expenditure of £420 million to be spent this year and that the hon. Gentleman is only providing £500 million. True he is extending the figure for commitments, but we want to know what is the Government's policy for housing in 1952.
1588
According to these figures, the hon. Gentleman cannot possibly increase the amount of housing to be produced by local authorities. I am well aware that the Ministry for Housing and Local Government have announced that they are to increase the provision of houses by sources other than local authorities and that local authorities are to be given permission to enable private builders to build one for one. Can it be envisaged that that ratio will be common throughout the country, and can it be that the Government are seeking to achieve their target by enabling as many houses to be built throughout the country by private enterprise as by local authorities? It is evident from the amount of money which the Government are providing for local authorities that the number of houses built by local authorities must be a diminishing one.
I could, perhaps, see some merit in the Government's policy if they were going to enable people of modest means, for whom houses for sale might be built, to borrow under the Housing Act or the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act the sums they will require to buy such houses. But I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that if it is the intention of the Government to enable such people who want to buy houses to do so on satisfactory terms then provision must be made for that under the present Bill. But that, again, requires money, and no money is being provided for it.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Public Works Loan Board during the last year, according to the Report just published, advanced under the Housing Acts approximately £4,500,000 and under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act a sum of £12 million. I can understand the Government saying that they will build more houses for sale and will give people the opportunity of buying those houses by borrowing on advantageous terms under the Housing Act. But they are not doing that. They are not making any additional provisions to enable local authorities to advance loans. To do that, they would have to increase the amount put in this Bill, which they are not doing.
I think the whole situation is most unsatisfactory. People will be driven to the conclusion that the policy of the Government is to cut down on the number of houses that will be built in this country,

1589
and that this is an indirect method of doing so, because if they were serious in their protestations they would be bound to have provided more money for local authorities. They stand convicted out of their own mouths of insincerity and humbug and of misleading the country during the Election.
Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): I wish to say a few words on the implication of this Clause, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington. East (Mr. E. Fletcher) briefly referred, as it affects my own constituency. We have here the sum of £500 million allocated to the Public Works Loan Commissioners. There is apparently no intention of increasing this amount, though the Government won the Election, or they "kid" themselves they did, on a promise to build 300,000 houses a year. All the indications are that they can build only 200,000 houses according to the figures given. If that is not the case, then it is obviously the policy of the Government that a very large number of houses shall be built by private builders for sale, and it is no good hoping that any large number of houses will be built for letting.
At present prices none will be built for letting, but all for sale. If that is the case then in my own Division, which is probably the worst housed division in the United Kingdom, a great many people will have to wait much longer for houses owing to the diminution of the criterion of need, and because half the houses will be available to people who have a minimum capital of about £200 and who can afford to pay about £2 a week by way of building society charges.
I take a very serious view of that, and I sincerely hope that is not the Government's policy. I am a member of the City Council of Newcastle-on-Tyne, and I shall do all I can to persuade them and other local authorities in the North-East not to vary the proportion of 1–5, and all I can to persuade local authorities throughout the country generally to retain that proportion. So long as we have our appalling waiting lists, it would be criminal to allow 50 per cent. of houses to go to people who have a minimum capital of £200 and who can afford to pay crippling charges for the next 20 years or so. This is the implication of this Clause as it affects my Division
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will deal with the various points put to me in this debate. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), raised the general proposition, from which I do not dissent, that we must be satisfied that this Clause will be to the benefit of the local authorities concerned. I do not think there is very much difficulty about that for, unless this Bill becomes law, the main source of borrowing open to local authorities will dry up. Therefore, it is without any doubt essential in the interests of the local authorities that these funds should be made available for them to borrow from.
Mr. Janner: Supposing an interest rate of 100 per cent. were charged, does the hon. Gentleman think that the local authorities would be able to borrow this money?
The Chairman: I have asked so often that the matter of interest should be left out of this debate, that I hope hon. Members will really try to do it.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Gentleman will realise, that Ruling prevents my joining him in his interesting speculation.
What this Clause does, at any rate, whatever else is in it, is to make a very large sum of money available for borrowing if the local authorities desire to borrow it. Therefore, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that it is emphatically and overwhelmingly in the interests of the local authority.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Clause was inadequate in that it gave insufficient details of the purposes for which the money would be spent. Indeed, he used the expression the "absurd Clause." Be there any force in that, then the hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) must stand equally with myself charged with absurdity, because last year's Bill contained a Clause identical in terms with that which the hon. Gentleman describes as absurd.
Mr. Janner: But the then Minister used it properly.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman did not refer to the Financial Secretary, but to the Clause, and this Clause and the one contained in the Bill last year are, in fact, identical.

1591
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) inquired as to the system on which these loans would be issued. As I understand it, the approval of the Departments concerned with the applications to the Commissioners remains the same. The hon. Gentleman then referred to another matter in which I cannot follow him very far without transgressing your Ruling, Sir Charles, as to the effect of this new Clause on the new ratio of local authority and private house-building announced by my right hon. Friend a day or two ago. He suggested that because of that announcement the local authority borrowings were excessively high.
I would say that my right hon. Friend's statement merely indicated that changes in the ratio were permissible at the option of the local authorities. As far as we are concerned, we must provide funds adequate to deal with local authority demands in the event of their not using the authority, as some may not, to alter the present ratio. We are not trying to force them to use the new high ratio of private building by providing inadequate funds, and that is why we must adhere to the figure of £500 million, as set out in the first part of the Clause.
Mr. Short: In that case, are the funds which are provided sufficient to build 300,000 houses if the 1–5 ratio is retained?
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot enter into that without entering into the question of housing costs. We are seeking to provide, as previous Bills have always provided, a sufficient sum, with a margin, to cover the requests that the local authorities may make to us. That is the function of the Bill.
Mr. Sparks: This is a very important point. Is it the intention of the Government that the target of 300,000 houses shall be for those built by local authorities or is it intended that that target shall be divided equally between private builders and local authorities? Whether the funds available are sufficient or not depends upon the hon. Gentleman's answer to that question.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if that question is to be directed to anyone in this House it should be directed to the
1592
Minister of Housing and Local Government. I beg the hon. Gentleman to recall that we are here concerned with providing an adequate financial base for the demands that the local authorities can conceivably put forward. That is the point at issue. I cannot possibly trespass upon a matter which is the affair of my right hon. Friend or of the local authorities. Our function is the lowlier one of providing adequate funds.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman can solve a problem for me. It is a matter that I have put to other hon. Members of the Government Front Bench without success. I have a great admiration for the hon. Gentleman and I hope he can supply the answer. He has spoken about the £500 million financial base for housing. I quite appreciate the point that he does not deal with housing, but could he tell us how much of the £500 million financial base goes to Scotland? I have often tried to find out, but very unsuccessfully, what proportion of the 300,000 houses is to go to Scotland.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot say anything about the 300,000 houses, as the hon. Gentleman knows. As regards the £500 million, what proportion goes to Scotland will depend, in the first place, on what the Scottish local authorities ask for, and, in the second place, on what the Departments concerned with housing in Scotland recommend.
Mr. Hughes: Will they get what they ask for?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: They will be dealt with in the same way as local authorities in England. I do not think the hon. Gentleman need be apprehensive that Scottish local authorities will be laggard in coming forward to ask for money.
To continue my reply to the hon. Member for Acton, I would again remind him that, the new ratio being permissive, we must provide adequate funds on the basis that local authorities must be absolutely free to use the new ratio or not.
Mr. Sparks: Do I take it that, if a local authority decides not to adopt the suggestion which, for reasons best known to themselves, the Government are making, no pressure will be brought to bear on the local authority to conform to the suggested ratio?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is not a matter with which I can deal. If the hon. Member wants to put a question on housing policy he really must put it to my right hon. Friend who is responsible for housing, and not direct it to the Treasury, for we are concerned only with providing the financial base.
Mr. Donald Chapman: The hon. Gentleman says that it is the Treasury's job to provide an adequate financial basis. It must be an adequate financial basis for a total number of houses which one can hypothecate, and if one is envisaging a larger number of houses, and the ratio remains the same, a larger figure will be required in the. Bill.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman is, I believe, recommending us to increase the figure in the Bill. I can only assure him that, taking advances and commitments together, we have made an advance in all of £100 million over the total thought necessary last year. I can assure him that we feel that that figure is adequate to cover the possible demands that will be made. It will, of course, always be open to the Government, if the funds made available in the Bill prove to be inadequate, or if they approach exhaustion, to come to Parliament with a request for further advances or further commitments.
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) indulged in a little hyperbole when he said that acceptance of the Clause would mean that every local authority would be out of pocket. All we are giving to the local authorities is an opportunity to borrow. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is a little unfair to the Clause. His suggestion about the annual report of the Commissioners is a valuable one, and I will certainly see that it is considered. I appreciate that it is an advantage to the Committee, when discussing these important, intricate and difficult matters, to have the report available as soon as possible, and I will do my best to see that the suggestion is conveyed to the proper quarters, for I think that it is a very helpful one.
As regards the future of the Commissioners, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate that I am not in a position to answer him tonight. On first reaction, it seems to me, that to be able to issue loans of £350 million at a cost
1594
of £46,000 is not a sign of inefficient activity, but His Majesty's Government are always prepared to look in any direction in which greater administrative efficiency can be obtained.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) said that he was opposed to the Clause as it stood and that it would lower the standards of living of our people. I am sure that when he re-reads the Clause he will not think that. I do not think that the providing of a large sum of money for local authorities to borrow could have that effect. Surely it must have the contrary effect in that it provides the money with which local authorities are able to carry on their beneficent activities in a great many directions.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), referred again to the figures in the Bill, and I want to say a word about that. He pointed out that £416 million—or £420 million, if we take another date—was already committed. That is not fairly subtracted from the £500 million in the Clause unless there is added on the other side of the account the rather larger figure of £450 million for new commitments which may be incurred. I hope the hon. Member appreciates that and also that we are increasing the overall total for advances and commitments.
The hon. Member made a remarkable observation. He said that the commitments at 31st October of £416 million contained an inadequate proportion for housing as a result of the policy of the present Administration. Really! The figures are those of 31st October, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister only kissed hands on 27th October. To suggest that it is the fault of the present Administration if the figures represent an inadequate proportion is pressing rather far the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility. I can tell him why, in defence of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—
Mr. E. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. What I said was that on this occasion the amount provided for services other than housing was considerably higher than it was on the previous occasion.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, and the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that his remark that that reflected the policy

1595
of the present Administration is one that cannot be sustained. I will explain to him now why these figures bear a different proportion to the annual figures. It was a point into which I had to go when I first saw the figures. The reason is that the non-housing expenditure represents work which generally takes rather longer to do than the building of a house. It takes longer to build a public building such as a school than to build a house. Therefore, when we are dealing with forward commitments, we get a larger proportionate element of non-housing expenditure than when dealing with a closed period of a year of housing and non-housing activities. I hope that will acquit the late Government in the eyes of the hon. Member.
I apologise for repeating it, but the idea I should like to leave in the minds of the Committee is simply that this is the Clause that provides the money. If the Committee do not accept the Clause, the money available for borrowing by local authorities will be exhausted before a very long period had elapsed. No hon. Member, whatever his views on other financial policy, wants that to happen, and I hope, therefore, that we may be allowed to have the Clause.
Mr. Jay: I only want to say that we on this side, of course, do not oppose the Clause. It is necessary to have the Clause in order that these programmes can go forward. I hope, therefore, that we shall approve it and that we shall do so soon, if not now. We are far from satisfied, however, with the Financial Secretary's answers to the questions we have addressed to him. In particular, he is in error, in his effort to answer my questions, in suggesting that the total of advances, plus commitments, in the Bill is a measure of the work done during the year.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: To be done.
Mr. Jay: I gave a year ago, in the speech to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred, the reasons for the total of advances and commitments.
The first reason is that local authorities were being able to plan rather further ahead. The second is the reason mentioned by the hon. Gentleman just now—but not until just now—that an increasing number of schemes are rather
1596
larger schemes which take a greater number of years to complete. Therefore, the increase in the total from £850 to £950 million has nothing whatever to do with the actual volume of work done during the year.
Indeed, I pointed that out in my speech on Friday, and the hon. Gentleman did not question it at the time. It was not until today that he improvised the argument that the actual total of advances did not fairly measure the amount of work done during the year, and I think that the reason why he did not produce it until today was that he had not quite seen the implications of his own statement on Friday.
The fact remains, looking at the hon. Gentleman's speech on Friday, that he told us that the total to be advanced this year will not be substantially greater than last year. I submit that the conclusion still follows, clearly, from the debate we have had, that that means that no substantially greater number of houses is to be built. If that is not so, will the hon. Gentleman now, or his colleague from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government tell us the actual number of houses that the Government intend to build?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want, any more than the hon. Gentleman, to detain the Committee, but I am bound to say to him that the inference which he seeks to draw from the figures of the Bill is not one that I am prepared to accept. I ask the hon. Gentleman—not now, but when he thinks it over and, perhaps, reads HANSARD—t0 appreciate that we are here making available to local authorities £100 million more of advances, plus commitments, than was thought necessary last year. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind and not to seek to draw inferences from the housing programme. All I can say is that I do not accept the inference that the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw, but the future will prove, no doubt, which of us was right.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment read the Third time, and passed.

New Clause.—(ENROLMENT.)
Enrolment in the Home Guard shall not begin until the House of Commons shall have passed a resolution authorising such enrolment.—[Mr. Strachey.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Strachey: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
We have reached in this new Clause the main business of the Committee stage of the Bill. It is a Clause which, if it is embodied in the new Bill, is meant to suspend the main operation of the Bill, which is the enrolment of the Home Guard, in peace-time until such time as the House of Commons takes a subsequent decision. It would convert the Bill into what we think it ought to be, a Bill which takes the preparations for the Home Guard right down to the point of enrolment, but no further, and suspends that actual point of enrolment until the Government come to the House of Commons and say that the apprehensions of an attack upon the country are now so great and immediate that they consider that we ought to pass to the enrolment of the Home Guard.
I do not want to go over once again the arguments which were put out both by myself and my right hon. Friend the ex-Minister of Defence and by other hon. Members as to why we take that view. But, rightly or wrongly, we think that there is no military advantage in going to immediate enrolment today and that, on balance, there is military disadvantage.
I do not deny that there is some military advantage in early enrolment. The Secretary of State, in his Second Reading speech, made that point very effectively. There is some advantage, undoubtedly, in having the Home Guard enrolled now so that there shall be no delay in the early weeks of a war when one is concentrating very hard on getting the Reserve Army battleworthy, and any distractions on guard duty of any sort are a disadvantage. But for the reasons I gave, I think that that undoubted advantage is outweighed by the very great disadvantages of an early enrolment of the Home Guard.
There may be conditions when the members of the Force cannot be given uniforms or premises, and in which we divert a great deal of the organisational ability and the training ability, both of
1650
which are necessarily limited, and highly skilled staff officers and officers skilled in training and the like, which is concentrated today in the Reserve Army on very big schemes like the call-up of the Class Z reservists, which strain all these resources to the very limit.
From the military point of view, we think that the balance of advantage—I put it no higher—rests in the postponement of the actual enrolment of the Home Guard to a date on which the Government come to the House and say that in the interests of national safety it can no longer be postponed; and, of course, at that point the House of Commons would not hesitate in giving the authorisation for enrolment.
There is not only the question of military advantage. There is the question of the economic position. There is the burden—I think, considerable and significant—which the enrolment now, in peacetime, of the Home Guard must place on a very hard-pressed people, who are asked to do a lot of other things, who are asked to carry the very considerable effort of the re-armament programme and the effort of restoring the balance of payments, and who are being exhorted to give of their last ounce of productive effort. I do not want to over-state that. A part-time Force like this is not an enormous diversion from the economic effort of the country, but it is some diversion. On balance, we think the advantage lies undoubtedly with the postponement of enrolment.
Finally, there is the argument that we believe a Home Guard prematurely enrolled for what we hope would be a long, and, indeed, permanent period of peace, might easily go stale so that, if war broke out some years later, we might have a weaker and less enthusiastic Force instead of a stronger one. For all those reasons we are convinced that it would be far better to pass the Bill but to hold in suspense the operation of its main purpose, which is the enrolment of the Home Guard.
Mr. Iain MacLeod: One thing puzzles me in the wording of the Amendment. It is common form when any positive action has to be taken, for instance an affirmative Resolution, for it to be taken by affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. When there is negative action, to be taken by a

1651
Prayer, it can be effected by the action of one House. I may be wrong; I am asking for information; but it seems in the highest degree unusual to give to one House of Parliament the power to take the affirmative action envisaged in the Motion. I should have thought it was unconstitutional.
Mr. Strachey: I do not think it is unusual. I think we can find precedents. Nevertheless, it is not a point on which we should wish to insist for a moment; we should be just as happy with an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. What was probably in the mind of my right hon. Friend was a desire for a simple procedure so that if we confirmed the period of enrolment, then at the simple issue of the word "Go" by one House of Parliament, the Government of the day could pass to enrolment. There is not much in the point one way or the other.
Would the Under-Secretary explain further a point which he made on Second Reading, when he spoke as if what was in mind for January was registration rather than enrolment? I do not think he meant that there was an intention not to pass to enrolment. It would alter things if he told us now that all that was intended was registration, because we regard that as part of the preparatory work for which we agree there is a strong case. I think he intends to pass to enrolment, if not in January then at an early date. For the reasons I have given, we do not think that that is in the best interests of the country.
Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: I appreciate the thoughts and fears in this connection which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed and which, indeed, have been expressed before. I do not know whether I am going over old ground in pointing out that one of the fundamental conceptions in our minds now is, if I may use a colloquialism, that we might easily "miss the bus" if we waited until the situation had developed to a dangerous point and then proceeded to enrol. I would also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that once we have proceeded to enrolment we have let the bullet go, so to speak, and lost control over it.
I thought what was causing anxiety in the minds of hon. Members opposite was the fear that we should proceed to enrol
1652
ment before the House had had a chance to see the Regulations under which enrolment would take place. That was not our intention. As I tried to point out on Second Reading, and the right hon. Gentleman has correctly guessed, we are, of course, proceeding only to registration now, in the meantime "cooking up," if I may use another colloquialism, Regulations, which would then be presented to the House, and only thereafter shall we proceed to enrolment. There would be a chance, I suppose, at that time, when the Regulations had been seen, to bring up the issue, but not necessarily—and I want to be frank and fair about it—of stopping enrolment.
One further safeguard over numbers—this is not quite the point of the right hon. Gentleman, but it comes near it, I think—is that we did undertake that the numbers of the Home Guard would be included—it may be automatic, but I do not know—under Vote A of the Army Estimates which come up annually in the House, and the numbers at that time could be controlled. I suggest that there is a good deal of control over numbers one way and another.
However, we do regard it as fundamental that we should not take the chance at this time of leaving to Parliament the decision that, say, Wednesday or next Tuesday or in a fortnight's time enrolment should start, because only a little while after the enrolling—and it is a complicated machinery—has taken place, and the organisation and training gone into, should we have a Force capable of dealing with what, we think may come much more quickly.
Then the right hon. Gentleman said that this was a question of assessing balances. He said this came down on one side. I suggest to him that it really comes down on the other. I hope he will not press us on this point.
Mr. Stephen Swingler: I hope that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State will be willing to consider this matter again. I think that something which the Secretary of State said on Second Reading illustrates the difficulty in which we are when it is proposed to start enrolling this Force in time of peace. We on this have taken the view that the Home Guard should be enrolled in time of war, and that a skeleton

1653
organisation should be set up to bring it into existence in time of peace.
One of the most important factors is that we shall not know until an emergency arises who are the people eligible to join this Force.
On Second Reading the Secretary of State indicated some of the limitations there would be on people in joining the Home Guard. He said, for example, that all members of the Z Reserve would be eligible to join the Home Guard immediately who were over 46 years of age, and Regular Army Reserve officers and officers of the rank of colonel and above who were over 58, and lieut.-colonels and officers below over 53. It is quite obvious that there will be many other Regulations that the Secretary of State will be compelled to issue to lay down who is and who is not entitled to enrol in the Home Guard in peace-time.
He will have to consider a schedule of reserved occupations. He has already given an assurance during the Committee stage about the question of preventing certain key industrial workers from enrolling because of the interference that their enrolling might involve with production and overtime work. I suggest that it is already admitted that Regulations will have to be produced concerning enrolment in time of peace because if we form a Home Guard in time of peace we do not know the number of units that will be immediately available as soon as there is an emergency, because people will be called up for other duties. Class Z reservists will go into other units, and other people will be transferred to Civil Defence, or to some other area to work in Royal Ordnance factories.
10.30 p.m.
The Secretary of State must appreciate the position, because he has already laid down a number of limitations. He will have to produce complicated Regulations about eligibility for enrolment in the Home Guard in time of peace. I think that the Under-Secretary will admit that, and what we ask is that the Committee should have the opportunity to discuss these complex matters of eligibility. What are the problems? There is the question of interference with production, and the question of the schedule of reserved occupations; there is the matter of whether "key" workers will be eligible. What about the eligibility of Class Z reservists?
1654
All we ask is that we should have the opportunity for expressing our points before the actual process of enrolment begins.
Mr. Wigg: The Under-Secretary told us that he and his right hon. Friend were going to "cook up the Regulations." He said that that was a colloquialism, but I think that perhaps it was an accurate description of what is to happen. The size and complexity of this problem with which he has to deal should be fully understood. The registration of the man is a comparatively simple matter; that should not cause any headaches, nor should the equipping of the man present much difficulty; but, when the Under-Secretary starts to weave that man, and many others, into an effective pattern so that they can take their places alongside the Regulars and the Territorials, he will find that he really has something to think about. When he says they are going to "cook up the Regulations," one wonders what is going to happen.
Mr. Hutchison: I do not like to bring up personal history, but I was what is known as G.1, Home Guard, during the last war, and I know the Regulations which are involved.
Mr. Wigg: If I may say so, that is the very worst training that the Under-Secretary could have had for the appointment which he now holds. I served in a headquarters, and I know all about going round a mess, having a drink of whisky, and so on; I have seen advisors going round, and I know what happens, although I was never one myself. It is common ground between us that we all want a Home Guard, but this question of timing is of paramount importance. The Government find themselves in a difficulty if they accept this Amendment, but having got the Bill, the Government will then go on, regardless of the consequences, because they are committed to the production of a Home Guard. If I may say so, the Government have to do that for another reason; it was about the only constructive thing in the Conservative Election programme. There will be 150,000 men, more resembling Fred Karno's army than—
Mr. Frederic Harris: Why not stick to the facts?
Mr. Wigg: Here are the facts. The Government are to raise 150,000 men on a

1655
completely new basis, with little experience to guide them, and in a few months, it will have to be turned into an effective fighting Force. That will be a job of some complexity, and as has been said before in this debate, it may be a case of more haste, less speed, unless these problems are fully realised and tackled in time. I hope very much that if we cannot get satisfaction on this point, we shall carry the issue to a Division so that we can make it plain to the country where responsibility rests when things go wrong, as I think they will.
Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member says that the formation of the Home Guard should be timed. Can he say how he would time it correctly?
Mr. Wigg: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had attended our debates—
Air Commodore Harvey: I have been here most of the time.
Mr. Wigg: I beg leave to doubt that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I repeat it. I have been here all the way through, and I have not seen very much of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
The Chairman: I do not think that the hon. Member need have made that remark.
Mr. Wigg: Very well, I shall be glad to withdraw it, Sir Charles. If the hon. and gallant Member will read HANSARD of 15th November, 1950, he will find that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) when challenged on what he would do, dealt with the machinery he would establish to bring the Home Guard into being, a Home Guard based upon the Territorial Associations, and using the normal command. In the same announcement he said he was setting up Home Guard advisors, and later he announced a ceiling of 200,000 men, the Force to be brought into being when the necessity arose.
Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman need not be so touchy. I was only seeking information. He must know with his great experience in these matters that in modern warfare one does not get much warning.
Mr. Wigg: No, we do not, and because of that that is no reason why one should
1656
go ahead regardless of the consequences, and at the end of the day have a number of men on the strength who are not effective.
Mr. Head: I can assure the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that both the Under-Secretary of State and I are well aware of the difficulties that will confront us after this Bill goes through and after we have carried out registration and enrolment. Whatever any hon. Member in any part of the Committee thinks about the advisability of this Bill, they all wish the Force that eventually is created to be an efficient one and not a Fred Karno's army.
The point that is raised here is the ability of the House to see and consider the Regulations before we start enrolment. I can assure the Committee that that will be the case, because the plan we have in mind is this—assuming the passage of the Bill through the House, owing to various administrative reasons it will be impossible for us to start registration, as I said on Second Reading, until very early in January. When we start registration it will be purely a case of submitting names on a postcard through local post offices to the various centres for consideration. That will take a bit of time.
When that is concluded it is proposed to start enrolment, but there is no possibility of enrolment starting before the House once more starts to sit in January, and hon. Members will have an opportunity of seeing the Regulations. I am also aware that in drawing up these Regulations we shall have to have a great deal of consultation. We have many administrative and other questions to sort out and disentangle. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State used the word "cooked up." I know that "cooked" as regards certain figures has a dishonourable connotation, and I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Dudley did not think that.
Mr. C. R. Hobson: The Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) shuddered at the use of the phrase "cooked up."
Mr. Head: The Regulations are of great importance and will need a great deal of thinking about. We have already started to draw up these Regulations, and the hon. Members will have an oppor

1657
tunity of seeing them before enrolment will start. It is only registration that will start early in January, and enrolment will be subsequent to that. In those circumstances, I hope that the Committee will be satisfied with that assurance and that the Motion will now he withdrawn.
Mr. Swingler: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean we shall have an opportunity to debate these Regulations? He kept saying "seeing the Regulations."
Mr. Head: We did go into that on a previous discussion on a new Clause. It was explained quite clearly that we were following precedent inasmuch as they would be laid by Regulation and that they were subject to Parliamentary Question and Adjournment debate.
Mr. Callaghan: The Secretary of State for War has been very conciliatory in what he has said about the Regulations, but that really does not touch the real point of our criticism. There is a real difference here between the Government and ourselves on this issue. It is a sharp difference. I can state it clearly, shortly, and simply, and without heat. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), in moving this new Clause, made it clear that in this particular instance he was not concerned about seeing the Regulations. That was not the point of criticism.
The real point of our criticism is that, in our view, this is the wrong time at which to establish the Home Guard. I think I should say, it is the wrong time at which to enrol the Home Guard because there is a difference between establishing and enrolling. We agree with the Secretary of State that there is a case for establishing the Home Guard. We do not agree with the Government that there is a case for enrolling it at this moment. That is the simple, short difference between us.
We do so for certain reasons, some of which the right hon. Gentleman has given himself. He said, during the Second Reading debate, that the establishment and enrolment of the Home Guard did not mean that, in his view, war was any nearer than it had been before this force was enrolled or established. That is, in our judgment, a reason for not doing it now. I believe the view to be commonly shared that war has not come nearer during the last few months.
1658
I was reading this week an interview given by Dr. Adenauer, who is living in the front line if anyone is. In it, he was asked what was his estimate of the likelihood of war in the measurable future. His answer was, "I do not believe there is great danger of a hot war." Dr. Adenauer went on to give various reasons for it. In our view, if he, of all those who are best qualified to judge, says that there is no immediate danger of a hot war, then that is a very important reason for not enrolling the Home Guard at this moment.
If we had no other burdens on our shoulders and if we had nothing that we were particularly carrying, perhaps the Secretary of State could come to the Committee and say he believed that this burden could be easily carried and that the Government ought to enrol the Home Guard. But, as the right hon. Gentleman knew only too well from his experience in the War Office so far, he has a very great burden to carry, not only in his administrative capacity, but in relation to, and fulfilment of, the armaments programme which has been undertaken. However much this responsibility may be devolved upon others. there can be no doubt that the enrolment of the Home Guard will mean additional calls upon supplies.
We know that it will mean additional finance—in certain circumstances, a maximum of £2¼ million—from the figure given. We know it will mean an additional drain upon the administrative resources, such as they are, which the right hon. Gentleman has at his command and which are themselves strained. For these reasons, we believe the right hon. Gentleman is not establishing his priorities in the right order by bringing this Bill to the Committee at the moment.
I hope that because we say that the Under-Secretary will not think that we are doing this merely on party grounds. I do not wish to raise unnecessary heat about this, but I do think that if the hon. Gentleman reflects on what we have been discussing during the last two days he will agree now that his comment made at the end of the debate last week was unjustified. The hon. Gentleman said:
"In Committee we shall, of course, welcome constructive criticisms."
I think he will agree that he has had constructive criticisms, and I should like to thank the Secretary of State for the

1659
conciliatory way in which he has accepted a number of our Amendments.
10.45 p.m.
The Under-Secretary went on to say:
"…but I say to hon. Members opposite: play the party game if you must in lesser matters, but leave the defence of this country out of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 700.]
That was in relation to the major criticism that we were making, that this was not the right time to establish the Home Guard. We do not make it on party grounds.
Mr. Hutchison: No, I did not mean that.
Mr. Callaghan: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he did not mean that, though I am not sure what it did relate to.
Let me put this to the Secretary of State for War. It is equally open to us to say that the real reason he has come forward with the Home Guard Bill is because it was included in the Conservative Party manifesto.
The Chairman: We are dealing with a new Clause.
Mr. Callaghan: With respect, Sir Charles, this is the Second Reading of a Clause which suggests that the Home Guard should not be enrolled at the present moment. I was seeking to suggest that one reason why the Secretary of State thinks it ought to be enrolled is because he is fulfilling the statement that was made in his party's manifesto, and I submit, with respect, that that is pretty well within the bounds of order in a fairly wide debate such as this.
The Chairman: Yes, but this is not a fairly wide debate. It is a debate on the Second Reading of a new Clause.
Mr. Callaghan: In that event I shall not labour the point, but I shall at least endeavour to say this. When we are considering what is the right time to introduce this, and as party considerations influence one's support for it or one's opposition to establishing it at the present time, one is bound to have regard to what has been said by parties at various times.
The Secretary of State for War says that it is his best judgment, irrespective of what his party said at any time, that this
1660
is the right time for establishing it. I want him to believe that on our side equally it is our judgment, based on our view of the military situation and our view of what the proper priority shall be in a matter of this sort, that whilst it is right to establish the Home Guard it is not the right moment in which to enrol the men into a Home Guard. That is a perfectly fair and sound view which can be established and argued without any particular difficulty.
I would put this final point to the Secretary of State for War. I feel that there is a great danger of enrolling men too soon and then losing their enthusiasm as time goes on. I speak with some slight authority on this. I have never been a Home Guard, but I was, in its early days, a member of the L.D.V. I never got further than having a very old rifle and an armband with L.D.V. on it; I do not think we even had steel helmets, but I do remember the enthusiasm that went through everybody who was associated in those early days with the original L.D.V. People went round to each other's houses and gathered up their friends. They knew each other, and they talked. I suggest that it is something of that spirit which has got to be maintained if enrolment is to prove satisfactory in the long run.
What I fear is that with the best will in the world, those who come forward with enthusiasm may feel as time goes on and the edge wears off, "Perhaps we have enrolled too soon." I think the Secretary of State will understand that this is a valid criticism, and it is not because we wish to damn the Force in any way. We wish it success if and when it is established. We are prepared to see battalion commanders appointed and we are ready to see the organisation and the planning go on, but we feel that the Secretary of State is carrying it too far at the present time, that he is getting his priorities in the wrong order, and is in danger of allowing enthusiasm to run away into the sands if he enrols men at the present time. We must mark our division of opinion with the Government on this issue at this stage by going to a Division.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 188.

Division No. 21.]

AYES

[6.5 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

King, Dr. H. M.

Albu, A. H.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.).

Kinley, J.

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Lindgren, G. S.

Awbery, S. S.

Ewart, R.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Fernyhough, E.

Logan, D. G.

Balfour, A.

Fienburgh W.

Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

Bartley, P.

Finch, H. J.

MacColl, J. E.

Bence, C. R.

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

McGhee, H. C.

Benson, G.

Follick, M.

McGovern, J.

Beswick, F.

Foot, M. M.

McInnes, J.

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

Forman, J. C.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Bing, G. H. C.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Blackburn, F.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Blenkinsop, A.

Gibson, C. W.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Blyton, W. R.

Glanville, James

Manuel, A. C.

Boardman, H.

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Mikardo, Ian

Bowden, H. W.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

Mitchison, G. R.

Brockway, A. F.

Grey, C. F.

Monslow, W.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax).

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Moody, A. S.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

Morley, R.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Hamilton, W. W.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Callaghan, L. J.

Hargreaves, A.

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

Carmichael, J.

Hastings, S.

Mort, D. L.

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Hayman, F. H.

Moyle, A.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Mulley, F. W.

Champion, A. J.

Hobson, C. R.

Murray, J. D.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Clunie, J.

Holman, P.

Oldfield, W. H.

Cocks, F. S.

Houghton, Douglas

Oliver, G. H.

Coldrick, W.

Hubbard, T. F.

Orbach, M.

Cove, W. G.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Oswald, T.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Padley, W. E.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Paget, R. T.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Pannell, Charles

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Pargiter, G. A.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Janner, B.

Paton, J.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Jay, D. P. T.

Pearson, A.

Deer, G.

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

Popplewell, E.

Dodds, N. N.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Porter, G.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Key. Rt. Hon. C. W.

Proctor, W. T.

Pryde, D, J.

Sparks, J. A.

Watkins, T. E.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Steele, T.

Weitzman, D.

Rankin, John

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

West, D. G.

Reeves, J.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Wigg, G. E. C.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Swingler, S. T.

Williams, David (Neath)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

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

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

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

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Thurtle, Ernest

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Short, E. W.

Timmons, J.

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Tomney, F.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Slater, J.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Yates, Y. F.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Snow, J. W.

Viant, S. P.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Wallace, H. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Holmes.

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

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

Gage, C. H.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Arbuthnot, John

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

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

George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

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

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

Glyn, Sir Ralph

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Baker, P. A. D.

Godber, J. B.

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

Baldwin, A. E.

Gough, C. F. H.

Markham, Major S. F.

Banks, Col. C.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Barber, A. P. L.

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Marples, A. E.

Baxter, A. B.

Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

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

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

Mellor, Sir John

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

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

Molson, A. H. E.

Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

Hay, John

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Heald, Sir Lionel

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Bishop, F. P.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Nabarro, G. D. N,

Black, C. W.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Braine, B. R.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Nutting, Anthony

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Oakshott, H, D.

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Odey, G. W.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Holt, A. F.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Hopkinson, Henry

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

Bullard, D. G.

Horobin, I. M.

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

Bullock, Capt. M.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Partridge, E.

Butcher, H. W.

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

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

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Perkins, W. R. D.

Cary, Sir R.

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

Peto, Brig, C. H. M.

Channon, H.

Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Hurd, A, R.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Powell, J. Enoch

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

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

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Cole, N. J.

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Raikes, H. V.

Colegate, W. A.

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

Redmayne, M.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Jennings, R.

Renton, D. L. M.

Cranborne, Viscount

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)

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

Jones, A, (Hall Green)

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Roper, Sir Harold

Crouch, R. F.

Kaberry, D.

Ropner, Col. L.

Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Russell, R. S.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Lambton, Viscount

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Davidson, Viscountess

Leather, E. H. C.

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

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

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

Scott, R. Donald

Deedes, W. F.

Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Digby, S. Wingfield

Lindsay, Martin

Shepherd, William

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Linstead, H. N.

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

Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Donner P W.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Doughty, C. J. A.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Snadden, W. McN

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

Soames, Capt. C.

Drayson, G. B.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Spearman, A. C. M-

Drewe, C.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Speir, R. M.

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

McCallum, Major D.

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Macdonald, Sir Peter ( of Wight)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Fell, A.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Stevens, G. P.

Finlay, G. B.

McKibbin, A. J.

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

Fisher, Nigel

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

1570

1571

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Touche, G. C.

White, Baker (Canterbury)

Storey, S.

Turner, H. F. L.

Williams, Charles (Torquay)

Studholme, H. G.

Turton, R. H.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Summers, G. S.

Vane, W. M. F.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Sutcliffe, H.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Wills, G.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Wood, Hon. R.

Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

York, C.

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

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Tilney, John

Wellwood, W.

Mr. Vosper and Mr. Heath.

Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 22.]

AYES

[10.50 p.m

Acland, Sir Richard

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Peart, T. F.

Adams, Richard

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Popplewell, E.

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Porter, G.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

Price, Joseph T (Westhoughton)

Awbery, S. S.

Hastings, S.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hayman, F. H.

Proctor, W. T.

Balfour, A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Bartley, P.

Hobson, C. R.

Rhodes, H.

Bing, G. H. C.

Holman, P.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Blackburn, F.

Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Blenkinsop, A.

Houghton, Douglas

Royle, C.

Blyton, W. R.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Boardman, H.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Short. E. W.

Bowden, H. W.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Bowles, F. G.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Brockway, A. F.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Slater, J.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Janner, B.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Jay, D. P. T.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Sparks, J. A.

Callaghan, L. J.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Steele, T.

Carmichael, J.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Champion, A. J.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Chetwynd, G. R.

King, Dr. H. M.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Clunie, J,

Lindgren, G. S.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Cocks, F. S.

Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

Swingler, S. T.

Coldrick, W.

MacColl, J. E.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

McGhee, H. G.

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

McGovern, J.

Timmons, J.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

McInnes, J.

Tomney F.

Deer, G.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Delargy, H. J.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Wallace H. W.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Watkins, T. E.

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Manuel, A. C.

Weitzman, D.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

West, D. G.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Mitchison, G. R.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W)

Moody, A. S.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Whiteley, Rt Hon. W.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Morley, R.

Wigg, G. E. C.

Ewart, R.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Wilcock, Group Capt C. A. B.

Fernyhough, E.

Mulley, F. W.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Fienburgh, W.

Murray, J. D.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Follick M.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

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

Foot, M. M.

Oswald, T.

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Forman, J. C.

Padley, W. E.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon, A.

Fraser Thomas (Hamilton)

Paget, R. T.

Yates, V. F.

Gibson, C. W.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Granville, James

Pannell, Charles

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Pargiter, G. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Grey, C. F.

Pearson, A.

Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Hannan

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Glyn, Sir Ralph

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

Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

Godber, J. B.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Cole, N. J.

Gough, C. F. H.

Arbuthnot, John

Colegate, W. A.

Gower, H. R.

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

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Graham, Sir Fergus

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

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Baldwin, A. E.

Cranborne, Viscount

Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

Banks, Col. C.

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

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Barber, A. P. L.

Crouch, R. F.

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

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Cuthbert, W. N.

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

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

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Bennett. Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

Davidson, Viscountess

Heald, Sir Lionel

Bennett, William (Woodside)

Deedes, W. F.

Heath, Edward

Bishop, F. P.

Digby, S. Wingfield

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Black, C. W.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Bowen, E. R.

Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Drayson, G. B.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Boyle, Sir Edward

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

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Braine, B. R.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Holland-Martin, C.

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Fell, A.

Holt, A. F.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Fisher, Nigel

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

Horobin, I. M.

Bullard. D. G.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Bullock, Capt. M.

Gage, C. H.

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

Butcher, H. W.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

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

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

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

Cary, Sir R.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Hurd, A. R.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

George, Rt. Hon. Mai. G. Lloyd

Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

1662

1663

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

Molson, A. H. E.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Stevens, G. P.

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

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

Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Jennings, R.

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

Stoddart-Scott, Col M.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Storey, S.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Nutting, Anthony

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Kaberry, D.

Oakshott, H. D.

Studholme, H. G.

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Odey, G. W.

Sutcliffe, H.

Lambton, Viscount

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Leather, E. H. C.

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

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

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

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

Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

Legh, P. R, (Petersfield)

Partridge, E.

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

Lindsay, Martin

Perkins, W. R. D.

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Linstead, H. N.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Tilney, John

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Touche, G. C.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. G.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Turner, H. F. L.

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

Powell, J. Enoch

Turton, R. H.

Lucts, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Raikes, H. V.

Vosper, D. F.

McCallum, Major D.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

Redmayne, M.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

McKibbin, A. J.

Renton, D. L. M.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Wellwood, W.

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Roper, Sir Harold

White, Baker (Canterbury)

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Russell, R. S.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Wills, G.

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

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

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Markham, Major S. F.

Scott, R. Donald

Wood, Hon. R.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

York, C.

Marples, A. E.

Shephero, William

Maude, Angus

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Waller

Brigadier Mackeson and Mr. Drewe

Mellor, Sir John

Speir, R. M.

JAPANESE TREATY OF PEACE [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace with Japan and Protocol thereto, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of any Minister incurred in carrying out the said Treaty and Protocol.

JAPANESE TREATY OF PEACE BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER OF HIS MAJESTY TO GIVE EFFECT TO PEACE TREATY AND PROTOCOL.)
7.30 p.m.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to dissent from the Motion. As I read the Clause, it is one which gives the power to provide for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace with Japan and the protocol thereto. I believe that in the House of Commons there should be put a rather different view than has been expressed officially by the two parties. I believe that on this issue of the Japanese Treaty there is a Socialist point of view, which has the support of the people in Japan and also the support of a very large body of opinion in Australia. It is also an opinion which has, perhaps, a minority support, but certainly a support from the people of this country.
I wish to put what I believe to be the Socialist point of view, which is entirely against the idea that we as a nation should align ourselves in support of the Treaty, which is, in effect, making Japan a base for American activities in the Far East. My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said in the debate on Monday, in commending the Treaty, that it was
"a liberal treaty, which is not a bad word…with a small '1'."—[OFFCIAL, REPORT, 26th November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 997.]
Socialists should advocate, not a liberal treaty with a small "1," but a Socialist treaty with a capital "S."
1598
I am very glad to know that I do not speak for merely an isolated minority in this country, but that I have the support of people like Dr. Evatt, the Leader of the Australian Labour Party. Dr. Evatt has always been a well-known figure in the United Nations and he speaks with a deep sense of responsibility, not merely for the Australian Labour Party but also as a great leader of internationl opinion. In the "Daily Herald" of 5th September, I find that Dr. Evatt, the Leader of the Australian Opposition, in a paragraph dealing with his point of view, is reported to have scathingly attacked the Japanese Treaty, and to have described it as
"an open, unashamed abandonment of all the standards of international justice."
In a full report in the "The Times," Dr. Evatt is reported to have said that the overwhelming majority of Australians were convinced that the Treaty menaced the physical and economic safety of the people.
The Chairman: The hon. Member is going beyond Clause 1.
Mr. Hughes: I am opposing the Clause, and I am opposed to giving powers for the carrying out of this Treaty and I am fortifying my argument by pointing out that the leader of the Labour party in the Commonwealth of Australia, which is one of our great Dominions, shares my point of view. If it had been only my point of view, I could understand it being disregarded, but this is the point of view of a great international statesman, a great leader of public opinion in the Commonwealth of Australia; Dr. Evatt holds that view and, I suggest that his opinion should weigh with hon. Members.
The Chairman: The hon. Member was not discussing the machinery of the Bill.
Mr. Hughes: Without the machinery it would be impossible to carry out the provisions of the Bill.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): I think the Committee would like to know where they stand with regard to the width of this discussion. Far be it from me to check the Socialist eloquence of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but am I not right in suggesting, Sir Charles, that the arguments which he has so far advanced for

1599
the rejection of the Clause could and should have been used on Second Reading? It does not seem to me that what he is saying is in order on the Committee stage. I think the Committee would be grateful for your Ruling on the breadth of the discussion we may have on this Clause.
Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order—
The Chairman: Perhaps I may deal with one hon. Member at a time. The point raised by the Under-Secretary of State is very simple. On page 538 of Erskine May, dealing with the question of the Clause standing part, it says:
"Debate upon this question must be confined to the Clause as amended (or not amended)…"
It must be confined to the Clause; we cannot go beyond that.
Mr. Hughes: May I draw attention to the side-heading to Clause 1:
"Power of His Majesty to give effect to Peace Treaty and Protocol"?
The Chairman: The marginal note produced by the printing office has nothing to do with the Bill.
Mr. Hughes: The title to the Bill says that the Bill is to:
"Provide for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace with Japan and Protocol thereto."
The Chairman: I shall be putting the Question on the Preamble following Clause 2.
Mr. Hughes: May I ask your guidance, Sir Charles? Shall I be able to argue against the Bill being passed on Third Reading?
The Chairman: Yes, certainly; if the hon. Gentleman keeps in order.
Mr. Harold Davies: In Clause 1 (1) it states:
"His Majesty may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such Orders in Council, and do such things as appear to Him to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty and Protocol. and for giving effect to any of the provisions thereof."
I do not want to delay the Committee unnecessarily, but when we discussed the Preamble to the Treaty, and expressed our views about it, the other night, a
1600
statement was made to the effect that we wanted to see that the economic activities carried on by Japan would be carried on within the tenets of ethical competition, as we know them.
May I ask the Under-Secretary of State, who is responsible for bringing the Bill to the Committee, to answer this question? If we have to spend certain money on research into methods of trading in Japan, or to suggest that Government organisations should investigate them, would it be possible under the Treaty for the expense of those investigations to be met by the Japanese rather than by the British taxpayer?
This is a liberal Treaty, and it has demonstrated the goodwill of the Western world towards the Japanese people. Even those who went into the Division Lobby the other night against the Bill do not desire to see the economic life and the standards of life of the Japanese people crash. But we sincerely ask that Japan should enter the comity of nations on new ethical terms in trading competition. If British industries—rubber, cotton, silk or rayon, for instance—feel there has been some unfair competition, and if we ask for an investigation into it, would it not be possible for the expense to be met by the Japanese?
Whether my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was in order or not—and it is not for me to question your Ruling, Sir Charles—I heartily endorse his view that there are many sections in the Pacific, like some opinion in New Zealand and Australia, who feel that although they have signed the Treaty, they have done so with some trepidation, because they are afraid of a recrudescence of the evil dumping we knew before the war. Are there possibilities under this Clause of the expense of missions to Japan being borne by the Japanese, for at least a preliminary period?
Mr. Nutting: The answer to the question is, "No." The expense of any such mission going to Japan to conduct investigations into Japanese trading methods would not arise out of a Treaty and still less would it arise out of the Bill. Any expenses incurred in connection with the dispatch of such missions to Japan would not be chargeable against the Japanese

1601
under any power which His Majesty's Government have taken under the Bill.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
7.44 p.m.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Nutting.]
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to oppose the Third Reading and I am guided in my opposition not only by the fact that I believe a very much different kind of Treaty with Japan should have been drawn up, but by the fact—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The Treaty cannot be discussed. We are discussing now the machinery for bringing it into operation.
Mr. Hughes: I object to the machinery in the Treaty. If there was no machinery there could be no Treaty, and if there was no Treaty there could be no machinery.
I wish to oppose the machinery of the Treaty on the grounds that I believe quite a different kind of machinery is required for solving the problem of our future relationship with Japan. Instead of bringing this machinery forward, we should have taken the view of our great partner in the East—India. I reject entirely the idea that because a certain machinery of a certain Treaty has been adopted in San Francisco we should necessarily endorse the machinery and the Treaty in this House.
This machinery has also been the subject of criticism by a great leader of international and Commonwealth opinion, Dr. Evatt. I read in "The Times," of 5th September, that Dr. Evatt said that the overwhelming majority of Australians were convinced that the Treaty menaced the physical—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite understood me. We cannot discuss the Treaty, and the hon. Gentleman cannot quote what other
1602
people have said about the Treaty. It is only the machinery in the Bill for putting the Treaty into operation which we are now discussing on Third Reading—the machinery in the Bill
Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil): Further to that point, Mr. Speaker. The Bill states:
"And whereas it is expedient that His Majesty should have power to do all such things as may he proper and expedient for giving effect to the said Treaty and Protocol…"
Is one not, then, at this stage, entitled to question the powers being conceded and to give reason why such powers should be withheld?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly. That would be quite in order, but it is not what was being discussed just now.
Mr. Hughes: I will confine my remarks to the machinery within the Treaty.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Not the machinery within the Treaty, but the machinery for bringing the Treaty into operation.
Mr. Hughes: Exactly. That is exactly what I meant. Referring to all this, Dr. Evatt said:
"All the tragedies of the past war are apparently to be re-enacted, and treaties are to be treated as scraps of paper, and the low standards of living of Japanese labour will be swamped by countries with higher living standards. The militarists and industrialists will be armed and soon again be on the march"—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is exhausting my patience. I warn him that if he does not keep in order I shall ask him to resume his seat.
Mr. Hughes: I want to confine my argument to this proposition, that it is inexpedient to agree to the Third Reading of the Bill because it is against the interests of this country and also against the interests of the people of the great Dominion of Australia and also. the interests of the people among whom this Treaty—this machinery of this Treaty—is to be the subject of agreement. This machinery, this whole idea, is entirely against the opinion of the Japanese Socialist Party and the Japanese working class movement. There is in Japan today the strongest opposition to the idea contained in this Bill, and if such a Bill were introduced into the Japanese Diet it would receive the strongest opposition from the people of Japan.

1603
I would conclude with this quotation. I would conclude, because I have certainly no desire to tax your patience, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. [Laughter.] I have not. I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; and I appreciate the toleration with which I am treated in this House. I wish only to quote this opinion from the very eminent correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian" who dealt with the attitude of the Japanese Socialist Party towards this Bill, and with this quotation I would conclude:
"The most determined opposition"—
says this writer—
"comes from the Socialist Party. Under the Treaty, say the Socialists, Japan will secure only pseudo independence. In reality she will find herself entirely dependent militarily. She will serve as a base for the United States. Her army, equipped by the States, will supply a mercenary army…The reason why the Socialist Party of Japan would be against this Bill is because they believe in the three-prong Socialist slogan—no bases, no re-armament, no Treaty without Russia and China."
Those are opinions which, I think, should be expressed in this House.
7.51 p.m.
Mr. Ian Horobin: If I can, while keeping in order, I should like, as a Lancashire Member, to say that I do not think it would be expedient to give His Majesty the powers implied in bringing into effect the Treaty under this Bill unless the powers are used in the context of a very definite policy in connection with Japan and the United States. It is not expedient that this Treaty should be brought into operation unless in at least three years concomitant action is taken—in view of what we heard in the debate the other day—first, to deal with the desperate danger of Japanese competition. I do not want to go into that further, but would refer only, for instance, to the urgent necessity for reinforcing Lancashire's position with regard to her raw material supplies and cotton market.
Second, it is only expedient that His Majesty should have these powers, I submit, if action is taken at the very highest level in Washington to deal with the extraordinarily difficulty diplomatic problem. I speak as a profound believer in the vital need for the closest relations between this country and the United States, but it is useless to disguise from ourselves the fact that on this issue United
1604
States and English interests tend to diverge; and they can be brought into the necessary agreement only if at the same time as His Majesty exercises his powers under this Bill the Government seek, at the very highest level, to knit together our relations with the United States on this matter.
We are in the ironical position that, just as in the war the one danger was that, if it had not been for the close relations between the Prime Minister and the then President, Japan might have been treated as the primary enemy, so now, if we are not careful, there is the danger that Japan will be treated—I will not say as the first friend, but, at any rate, as very much more than a friend than will be healthy for some parts of the British industrial structure. That danger can be overcome only at a high level. I believe it can be.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is going beyond the Bill before us. He is dealing with how the Treaty may be carried out.
Mr. Horobin: I shall not delay the House further on that. I do not think my remarks were open to that interpretation. I am submitting that it is not expedient that these powers should be given, as they are by this Bill, unless they are exercised in that diplomatic context. I submit, with the greatest respect, that that is a legitimate point to make when we are asked to say that it is expedient that these powers should be granted.
The third point which I wish very briefly to put to the House is that it is not expedient that these powers be granted unless certain action is taken in Tokio. If I may be allowed to make a personal remark, speaking as an ex-prisoner of war of the Japanese, I think I may say that I know as much as anybody in this House about this subject. I was a witness in the war crimes trial, and I know as much as most people about that dark and dreadful episode in Japanese history. Protest would not be confined to hon. Members opposite if there was any suggestion that we were granting these powers merely to obtain mercenaries in any strategic sense. There would be a revolt far beyond that. It must not be in any context of that sort that these powers are used. This must be genuinely the beginning of a new chapter in our relations with Japan.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have made it perfectly clear that that cannot be discussed now. I really am losing my patience. I warn the hon. Gentleman that if he pursues that line, I shall ask him to resume his seat.
Mr. Horobin: I will not pursue that point any further. I believe that it is only on that ground and in that context that it is now expedient for us to pass this Bill to bring into effect the Treaty.
7.57 p.m.
Mr. S. O. Davies: If I understood you aright, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, a few moments ago, you agreed that an hon. Member would be entitled to state his objections to the powers referred to in the Bill, particularly in lines eight to 10, and also to give his reasons why such powers should be withheld. I hope that I may be able to put my case to the House without in the least trespassing upon your very good nature.
I am objecting to this Bill, first, on the grounds that in all sincerity I consider it, as a dishonest attempt to legalise what is nothing less than a conspiracy. It is a Bill that is legalising a whole mass of illegalities that have already been perpetrated, and on that ground I must strongly object to it. I presume that one cannot refer to the previous discussions that have taken place on the Treaty, but the instrument which we are considering now is, as has already been said, being used to give an air of respectability and honesty.
On the basis of our conception of international ethics it is nothing less than a conspiracy that has been foisted upon all the other nations which accept this Treaty.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member does not get round it by calling the Treaty a conspiracy.
Mr. Davies: I have said more than that, Sir Charles. I say this Bill is an attempt to legalise a conspiracy, and I must object against this House of Commons being used for such mean and despicable purposes. I must be entitled to that right, surely.
All that has been said on this Bill—all the misrepresentations that have been uttered on both sides of the House and from the two Front Benches—mean nothing to us. Here we are giving life to
1606
a fine pretentious piece of justification, to what is, as I have said, something utterly dishonest and a fraud upon the 1,000 million people living on the Asiatic continent.
I object to this Bill going through the House. It is unclean in every line and every sentence of it, and, small as the Bill is, it embodies in it more evil than I have seen in any Bill in the House of Commons. I am ashamed that there is such unanimity on both sides of the House in giving legal sanction to what I have described as an utterly mean and low-down conspiracy.

HOME GUARD BILL
Considered in Committee [Progress, 27th November].
[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 3.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND COMMENCEMENT.)
8.8 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out from "regulations," to the end of line 31.
Although the hon. Gentleman whose name is down to this Amendment has not arrived in the Chamber—perhaps owing to the trials of last night—I, too, have an interest in the Amendment which stands in his name, and, indeed, I think it is an Amendment to which nobody in the Committee will object. At this stage, may I interpolate, for the benefit of all the Members of the Committee that Government Amendments for the Report stage are available in the Vote Office. The Report stage is being taken tomorrow.
The Clause to which this Amendment refers is merely a defining Clause. It defines when duty begins and duty ends, but from the time we decided that duty encompassed training—
Mr. James Hudson: On a point of order. Are we discussing the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." or was an Amendment moved?
Mr. Hutchison: I am moving the Amendment in page 2, line 30.
The Chairman: This is a continuation of what we were doing in the early hours of this morning, when we reached Clause 3, page 2, line 30. This is a consequential Amendment on one already passed.
Mr. Hutchison: You have put it more concisely than I was able to do, Sir Charles. It is a consequential Amendment, because we are taking out the word "training" in the Bill, and this Amendment, therefore, becomes necessary.
Mr. James Callaghan: I think that on this side of the Committee we are very ready to accept this Amendment, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Adams). As the Under-Secretary will see, my hon. Friend is here in the Chamber, and has been here, as I know, since 2.30. The rigours of last night have not upset him attending today, and I think that he can once more congratulate himself upon having put down an Amendment which has commended itself to the Government as a distinct improvement of the Bill. I think that I can say that we shall continue during the later stages of the Bill, which I hope will not be unduly prolonged, to play a constructive role.
Mr. Richard Adams: I would like to apologise for not being in the Chamber when we started these proceedings. I thought the preceding business might have gone on a little longer, and I was busy elsewhere. As the Under-Secretary said, this is a formal Amendment following on the previous one, and I should not like to delay the Committee by discussing its implications now, as it may come up again later on the Report stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. F. H. Hayman: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, after "attack," to insert "by a foreign power."
I move this Amendment because the Home Guard will be subject to military law when mustered, and it is this Clause which will be effective if the Home Guard is mustered Clause 1 (2) states that the Home Guard will be subject to
1608
military law when mustered, and Clause 1 (3) says that the Home Guard shall be liable to give whole-time service and to live away from home when it is mustered. Clause 3 defines the period of the mustering. This Clause says that mustering means
"mustered for the purpose of resisting an actual or apprehended attack or of taking part in measures for dealing with the effects of an attack."
The insertion of the words
"by a foreign power"
would make it quite clear without any doubt at all when and from whom an attack is to be expected. The Amendment is designed to clarify this Clause. After all, the mustering of a Force like the Home Guard is a very serious affair and ought not to take place in peacetime.
During the Second Reading debate the Secretary of State for War said that this was a peace-time Measure and there was no arrangement for mustering the Home Guard in peace-time. But this Clause says that mustering is to resist an actual or apprehended attack. The Minister also remarked that if another war occurs there is quite likely to be no form of declaration of war, so that it seems to me that the operative words in this Clause are
"or apprehended attack."
The reason why we feel that it should be made clear from whom attack is expected is because the Minister, in his Second Reading speech, said that there were likely to be some saboteurs inside the country. In my Second Reading speech I emphasised the fears I had in that respect. I recall a lecture which was given to the officers and N.C.O.s of the battalion in which I served and there was emphasis on the dangers of saboteurs within the country. The War Office through its representative said that there was a potential army of 500,000 saboteurs in the country because there was that number of unemployed.
My home is in what was called a distressed area. We had a great number of unemployed people in my town. There were no more loyal body of people during the war than those who were unfortunate enough to be unemployed in the interwar years. Therefore, I resent the implication that because a man might be unemployed be is a potential saboteur.

1609
The War Office is still suffering from that delusion. I acquit the right hon. Gentleman of any part in it, but there has been a great deal of confusion in the preparation of this Bill. The Secretary of State for War himself said that this was largely a repetition of the Defence Regulations, under which the Home Guard was formed in 1940 in very different circumstances. Therefore, I feel that there is every reason why now we should be more exact, because we really have the time.
The Secretary of State for War may plead that there is not a lot of time. Last night when we were discussing an Amendment on Clause 3, which dealt with the question of the Isle of Man, the right hon. Gentleman said that it might be years before there would be a need to form a Home Guard in the Isle of Man. If there is that time in the Isle of Man there is plenty of time now. Those of us on this side of the House were alarmed at the reluctance of the Government to write into the Bill the need for consultation with the N.J.A.C. We feel that the Home Guard should be used only in the case of a very serious emergency. The Bill says that the Home Guard will only be mustered in the case of an actual attack or an apprehended attack.
This Amendment seeks to insure that the attack would be only from a foreign Power. The present Minister may not always be in his office, and someone else may succeed him in whom we have not the same confidence. Therefore, we ought to make it perfectly clear that the Home Guard will never be mustered to deal with civil disorder in this country. The Amendment is simple, it is self-evident, it can give rise to no misunderstanding, and I hope, therefore, that the Government will be prepared to accept it.
Mr. C. W. Gibson: I should like to support this Amendment. It is very simple, it deals with a simple point and I am sure the whole country will agree with the principle behind it. Surely it is not in the mind of the Government or of anybody else that the Home Guard should be mustered except for an attack by a foreign Power. If that is so, it ought to be made crystal clear in the Bill itself. The Government should, therefore, accept this Amendment.
On the Order Paper which is now available in the Vote Office there appears an
1610
Amendment dealing with industrial disputes, and making it quite clear that the Home Guard are not to be used for industrial disputes. I am glad to see that. It will remove a lot of apprehension in the country, and especially among keen trade unionists. I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that this Clause allows the Home Guard to be mustered during the time of an industrial dispute, and I do not see, in view of all that has been said about the reasons for the setting up of this Force, why it should not be made quite clear that the intention of this Committee is that the Home Guard should be mustered only when their is a fear or an apprehended fear of an attack by a foreign Power.
I also noticed that the Minister referred to sabotage in his Second Reading speech. Surely the police are able to deal with sabotage in peace-time. If an attack is to be feared from a foreign Power in war, the Home Guard can be mustered and they can do their bit in helping to prevent serious sabotage. For all the reasons I have given we believe that it ought to be put into the Bill that the Home Guard will not be mustered except when an attack is feared by a foreign Power, and I hope that the Committee and the Government will accept the Amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Julian Snow: I support my hon. Friend's very sensible Amendment. A few days ago there appeared in the "Daily Telegraph"—rather strangely, I thought—a letter from a correspondent who drew attention to the sort of people who had held senior posts in the Home Guard during the last war. If my memory is correct, he said that, by and large, those people were drawn in the rural areas from the squirearchy, and that it might be a very good thing if, when the Home Guard was established, the senior officers were drawn more from people who knew something about modern soldiering.
Bearing in mind that this sort of appointment often goes to occupiers of the big houses of the countryside, who are frightened at the mere word "Communism," and feeling that must might be attributed to Communism which is the result of perfectly constitutional industrial action, I think we must be very much on our guard against the penetration into this country of what I believe is known

1611
in America as "MacCarthyism." It means a condition in which anybody who challenges the existing position, even though he takes perfectly legitimate industrial action, is accused of being a Communist.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Before the name "MacCarthy" was ever known in this country we had MacArthyism here.
Mr. Snow: I suggest to the Government that they should seriously consider the acceptance of the Amendment. We do not want the industrial situation in this country jeopardised by people who may be perfectly well-meaning but who see Communism where perfectly legitimate action is being taken.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I support the Amendment, and I put forward what I think is a reasonable request to the Secretary of State for War that we should have the guidance and advice today of the Minister of Defence. I raised this question at Question time, and that right hon. Gentleman said that yesterday he was engaged in research into the Welsh language. I am prepared to assist the Minister of Defence in his research at an appropriate time, but in view of the fact that industrial disputes are under consideration, and that Tonypandy is a subject on which the Minister of Defence is an authority, I suggest that it is very reasonable to make this moderate request that for a few minutes we should have the guidance of the Minister of Defence and Prime Minister, who is primarily responsible in this matter.
That request should be conveyed to the Prime Minister. If he wishes to carry on his research into the Welsh language I am prepared to spend the whole Recess with him in that way and to do it on the spot at Tonypandy. We are now entitled to have him here, because he is responsible for the Home Guard and is essentially responsible for the co-ordination of defence policy.
The Prime Minister should come into the Chamber instead of hovering around the fringes of the Speaker's Chair and just putting his nose in and seeing that the debate has something to do with the Public Works Loans Bill. The matter on which we are now engaged is vital to the defence of the country, but the Prime
1612
Minister completely ignores the whole question of the Home Guard in industrial disputes. Out of respect to the hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment, we should have higher guidance, and the Secretary of State should have the valuable assistance, experience and knowledge of the Minister of Defence.
The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): The mover and supporter of the Amendment were evidently apprehensive about the definition of this word "attack." I can assure both of them that the Bill was drafted and the word was inserted entirely to mean attack by a foreign Power. The object, in the drafting of the Bill, was to make its intention plain. I think hon. Gentlemen will acquit me of showing any great reluctance to insert anything into the Bill which might remove doubts which hon. Gentlemen opposite have about our intentions. I have not shown any pride in that respect.
I am perfectly willing to yield if I can put in a few words which will reassure hon. Gentlemen opposite and accelerate the passage of the Bill. There is no real difference between us about what we are trying to get at; I can assure hon. Gentlemen that the word "attack" means attack by a foreign Power and nothing else. If there really is genuine apprehension on the other side of the Committee that this word might be taken to mean something else, it is only a question of two extra words in the Bill which in no way change the meaning of the Bill. The words may be redundant for all I know from the legal point of view, but I am perfectly willing to accept them. I hope that we can now get on.
Mr. E. Shinwell: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, for which we are very grateful, we shall not ask that the debate should be continued. If the right hon. Gentleman is willing to make a concession of this kind I see no reason why we should not express our gratitude.
Dr. Barnett Stross: We are greatly relieved to hear the right hon. Gentleman's assurances. I had in mind something else which the assurances given now remove from all possible doubt. It was that if we had not the term "foreign Power" in the Bill it would not only be industrial strife which might enter the picture, but some-

1613
thing else. Suppose—and this is not beyond the bounds of possibility or hypothesis—that at some time in the future we had difficulty as a result of an argument between Scotland and England, or, shall we say, with Wales and Scotland? Wales might be marching forward in a two-pronged attack, one to hold the Border to keep the Scots out while they settled with the English.
Although I am saying this light-heartedly, I think it would be possible for the mustering of the Home Guard to take place as a result of the marching down from the north towards the south. That would throw us into such confusion that we should have no peace in this Chamber ever again. For those reasons, if for no other, we are all grateful that the Minister has given way on this point.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out:
the expression 'orders or regulations' in."
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment and the two subsequent Amendments were taken together. They are entirely drafting Amendments and result from the elimination of the word "orders" at an earlier stage in our discussions on Clause 3. Since Orders and Regulations have been separated, and at that stage they were taken together as inseparable we had to find a definition for each separately, and these Amendments do that.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 41, leave out from beginning, to "of," and insert:
"references to orders are references to orders."
In line 42, leave out from "and," to second "to," in line 1, page 3, and insert:
"references to regulations are references."—[Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison.]
Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end to insert:
(4) If either House of Parliament within the next forty days on which that House has sat after any such order or regulation has been laid before it, resolves that the order or regulation be annulled the order or regulation shall thereupon cease to have effect, except as respects things previously done or omitted to be done, without prejudice, however, to the making of a new order or regulation.
1614
I should explain fully for the benefit of new Members that I am not the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) who was called by you, Mr. McLeavy. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends had subscribed their names to this Amendment, and in the absence or the unwillingness to move of the hon. Members whose names are, on the second day, still included on the Order Paper above this Amendment, I am glad to have caught your eye Mr. McLeavy and to be able to move the Amendment.
The matters we have been dealing with immediately prior to this Amendment, although necessary to improve the Bill were not matters of great importance. We come now to matters of greater substance. The effect of the Amendment is to make Orders and Regulations under the Bill subject to Prayer procedure in the House and to annulment. There is no doubt that if one wanted to bring about that effect it would be difficult to improve the wording of this Amendment. Presumably it was devised by the hon. Member for Croydon, East, who is an expert in matters of this kind. We all know he has great knowledge and experience of these matters because he has told us so on a great many occasions.
The Secretary of State for War will agree that if one wants to make Orders and Regulations subject to Prayer procedure a straightforward and obvious course would be to accept this Amendment. Why is it that we urge that it would be a good thing to make these Orders and Regulations subject to Prayer procedure? Let us first look at some of the things these Orders and Regulations will do. Subject to certain provisions which the right hon. Gentleman prudently arranged to put in the Bill, these Orders and Regulations will govern the conditions of acceptance into the Home Guard and conditions of service in the Home Guard.
8.30 p.m.
At an earlier stage in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Wyatt), put forward a number of difficulties that might arise from the present terms of acceptance and service. There was the problem of a man engaged for a two-year term who resigns and rejoins. When he rejoins, is he still on his first two-year term or is a new two-year term beginning? One could raise quite a

1615
number of awkward problems, the answers to which it is necessary for us to know and which this Committee ought to have some opportunity of considering.
Further, and more important, the Orders and Regulations will deal with payment of pensions, grants in respect of disablement, and certain other payments. I am quite certain that that ought to be made the subject of discussion and possible annulment in the House. May I remind hon. Members, without, I trust, taxing their patience, of some of the new problems that arose during the war in this connection in the Home Guard?
During the war members of the Home Guard were members of the Armed Forces and, therefore, were subject to military law at all times. One might have thought from that that if they suffered injury no one would be very particular about the time and occasion on which the injury was suffered. I find on consulting HANSARD for 18th December, 1941, that the then Member for the New Forest and Christchurch quoted in the House the case of a platoon commander who had gone on a round of visits in the course of his duty and on the way home had a cycling accident and broke his leg. He received no compensation because he was not on duty. HANSARD does not reveal whether that injustice, as I am sure we should all think it to be, was ever put right.
On 7th July, 1942, Sir James Grigg, then Secretary of State for War, replying to an hon. Member, explained that disablement allowances were only payable if the disablement were attributable to Home Guard service. Injuries received on the way to or from duty were not held to be attributable except in special circumstances. I think we would agree, and the right hon. Gentleman would agree, that there could arise serious difficulties, and it would be as well if these matters had to be submitted to the House and could be the subject of discussion by the machinery of praying against them.
I think it might be argued—indeed on Second Reading it was suggested—that there was no precedent for making Regulations of this kind subject to an affirmative or negative Resolution in the House. Comparison was made with Regulations made under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act. But I submit
1616
to the Committee, and particularly to the Secretary of State for War and his Under-Secretary, that we cannot press this parallel too far for two reasons. The raising of the Home Guard in time of peace is something without precedent and without parallel.
The Committee is being asked to do something it has never done before and I think the Committee, therefore, may reasonably say that a Government who ask us to do this ought to go a little out of their way to make sure we can look closely at what is being done. I do not think it is asking too much to suggest that the Orders and Regulations to be made under the Bill should be subject to the Prayer procedure in Parliament.
We have also to notice that as a result of the conciliatory attitude of the Government an Amendment moved on this side of the Committee has been accepted, which means that this Force will be a mixed Force. Here again we have something new—a mixed force of civilians. A mixed force is not something new, but a mixed force of civilians under military law in time of peace is quite new. The innovation which we made at an earlier stage in admitting women, and causing it to be a mixed Force, will undoubtedly create certain headaches for those who have to draft the Orders and Regulations, and I think that again is a reason why Parliament should have a chance of discussing the results of their labours.
I know it may be said when we raise all these points that perhaps we are being too finicky or that we are seeing dangers and difficulties which may never arise, but I submit to the Committee that in a matter like this it is the duty of Parliament to be particular and even to be pernickety, because a little more time spent by us now in being pernickety may save the springing up of a great many unforeseen injustices at some future time. For those reasons, therefore, I urge the Government to accept this Amendment so that Orders and Regulations made under this Bill shall be subject to Prayer procedure and so open to discussion in the House.
Mr, George Wigg: I think that in substance my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) has made out a case for this Amendment, but I hope he will forgive

1617
me if I say that I think he has gone a little too far in asking that such matters as pensions, for example, should be the subject of a Prayer. All the way through the Committee stage of this Bill I have pressed for what I call the development of a Home Guard doctrine based on past experience, and the experience on which I want to draw is the experience of the administration of the Territorial Army.
I think that is a sound beginning, and I think that we on this side of the Committee can congratulate ourselves on having converted the Secretary of State to that point of view. But obviously he and his advisers will be in some difficulty if they have to put forward draft Regulations for, let us say, the Territorial Army, or even for the Regular Army, which would be administered in the normal way and which could not be prayed against, and if they then had to take the same set of Regulations and draft them in such a way that they could be prayed against. There are bound to be difficulties there.
On the other hand, it is perfectly true that the kind of provision which my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East, mentioned is to be found in the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act. That Act contained this kind of provision. It provided for Prayers in the case of a Regulation which was of a far-reaching character. The Secretary of State, as a result of his rapid conversion since the Second Reading, has become very willing to meet almost every legitimate demand made on this side of the Committee. He has gone out of his way to meet our point of view, and of course he will get a much better Bill as a consequence.
But if, between now and the Report stage—although the time is short; perhaps when the Bill reaches another place—the Secretary of State would meet my hon. Friend's point in the spirit in which it was proposed he might be able to strengthen the Bill even from his own point of view.
I do not think we have learned all the lessons that have to be learned in the course of this debate, and it is quite likely that when the right hon. Gentleman gets down to the job he will find it an advantage to have debates on Prayers. I am sure that Governments do benefit from
1618
the ventilation and discussion of Regulations by means of a Prayer.
It is difficult to see at the moment exactly the kind of Measure that could be brought within the scope of the words used by my hon. Friend. I say that because the Clause of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act about Prayers dealt primarily with training. What the drafters of the 1907 Act wanted to do was to limit the power of the Executive to alter the period of annual training after a man had undertaken a contract. They were looking as it were to prevent any back-door method of breaking the contract into which a man had entered. It is for that reason that I think it was quite right to put on the Order Paper the actual conditions under which a man may serve and under which he may get his discharge.
Quite clearly provided he did certain things, certain other things would happen. If, for example, he did not return his equipment he would not get his discharge. That is quite right because it is a contract between the State and the man. We should not allow the use of Army Council instructions or any other administrative act for breaking a contract entered into in good faith. The variation of the period of annual training could grievously affect the individual, and if he has no redress open to him by means of a prayer in the House he may find himself in great difficulty.
Frankly, I cannot at the moment see how that kind of thing comes into this Bill. I think that the case for pressing what my hon. Friend is asking would be stronger if it had not been for the fact that the Secretary of State has seen the light. Now that he has seen the light and he knows what we are after, I am prepared to accept his conversion as permanent and to believe that he and his advisers will have a look at this matter. As I say, not necessarily on the Report stage but when this Bill reaches another place, I think we can trust him to introduce the necessary form of words to meet our point.
Mr. E. Shinwell: May I put to the right hon. Gentleman a point which, if he gives it consideration, as I hope he will, might assist us in shortening the debate? The position, as I understand it, is that the right hon. Gentleman agreed, after hearing the submissions

1619
from this side, to consult outside bodies on the subject of the Regulations. Presumably "consultation" or, for that matter, "keeping in touch with outside bodies" means that if they offer comments which are of practical value the right hon. Gentleman will take them into consideration, and to that extent modify the Regulations before they are presented to Parliament.
That is all very well; but notice the difference so far as this House is concerned. Whereas in the case of outside bodies the right hon. Gentleman consults in order to ascertain the views of outside bodies—that is, on making the necessary modifications in the Regulations—so far as both Houses of Parliament are concerned all he does is to go as far as laying the Regulations on the Table of both Houses of Parliament so that questions may be asked about the Regulations or the matter may be raised on the Adjournment.
As everybody knows, raising this matter on the Adjournment, once the right hon. Gentleman had decided about the Regulations, would not permit of any amendment or modification. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman makes a concession to outside bodies—and we agree there should be such a concession and we argued that throughout—while at the same time he refuses to make a concession to hon. Members and those in another place. I hope he has gathered the point I have put to him.
Mr. Head Mr. Head indicated assent.
Mr. Shinwell: He has; I am grateful to him for having done so. If he understands the point I have made I do beg of him to clear up this confusion and, if he can, perhaps he, will agree, not necessarily to this form of words—which he might find objectionable—but to some other form of words which will enable hon. Members, when considering the Regulations, to express views, which may or may not lead to modification of the Regulations.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Head: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have taken the point he has made and will refer to it in my remarks. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman back safe and sound, having
1620
had his morning shave without any undue accident.
I wish to say at the outset of my remarks that I am obliged to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for the speech he made, I have been aware in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill that the hon. Member for Dudley has no very great admiration for myself as Secretary of State for War, but I am equally aware that he has a very deep admiration for Lord Haldane, about whom I understand he is writing a book. I feel that his support in this Committee is more due to Lord Haldane than it is to myself.
I am well aware of the anxiety throughout the whole Committee concerning the question of delegated legislation. It is a matter which has often been discussed in the House and there is a natural and, I think, inevitable anxiety in the House about any extension of this form of legislation. But I put it to the Committee that, as the hon. Member for Dudley said, where this particular kind of Bill is concerned all the precedents are with us. I know one may say that if one has a lot of precedents it is time to start doing things in a different way, but when dealing with the Armed Forces of the Crown careful thought is needed before establishing a new precedent which might have retrospective effects on the other Forces of the Crown.
Being aware of anxiety in this matter, I thought it right and proper to insert in the Bill certain of the most important matters which would be laid down by Regulation so that they would be in the Bill and could not be altered. They are there in the Bill. I assure the Committee on the remainder of these matters that none of them are concerned with more than the normal contents of Army Council Instructions or Army orders designed for administrative or other reasons. I do not think there is anything in them about which hon. Members need have anxiety that the liberty of the subject will be affected or any undue action can be taken. Indeed, I would remind them in passing that some way of allaying their doubts is found in the fact that the Force we are creating is an entirely voluntary one with the ability to leave at one month's notice given in writing.
I realise the anxiety, but supposing we were to alter all this and say. "We will

1621
make this a subject for negative or affirmative Resolution," I think there would be probably quite a few hon. Members—not today, but in future years when some of us may or may not be here—saying that it was established when the most recent piece of legislation concerning administration of the Armed Forces of the Crown was passed that the Regulations consequent on that form of legislation should be subject to negative or affirmative Resolution, so why should it not be the same for the Territorial Army and the Regular Army?
That is a perfectly logical consequence of establishing this precedent. If that were so I can assure hon. Members—I believe that the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), would agree with me, I am not at all sure about the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart)—that if that precedent were followed, and it applied both to the Regular and the Territorial Army, it would embarrass the War Office in its general administration.
I do not think there is anything to fear now that we have put the main points of these Regulations into the body of the Bill. We must remember that this is a small, peace-time Force and a voluntary Force. For those reasons I hope that hon. Members will feel assured in this respect, and will agree not to press the Amendment in view of the concession made to put the more important Regulations into the body of the Bill.
Mr. M. Stewart: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, after saying I trust that I, or one of my hon. Friends interested in this matter, will be lucky in the ballot for the Adjournment soon after the Regulations are produced.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Adams: I wish to put a point to the Secretary of State for War and to the learned Solicitor-General. It is a point on which I have had consultation elsewhere, and one with which I think that on reflection they will agree.
This is a limited Clause. Paragraph (a) defines "duty"; paragraph (c) defines "mustered" and paragraph (b) is
1622
really a qualification, or a sub-division, following paragraph (c). What I would suggest—and it is the point of my two Amendments which were not called—is that the logical arrangement of this Clause should be paragraph (a) and paragraph (c), and then paragraph (b). If they would undertake to alter that round it would improve the drafting of the Bill.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The views of hon. Members on the arrangement of Clauses can very easily differ. I appreciate the view of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Adams), as to the order of these paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). When I came to study the Amendments which he put down on the Order Paper I was extremely puzzled to determine the reason for them, and I am glad that at last he has resolved that doubt.
I am sure the hon. Member will agree that the really important thing is to have the words in the Bill correct. That we have tried to do during these long hours, and we have gone through the wording very carefully indeed. Our view is that the order in which the paragraphs appear in the Bill at the present time is the correct one. The hon. Member does not think that it is. But at least he can be sure that the order will not affect the interpretation of the statute when it reaches the Statute Book. Effect will be given to (a), to (b), and to (c). It will not matter, so far as the interpretation of the statute is concerned, whether (b) comes before the present (c) or the present (c) comes before the present (b). With that assurance, I hope the hon. Gentleman will be content, even though on this occasion he does not get his way about the actual arrangement of the paragraphs.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(EXTENT.)
This Act shall not apply to Northern Ireland.—[Mr. Emrys Hughes.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time"
I am very glad indeed to note the conciliatory mood of the Government. I hope it will extend to this proposed new

1623
Clause and that they will accept it in the same spirit in which they have accepted other Motions. Indeed, the longer this Committee has gone on the more conciliatory the Secretary of State for War has become. He has stressed that the essential part of this Bill is that anybody can resign from the Home Guard on giving 28 days' notice. If that good quality and that qualification in this Bill were extended to other military Measures, I am quite sure that it would be far better for the business of the House.
I suggest that the reasons which the Secretary of State has produced for the establishment of a Home Guard in other parts of the country do not apply to Northern Ireland. For example, I quite understand his arguments about the necessity for some kind of reinforcement, some kind of Home Guard, for East Anglia, because, in East Anglia, as we were told yesterday, there are the strong points, the military and air bases, which, presumably, need additional protection by some kind of armed Force.
I do not see that the strategic arguments that apply to East Anglia necessarily apply to Northern Ireland. There. we have a completely different situation. In Northern Ireland, there is no real danger of any seaborne attack, no really great danger of any other kind of attack, such as we were told may occur in East Anglia, for the simple reason that, whereas in the case of an area which is the centre of a base for an atom bomb attack on the U.S.S.R., as in East Anglia, some kind of additional protection is required, we simply have not got that situation in Northern Ireland.
Ireland is peaceable, and the greater part of it has no re-armament programme and no conscription. It does not represent a menace to anybody, and no Russians or Communists wish to attack it at all. We have to realise that fact as the background to this matter, because I believe that Ireland has the most peaceable Government in the world, and that if we allowed our policy to be based on the same principles which have actuated Ireland during the last 10 years, we could keep out of trouble. If we were not provocative in our actions, there would not be any need for a Home Guard to defend our military installations in this country.
Mr. M. Stewart: I have followed with the greatest interest the hon. Gentleman's argument about Ireland. May I now ask him if he would apply the same argument to Denmark in 1940?
Mr. Hughes: I would be delighted to apply the argument to Denmark in 1940, but we are not establishing a Home Guard in Denmark, and I do not see why I should be remorselessly ruled out of order because the Under-Secretary wants me to be side-tracked. At another time, I am quite prepared to discuss the whole question of Denmark, but Denmark simply does not arise on this Bill, and nobody would be less agreeable if I mentioned Denmark than the hon. Members who sit for Northern Ireland constituencies, who are anxious that we should not be sidetracked into talking about Denmark on a Bill which affects Northern Ireland.
We in this country, apparently, are in danger because of the parachute attack which has been so graphically outlined in the American magazine "Collier's Weekly." In Ireland, there is no real danger of parachute attack by the Russians, and Ireland has the least congenial atmosphere for Communism in Western Europe. The Irish are not affected by Communism, either North or South, and we should get that out of our heads. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin), said in a speech on Second Reading:
"We in Northern Ireland are most grateful that we have been fully incorporated in the Bill."
I can quite understand that in that speech he spoke for a certain section of the population of Northern Ireland. But there is in Northern Ireland not merely one nationality; there are two distinctly opposed political points of view.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Alan McKibbin: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that in the last war sections of the whole community of Northern Ireland were in the Home Guard, Catholics and Protestants.
Mr. Hughes: I do not wish to fall out with the hon. Gentleman on this point, and I am not going to elaborate it because I understand other hon. Members wish to speak. But there is this plain fact that in Northern Ireland we have to meet an entirely different strategic situation

1625
under an entirely different psychology. The point I wish to stress in this debate is that Northern Ireland has a sufficient armed Force already and that there is no reason at all for assuming that what is good for East Anglia is necessarily good for Londonderry and Donegal. The hon. Gentleman said:
"I am confident that the people of Ulster will volunteer in satisfactory numbers for the Home Guard."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November. 1951; Vol. 494, c. 616.]
That is an implication which we should consider very carefully. For example—
Mr. McKibbin: The hon. Gentleman has made a mistake. Donegal is not in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Hugh Delargy: It is the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin), who makes the mistake. Donegal is the most northern part of all Ireland geographically.
Mr. Hughes: I was speaking geographically. I suggest that when the hon. Member for Belfast, East, drew the parallel of the last war and said that Catholics and Protestants were in the Home Guard, that may have been so then, but are we sure that in the present situation in Ireland we would get the Home Guard organised in such a way that Catholics would have equal rights with Protestants? Have they the same rights, for example, in the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Does the hon. Gentleman really suggest that at the present time the situation which exists in Ireland is such that a commanding officer would be able to say to the Catholics, "Come in and join the Home Guard. We can work together in this Force"?
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the first Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland was Sir Denis Henry, a former Tory Prime Minister and a Catholic?
Mr. Hughes: But we are discussing the Home Guard.
Sir T. Moore: Would the hon. Gentleman explain, in the course of his further speech, his sudden and inexplicable interest in Northern Ireland. Is not Ayrshire sufficiently interesting to occupy his mind?
Mr. Hughes: If these digressions are allowed to continue, they will take us
1626
completely away from the Clause. I should be quite prepared to discuss the status and the history of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and, indeed, of every Lord Chief Justice if I knew they were going to be mustered in the Home Guard.
If we set out to establish a Home Guard in Ireland, we shall have in control of it people who represent the political viewpoint of the hon. Member for Belfast, East, and they will simply not admit Catholics into the Home Guard because they will be scared at the possibility of the Catholics capturing the Home Guard.
Sir T. Moore: Nonsense!
Mr. Hughes: At present the proposal to import arms into Ireland and to establish a new kind of military organisation in Ireland will only bring further discord to Ireland, and the idea should not be embarked upon. We are only going to give the Home Guard steel helmets and arm-bands and I reject the idea that a procession of people wearing steel helmets and arm-bands through the streets with the hon. Member for Belfast, East, in front of them is likely to add to unity in Ireland.
Northern Ireland ought to be left out of the Bill. The Government's proposal will only provoke people who have different points of view and will add nothing to the security of the country but will rather create another inflammable irritant in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for War will be well advised to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Delargy: I am very glad to have had the good fortune to catch your eye, Colonel Ropner, because for nearly two years I have been a silent Member of the House of Commons.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Hear, hear.
Mr. Delargy: I hasten to assure the hon. Member that in the next two minutes he will learn that I am silent no longer. I was a Government Whip during the last Parliament, and the only time I got to my feet was to mumble the time-honoured formulæ which Government Whips are accustomed to mumble.
From time to time, however, I made a short speech such as certain hon. Gentlemen would have been delighted to

1627
hear made last night or early this morning, the speech being, "I beg to move that this House do now adjourn." However, times change, and, owing to the geographical disposition of the constituencies in this country, and despite the fact that my party secured far more votes than did the Conservative Party, I now find myself in opposition. However, being in opposition has an advantage, since I can now speak, and it is most appropriate that I should be speaking on the subject of Northern Ireland.
I interrupt myself here to remind the Committee that when I speak about Northern Ireland I do not, of course, mean Northern Ireland at all. The legal term "Northern Ireland" is merely a legal fiction. I have already been obliged to give the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin), a few lessons in Irish geography, and it should be understood that when I speak about Northern Ireland I mean the Six Counties in the northeastern corner of Ireland. I hope that when I use the words "Northern Ireland" hon. Members will remember that it is simply for the sake of simplicity and convenience.
It is fitting that I should be speaking about Northern Ireland because, as is well known to everybody, I know rather more about Northern Ireland than perhaps, any other hon. Member in this Committee. It is a great pity that during the last two years the House has been deprived of my advice on this subject owing to my enforced silence. Even when my own party were in office, they were never very ready at accepting my advice. Because they did not accept my advice and that of several of my hon. Friends, very disastrous results have followed—very disastrous results for Western defence. I hope that the present Government may give more heed to my advice than did my own party when they were in office.
I support the Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I support it most cordially, and for two reasons, one of them a general reason and the other more specific, but both of them very relevant to the terms of the Motion. The general reason is this. I have always protested that any legislation enacted in this House should be extended to Northern Ireland.
1628
I have always maintained that Irish affairs should be administered by Irishmen in Ireland and not by English, Scots and Welshmen assembled here in London. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Irish."] Had that policy of mine been followed, we would not have been debating this Measure tonight; there would have been no need for it. Had that policy been followed, Ireland—all Ireland—would now be a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. She would be playing her full part—
Captain L. P. S. Orr: Rubbish.
Mr. Delargy:—in the collective system of Western defence. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who, normally, is very quiet indeed—I hope we will have the opportunity of hearing him later in the debate—interrupts to say, "Rubbish." The reason given over and over again by the statesmen of the Republic of Ireland why their country did not join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was simply that it was—
The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Ropner): The hon. Member must relate his remarks more closely to the new Clause.
Mr. Delargy: Very well, Colonel Ropner. But I was sidetracked by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South.
I was trying to point out that had Ireland been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation that would have been a far more valuable contribution to our collective system of defence than is this paltry little Home Guard Measure which the Government seek to impose on the people of Northern Ireland. Because Irish statesmen object, quite rightly, to the occupation of part of their territory by an outside force, they cannot be a partner in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
The more specific reason why I support my hon. Friend's Motion is that, knowing the Six Counties of Northern Ireland as I do, I have every reason to assure the Committee that the method of recruitment to this Force, and the purposes for which it will be used, will be such as to be quite outside the scope of the Bill.

1629
My hon. Friend has already pointed out that besides having the largest police force for the size of the area—the largest police force of any country in the Western world—all of them armed, the Northern Ireland Government has also at its disposal another force of trained, armed and paid men called the "B" Specials. These men are carefully chosen. They are vetted for their political opinions. They are obliged to be members of the local lodges of their Orange Order. They are armed, trained, kept on the Government payroll and, whenever the Government wishes, they are mustered and sent out against the civilian population.
Sir T. Moore: That is not true.
Mr. Delargy: If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to interrupt and to tell me why it is not true, I will listen to him.
Sir T. Moore: I said that what the hon. Gentleman said was not true.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Delargy: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement is inaccurate. The Home Guard in Ireland would be recruited on precisely those methods. Volunteers to the Home Guard in Ireland would be vetted as are the "B" Specials, and the police, for their political opinions.
Sir T. Moore: That is not true, either.
Mr. Delargy: They would be used for the purpose of supporting the Unionist Government in Northern Ireland, as are the police and the "B" Specials. I do not think the Secretary of State for War would wish that to happen. In other words, if he had a Home Guard in Northern Ireland it would not be used for the purpose of collective defence; it would be used as a weapon for internal political reasons.
Sir T. Moore: That is not true, either.
Mr. Delargy: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will have time to make a speech. The Rule is suspended and we can stay up all night if we like; but I do not want to detain the Committee.
There are enough guns already in Northern Ireland; we do not want any more there. Since the people in Northern Ireland, who are now said to be clamouring to come into the Home Guard, would not even consent to conscription during the war, I do not know that they are so patriotic as to want a Home Guard at all.
Mr, C. H. Gage: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the Committee. There is no evidence whatever to suggest that the people who went into the Home Guard did not want conscription. Their representatives here voted in favour of it.
Mr. Delargy: I know there is no extrinsic evidence that these people who joined the Home Guard wanted to resist conscription. All I have stated is that there was no conscription in Northern Ireland, and I do not remember any great demonstrations pleading that there should be. I remember that when there was a threat of it there was an enormous exodus of Northern Ireland people over the Border into the South.
I repeat, there are too many guns already in Northern Ireland and it would be very dangerous to introduce any more. I hope this new Clause will be accepted by the Secretary of State.
Mr. McKibbin: A number of the hon. Gentleman's statements were incorrect. One was when he said the R.U.C. were armed. Their arms were taken from them in January.
Mr. Delargy: They had been armed for 20-odd years.
Mr. McKibbin: Another incorrect statement was that about the police vetting the Home Guard and seeing who was permitted to join. I understand that the Home Guard will be administered by the Territorial Army in Northern Ireland and that the police will have nothing whatever to do with who should join.
It seems, perhaps, strange, that the question of whether we should have a Home Guard or not should concern anyone other than Northern Ireland. It does not concern only Northern Ireland, however; it concerns the whole of this country and the defence of Western Europe. The present Prime Minister wrote to our Prime Minister in 1945 saying:
"A strong, loyal Ulster will always he vital to the security and well-being of our whole Empire and Commonwealth."
Field Marshal Viscount Alanbrooke, who was at that time Chief of the Imperial General Staff said:
"Northern Ireland was the bastion of our Imperial defences on our western Front. In

1631
Ulster we had those necessary bases for our Navy and Air Force that protected our Western Approaches—the jugular vein through which flowed munitions, supplies and fuel for the fighting forces."
Mr. Delargy: When the hon. Gentleman uses that very valuable witness, Viscount Alanbrooke, it may be as well to point out to the Committee that he has a certain interest in the matter, being an Ulster man himself and a very close relative of the Tory Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Emrys Hughes Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. McKibbin: I will now quote from General Eisenhower—and he has no relatives there. He said:
"Without Northern Ireland I do not see how the American Forces could have been concentrated to begin the invasion of Europe. If Ulster had not been a definite, co-operative part of the British Empire and had not been available for our use I do not see how the build-up could have been carried out in England."
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) talked the other day about being at five courts-martial because he had been before them, and now he claims more knowledge of what part Northern Ireland plays in British strategy than these famous generals. He should have kept those courts-martial rather dark for if ever a Home Guard is formed in Westminster they will be remembered.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman quoted General Eisenhower. He is one of my constituents.
Mr. McKibbin: The Ulster Home Guard in the last war was a most proficient Force, and in Belfast we had great shipyards, aeroplane works and engineering works to guard that were vital to the war effort. The Germans knew all about them and carried out three disastrous raids on Belfast. If then the Home Guard had been ready to man the "ack-ack" guns—as they were at a later time, when it was too late—many lives would have been saved in Belfast and much damage to property prevented. I hope that we shall not be left defenceless again, as we would be if this new Clause were carried.
Some reference has been made to the Southern Border, but the Irish Republic has no international commitments of any
1632
kind. I do not believe that the people of Southern Ireland would ever attack us or allow their country to be used to attack us if they could possibly help it. I do not forget that when those air raids that I have mentioned took place the Southern Irish sent up their fire engines to help us put out our fires. Our engines, sent over from England, could not do it, because they did not fit the hydrants in Belfast. The firemen and fire-engines came streaming up from Dublin.
A short time ago I was sitting in the lounge of a Dublin hotel and got into an argument. There were some men who were saying that Ulster would have to be attacked, and the argument got rather heated. A lady there said to me, "Do not bother about them at all. Every Saturday night they have a drink or two and then they say they are going to invade Ulster. On Sunday morning they have forgotten all about it; they do not remember a thing about it until the following Saturday night."
Mr. J. Hudson: Would the hon. Gentleman take into account what drink is really like?
Mr. McKibbin: The people of Northern and Southern Ireland understand each other. People like those who are behind this new Clause know nothing about Ireland. I talked to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) two or three months ago, and I asked him if he was any relation of the Delargys of Northern Ireland. He said that he did not think he was. Indeed, he said that he never went to Northern Ireland if he could help it. The only reason he liked to go there was that when he got there people called him Delargy—with a hard "g"—instead of pronouncing it with a soft "g," as it is pronounced in England.
Mr. Delargy: It is true, of course, that I cannot claim relationship with all the Delargys in Northern Ireland. We should be simply congested with them. The reason that I do not go to Northern Ireland is that Northern Ireland does not welcome me. The last time I went there to make a speech they banned the meeting.
Mr. McKibbin: We people in Ireland—North and South—understand each other. Those who have put forward this Motion know nothing about Ireland. I

1633
think that if they left us alone, instead of bringing in Motions like this, we would get on very much better together. In any case, we want to be prepared, and we hope to take our place alongside England should another war occur. I do not see why the proposer of this Motion should try and keep us out of the fun.
Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I think that the Committee would be very wrong if it reproved hon. Members for laughing, but while we can laugh for a moment, I think that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin), that the next war will be fun—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—shows the degree of unreality in which he has approached this Motion. This is not a question of keeping Northern Ireland out of the fun; this is a question of trying to prevent, so far as we can, those stresses and troubles which affect us all, and which lead to deeds of violence of which none of us is in favour. It would have been better had the hon. Gentleman devoted himself to the merits of the proposal before the Committee.
He said that during the war the Northern Ireland Home Guard was a very efficient Force, but I do not think that he realised that it is not proposed to re-create the type of Force which was in Northern Ireland at that time. This proposal is an entirely different one. Let us at least have the argument as to why we should, if there was a very efficient type of Force in the war, now create a quite different one. The argument which I want shortly to address to the Committee, I can put under three headings, which, I hope, hon. Members will really consider seriously.
First, is it really necessary for Northern Ireland to have a Home Guard at all in view of the particular Forces which are at the disposal of the Government there? Second, even if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there may be some balance of advantage in having an additional Force, does he really consider, in view of the various points which I am going to put to him, is politically desirable; and, third, will he tell us something about the constitutional arrangements which have been made for the control of the Force? We had a long debate about what was happening in the Isle of Man, but at least there were some
1634
particular provisions made for the Isle of Man, and Northern Ireland has not been shown even that courtesy.
First, as to whether the Force is necessary or not, may I quote to the Committee what was said by a very distinguished Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament on this subject? Mr. Tom Lyons, who sits for North Tyrone, speaking to the North Tyrone Unionist Association said that he could not see why they needed a Home Guard in Ulster, so long as they had a strong force of "B" Specials. In his opinion they had a permanent Home Guard Force, and he did not see how anyone could call it anything else. The Committee of the North Tyrone Unionist Association was also addressed by Mr. Tom Teevan, and may I say—in parenthesis—that we regret most particularly his absence from this House as a representative from Northern Ireland.
9.30 p.m.
The position in Northern Ireland is unlike the position here, in that there is already a large body of armed paramilitary police. The hon. Gentleman has said that the R.U.C. have been disarmed, but they only number 3,000 as compared to 10,000 armed Special Constabulary. The population of Northern Ireland is not all that large. The actual number of males between the age of 15. which is the lowest age to which we can go for the Home Guard, and 75, which is the highest we can go to, is some 440,000.
Prior to the disarmament of which we have been told, there was one armed policeman for every 35 people in Northern Ireland and then after this reform—the Committee can work it out for themselves—there is one armed special constable to every 33 or 34 of the population. That is the measure of Conservative reform in 22 years in Northern Ireland.
Here is a force which has got a far stronger establishment than has any Home Guard that we are proposing to establish in this country. They have already got a headquarters staff of permanent officials, in that the Special Constabulary have 110 full-time officers. That includes eight commandants—I do not know how many commandants there will be in the Home Guard or what the equivalent rank will be for an area like

1635
Northern Ireland—eight adjutants and three staff officers, a set-up which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, were he on this side of the Committee, might describe as a bureaucratic team to assist them in their labours.
Then there are on part-time pay 371 senior officers, that is to say, 35 district commandants and 346 sub-district commandants. These gentlemen are only part-time and very often they double their job with that of election agent. That is fortunate, because, for example, when the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland came to reply after his election he was able to thank in one breath his election agent and the police who had made all the arrangements for it.
This large staff of part-time persons are armed and employed in the Special Constabulary, and the question I want the right hon. Gentleman to devote his mind to is, irrespective of whose party they happen to be agents of if they are already employed in that fashion, do we need any more of them? The total comes to over 9,600 part-time armed Special Constabulary, who are undergoing training, making a total of just over 10,000 full-time and part-time armed special police. They are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) said, derived purely for reasons of convenience from one political party, thus making the recruiting and social life easier. It also happens that they are all from one religious faith.
Irrespective of party faith, however, it happens that there is already a Home Guard in Northern Ireland in all but name. Why, in those circumstances, do we need another one? If we are to have another one, it will, of course, be composed of the same people as are already in the Special Constabulary unless there is a rule which would apply to Northern Ireland alone that if one was already a special constable one should not join the Home Guard. But whose control is this Home Guard to come under? Is the commandant, because he happens to be the election agent, going to be reduced to the ranks to get into the Home Guard?
All the members of the Special Constabulary are at present issued with arms. If they join the Home Guard are they going to have two rifles instead of one,
1636
or is there any reciprocal arrangement with the Northern Ireland Government whereby they can use for Home Guard duties the rifle which is issued to them by the Northern Ireland Government for their police purposes? Where is their equipment to come from? Are they to have two sets of uniform, a hurrying back from police duties, a quick change over of uniform and then on Home Guard duty? In whose uniform will they be mobilised for the Home Guard, in their police or Home Guard uniform. [HON. MEMBERS: "Arm bands."] Is the arm band to be on the Special Constabulary uniform and is the special constable then to be considered a member of His Majesty's Forces or of the force under the control of the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland. This is not an academic point at all.
Mr. McKibbin: Both these forces functioned under separate control during the 1939–45 war, and would operate under separate control.
Mr. Bing: That is not the only reason. The hon. Gentleman, who is otherwise so pleasant, is always wrong on all his facts. He really ought to read the year's proceedings of his own Parliament. If he would set himself to it, he could easily get through the five volumes and be up-to-date. He should read what the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland said about the control of this Force, when replying, I think to a fellow Unionist Member who had asked him to separate the war-time Home Guard from the police force. He replied that he was sorry but he could not meet his wishes because, as his questioner probaby knew, the police force and the Home Guard were very similar, and were inseparably linked up.
That was the Northern Ireland Force during the war period, when the Home Guard were part of the police force and the police were part of the Home Guard.
Mr. McKibbin: The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong altogether. The new Home Guard that is being formed is not being enlisted this time as police constables but is being enrolled entirely by the Army authorities.
Mr. Bing: That may be so, but why did the hon. Gentleman address an argument to the Committee and say that they were very efficient last time? Why did

1637
he not follow it up by saying: "What a pity that we are not following the same sort of organisation that we had last time"? He cannot have it both ways. We have the members of the "B" Specials—
Commander J. F. W. Maitland: Who are these Specials, and what does "B" stand for?
Mr. Bing: All I can say is that when the Unionist Association saw fit to set up this body, they thought this to be the most appropriate name for them.
They are an armed force, a police who are sometimes on parade and sometimes not, but who have had conferred upon them by law certain powers whether on parade or not. Therefore, the whole constitutional position is one of extreme difficulty and I will now come back to the point with which I was dealing. How is this Force to be controlled? Last time the control of it was handed over to the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland and—if hon. Members will allow me to accept what the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland said as correct on one occasion—control was operated from Belfast.
That could be done in two ways. The Secretary of State for War could either make the Minister his agent and he would have charge of the Home Guard in that way, or else it would be an organisation quite distinct. I must deal with all these problems because unless the right hon. Gentleman is going to prevent enlistment of special constables in the Home Guard he will find himself under great constitutional and practical difficulties about the use of firearms and the shooting of people, which will lead to very great difficulties from the point of view of the law courts apart from any other.
If a special constable has occasion in the course of duty to shoot anyone it is usual to plead the Special Powers Act just as people here, when they cannot pay a debt of honour, plead the Gaming Act. There was a recent case before the Belfast High Court where a constable who had shot someone said he had acted in accordance with the very wide powers granted him under the Special Powers Act. It is true of course that Regulations under this Act have now
1638
been revoked, but there is no reason at all why at any time by a stroke of the pen the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, if he so desires, cannot empower any constable to close any newspaper or arrest anyone.
If these people who are special constables are also Home Guards what is the use of the various safeguards which we have to deal with the conduct of the Home Guard? The whole thing is quite absurd and needs more thinking out, unless the Government are prepared to drop it altogether.
Leaving this aspect aside, whatever are our views about special constables, there are in Northern Ireland sufficient armed forces—10,000 men, of whom 400 or 500 are part-time—for any purpose the Secretary of State for War has in mind. Although the Committee were in a rather hilarious mood just now I hope they will bear with me if I say this seriously—that really the curse of Ireland has been the introduction of private armies. And for the introduction of private armies into Ireland a very heavy responsibility rests upon the party opposite.
I do not have a good word for the Prime Minister very often, but I would not like this occasion to pass without remembering even at this length of time the courageous stand he took against this use of private armies. What is generally not recognised is that this private army was mobilised under the guise of a legal force. People were sworn in, in some cases as special constables and in other cases by various expedients such as licensing by the magistrates under the Unlawful Drillings Act. Therefore, I would have thought it is most undesirable to re-create the conditions in which a private army can be formed.
9.45 p.m.
I do not know if any hon. Member opposite will say that it is undesirable to use force. As the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said in far stronger language than I have implied, it is undesirable to threaten Parliament with force. But that, after all, is what was done by the party opposite under the cover of exactly the same sort of legal provisions as we have at the moment. Let us be a little careful to see that we do not do that sort of thing again.

1639
It is unfortunate that the special constables in Northern Ireland are, in fact, an exclusively political force. Perhaps I may give the Committee one or two examples. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) is not here, because he would remember an incident which took place at his own Election. A number of special constables came out with their arms in order to assist in the proceedings, and when the result of the poll was announced, which they were attending with their weapons, they felt that this was an occasion to discharge them. The matter came to the attention of the authorities because they hit not one of the political opponents but one of their colleagues in the police force.
Sir T. Moore: What has this light-hearted conversation which is being indulged in by the hon. and learned Member got to do with the Home Guard?
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Everything.
Sir T. Moore: I have not noticed it.
The Temporary Chairman: I thought the hon. and learned Member was in order, but only just.
Mr. Bing: I always congratulate myself on occupying that position, if possible.
This is quite a serious issue. It is all very well for hon. Members to shout and roar: "This does not matter. Let us get rid of all these things and leave these people to fight it out for themselves," but we have a responsibility here before we start throwing any more difficulties in the way. These are political forces. I shall not give hon. Members any more examples. I will merely say that these special constables are a political force. Do not let us set up another force which, however much the good will of anybody concerned, is bound to be recruited on the same sort of basis.
If there is anything important in this Bill, and if there is any Clause to which we should have devoted some time, it is surely one which, if it were allowed to remain in its present state, far from securing peace—which I take it is what everybody is aiming at—would result in far greater ill will and bad feeling and would stir up all sorts of troubles and difficulties. I may have spoken long
1640
enough, but one needs to go on for a good long time in order to impress the minds of some people who are prepared to tolerate this sort of thing, come what may, and try and laugh it off.
Mr. Head: In the course of this discussion there have been very many points made on both sides of the Committee. I have listened to all of them and taken note of them. Much of yesterday was spent by some hon. Members suggesting that I was young, inexperienced and ignorant, but I would assure the Committee that I am not sufficiently young, inexperienced, or so ignorant to dive wholeheartedly into Irish politics at this juncture.
I think we have had sufficient evidence during this discussion that in this matter regarding the Home Guard feelings run very high. I do not wish to plunge into the feelings on either side, and I think that so far as the Home Guard is concerned we want to avoid stirring up the ghosts of the past.
Whatever the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) feels about Northern Ireland, whatever other hon. Members feel about the south of Ireland, or what another hon. Member, who was not quite sure of the difference between the north and south geographically, feels, we do not want to get tied up on that side of the matter. What is actually before us at the moment is that this Bill is permissive as far as the Home Guard in Northern Ireland is concerned.
Consultations are taking place about this matter between the Home Office and the Government of Northern Ireland, and I know and can assure the Committee, that the whole of these many difficult and very delicate questions concerning the political aspect, the religious aspect and the police aspect are very much in the mind of the Home Office in those discussions. I think it would be wise for the Committee at this stage to allow those discussions to continue.
What is happening is that the matter is being discussed; no decision has yet been taken and, indeed it is likely, perhaps, that it will not be taken for some time to come. But, as hon. Members know, there has been experience in this matter before and that experience will be borne in mind. I suggest to the Committee that as in this Bill we are discussing

1641
the Home Guard in general and that so far as Northern Ireland is concerned it is permissive, in order to avoid going further into the actual political side of the matter as it affects the north and south of Ireland, it might be as well to let those conversations continue and leave out the proposed new Clause for the time being.
Mr. Bing: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt on that point? Will the matter come before this House again? I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) but I am perfectly prepared to allow the Motion to be withdrawn, on the understanding that the matter will not be taken from the House but that every Regulation which affects the Home Guard will be laid not only on the Table of the Northern Ireland Parliament, but on the Table of this House. These are the kind of problem we ought to try to sort out in an atmosphere, I hope, devoid of any prejudice. Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that before any definite steps are taken in regard to Northern Ireland the matter will come before this House?
Mr. Head: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. and learned Member that immediate assurance because I am not absolutely certain now, at once, what is the exact procedure., but I will undertake to look into it and let the hon. Member know. I cannot give him an answer immediately because I do not know.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(MUSTER BY PROCLAMATION)
The Home Guard shall not be mustered either in whole or in part except by the issue of a Royal Proclamation.—[Mr. Shinwell.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This discussion will hardly be as entertaining as the previous one, but it will be very much briefer, at any rate as far as I am concerned. We are proposing that the Home Guard should
"not he mustered either in whole or in part except by the issue of a Royal Proclamation."
The substance of this proposition, although not in precisely the same terms,
1642
was argued at some length in the Second Reading debate. We say to the right hon. Gentleman that the mustering of this Force can be regarded as a very grave act, only undertaken when there is a serious emergency. The mustering of the Force is, of course, a much more drastic operation than either the registration or, for that matter, the, enrolment of the Force. As the Bill declares in Clause 3 (2, c):
"the expression 'mustered' means mustered for the purpose of resisting an actual or apprehended attack…"
and so on, including resistance to attack. That, in effect, means that this Force is mustered when we are either about to engage in actual hostilities or, at any rate, apprehend such a situation.
It appears to us, having given the matter very careful consideration, that before the Force is actually mustered a Royal Proclamation should be issued. I am not quite certain what is the position as regards the embodiment of other Forces. I am open to correction, but I believe that the actual embodiment of the Territorial Force can emerge only as a result of the issue of a Royal Proclamation.
Mr. Head: For service overseas.
Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I knew it was introduced in some form after the embodiment of a particular Force associated with the Army. It appears to us that for the purpose of mustering this voluntary Force, for such it is, in the event of an emergency, apprehending imminent attack requiring active resistance on the part of this Force, a Royal Proclamation should be issued.
If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the form of words proposed I hope that at any rate he will indicate that it is the intention of the War Office to provide something in the nature of an announcement, even if there as not a Royal Proclamation; because we regard the mustering of such a Force as an act which requires that a proclamation of some kind should be made.
Mr. Head: I entirely appreciate the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman that this act of mustering should have due authority before it takes place. Indeed I appreciate that he would wish to limit

1643
the ability of those who have the power to muster.
The first thing I would point out to him is that this question of mustering is not just a matter of mustering the Home Guard and that then it can carry on. The conception of this act of mustering is that it should be temporary and local. That is to say, were there to be some incident, shall we say in East Anglia, a battalion, or even perhaps a company of the Home Guard would be mustered, perhaps for 12 or 24 hours, to meet a critical situation, and the mustering would then cease. It might be that even weeks or months would go by, and then in another area in the country another and perhaps a slightly bigger portion of the Home Guard would be mustered.
Under certain circumstances this might be going on locally in various parts of the country in regard to varying numbers of men. I suggest that that act of mustering is not susceptible to being made the subject of a Royal Proclamation. If it were so subject, it would be apparent that that would not only cause delay in the event of an urgent and imminent crisis, but might also require endless repetition in small areas all over the country.
10.0 p.m.
Therefore, we feel that as the alerting and mustering of the Home Guard is likely to be on a temporary basis, we propose to lay before the House in the Regulations that this power to muster should be vested solely in the G.O.C., United Kingdom Land Forces and G.O.C.s-in-Cy in the Commands, but no further. I hope he will appreciate that, if it were done by Royal Proclamation, it would lead to endless repetition in the case of very small numbers in small areas.
Mr. Wigg: I must confess that I am extremely unhappy about this, although I see the difficulty in which the Secretary of State is placed. To delegate these powers to the G.O.C.s in Commands is not advisable, because these officers are not always very wise, though experienced, men. I know some I would not trust, and I think the Committee would be very wrong to trust them. I am not impugning their honour, but their wisdom. I think the Secretary of State ought to have another look at this point.
1644
There is a very real difficulty in case of sudden attack, because, obviously somebody must take a decision, but I should have thought that it would have been far better to have vested this power, as the Secretary of State said he would in his Second Reading speech, in the G.O.C., United Kingdom Land Forces. To delegate these powers lower down would mean giving it to men who do not know the overall situation.
Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that question has been considered, but, in the type of conditions that might occur at the start of a war, we should be in the position, in those circumstances, of putting all our eggs in one basket, and if communications, or indeed Headquarters, United Kingdom Land Forces, were to be hit, the whole thing would have gone. We think that some decentralisation to the G.O.C.s in the Commands is desirable.
Mr. Wigg: I think the right hon. Gentleman is going much too far, and I would really ask him to have another look at the matter.
Mr. Head: There is actually nothing between the G.O.C., United Kingdom Land Forces and the G.O.C.s-in-C. in the Commands.
Mr. John Strachey: I see the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty, and I agree with him, that there must be, in time of war, power to muster in the hands of the G.O.C., United Kingdom Land Forces and the G.O.C.s-in-C. of the various Commands, and I do not see that we could improve on that, in view of the possibility of communications being disrupted. What my hon. Friend had in mind was that there should be no mustering of the Force until there had been an enabling Proclamation at the beginning of the war, or when, in the opinion of the Government, war was imminent or a real danger. Then, a Proclamation would be issued, which would delegate the power to muster into the hands of the G.O.C., United Kingdom Land Forces or the G.O.C.s-in-C. of the Commands.
There is something really rather repugnant in the idea of a permanent peacetime power, and in the hands of the Commands. I know that the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that mustering is a purely war-time measure, but that is

1645
not what is in the Bill, and I would very much like to hear his explanation there. What the Bill says is that the Home Guard cannot be mustered unless an attack is apprehended. That wording is very wide. After all, one might say that the whole reason why we are passing this Bill today is because an attack on this country is apprehended, and, in a sense, of course, that is true.
We are carrying out the whole rearmament programme for no other reason than that in the long run an attack is apprehended. No one can deny that. Therefore, it seems to me that the wording is one which covers two quite different meanings of the word "apprehended," and would enable the Home Guard—perhaps the Law Officers would tell me if I am wrong—to be mustered in peace-time whenever the Government thought that an attack was apprehended.
That being so, I should have thought there was a need for a covering Royal Proclamation which would be done once and for all. I quite agree that there could not be a new Proclamation each time a part of the Force was mustered, but I think there should be a covering Proclamation, including the G.O.C. Land Forces and the G.O.C.s of each Command, to muster during the period of emergency, or some words of that sort. Would the right hon. Gentleman have another look at the matter between now and the Report stage but before the Bill reaches the Statute Book to see if something in that way is possible.
Mr. Head: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point. We are not anxious, as I have already said, to vest mustering in a Royal Proclamation for the reason that once again we are restricting ourselves to a centralised method wherefrom, in the event of very sudden and heavy attack, a great deal of dislocation might result. I also appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's other point. He is worried about the word "apprehended." He says that word could be interpreted as being permissive of the mustering of the Home Guard at the present time.
The intention in the Bill is that we should not muster the Home Guard until we have had such information as would make us think that we really could not state these matters in periods of time because we thought that an attack was
1646
going to be made without any formal declaration of war and in the immediate future. "Apprehended" was the best word we could think of to put into the Bill, but if the right hon. Gentleman has a better idea and would care to put it down on the Report stage, I should be only too glad to consider it.
Mr. James Callaghan: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, because this is a difficult matter and one to which we attach quite a lot of importance. He was saying that he thinks it possible that small parts of the Home Guard may have to be mustered at frequent intervals, and that therefore he considers the Royal Proclamation would be a heavy, rather slow and cumbrous instrument to use. That seems to be slightly odd.
Surely, the G.O.C., or whoever is going to have these powers, will not apprehend an attack on Folkestone this week, on Southsea next week, and on Hull the following week. I should have thought it much more likely that an attack would be apprehended on the portion of the country where the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to raise the Home Guard, namely, the area from Flamborough Head to Selsey Bill, in which case the Home Guard would be mustered for that area.
If it were going to be done on that basis, then a Royal Proclamation would not be unduly cumbrous, especially as we are dealing with apprehended attacks to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention. I am only being interrogatory here, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand. How does he envisage it will work out? Surely, we shall have mustering on a wide scale over a large area of the country and will not have a ittle piece here and there from week to week.
Mr. Head: I think the hon. Gentleman is thinking rather in naval terms. I would not say that he is tainted, but only that he is a little bit tarred in that respect. I am not giving away any secrets here because I think that even the most amateur salt cellar strategist would realise that we are not apprehending a seaborne attack on the East Coast.
Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman said "seaborne."
Mr. Head: If I said "seaborne." I meant "airborne."
Mr. Callaghan: It is in HANSARD as "seaborne."
Mr. Head: Was that last night?
Mr. Callaghan: It was during the Second Reading.
Mr. Head: I do not want to argue this, but I think I said "not seaborne except in very exceptional circumstances."
Mr. Strachey: The suggestion is that it is an exception.
Mr. Head: My point is that what we do not anticipate is a widespread mustering of the whole Home Guard, as would have happened had the word "Cromwell" been given in the last war—unless things get very bad or until the Russian Navy steams across the Straits of Dover. Perhaps I should not have said that. It is much more likely, we think, that there would be incidents of parachute raids in various areas, especially the area where the Home Guard is mustered, and if the attacks happened or were apprehended we should get local mustering at various times.
Mr. M. Stewart: I see the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will see our difficulty. Am I not right in thinking that, if the Bill is passed as it now stands in this respect, and if Regulations of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind are made, the position will then be that, from the moment that the Bill becomes law and Regulations are made, the G.O.C.-in-C. in command of the areas of the country could then muster the Home Guard at any time that he felt there was an apprehended attack? That would be the position, would it not? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that?
Mr. Head: That is correct, but I think that in the case of an apprehended attack—I am not trying to split hairs—that information would come from U.K. Land Forces. Subsequently, once war had started, I think we should have to delegate to the G.O.C.-in-C., but in peacetime when the first mustering took place it would have to be left to the decision of U.K. Land Forces; but it would not be done unless he had direct information or intelligence that an attack was likely immediately.
Mr. Stewart: But the position would be that, once the Bill was passed, it would be for military people to decide whether
1648
to muster the Home Guard in any area. What we and hon. Members elsewhere want is that, before we put that power into the hands of professional soldiers, there should be some other step besides the passing of the Bill. There should be, either by means of Royal Proclamation or whatever other means may be provided, a way of saying to the country at large, "We are now in such a state of risk that we are prepared to give these powers to professional soldiers."
Mustering the Home Guard, a civilian Force, is an act with very considerable industrial and political repercussions and that is why we ought not to have it as a permanent part of the law of the land that the power to do this is in the hands of professional soldiers, which is what the position will be if we pass the Bill as it stands.
I suggest that we should pass the Bill, but that it should then also be necessary for the Government of the day to go through a public forum of some kind as a way of saying to the country "We have now, for good reasons and on information available to us, come to the conclusion that we must take the serious step of giving to high-ranking professional soldiers the right of mustering the Home Guard." There ought to be some public form or procedure to be gone through. If a Royal Proclamation is not the right way of doing it, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will see if he can find something to meet the position so that it will not be a permanent part of the law that the professional soldier can muster the Home Guard.
Mr. Head: I appreciate the point. I personally never envisaged—I do not think anybody envisaged—that any portion of the Home Guard would be mustered until, for instance, after mobilisation had taken place, and then when there had been a Proclamation; and I will undertake to see if we can find some form of words to meet the position.
Mr. Strachey: In view of the assurance by the right hon. Gentleman that he will look at this question, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
The Chairman: The Motion and Clause can be withdrawn only by the right hon. Member by whom it was moved.
Question put, and negatived.

New Clause.—(DUTY OF TERRITORIAL AND AUXILIARY FORCES ASSOCIATIONS TO ADVISE ARMY COUNCIL.)
It shall be the duty of the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association in each county to make itself acquainted with and conform to the plan of the Army Council for the organisation of the Home Guard, and to ascertain the military resources and' capabilities of the county, and to render advice and assistance to the Army Council and to such officers as the Army may direct.—[Mr. Swingler.]
Brought up, and read the First time
Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I understand, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that it is your intention to take this Clause and the following three Clauses together. Is that so?
The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, that is so. The Committee can debate the other three with this one.
Mr. Swingler: I am sorry to detain the Committee at this late hour, but it will be agreed that I have waited a long time to move his very important Clause, I am sorry that neither of the representatives of the War Office is here, and I hope that the Patronage Secretary will see that some representative of the War Office is present on the Treasury Bench at some time during the discussion of the Clauses so that we may have a reply.
1664
I see that the Secretary of State has now entered the Chamber. Perhaps I may inform him that we are discussing this Clause and the next three together and that the subject is the rôle of the Territorial Association. I propose to quote from the statement, which has been referred to from time to time during the Committee stage, made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) on 15th November, 1950, when, as Minister of Defence, he answered a Question about the Home Guard. He said:
" The Home Guard will be raised and operated on a Territorial basis, and will be administered by the War Office through the medium of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations. Command will be exercised through normal Service channels."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1950: Vol. 480, c. 1715.]
In his Second Reading speech, the Secretary of State made the following statement:
"…in framing the Bill…we are only following the procedure which was adopted in the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, and in the Army Reserve Act, 1950."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 580.]
I want to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that all the new Clauses that we are discussing are taken from the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907. There is nothing in the Bill

1665
about the machinery for the administration 'of the proposed Home Guard. There is nothing whatsoever in the Bill about the chain of command to be established, and that is a rather extraordinary omission, particularly as the Secretary of State says this Bill was framed on the lines of the Territorial Army Act 'of 1907. One of the important features of the 1907 Act was that it contained an Appendix setting out in detail the exact chain of command and the machinery for the administration of the Territorial Army that was to be established.
11.0 p.m.
The new Clauses are adapted from that Act. What is proposed is, first of all, that the Army Council should have the responsibility for making the plan for the organisation of the Home Guard. I think it will be generally agreed that responsibility for the general organisation of the Home Guard must lie in the Army Council, and that there should be laid upon the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations the duty by which the counties make themselves acquainted with and conform to the Army Council's plan and see how it can best be applied to the counties.
In the second place we propose that certain powers and duties of the Home Guard should be transferred to the Territlorial Army and Auxiliary Forces Association, and one of these new Clauses details powers and duties that could be so transferred, so that the Associations could carry out the organisation of the Home Guard—its recruitment, its training, its accommodation. These proposals are based upon what is set out in the 1907 Act.
In the fourth place we give power to the Army Council to pay to the Associations out of moneys provided by Parliament sums that are required for the organisation of the Home Guard.
I think it will be generally agreed that the Territorial Army and Auxiliary Forces Associations are the appropriate bodies for the organisation of this Home Guard because, in the first place, they are local bodies, and, in the second place, they are representative bodies, representative of employers of labour and representative of trade unions—and the Secretary of State had given us certain assurances in the Committee discussions
1666
about consultations with employers of labour and trade unions in the organisation of the Home Guard.
Here in the Associations we hays, representatives of employers and trade unions who can actually participate in the recruitment, in the administration, and in the organisation of the Home Guard. The Associations should know from this Bill when it becomes an Act what their duties and powers are, and they should know what the chain of command is, and what powers are transferred to them and the financial arrangements made.
There may be some hon. Members, apparently, who are not very interested in these matters, in which case, I suggest, it would be better if they withdrew from the Committee. I suggest that the hon. Members—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite have no need to get excited. [Laughter.] There are Members on the back benches opposite who are laughing, and—
Sir Albert Braithwaite: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to ask Members to withdraw from the Chamber?
The Deputy-Chairman: No, it is not in order to 'do that.
Mr. Swingler: I did not ask any Member to withdraw from the Chamber. I said that as it was obvious that some hon. Members opposite were not interested in this discussion, perhaps it would be better if they withdrew from the Chamber to carry on their conversations. I take it, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that I am quite entitled to make that statement when it is perfectly clear that some hon. Members opposite are not interested in the discussion.
The Deputy-Chairman: I appeal to both sides of the Committee to be good enough to keep to the new Clause which is before the Committee.
Mr. Swingler: I have been endeavouring to explain, as concisely as possible, what is contained in these four new Clauses. It is surprising, in view of what we have so often heard from Gentlemen who sit on the benches opposite, that not one hon. or hon. and gallant Member on the other side has put down any Amendment whatever to the Bill in relation to these things. Such is their concern for the Territorial Association and the role of

1667
the Territorial Army, and their knowledge of the 1907 Act, that no one has been concerned to see that in the Bill, as in the 1907 Act, the chain of command should be established which I have indicated.
We, on this side of the Committee, consider that this should be laid down in the Bill. We have been concerned that certain other things should be laid down in the Bill, and we are glad that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to lay down certain terms of service which were not explained when the Bill was first presented. We have made progress, as the Committee has proceeded, by having other things explained and embodied in the Bill.
The Secretary of State has been very reasonable and conciliatory on these matters. He claims that the Bill is based on the example of the Act of 1907, and he is certainly concerned with the development of the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations. I am sure that he intends to use those Associations as agencies for the establishment and recruitment of the Home Guard. I ask him either to accept the new Clauses or to produce, on Report stage, in order that this organisation may be set out in the Bill as it was in the 1907 Act.
Mr. Head: I appreciate the intention which has inspired these four new Clauses. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) is correct when he says it is our intention to use the Territorial Association for the administration of the new Force.
Once again, hon. Members putting down new Clauses or Amendments have drawn freely on the 1907 Act, and it is a compliment to that Act that it has been referred to so constantly during the discussions. But I would point out that ample legal authority already exists to do all that is suggested by the new Clauses in Section 2 of the 1907 Act and in Section 3 (1) of the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces Act, 1949.
I do not think the Committee would wish me to weary it by reading out the Regulations in full, but to make the point clear to the hon. Member may I say that it is stated in Section 2 (1):
" It shall be the duty of an Association when constituted to make itself acquainted with and conform to the plan of the Army
1668
Council for the organisation of all the military forces within the county."
As is laid down in the Bill, the Home Guard will be part of the Armed Forces of the Crown and, therefore, clearly, of His Majesty's military forces.
The Act to which I have referred is, in effect, automatically attracted into the Bill in view of the liability of the Territorial Association for the military Forces within the county. The Act of 1907 and that part which applies to the Act of 1949 are both automatically applicable to the Home Guard and it therefore follows that the content, and, indeed, more than the content, of the new Clauses are attracted into the Bill. I suggest that there is no need for anxiety on the point, because that Act is legislation on which we shall build our administration of the Home Guard through the Territorial Association. I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw the Motion.
Mr. Swingler: In view of the statement made by the Secretary of State, that this is already covered by the 1949 Act. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

SUPPLY
REPORT [21st November]
CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1951–52
  CLASS IX

    VOTE 15. MINISTRY OF MATERIALS (TRADING SERVICES AND ASSIST ANCE TO INDUSTRY)
    Resolution reported:
    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.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

RAW MATERIALS
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: We have, in two days, had a certain amount of what I venture to call almost indecency in the treatment of this House, but have we now reached the point where a Supplementary Estimate for, nearly £48 millions is to be the subject of no comment of any sort? I had hoped that when the Minister responsible had had the elementary courtesy to tell the House something about the Estimate for which he seeks approval—[An HON. MEMBER: "He is not even present."] Well, if he is not here, we must move the adjournment of the House.
Time was when this honourable House was famous for the attention which it paid to the allocation of even three or four shillings; when even that amount was not passed without full examination. It is quite monstrous that we should be asked, with all the time we have available, to pass this £47 millions odd without even being told what it is all about. Is there no Privy Councillor on the Government Front Bench? I am at least glad to see that one of the Whips has arrived, and he should whip up some of his Ministers to see that this House is treated with the courtesy which is its right.
Had a Minister been present to inform us on this matter, I was going to ask about the position with regard to the Consolidated Fund Bill. That Bill is not yet available in the Vote Office, because I have been there recently, and I am seeking the guidance of the Chair on a matter which deeply concerns hon. Members. This Bill is due for discussion on Friday morning, and here we are, within half-an-hour of Thursday, and no Bill is available to hon. Members.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Those remarks are not in order on this matter.
Mr. Hale: I was not suggesting that. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it is a matter of very considerable concern, and—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It cannot be raised upon this Motion.
Mr. Hale: Then, can I move the adjournment of the House in order to consider the point which I have tried to put? We are told by the Leader of the House that the Consolidated Fund Bill
1670
will be introduced on Friday morning. We do not know and surely we are entitled to know whether the Consolidated Fund Bill will deal only with the Estimates moved on the Report stage, or with the the other Estimates which are referred to on page 2 of the White Paper.
I am glad to see you have returned, Mr. Speaker? At this moment I 'am trying to seek the guidance of the Chair on a matter which to me appears to be vital. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is proposing to reply to me.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): Yes.
Mr. Hale: Then I shall direct my question to him and hope for a reply. The figures of the Supplementary Estimate presented to us are shown in a summary on page 2. On page 3 other Supplementary Estimates for 1951–52 have been presented. I do not know, and I have sought to find out, whether or not these are the figures which are to be in the Consolidated Fund Bill to be produced sometime between now and Friday and presented for Second Reading on Friday. It would help if the hon. Gentleman would reply to that now.
Mr. Strauss: I would point out to the hon. Member that he is quite wrong in thinking that there has been any discourtesy to the House in this matter. I am not making any statement about the Consolidated Fund Bill on the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimate now before this House. As the hon. Member may be aware, that Estimate was very fully discussed on 21st November when it was presented by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade, who is not able to be here tonight, and approval was given to the Estimate by hon. Members, including right hon. Gentlemen the Opposition Front Bench. The custom on these occasions, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, is that when the Question is put from the Chair any hon. Member can raise any point he wishes.
If any point had been raised tonight I proposed to reply to it. My hon. Friend had notice only of one matter, which came from the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), and had he been in his place and raised the matter I should have endeavoured to reply to him. Apart from that, there is nothing here that has not

1671
been fully discussed and explained to the satisfaction of the House and of right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench. I did not rise in the first place to make a speech, because that is not in accordance with the custom of the House.
Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. I would point out to him, however, that this was discussed for one hour and one minute on the previous occasion, which is £800,000 a minute. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that that is full discussion I am not prepared to argue about it.
What I did ask the Minister who replied, and what I am entitled to be told even if it is not strictly relevant to the debate, was about the Consolidated Fund Bill. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, are concerned about the rights of private Members, and I am making the point—and if necessary I will move the Adjournment of the House in order to deal with the matter properly—that the Consolidated Fund Bill is not available in the Vote Office at this moment.
We are told it is to be discussed on Friday morning at 11 o'clock. Surely I am entitled to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how I am to put down Amendments to a Bill I have not seen, and about items which I do not know if they are included or not. How is it possible between now and Friday morning at 11 o'clock to deal with these matters if they are not explained to the House and if no Minister is willing to explain them? It is a serious issue and this Bill raises large sums of money. I cannot get any information about it. Some of us approached you, Mr. Speaker, a day or two ago and we asked how it was possible to deal with these matters in proper form in accordance with the Rules of the House between now and Friday morning.
Mr. Speaker: The Consolidated Fund Bill cannot be printed unless these Resolutions are passed, because it is founded upon them. So, there is no way in which the hon. Gentleman can discuss the Consolidated Fund Bill. All he is entitled to discuss is the particular sums mentioned in the Resolutions which are to be reported. That is the business Before the House. To discuss the Consolidated Fund Bill is out of order.
Mr. Hale: I appreciate that, Sir, and I do not doubt the accuracy of your Ruling. If that be so, these Estimates could not be discussed on the day preceding the presentation of the Consolidated Fund Bill. If this debate goes on for half-an-hour on the day preceding its discussion, we shall be in the position that we are forced to discuss a Bill on Friday morning dealing with several hundred million pounds of public money without ever having seen it before it was presented to the House. Surely I am entitled to ask Ministers why are we put in this position? Why are we asked to deal with it in this way? What is the explanation? What is the urgency? What is the need and what machinery do they propose to provide to enable us to exercise that right?
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that even if the hon. Gentleman does ask Ministers for the information, they would be out of order if they tried to reply.
Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I hesitate to intervene, but we are in some considerable difficulty. I do not know if we could get your guidance, Sir, in dealing with this difficulty? There is no obligation, I understand, for any one of these particular Votes necessarily to be included in the Consolidated Fund Bill. I think hon. Members on all sides would be prepared to let the discussion pass now on the assurance that these matters might come into the Consolidated Fund Bill. The hon. Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, has given no indication of which particular items the Government is proposing to introduce in the Consolidated Fund Bill which is coming up on Friday. It is difficult for hon. Members to prepare what they are going to say, within the rules of order, if they do not know which of the various items are to be combined together. If it is possible to indicate all the items which are to be included in the Bill, this discussion now could come to an end.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House, or the Chancellor, if he cannot give the assurance my hon. and learned Friend asks? We are in a difficult position. We all appreciate it is largely on account of the proceedings on the Home Guard Bill taking longer than was expected by the Government which, no doubt, is the main explanation that there is this difficulty

1673
that we are discussing the Supplementary Estimates on the Report stage, while tomorrow we have to discuss the Consolidated Fund Bill. If the Leader of the House could give the assurance asked for, we could pass on to the next Supplementary Estimate, to which some of us attach a good deal more importance.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I am very glad to oblige the right hon. Gentleman, but I ask him to remember that, on Thursday, I did say what was going to be in the Consolidated Fund Bill when I gave out the business. That was that this Consolidated Fund Bill would cover all the Supplementary Estimates brought in during this Session.
Mr. Hale: Does that include all those on page 3 of the Estimates?
Mr. Crookshank: If what is on page 3 of the Estimates was introduced during this Session, and I presume it was, the answer is, "Yes."
Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS IX

  VOTE 16.—MINISTRY OF MATERIALS (STRATEGIC RESERVES)
  Resolution reported:
  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.
  Resolution agreed to.

CLASS 1

  VOTE 4. TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS
  Resolution reported:
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, he 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 Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

NEW MINISTERS (SALARIES)
11.30 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: We had a debate on the Committee stage of this Estimate, and at this time I do not propose to go over all the ground again, but I did ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a number of questions and he was not able at the time to answer more than a very few of them. He may perhaps have observed that "The Times" newspaper, in a leader, recently referred to this matter and suggested that these questions might be answered today. Perhaps I might read what The Times" said on this:
"The many detailed questions which Mr. Gaitskell asked on Wednesday, and with some justice complained had been left unanswered by Mr. Butler, are important. There will he another opportunity in the House of Commons next Wednesday."
The leader goes on to refer to two of the criticisms which we made on that occasion, and I think I cannot do better than continue the quotation which will also serve to refresh the memory of the right hon. Gentleman and of the House. The leader continues:
"The precise value of Lord Cherwell's analysis and interpretation of statistics for the Prime Minister is not easy to discern. nor can one be very clear about the functions of Sir Arthur Salter in his rôle of Minister of State for Economic Affairs, though it would seem that the over-riding responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nowadays an important requirement, may prove to be intact."
Perhaps I might refer to the main questions which we are much concerned with in these appointments. So far as Lord Cherwell is concerned, I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister whether he was going to be in a position where he would advise the Prime Minister on economic affairs. The House will recall that on the Committee stage the Prime Minister rather brushed aside the criticisms which I ventured to make on the ground that he was concerned with purely statistical aspects, and I asked him whether he was, nevertheless, going to be concerned with economic matters. I am bound to say I got what can only be described as an evasive reply.
I would like, therefore, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I appreciate it may be a rather embarrassing question for

1675
him—whether Lord Sherwell is going to advise the Prime Minister on economic matters with the help of a special staff for this purpose, and, if so, what is the purpose of having a second special economic unit in addition to the economic section, in addition to the Central Statistical Office, in addition to the Treasury, in addition to the right hon. Gentleman himself. I hope we shall have a clear answer in which the right hon. Gentleman will give us his views on this peculiar situation.
As to the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, I am bound to say that what lie has said to the House in the right hon. Gentleman's absence in Rome has filled us with some concern. I dare say the whole proceeding will have been reported to the Chancellor, and he will appreciate that, at any rate, there is certainly some need for some co-ordination inside the Treasury. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, in passing, be able to explain away the peculiar pronouncements which the Minister of State has been making in his absence.
Apart from that, I would again ask whether the Minister of State for Economic Affairs is to have anything to do with the central economic planning, whether he is concerned in any way with the raw materials allocations or the investment programme, or whether he is to confine his activities solely to overseas finance.
This brings me to one other question closely associated with it, which the Chancellor said he would endeavour to answer if I put a Question down. He will recall that I was pressing him on the arrangements for settling the investment programme, at headquarters—central decisions. He said that if I put down a Question he hoped to be able to give me the necessary information. He will understand that in his absence in Rome there would have been no particular purpose in putting a Question down, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer this evening and give the House some indication of how the new Government structure will deal with this important issue.
Third, there is the question of the overlords. I asked a number of detailed questions about their functions, and I would sum them up by putting to the right hon. Gentleman this fairly general question. Are these supervising Ministers
1676
in another place really Departmental chiefs, or not? Are they solely concerned with co-ordinating any differences of opinion, any common problems which may arise between the Ministry of Transport on the one hand and the Ministry of Fuel and Power on the other? Or are they supervising Ministers, and if they are supervising Ministers, to whom are the civil servants of those Departments responsible?
I do not wish at this late hour to prolong the proceedings, but I hope that this evening we shall get some adequate replies to these important questions.
11.38 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am only too glad to reply to the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. He assumed a modesty which we have come to associate with him by not referring to his own letter in "The Times" newspaper today which occupied the greater part of a column, and which I read with my early morning non-Continental breakfast—having returned to England—with the greatest pleasure. His speech this evening was more terse and succinct than his letter, and as many hon. Members wish to catch their evening trains I propose to be somewhat brief myself, though, I hope, to the point.
I think I will leave "The Times" newspaper and revert to the Floor of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman asked one or two questions about my noble Friend, Lord Cherwell, the Paymaster-General. To please "The Times" newspaper, which appears to govern the actions of the right hon. Gentleman and also to give information to the House, I had better follow literally the notes I have taken with great care of everything the right hon. Gentleman has said.
He asked whether Lord Cherwell is responsible for economic affairs and for giving such advice as he can on those affairs to the Prime Minister. The answer is that he is not responsible for economic affairs, and, to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman, he has no special economic unit. The Paymaster-General has a small personal staff, and, taking up again "The Times" leader, he is there to help my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, of whose mind he has special knowledge.
It is an open secret and well known to all who know how the mind of the

1677
Prime Minister works, that for many years he has in emergencies—many of them of grave national importance—relied on the personal help and advice of the Paymaster-General. He hopes that in the emergency we are now inheriting from the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends opposite, to rely again on the advice and help he is likely to get from the Paymaster-General.
Mr. Gaitskell: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House whether it is the case that Lord Cherwell's staff will include a very distinguished economist who was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech on Committee stage, namely, Mr. MacDougall, and if he is not really to have anything to do with economic affairs why is this distinguished economist being employed?
Mr. Butler: The answer is quite simple. The fact is that that distinguished economist is one of the members of Lord Cherwell's staff. That does not mean that the Paymaster-General has the monopoly of advice on economic affairs with the Prime Minister. I may also tell the House, as the right hon. Gentleman seems determined to cast an air of mystery round some arrangements which are really quite normal, that that particular economist is in close touch with the Treasury and with my own personal economic adviser, of whom he happens to be a close personal friend; and who, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well, emanates from the University of Oxford. I have nothing to do with that at all. I only regret that my own personal adviser should emanate from Oxford and not from that ancient seat of learning, Cambridge, from which I emanate myself.
I hope that that will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman and show him that in helping the Prime Minister, which is the major duty of the Paymaster-General, there is the most intimate liaison between the two Oxford economists, one of them being in the Treasury and the other serving the Paymaster-General himself.
I do not think I need go any further into the duties of the Paymaster-General. I believe that he will be of great service to the Prime Minister. As I told the right hon. Gentleman on the last occasion, the surprising part about this Government is
1678
that we all work together on the most close and friendly personal relationships, and, therefore, we are not in the unhappy state of mind, which the right hon. Gentleman has so plainly exhibited this evening, of being in a perpetual state of doubt and irritation with our own colleagues.
Passing on to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, he is fulfilling an office and duty very similar to that which the right hon. Gentleman himself fulfilled when he was Minister of State in a previous incarnation. I do not know why all this mystery and cloak of extraordinary characteristics should be cast round the very able and genial personality of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs.
The position, as I see it, is that I am aided as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Treasury by two colleagues of singular ability: the Minister of State for Economic Affairs and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am very fortunate in the help that I receive, and I am helped by my colleagues in a certain degree. The Financial Secretary occupies himself with the classical duties of the Financial Secretary, which I need not define to the right hon. Gentleman as, I believe, he knows even more about the Treasury than I do yet. I hope shortly to have as much knowledge as he once had. I need not, therefore, define the duties of the Financial Secretary.
In regard to the duties of the Minister of State, I am quite certain that he will be of great help, not only to me but to the Government, and I have really nothing to add to what I said previously, namely, that he is going to have some special duties involved with the exchange position and with overseas finance, but that he will, so to speak, have the run of his team in the Treasury in interesting himself in the various aspects of work which arise out of the Treasury.
It has always been my practice, ever since the former Home Secretary and the present right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), was my Under-Secretary in the Ministry of Education, when any Ministers served with me that they should have absolute access to all the papers, including, if they like, my own private papers, in order that they may

1679
work with me as colleagues and I may have their support and they may have mine. That is the answer to the whole mystery that the right hon. Gentleman attempted to create about the Minister of State for Economic Affairs. He is one of my trusted lieutenants and one of my collaborators.
Mr. Gaitskell: The only mystery was the mystery created by the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to disclose information. There is only one question I have asked and which the right hon. Gentleman has still not answered. It is a very simple one, and I am sure he can answer it. Has the Minister of State for Economic Affairs any special connection with economic planning? That is the question I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When I was appointed to that office I had a very special connection with it, and so did my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in the late Government. I merely asked whether the Minister of State has the same sort of function.
Mr. Butler: The particular unit to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was established some time ago and continues within the Treasury. My right hon. Friend has as much access to it as I have.
Mr. Gaitskell: Nothing special?
Mr. Butler: No, nothing special. The position is that he is a Minister within the Treasury and that the responsibility for Treasury policy and the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer devolve upon my shoulders. I fully realise now the burden that they involve. I am aided in that task, and I do not withdraw from the responsibility of fulfilling that task the Minister of State for Economic Affairs from any particular sector. I do not think there is any mystery on this matter, and I am looking forward to his help, as I have had it in the past.
The next question the right hon. Gentleman asked was about the investment programme. The Chairman of the Committee which looks after this vital question is a member of the Economic Staff and in the Treasury, and he is, therefore, directly responsible to me and, therefore, I must assume direct responsibility. I hope that is a straight answer and that it will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.
1680
Now we come to the fascinating question, which reminds us of ancient Egypt, and perhaps modern Egypt, of the overlords or pashas to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Here, again, he has attempted to weave round these personalities, these singularly able and devoted public servants, a whole tissue of extraordinary ideas. He asks whether they are solely concerned with co-ordinating or have any supervisory functions at all. I endeavoured to give one or two instances of possible co-ordination in my last speech. I mentioned, for example, the question of transporting coal.
There are one or two other matters in co-ordination like the business of oil supplies, the business of fuel for transport, and the inter-related effect of various price increases, such as miners' wages on coal and, therefore, on rail freights, and vice-versa. In all these sort of questions it is absolutely vital to have the services of my noble Friend because he can save Departmental Ministers and the Government considerable difficulty.
I will take it further. The right hon. Gentleman said that it seemed a pity to have Co-ordinating Ministers' Cabinet committees. We all know the passion of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for the committee system. We too, have preserved the main structure of the committee system because it obviously relieves the Cabinet of much day-to-day responsibility, but we found that when we had in the sphere in part of which the right hon. Gentleman was previously engaged the noble Lord who is involved in this Supplementary Estimate, it saved much of the work of the. committee owing to the work of coordination he is able to do before matters go to the Cabinet committee, and in these few weeks we have been able to accelerate the business and work of the Cabinet committee.
I will be frank with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that when he was debating this he was right in saying that there must be some element of supervisory functions as well as co-ordination. That showed the shrewd perception of the right hon. Gentleman. It is obvious that when an overlord is placed in an important position there must on occasions be an element of supervision, and it would be fairer of the right hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that there are certain functions which are in addition to

1681
the functions of co-ordination, namely, help to the Ministers concerned in these Departments, which can be performed by the overlords.
It would be out of order to mention the question of food and agriculture, but on this Supplementary Estimate it is in order to mention the question of transport, fuel and power, and I am in order in saying that the Ministers concerned are only too glad to have the help of this singularly distinguished statesman, who rendered such noble service in the war and whose experience in these matters is almost unrivalled in our country. It is of great value to our Government to have this personality in our midst to help us in the many different problems that arise.
I have gone in a detailed manner through the questions which the right hon. Gentleman put. Even "The Times" newspaper would find it difficult to say that I have not answered the right hon. Gentleman's points. I would only conclude by saying that the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough in his letter in "The Times" newspaper this morning to say that this debate must be limited, and, therefore, those pundits throughout the country who write in our periodicals, particularly at week-ends, who want to criticise the structure of government should await an occasion when I should be in order in describing the whole structure of government in that majesty that we can do it on this side of the House. If I were in order, I would then be able to do full justice to a fascinating subject and be able to silence the right hon. Gentleman for ever.
11.53 p.m.
Mr. Edward Shackleton: I shall not detain the House more than two or three minutes. It is obvious that the Chancellor has not enjoyed the experience of an all night Sitting on the Committee on the Home Guard Bill, as his right hon. Friend did. I should like to refer particularly to his reference to the Paymaster-General, Lord Cherwell. This is a propitious occasion to discuss this subject because, in the absence of the Prime Minister we can, I hope, discuss it calmly, without rancour.
We should like to know the answer to certain questions. Perhaps the Chancellor, who has concerned himself mainly with answering points put by my right hon. Friend on economic matters, would
1682
also answer questions with regard to the functions of the Paymaster-General in the field of defence. Perhaps he would deal with them on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
I am not quite clear what is the function of the Paymaster-General alongside the position of scientific adviser to the Minister of Defence, and I hope we shall have an explanation of this, because it appears that duplication is possible. It is obvious that the real function of the Paymaster-General arises because, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he has a special knowledge of the Prime Minister; in other words, he is the Minister for the Prime Minister.
This is surely a unique innovation in British constitutional history—that we should have a Minister charged solely with interpreting the mind of the Prime Minister to his Cabinet colleagues. I am not going into the question of the astrologers, but I do suggest that the Chancellor did make a rather indiscreet remark in making that suggestion. I hope the Prime Minister will have normal conversations and traffic with his colleagues and Parliament, without going through a Minister who has special knowledge of the Prime Minister.
11.56 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has replied to certain points put by my right hon. Friend with unexpected grace and eloquence, and most attractively, but with the minimum of information. So far as I can judge there are questions still not answered. Some reference was made to the very remarkable and rather portentious statement made by the Minister of State for Economic Affairs on Friday, and when the right hon. Gentleman said that documents were available to all his Ministerial colleagues one wondered whether the HANSARD Report of Friday's debate had been made available to the right hon. Gentleman—who really must have read it, and read it with fascinated interest, but, possibly, I think, with a certain sense of foreboding of things to come.
My right hon. Friend suggested that any future Minister of State would be allowed only to speak in a Secret Session. The observations he did make on Friday have been spread throughout the world, and everybody knows them. When we are discussing Estimates of this magnitude

1683
we are entitled to have a reply to the question whether this was just a sort of observation that can be thrown out by a junior Minister on a Friday without our attaching too great importance to it, or whether it really was an advance note of the policy of the Government.
I understood my right hon. Friend to ask that question. We have had a great deal of discussion of some letter that appeared in a newspaper this morning. It is not a newspaper that I read, and, indeed, if I did I doubt whether I should read the correspondence column. But we are discussing financial questions of some magnitude and importance, and I suggest we should have an answer on that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), made a point of some constitutional importance. We have had presented to us a Minister who is appointed not because he knows the Prime Minister—that explains the appointment of the Minister of Supply—but because he has a special knowledge of the Prime Minister's mind—in other words, he is a specialist in that matter. It must be a very fascinating attribute that we should like to share it with him, especially when the Prime Minister is one we like and admire, to be able to find out how his mind works; and to know how his mind worked in the last three weeks, when he was making this series of fantastic Government appointments, would be a contribution to common knowledge of the deepest interest, in which all of us in this House would like to share. But the point at the moment is not about the Prime Minister's mind. What we want to know at the moment is, who knows something about Lord Cherwell's mind? It is exceedingly important that we should know because we are told that he is the backroom boy who is to provide the advice which will provide the basis of the thinking we are told His Majesty's Ministers contemplate embarking upon on 7th December.
What is the range of thought and opinion that Lord Cherwell will supply? I thought it was to be purely scientific, but we now gather that it will have an economic side. We are entitled to know to which particular school of this curiously astrological science Lord Cherwell is attached and to what form of economics he is about to subscribe.
1684
In the unfortunate absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Rome, in the last 48 hours we have heard some most astonishing economic theories. Indeed, the Financial Secretary has provided an astonishing theory in the course of the debate today—that we increase rents to reduce the cost of living.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I can only say that I did not say that, although I am not responsible for the hon. Gentleman's understanding.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that would be in order on the Report stage.
Mr. Hale: I should not wish to go wide, of course, but I heard the hon. Gentleman say—and this is material to the Estimate—that when people paid more for their money it remained, quite constant, in a public fund and never reached those who lent money to the public fund. That is a substantial matter about which the Chancellor will perhaps say something in the near future, although it may not strictly be in order on this debate.
The House is anxiously waiting, even at this late hour, to know what was the purport of the observations, on Friday, of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, how far they were authorised, whether he has been on the mat since for making them or whether he has been applauded for giving some indication of the sort of life we shall have to lead in the months that lie ahead.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

CLASS I.

  VOTE 27. SCOTTISH HOME DEPARTMENT
  Resolution reported:
  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.
  Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

  REPORT (21st November)
  Resolution reported,
  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 he granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
" to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-two," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (INSURANCE POLICIES)
11.59 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move,
That the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Friendly Society Life Policies) Regulations, 1951 (SI, 1951, No. 1408), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd August, 1951, in the last Parliament, be approved.
I hope that we shall be allowed to discuss this and the subsequent Regulation together, as they raise identical points.
Mr. Speaker: I am agreeable to that course.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know whether the House wants a lengthy explanation of the Regulations. I understand the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), wishes to say a word on
1686
them, I hope in approbation. They were made under the last Government, and the approval of the Treasury was indicated by two hon. Gentlemen opposite. Their purpose is to lay down the procedure under which reservists called to the Forces are able to obtain protection for their insurance policies. There are two Regulations to cover different categories of policies, and they are simply machinery for carrying out what was the obvious intention of the House when, earlier this year, the relevant Bill was passed into law.
Mr. Alfred Robens: So far as this side of the House is concerned, we shall certainly approve of these Regulations, especially as we were responsible for drafting them, in the main, and I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends will come to a decision without further comment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Industrial Assurance, &c., Policies) Regulations, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 1407), dated 2nd August, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd August, 1951, in the last Parliament, he approved.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Mr. John Hay discharged from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and Mr. Higgs added.—[Mr.. Drewe].
Mr. Jay discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. John Edwards added.—[Mr. Drewe.]

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]
Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes past Twelve o'Clock a.m.

ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Permanent Commissions
  Permanent Commissions
  Leconfield Gunnery School (Transport)
  Leconfield Gunnery School (Transport)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Recruiting
  Recruiting
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  BARBADOS (FACTORY INSPECTOR)
  BARBADOS (FACTORY INSPECTOR)
  HONG KONG (EMERGENCY REGULATIONS)
  HONG KONG (EMERGENCY REGULATIONS)
  SINGAPORE POLICE FORCE
  SINGAPORE POLICE FORCE
ROYAL NAVY
  Foreign Service Allowances, Hong Kong
  Foreign Service Allowances, Hong Kong
  Canned Vegetable Contracts, South Wales
  Canned Vegetable Contracts, South Wales
  Casualties (Gratuities)
  Casualties (Gratuities)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Cheese, Bacon and Eggs (Prices)
  Cheese, Bacon and Eggs (Prices)
  Confectioner, London (Licence)
  Confectioner, London (Licence)
POST OFFICE
  Overseas Forces (Air Parcels)
  Overseas Forces (Air Parcels)
  Money Orders, Arlingham
  Money Orders, Arlingham
  Mail Deliveries, Leeds
  Mail Deliveries, Leeds
  Building Restriction Scheme
  Building Restriction Scheme
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Ministry of Supply (Trunk Calls)
  Ministry of Supply (Trunk Calls)
  Stoke-on-Trent
  Stoke-on-Trent
  Birmingham and Solihull
  Birmingham and Solihull
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Radio Interference, North Lincolnshire
  Radio Interference, North Lincolnshire
  Cinema Projection
  Cinema Projection
  Regional Programmes (Wavelengths)
  Regional Programmes (Wavelengths)
  SOUTH AFRICA (BRITISH PROTECTORATES)
  SOUTH AFRICA (BRITISH PROTECTORATES)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Services' Clothing (Contracts. Yorkshire)
  Services' Clothing (Contracts. Yorkshire)
  Brabazon Aircraft
  Brabazon Aircraft
  IMPORTS OF FLOWERS
  IMPORTS OF FLOWERS
  POLICE COLLEGES (APPOINTMENTS)
  POLICE COLLEGES (APPOINTMENTS)
  KOREA (BRITISH PRISONERS)
  KOREA (BRITISH PRISONERS)
  CIVIL AVIATION (AIRPORTS, ACREAGE)
  CIVIL AVIATION (AIRPORTS, ACREAGE)
  HOUSING (DEPTFORD)
  HOUSING (DEPTFORD)
  YORKSHIRE ELECTRICITY BOARD (CONVICTION)
  YORKSHIRE ELECTRICITY BOARD (CONVICTION)
  COAL SUPPLIES, BIRKENHEAD
  COAL SUPPLIES, BIRKENHEAD

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.35 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have a short statement to make on future Business. It has been necessary to rearrange our programme, in view of the fact that we shall not now receive the Home Guard Bill from another place to-night. Instead, I have been told that, to meet your Lordships' convenience, we may expect to receive the Japanese Treaty of Peace Bill and the Public Works (Loans) Bill this evening. Noble Lords opposite have kindly agreed to our taking the Second Reading of the Japanese Peace Treaty Bill, and possibly, also, of the Public Works (Loans) Bill to-morrow (Thursday) afternoon, November 29, when we shall meet at 2.30 p.m. There will be a formal Sitting on Friday, November 30, to receive Bills from another place, and we shall meet on Monday next, December 3, at 4 p.m. to take the Second Reading of the Home Guard Bill and of the Public Works (Loans) Bill, if we have not already dealt with the matter to-morrow, Thursday.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I should like to ask a question in reference to the Japanese Peace Treaty Bill. There are certain documents which will be of great interest and importance. There is the mutual agreement between Australia, New Zealand and the United States for Pacific defence, and there are no doubt other documents showing what are the military arrangements between the United States and Japan, made under, I think, Article 8 of the Treaty. Is it possible to have those documents made available to noble Lords before to-morrow?
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I will see what I can do in that matter.

CATERING WAGES ANOMALIES
2.38 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have under consideration the anomalies resulting from the Catering Wages Act, 1943, with a view to the introduction of amending legislation, if necessary.]
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House is unable to be present here to-day and asks me to make his apologies. I have been asked to reply on his behalf to this Question. My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and National Service is waiting to hear further from the Catering Wages Commission on certain questions arising out of their Report on the operation of the Act in the hotel industry, and will then review the matters involved.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, I should like to ask His Majesty's Government to remember that the matter is now one of extreme urgency. All over the country at the moment, clubs, small hotels and boarding houses are up for sale, and there are no buyers. Moreover, seasonal unemployment is rising rapidly.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may we have an assurance from the noble Earl that the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Derwent will really be considered. In view of the fact that over 600 hotels between the English Channel and the Scottish Border are on the point of closing, this seems to be a matter of great urgency. The operation of this Act is killing both hotels and clubs.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, are not matters under the Catering Wages Act decided between the two sides of the industry; and, therefore, will it not be their business to see that satisfactory arrangements are made?
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I agree.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that the noble Earls, Lord Munster and Lord Crawford, be added to the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices.
Moved, That the Earl of Munster and the Lord Wigan (E. Crawford) be added to the Select Committee.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, motion agreed to.

SPRING TRAPS BILL [H.L.]
2.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to begin with an observation which I am sure will be entirely non-controversial. I have only just learned that this is the seventieth birthday of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and as I am the first speaker, perhaps, even from this humble position, I may be allowed to offer him my respectful congratulations. I very much regret that the exigencies of Government business made it necessary to advance the date of this discussion by one day. The supporters of this Bill were, of course, glad to accommodate themselves to His Majesty's Government—in fact, they had no option in the matter. I greatly regret, however, that several noble Lords who had hoped to be here to-morrow to speak or vote in favour of this measure are unable to be present to-day, and I have no doubt that there are some noble Lords present this afternoon, whether to oppose or support the Bill, who are here at considerable additional inconvenience.
I daresay that a considerable number of your Lordships present to-day were in this Chamber, as I was, when a similar Bill was moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Tredegar, in 1935. The Second Reading of that Bill was defeated by 46 votes to 42. To-day, we know a great deal more about both rabbits and gin traps than we knew then, for serious research into rabbit ecology virtually began in 1937. I have been refreshing my memory—as, no doubt,
548
have some of your Lordships—by glancing at the arguments used in the course of that debate sixteen years ago, and I am bound to say that a number of them appear to me to have been founded, even then, on insufficient information. And I must add that it seems to me that scarcely any of them will stand up in the light of the greatly increased knowledge which we possess to-day. I think it would be fair to say that the general tenor of the opposition to the Bill sixteen years ago was that gin traps were admittedly and regrettably cruel but that, most unfortunately, there was no satisfactory alternative; and, therefore, gin traps were still indispensable to agriculture.
At the outset, therefore, I wish to make it clear that the supporters of this measure found their case upon two entirely separate and distinct propositions. In the first place, we remind your Lordships of the deliberately chosen words in the Report of the recent Scott Henderson Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals:
"The gin trap is a diabolical instrument which causes an incalculable amount of suffering Its sale and use in this country should be banned by law within a short period of time."
Many of your Lordships may think, as I do, that in view of the very strong words used by this Committee the Government themselves might well have taken this measure out of the hands of private persons altogether. We say that even if the only case against the gin trap were the incalculable suffering which it admittedly causes, even if it could be shown that it was the most effective means for the destruction of rabbits, we should still not be justified in condemning over 30,000,000 rabbits every year (that is a figure to which I shall refer in a moment) to prolonged suffering. But that is only half the case. We also say that, by now, there is overwhelming evidence that the gin trap positively increases, vastly increases, the number of rabbits in the country. It would be necessary, even if there were no humanitarian case for it at all, to ask for the abolition of the gin trap in the interests of agriculture itself. In other words, what we are saying is not that this is a terribly cruel instrument, and that, in the cause of humanity, farmers must put up with an addition to the rabbits on their farms, but that this is a diabolical instrument which causes incalculable suffering and should be abolished

549
on that ground alone, and that there is an almost equally strong case against it in the interests of agriculture itself.
Before I go further, I would remind your Lordships that it is backed by the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare, by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and by the Royal Society for the Protection of Wild Birds. We had better be quite clear—I expect all your Lordships are, but I admit that it puzzled me a little at first—about the distinction between the spring trap and the gin trap. The spring trap is the genus and the gin trap is the species. Or, to put it into English, the spring trap is the family of which the gin trap is one individual and very disreputable member. The gin trap is the black sheep, as it were, of the spring trap family. The spring trap is any trap operated by a spring. It may be used as a humane trap to kill outright. In some instances, I believe it may conceivably be used as a humane trap to capture, by imprisoning, a small mammal. Or it may have teeth and jaws—in which case it is a gin trap, captures animals alive and, inevitably and invariably, mutilates them. The gin trap is the disreputable species within the spring trap family whose characteristic is to possess jaws or teeth, to capture animals by these jaws or teeth and to mutilate them in so doing.
It is curious, if one looks back to the eighteenth century—which is about as far back as our knowledge of gin traps goes—that we find them in use predominantly against human beings. They were employed by land owners to "catch poachers"; and that equivocal use remained legal until 1827, when it was abolished by the Spring Guns Act of that year. It is quite interesting and entertaining to read the debate on the Second Reading in another place of the Spring Guns Act of 1827. All the familiar arguments against this sort of reform were employed. Members said they would resist the proposal because it was based on "morbid sensibility." It was said that the amount of human suffering after the abolition of the man-trap would be much greater than before. However, the mantrap was abolished, and I do not know of any evidence that anyone seriously regretted it. In 1880, there was passed an
550
Act which permitted tenant farmers to trap but not in the open; and then, in 1911, came the Protection of Animals Act, which required trappers to visit their traps in daylight once every twenty-four hours. Neither of these measures has in fact proved enforceable—a fate which has also befallen the Prevention of Damage by Rabbits Act, 1939, which similarly forbade trapping in the open. Then there was Lord Tredegar's Bill, the Gin Traps (Prohibition) Bill, of which I have already spoken. Still later came the appointment of the Mersey Committee. And since 1937 a great deal more has been learnt about the rabbit and his ways, about methods of destruction and about the consequences in general of using the gin trap. But no special research was really needed to prove that the gin trap is an abominably, a devilishly cruel instrument.
It is not easy to know how to approach this matter. I am anxious not to create the impression that noble Lords who support this measure have a monopoly in disliking cruelty; I recognise that noble Lords who will oppose the Bill dislike cruelty as much as I do. I am anxious, also, not to create the impression that the case for this Bill rests solely on the devilish cruelty of this instrument. Nevertheless, the dimensions of the cruelty which it causes show how richly it has deserved the epithet of "diabolical." One of the numerous researchers who have been working on this problem on behalf of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, in co-operation with the Oxford Bureau of Animal Population, has taken a random sample of the rabbits killed in one trapping campaign in Carmarthenshire. She found that, of 222 rabbits, every single rabbit had a broken leg, and 73 had two legs broken. When one introduces a Bill of this kind one receives a great deal of correspondence. One lady wrote to me—her letter is typical of many who have told me of their personal experiences with regard to gin traps. All emphasised the horror of the lingering death of the victim. This lady said that she was walking one day in rough country when she came across a stoat in a trap, badly mangled but still alive. She did her best to release it but was unable to do so. She went home for assistance, but when she came back she was unable to find the trap or the stoat. She searched for some considerable time and then returned home. Two days later,

551
she found the trap in the same neighbourhood—with the stoat still alive. I am aware, of course, that not all animals suffer for as long as that. As I have said, the law requires a visit to traps every twenty-four hours. Commercial trappers probably do visit their traps every twenty-four hours during the beginning of their campaign, but there is abundant evidence that towards the end, when the rabbits begin to thin out, they visit their traps far less regularly. The casual trapper—by which I mean the man who is not a professional—is always much more irregular in his visits. It may be worthwhile reading to your Lordships a sentence or two from some evidence given before Lord Mersey's Committee—I quote it because it illustrates this point of the lingering death. This evidence, which appears in paragraph 514 of the Committee's Report, was given by a manufacturer of traps, who in this context was concerned to point out that the commercial trapper probably does not want the rabbit killed outright. This is what he said:
"… I do not think the trapper wants the rabbits to be killed outright. I mean by that that the trap might be put down in the evening; the rabbit might be killed in the early evening and perhaps the trapper visits the trap early next day; the rabbit might have been dead in the trap for twelve hours; what would be the condition of the rabbit for the market? If he were killing it from the point of view of a pest or vermin, that would be all right; but from the point of view of the market, I do not myself consider … that the trap will be satisfactory."
It is estimated that more than 30,000,000 rabbits are killed every year in this way. That figure, which is probably an underestimate, is derived from the known figure of the sales of these traps, plus certain returns we have from trappers showing the number of traps they have used in a particular season and the number of rabbits they have caught in them.
It is difficult to imagine 30,000,000 deaths of this kind in a year. One has to realise that this means that every night throughout the winter months at least 200,000 living creatures are lying in these traps throughout the hours of darkness. Rabbits, of course, are by no means the only form of life caught in these traps. I should like to read your Lordships a sentence or so from one of the answers to one of the questionnaires sent out some years ago by the old University of London
552
Animal Welfare Society. This is from a man who has been a trapper for forty-four years. Incidentally, he starts his evidence by saving that experience has convinced him that trapping increases the number of rabbits. He says:
"The cruelty is very great indeed. I am very particular in attending to the trap at least twice during the day, and often once about an hour after it gets dark, but when I am going around and see others that often leave rabbits to stay for days at a time in the trap it makes the matter much more cruel. My opinion is that there is only one way to stop it, and that is to do away with the gin altogether."
Then this witness gave figures, which I think will interest your Lordships, showing the various animals found caught in traps. One season's figures were: rabbits, 9,240; stoats, 28; cats, 25; hedgehogs, 12; birds, 312. And then came the significant footnote:
"Also numerous other creatures such as foxes, badgers, dogs, etc., which I don't enter on the list."
And, of course, we have evidence of the capture in these traps of every kind of bird, ranging from the golden eagle to the blue tit. In one small garden, thirty blue tits were caught in the space of a few weeks. It is reckoned that more than 100,000 cats are caught every year. In addition, we have all heard of fox hounds returning home across great distances, mangled and exhausted, dragging one of these traps. Even sheep and cows have had their tongues caught in these instruments. There is no doubt that it is a diabolical instrument.
What is surprising is that so few of the general public know anything about it. During the last few weeks, a few neighbours of mine—I am a country dweller—have happened to learn that I had something to do with a Motion on gin traps; and not one of the three or four who have spoken to me on the subject had ever heard of a gin trap before. Admittedly, this is a part of the country where gin traps are not much in use; but I am fully persuaded that, if a living creature in one of these evil things could be exhibited for a week in Trafalgar Square, by the end of that week there would be such an outcry from the country that the Government would be compelled to take this measure out of the hands of Back Benchers and place it high on the list of official Bills.
Cruelty, though the chief ground and the ground on which I should prefer your

553
Lordships to condemn it, is by no means the only case against this instrument. There is the case on behalf of agriculture itself. Here we have to start from the premise that the rabbit is not a source of food but a pest. Luckily, I am able to refer your Lordships to a Conference at the Ministry of Agriculture in July of last year, at which there were present representatives of the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association, the National Union of Agricultural Workers and the Transport and General Workers' Union, as well as various official persons, and they unanimously agreed to the following resolution:
"The wild rabbit is a serious pest to agriculture and forestry, and its destructive capacity far outweighs its value as food."
I should like to add that one of the researchers, a Miss Phillips, working on behalf of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, has proved that, in addition to its attacks on food, the rabbit has a remarkably deleterious effect on pasture, vastly reducing the proportion of grass and clover and vastly increasing the proportion of inedible weeds. I do not think we need any longer regard the rabbit as a potential source of food.
The popularity of the gin trap is, of course, due to the fact that it catches the rabbit alive for sale. Trapping has become a vast industry in many parts of the country, particularly in Wales, Devonshire and Cornwall. And it has actually caused an immense increase in the rabbit population of those areas. To take one, and perhaps the most conspicuous, public example; before the First World War Pembrokeshire was comparatively free from rabbits, except on the coast. During that war, rabbit trapping brought good profits and the steel trappers extended through Pembrokeshire and Western Carmarthenshire. The farmers of Eastern Carmarthenshire would have nothing to do with the gin trap, with the result that in the middle nineteen-thirties, Pembrokeshire and Western Carmarthenshire swarmed not only with gin traps but with rabbits, while Eastern Carmarthenshire was comparatively free. Since then, unfortunately, both the gin trap and the rabbit have spread into East Carmarthenshire too.
May I give your Lordships an example from one of the many replies to a questionnaire sent out some while ago by
554
the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare? This reply is from a farmer in South Devon who says:
"My experience amply confirms your claim that rabbit-trapping is responsible for increasing the number of rabbits. I know areas where rabbits were scarce before trapping was introduced and since then the rabbit population has increased enormously. The above facts are so well known in this district that many farmers are now abandoning their old custom of having their rabbits trapped."
I might also quote to your Lordships a passage from art article by Sir William Beach Thomas, whose writings in the Spectator many of your Lordships have probably enjoyed:
"If you forbade the steel trap, which makes things easy and profitable for the professional trapper in proportion as it is cruel, you would see a steady decrease in the rabbits of the country. These men encourage rabbit production. The tenant or owner who lets out the right to take rabbits must hold his own hand. The trappers release a certain number of does; and it is the common experience that where trapping for profit is most systematically carried on, there the population of rabbits continues to be greatest. The conclusion of the whole matter is plain: abolish the steel trap. Rabbits would decrease, not multiply."
So much for the association between rabbits and gin trapping. Let me now suggest the reasons for that association. There are three, of which one is incomparably the most important. It is first suggested, a very obvious suggestion, that the gin trap makes away not only with the rabbit but with its principal enemies, the fox, the stoat and the like. I do not lay undue stress on that argument, because I understand that the ecologists are not entirely certain as to the quantitative aspects of the relation between the predator and his prey. It seems very probable, but I understand that it is not entirely certain.
The second reason, though not the most important one, is that the commercial trapper gets rid predominantly of the buck rabbit, because the buck rabbit feeds on the surface where the gin trapper, in contravention of the law, places his traps in the open. The doe spends her time underground, and escapes. Let me quote figures as to an attack on rabbits after a commercial trapping campaign on a certain estate. After the trapper had left, when ferrets and other methods were used, 75 per cent. of the rabbits killed proved to be does; and, of course, it is a well-known physiological fact that a predominance of the female animal leads

555
to excessive breeding. The third and chief reason, I have not the slightest doubt, why the gin trap produces a plague of rabbits is that it is all to the interest of the trapper to skim the cream off the market, so to speak, and then to move on to another area. When the rabbits begin to thin, or he finds that they have fled from the area he is trapping, he moves on. It no more pays him to exterminate rabbits than it would pay a butcher to exterminate sheep. Rabbits are his livelihood.
May I now quote some figures from one of the researchers to whom I have already referred, relating to commercial trapping campaigns in Carmarthenshire in the years 1947, 1948 and 1949? Miss Phillips used Lincoln Indexes, which, as many of your Lordships know, imply that the researcher catches a rabbit, marks it and releases it; and then, when the commercial trapping campaign is over, the researcher examines every rabbit killed and so discovers what percentage of the marked rabbits are among those killed. Miss Phillips found that in 1947 the trapper had killed only 37 per cent. of the rabbits; in 1948, he had killed only 40 per cent., and in 1949, only 32 per cent. The survivors, about two-thirds of the stock on the estate, not only survived but flourished. In the next breeding season there would be two fat rabbits, instead of two half-starved. I do not think that your Lordships need doubt that a prime cause of the rabbit plague is the practice of the commercial trapper to trap off quickly the easily caught rabbits and leave about two-thirds of the stock behind to breed.
Nor do I think that your Lordships will dissent from a passage which appeared in a letter written to The Times some while ago by Major Hume, the Chairman of the Universities Federation For Animal Welfare, who has done probably more research on rabbits, and has done more to bring about the passage of this Bill than anyone else. He wrote:
"Trapping, born of labour shortage, hard times, and slovenly farming, is no more compatible with healthy agriculture than with Christian ethics."
Well, my Lords, what in effect we are doing, at the price of an immense aggregate of suffering, is bringing about widespread deterioration of agriculture. If I may adapt a sentence which I believe
556
was spoken by the first Earl of Chatham in one of his American speeches, that is not the price which I would pay, neither is this the thing which I would purchase.
It may be said that that is all very well so far as commercial trapping is concerned, but what about the process in which most members of this House are more interested—namely, rabbit clearances? My Lords, the Oxford Bureau of Animal Population and the Universities Federation of which I have spoken have done a great deal of research in these last four or five years, and they are quite convinced that by far the most effective means of getting rid of rabbits is by cyanide gassing. I am well aware that in its early days cyanide gassing gained a rather bad name, partly because there may have been inexpert handling and partly, I am bound to say, because on some estates it was handled by employees who had a vested interest in the maintenance of some rabbits on the estate. But it has, I think, been irrefutably shown that cyanide gassing is instantaneous and humane, and that it does not poison the carcase or make it unfit to eat. Anyone who is fit to kill rabbits with a gun is fit to poison with cyanide gas. Cyanide gassing is a difficult art, but it is not so difficult an art as shooting. Admittedly, there are certain areas where it is not practicable to use gassing, such as cliffs, scrub, and woodlands with heavy undergrowth. I do not want, nor am I qualified, to go into details on matters about which your Lordships know much more than I do. I can only refer you to Instructions for Dealing with Rabbits, seventh Edition, September, 1951, published by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. All I would say is that traps are never any use unless you can find the hole or rabbit run, and if you can find those then there are always other methods to be used.
Some of your Lordships may feel that I have been speaking only about researchers and laboratories, and that I have not referred to the problems of the practical land owner. May I read you a sentence or two from a letter which I received yesterday from the noble Earl, Lord Stradbroke, who unfortunately cannot be here this afternoon, recounting his experiences, without traps and using gas, on his estate? I do not for a moment suppose that the noble Earl would claim

557
to be in close touch with the latest results of research, but here we have the evidence of a practical land owner using his own strong common sense and organising ability to tackle this problem. He says of his estate:
"… by and large, the 600 acres of potential agricultural land were feeding a stock of rabbits large enough to enable, on an average, 4,000 a year to be killed without any diminution of the stock. On taking over the estate about eighteen months ago, I decided to abolish both gins and rabbits. In spite of vigorous protests from the gamekeepers, my shooting tenant and my farm staff, all of whom have some vested interest in seeing some rabbits about the place, I went ahead.
"Now I cannot claim to have yet rid my land of rabbits, but it is significant that two lots of Scouts who camped here this year, one at Whitsuntide, one at August Bank Holiday, immediately remarked on the absence of rabbits: 'What have you done with all your rabbits?' Also a friendly butcher, who has for years come over at harvest time to help shoot and buy all the harvest-killed rabbits, found this year that we had so few that in spite of their high value in cold storage it was not worth his while to drive over the four miles to get them.
"The methods I have used to do the job are mainly ferreting and shooting, and gassing. As regards the latter, I was repeatedly told that gassing would be no use on my sandy land with its large burys. Indeed, after a time began to wonder whether that was not after all right. But I found the clue to success was to give the job to the only employees who have a vested interest in the complete abolition of every rabbit off the place—namely, the woodland staff. I found that they were 100 per cent. for gassing and did a very good job with it under very unfavourable conditions."
Later in his letter the noble Earl says:
"As regards humane traps as approved by the R.S.P.C.A., I have had these tested and they are 100 per cent. sure killers, but rather cumbersome and awkward to set where space is restricted; further research is needed, as there are a few places, but only a very few, where gassing and ferreting may not be quite effective."
My Lords, we do not admit that traps are necessary except for commercial exploitation, which in any case should be ruled out once it is admitted that the rabbit is not a source of food supply but a pest. But for those who do desire spring traps there are several in existence. There is the Sawyer trap, which is backed by the R.S.P.C.A., and there is a version which, I understand, is being experimented with by the Ministry of Agriculture; and there is the Miller trap, backed by the Scottish S.P.C.A. Admittedly, these traps have been
558
having "teething troubles," if that is an appropriate metaphor for a trap, the essential characteristic of which is that it does not possess any teeth. As an example, the Miller trap was a 100 per cent. sure killer at its trials, but inferior steel had been used for its springs, and these rapidly wore out. The springs are now being replaced with more highly tempered steel, and so far as its mechanism goes the trap should be a success. But the real point is that if the gin trap were banned, then, for the first time, manufacturers would have some incentive to produce a substitute. As was said in a leader in the Field on October 6 last,
"It has often been said that though the gin is deplorable it has to be used because there is no efficient substitute. In so far as this is true, it is only because there has never had to be an alternative."
I do not want to detain your Lordships unduly, and I will now say a few words about the Bill itself. The first clause deals with definitions. I have already mentioned the two essential definitions. The second clause appears in a different form from that which it appeared in the version of this Bill which was printed in July—I need not go into the difference here. The present Bill prohibits only the gin trap; that is, only the cruel trap. The effect of Clauses 2 and 3 together is to prohibit the gin trap and to apply the present Scottish law to England by enabling the Minister to permit trapping in the open with an approved or humane trap. Trapping in holes is, of course, already legal, so the effect of this measure will be to wipe out the gin trap, and to allow the humane trap, the approved trap, to be used either in the open or in the rabbit hole. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 4. The penalties in Clause 4 were, I think mistakenly, copied from those in the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. Money has changed its value a good deal since then, and I think we should have taken them from the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951. Your Lordships will note that in Clause 4 we prescribe a maximum fine of only £5 for a first offence. A great deal of money is made out of commercial trapping, and I see that the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) Act prescribes a fine of £50 or imprisonment not exceeding three months. And whereas

559
we prescribe for a second offence a fine not exceeding £25 or imprisonment not exceeding three months, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) Act prescribes a fine of £100 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. But that is a matter which, if this Bill should reach the Committee stage, your Lordships would perhaps consider.
Finally, your Lordships will notice that the Bill gives two years' grace. If it becomes an Act it will not come into operation until 1954. That is intended primarily to give manufacturers time to produce a humane trap. I will not detain your Lordships by meeting the argument—I can, if necessary, deal with it on another occasion—as to what will happen to the trapper if this Bill is passed? The same question was asked when the employment of climbing boy chimney sweeps was prohibited at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and the answer is very much the same.
I think that that is all I need say to commend this Bill to your Lordships. I believe that the Government are going to say—very politely, no doubt—that this Bill is premature, that time should be given for discussion, for consultation, for exploration of avenues. Well, my Lords. I am sorry if we have been impatient, but it is sixteen years since a Bill of this kind was last before your Lordships, and about four months since its first version was printed. And this great aggregate of cruelty and waste is a matter on which it is difficult not to be impatient. I have tried to show your Lordships that it is a matter of self-interest to abolish the gin trap in order to get rid of the rabbit plague, and also a matter of duty to abolish it in order to reduce this great total of suffering. We all know that even the most gifted among us are often unable to see where their interest lies—the whole course of politics is evidence of that. Yet very simple folk are able to see what their duty is, and I think that wisdom, both in politics and in life, lies in doing one's duty and trusting in Providence that it will prove to be to one's interest, too. I believe that there is little doubt where our duty lies in this matter. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2ª.—(Lord Elton.)

THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION
3.23 p.m.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I would ask your leave to make a Statement regarding the British Broadcasting Corporation. Your Lordships are already aware that the Charter and Licence of the Corporation expire on December 31, 1951. The Government have given preliminary consideration to the recommendations of the Broadcasting Committee, to the Memorandum on the Report presented by the late Government in July last, and to the views expressed in the debates which took place in your Lordships' House and in another place in the same month. The Government feel that it is impossible for them to reach final decisions on the important issues involved—particularly on those matters on which criticisms were expressed in the debates—in time for a new Charter and Licence for a term of years to operate from January 1, 1952. Your Lordships will realise that when decisions have been taken, some time is required for the drafting of the documents and for the proceedings in Parliament.
The Government propose, therefore, to recommend to the King that a new Charter should be granted for a period of six months so as to afford reasonable time for the examination of the terms of a longer-term Charter, and for consideration by Parliament. A new Licence covering this period will also be issued. The short term Charter and Licence will incorporate the provisions of the documents now in force except for a variation in the financial arrangements. In the present economic circumstances, the Government have decided to adopt from January 1 the proposal of the late Government that the Parliamentary grant to the B.B.C. should be at the rate of 85 per cent. of net licence revenue and the new Licence will accordingly provide for that percentage to apply for the extension period. The Government propose to recommend to His Majesty reappointment of the Governors for six months, ending June 30, 1952.
VISCOUNT JOWITT: My Lords I am grateful to the noble Earl for making that statement. I confess that I do not think the attitude which he is adopting

561
is at all unreasonable. Of course, he will agree that uncertainty is very undesirable, and it is essential that at the earliest possible moment the Government, when they have had time to consider the conflicting issues involved, should announce definitely what their policy is to be. In the meantime, so long as they are following faithfully in the footsteps of their predecessors, I have no complaint to make.

SPRING TRAPS BILL
3.26 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords although I am the second speaker in the debate on this Bill, I hope that I may be allowed to tender a most respectful message of congratulation to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. I should like also to take this opportunity of congratulating in public my noble friend Lord Carrington on the office to which he has been appointed, which I am sure all your Lordships are glad to see him hold.
I am grateful for the Opportunity of supporting my noble friend Lord Elton this afternoon. His Bill, as your Lordships are aware, is designed to prohibit the use of the gin trap. In this country, the gin trap is used principally to destroy rabbits. In regard to rats and other vermin, without taking your Lordships further than you wish to go, I would say that there is some measure of agreement that alternative methods may be employed. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to address myself solely to the aspect of the gin traps as it affects the destruction of rabbits. I have heard it said that those who support this Bill are sloppy sentimentalists. If a sloppy sentimentalist is a man who ruthlessly destroys every rabbit that he sees, either with his own hands or by employing someone else, the only thing restraining him in his desire to kill the maximum number of rabbits being that he should inflict the minimum of suffering, then I am a sloppy sentimentalist. And I am a very bad one. I imagine there are a great many other noble Lords in my position. There is, in fact, a real measure of agreement on much that lies behind this Bill.
Every member of your Lordships' House with any knowledge of the subject
562
realises that the damage done to our food production by the rabbit is something that cannot easily be calculated. I do not think that any one of your Lordships would get up and suggest that we should relax in any way, whatever, the war we wage against this unmitigated pest. I think that, having gone as far as that, I can go still further, for I feel sure that there is no noble Lord present who, in waging that war, would want to inflict more pain than he need. I have heard it said as an argument against this Bill that other methods than the gin trap are cruel. Of course this is so. I have no desire to weaken my case by claiming that other methods are humane. Any method of destroying rabbits can cause great suffering at times. Ferreting may involve great suffering. No doubt shooting with a 12 bore shotgun by experts is humane—but rabbits can be wounded. One of the cruel ways of shooting is with a 22 rifle using ammunition which lacks the necessary killing power. An unskilful shot will penetrate the rabbit from one side to the other, and the animal will be able to run away. This is not the case where the American high-speed rifle ammunition is used. Snares are cruel. I am not sure that the humane snare, which is knotted and holds the animal alive, is not more cruel than the other, which either kills the rabbit or holds it so it does not struggle.
In admitting these things, as I must, if I desire to present this matter fairly to your Lordships, I must stress that all these methods are designed to kill the rabbit. When they inflict cruelty it is by accident, not by intention. But the gin trap is not designed to kill: that is the very thing it is not meant to do. In fact, it maims and mutilates every living thing that touches it. It is not necessary for me to elaborate on the suffering that this instrument causes. If anyone spends a night in a country where rabbits are being freely caught by this method, and if his body and spirit are not deaf to the sounds he hears, he will find it an experience that he will not be anxious to repeat. I would add that the cruelty of the gin trap is increased by the fact that all too often it is not visited regularly. A keeper brought to my notice a cat which had been caught by its leg and which had been left in the trap for a week or ten days, perhaps, until it died.

563
Nobody cared and apparently it was nobody's business to care.
That brings me to the question of whether we can do without this trap. Can it be avoided in view of the damage that the rabbit does, and of the urgent need to increase our food production? There are noble Lords present this afternoon who have far wider experience of this problem than I have, but I ask your Lordships to believe that I have earnestly applied myself to this problem. I have not merely read literature about it: I have tried out on my own land, within the limit of my own modest acreage, every known alternative method of killing rabbits, with the exception of the long net; and now I can claim that, although I may not know as much as many noble Lords, I do know something about the problem and the difficulties which it involves. One thing I can say without hesitation, and I am sure your Lordships will not contradict me, is that it is necessary to have cooperation with one's neighbours. There is no method of rabbit destruction, be it what it may, that will keep down this pest if neighbours will not play their part. Unfortunately, I am speaking with some bitterness, because I have a neighbour who does not co-operate and as quickly as I eliminate my rabbits, an inexhaustible stream pours in once more. In regard to trapping, I would say that it tends to kill the bucks and leave the does. The reason is fairly simple. In the breeding season which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington will agree, is the time when we want to increase the warfare against rabbits, the buck is forever moving. He goes from burrow to burrow in search of fresh mates, but the pregnant doe clawls out of her burrow and sits grazing. Her chance of being caught is much less than that of the buck. Therefore, from practical proof, we can say that the trap is by no means a certain way of completely eliminating rabbits. But if we are driven to the position—I do not say that we are, because I have not enough experience—where we must accept a trap, surely we must also be driven to the position where we accept a trap which is recognised to be humane.
I was privileged to be present in your Lordships' House when this matter was discussed some sixteen years ago,
564
although I did not venture to take part because I had not then the knowledge which would have entitled me to do so. That battle was closely fought, but the day was lost by those who supported the Bill. It was lost for two reasons: first, because many noble Lords agreed with the noble Lord. Lord O'Hagan, that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into this matter and, secondly, because no alternative method of trapping then existed. To-day the position is completely reversed. The Committee appointed to inquire into cruelty to wild animals have unanimously reported against the use of the gin traps. I venture to suggest to noble Lords, whatever their views may be, that this is the Committee which, without hesitation. found in favour of the principle of blood sports, and that noble Lords who may be against this Bill may want to think again before they vote against its findings.
I now come to the alternative trap. I have tried only one on my land—namely, the Sawyer trap. Again, I have no wish to weaken my case by making out that this trap performs more than in fact it can. The Sawyer trap is rather heavier than the gin trap, and is not an easy one to set. I should not care to try to set it myself. But, once the trap has been set, my experience is that it catches and kills rabbits. I have never known a rabbit to be wounded by it. If it is not out of place for me to do so, I should like to make a strong appeal to those of your Lordships who, for good reason—and no one disputes that their reasons are not of the best—feel constrained to use the gin trap. It is that whatever the fate of this Bill may be, they will make sure that the men they employ see that the traps are regularly visited. I also beg them to give one of the approved humane traps a fair trial, to see whether, in fact, it does what is claimed for it. I am hopeful also that my noble friend Lord Carrington will tell us that improvements have been made in these traps.
One other argument has been put to me against this Bill. It is asked: what is the good of stopping trapping here or of cutting it down, or of killing rabbits in such a way that they cannot be eaten, when we import rabbits caught by cruel methods from other countries? That

565
argument surely cannot convince anyone who thinks clearly. For already other countries have forbidden the use of the gin trap. Norway, Austria and Germany have stopped it. I suggest to your Lordships that a good deal may hang on the action which is taken in your Lordships' House to-day. Incalculable cruelty, far beyond anything in this country, is inflicted by the fur trade, and this is a cruelty which is unnecessary because nearly every kind of fur-bearing animal, can be bred on a ranch where the animals are humanely killed. A new fur breeding industry could be created. The example set by your Lordships to-day may go a long way to achieve that end.
There is one other thing that I should like to say. I recognise plainly that there is no member of your Lordships' House who delights in using an instrument such as that which we have been describing. Those who use it do so, as I have said, for good and powerful reasons. It seems to me an unfortunate thing that we should have a Division on this matter, and that noble Lords who are repelled by this trap as much as I am myself, but who feel constrained to use it, should be put in the position of having to vote in favour of it. I do not know whether any compromise can be achieved. I deplore (I am sure my noble friend Lord Carrington will not mind my saying this), as does Lord Elton, that the Government have not sponsored this measure. But if they are unable to sponsor the measure, it may be—and the matter must rest entirely with my noble friend Lord Elton—that they will be able to give some positive assurance that this matter is not merely receiving their attention (that is a phrase which has been heard before) but that some concrete proposals are on foot; that the dawn is in sight, and the end of this intolerable suffering may be achieved without too much delay. I only put that out in a spirit of hope. Not knowing the answer, all I can say is that the gin trap is an abomination: it is a barbaric thing; it has been condemned by the Committee on Cruelty to Animals, and an effective substitute exists. In the absence of any positive assurance, I most seriously urge your Lordships to support this Bill and, in supporting it, to blaze a trail which I hope the other countries of the world will not be slow to follow.
3.43 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I thought it would be convenient if I intervened at this stage in order to let your Lordships know the attitude which the Government propose to take on the Bill. First of all, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, very much for having advanced the Second Reading of the Bill by one day, and also to apologise to your Lordships for the inconvenience which has been caused thereby. I am afraid that, in the circumstances, it was inevitable. I should also like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for his kind references to myself, and I only hope that when I have finished the few remarks I have to make this afternoon he will still think quite kindly of me. I feel that every one of your Lordships who has listened to the sincere and persuasive speeches of Lord Elton and Lord Buckmaster must have been impressed by the case which they put forward. All your Lordships, and in particular those who live in the country, will agree with what has been said about the cruelty of the gin trap. As the Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals says—and as the noble Lord. Lord Elton, has already quoted—the gin trap is a diabolical instrument which causes an incalculable amount of suffering. I do not think anybody, on whatever side of the House he may sit, will disagree with that. Therefore, when I say that the Government have to advise your Lordships not to give the Bill a Second Reading, you will expect me to put before you considerations which we feel must outweigh those put before you by the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
Before we come to a decision on this Bill, it is necessary to look very carefully at all the difficult questions of pest control. In the first place, I must emphasise that enormous damage is done in this country by the rabbit and the rat. If your Lordships will glance at the Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, paragraph 342, you will see from the figures given there that there must certainly be many more rabbits in this country than there are people. Thirty-six million are caught for food alone every year. Four and a half rabbits eat as much as one sheep, and produce less than

567
one-seventh of the amount of meat. Not only is the population on the increase, but those of your Lordships who are farmers will know of the enormous loss to food and timber caused each year by rabibts. These are the hard facts which we have to bear in mind when considering proposals of this kind. It is absolutely essential to keep down the number of rabbits, and this has to be done partly, at any rate, by trapping.
The Ministry of Agriculture have been tackling this problem with the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association, and have been trying to get general support for area control schemes. The Minister, however, has no powers to compel owners or occupiers to come into area schemes, although there are powers to serve notices on individuals. All area schemes, therefore, have to be on a voluntary basis, and the county agricultural executive committees have to work by persuasion, with the assistance of the local branches of the N.F.U. and the C.L.A. A good deal of valuable work has been done in many counties through this co-operation. Moreover, by way of centralised direction we have regular meetings between the Ministry's Director of Infestation Control and representatives of the N.F.U. and the C.L.A., and also the Transport Commission and the Defence Services. In passing, I may say that the Transport Commission have a big rabbit problem in railway embankments, and the Defence Forces hold a great deal of land in districts which are key areas for rabbit control. I think I can say that voluntary co-operation is now used to the greatest possible extent. The full practical results will not be seen until we know what successes we have had this autumn and this winter. But we are grateful to those who are co-operating voluntarily with us in this essential work.
When we carry out these schemes we rely more on gas than on trapping. For instance, I have had some figures given to me of the increased use of gas: in 1942 we were using 75,000 lb. of gas powder, and in 1949 that total had risen to very nearly 175,000 lb. I think this will show that the Ministry are doing everything in their power to encourage the use of gas. I should explain, how ever, that gassing is not the ideal answer. The gas, which is hydrogen cyanide carried in an absorbent dust, can be used
568
effectively only when both soil conditions and the weather are favourable. If the ground is hard and the weather is dry, there is insufficient moisture for the gas to become effective. If the weather is too wet, the gas (which is soluble in water) dissolves too quickly to be deadly to rabbits; and if the ground is rocky or sandy, the gas escapes through the fissures, so that a lethal dose never reaches the rabbits for which it is intended. Finally, as the noble Lord said in his speech, there are a large number of rabbits in different parts of the country which live on the surface and do not construct burrow systems at all. There are a large number, too, living in cliffs and similar inaccessible places, where, of course, gas is quite useless.
As I have already said, it is common ground that the gin is not a humane trap. Only perhaps 20 per cent. of rabbits caught are found dead on inspection, and it very seldom kills outright. But until such time as we have an equally effective trap—and we do not think at the moment that we have—it will be quite impracticable to ban the gin outright if we are to keep down the rabbit population. We are, however, actively helping the development of a new humane trap. Extensive trials have been caried out, with the co-operation of the inventor, and they show that this new trap is on the right lines. It kills a very high percentage of rabbits outright and it is approximately equal in catching efficiency. There are, however, some difficulties still to be overcome, mostly matters of mechanical adjustment. When these minor defects have been put right, it will be necessary to carry out general tests on all types of land where there are rabbits and, of course, these wider tests may show that there are other practical problems. The inventor himself does not want to have the trap manufactured on a large scale until the present difficulties have been overcome. In short, this new and more humane trap is not yet ready to be made on a large scale. Besides, I must point out to your Lordships that there are at least 3,000,000 gins used in this country, and not only would it take far longer than the two years suggested in the Bill to replace them but it would require about 3,000 tons of steel.
As regards Clause 3 of the Bill, I would point out that the Committee on

569
Cruelty to Wild Animals recommended stronger powers for killing rabbits in those areas where control is most difficult. In the kind of area where this is the case, trapping in the open would normally be necessary for effective control. As I have said, it is neither possible nor desirable to take such powers until an effective humane trap is available: but we must also recognise that such powers will not really be effective unless it is possible to enforce common action in an area by compelling owners and occupiers to destroy their rabbits. In this particular respect I do not think that the provisions in the noble Lord's Bill are sufficiently comprehensive. They would not he adequate for the sort of case we have in mind. All the problems which I have mentioned are closely interrelated, and we consider that any legislation on this subject should be on rather wider lines than the proposals before your Lordships to-day. I can, however, say this to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. When we are satisfied that we have an adequate, efficient and humane alternative to the gin trap, and when the state of the legislative programme permits, then the Government will consider introducing a Bill on the lines I have indicated. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will agree not to press the Motion for Second Reading, but will be content with the manifest sympathy of the House and the Government in the objects of his Bill, and with the statement which I have just made.
3.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: My Lords, I rise to say a few words in support of the noble Lord who introduced this Bill. I support this Bill for no mere reasons of sentiment but because I believe it to be a practical measure and possible of attainment. I had imagined that this Bill might be treated as non-controversial and non-Party, but I gather that this is not so. Presumably it is non-Party, but I can see opposition coming from several quarters. In fact, in many instances I can imagine the Bill receiving support more from people who have little or no knowledge of country life rather than from those who have. At first glance one would expect that urban dwellers, merely for reasons of sentiment, would be more in favour of the Bill than those who are country-bred, who are more
570
likely to be opposed to it. Let me make myself quite clear. We want no increase of vermin. Destruction of vermin is more than ever important to-day. Enforcement of this Bill, should it become an Act, will not be so easy. I foresee a good deal of opposition on the part of farmers and keepers. But I notice that there is a very wise provision in the Bill that it shall not come into operation before January 1, 1954. This, of course, will give time for the manufacturers of approved traps to get their wares on the market, and to get the ultimate users into the right frame of mind to co-operate and employ them. It seems to me that the real opposition will come not from this House or from another place, but from farmers and keepers and from those who will have to operate this Act.
The other day I happened to be in the board room of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and I was informed that the Society was founded in 1824. I happened to notice, behind the Chairman's chair, a plaque which stated that in this same room in 1884 was founded the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—that is to say the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded exactly sixty years earlier than the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. That seems typical of this country, where love of animals is so great, but what exactly we should deduce from this disparity of years I am not sure. Your Lordships have heard to-day of the Sawyer humane rabbit trap, which was put on the market two or three years ago. Fifty years ago a prize of £300 was offered by the R.S.P.C.A. to anyone who could invent a painless rabbit trap, and in spite of this long outstanding offer, a prize was awarded only in 1947. When the Sawyer trap was put on the market I gave one to my keeper, drawing attention to its virtues. But, as I rather expected and feared, on my inquiring a few days later how he was getting on with it, he informed me that it was quite useless. I have no doubt that your Lordships who have country properties will have experimented with this trap and will have had the same experience.
If I may be allowed a personal reminiscence of my boyhood. I remember well that on a grouse moor in North Wales,

571
on every mound and hillock there was a pole trap. It seemed to me very natural at the time that the unfortunate vermin—and not always vermin—when caught in these traps should hang head downwards, with broken legs, for days before the keeper could get round to clear his traps. I do not think that I was a very cruel little boy (I was then fourteen) but at that age and in those days it seemed to me quite normal that wild animals should suffer for days in traps. When the Wild Birds Protection Act was passed in 1904. I well remember my father telling the keeper that from a certain date pole traps would be illegal and were no longer to be erected or used. The keeper looked at my father as though he had softening of the brain. It was with the greatest difficulty that the keeper was persuaded that the use of pole traps was in fact illegal as from then; and even now, I am told, prosecutions are occasionally made by the Society; and no doubt in outlying parts of the Kingdom the use of pole traps still persists. I give this as an instance of only one of the difficulties; which may be encountered, at least in regard to professional vermin trappers, What was considered normal yesterday may be considered far from right to-day. I think I am correct when I say that a forbear of Mr. Gladstone had a share in ships which were engaged in the shipping of slaves between the West Coast of Africa and our Colonies in the West Indies. In its day this was considered quite a respectable and normal trade, and respected and respectable people took shares in such ventures. I give this as an instance to show how time will change public opinion.
In this age of invention and the atomic bomb, surely it is not beyond the wit of man to invent a painless trap for the destruction of vermin. Perhaps in this case private enterprise may come to our aid. I seem to scent a unique opportunity for a little private enterprise. I cannot for the life of me see any objection to a little profit-making for anyone who can make a painless trap that will satisfy practical as well as humanitarian needs. There is money for the inventor and manufacturer who can perfect such a trap. Much prejudice will have to be overcome but, given time and patience, as in the case of Wilberforce and his
572
Emancipation of Slaves Act, it can be done. In 1822 there was passed through Parliament, at the insistence of Richard Martin, Member of Parliament, an Act
"to prevent the cruel and improper treatment of cattle."
That was one of the earliest Acts to prevent cruelty to animals, and it came to be known as the Martin Act. In the same way it may well be that this Bill, if it becomes law, may come to be known as the Elton Act. It is not deliberate sadistic cruelty but thoughtlessness that is so often the enemy of humanity. I fully appreciate the difficulties, but a trap must be made which is easy to operate, which countrymen will take to and which is cheap, efficient, instantaneous and painless.
4.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure you will wish me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on this his first speech from the Front Bench. I myself have to thank the noble Lord for his friendly, if vigilant, criticism, which helped to keep me up to the mark when I held in the late Government the post which he now holds. I am still in his debt for that. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is no Party matter. I have not had an opportunity of consulting my noble friends on these Benches and I do not know what their views are. Therefore what I shall express will be purely my personal opinion. I think some of my noble friends will disagree with me—but the noble Lord opposite may find himself in the same predicament.
The reason why sonic of my noble friends have asked me for guidance about their attitude to the Bill is this. I had some experience of the controversial issues with which it deals when I was at the Ministry of Agriculture. I paid official visits to many different parts of the country and made a point, so far as I could, of discussing this question of gin traps and the rabbit problem with farmers and others. I think I heard almost every argument that could be used, both from the humanitarian point of view and from the standpoint of food production. I hope, therefore, that my testimony may add something to that of other noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, based his appeal on some of the recommendations

573
of the Committee of Inquiry which was set up to examine the whole question of cruelty to wild animals. Before I go any further, may I respectfully congratulate the Committee on their Report? I hope it will be widely read. I think your Lordships will agree that there is a good deal of misplaced sentimentality about the killing of wild animals. I am sure that the careful presentation of facts and the balanced conclusions in the Report will help people to see this problem in its true perspective and to form a more reasonable judgment. No one will deny that there is good reason for the strength of the humanitarian feeling voiced by the Lord Elton and his supporters against the gin trap. I shall not quote again from the Report of the Committee of Inquiry, for it has been quoted by several speakers already, and I believe we all agree with what has been said about it. I think, too, that what we have to decide in making up our minds about the Bill is whether the suffering caused by the gin trap is necessary and inevitable in the interests of food production, or whether we are causing unnecessary and gratuitous suffering because this type of trap could be banned without any appreciable loss of food.
I believe that the noble Lord will find that he is wrong in this assumption. I cannot agree with the optimistic assumption in the Report that if the gin trap is prohibited an equally effective alternative humane trap will be found in its place. Experiments in the production of humane traps have been going on for a long time but so far none of them has been so effective as the gin. I ought to qualify that statement by referring to one of the remarks made by Lord Carrington. He said that the trap which has been used for some time in an experimental way is one of an improved design, which is equally effective in getting rabbits as compared with the gin trap. That is an immense step forward. The only argument against the Bill was that this trap could not be produced in sufficiently large quantities or put on the market at a reasonable price in time to replace the gin trap if that were banned immediately.
LORD CARRINGTON: I did say that there were certain defects in the trap which we have not overcome and that it will take sonic time to overcome them;
574
therefore it is not quite as the noble Earl says.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I quite accept that there is a good deal of preparatory work which has to be done. If that work is successful, will the Government consider introducing a Bill of its own?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am glad the noble Lord made the point about the use of gas. Gas is not an alternative to trapping, but it can be used to supplement it. There are places where gas would not be practicable. But the fact remains that the most common method of catching rabbits at present is by the use of the gin trap Large numbers of land owners, farmers and workers, all use these traps; there are over 3,000,000 traps of this kind in use at present in the farms and cottages of our countryside. To deprive these people of these traps before we can provide them with an effective substitute would undoubtedly lead to an increase in the rabbit population and to a corresponding decrease in food production. At a time when we have to cut imported food it would be folly to discourage home food production. I hope the Government will undertake to introduce a Bill to abolish the gin trap as soon as they are satisfied that an effective alternative has been discovered. I appreciate that Ministers cannot give such an undertaking until they are certain about the conditions under which such an undertaking would have to be discharged; and I am satisfied with the assurance given by Lord Carrington that he and his colleagues will make an honest effort to introduce a Bill as soon as an equally effective trap has been found. I do hope that that assurance will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and that he will be willing to withdraw the Bill. I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Buck-master, seemed disposed to accept an assurance of that kind in his speech, and as he was, so to speak, seconding Lord Elton's Motion, I am encouraged to hope that the mover of the Bill may be disposed to do the same thing.
My last words are about the long-term policy in relation to rabbits. In the long term, one and the same policy will both stop cruelty and safeguard our food

575
supplies. The policy in which every noble Lord believes, I feel sure, is the policy of eradicating the rabbit. It is quite obvious that, so long as rabbits have to be kept down by trapping, snaring or shooting, there must be a vast amount of suffering. So that, in the long run, the interests of those concerned with the prevention of cruelty and the interests of the food producers are exactly the same. The only way to put an end to the suffering and to the damage to our crops and pasture is to exterminate the rabbit. Unfortunately, this policy of extermination in which we all believe is not that generally or universally practised at the present time. In saying this, I am making a confession of failure which is not a pleasant or easy thing to do, but I must be honest. I admit that I and my colleagues in the late Government failed to get this policy put into practice throughout the country. Wherever we went, we preached the abolition of the rabbit. We tried hard, but we did not succeed. Our main difficulty was that the meat shortage ever since the war has guaranteed a good price for rabbits, and so long as rabbit carcasses fetch high prices, there will be a strong temptation to farmers not to clear their land, and to rabbit catchers to keep enough rabbits on the land for breeding.
This commercial exploitation of the rabbit, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, rightly referred, has been a powerful influence in maintaining the rabbit population. Nevertheless, there is plenty of good will in the farming community, and I believe that most farmers and land owners would be only too glad to get rid of these pests. The fact that they have not done so was largely due to our fault in not giving them the right lead. That is my own personal opinion. I hope very much that the present Government will give a lead to a nation-wide campaign for rabbit clearance. This campaign should, of course, be organised and planned locally by the county executives and carried out clearly in each county within a reasonable period of time. Above all, farmers must be quite certain (I was glad the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, made this point so strongly) that their efforts to get rid of their own rabbits will not be spoilt by one or two selfish or inconsiderate neighbours. It is hopeless to clear land, often by spending a lot of
576
money, when the rabbits run in again from the adjoining estate or farm. I am certain that compulsory powers will have to be used more frequently for this purpose and that new powers may be necessary, as recommended in the Henderson Committee's Report. I hope that the Government will examine that recommendation. I urge upon them the need for thinking out a new and much more effective policy on rabbit extermination within a reasonable period of time. If they can do this, and if they can win the support of the farming community—for it will be in vain for them to work out a policy unless the farming, community are willing to implement it—they will do something that is both humane and of extreme value to food production. I support the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on this Bill, and I very much hope that the assurance which he has given, which I think goes a very long way to meeting, the promoters of the Bill, will be accepted.
4.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, the last thing I wish to do is to delay your Lordships by going over the ground which has already been covered by the, previous speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, who moved this Motion, made such a masterly and wide survey of the whole problem that I feel that there is not much that I, as one who has had a little practical experience with rabbits, can add, except to emphasise some of the points he has made. Let me say at the outset that I wholeheartedly support his Motion and I certainly hope he will press it this afternoon. I live on the land. I am no friend of the rabbit and I think many of us have left behind in the nursery our old "Peter Rabbit" or "Brer Rabbit" sentiment, whichever you may call it. Living on the land, I see the damage that rabbits do to our food supplies, our crops and corn, and in fouling the land.
And what about forestry? Many of your Lordships are interested in forestry, and we have debated that subject frequently in recent months. In this country we cannot even protect the natural regeneration of trees because of the rabbit. The rabbit is a pest. That has been clearly pointed out this afternoon, and I think, as the Scott Henderson Committee point out in their Report, that every

577
effort should be made by whatever Government are in power completely to exterminate the rabbit from this country. It is not even a native animal. There were no rabbits in this country a thousand years ago. They came in at the time of the Norman conquest. Perhaps it is rather by the way, but an eminent writer has told us that Spain was the land of rabbits, and that that country derives its name from the Carthaginian word span which means "rabbit." When the Carthaginians invaded Spain in about the year 380 B.C., they found the country was full of rabbits, so they called it "Span"—the rabbit. Whether or not that is true I do not know.
However, there it is; the rabbit is not a native animal, and I think it ought to be exterminated, if that can be done. Of course, that is only possible over a long period of time. In the meantime, we have to keep on waging war against the rabbit. But surely we should wage it in as humane a manner as possible. I have heard it said that if you abolish the gin trap, the pest will increase. I do not agree with noble Lords who have said that, because, for one thing, there are many other ways, apart from the gin, of killing rabbits. They are not such cruel ways. I do not know whether the humane snare has been mentioned to-day. It is a knotted snare which does not draw the noose tight round the animal's neck and therefore suffocate it. Of course, any kind of instrument which catches the rabbit or any other animal alive and leaves it is cruel in a sense, because it imparts fear to the animal; but it is nothing like so cruel as the gin trap which, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said, is a diabolical instrument.
There is one thing which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said and which I should like to emphasise. He told us of a stoat that had been left alive for two days. That is no uncommon occurrence; I know it is not. I live in the North where we have deep snow in the winter, and sometimes you cannot get out of your house for two or three days at a time. Do you suppose that a trapper will go round his traps in deep snow? No; he leaves the animals trapped to die a lingering death. It is not one particular occurrence; it happens in hundreds and hundreds of cases all over the
578
country, when deep snow comes to Scotland.
There are other methods: there are snaring and gassing. There is also the purse netting method which is frequently resorted to and is a most effective way of getting rid of rabbits. I do not see why the two years' deferment which the Bill allows should not provide sufficient time in which to produce an efficient humane trap. The main point I want to make this afternoon is that, so long as the gin trap remains a legitimate trap and the most popular trap (which it is to-day) with which to catch rabbits, there will be no inducement for manufacturers to make a substitute. What manufacturer of traps will expend money and time in trying to make a humane trap, if he knows that all the time he has to compete with the gin trap which everybody wants to buy? Abolish the gin trap first and then something will be found to take its place; of that I am sure. My experience of this world is that if man's ingenuity is baulked in one avenue it will quickly explore others. Perhaps this is rather a stupid analogy, but you must pardon it because it is rather to the point: when the Germans failed to reduce this country in the war by aerial bombing it was not long before we had guided missiles, such as "buzz-bombs" and rockets, coming over instead—and not without effect, as your Lord ships may remember. I feel that the same rule will apply to our war on rabbits, and I believe that that is the hope of the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill to-day.
I have little fear that if the gin trap is abolished the number of rabbits in this country will increase. I think the Government should go ahead with determination, and should exert all their influence, giving encouragement to manufacturers to devise an efficient humane trap; then, I believe, one would be found. The Bill appears to make ample provision for dealing with the Problem of killing smaller vermin. That is a very important point. Many weasels and stoats are killed in gin traps, and that is one reason why the gin trap does not effectively keep the number of rabbits down. All the time you are killing the natural predator; you are killing the rabbit and the animal that actually lives on the rabbit. That is an absolute fact. For that reason, I believe that instead of keeping rabbits down the gin trap helps them to increase. I do not

579
wish to take up any more time. On moral grounds alone I think that the gin is indefensible. How can we call ourselves a civilised nation if, year after year, we go on inflicting this great suffering on animals? I remember when the Agriculture Act came to your Lordships' House a few years ago. Them we talked about humane traps, and we had undertakings that something was going to be done, that some new traps would be invented. That is three or four years ago. What has been done? We are in exactly the same position to-day. Nothing has yet been done, and nothing will be done until more pressure is brought to bear. I hope your Lordships will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading this afternoon, and so get it on to the Statute Book as soon as possible.
4.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, before discussing this Bill I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on the excellent speech he made on what he might call his debut on the Government Front Bench. Perhaps some of us who have a great deal to do with the breeding of all kinds of animals have a greater belief in heredity than some noble Lords on the Opposition Benches. If I may say so, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, fortifies those of us who believe in hereditary powers, because I remember that when I was first elected to another place in 1905 the noble Lord's great-uncle was President of what I think was then called the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries—and an excellent President he was, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will remember. To go further back, I believe that in about 1800 another of the noble Lord's forbears held exactly the same position. Therefore, I say that those of us who believe in heredity are especially pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, occupies his present position.
In regard to this Bill I should like first of all to ask one question—namely, whether the Scottish Office were consulted, as I presume they were, by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, before he made his speech. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has left the Chamber, otherwise I should have sought an assurance from him. I shall be glad to have that assurance, because our laws with regard to
580
trapping are not the same as those in England, and in regard to this particular subject we do not come under the Ministry of Agriculture.
Not only your Lordships but I should say practically everybody in this Island has the greatest sympathy with all that Lord Elton has said this afternoon, and from the point of view of cruelty or non-cruelty the use of the gin trap is, of course, indefensible. We live in a cruel world, but unless we have a real reason for it there is no reason why we should use cruel methods. But we have to measure the benefits of the gin trap against its cruelty. Some of the speeches have been said to be not genuine. Of course they were genuine arguments and beliefs. One speaker almost went so far as to say that the use of the gin trap propagated rabbits. The real fact is, of course, as anybody knows who has had a life-long interest in land, in promoting agriculture and in getting either a living or benefit out of it, that the only possible way at the present time of keeping rabbits under control is by the gin trap.
Yesterday I was at a meeting of the executive of the Scottish Land and Property Federation. I was going to say that they were all hard-headed Scots, but that is not quite the right phrase. At any rate, they were all people who know their job and who know what is the best thing for agriculture. Much as they deprecated it, they were unanimous that there was no other solution at the present time than the use of the gin trap. I have also been able to get the views of the Scottish National Farmers Union, and I understand that they are equally unanimous on the subject. One cannot get away from those views, the views of experts. What are we offered as an alternative solution? The solution is a safety trap, which I have seen. We have all tried these safety traps. There is no question but that at the present time they cannot possibly take the place of the gin trap. An important point is that a man can carry four dozen gin traps and set them, but he would be hard put to it to carry six of these safety traps, which I have seen, around with him for more than a short space of time.
Again, we have heard to-day a number of speakers who have commented on the setting of these traps in the open. It is illegal to set these traps in the open except, I think (this is the case in Scotland,

581
I believe, and it may be in England also), in woodlands, and in one or two enclosed spaces. And, moreover, no farmer or land owner would set his traps in the open, because he would catch his own sheep and catch the tongues of his cattle. We have been told that instead of the gill trap the safety trap should be used. But—and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has confirmed this—the safety trap is not yet nearly ripe for distribution in this country. We have also been told that another solution of the problem is gassing. There are two factors against gassing—one is that you cannot get the gas (I do not know who has it: I know we cannot get it) and the other is that when you compare gas with the gin trap, gas is every bit as cruel. People who have seen rabbits escaping half-gassed, will tell you that gassing is every bit as cruel as the use of the gin trap. But I confess it is news to me that you can eat a gassed rabbit. Certainly I have never heard of anyone who wanted to do so.
Now I come to what I think is the solution of the problem. I believe that we must continue to employ the gin trap until we find a perfectly accurate and reliable safety trap, such as Lord Carrington envisages, and until we have the 6,000 or 7,000 tons of steel required to make these traps and the time to distribute them. Until those considerations are fulfilled. I think we must have the gin trap. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, who said that the thing to do was to abolish the gin trap now, and then the safety trap would come along.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: May interrupt the noble Earl to tell him that I said there would be more incentive for manufacturers to produce an efficient humane trap if the gin trap were abolished now? The very fact of the gin trap being legitimate precludes manufacturers from inventing; a humane substitute, because the gin trap is now the most popular instrument with trappers.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: That may be, but if you abolish the gin trap there is bound to be an hiatus between the time of the abolition and the time of the coming into use of the safety trap, and there is a saying which we all know well—"breeding like rabbits." So I do not think we could possibly do as the noble Earl suggests.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: Under this Bill there is a deferment period of two years, during which attention could be given to the problem of inventing an efficient and humane safety trap. The Bill, if it is passed, would not come into force until 1954.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I think, if I may say so, that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, really showed considerable grasp of the subject. If I understood him aright, and I think I did, I am in full agreement with hint. We should go on with the gin trap and try to secure more co-operation between land owners in different districts, if necessary by legislation, to put down rabbits. Very few people realise how far the rabbit will travel in one night. It is very annoying, when you have killed your own rabbits, to find other rabbits from the neighbourhood invading your land. There is a pamphlet which I would commend to the notice of Government Departments concerned, which, of course, includes the Department responsible for forestry. These Departments, should get into consultation with the land owners and the Farmers' Union and take measures on the lines suggested in Mr. Middleton's pamphlet: The Extermination of the Wild Rabbit. I think the pamphlet is a very good one, and if we could follow out the lines there laid down and make a co-operative effort to exterminate the rabbits in districts as well as carrying on With trapping, by the time we had an efficient safety trap we might be able to get rid of the gin trap.
4.36 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, rising as I do to address your Lordships at this time of the day, I do not propose to detain you very long. In fact, the ground has been fully covered already, but I should like to emphasise what I conceive to be lying at the back of the whole of this problem of the destruction of rabbits. We are living in a time when the economic position of the country has never given more cause for serious concern. One of the points that emerge is the paramount importance of our growing in this country the maximum possible amount of food. The population here is growing, and an increasing amount of food is being consumed in other parts of the world as well. We know also of the difficulties which have arisen in many

583
parts of the globe by soil erosion, caused, to a great extent, by the manner in which the land has been misused. Therefore I venture to suggest that we should bear in mind in all our legislation any consideration which may affect the productivity of our own soil and the production of an adequate food supply for the people of this country.
Of course, we are all agreed that the real function of the agricultural industry is to produce the maximum possible quantity of food. At present, as has been recognised, there is an appreciable wastage of food potential owing to the presence of, and the inadequate measures taken for the destruction of, rabbits up and down the country. It is on that account that I welcome—and I think most of us interested in agriculture welcomed it—the sentence in the gracious Speech which read:
"My Ministers will vigorously encourage the production of food by the basic industries of agriculture, horticulture and fisheries."
A great deal of thought and investigation has, of course, been given to this problem of increasing home food production. I should like to call attention to a recent publication, which is now available to your Lordships—the first Report of the Research Committee of the Rural Reconstruction Association. This has been received with great interest and it has been well noticed in the Press. I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture has asked for a considerable number of copies of this first Report; therefore I am encouraged to say a few words about it to your Lordships to-day. It shows that on the basis of food consumption in 1946, livestock production and crops for direct human consumption require some 9,156,000 acres of rough grazing and 49,500,000 acres of average agricultural quality. It shows, further, that on the basis of optimum land use there are available approximately 9,000,000 acres of rough grazing and 35,500,000 acres of average agricultural quality—and in these calculations allowance is made for certain well-defined products such as margarine, and so on.
The conclusion of the Report, which employs throughout the best available figures of the present acreage yields of crops and livestock (and I commend this conclusion to your Lordships) is that to
584
produce the food required the acreage would have to be increased by not more than 40 per cent. Whether that can be obtained or not is another matter and one which will need a great deal of careful research on the same lines. It is interesting, however, that there is even a possibility of our being able to produce anything like the amount of food that is required for our home consumption. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is not able to be here to-day. He and I have studied this subject for a considerable number of years, and we know the difficulties that lie in the way of an adequate increase in food production at home. During the war production was increased considerably, but there is still a great deal that can and should be done under an agricultural policy promoted by His Majesty's Government in co-operation with land-owners and farmers alike. I mention these considerations to emphasise the need of scrutinising Bills such as this to make as sure as may be that nothing is done to make the production of food at home more difficult. The function of agriculture is to produce the maximum amount of food in these critical times.
I have been asked to voice the opinion of the Country Landowners' Association on this Bill. They are in full support of the abolition of the gin trap. My noble friend Lord Carrington gave us figures of the vast number of gin traps being used at the present time. If it were made illegal to use these traps, and there was not available immediately a sufficient supply of approved traps, it is inevitable that the Bill would constitute almost an attack on the growing of crops in this country. Of course, there is an appreciable wastage of food by the depredations of rabbits. In drafting the Bill I do not think that sufficient attention has been given to the destruction caused by rabbits, which is of real importance. Many points were raised by noble Lords who spoke from their own experience of country life. For instance, the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, spoke of the utmost importance of ensuring that effective work done by one land-owner or occupying owner should not be wasted because the area infested was not treated as a whole and the land-owner did not get co-operation from his neighbours. Is it not, therefore, unwise to abolish the

585
existing means of control until new methods have been adequately proved and provided in sufficient quantity?
I think your Lordships have been impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Carrington, and I should like to join with other noble Lords in congratulating him. It is felt that the date when it is proposed that the Bill should come into force—namely, January 1, 1954—does not give sufficient time for a satisfactory changeover to an approved trap. From what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, it is clear that there is an approved trap on the market, but that in order that it should become acceptable in a far wider way than it is at present, various modifications will have to be made. It is essential that full experimental use should be made of it under the ægis of the Ministry of Agriculture, so that when the time comes, as I hope it will come, for the Government to promote a Bill dealing with this all-important question, we shall be sure that the article recommended by His Majesty's Government is one that is effective in every way on the different soils in the various parts of the country. The Country Landowners' Association are in full support of the abolition of the gin trap and are in sympathy with the objects of this Bill, but they feel strongly that there is a risk that, if the Bill is passed in its present form, our effort to effect humane reform will be weakened. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will see his way to withdraw his Bill at the present time. I venture to say that it is somewhat inopportune. In view of what my noble friend Lord Carrington has said, I hope that the future will not be prejudiced by the noble Lord pressing his Motion to a Division.
4.45 p.m.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Carrington, who now holds the position which I once had the honour of holding. And may I say how much better he carries out the office than I did? The discussion this afternoon has covered almost everything that can be said on this subject, and it appears to me that it has become a question of whether or not we should do away with the gin trap solely on grounds of its
586
cruelty. Everybody who knows anything about the gin trap, rabbits and the countryside agrees that there is a degree of cruelty attached to it and, as the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, said, there is no one who does not want to see this trap abolished. But that does not necessarily mean that this is the right moment, or that to pass the present Bill is the right manner, to do it. It is obvious to everybody that the importance of the production of food is paramount to-day. Everyone concerned with farming and forestry would welcome the abolition of the rabbit, because it would save so much food and so much money.
My noble friend Lord Carrington discussed at some length the humane trap which would take the place of the gin trap. Ever since I was a boy I have heard of people experimenting to perfect a humane trap; but that trap has not yet been made. I can produce a man from my own estate who invented a trap. It did extremely well, but it got only as far as the trap which the Government have in mind at the moment. When we came to the final trials of his trap, we realised that it had defects which it would not be possible to remedy. So that was another humane trap which failed. I welcome the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has given this afternoon. I shall be the first to support any Bill that abolishes the gin trap when we are sure of two things: first, that the new Bill recommends a trap which is effective, and secondly, that we are given assurance that ample supplies of the trap will be issued throughout the country immediately and that there will be no time lag between the abolition of the gin trap and the introduction of a new one. To the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who has produced the present Bill, I would say that to-day I can offer him only my sympathy; I feel that I cannot give him my support.
4.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I, too, should like to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on his first appearance on the Front Bench and to say how much we enjoyed his speech. It was a model of lucidity and, what is even better, of brevity. It leads us to hope that he will have many opportunities of answering the questions which from time to time we shall be forced to level at him. I trust—and I believe that the noble

587
Lord, Lord Elton, has already made this point—that those who speak against this Bill will not be written down as inhuman monsters. I surmise, as many other noble Lords have, that all true countrymen would wish to support the motives behind this Bill. I always listen with the utmost respect to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, although I may not always agree with them. On this occasion, I do not agree with him. However my heart dictates—and I find myself in a difficult position, because my heart does dictate that I should support the Bill—my head tells me that this is not the moment for such a Bill as this. With all respect to the noble Lord's views, which he always utters with the utmost sincerity, in this case, I, along with other noble Lords, feel very strongly indeed that we must not allow our hearts to govern our heads. My experience is that the average countryman—and within that term at this particular moment I include the keeper—is one of the most humane of persons. Having said that, and having said that I support the motives behind the noble Lord's Bill, I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will be persuaded to withdraw it; or, if not persuaded, that he will be forced to do so in the Division lobby, because it is not, in my humble opinion, in the best interests of the country at the moment.
I cannot understand how it is that His Majesty's Government have allowed a Private Member's Bill such as this to be brought up before the matter has been properly discussed and ventilated with the various interests concerned—namely, the land owners, agriculture, forestry and those connected with the land generally. I am not aware whether this was done in England, but it was certainly not done in Scotland. Let us see what the passing of this measure would entail. First, if I may say so, it has taken some considerable time to establish in the minds of the authorities and those responsible for governing this country, of whatever Party, that, at any time, the rabbit is the enemy of society. To-day he is what is known as "Enemy No. 1." Why is that so? It is because it has never been more important in the history of this country to produce food and timber to our fullest capabilities than it is at the present time. Both of those things are vital to our survival. Unfortunately,
588
as everybody knows, crops, young trees and rabbits do not go well together: in fact, it is an impossibility to raise trees and crops if you have rabbits, unless you net the ground; and, of course, if you do that you add substantially to the cost of production.
If I may say so, the originators of this Bill have been extremely wily, because they have offered what appear to be two very tempting loopholes. First, they have allowed until 1954 before the Act can take effect. That sounds all right, but in my humble opinion this is a reckless measure which we simply cannot afford, however much we should desire it. The alternatives which have been mentioned are still in the experimental stage. In certain conditions, gas is quite effective, but, as my noble friend, Lord Rosebery, said, it is very hard to get it just when you want it. Noble Lords know how fast rabbits breed—they do not wait; and when you want to get rid of them, and you cannot get the gas, before you know where you are you have a small colony. In these days we cannot afford that. The Department for Agriculture in Scotland say that there are between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 gin traps used in a year at present. So that if a suitable trap is produced it means scrapping four or five million steel gin traps. Added to that, the replacement per annum would be about 800,000 traps. Are we going to get the steel to produce the new trap? I do not know whether rearmament will continue: but if it does, how can we possibly afford the steel for that? In order to keep down the rabbit we must have a practical article that can deal with the job, produced in sufficient numbers by 1954. The achievement of that is problematical. It is true, as Lord Haddington has said, that if a thing is once made impossible or forbidden, something else is produced in its place. But that is problematical, and this is a problem with which we cannot afford to play.
The second loophole is that the Bill allows the Minister to issue licences to use the old traps on certain conditions. I do not think that makes sense. Your Lordships know what happens when application is made to a Ministry for a licence. We all know how long it takes for a Government Department to move, even when pressed, and we also know,

589
to our cost, how fast rabbits breed: before you could say "Jack Robinson," you would have a flock which would put a stopper on your food production programme and on your timber planning programme. Also, as has already been said, the gin trap deals with other pests, such as rats, which are very prejudicial, and almost as bad as rabbits when it comes to crops. They all do tremendous damage. With all due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, much as I should like in my heart to support him, there seems to be only one method to deal with this matter—namely, to persuade the Government Department (and I am glad to realise that the Government are alive to this) to foster a strong co-operative movement between themselves, the Landowners' Association and the Farmers' Union to organise an intensive campaign of rabbit destruction such as is suggested by the Middleton pamphlet. When that campaign comes within sight of a tolerably successful conclusion, then, in my opinion, is the moment to do away with the gin trap, and not before.
Again, I emphasise that we should all like to see the gin trap go; but it would be madness to abolish it before we have something proper to put in its place. If this Bill is given a Second Reading, may I offer a humble piece of advice? Your Lordships will notice that there are certain penalties. Our experience is that, when you impose penalties in a Bill, they must be "whacking" big ones. When the cost of whatever it is that people intend to poach or do is very high, it is no good fixing a penalty of £5, or even £25. If you provide for a penalty, it must be heavy enough to take away something from the man that he really needs. You cannot take away his wife, but you can take away his motor car. In all these things, like salmon poaching and deer poaching, if you take away his method of production and means of poaching, you then do something which will punish him The other day in the north a poacher received two years' imprisonment. Up to then he had gone to prison regularly every winter, and rather enjoyed it; he kept warm all the winter, was nicely fed and well treated. Then, when the fishing season started, out he would come, and again resume his poaching. This time he went in for two years, and now he cannot poach for two years. I suggest that if you are going to impose
590
penalties they must be large enough to tell—otherwise it is a waste of time. I hope that the general common sense of your Lordships' House will see that, although we all support the motives behind this Bill, it does not receive a Second Reading to-day.
5.0 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, in rising to support the noble Lord who introduced this Bill, may I say in passing that I was not previously aware that it was necessary for a private member of this House who wants to introduce a Bill to consult the Scottish land owners before doing so.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? Neither my noble friend nor I demurred in the least to the Bill being introduced. All I asked was whether the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had consulted St. Andrew's House before he had made his speech, and he said that he had. I think we are perfectly in order in asking that, without being criticised.
LORD MERTHYR: I was referring to the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Then perhaps I may reply. What I said was that in regard to a Bill such as this it was essential that the interests who were affected should be consulted, and that the matter should be aired and ventilated before it was brought to this House.
LORD MERTHYR: With all due respect to both noble Earls, I still say that it should not be necessary for a private member to consult the Scottish land owners or any Department before he introduces a Bill.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I did not say that it was necessary. With all due deference to the noble Lord, I said that it might be better if he did.
LORD MERTHYR: Of course, I accept the noble Earl's correction. A similar Bill was read a first time in July, and surely there has been plenty of time since then for every organisation in the country thoroughly to digest every clause in it. I only wanted to say that, in passing. I have very few words to say on the subject of cruelty, save this. Every member of your Lordships' House and

591
of another place should be ashamed of the present state of affairs in this country. We are apt to criticise foreigners, and to think that we are the one humane country in the world in the treatment of animals. We are apt to scorn what goes on in Oriental countries. We are apt to cast criticisms at bullfights in Spain. But let us not say another word about cruelty in any other country so long as we have this cruelty in our country. I repeat what another noble Lord has said this afternoon: if trapping took place in Parliament Square, this Bill would go through your Lordships' House in one day, with the Standing Orders suspended. Unfortunately, that is not what happens; trapping takes place in the countryside away from the population, and those who hear it try to deafen their ears.
The essential point to consider to-day is: Is this cruelty necessary? As I understand the law, necessary cruelty is lawful and unnecessary cruelty is unlawful. I believe that that, broadly speaking, would be a correct statement of the law. Is rabbit trapping necessary? If not, it should be made illegal. Speaker after speaker this afternoon has risen and said. "I agree entirely about the cruelty of this trapping, but …"—and then he has given various reasons why the traps cannot be abolished. May I just ring the changes a little, and say that I am here this afternoon to say that these traps are not necessary. I am even going to say that humane traps are not necessary, though I shall not object if anybody chooses to use them—provided they are humane. Further, I am here to say that these traps are not only not necessary but are positively harmful. That is where I come into direct collision with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, the noble Duke, the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, and many others.
One of the troubles about this debate is that, to a large extent, both sides are using the same arguments to prove opposite cases. I want to adopt for my case the arguments used by several noble Lords about the food situation. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, quite rightly, that four and a half rabbits ate as much as one sheep; and for that reason he did not want us to pass this Bill. For the same reason I want your
592
Lordships to pass this Bill, because I see clearly that so long as the present state of affairs goes on, the menace to our food situation is going to increase. It is on the effects of traps on agriculture that I want to dwell this afternoon. I say that commercial trapping—and I am going to use my words carefully—not the mere use of a trap to kill a rabbit, but the system of commercial trapping which is now going on in this country, positively increases the rabbit population. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. Therefore, if that be true, then the arguments about food production must fall to the ground or be presented by my opponents to me for my use.
To those who oppose our case this afternoon, and I know there are many, I would say this: your policy—carried on over the last fifty years, shall we say—of commercial rabbit trapping and the use of millions of traps to catch millions of rabbits, has been a complete failure. It has produced—I do not say no results, but results opposite to what you intended it to produce. It has greatly increased the population of rabbits. That is the effect of commercial trapping, and, therefore, something has to be done to stop commercial trapping. If I should be right, then a great number of arguments used against the Bill this afternoon likewise fall to the ground, because the contention that we must have some trapping and that we cannot have an hiatus between the use of the humane trap and the use of the gin trap goes by the board.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that we were plumb wrong about this matter. Well, it is a matter of opinion, and I hold the opposite case just as forcibly as the noble Earl holds his. With all respect to the noble Earl, I think that he and those who agree with him are plumb wrong, and some day it will be very interesting to see which of us is not wrong. As to the reasons why commercial trapping increases the rabbit population—about which I have no doubt whatever—I will not dwell in detail, because the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has given them to your Lordships. He has mentioned the preponderance of males which are caught in traps, the complete upheaval of the natural process which these traps involve, and the catching of the stoats and weasels which are meant by nature to catch the rabbits.

593
Perhaps I might dwell for a moment on the other factor which he mentioned, and that is the taking away of the livelihood of the trappers. Of course, a rabbit trapper is not going to exterminate rabbits. Why should he, from his own selfish point of view? No one expects him to. As the noble Lord said, does a sheep farmer exterminate his sheep, or does he leave a certain number of sheep to perpetuate the species for the future? Of course a rabbit trapper is not going to kill all the rabbits. We must judge by results. Is it not fair to judge by the results of what has been going on under the present system? If the present system is not satisfactory, then let us try something else. In support of my contention that rabbit trapping increases the rabbit population, may I quote the Ministry of Agriculture? Their publication No. 22, published in 1918, says at page 34:
"Contradictory as the idea may appear, traps must be considered the best means of maintaining a plentiful stock on the ground."
Those words are as true to-day as when they were written. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote from a former Minister of Agriculture. Speaking in another place, in 1934, the right honourable Member, Mr. Walter Elliot, said that the use of traps was an exceedingly unsatisfactory and undesirable means of catching ground game, and in the Ministry's opinion should not be used. I should like to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, supports that statement. Perhaps he will tell us at some convenient opportunity.
I wish now to say a word about rabbit farmers. Rabbit farmers and trappers are no doubt perfectly respectable citizens, and personally I have no word to say against them. But their occupation is, in the true sense of the word, parasitic. They are living on the backs of other people. The rabbit farmer does not keep Ids stock on his own land, and he should be made to do so. He makes profits, no doubt, and often pays his rent out of his profits. Does he charge in his profit and loss account the food for those rabbits—which is grown on the land of his neighbour? If the cost of that food were charged in the profit and loss account we should hear a different story. Ought subsidies to be paid out of the taxpayer's pocket to rabbit farmers? That is what
594
is happening to-day. I do not think that that is right. If we are to subsidise farming we should have proper methods of farming; rabbit farming is not a proper method, and it should be stopped.
I always hesitate before mentioning personal matters in your Lordships' House, and I hesitate now to refer to my own property or to the place from which I come. But I feel that to-day I must say a few words about the county in which I live—a county which is regarded as one of the black areas in Britain for rabbits. It is the county of Pembroke. I have had some experience of this county, for I have lived there all my life. I am told that Devon, Cornwall, Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire are the four worst counties in this respect. Since, as I say, I have lived in Pembrokeshire all my life and know the county, I hope that I shall not be thought to be a long-haired crank who has never been in the country. I occupy about 500 acres of land in Pembroke, about half of which is farm land and the other half woodland. I have never allowed traps on my own land, and though I have seen many on other people's land and on land of mine which is let to tenants, I have never seen a trap on land in my own occupation. And I shall never allow a trap on this land, as long as I live. What is the result? On that land of mine, alone in the whole county, trees can be planted without rabbit wire. When I go to outlying parts of my estate that are surrounded by rabbit farms, I find that they have to use rabbit wire. Why is this? I know the reason. Surely there is some significance in it. I may say that I encourage the killing of rabbits by every possible means, short of trapping, because I believe that trapping is an abominable thing and that trapping increases rabbits.
Perhaps I may be permitted now to make one or two constructive suggestions. It does not worry me whether humane traps are invented or not. If trapping has to be done, then, of course, I want to see humane traps, but I believe that to say that gassing is just as cruel as trapping is very wide of the mark. Of course it is not. I suggest that to deal with this situation, this growing menace to our food supplies, the rabbit population, we should first of all nationalise rabbits. We should alter the law which at present governs the situation. We should stop

595
talking about rabbits being game of any kind, and always talk about them as being a pest, and nothing but a pest. We should stop fining people for trespassing in pursuit of coneys and fine them for not trespassing in pursuit of coneys. Further, we should place rabbits in the same position, legally, as mushrooms. I understand that in law it is no offence for someone to come on my land and take away mushrooms or blackberries, provided that they are not cultivated. It is true that if the person snaps a single blade of grass in the process he incurs a penalty, but he may take away my mushrooms with impunity. Why should he not take away my rabbits? That, more than anything else that has been suggested to-day, would help to solve this problem. Of course I know that I may be up against the gamekeepers; but I must face that. I believe that if we did put rabbits in the same position legally as mushrooms this problem would vanish in a very short time.
The Ground Game Act of 1880 is partly to blame for the present situation. One of the things that that Act does is to grant almost total monopoly in the taking of rabbits. It is true that the occupier or owner can take rabbits, but apart from this the right to take rabbits is confined to one man. The tenant can permit one man employed by him to take the rabbits—and that is the fatal error, because that creates a monopoly. If that one man were not sure that no one else was coming to take rabbits, he would not leave a stock for next year. It is because of his monopoly that he leaves a plentiful stock to keep his income and profits for next year. If the law were altered in that respect, and if people were allowed to take rabbits from the land of another, a tremendous improvement in this very serious situation would take place. It may be they would have to be licensed—I do not know.
Now a word about the agricultural organisations which are responsible, the county agricultural executive committees. I am afraid I must say that I do not think they are all doing effective work in this regard. Some of them are no doubt good, but they are not all good. What is more, in some counties they are not receiving the encouragement which they ought to receive from responsible people like land owners and farmers. In all
596
too many cases the land owners are not enthusiastic because, among other reasons, they are afraid of offending their tenants; and all too often the farmers are not enthusiastic because they are afraid of losing membership of the National Farmers' Union. They are afraid of losing the immediate cash profit which the rabbit farmer and the rabbit trapper regard as the key to the matter. In my view, the Ministry, by co-operation with the local county agricultural executive committees, should do more to try to solve this problem, and should somehow secure more encouragement from land owners and farmers.
The truth is, of course, that there are too many vested interests here; too many people would be displaced by the stopping of trapping. Is not labour short on the farms? There is no reason whatever why all these rabbit trappers, most of them strong able men, should not be employed in agriculture on the farms instead of doing what I think is a great deal of harm to the countryside. Why not try the experiment? I would further suggest this to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington will be send someone down from the Ministry to one of these black areas to try an experiment? It should not be impossible to secure a small area where people are willing to try this experiment, where traps were totally abolished for a year or two. Let us try. The Government say that we are wrong; if so, that should prove it. I have no hesitation in saying that it will prove nothing of the kind. But let us see. It will, at any rate, silence some of the critics. It will save your Lordships from reverting to this problem which, believe me, will be brought before this House over and over again until this Bill, or some Bill like it, goes through. If your Lordships do not pass this Bill to-day, it is only a question of time before your Lordships will be asked to pass another Bill on the same lines—it may be introduced by the Government or it may be by a private member, but the result will be the same. If your Lordships passed such a measure you would be doing the right thing, and I am asking your Lordships to do the right thing to-day.
5.23 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Elton on bringing this Bill before your Lordships' House and on the moderate

597
language he has used in depicting the horror created by the use of some 3,000,000 gin traps. All your Lordships who have spoken have stressed the great cruelty that is inflicted on rabbits by the use of the gin trap, and also the immense damage done by rabbits in forestry and agriculture. I feel that a tribute should be paid to the fact that we have been kept aware of these things—and that applies also to the general public—by the splendid work that has been done over the years by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare and the English and the Scots Royal Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
I join with the other noble Lords who have spoken in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on his first speech in his new office. I was interested in all the noble Lord had to say, but I noticed particularly that in talking of developing a humane trap the noble Lord specifically referred to an inventor, and he gave me the impression that he had in mind the encouragement of one particular trap; in other words, I suppose that might possibly he encouragement in the development of the Sawyer trap of which your Lordships know. I should like to ask the noble Lord to remember that there is another trap, the Miller trap, which comes from the district where the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, holds sway—from Edinburgh In my view, that trap shows perhaps even more promise than the Sawyer, excellent though it is. I hope that the noble Lord intends to encourage the development not only of one promising design but of two or such other promising designs that may come forward, traps of the type of the Sawyer and/or the Miller. When the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, comes to reply for His Majesty's Government, he may have something to say in regard to this matter.
Perhaps I may with modesty claim to have a certain vested interest in this matter, since I think I am the only member of your Lordships' House who has spoken this afternoon who has been so fortunate in the past as to introduce a Bill—the Prevention of Damage by Rabbits Bill of 1938. This dealt with one aspect of the nuisance created by this pest. I was minded at that time to propose the abolition of the gin trap, but I was advised against that course, and was dissuaded from so doing for reasons
598
similar to those advanced to-day. Now that His Majesty's Government, as I understand from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, are prepared to give specific assurances to take immediate action which will lead to the rapid development of a humane type of trap or traps, the greater use of gas and, eventually, the extermination of rabbits altogether, except those in a fenced warren, I hope that my noble friend Lord Elton will be moved to accept such assurance, and not to press his Bill to a Division.
5.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate. I have listened to all the speeches and have been greatly impressed by the cogency of the arguments that have been addressed to your Lordships' House, both on the one side and on the other. Having come here with no strong preconceived opinion, I felt myself in great difficulty as to the vote which it would be my duty to cast if the noble Lord, Lord Elton, took his Bill to a Division. He and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, made out an exceedingly strong case for a Bill of this character. The fact of the cruelty—the gross and widespread cruelty—caused by the gin trap is undoubted and is not denied in any quarter. Incidentally, much cruelty is caused upon other animals that may happen to blunder into these traps. The Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, which presented a moderate Report, unanimously condemned the gin trap in unmeasured language, and said categorically that it ought to be abolished. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned that there are other countries in Europe which have abolished it. I wish lie had told us more about that. Apparently this has been done in Germany, and in some Scandinavian countries. Have the disasters that have been foretold happened in those cases? If not, how was it that they did not happen? That is one point on which I think the House would have been glad to hear more, and upon which it is insufficiently informed.
Sixteen years ago Lord Tredegar brought forward a similar Motion. It was rejected by a small majority, and absolutely nothing has been done since. We are now told that if we throw out this Bill something will be done quickly,

599
and that the Government have the matter well in hand. That is not our usual experience in measures of this character. Year after year goes by, and, in spite of promises from the Front Bench in this House and in another place, no matter what Government may be in power, in effect the result is nil. The fact that the noble Lord who now represents the Ministry of Agriculture on the Government Bench and the noble Earl who used to represent it have both opposed this Bill, to my mind only shows that agricultural opinion in general, which is not very quick to move in these matters, is opposed to it, and the Ministry of Agriculture cannot have taken a course which would be strongly disapproved of by the majority, or at least a great number, of farmers, land-owners and others. Consequently, I do not attach very great importance to any of those considerations.
I think great importance should be attached to the fact mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, and several others, that while some noble Lords in this House, and possibly other people elsewhere, believe that the gin trap can be abolished without injury to the cause of the suppression of rabbits, agriculturists do not think so: and that if we were to pass an Act of Parliament suddenly—that is to say, within two years—depriving farmers of all possibility of using the gin trap except under heavy penalty, they would be very angry. If 3,000,000 gin traps are now in use, it would be a strong order to say that they shall not be replaced after two years, supposing that no efficient alternative were forthcoming within that time. It may or it may not be forthcoming. Those are all important considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has made out a strong case that agriculturists are foolish in thinking that the gin trap is a necessity in present circumstances. They do not think they are foolish. You must, if you can, carry agricultural opinion with you in a matter of this sort.
LORD SILKIN: May I just ask a question? If the two years which is suggested is too short a period, could not a longer period be considered?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The noble Lord has taken the words out of my mouth; he has shown proof of very intelligent
600
anticipation, for my next sentences were intended to say exactly that. It seems to me that we ought to pass this Bill on Second Reading. If we throw it out, the world will say that we are indifferent to the accusations of cruelty to which even those who say the gin trap is necessary plead guilty in the fullest degree. They say they are guilty of shocking cruelty, but that it cannot be helped, and that worse would follow if these traps were abolished. But surely it would be better to free this country from the stain of this grave cruelty, which was condemned by the Special Committee appointed to consider this matter. As the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, said, if we throw this Bill out, there will be no inducement to or pressure on manufacturers and inventors to produce something better, and we shall go on, year after year, as we have done hitherto; we shall discuss the question again and the House will take the same course every time the matter is brought before it. And we shall still have the same assurances that something is about to be done.
Therefore, I would feel disposed, subject to anything further that may be said by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, or by Lord Elton, to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill and to send it to Committee. After all, it is not the last word to be said on the Bill. Let us send it to Committee, and let the Committee consider very carefully the time when the Bill should be brought into operation. As it stands, it gives a period of two years. I should be prepared to agree either to a longer period or to some such provision as this: that the Bill shall be brought into operation by Order in Council at such time as it is found expedient to do so. Leave it as an open date, but put the Bill on the Statute Book, give notice to agriculture, give notice to the manufacturers that Parliament has condemned these traps, that we wish to get rid of them and that we are only waiting for the moment when circumstances will permit the application of the ban without damage to the industry of agriculture and to wider considerations. As soon as that moment arrived the Bill could be put into operation, not by having to go through all these legislative procedures again but perhaps by Order in Council, with the consent of both Houses (it could not then be done without the assent of your Lordships' House), or by any other pro-

601
cedure which the Committee of this House considering the Bill may think to be expedient. I venture to suggest that course to your Lordships.
5.37 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, before I attempt to deal with the debate in any detail, there are two questions that I should like to answer straight away. First, there is the question that was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie—namely, why did His Majesty's Government allow this Bill to be introduced without proper consultation with the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union and other organisations? I am sure that the noble Earl will appreciate, on second thoughts, that we have no power whatsoever over Private Members' Bills which are introduced.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I am not arguing that point; I quite admit it. I say that it would have been wiser and generally better to do these things.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think most of us will agree that, whether or not it was necessary, it certainly would have been very much wiser, and I think very much more helpful to our considerations if that had been done. The last thing that we in your Lordships' House want is to have outside bodies quoted at us in such a way as to imply that we must necessarily follow what they say. But at the same time it is very useful to us to know what in fact are the views of those who are actively engaged, by virtue of their daily life and experience, in dealing with these problems. I think one noble Lord (I am not sure whether it was the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, or the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery) asked whether any consultation had taken place with the Scottish Office.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I was reassured on that point by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
EARL DE LA WARR: Then I need not pursue the point.
I think we shall all agree that this has been an extraordinarily useful and, in many ways, a most important—indeed, I think I might almost say, a unique—debate. After all, on a number of subjects on which there has been really grave disagreement between the two sides of the House, frequently in the last few years,
602
by our wise method of conducting our business here, we have been able to avoid Divisions. But to-day we are in a most extraordinary position: on a subject upon which, at least in regard to some of the important points of the discussion, there is almost complete agreement, we are solemnly contemplating a Division of the House. I think we all feel very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, for the suggestion which he made which was obviously designed, to be most helpful to us. On second thoughts, though, I cannot help wondering whether it would be altogether wise for us to accept his suggestion. To begin with, if there were any question of this Bill going on the Statute Book it would have to be revised and amended to such a tremendous extent that in the end it would not be the same Bill as that which we have before us to-day.
My noble friend Lord Carrington, quite rightly, feeling that we were dealing with the broader aspects of the question, did not go into the details, but I would mention just one point. We are all agreed that if this problem is to be dealt with satisfactorily it has to be dealt with on a comprehensive basis. By that, I mean that it cannot be dealt with in terms of separate small areas of land. In any comprehensive Bill, there must be real provision, such as we have not heard envisaged to-day, for securing common action over large areas of the country. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, freely confessed that the last Government had not been able to provide for this, and all I hope is that this Government will be able to tackle the question more successfully. But if we were to pass this Bill and then say: "We will leave the question of the date to be settled later," either we should be leaving a Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of this industry or the Bill would be completely meaningless.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Why should it be?
EARL DE LA WARR: If no date is inserted in the Bill, no one will know when it is to be brought into operation. Would it not be better for noble Lords who are interested in the Bill to say that they will take His Majesty's Government at their word? After all, Lord Carrington has given a very strong indication, if he has not given a pledge, of

603
the Government's intention. Why should noble Lords who support the Bill not say: "We will give the Government until January, 1954; and if by then they have not implemented their expressed intention, or their expressed hope, by introducing legislation, we will bring the matter up again in your Lordships' House, if necessary, and then ensure that the Bill is passed into law"? That, I suggest, would be perhaps a more satisfactory way of dealing with this situation.
What really is the position arising out of this debate? Has not one thing become absolutely clear? Not a single speech in your Lordships' House to-day has been devoted to the question of whether or not the gin trap shall go. There has been an absolutely unanimous expression by all speakers of the view that the gin trap must and shall go. The only question raised in the discussion has been when it shall go. It is a matter of procedure. Again, it has been agreed between us all that there is need of delay before the gin trap can be done away with. It is not proposed by those supporting the Bill to bring it into operation until January 1, 1954. We, on the other hand, say that we very much hope that the gin trap can be abolished by that date, but we just do not know, because we are as yet unaware how experiments now in progress with regard to the new trap are likely to turn out. We are all agreed that the gin trap is a beastly thing. We are also agreed that the rabbit is an enemy of mankind, and that the control of the rabbit is vital. Very often, speaking colloquially we misuse that word "vital," as meaning "really important" I am using it to-day in its literal sense. Lord Elton said that if the vileness of the gin trap could be demonstrated in Trafalgar Square the crowds would at once call for its destruction.
LORD ELTON: That is not exactly what I said, but, as the noble Earl is not going to destroy my argument, I will leave it at that.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think that when your Lordships read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, you will find that I am not very far wrong. I believe that what Lord Elton said is absolutely true. But I do not think that the crowds in Trafalgar Square realise, or that immense numbers
604
of people in this country realise, the immense and terrible gravity of the food situation with which we shall be faced in the next few years.
I need not stress the damage which the rabbit does. We have heard a great deal of how much the rabbit eats, but what has impressed me most is the effect it has on what it does not eat, the effect of the poison which it leaves behind on the ground. There is a well-known saying often used by farmers. It is to the effect that if a farmer going over his land with his gun had only one cartridge left and he saw a rabbit and a rat in front of him he would shoot the rabbit every time. No farmer, I am convinced, would question the rightness of that. But I do not think we should deceive ourselves by thinking that we shall ever abolish the rabbit entirely. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I believe, used a rather optimistic phrase in that connection. The trouble is that when we get the rabbit down, the buries are made more health; that is conducive to increased breeding, and the rabbits start breeding again. That is why we have to wage continual warfare against this pest. Lord Elton and Lord Merthyr have given us their firm and considered view that trapping rabbits in fact increases their numbers. I think the ordinary man finds it extremely difficult to understand that, with 30,000,000 rabbits being killed by traps every year, there can be more rabbits as a result. It is a piece of logic which it is very difficult for the average countryman to understand.
But let us not get away from the point that we do agree that this gin trap has ultimately to go. We who hold that it would be dangerous to pass the Bill now feel that it is absolutely essential that, before we do away with the gin trap, we should have a substitute. And here the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has given us, I think, a real message of hope. We all of us know—I do not recall the exact time of its introduction, but I think it was between one and two years ago—that a new trap was brought out of which we had, at the time, immense hopes. But it has proved a disappointment. There is now another edition of that trap, I believe, and it seems to offer real hope for dealing successfully with this problem. But we have to recognise that our hopes have been disappointed before. We have to recognise that we may find that the new

605
trap, which is an exceedingly good trap, is successful only in certain conditions. But, so far, we do not know. It has to be tried, not only experimentally but also in the field.
When that trap has been tried, we must go still further and wait to establish confidence in it in the minds of the average countrymen who have to use it. Once that has been done, we come back to the firm statement made by my noble friend Lord Carrington, with which many noble Lords have expressed their satisfaction. He has given it after being only one month in office. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said that it was a conventional undertaking, but he must be fair to my noble friend. We have to be very cautious about what we say. I think noble Lords who have had experience of Ministerial assurances will agree with me that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, went a very long way in assuring the House that the Government do not mean to pigeonhole this question. I appeal to noble Lords who feel deeply in favour of the Bill not to make controversy where, in fact, 90 per cent. agreement exists. I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, not to force noble Lords who hate the gin trap as much as anyone to go into the Lobby against this Bill, when so many of us are hoping that the time will come, quite soon, when it will be possible for us, with the full agreement of the whole House, to pass a Bill abolishing the gin trap.
5.52 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, you will not wish me at this hour to try to meet the arguments to which we have been listening. I certainly feel that most of the noble Lords who spoke against the Bill have not met my arguments. But I expect your Lordships want most to know now whether we are going to divide and, if so, what will be the result of the Division. I was very disappointed with Lord Carrington's speech. He criticised the use of gas. The noble Earl, Lord Airlie, from the Cross Benches, said that he had found gas extremely efficient but that he could not get it. I could not help feeling that if the Government would make gas easier to obtain in Scotland, if difficulty exists, that would be more useful than criticising the use of it.
I could not make more out of the noble Lord's promise, to which a number of later speakers have referred, than that
606
he said, in effect, that if and when the Government had a humane trap ready, and if and when the state of business permitted, the Government would consider introducing a Government measure of some sort. If it is no more than that, that seems to me little more than common form. I have been a member of this House for seventeen years and I have heard that sort of thing said many scores of times. It is what is called, in Ministerial circles, a friendly answer. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, with all his charm, said we must accept this pledge; but I cannot see how the word "pledge" can be attached to that familiar formula, which commits nobody, least of all the speaker, to anything. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, quoted a Government statement of 1934 which was ten times more committal than what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said now, seventeen years later. And we are asked to accept this as a promise that something is really going to happen. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was once a Red, and I have heard him lash many abuses. But Lord Listowel was once in Lord Carrington's place. I think it was Lord Acton who said that power is poison. If not poison, it is certainly a most debilitating medicine. The noble Earl has dished out scores of these friendly answers himself. I have heard him, too, say that if and when something or other happened his Government would consider whether the business of the day would permit them to consider a Bill of an unspecified nature. Naturally the noble Earl considered that the promise of the present Parliamentary Secretary should be most attractive to those who want this measure.
I may be very unreasonable, but I think that the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, might well commend itself to the House. If your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, it will at least strike a blow against this abuse, this scandal. Of course if it is true, as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said, that we should have to have a quite different Bill, it would be no use passing this one on Second Reading. But if we followed Lord Samuel's suggestion, when we came to the Committee stage we could meet a good deal of the misgivings of noble Lords by the way in which we dealt with the last clause

607
in the Bill—the time clause. I am sure that supporters of the Bill would be ready to prolong the time. They would even be prepared to accept the suggestion made by Lord Samuel with regard to procedure by Order in Council. What we feel is that unless and until there is some fixed date ahead, then, as the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, has said, there is no incentive whatever to anybody to get on with anything. Just as we were promised seventeen years ago that the Government would really look
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

JAPANESE TREATY OF PEACE BILL
9.30 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.
into this matter, we shall have to be content with a promise of the same sort to-day. And those of us who are alive seventeen years hence will be grappling with the same elusive problem—and the same promises. So the supporters of the Bill feel they must take it to a Division, to test the opinion of the House. That is all I can say.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2ª?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS

Haddington, E.

Amulree, L.

Merthyr. L. [Teller.]

Bingham. L. (E. Lucan.)

Moyne, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Burden, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Chorley, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Devonport, V.

Clwyd, L.

Sempill. L.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L. [Teller.]

Silkin, L.

Samuel, V.

Greenhill, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kenswood, L.

Williams, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Bridgeman, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Harcourt, V.

Killearn, L.

Norfolk. D. (E. Marshal.)

Monsell, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Somerset, D.

Stansgate, V.

Leathers, L.

Lloyd, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Monson, L.

Willingdon, M.

Belstead, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Blackford, L.

Rochdale, L.

Airlie, E.

Carrington, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Birkenhead, E. [Teller.]

Cherwell, L.

Sandys, L.

De La Warr, E.

Derwent, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Digby, L.

Templemore, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Teviot, L.

Radnor, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Teynham, L.

Selkirk, E.

Haden-Guest, L.

Trent, L.

Ypres, E.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Trevethin, L.

Hawke, L.

Waleran, L.

Allenby, V.

Hindlip, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

  LAW RELATING TO CHARITABLE TRUSTS
  LAW RELATING TO CHARITABLE TRUSTS