Sitting of 1 April 1952

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

    Road Tax and Petrol (Cost)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Pensions the cost to his Department of the payment of road tax and petrol allowances for cars and tricycles, etc., supplied to war-disabled pensioners at the latest convenient date; and the estimated increase resulting from the Budget proposals.
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): The cost of the road tax on the motor cars is £18,830 a year, which will increase by about £4,700, and on the motor tricycles £3,800 a year, which will not be affected by the Budget proposals.
    There is no petrol allowance for either the cars or the tricycles. A contribution is, however, made towards the running and repair costs of the cars, and the motor tricycles are maintained at State expense.
    Mr. Lewis: As the Minister will be aware, many of these disabled ex-Service men find it difficult now to meet the cost of petrol and, in view of the increased petrol tax, will he consider making them some allowance or approaching the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to giving them special remission from this increased petrol tax?
    Mr. Amory: I think that is rather a different question to the one on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question contained in the supplementary question and, perhaps, deal with it at a later date?
    Mr. Amory: We always have these matters under consideration.
    Mr. F. A. Burden: Will the Minister give the approximate mileage per gallon of these vehicles?
    Mr. Amory: I think that the mileage of the cars varies between 30 and 40. The mileage of the motor tricycles varies according to whether they are all-weather tricycles or ordinary ones. I understand that the mileage of the all-weather tricycles is rather higher than that of the ordinary tricycles. The mileage of the latter is, I think, something like 70 to the gallon.

    War Pensions
    Mr. S. P. Viantasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing among the recipients of war pensions owing to the inadequacy of the proposed increases; and if he is prepared to reconsider the increases in the light of the present cost of living.
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I think the recipients of war pensions generally will regard the recently announced improvements costing £10 million a year as a substantial contribution in the light of the present economic situation of the country.
    Mr. Viant: Do I understand that the Minister has received no representations from the ex-Service men's organisations in regard to the inadequacy of this increase?
    Mr. Amory: I understand that the headquarters of the British Legion has sent out a communication to all its branches urging them to protest against the inadequacy of the improvements, and that many branches have done so; but I think we must remember that the Legion's request was for a very large sum which, in my opinion, is out of the question in the present financial situation of the country.
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Is the Minister aware that by far the greater majority of these disabled pensioners will, by virtue of their percentage rate of disability, get only 2s. or 3s. a week increase?
    Mr. Amory: Yes, but I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that even so they will be getting their proportional increase, which is all that we can give on the basis of the assessment.

    1383
    They will still be getting an increase of over 20 per cent. on their proportional basic pensions.
    Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: Does my hon. Friend mean that he is having no conversations with the Treasury to see whether or not something can be done in this matter; or is the matter completely closed?
    Mr. Amory: I can hold out very little hope of further improvement in the present situation.

    Personal Case
    Mr. James Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions what steps he is taking to examine the claim of Ronald Albert Powell to a disablement pension.
    Mr. Amory: No trace can be found in the records of my Department of any claim for a disablement pension by a Mr. Ronald Albert Powell. It has now been established that Mr. Powell did not serve in Her Majesty's Forces.
    Mr. Simmons: I had a suspicion that that was the case. Will the Minister do his best to insure that the Press give equal publicity to his vindication of the Ministry as they gave to the ill-informed and malignant remarks of the magistrate?
    Mr. Amory: I hope that the Press—and I am sure that they will—will give publicity to the answer I have given to the Question.

    Disablement Assessments
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions (1) if he will define all the factors taken into consideration in assessing war disability pensions for amputations in accordance with the tables of assessments for specific injuries under the Royal Warrants;
    (2) if he will grant to limbless pensioners the same facilities for higher assessments for increased disablement with advancing years as are granted to other pensioners; and if he will award compensation for the discomfort and burden of wearing artificial limbs in addition to the pension for amputation as the men get older.
    Mr. Amory: I refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Inter-departmental Committee on the Assessment of Disablement due to Specified Injuries appointed
    1384
    jointly by the Minister of National Insurance and the Minister of Pensions in 1946. As the hon. Member is aware the recommendations of this Committee were published in March, 1947 (Cmd. 7076), and were accepted by both Ministers. I do not feel able to question the findings of this expert Committee, but I will gladly look into any individual case in which it is felt that the pension assessment should be increased because of worsening of the war disablement.
    Mr. Simmons: Is the Minister aware that that Committee took no regard of the fact of the increasing age of the pensioners? Is he further aware that according to his own reply to me on 11th March it would cost only £1,115,000 to give a 50 per cent. increase in the pensions of limbless persons above the age of 50? Will he consider that aspect of the case?
    Mr. Amory: As I have told the hon. Member, one has the greatest sympathy for the ageing pensioner, whatever the type of disablement, but I do not think I can make any change of the kind suggested by him unless that change is supported by medical evidence. That is the difficulty.
    Mr. Simmons: Is the Minister aware that the limbless man is in rather a different category to other pensioners? He is a battle casualty and should receive special consideration.
    Mr. Amory: Yes, but I think the hon. Member will agree that we have to do equal justice to all pensioners for whom we are responsible, whatever their type of disability. There is much to be said about the elder pensioner suffering extra hardship in certain cases, but it is extremely difficult to discriminate in any way between one type of pensioner and another.
    Mr. L. M. Lever: Will the Minister consider granting a larger pension increase to limbless ex-Service men who served as privates?
    Mr. Amory: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. Lever: Is it not a fact that the proposed increases show a distinction between limbless officers and privates? Is it not a fact that the disabled ex-Service man whether his rank be private or officer, is entitled to equal treatment?
    Mr. Amory: As I think the hon. Member knows, there has always been increments for rank in the Royal Warrant, and I would not be inclined to interfere with that. But the increase that has now been given to the basic pension is the same for all ranks. Increments have not themselves been increased.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Personal Cases
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for War why the date of discharge from full-time service of 22330907 Lance-Corporal Parker was altered in his discharge book from 31st January, 1952, to 25th February, 1952.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): This alteration was made to correct a mistake by which the date on which this soldier reported for part-time service, instead of the date on which he completed his terminal leave, was entered in his discharge documents.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this alteration had nothing to do with the charge that was subsequently laid against Lance-Corporal Parker?
    Mr. Head: I am completely satisfied on that point. I understand the reason for my hon. Friend's anxiety, but I can assure him that it is not so.
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the fact that 22330907 Lance-Corporal Parker was kept under close arrest for nine days, and was subsequently sentenced to 28 days' detention for the unauthorised borrowing of a motor-cycle; and whether he will cause a review of this sentence, in view of its severity.
    Mr. Head: This soldier's sentence of 28 days' detention was confirmed and promulgated, but on 14th March the reviewing authority remitted 21 days' detention and he was, therefore, released from detention on 18th March.
    Mr. Shepherd: Can my right hon. Friend say why it is necessary in a case of this kind to keep the soldier concerned, who is on discharge leave, under close arrest? In a similar case tried by the civil authority he would not have been so detained.
    Mr. Head: This is habitual in the procedure, and I do not think that under the circumstances nine days was an unduly long time.
    Mr. Stephen Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War (1) why 22774347 Signalman G. W. Parsons, 7 Training Regiment, Royal Signals, Catterick Camp, was not granted legal aid in the preparation of his defence before a district court-martial;
    (2) on what date 22774347 Signalman G. W. Parsons, Royal Signals, was tried by court-martial at Catterick Camp; and on what date his sentence was confirmed and by whom.
    Mr. Head: The trial took place on 20th March, 1952; the sentence was confirmed by the Commander, Signals Training Centre, Catterick, on the following day.
    All applications for legal aid in this country are considered by the Director of Army Legal Services. For trials by court-martial for purely military offences, it is granted whenever the case presents particular legal difficulty or in cases of mutiny, serious cases of insubordination and certain other specific offences. The charge in this case, under Section 33 of the Army Act, was a straightforward one and did not come within the scope of the scheme.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister satisfied that this trial was properly conducted? Is it or is it not a fact that just before this trial this soldier was charged and summarily convicted on a charge of making a false statement to obtain pay, and that on investigation a senior officer quashed the proceedings on the ground of irregularity? Is it not a fact that the soldier was told at the trial that he should have had expert legal advice on a certain point, and that certain important evidence was never produced?
    Mr. Head: I am not aware of these facts, but if the hon. Gentleman would care to inform me of the details of them I will certainly look into the matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the case of Gunner J. E. O'Leary, missing in Malaya since 2nd March, 1951.
    Mr. Head: A death certificate could not be provided by my Department until

    1387
    an investigation in connection with a murder charge had been completed by the civil authorities and an inquest into this death had been held. The civil authorities have now decided to dispense with an inquest, and I hope that the death certificate will very soon be issued.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that in this very deplorable case the parents have been treated with a lack of consideration which is really heartless, especially in view of the right hon. Gentleman's promise in the House on 13th November that the fate of this lad was going to be cleared up within a week or two? I am really ashamed of the way in which this has been handled.
    Mr. Head: I very much regret this delay but, as I say, we could not issue the death certificate until the civil authorities had completed their examination.

    Ex-Miners (Releases)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for War how many miners now in the Army have applied for release to return to the mines in the past six months.
    Mr. Head: The scheme for the release of miners serving in the Army ended on 30th September, 1951. No records are, therefore, available of any applications submitted after that date.
    Mr. Hamilton: That is not an answer to the Question. Is the Minister aware that I, as one Member on this side of the House, have sent him quite a number of cases where men have applied for release in the last few months? I should like to know what are the ranks of these men and what is the job they are doing in the Army. Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be infinitely better from the national point of view that a man who is doing duties of a routine character in the Army and is an unwilling soldier should be released to work in the mines?
    Mr. Head: As I said, this scheme was stopped on the 30th September, 1951. My answer is correct. As a man applying for discharge under this rule would have been informed by his commanding officer that no such rule existed, no records could be kept and no such returns were made to the War Office.
    Mr. William Ross: Is it not about time that we had a new policy, and that it should be a question of unconditional release for miners?
    Mr. Head: That is another question.

    Accession Proclamation, Lincoln
    Mr. Geoffrey de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for War why the band of the Royal Lincolnshire Regiment was ordered to travel from Lincoln to Nottingham to take part in the ceremony in the city of Nottingham proclaiming the accesssion of Her Majesty and was thus prevented from taking part in the proclamation ceremony in the City of Lincoln.
    Mr. Head: I do not think that I can usefully add to my reply to the hon. Member's Question on this subject on Tuesday, 18th March.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Secretary of State aware that the citizens of Lincoln resent the poaching of this band in this case, and will he do everything he can to foster the association between this famous regiment and the city and capital of the county?
    Mr. Head: I think that on this occasion the Lincolnshire band, through no fault of their own, found themselves with two dates and, as often happens, they were unable to keep both. One party was thus unsatisfied.

    Boys' Battalion (Service Engagements)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for War whether recruits to the boys' battalion of the Army will have the option of taking their discharge at 18 years of age.
    Mr. Head: No, Sir. The engagement is freely entered upon and must have the consent of the parents or legal guardian. Since the period spent before attaining the age of 18 is devoted to giving the boy a specialised training for his future Army career, I cannot agree to give these boys the option of taking their discharge at the very moment when their training is completed.
    Mr. Hynd: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is right to allow a boy of 15 years to sign on for up to 11 years with the Colours and Reserves, or

    1389
    15 years with the Colours? Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that an alteration was made in the Royal Navy a few years ago when boys were given the option at the age of 18, I think, to enter into a short-term engagement?
    Mr. Head: None of these boys can sign on for 15 years. This system has been continuing for some considerable time, including the last six years under the late Government, and I do not think that when we spend a lot of money on their training we can afford to let them go so early.
    Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that in an official document it states that a boy of school-leaving age may join a battalion by enlisting in the Regular Army, and the conditions are that he signs on for eight years with the Colours and four with the Reserves, which means 12 years with the Colours from the age of 18? That, in effect, means up to 15 years' service.
    Mr. John Strachey: Would the right hon. Gentleman not apply the new proposal of giving everyone the right to a discharge after three-yearly intervals to these boys? Would not that meet the difficulty?
    Mr. Head: We have considered that, but the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that if one of these boys has had a technical education and is well qualified, many civilian firms may come along and make alternative offers to him so that all that time would be wasted. I think when we have these special concessions we have a right to claim longer service.

    Armoured Vehicles, Malaya
    Mr. Fitzroy Macleanasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that British troops in Malaya are inadequately supplied with armoured fighting vehicles; and what steps he is taking to maintain and improve the supply.
    Mr. Head: British units in Malaya have their full establishments of armoured fighting vehicles. Additional vehicles could only be provided at the present time at the expense of the essential needs of other theatres.

    N.A.A.F.I. Parcels Scheme
    Brigadier Terence Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for War if he will extend the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes' parcels scheme to the forces to include 5s. parcels.
    Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. Five shilling parcels will be included in the scheme both for Korea and Malaya.
    Brigadier Clarke: I hope the Minister realises how much this concession will be appreciated by the wives and friends of the soldiers serving. It makes it far easier to send parcels to them.
    Mr. Head: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his observations.

    Court-Martial Findings (Confirmation)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange for the publication of a statement of reasons on each occasion when a confirming authority fails to confirm the findings of a court-martial.
    Mr. Head: I do not think that it is desirable that this should automatically be done since in many instances the reasons derive from legal advice which is privileged, and there would also be objection if a re-trial were contemplated.
    Mr. Swingler: Would the Minister not agree that when a court-martial is held in a blaze of publicity and the officer or soldier is found guilty and sentenced, it is very undesirable that some time afterwards there should appear in the Press a short notice to the effect that the confirming officer has refused to confirm the finding without any explanation as to whether it was due to some technical defect in the trial or because some new evidence had been forthcoming? Is it not highly desirable that the reasons should be given when a trial has been given much publicity?
    Mr. Head: As a principle to cover all cases it is most undesirable, but so far as individual cases are concerned I am prepared to consider the matter.

    National Service Men, Germany (Marriages)
    Mr. Gerald Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service men have married German girls in Germany.
    Mr. Head: Statistics available cover all men whose marriages with German women have been approved. These total 7,584 since 1947. To find out how many were National Service men would need a good deal of time and effort.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister say if these men are provided with married quarters and treated in every respect in the same way as other married men?
    Mr. Head: They join the queue for married quarters in the same way as any other soldier, but we take special steps to see that the fact that they have married a German wife does not give them special privileges in being given married quarters.

    South African Veterans (Thanksgiving Service)
    Mr. Charles Pannellasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant soldiers vouchers to enable the veterans of the South African War to travel from Leeds to attend the Thanksgiving Service at St. Paul's Cathedral which is being held to mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the peace treaty at Vereeniging.
    Mr. Head: Yes, Sir—No, Sir. In spite of the special interest of this occasion, I regret that I cannot arrange a concession.
    Mr. Pannell: Are we to understand that the negative came from the right hon. Gentleman's head while the other reply came from his heart? Will he reconsider this matter, in so far as there can be very few men concerned after 50 years; or, if he cannot meet it in this way, could he intercede on their behalf with the Railway Executive?
    Mr. Head: With regard to the latter part of the supplementary question, I will certainly discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman. With regard to the first part, the hon. Gentleman will realise that if I once made a concession in this case, there are innumerable other organisations which might wish to follow suit.
    Mr. Pannell: Further to that answer, how can the right hon. Gentleman say there are many other cases which would have to be considered? After all, this kind of case is only likely to arise twice in a hundred years.
    Mr. Head: I could suggest a great many, but I do not wish to waste the time of the House.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister not appreciate that there are considerable charitable funds left over from the South African war, and that the money might be used to give this last remnant a little bit of fun in meeting together, and could he not try to see if he could get these men up to London?
    Mr. Head: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his suggestion.

    Northumberland Fusiliers (Court-Martial Sentences)
    Mr. Douglas Houghtonasked the Secretary of State for War what decision has been reached on the review of the court-martial sentences on 22331472 Fusilier Taylor and other soldiers of the Northumberland Fusiliers in Korea.
    Mr. Head: I will let the hon. Member know the outcome of this review, which was due yesterday, as soon as the report reaches me.

    School Teachers (Call-up)
    Mr. F. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the clash between the date for the calling-up of school teachers for their fortnight's refresher course and school vacation; and if he will instruct commanding officers to make provision for such men to perform this military duty during holiday periods in face of the necessity for full-time teaching in great centres like Birmingham.
    Mr. Head: It is our policy not to call up schoolmasters during term time. Any schoolmaster who has been recalled for training during term time should inform the authorities who issued him with his recall notice: it will then be arranged for him to be recalled at another time during the vacation or, where this is not possible, his recall will be cancelled.

    Officers' Pensions
    Mr. W. M. F. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for War for an estimate of what would be the annual cost of restoring the pensions of officers, stabilised in 1935, to the original rates laid down in the Royal Warrant of 1919.
    Mr. Head: Some £75,000 a year.
    Mr. Vane: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be a good thing to try to remove the sense of injustice which has been left with many officers since the 1935 settlement, and which was made even deeper by the 1947 increase not covering all cases?
    Mr. Head: I have sympathy with this case, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that it concerns all three Services and the Civil Service and cannot be settled in isolation.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that retired officers are not a numerous class, that they have served their country well, that they are suffering considerable hardship in many cases, that they are not politically organised, and would he make a renewed attempt to settle this question?
    Mr. Head: Yes, I do realise it.
    Mr. Vane: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that it is tied up with the other two Services and with the Civil Service makes it all the more urgent that a solution should be found?
    Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for War by what percentage the cost of living has increased since 1919, when the rates of officers' pensions were fixed by Royal Warrant; and if he will give an estimate of what would be the approximate annual cost of granting such increases as would make good this fall in the value of money.
    Mr. Head: I can only give an approximate figure showing the change in the level of retail prices since 1919, as different bases must be used for different periods, and an index covering all consumer goods and services has only been available since 1938. Subject to this qualification the present level is about 60 per cent. above the level in 1919.
    To increase to 60 per cent. above the 1919 rates Army officers' retired pay awards at present based on the consolidation of 1935 would cost upwards of £2½ million a year.

    Connaught Military Hospital (Dietician)
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has come to a decision regarding the appointment of
    1394
    a dietician to the Connaught Military Hospital.
    Mr. Head: This is under discussion.
    Mr. Burden: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will look into this as a matter of urgency? Quite a considerable time has already elapsed, and surely it is a matter on which a quick decision should be taken?
    Mr. Head: This matter was first mooted on 20th March, and I do not think the delay is very long. It is being looked into, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it will be completed as soon as possible.

    Officers' Emergency Reserve
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will accept applications for enrolment in the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve from men who have not previously held commissioned rank.
    Mr. Head: Enrolment in the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve is now open to suitable civilians in commands overseas, and I am hoping shortly to open this Reserve to specially qualified civilians at home.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that since 1945 quite a number of men who served in the ranks during the war have now acquired qualifications which might make them suitable for enrolment in this Reserve? Will he consider their applications?
    Mr. Head: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, if this is done, the object will be to get those with technical qualifications into the Army as officers without regard to their previous status.

  WAR GRAVES, MALAYA
  Mr. F. Macleanasked the Secretary of State for War who is responsible for the care of war graves in Malaya; and what steps he is taking to secure the provision of adequate headstones.
  Mr. Head: The graves of Service men in Malaya are the responsibility of the Service authorities. They are mostly in civil cemeteries and are at present marked

  1395
  by wooden crosses. Permanent headstones will be provided and they will be looked after by the War Department.
  Colonel J. H. Harrison: Is the Minister aware that this reply will give the greater satisfaction to many of those who were prisoners in Malaya and who know of the extremely good order in which the graves were kept during the difficult times from 1942 to 1945?

  HOUSING

    Private Building
    Mr. Thomas Priceasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is yet able to say how many local authorities have intimated their intention to apply 50 per cent. of their housing allocation to private licences; and if he will circulate a list of such authorities in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): This is a matter within the discretion of individual authorities. Information about houses licensed or approved for building by private builders by each authority is given each quarter in Appendix B to the Housing Return.
    Mr. Price: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the policy which he and his friends are pursuing in this matter is driving thousands of people, particularly young married couples, to cynical despair? Is he aware that they are now beginning to realise that the first test is not the human need of their problem but the possession of capital resources?
    Mr. Marples: I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to the circular which accompanied the authority to local authorities to increase their private enterprise licences, because in that circular my right hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that those licences should be given to those people with housing needs comparable to those on council house waiting lists.
    Mr. A. Woodburn: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he can repeat that assurance, that his Ministry is bringing no pressure whatever to bear on local authorities to
    1396
    utilise this power, that the matter is entirely one for their discretion, and that nothing will happen if they do not choose to use it?
    Mr. Marples: I said in my original answer that it is entirely at the discretion of the local authority.
    Mr. Bernard Braineasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in order to speed the building of houses, he will permit those who wish to build their own and who possess all necessary building materials to do so without a licence.
    Mr. Marples: With the increase which my right hon. Friend has made in the permitted ratio of licences to council houses, local authorities should be able to deal with any such cases on their merits.
    Mr. Braine: Is my hon. Friend aware that the local authorities are not doing so? Is there any justification whatsoever for stopping a man who has building materials, acquired legitimately, on his site and is prepared to build his house with his own hands from doing so?
    Mr. Marples: If my hon. Friend will send in the details to show that there are unemployed resources of materials and labour, the matter will be gone into.

    Derequisitioned Properties (Tenants)
    Mr. W. T. Williamsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking, in view of his instructions to local authorities regarding derequisitioning, to ensure the protection of those living in properties so to be derequisitioned.
    Mr. Marples: The hon. Member can be assured that before properties are derequisitioned local authorities will make any provision that is necessary for tenants who occupy the premises as licensees.
    Mr. Williams: But is not the Minister aware that men and women are being turned out of houses, that in fact they are served with derequisitioning notices and told to find whatever accommodation they can? Is not the Minister also aware that this kind of thing is causing great hardship and real suffering to large sections of the community, and will he, in the light of this, send a similar circular

    1397
    to the local authorities either urging them to do something about it or to slow down the rate of derequisitioning?
    Mr. Marples: In almost every case the local authorities offer the person affected alternative accommodation—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but if the hon. Gentleman has any individual case in mind, and will be good enough to let my right hon. Friend have it, he will look into it.
    Mr. Percy Shurmer: In view of that answer to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend, is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Birmingham there are over 12,000 houses which are derequisitioned? Therefore, how can he say that the local authority finds alternative accommodation when there are already 60,000 on the register of the Estates Department waiting for houses?
    Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman said that there are over 12,000 houses de-requisitioned—
    Mr. Shurmer: Twelve hundred de-requisitioned houses.
    Mr. Marples: They are to be de-requisitioned, but the local authorities will not derequisition them until they find alternative accommodation for the tenants.
    Mr. Shurmer: That will be never.

    West Riding
    Colonel Sir Leonard Ropnerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses were completed in the West Riding of Yorkshire in 1951; and how this figure compares with the figures for 1949 and 1950.
    Mr. Marples: Ten thousand, six hundred and seventy-six houses were completed in 1951. The figures for 1949 and 1950 were 11,733 and 11,056, respectively.
    Sir L. Ropner: Is the Minister in a position to make any forecast for this year?
    Mr. Marples: It is always dangerous to forecast, but we are not without hope of a substantial increase.

    Completions
    Mr. J. A. Sparksasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to what extent the rate of completion of
    1398
    housing schemes has been expedited as a result of the standstill in sanctioning new starting dates for other building work.
    Mr. Marples: It is as yet too early to judge this.
    Mr. Sparks: But would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the effect on the rate of completions has been almost nil?
    Mr. Marples: It is difficult to isolate the effects of the ban from other effects on the rate of completion. I mean that good weather, the flow of materials, the issue of private enterprise licences, and so on, which may speed up building are all factors that must be taken into account.

    Standards
    Mrs. Eirene Whiteasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what arrangement he has made to inform himself of the number of local housing authorities which require builders of houses under licence to observe the standards laid down by the National Housebuilders Registration Council, as recommended in the appendix to the circular issued by his Department on 27th November, 1951.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend considers that this is a matter which should be left in the hands of the local authorities.
    Mrs. White: If that is so, what possible assurance can the Minister give to the House or to the public that they will be protected from low standards of building, and from the kind of jerry-building which was suffered before the war?
    Mr. Marples: The local authorities are the agents in this matter, and my right hon. Friend is a firm believer in the fact that the "gentleman in Whitehall" does not always know best.
    Mrs. White: Surely, if the Minister issues a circular giving specific information and advice to local authorities, he should at least find out whether that advice has been accepted or not?
    Mr. Marples: In many cases my right hon. Friend gives guidance to local authorities, but only in rare cases does he make it mandatory; normally it is permissive.

    West Ham (Loans)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government for particulars of all types of loans, sanctioned by his Department, so far as the county borough of West Ham is concerned, and the interest rates charged; and if he will state how these will be affected by the recent increases in the Bank rate.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend's Department sanctions necessary loans to West Ham Council for all their services. The sanction is not concerned with the rate of interest, which may vary with the date, period and source of the borrowing, and he has no information on this. So far as the effect of the recent rise in the Bank rate on loans from the Public Works Loan Board is concerned, he would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Chancellor on 17th March in winding up the debate on the Budget.
    Mr. Lewis: Yes, but is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the fact that West Ham is the worst bombed borough in the country and that it has immense financial difficulties because of the loss of rateable property? Whilst we appreciate his generosity in making the £50,000 grant, is he not aware that the increased Bank rate will mean that this council will be in further financial difficulties? Will he, therefore, do something to assist this council, and councils in like position, to offset the increase resulting from the statement of the Chancellor?
    Mr. Marples: The special difficulties of West Ham are met by the grant of £50,000 referred to by the hon. Member, but the Bank rate itself does not affect the rate of interest to West Ham. It is the interest rate of the Public Work Loans Board which matters.

    Building Restrictions
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will remove all restrictions on the building of houses, except that, while the housing shortage prevails, no house shall exceed £1,500 or contain more than three bedrooms, subject always to the submission to local authorities of plans and amenities.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend hopes progressively to achieve greater flexibility and freedom in the building of houses. We have already made considerable progress in this direction.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that if all restrictions of his Ministry and of the local authorities were removed, except those indicated in the Question, we should get thousands more houses, and that there are enough men and materials in the country to build the houses if all restrictions were removed?
    Mr. Marples: I would remind my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend has indicated that if any local authority has unemployed resources of material and labour, he will consider granting them further instalments of houses.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: Has the Minister noticed that in asking for controls on the price and so on of houses built by private enterprise, the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) is becoming infected with Socialist doctrine?
    Sir W. Smithers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to protest against that Jay question.

    Rent Tribunal Offices
    Mr. Barnett Jannerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many rent tribunal offices in the country have been and are being dispensed with and if he is aware that such action will result in hardship to proposed applicants for relief under the Rent Acts.
    Mr. Marples: One office has been closed. Eight will be closed shortly and their work transferred to other offices. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that no hardship will be caused to applicants.
    Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the purpose of this provision in the Rent Acts was to give to tenants easy access to those offices, and is he prepared to accept the representations in that respect which have been made to him in regard to the cutting down of these important offices?
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that there will be no hardship because, first, the information and forms are available at the offices of the local

    1401
    authority, and secondly, the tribunals will inspect premises and hear the cases locally. Therefore no hardship ought to follow for the tenants.
    Mr. Percy Collickasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals he has under consideration in regard to the rent tribunals in the North-West region; and what will be the effect in regard to Cheshire and elsewhere.
    Mr. Marples: Eight offices, including that at Chester, are being closed and their work transferred elsewhere in the region, with, my right hon. Friend hopes, fully satisfactory results.
    Mr. Collick: Is the Minister seriously telling the House that he is proposing to eliminate no fewer than eight of these rent tribunals in Lancashire and Cheshire? Is that not another way of effectively killing the work of the rent tribunals? If that is the object of the Government, would it not be a more honourable course to repeal the legislation?
    Mr. Marples: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not the intention of the Government to do that. The number of applicants seeking help from the tribunals has dropped by more than 20 per cent., and it is not unreasonable, as the volume of work drops, that the tribunals should be transferred elsewhere.
    Mr. Collick: Does the Minister appreciate that the proposal will mean that the whole county of Cheshire will not have one rent tribunal?
    Sir W. Smithers: A good job, too.
    Mr. Marples: In the case of places like Birkhenhead, it is much easier for applicants to go to Liverpool than Chester.
    Mr. Collick: Birkenhead Tribunal cases are not heard in Chester but in Birkenhead. The hon. Gentleman's announcement means that in all the large towns in Lancashire and Cheshire applicants will have to traipse up to Manchester and such places.
    Mr. Marples: In my answer to an earlier supplementary, I said that applicants to rent tribunals can make their applications at their local council offices and get their forms there. The tribunal will go to the applicants and not the applicants to the tribunal.

    Development Charges
    Mr. John Arbuthnotasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will investigate the fact that a substantial number of private house building licences are being returned to local authorities because the applicants cannot afford the development charge; and if he will take steps to rectify this position.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is already investigating the general question of development charge in all its aspects as part of the review of the financial provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: When are we likely to get results from that investigation?
    Mr. Marples: It is too early to say yet, but I can assure my hon. Friend that a great deal of time, thought and research are going into a solution of the problem.
    Mr. J. Arbuthnotasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he now has any further statement to make on his review of those sections of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which deal with development charges on building plots for private occupation; and whether he will consider making any relief retrospective.
    Mr. Marples: This matter is extremely difficult and complicated, and my right hon. Friend is not yet able to make any statement.

    Hutted Camps
    Mr. Peter Remnantasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what special arrangements he has made to assist local authorities to rehouse people at present accommodated in hutted ex-Service camps.
    Mr. Marples: In general, the instalments of houses issued to local authorities take into account any necessary provision for rehousing families occupying such camps. In exceptional cases additional instalments are given specially for this purpose.
    Mr. Remnant: In view of the deplorable state of the majority of these huts, many of which have been condemned and many more of which should be condemned, will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to give some time limit within

    1403
    which occupants of these hutted camps should be re-accommodated in reasonable conditions?
    Mr. Marples: Surveys of the hutted camps are made from time to time by my right hon. Friend's principal regional officers, who take account of the life and the condition of the huts. If my hon. Friend has any very bad case in mind, we might get the principal regional officer to make an inspection.

    Building Contracts, Lambeth (Stoppages)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why, in a letter dated 19th February last, he refused an application by the Lambeth Borough Council to pay out-of-pocket expenses to building contractors in the event of steel shortages causing stoppage of work on housing schemes.
    Mr. Marples: The form of contract used by Lambeth Borough Council does not provide for payments of this kind and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to agree to recommend loan sanction to cover them.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that answer with the statement made by his Minister in the House on 4th March last, that housing contracts are not subject to his approval and that the local authorities can come to amicable arrangements with housing contractors on the matter?
    Mr. Marples: If housing authorities come to arrangements with housing contractors to pay out money over and above the conditions of the contract, it is not for my right hon. Friend to provide loan sanctions in advance for them. It is a matter for the local authority. In this case, the application referred to specific work carried out at Solon New Road in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's constituency. The contractor has waived his claim and the work is now proceeding. There is no necessity for any loan at all.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Rating of Site Values (Report)
    Mr. C. W. Gibsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the report of the Committee on the
    1404
    Rating of Site Values will be available to Members of this House.
    Mr. Marples: The Report will be published after Easter.
    Mr. Gibson: Can the hon. Gentleman explain this long delay?—because some months ago now he told me that the report was to be printed immediately and presented to this House. What is the reason for this long delay in a matter which is of great interest to a large number of people in local government?
    Mr. Marples: The delay is not the fault of my right hon. Friend only, but partially the fault of his predecessor also. The reason for the delay has been the difficulty of getting the Stationery Office to print the report, but it is settled, and it is hoped that the report will be published after Easter.

    Bathing Beaches (Oil Pollution)
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce legislation to enable him to provide assistance, financial and otherwise, to local authorities to help them in the difficult and expensive task of clearing bathing beaches polluted with oil washed in from the sea.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend has been sorry to hear of this difficulty, but he is afraid there are no resources available to help local authorities to meet the cost of clearance. He understands, however, that his hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is investigating the problem of pollution.
    Mr. Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister of Transport says that he has no funds either? Is it not time that somebody did assist the local authorities in this matter?
    Mr. Marples: I agree that this is a large and difficult problem for the local authority, but it may be better to approach it at the source of pollution and to remedy it there. That is what the Minister of Transport are trying to do.

    Glendale Road, Burnham-on-Crouch
    Mr. T. Dribergasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the inconvenience caused to

    1405
    residents in Glendale Road, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex, by the poor condition of the road, and of the hardship that will fall on some of them when they are required to pay their share of the proposed improvements; and if he will expedite approval of such works as are most urgently necessary on conditions which will, so far as possible, alleviate this hardship.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is looking into this case to see whether the condition of the road warrants the work being done in spite of the present financial restrictions. Objections to the apportioned costs have been determined by the magistrates, and there has been no appeal.
    Mr. Driberg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the condition of the road is now extremely bad, and that of the inhabitants of the road about half seem to approve of the proposed improvement and the other half oppose it because among them are old age pensioners and others who simply cannot afford the sum required from them in contributions? Can he put forward a constructive solution of this difficulty?
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend has called for a report on whether the work can be carried out. Whether it is carried out or not must depend upon the report that is received. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that there has been no appeal from the apportionment of costs that was made by the magistrates.
    Mr. Driberg: When is the latest date by which the appeal should have been lodged?
    Mr. Marples: There is a further appeal to the Minister on limited grounds after the magistrates have made their order, but in point of fact that right has not been exercised.
    Mr. Driberg: Is there still time to exercise it?
    Mr. Marples: I do not think so, but I will look into the point.

  N.A.T.O. SUPREME COMMANDER
  Mr. E. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether any representations have been made by the United States
  1406
  Government to Her Majesty's Government on the likely resignation of General Eisenhower and his replacement by General Gruenther.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): No, Sir. I do not think I could guarantee to make an announcement if representations were made to me, as the mere fact of having given a guarantee might preclude the making of such representations.
  Mr. Shinwell: That is a most interesting reply, but has the right hon. Gentleman noted in the American Press that several senators have, because of the impending resignation of General Eisenhower, declared that the Supreme Commander in the West must be an American? Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that there is no hereditary principle involved and that there are high-ranking military officers in the United Kingdom who are competent to undertake this task?
  The Prime Minister: I really do not think it would be advisable from any point of view for us to express very strong opinions upon this matter.
  Hon. Members: Why not?
  Mr. Shinwell: While appreciating that there is no need to express strong or violent opinions about it, I would point out with great respect that in the United States Government the competency of high-ranking military officers of the United Kingdom should not be in question. Although General Eisenhower was appointed because it was thought that he was the right man for the job, there is no reason to suppose that his subordinate officer, General Gruenther, might be able to fulfil the tasks allotted to the Supreme Commander as competently as some British officer.
  The Prime Minister: We have had controversies on this point on another subject. It seemed to me quite natural that the British should have the command of the Atlantic, and I am bound to say that when we think of the great American Army and all that they are doing to support the front in Europe, if they have the slightest wish to have the command we should certainly support them.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Shinwell: Perhaps I may be forgiven for putting a further supplementary question, as this is a matter of vital importance. While I have no wish to speak in derogatory terms of any American military officer, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the desirability—I put it no higher than that at this stage—that before he comes to any decision about this, if representations in the ordinary course are made to him, the House might be entitled to express its opinion?
  The Prime Minister: If I remember rightly, the decision about the Admiral of the Atlantic was announced without the House being told about it beforehand. The right hon. Gentleman must be very careful not, by a refinement of unreason to manage to be wrong both times.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite improper to take advantage of history in order to justify his present position?

  OFFICIAL CAR SERVICE (TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. John Hayasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a further statement on the official car service.
  The Prime Minister: The heavy responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply have been increased by the re-armament programme and I have decided to relieve him of a complicated duty and to transfer responsibility for the car service to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works. This will place it among the group of general services such as building, accommodation and supplies which the Ministry of Works already administer. The Ministry of Works have facilities for operating the car service, including a commodious garage in Church House, Westminster, which is more central than the garages which have hitherto been used.
  With effect from today, therefore, the Minister of Works will be responsible for operating the official car service as part of the general services which he provides for Government Departments. He is forming a central pool of the cars used in London by all Departments, with the exception of the Post Office.
  1408
  The Post Office is not included in these arrangements since it has an extensive transport organisation of its own, of which a few passenger cars form a minor part. Also, the remoteness of its Headquarters from the Whitehall area makes it impracticable to absorb these cars in the central pool.
  Mr. Hay: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Minister of Works to certain reports which have recently appeared in the Press making it clear that the extent to which the cutting down in the car service was promised has not been fully carried out? Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is considerable disquiet about this? If the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works helps to solve this problem quickly, we on this side will strongly support it.
  Mr. Herbert Morrison: Following the the hon. Member's question, can the Prime Minister state the relative cost of the car service now as compared with what it was? Naturally, it will be less, but the House might be interested to know how much less it is costing.
  The Prime Minister: I am much complimented that the right hon. Gentleman should imagine that I carry all these figures in my head.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the Prime Minister aware that as I passed Downing Street today, on foot, I saw there, as a result of a Cabinet meeting, a great collection of cars cluttered about the place? Does that indicate that there is any shortage of cars available for Cabinet Ministers?
  The Prime Minister: We are trying to live up to the new standards as quickly as possible.

  ATLANTIC CHARTER (POINT 4)
  Sir W. Smithersasked the Prime Minister if he will take immediate steps to implement Clause 4 of the Atlantic Charter of 14th August, 1941.
  The Prime Minister: Considerable international efforts, in which the United Kingdom has played a leading part, have been made to further the objectives of Point 4 of the Atlantic Charter.

  STATUTORY RULES AND REGULATIONS
  Sir W. Smithersasked the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will take steps progressivly to reduce the number of Statutory Rules and Regulations.
  The Prime Minister: It is our constant endeavour to limit as far as possible the number of Statutory Rules and Regulations.
  Sir W. Smithers: As a supplementary to both this Question and to Question No. 47, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the only way to avoid economic collapse and another war is to remove all impediments and controls to trade as soon as practicable at home and abroad? If goods cannot cross frontiers, armies will do so, and if we restrict consumption we restrict production.
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is often represented as the representative of extreme Toryism. He is now putting forward the most extreme proposals of free trade and Liberalism.
  Sir W. Smithers: May I remind the Prime Minister of his slogan: "Set the people free"?
  Mr. H. Morrison: Has the Prime Minister this time been sufficiently well serviced to have a note in anticipation of supplementaries as to how many Regulations and Orders have been added, since the present Government came into office, in the process of setting the people free?
  The Prime Minister: I have stated our policy, which is to set the people free, but the rate at which this process can be accomplished depends upon the weight and strength of the shackles which have been laid upon them.

  CAR TAX (FLAT RATE)
  Mr. F. M. Bennettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated loss of revenue arising from a modification of his present proposals to levy a £12 10s. flat rate on all cars licensed in the United Kingdom, to permit pre-1947 cars of nine h.p., and less, to continue to pay tax at the old rate, that is, £1 5s. per h.p.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): About £1,400,000.
  Mr. Bennett: In view of the comparatively small figure that my right hon. Friend has just given, and in view of the fact that the flat rate was originally introduced, not for revenue purposes but to help the export trade, which is in no way concerned with pre-war cars, will the Chancellor consider the particular case I have mentioned, which reacts certainly on the least well off section of the motoring community?
  Mr. Butler: I referred in my Budget speech to the difficulties of some of these people, but I cannot go further today.

  PRODUCTION ADVISORY COUNCIL
  Mr. Harold Watkinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he still presides over the National Production Advisory Council on Industry.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Watkinson: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will make much greater use of this Council than did the previous Government and try to make it a more flexible and efficient instrument for increasing production?
  Mr. Butler: We are certainly intending to use this Council. Another meeting has been arranged at the earliest time convenient to all the members concerned, and I hope to preside on that occasion.
  Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the half-yearly report of the Trades Union Congress, in which they complained of the changes he has made regarding the secretariat of this Council and of the fact that neither they nor the employers were consulted before these changes? Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make on that?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. These changes were made in the interests of economy and have been fully explained to the Trades Union Congress and the employers' side. I do not think they will make the slightest difference to the efficiency or spirit in which we work, and I

  1411
  believe that all concerned now understand that we intend to carry on as well as we can.

  HOSTEL, HORNCHURCH (EVICTIONS)
  Mr. Geoffrey Bing(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that this afternoon and to-morrow morning a number of homeless people are to be evicted by the Essex County Council from St. George's Hostel, Hornchurch; that no alternative accommodation is to be found for the men; that the women and children are only to be accommodated if they leave the district and agree that their husbands shall not visit them in their new accommodation: and since this action is not in accordance with the statutory and other duties which fall on the County Council, what immediate action he proposes to take in the matter.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): As I informed the hon. and learned Member yesterday, I understand that the county council have notified certain families that temporary accommodation will no longer be available for them at St. George's Hostel, Horn-church, and that, except for two men, they have been offered alternative accommodation at Abridge. I am asking the county council to reconsider the rule I understand they have made about visiting at Abridge.
  Mr. Bing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this hostel at the time of the last General Election no fewer than 30 people were left off the electoral list and now, within a few days of the county council elections, in the division, where there was only a majority of five, some 30 or 40 voters are to be evicted? Will he represent to the council that, quite apart from the hardship involved by people going to live at a hostel at Abridge, where there are not even doors to the cubicles, this is a most improper political act at this time?
  Mr. Crookshank: The hon. and learned Member did write and give me that information but, of course, it has to be remembered that the decision to make this move has not just been taken; it was taken by the county council after consultation with my predecessor nearly
  1412
  a year ago. In point of fact, I have no responsibility in this matter at all beyond making certain that the county council do not fail to carry out or exceed, as the case may be, their statutory powers. On my present information I have no grounds of complaint about that at all, but I can give them advice if they agree to take it and I have asked that they should look into the question about visiting.
  Mr. Bing: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree, first, that it is a violation of their statutory power not to provide accommodation for these two men, one of whom is, I understand, suffering from tuberculosis and the other is a wounded ex-Service man? Secondly, does he not think it a little odd if, as he said, it was decided a year ago, that this action should be carried out on the eve of a county council election?

  DOCUMENTS, HIGHGATE (HOAX)
  Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can make any statement about the papers found in London and indicating that they emanated from the Harwell Atomic Energy Research Establishment.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): This incident has been reported on the appropriate day; but in vain is the net spread in the sight of the bird. Inquiries soon showed that the papers found in the street, although they were marked "Top Secret" and purported to come from Harwell, bore no relation to atomic secrets at Harwell or any other atomic establishment. The whole thing is a stupid hoax by a schoolboy who no doubt regarded it as an appropriate contribution to the celebration of April Fool's Day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Dr. Barnett Stross: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter concerning Private Business tonight? You will note that there are three notices of Motion down, all of them starting with the words "After Second Reading" and then giving instructions to the Committee on the Bill. Could you tell us whether,

1413
if the Second Reading commences at seven and continues, for argument's sake, until 10, it would mean that these instructions could not be debated? If that be the case—and I see you nod—would it be right to say that as the majority have no intention to deny the B.E.A. the Bill's Second Reading but are anxious to debate the instructions, the Second Reading could be given on the nod quite early—almost at once at seven o'clock and then—we could move on to debate these instructions.
Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether this is a proper time to give a Ruling on the matter, but I have considered it. What I would suggest, if it fell in with those proposing these instructions, would be that we should have a debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, bringing in the points which are to be argued on the instructions, on the distinct understanding that when the Bill is read the Second time there will be no second argument on the instructions but merely a Division if it is wanted. But that will require the co-operation of those responsible for these Motions, and perhaps between now and seven they can consult and come to some agreement on it.

PRAYERS (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Sir Herbert Williams: I raised with you last week, Mr. Speaker, the question whether the Prayer moved by the Opposition was, in fact, an orderly proceeding. Prayers within the prescribed period are, of course, exempted business because they are in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, but the debate the other night could not have taken place but for the Motion suspending the Ten o'Clock Rule, because that Motion was not in pursuance of an Act of Parliament and accordingly a Prayer would have dealt with something which in my judgment was improper because Her Majesty is enabled by Section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act to do a legislative act, namely, to annul a piece of legislation which in itself is an act of legislation; by the terms of the Statutory Instruments Act Her Majesty has no power to do it. But if we could pray at any time it implies that Her Majesty can take a legislative act on the advice of one House of Parliament only, either this or another place. That seems to me completely
1414
contrary to customary practice, and I wish to raise with you what would be the position which would arise if what I call a disorderly Prayer were to reach Her Majesty?
Mr. Speaker: This matter has been raised, as the hon. Member knows, on a previous occasion and I have already ruled on it. The position is that it is the undoubted right of this House to present a humble Address to Her Majesty on any matter concerning the public welfare. That is an old established right. This right was not restricted by the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, and undoubtedly it is also within Her Majesty's power to take such action as she may be advised to grant the relief prayed for. Therefore, it is in order for hon. Members to move an Address praying for the annulment or revocation of a Statutory Instrument, even although the 40 days have elapsed. Equally, Her Majesty may, on receipt of the Address, take such action as she is advised with regard to it.
A Prayer out of time—if I may use that expression—differs from one moved within the 40 days in two particulars. In the first place such a Prayer is not a proceeding in pursuance of an Act of Parliament for the purposes of Standing Order No. 1, and thus could not be entered upon after 10 o'clock if it is opposed. In the second place, a Prayer which is moved in time within the 40 days has the further effect conferred upon it by Section 5 of the Act of 1946 which is that if the Address praying that the instrument be annulled is agreed to by either House no further proceedings shall be taken under the Statutory Instrument. That effect would not flow from a Prayer out of time. But the right to pray and the right of Her Majesty to act as advised in the Prayer is undoubted and unaffected by the Act of 1946.
Sir H. Williams: Further to that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, you said Her Majesty would take advice, but when the House passes a Prayer there is no advice Her Majesty can take. The Minister cannot advise Her Majesty not to annul because the advice of the House overrules the normal advice of those who do advise as members of the Government.
There are two sections of advice, the advice given by Ministers and the advice given by Parliament; and the advice given by Parliament in certain circumstances

1415
clearly over-rules any advice tendered by a Minister.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member looks at the Section again, he will see it is perfectly clear. The Section has the effect, once an Address is carried, of stopping any further proceedings under the Statutory Instrument. Then it goes on to say that Her Majesty may by Order-in-Council revoke the Instrument. That is to say, she may take such action as she is advised.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Am I right in thinking that a Prayer out of time has no preferential place on the Order Paper, and is on all fours with any other private Motion?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite correct, and the Prayers to which the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) refers would not have had that place unless the Government had moved and the House had resolved that Standing Order No. 1 should be waived in respect of them.
Mr. Crookshank: Then it does mean that the House cannot enter into any disorderly form of praying except with the assent of the Government.
Mr. Speaker: I ought to add that the assent of the Government and the House make it perfectly orderly.
Mr. Ede: That was the point I was about to put to you, Sir. It is your duty to see that there is nothing disorderly of any sort in the House.
Mr. Speaker: I endeavour to carry out that duty.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
Ordered,
That any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'Clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be taken after Nine o'Clock though opposed.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

    Clause 2.—(ARMY ACT AND AIR FORCE ACT TO BE IN FORCE FOR SPECIFIED TIMES.)
    3.43 p.m.
    The Chairman: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss the first proposed Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) with the second proposed Amendment to leave out from "force," to the end of line 43, and to insert:
    "until the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-three."
    If necessary, a Division can be taken on each of them.
    Mr. John Strachey: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, to leave out from "force," to the end of line 43, and to insert:
    "until the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-three."
    The object of this Amendment is, on the face of it, perfectly clear. It is to postpone the expiry of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act from 30th April to 31st July. In doing that it subsumes the date for the United Kingdom under subsection (1, a) to the same date as under paragraph (b) and, therefore, secures simplification also.
    The historical origin of the very strict and narrow time limit which we are having to adopt on the Committee stage this year, and on previous years, is well known, as the jealousy which this House has shown in past centuries for the existence of a standing Army. It is germane to many of the points which right hon. and hon. Friends of mine wish to put to the Committee that that is really no longer correct of the Army that we are dealing with in this debate. Just as the character of the Army has changed, so, in our opinion, should the character of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act change. It is for this reason that we are

    1417
    asking the Committee to undertake what is really the considerable labour of attempting some broad, comprehensive amendment to and clearing up of this Act today.
    We recognise that we are asking the Committee to do so at what may prove a somewhat congested and difficult time and it would seem to some of us very much better if we had a longer time limit and went to the end of the Session before the expiry of the Act of the previous year.
    It was represented to me, when we considered putting down this Amendment, that by so doing we are seeking to amend no less a document than the Bill of Rights. That may be so. The Bill of Rights had the historical origin which I have just mentioned, the jealousy over the standing Army, and I submit to the Committee that those considerations no longer apply.
    I know that the Secretary of State was a little irritated the other day when he seemed to think that we on this side of the Committee were claiming that in the last six years we had created a completely new type of British Army. That is not what we are saying. We are saying that, not the previous Government, but the House of Commons, under the pressure of events under the last six years, is creating a type of Army quite different from anything which this country has ever had before; more akin in some ways to the Continental and European systems, but not by any means identical with either.
    It is nothing that the party to which we on this side of the Committee belong ever contemplated doing. It did not occur in any of our programmes, "Let us Face the Future" or any other; and it is something which we would rather not have had to do. But the pressure of world events has made us do it, and I believe that, from the national point of view, there is some very great gain in building as we are doing—whether we fully realise it or not—a citizen Army, to use the widest sense of the word, in this country for the first time. There is, of course, still a very important Regular core and content, but that Army, a sort of compulsory short-term citizen Army both with the Colours and with the Reserve, is such as this country has never known before.
    1418
    It has, therefore, seemed to us—and that is why this rather formidable Order Paper is before us—that sooner or later it was necessary to take steps to bring the Army Act into relation with the new situation which is appearing. We thought the job might well be begun this year, because it was time to begin it; and also because we see in the Amendments put down by the Government that we are to have the whole Act reprinted. That being so, we should like a lot of submissions and proposals to find their way into that reprint.
    Again, the Government themselves, and I make no complaint whatever about that, are proposing very substantial Amendments to the Bill which raises the question of the Act as a whole. Some of these Amendments are unquestionably good. We may wish to propose modifications, but they are Amendments which are certainly substantial in character. They amount really, I think, to a new Bill in itself. We on this side of the Committee, though we want to make these proposed Amendments in various and substantial particulars, have other things to do as well.
    If we look at the Army Act itself, we are bound to be struck by what I would frankly call the anomalies, which, in some cases, have become sheer nonsense. To take one very simple and obvious example, the League of Nations is still referred to in various passages. Surely the Act needs bringing up to date and the words "United Nations" used instead.
    The rations which the troops are to be given statutory right to receive have a positively nostalgic flavour today. The amount of bacon which, if we do not amend this Act, we promise to the troops is, quite frankly, a sad deception. I am not saying that these are matters of prime importance, but I do think that, in view of the type of man we have in the Army today, the Minister might like to look at the Sections of the Act which have become so obsolete as to be sheer nonsense.
    There is another type of Amendment which we are proposing, which I would describe as an attempt to take out what I would call the feudal remains in the Act. There is a series of differentiations between officer and man for which, when we come to look at them, we can find

    1419
    little or no justification. There may have been some justification in some cases, but these provisions would disappear if the Amendments which we are putting down are accepted.
    Then, of course, there is the whole question of the procedure of courts-martial, which has already been considerably amended, and which it is now proposed to amend still further. So far as we can see, by no means all the recommendations of the Pilcher Committee, and others which have sat on this matter, are yet proposed for embodiment in the Act, and we would like to hear a good deal more about the reasons for that.
    Again, the Government themselves are raising the whole question of the definition of active service. It is a difficult question, which came up during my period of office, but we are by no means satisfied—
    The Chairman: I think the right hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. Strachey: These are only the reasons which I am giving why we feel that, in future years, greater scope and power should be given to the consideration of this Act, and that we should not be narrowly confined by this date at the end of April, which restricts us so much for the time being. However, I have given those reasons now; that was the last one on my list, and I am not tempted to pursue that theme further.
    Those are the reasons why we think that, as a preliminary to some attempt—and we recognise that it can only be a first attempt this year—to bring this very big and very important matter up to date, and why we are prefacing that, as it were, by a proposal that when it comes up next year—when, again, it will need further work upon it—we should have a longer time in which to do that work.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) told us quite rightly that there is an immense number of matters in this Bill which are extremely out of date, and I agree with him entirely in that respect. One could almost say that the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act somewhat resembles a garden which has not been weeded for 20 years, which produces a
    1420
    great deal of work for those concerned to put it right.
    I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he and his colleagues have been in possession of this garden for the last six years, and it is only right to say that, obviously, the Government cannot, on this occasion, put the garden right or get rid of all the weeds which exist there. Nevertheless, I am aware that the Opposition have made a very valiant attempt to uproot practically every weed they can see, and I would remind them that this Bill has to be put through Parliament by 30th April.
    As regards the time necessary, I suggest that we should be in a better position to judge that after we have had considerably more time on it and we see how we are going on. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that we had it in mind to get rid of this anomaly of the three months' gap, which dates back to the days of sailing ships. Although I think that a passage of 84 days to India was good time, we realise that there was this anomaly, and we had it in mind to introduce an Amendment next year.
    As hon. Members will appreciate, however, we had to be selective, because if the Government had gone completely through the Army Act, pointing out every single anachronism, it might have meant many items of legislation. It is a question of which we are well aware. As to the actual dates concerned—and two Amendments propose one which is late and one which is early—we had it in our minds to alter these dates and resolve the present anachronism, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that that will be introduced at a later stage.
    I hope that you, Sir Charles, will not mind if I follow the right hon. Gentleman opposite on two other points, because, although they are not strictly relevant to the Amendments, they were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and might be referred to subsequently.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? When he says that an Amendment will be introduced at a later stage, does he mean a later stage of the Bill?
    Mr. Head: No. The hon. and learned Gentleman is optimistic. By a later stage I meant next year's Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. I can assure the hon. and

    1421
    learned Gentleman that these matters are not so simple as just putting down a new date. The hon. and learned Gentleman has the advantage of me in being an hon. and learned Gentleman but he will appreciate that these things cannot be altered very quickly without much thought and, if I have learned anything in the last few days, I have learned that I cannot move words out of this Bill without affecting a large number of other words, both in the Bill and outside it.
    Mr. Stephen Swingler: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why he cannot accept the Amendment in this Bill?
    Mr. Head: One reason why this alteration of dates has absolutely no effect is because the Amendments made by this Bill all come into effect on 1st May. All we are doing is making the main body of the Bill applicable to people overseas, but the only effect at once, or the only actual result—though it looks tidier on paper—has no effect on any person to whom this Bill applies.
    What I was going to say, in regard to the right hon. Gentleman's references to the recommendations of the Pilcher and Lewis Committees, and on the question of the pressure of events, was that it will be obvious to this Committee that to go through all the recommendations of both those Committees to make all the outstanding amendments, which might well have been done within the last six years, is quite out of the question on this occasion.
    Mr. Arthur Henderson: The Pilcher Committee could hardly be followed, because it was not appointed until two years ago.
    Mr. Head: I was not referring to the Pilcher Committee. All I said was that some of the amendments which have become necessary might have been done in the last six years, but as that has not been done, this situation cannot be resolved on this occasion. I am only concerned with this Bill, and I am only saying at this stage that I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will use some discretion towards it. It has to be through by 30th April. There is an immense number of anachronisms, many of which could have been resolved by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    1422
    However, I give the assurance that we shall be as broadminded as we can in the acceptance of Amendments, but where there are complexities as a result of them we shall not always be able to accept them because of consequential matters which have to be thought out as a result of them. In this particular case I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that we have it in mind to resolve an anachronism in the Act which has no adverse effect on any person concerned.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Paget: What the right hon. Gentleman has said seems to me to be something which we might find acceptable with regard to a great many other Amendments, but surely this is the one Amendment upon which it cannot be accepted. What is indicated is this. He says quite frankly that this Act is in a complete muddle and that it is full of anachronisms. I do not want to misquote him, but I should think that something which is full of anachronisms is in a muddle. He says, further, that this is a matter which it is difficult to put right in a hurry, because—I think I am quoting his words—"If you move one word here, you never know how many words you have to move somewhere else."
    Very well. But putting this Bill right is something that has to be done. It probably cannot be done well enough this year. It must be done mainly next year. The whole point of this Amendment is to give us time to do it next year. The trouble is that for a century there has never been time to deal with the Act, and, therefore, we have re-enacted one absurdity after another year after year. It is 100 years since the House looked at this Act, which it has been producing year after year. When one looks at it, what does one find? That a great deal of it consists of articles of war of Charles II, and those articles of war make somewhat odd reading when one comes to look at them today.
    Section 6 (2, g), which is one of these articles of war, says:
    "By discharging firearms … drawing swords, beating drums, making signals, using words, or by any means whatever, intentionally occasions false alarms in action, on the march, in the field, or elsewhere."
    That does not make very realistic reading today. I do not say that if somebody clashes arms and waves swords one might

    1423
    not have to deal with them, but we want to get this into something which makes sense.
    Mr. John Hay: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that the relevant and important words of that Section—and I am not trying to spoil what is a very amusing and attractive argument—refer to false alarms in action. I should have thought that was something which ought to be in this code of military discipline.
    Mr. Paget: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have been following my argument. There is a great deal in the articles of war of Charles II, or of the Black Prince or even of Alexander the Great which will be required by any army at any time, but, nevertheless, they want bringing up to date from time to time. That is my argument. Calling false alarms, such things as breaking wireless silence and things of that sort, would, I should have thought, been more important today than clashing arms and beating drums.
    Again, in Section 4 (1) there are the words:
    "Shamefully abandons or delivers up any garrison, place, post or guard or uses any means to compel or induce any governor … shamefully to abandon or deliver up. …"
    It may be that there are things of that sort in a modern context, but shamefully causing the governor to give up a strong post becomes a somewhat unlikely event in the conditions of today.
    The right hon. Gentleman also referred to another thing. If we look at the Second Schedule, relating to billeting, we find what any housewife, as I understand it, is required to provide for any man who is billeted on her—
    The Chairman: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is going rather wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. Paget: I was only indicating that the point of this Amendment is to provide us with enough time next year to put this Act in order. Surely, Sir Charles, I am entitled to indicate how much there is to be put right, because the whole point of this Amendment is that there is so much which is archaic.
    The Chairman: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is anticipating his next year's Second Reading speech.
    Mr. Paget: I was explaining what we had to put right in this Act. As I was saying, when one looks at the billeting Schedule, one realises that it very definitely comes from a pre-Woolton era, if I may so put it. It says that a man shall be provided with four ounces of bacon for breakfast, 10 ounces of meat for lunch and another four ounces of meat for supper. But we do not live on that standard today, and it is hard on landlords to compel them to provide such food.
    As I have said, the whole point of this Amendment is to raise these matters this year and to give the Government an opportunity to consider some of the things which we think should be looked at. The right hon. Gentleman said that in many instances, the Government will accept what we propose but that there is not time to do it this year—it is too complicated—though he will look at the position next year. If only he will give himself and the House time to deal with it next year that would meet our point.
    The reason this garden has never been weeded is that this Bill has always been dealt with in a rush and there has never been time to deal with it properly. The point is that we want time to deal with it next year. Why resist that request?
    Mr. George Wigg: I thought the Secretary of State for War got off on the wrong foot. Indeed, he will be on the wrong foot for a long time until he brings down the other one. When driven into a corner he lashes out and closes his eyes at the same time. He blamed us because, during the last six years, when we were the Government, we did not do what we are now seeking to do as an Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    I am very glad to hear the cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite, because that means that they, like the Secretary of State for War, do not understand the constitutional practice involved in this matter. It is the job of the Opposition to bring the Army Act up to date. This conflict between Parliament and the King, which dates back to the 17th century, revolved round the standing Army and how it should be used. In those days, the Army was used to suppress the people, but today it is part of the people.

    1425
    It was the job of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, when he sat on these benches, not to come in and make smart interruptions at half past nine at night, but to examine the Army Act and to bring it up to date. We shall be in opposition for only a short time. We cannot trust the party opposite when they are the Government and we cannot trust them as an Opposition. Therefore, we have to do what we cannot trust them to do when they are on these benches next year.
    I should have thought, therefore, that the Secretary of State for War—as I am sure he does—feels at one with us in trying to make this an effective instrument for safeguarding all the young men called up to the Services. The days have gone by when the Army Act applied to a limited number of men who, of their own volition, undertook to serve some years with the Colours and then with the Reserve.
    Nearly 200,000 young men, whether they like it or not, are finding themselves in the Army; indeed, millions of our fellow countrymen may come within the orbit of the Act. Therefore, it is our job to see that it meets the needs of modern life and is brought up to date. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends did not lift a finger for six years to tackle this job. We are not saying that it can be completed this year. We have to start it this year.
    Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member referred to what my party did when in opposition. He will recall that for five years we were approaching the Government continually to give the troops more pay and that eventually, as a result of our pressure, they did so.
    The Chairman: That is quite beside the point.
    Mr. Wigg: I am quite willing to debate that point on any occasion, and in the hon. and gallant Member's constituency. It is just a piece of nonsense and I should be out of order in pursuing it.
    I plead with the right hon. Gentleman that next year we should have the time to complete the job we shall start in the next few days. I hope he will have second thoughts and will accept this very reasonable and constructive Amendment
    1426
    in order that next year and in future years we can keep the Army Act up-to-date and not let it slip 100 years behind the times, as it is at present.
    Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I hope I can add a plea to the Secretary of State for War on this matter. It seems to me from his arguments that he advanced all the arguments himself, possibly without knowing it, in favour of the Amendment. The point we are up against is that it is very easy, by altering one or two words in the Annual Act, to reflect on every single Section throughout the Act.
    Parliament always took the view that it should be reviewed every year, for the reason that it imposes the penalty of death on people conscripted into the Forces, who are under 21 years of age, for various offences which are not capital offences in civil life. If, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, he alters the definition of "active service" and alters the definition of "enemy," to take an example, he affects practically every single crime throughout the whole of the Army Act. Therefore, it is necessary to look again at every crime in the light of those alterations.
    I appreciate the generous point the right hon. Gentleman made that he would accept such Amendments as be could, and I think we on this side should apologise for some of the difficulty in which some of us have placed the Committee. The difficulty about the Bill is that it cannot be introduced until such time as we have voted Vote A of the Army Estimates, for we must include in it the total number of the Forces we have voted. That date may be as late as 31st March, and between that date and 30th April—during which Easter usually intervenes—we have to pass the whole of the Army Act. This is more than an unsatisfactory position.
    That is why we suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we should make this alteration now. He says that it will not affect anything. Of course it will, because if he does not make that alteration we shall not have that service next year which he promised. Next year we may have important business in the House. We are fortunate this year in not having very important matters before us and, therefore, we can devote ourselves in Committee to a very proper study of

    1427
    the Army Act in order to bring it up to date. When the right hon. Gentleman voted in the Lobby to adjourn the House for several weeks I remember saying, "If that is the view he takes of important business we may at least have an opportunity of studying the Army Act." Next year, who knows, there may be such important legislation that the Government which will be then in office may adjourn for only six weeks for the Summer Recess. In those circumstances we may be a little pressed.
    4.15 p.m.
    Let us deal with this matter at a time when it does not fall into the middle of financial business. That has been the trouble. We have weeded a good many flowers from this Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Weeds."] No, flowers; some of them very archaic, some which I was very sorry to see go. I watched old Acts of the Irish Parliament disappear one after another last year in silence. I am sure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not have allowed them go so silently if they had understood their historic significance.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter. After all, we have a certain responsibility for the people whom we conscript into the Forces and make subject to crimes which, though we agree we have a duty to look into, we say either that we are too busy to look at or, if we do look at, we sit continually night after night to do so. That is not the way to treat crimes which may affect the lives of young people conscripted into the Army. If the Secretary of State takes the view that we should not bother to look at them because we shall never accuse anybody of having committed these crimes then we are making a mockery of the Army Act.
    The one type of lawyer we share with the Army is the barrack-room lawyer. I always feel that one learns much better law in the barrack room than one does in the law courts—at least, law which is possibly more effective from a Parliamentary point of view. But if the right hon. Gentleman proposes—and I am sure we would all commend that proposal—to reprint the Army Act it is essential that we should try to bring it up to date. If it is to be reprinted it should not have all these openings for barrack-room lawyers and perhaps other lawyers, too.
    1428
    If, under Parliamentary pressure, we break down on this task, we may make a mess, for instance, of the Second Schedule. We may fail to revise it and, if so, what if a man demands, in accordance with the Second Schedule, four ounces of bacon or 12 ounces of meat? What would the sergeant-major say? [Interruption.] The hon. Member, practically alone in his party, takes a view of the Lord President of the Council which has been abandoned by everybody else on the other side of the House. I quote that instance as one example.
    There is, of course, a second reason why it is absolutely essential that we should have a long time in which to look at this Act. It is that we have had two very valuable committees on court-martial proceedings—the Pitcher Committee for the Navy and to some extent the Marines, and the Lewis Committee for the Army. We really ought to go through the recommendations of the late Government to see whether those recommendations, which I thought were generally acceptable to the House of Commons when they were brought forward, should be incorporated in the Act. If we are to have reform and are to set up a court-martial appeal court, what is the point of setting it up if we do not insert into the Act the necessary requirements to allow the preliminary proceedings to be conducted in such a way that they can go to appeal?
    I was reading the other day Clode's "Military Forces of the Crown" and I came across a phrase referring to Colonel Nelson in relation to Governor Eyre and courts-martial in Jamaica. I should like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for War to it and to suggest that his attitude in not giving us a little more time is rather like that of Colonel Nelson. This is what he wrote of Colonel Nelson:
    "The personal conduct of Colonel Nelson never raised a breath of suspicion and he acted throughout"—
    The Chairman: I think that is outside the scope of the Amendment.
    Mr. Bing: I will not argue the matter further, Sir Charles, because this point happens to be apposite to a matter we will be discussing later, and I will leave what I thought was a rather gracious compliment to the Secretary of State until a later stage. It really is absurd

    1429
    to re-enact all the provisions in regard to the articles of war. Nobody knows what the articles of war are; they have never been enforced during the last 100 years or so. The absurdity is even the greater when these enactments are taken out and applied to the Air Force. It is extraordinary that if one looks statistically at the matter it will be found that these enactments apply more to forces than to aircraft.
    The Chairman: There are Amendments on the Order Paper dealing with all these matters, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman continues to speak on these subjects, I shall not select the Amendments when the time comes to discuss them.
    Mr. Bing: In that case I will leave those points, and I will only make this further plea: there is an immense amount of material to be considered, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there will be a Budget to be considered in the normal way next year and that time then will be even more restricted than at the moment. It will not be possible to review this matter in any more detail next year than it is this year.
    If the right hon. Gentleman would agree to this Amendment, we would not press very hard the various Amendments we have got down, but would discuss each in turn. If he does not do that, we shall have to press the really more important Amendments. It is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I hope that in the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman will give way. We all appreciate the spirit of compromise with which he approached this matter, and this is a matter on which he could compromise.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I do not entirely agree with some of the observations which have fallen from my hon. Friends. As I understand it, there are two distinct points raised in the Amendments to Clause 2. The first point—indeed, the object of both Amendments—is to ensure that the provisions of the Army Act and the Air Force Act should operate for a period that is co-terminus with persons within their service.
    As the matter stands at present, it will be observed from Clause 2 that if the Bill is passed in the form before us the Army Act and the Air Force Act will
    1430
    remain in operation in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man until 30th April, 1953, and elsewhere, whether within or without Her Majesty's Dominions, until 31st July, 1953.
    The object of both Amendments is to ensure that which I think is reasonable, that the Army Act and the Air Force Act should continue in force for the British Isles and elsewhere until the same date. I do not mind whether the date selected is that suggested in the earlier Amendment, 31st July, or 30th April, 1953, but it seems to me it would be very inconvenient if one common date were selected for the expiration of the Army Act. Therefore, I am hoping that the Secretary of State will agree upon that which I think is the first and most elementary point raised by these Amendments.
    The other question is whether or not it is more convenient to deal with the numerous amendments to the Army Act, which are admittedly required, this year or next year. Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I would have thought it would be much more convenient to deal with them this year, and I would be against postponing consideration of the various Amendments which my hon. Friend and I have taken the trouble to put down for the benefit of Her Majesty's Government. In the first place, we have plenty of time this year. Today is 1st April and the Army Act does not expire until 30th April. Therefore, we have the whole month, and I do not know of any Government business that is more important or could be more important than to get this Army Act into proper shape.
    It is intolerable that we should go on year after year passing an Army Act which is out of date and full of anachronisms and absurdities. It is the duty of this Committee and the country to take this opportunity, and, if necessary, spend all the time required between now and the end of April in getting the thing into proper shape. With that object in view, my hon. Friends and I have gone to a great deal of trouble to examine the recommendations of the Lewis Committee and the Pilcher Committee. I was amazed when I came to look at the Bill to discover that a great many recommendations of these Committees have not yet been adopted. I do not understand why the

    1431
    recommendations of these Committees are not incorporated in the Bill. We have tried to supplement the deficiencies of the Government in that respect, and I would have hoped myself that we should take the trouble, however long it might be, to get them through this year.
    The other reason I think it is particularly important to do it this year is a constitutional reason. Hon. Members opposite hold great store by the conventions of the constitution. I would invite the Secretary of State for War to look at the Preamble of the Bill, which I, at any rate, do not regard as mere verbiage. The Preamble makes it quite clear that
    "The raising or keeping of a standing Army within the United Kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against law."
    The whole object of the Bill is to renew the Army Act and to preserve the constitutional doctrine that the maintenance of a standing Army in this country is illegal unless it is renewed year by year. Therefore, it seems absurd for the Secretary of State to base his argument on the assumption that we may have to have another Bill next year. That is an assumption that ought not to be made. The assumption which the Secretary of State ought to make is that a standing Army in this country is illegal and is permitted by Parliament for one year and no more.
    No one can tell what the state of the country or the world may be in a year's time. We are being asked by the Government to pass an enactment for one year, and therefore, the choice before this Committee is either to renew the Army Act for the next 12 months in a form which is intelligible and in accordance with the requirements of modern conditions, or not.
    4.30 p.m.
    Conditions today are different from what they were 10, 20, 50 or 100 years ago. We are now passing into a state of society in which National Service for a period of two years is an accepted fact. It is a condition in which we have, in effect, a civilian Army. It would be intolerable that the Army Act should be renewed for another year unless this Committee fulfilled its function of going through it Section by Section and bringing it up to date. Therefore, I hope
    1432
    that the Committee will pursue that policy and, regardless of whatever time might be involved, will not shirk its duty. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the Amendment so that the changes which are being proposed might be considered.
    Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: I should like to deal with one point raised by the Secretary of State for War. He seemed puzzled as to why it was that we had not made some, or all, of these Amendments during the last six years. That makes one wonder where he was during the last six years. Did he not notice that we were carrying through a great social revolution in that time which put a tremendous strain on the legislative processes of the country?
    All that the Government are doing today is to produce one or two little Bills which tinker with that social revolution as far as they dare, which is not tremendously far at the moment—giving the public houses back to the brewers and matters of that kind—and they have no important legislation whatever. Our legislation was a great deal more important—
    The Chairman: I think that it may have been, but this Amendment does not deal with it.
    Mr. Wyatt: I am glad, Sir Charles, to have your agreement on that, but as the Secretary of State asked this question, and the question was in order, I suggest that we are entitled to give him the answer.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked why we had not carried through these amendments ourselves in the last six years. I was trying to explain to him that the reason was that we were carrying through a social revolution of great importance to the well-being of this country which required a great deal of legislation, and we did not have the time.
    This Act, although important, was not as important as those other pieces of legislation which we put on the Statute Book. The Government have nothing whatever to offer us in the way of legislation except for a few Bills which tinker with that social revolution. Therefore, they have plenty of time. They were able to take a fantastically long Christmas Recess. They have plenty of time ahead of them and we can all sit down now and

    1433
    go through this Act. There is not really a great deal of controversy between us and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. Swingler: I hope that the Secretary of State is about to get up to announce that he has changed his mind on this question. I entirely accept his stricture. I think that it applies as a black mark against all Members of Parliament in the last 50 years that this exhaustive reform of the Army Act should be so long overdue.
    At the same time, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that this is, after all, largely a job for the Opposition. What he forgets, but what you will remember, Sir Charles, is that in the last two Parliaments the Labour Party has had to provide both the Government and the Opposition. Unfortunately, we have not been able entirely to cover the job comprehensively. Nevertheless, most of the agitation for the reform of courts-martial came from the Labour benches in the last Government.
    We have not had an opportunity before now to get down to this exhaustive reform. It seemed to me that, in spite of the charm with which the Secretary of State opened his remarks, he did not provide any adequate reason for not accepting this Amendment. Possibly, that was because he just had not got any reason at that moment. He said that it would be better to have it next year. I cannot understand why it would be better to have it next year; or how it can be done then when it cannot be done now.
    The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the possibility that one change would have all sorts of consequential changes. As far as I can see, if he accepted the Amendment, it would obviously involve a change in the Preamble; but I think that the Secretary of State ought to tell the Committee what other changes would be involved. He has the benefit of expert advice. The Solicitor-General is here—we are pleased to see him—and undoubtedly he could tell us what other consequential changes would be involved if the Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend was accepted.
    Then there is the question of the additional three months, because the Preamble says that this is a Bill for a period of 12 months. Possibly, an additional Bill
    1434
    would be required to carry out this change. We have not been told by the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary or the Solicitor-General of the reasons why it is impossible to carry out this reform now. The Secretary of State agrees that we ought to get rid of these obsolete parts of the Act. He agrees that we ought to modernise the Act, and that we ought to simplify it and make it more intelligible because of the increasing number of people who are affected by it; but he says that this year he cannot accept this Amendment.
    For this year there is some magic about 30th April whereby we must still keep that date in the Bill, though next year he would be able to make it 31st July. The Committee ought to be told what reason the lawyers have for this. I note that the Solicitor-General is studying the Army Act. No doubt he is finding the reason which the lawyers have for saying that it is impossible to make the date 31st July instead of 30th April.
    I hope that it will not be necessary to take this matter further. We have a great deal of business to do which I do not doubt will take us many hours. I hope that it will not be necessary to prolong this opening discussion, but that the Minister will be willing to allow us this extra time so that this year will be made historic because the Committee will be carrying out an exhaustive reform of the Act to make it intelligible to the many men and women who will be affected by the administration of discipline.
    Mr. Ede: I feel somewhat uncomfortable today because, as far as I know, I am the only Member who has spoken from this side of the Committee who never reached commissioned rank. I therefore speak not merely with a sense of deference to hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite, but with some hope that I may not be regarded as crashing in on the officers' trade union on this side of the Committee.
    I first enlisted in the Second Volunteer Battalion of the East Surrey Regiment on 11th September, 1899, and I am generally the oldest "sweat" on parade on these days. But I well recall the first occasion on which I attended a volunteer camp at the guards camp at Pirbright on the Saturday before August Bank Holiday, in 1900. There we were drawn up, still

    1435
    wearing the full pack that we carried nom Brookwood Railway Station, and the adjutant read to us the relevant portions of the Army Act.
    As we were at that time at war in South Africa, we wretched volunteers were adjudged to be on active service. We had read out to us the relevant portions and, at the end of each Section that was read, we were informed that the penalty for committing any offence was that we should
    "… be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned."
    I began to despair of ever getting home alive.
    We have asked that the Act on this occasion should be extended for 15 months instead of 12 so that today, and during the time when we have this Bill in Committee and on Report, we should consider and make such Amendments as appear to be suitable to bring this legislation up to date. It is quite clear that any such effort will mean that, no matter how skilled the advice we may get from the Law Officers of the Crown—and I am saying nothing in derogation of the advice they tender—there will undoubtedly be discovered, no matter when that process is gone through, that there will be some necessary further Amendments to be made.
    I should have thought that to have made the extension to 15 months this year, and thereafter again to have an Annual Act, would have enabled us, during the next ensuing 15 months, to consider the results of this year's work and dovetail it into the Measure; then we should have been able to get a comprehensive review that would have enabled the Act to have been brought thoroughly into line with modern conditions, so that in succeeding years, as conditions change, the amount of amendment required in any given year would not be very great.
    This is, in our view, a thoroughly practical Amendment, and we hope that the right hon. Gentleman, whose attitude towards the whole matter gives us the utmost gratification—we are very glad to know that he recognises that this Measure ought to be brought up to date, and that he intends that it should be—will accept the Amendment. We suggest that the way we propose is the most practical way in which that process can be carried out.
    1436
    I hope that no youth going into camp in future will ever be subject to the feelings of terror that, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, I felt at Pirbright on the particular afternoon that I have mentioned.
    There is no need, with a citizen Army, with a better educated Army than we have ever had before, to rely on these archaic conditions. There should be an Army Act that can be read and understood. Let me say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) that I have heard quite as good law enunciated in the wet canteen as I have heard occasionally in the law courts when professional lawyers have been trying to obscure rather than to unfold the law. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman so to amend the Bill as we suggest now to give him ample time to ensure that next year he will be able to put to the House an Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill that will really represent, not merely what the law is, but what the law ought to be.
    Mr. Head: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which, I take it, were made in his position as a "private" Member rather than as a Member of the Opposition Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] I was making a bad joke, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman. I used the word "private" in the military rather than in the Parliamentary sense.
    Mr. Ede: I was a little higher than that.
    Mr. Head: Corporal, then.
    Mr. Bing: Will the right hon. Gentleman excuse me? My right hon. Friend was a sergeant-major, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is the sergeant-majors who run the Army: it is not the brigadiers.
    Mr. Head: Nobody is more aware of the importance of sergeant-majors than I am.
    It would be pleasant if we could start off on what looks like being a long journey by agreeing on this first point. However, as it happens, there seems to be a difference of opinion among hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) says we have plenty of time before 30th April to make a real job of it, but another hon. Gentleman opposite

    1437
    has said that we have not anything like enough time. The proposal would involve prolonging the Act to 15 months. It would also make a considerable impact on other Parliamentary business. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] We are bound to have a maximum of 30 days for consideration of this Bill, for it must be through by 30th April. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, and, if he were on this side of the Committee, would probably say so; and he will realise that, if we had 30 days for taking a good bite at this particular cherry every year, after a year or two it would look good and ripe. The postponement to 15 months would have other complications. The sooner we can start the 22 years' engagement the better we shall be pleased. It has been announced to the Press. Many men are making inquiries. The sooner we can start the better.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Strachey: I think the right hon. Gentleman said himself that the passage of this Amendment would not make any difference to the coming into effect of this Bill. Therefore, it would not postpone by an hour the coming into effect of the 22 years' engagement. It is entirely prospective to next year.
    Mr. Head: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I was wrong on that point. I misunderstood the advice I had received.
    However, I cannot agree to this Amendment. I regret that we must start in this way; though it is, as I announced at the outset, our intention to accept every Amendment which we can accept and which can be incorporated into the Bill without undue drafting complications. On this occasion, I regret that I have to ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. E. Shinwell: I really cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman. He produced no convincing argument at all. Indeed, at one point he had to admit that he was wrongly advised. He seemed to imagine that if he accepted this Amendment it would arrest the progress contemplated in connection with the career scheme for recruits to the Army. Well, he has discovered that he was wrongly advised there.
    1438
    The right hon. Gentleman must agree, in spite of the fact that he has been only a few months at the War Office, that there are a great many anomalies in the Act. I knew this when I was at the War Office way back in 1929. I learned a great deal more about it from 1947 onwards. Of course, there was no time to clear up all these anomalies. They require very careful consideration. I go so far as to say that they require protracted debate, because if the Army Act is to be brought up to date, it ought not to be done in a hasty fashion. After all, we have to consider the position of millions of men in this country. There are men coming into the Army through the National Service Acts, and men who are coming in voluntarily. They go out of the Forces, and more come in; and the whole thing is progressive and continuous. This affects the lives of millions—indeed, many millions—of men in the course of years. Whatever we do ought to be undertaken with the greatest care.
    I should have thought that this was a most reasonable Amendment. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman's advisers at the War Office have asked him to reject it. The only ground upon which they could possibly have given him that advice is that they are afraid that they will be called upon to undertake a task which is beyond them, and that they will have to call in the Law Officers of the Crown, who will be called upon to undertake work which is of a protracted nature. I have been at the War Office when we considered Amendments of various kinds and when, because we were a little too indolent or because we thought that the task was beyond us, we set it aside. This simply will not do.
    If the right hon. Gentleman could say to the Committee, with his hand on his heart, that there are not substantial anomalies in the Army Act and that it does not require substantial amendment, that would be all right. But can the right hon. Gentleman honestly say so? If he will make that statement to the Committee, that there are no serious anomalies in the Army Act which require amendment, in the interests of the Army and of the nation at large, and if he says that convincingly and because he believes it, I am quite sure that my hon. Friends will give the matter further consideration. Will the right hon. Gentleman say so?
    Mr. Head: Had the right hon. Gentleman been present a little earlier, he would have heard me admit in my opening remarks that the Army Act was crammed full of anomalies.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry that I was not present to hear that important pronouncement, but having heard it somewhat belatedly, it provides me with all the argument I require to fortify my contention that the right hon. Gentleman should accept this very desirable Amendment.
    What possible harm could it do? It would not upset the Army. It might disturb the War Office—they will have to do a little more work. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All right; I thought that perhaps it might. If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected. Besides, it is quite on the cards that the right hon. Gentleman will not be in his present position to deal with this next year; it might be somebody who is now on this side of the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman were assured, as I think he can be assured, that he will not be called upon 12 months from now to undertake the task of correcting all the anomalies in the Army Act, would that afford him some consolation and persuade him to agree to the Amendment?
    Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman does not give me very long.
    Mr. Shinwell: One of my experiences as Secretary of State for War, and as Financial Secretary, a good many years ago, I am absolutely convinced, and I challenge contradiction, of what I have said. I even appeal to the brigadiers' trade union. I see two high-ranking military officers on the other side of the Committee—
    Brigadier Terence Clarke: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the brigadiers' trade union what he did about this during the years when he was in power?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for his intervention. I shall tell him, and this may be received with a certain derision on the other side—
    Mr. Robert Boothby: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member does not know whether it would. He is a little premature in saying, "Hear, hear." He does not know what I am going to say. We always know that the hon. Member is always ready to jump the queue, not only in this but in other matters. However, we will leave that aside.
    My reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) is that—I say this quite honestly, and I hope that he will accept it from me—although I was well aware, as I was bound to be aware, of the various anomalies in the Army Act, it was quite impossible to undertake the task for the physical reason that we had not time, and the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill is presented to us almost on the eve of an occasion when we have a discussion in Parliament. The Bill was presented only last week—certainly not more than 10 days ago. There is not ample time to consider all these anomalies and to make the necessary corrections.
    The logical conclusion of what the right hon. Gentleman has said in his refusal to accept the Amendment, is that we should place on the Order Paper hundreds of Amendments. We have only touched a fringe of the subject as yet—there is general agreement about that. Those hundreds of Amendments would occupy the attention of the Committee, and of the House when it has to deal with the matter on the Report stage, for many days.
    What would the Minister's right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say if we occupied the House to that extent, presenting our Amendments, arguing them logically and cogently, as we can do, and gaining the support of hon. and gallant Members on the other side who are interested in these matters and who are as anxious as we are, and even more anxious because of their familiarity with the problem, to correct the anomalies in the Army Act?
    I wonder what would be said if we kept the House occupied all that time? The Closure would have to be moved time and again. We would have to go all through the night. That sort of thing would only hold up Government business. The right hon. Gentleman would be compelled to tender his resignation before the end of the day. That is the last thing we want to see. We are getting

    1441
    accustomed to the right hon. Gentleman now. We think he is probably as good a Secretary of State for War as could be produced on the other side. There are probably some who think that they are better than he is, but we have our opinions about them.
    The right hon. Gentleman is in a very difficult situation. What he is saying to us in effect is, "Put down your Amendments. Keep the House going for many days and nights." We do not want to occupy the time of the Committee at great length, and I beg of him to consider what is a very reasonable and moderate Amendment, which, I believe, would redound to the advantage of the British Army, would confer great benefits upon the men who are to come into the Army in due course and would, moreover, help the officials at the War Office and the right hon. Gentleman's successors when they come in due course to deal with the position, and the position of the men in the Army, in a way that everybody desires.
    I repeat, Why is the right hon. Gentleman so sticky about it? Who has advised him about this? There can be no legal objection to this. It cannot be the Solicitor-General. Will the right hon. Gentleman get up and say what is the objection to it? I should like to hear his argument. Or is he just sticking because he cannot help himself? Is he just wanting to be obstinate and obdurate, or is it that because we have put down the Amendment, he does not want to give way?
    The right hon. Gentleman has bragged over and over again that he was responsible for persuading the last Government to increase the pay of the men in the Forces; he has claimed credit for it. Let him give us a little credit for removing some of the anomalies in the Army Act by acceding to our request and accepting the Amendment.
    5.0 p.m.
    I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is beginning to yield. He is becoming a little more concerned about the arguments that have been adduced. He is beginning to realise his position—or is he? After all, what can one expect if reasonable arguments are adduced by the Opposition, as they have been adduced? If hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite do not find these arguments
    1442
    cogent and persuasive let them get up and say so.
    I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, West, to get up and say that he does not agree with the removal of anomalies in the Army Act. Where are the rest of the brigadiers? Perhaps the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) would get up and say that he does not think it necessary to remove these anomalies. Hon. Members opposite cannot just sit there and do and say nothing.
    What are the arguments against this Amendment? No arguments have been adduced as yet. It simply will not do. The right hon. Gentleman must try to sustain the high reputation which he has gained by his criticism of the late Government on military matters. When the right hon. Gentleman came to office—and everybody anticipated that he would gain high office and now he has become Secretary of State for War—we thought that he would put everything right. What has he put right?
    Mr. Boothby: Give him time.
    Mr. Shinwell: That is precisely what we are proposing. That is what we are asking him to accept. We say that we do not expect him to remove these undoubted anomalies in the Army Act here and now. We are not presenting Amendments to that effect here and now. What we are asking is that he should have the opportunity of considering them before July next year. In other words, we are agreeing with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East that we should give the Secretary of State for War ample time. If we go into the Division Lobby I expect that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, true to himself, true to his convictions and to the statements he makes, will accompany us.
    But we have no desire to go to the Division Lobby. We do not want to press this Amendment to a Division unless it is absolutely necessary. Can the right hon. Gentleman not make some concession? Cannot he get up and say that at any rate before the Report stage he will give the matter consideration and see what he can do? Or does he intend just to twiddle his thumbs? This is really not good enough. The right hon. Gentle-

    1443
    man must do something about this. If he does not I am afraid that this is the beginning of the end of the reputation which he has gained as a successful and effective Secretary of State for War.
    We want to help the right hon. Gentleman all we can. [Laughter.] Yes, everybody knows that is true. Can anybody say that the Opposition have criticised the right hon. Gentleman unfairly? Indeed, I have heard the most laudatory encomiums about the right hon. Gentleman and I have been a bit dismayed about it.
    The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner): I think the right hon. Gentleman is committing two errors. First, he should address his remarks to me, and, secondly, I think his remarks were getting a little wide of the Amendment on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Shinwell: With great respect, on the first point I entirely agree with your Ruling, Sir Leonard, that I should address my remarks to you; but on the second point my remarks were only wide in the sense that it was necessary to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to see the whole picture, and that is what I have been trying to unfold. I was about to say that I was a little dismayed, both for myself and for my right hon. Friend the ex-Secretary of State for War to hear all these congratulations addressed to the right hon. Gentleman because, by implication, it denigrated both my right hon. Friend and myself. However, we are quite prepared to put up with that if the right hon. Gentleman will only realise the importance of making this necessary Amendment in the interests of the British Army. I beg him to yield.
    Mr. Boothby: In response to the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman I only wish to make it quite plain that I thought his remarks neither cogent nor persuasive. Had I found them cogent or persuasive, I should certainly have followed him into the Division Lobby.
    Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: In reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) I should like, if he is not yet persuaded by my hon. Friend's remarks, to add one or two of my own. I am amazed at the attitude of the Secretary of State for War.
    1444
    He has frankly admitted—and I thought it was very nice of him—that we on this side of the Committee have been doing some serious work with this bunch of Amendments, and that they are serious Amendments, many of which he will have to consider, and which we hope he will accept.
    Secondly he has admitted that this document is jammed full of anomalies. There we have two admissions which are linked together; a document jammed full of anomalies and a document for their improvement. We do not deny that many of the things we ask to discuss are highly controversial. We should not expect to have these very important changes rushed into the Army Act without adequate debate and discussion, because we do not underestimate the drastic nature of some of the changes which my hon. Friends are proposing to introduce.
    I am rather surprised at the attitude of the Secretary of State for War; but perhaps he has not read all the Amendments. I am glad to hear that he regards them as so able, because they will fundamentally change certain things which I had the impression he has stood for throughout his life.
    Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth which I did not use. I said there are a great many Amendments on the Order Paper, many of which are perfectly sensible and logical Amendments. I did not say what the hon. Gentleman suggests, that I accept them all.
    Mr. Crossman: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman agrees, because they will not all be accepted at first sight. Many of them will have to be argued at some length. That was the precise point of this Amendment. We knew in advance that one or two of these suggestions might meet with dissent at first sight, but we were convinced that with some hours of discussion we could persuade the Secretary of State for War—because we know he has promised to remove these anomalies in the Act—to remove some of these anomalies.
    It is frankly admitted that this cannot be done without adequate discussion. There is one thing which I am glad the right hon. Gentleman would not admit, and that is that he is not concerned with

    1445
    the Army Act at all but with the Leader of the House saying, "I do not care about the Army Acts; I want Government business pressured through the House of Commons." They are bulldozing tactics which the Secretary of State for War must resist. After all, it is for the Secretary of State for War, if he now admits that the Act is crammed full of anomalies, to go to the Leader of the House. Did he tell the Leader of the House that here was an Act crammed full of anomalies and that there were a number of Amendments of a vital nature—and did he demand time from the Leader of the House? Did he?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman is asking me this question, but I have produced, in this Bill, a series of extremely important Amendments which we wish to make for the benefit of the Army. They are the most important and urgent ones; but what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that I should correct in one Session all the sins and omissions of the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He may not be saying that, but he is saying. "The Army Act is full of anomalies. Why do not you ask the Leader of the House for time to correct them all?" We cannot correct all these anomalies at one go. What I have presented to the Committee is what nobody else has done in the last six years, and that is an attempt to make essential changes.
    Mr. Crossman: We are gradually moving closer in the course of our discussion. We are getting agreement, and it is time the Leader of the House reconsidered the time given for this Bill. The Secretary of State himself—and we give him full credit for it—has tabled a series of important new Clauses and changes which need careful consideration; two heads are better than one, and since he was setting such a good example we felt that more could be done, and we have tabled further improvements. Not one of my hon. or right hon. Friends has even dreamed of suggesting that we could remove all the anomalies from the Act, even by a combined operation by Government and Opposition.
    Mr. Boothby: Why did hon. Gentlemen opposite not do it when they were in power?
    Mr. Crossman: I am very grateful that the hon. Gentleman should make that interjection at the beginning of the second half of my speech, because we are now reaching the position in which there is a clear admission that there is work to be done—more than can adequately be done in the time at present provided—
    The Temporary Chairman: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to relate his remarks to the Amendment before the Committee.
    Mr. Crossman: With great respect, Sir Leonard, this is relevant to the question of postponing the date of the Bill. We are asking for more time to revise the Army Act, and the purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to have time to remove these anomalies. We are asking for more time next year, not now, because even if he accepted all that we are asking should be done now there would still be left a mass of further detailed work to be done which we have not put into our present proposals.
    The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, asks the very relevant question, also asked by the right hon. Gentleman, why this was not done in the last six years when my right hon. Friends were in power. I may perhaps say this, which they cannot say. I should like to tell him the truth on that subject. Let us be clear about it. The Labour Government was concerned with major social and economic reforms; we had a great many important things to do for the Services, but we gave priority to social and economic reforms, to which we were pledged in our 1945 Election manifesto, "Let Us Face the Future." We had an enormous legislative programme to which inevitably we had to give priority. We could not leave that legislative programme full of anomalies.
    I should have thought it almost inconceivable that the first Conservative Government since 1939, for whom the defence organisation of the country is a first priority, who feel that this is the essential framework for the military containment of Communism, who put their whole stress on military organisation, should admit to us this afternoon, through the Secretary of State for War, that the Army Act is a mass of anomalies but should be willing for that Act, which is

    1447
    part of the legal framework on which the Armed Forces depend, to be continued in that state, and should give no time so that next year the right hon. Gentleman might be able to reform it further. It would be natural, perhaps, for a slovenly Socialist who does not believe in overwhelming priority of military organisation. It might be natural for us to leave this unattended. But what do we see? Here is the Labour Party at work trying to improve the Army Act. And here is the Conservative Party deliberately admitting that the Army Act is a mass of anomalies but refusing altogether to accept an Amendment which would give them 15 months to do the job properly.
    5.15 p.m.
    Let the right hon. Gentleman give way early on this vital point. We want to collaborate during the hours ahead in improving the Army Act. To create the right team spirit for achieving that improvement, the right hon. Gentleman should make this concession, not to us but to common sense and to themselves. We have had not one explanation why this cannot be done. We have simply this blank mind and, I suspect, an attempt to create division in the Committee, an attempt to deepen the gulf between Government and Opposition.
    What other purpose can there be in turning down a reasonable and sensible proposal for giving longer time in which this great work, to which both sides are now settling down, could be done, not in an all-night Sitting, but in a long period of careful preparation. Perhaps by this time the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, at least is persuaded by the argument. No? Then I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will continue the debate and produce further arguments.
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I must confess that I am gravely disturbed by the attitude adopted by the Secretary of State so early in what I thought would be a harmonious and co-operative discussion. I had been coming round to the view in the last few months that on occasions the right hon. Gentleman could adopt a quite reasonable attitude. It is, I think, common ground that this and other Amendments represent only the first stage of what must be a fairly lengthy process; a first stage which cannot be
    1448
    completed in the discussion which takes place now, but which will have to be completed in future years when the Army Act again comes before us.
    I am sorry that the Solicitor-General has left the Chamber. I hope that he will return in the not-too-distant future, because the point to which I wish to address myself requires his advice and, if possible, co-operation. I can only suggest that there must be some other reason not yet put before the Committee which induces the Secretary of State to take up this attitude of opposition to this Amendment.
    I have been a Member of the House for only seven years—all too short a time in which to be acquainted with all the constitutional principles that we ought to appreciate in order effectively to discharge our duties. It may well be that there is some constitutional principle involved in this Amendment about which I do not know, which perhaps the Solicitor-General has in mind.
    In the course of his reply the Secretary of State quoted what he thought was some advice he had been given, either by the Solicitor-General or by someone else; but on further examination he found that he had misheard or misconstrued that advice. I believe that the advice he misunderstood or did not hear correctly was advice tendered to him by the Solicitor-General.
    If there is some really serious constitutional point involved in this Amendment which makes it impossible for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to accept it, then I suggest that we are entitled to an explanation of the legal difficulties which are presumably involved. It is not fair to expect the Secretary of State for War, in addition to his Service record, to be fully armed and equipped with all the legal facilities and attributes possessed by the Solicitor-General.
    If there is some real sound constitutional reason, apart from the mere convenience of arranging the business of the House to suit the leader of the particular party which happens to be in power at the moment, involved, I think that we are entitled to an explicit version of whatever it was that the Solicitor-General said to the Secretary of State for War which induced him to adopt his attitude, which was rather negative, to what all

    1449
    of us really think is a most reasonable proposition.
    I deplore the fact that what I was hoping would be a useful debate, which would provide an instalment of much needed reform as a guide to future years, has been, to some extent, marred by the attitude adopted by the Secretary of State for War. I am sure that the Solicitor-General cannot have removed himself so far from the Chamber as to be not within call, and I suggest that an arrangement be made as quickly as possible to ensure that he returns to his place to give us the benefit of the legal arguments which may be involved.
    I am very pleased to see that the Leader of the House is now in his place, because I am quite sure that if I give him a few more minutes in which to have a conference with the Secretary of State for War, he also will be able to make some sort of gesture which will facilitate and render more harmonious the proceedings in which we are now engaged. We are trying to co-operate with the Government, and the Secretary of State for War has indicated by the Bill which is now before the Committee that he is aware of the need for certain alterations to be made. We want to help him to make these alterations, and we want to add a few more.
    Perhaps next year, when the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill comes before the House, we shall be able to proceed on the next stage of these much-needed reforms, and in these circumstances I hope that, after consultation with the Leader of the House and possibly with the Solicitor-General, whose temporary absence we all deplore, and which we hope will not be too prolonged, and as a result of the little conference which is now taking place between the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for War, we may be able to embark on the other reforms that we have in mind in a spirit of brotherhood and co-operation.
    Mr. Strachey: I should like to make one last appeal to the Secretary of State, quite seriously and earnestly, on this point. I think that it will make a lot of difference to the whole tone and temper of our debating a Bill the consideration of which must, at best, be a long job. It seems queer that he has so completely refused to meet us on this matter, and it
    1450
    is queer because he has not given us, if I may say so with respect, any real reasons at all. I confess that when I put down this Amendment I thought that there might be some constitutional difficulty which might make it impossible, but he has not really alleged that.
    He gave me the impression, in the remarks which he has addressed to the Committee, that, quite frankly, he had confused the two Amendments. He told us that he would remove the quite minor anomaly of the difference of date between home and overseas. The major point is this Bill should run for 15 months instead of 12, and if he accepted that, I am quite sure it would act as an earnest that he was going seriously to take into consideration the points that we have put down.
    He cannot, of course, deal with all of them this year, but he could deal with some this year, and next year, when the new Bill is printed, he would have three months after the Bill came in instead of this short time schedule. In his opening remarks, he emphasised that he had to get this Bill by the 30th April. We know that. That is why we put down the Amendment to remove that difficulty next year.
    It seems to us that it would make an awful lot of difference to the whole work of the Committee if he would give us this concession on this Clause. It would not make any difference to this year in itself, but it would make a tremendous difference to the whole spirit in which this thing is undertaken. Next year, surely, if the right hon. Gentleman is still in his present position, it can be nothing but an advantage to him. Why do the Government, when they are being offered extra elbow room of three months, refuse it? For the life of us, we cannot see what is in the mind of the Secretary of State in refusing this.
    If he refuses it, it does seem rather a challenge to us. After all, he spoke most fairly to us in his remarks this afternoon, as he always does. He admitted frankly that there was a great deal of work to be done on the Army Act, and then, after speaking so fairly, he does not match that by his actions.
    He does not give us that concession which obviously there is no deep or constitutional reason not to give. He does

    1451
    not give that concession which should make all the difference in getting this big job of tidying it up—I put it no higher than that—done in the most reasonable way possible. I press him now, on this first stage in our debate, to meet us in this matter.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: There is one matter about which I should like to inquire as one in some innocence of these matters. I regret that those silent stars of the screen, the Under-Secretary of State for Air and the Solicitor-General, have temporarily disappeared, because my question is particularly directed to a legal matter affecting the Air Force.
    I was glad to hear the Secretary of State admit that the Army and Air Force Acts are full of anomalies. I think so, too. I wondered whether when the Leader of the House was walking through the corridors and found skeletons hanging from every candelabra he had not been by some chance walking down that part of the War Office which considers the Army Act, and whether what he saw may not have been these anomalies. I suppose that there are skeletons in the War Office, and I imagine that there are dead birds in the Air Ministry, but one does not know in which direction the right hon. Gentleman's fancy roams at present.
    5.30 p.m.
    What puzzles me is—here I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher)—that I observe that the Act expires at one date in these islands and at another date not less than three months later everywhere else whether within or without Her Majesty's Dominions. The question I want to ask—perhaps somebody will tell me the answer—is, why?
    Mr. Head: If it will help the hon. and learned Gentleman, I would say that it is an anomaly which I believe dates back to the days of sailing ships, when the Army Act would arrive in the Far East some three months after it was passed in this House.
    Mr. Mitchison: That is exactly what I thought. This is a naval anomaly, as it were. It is a barnacle rather inappropriately attached to the Army and the Air Force. What I want to remind the
    1452
    right hon. Gentleman about in the regrettable absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Air and the Solicitor-General is that in our days, though no doubt his party does not quite realise it, we sometimes move rather faster and it does not nowadays take three months to get the Act to the outlying parts. From time to time I go up to Scotland, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it takes quite as long to get from Land's End to John O'Groats as it does to get from London to Jamaica in an aeroplane.
    I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider the position of airmen in such services as Transport Command. For this purpose I shall take a hypothetical airman and call him Pilot Officer Pendulum because of the way he swings to and fro between, for instance, London and Jamaica. Incidentally, I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Air is now in the Chamber.
    One has to remember that airmen are very prone occasionally to nervous disorders. It is, of course, a most disturbing profession. Pilot Officer Pendulum, as he swings from London to Jamaica and back again in the course of his duties in the service of Her Majesty, perhaps in Transport Command will alternately be subject to this Act and the next one. One's imagination boggles at the difficulties which must beset the poor man in knowing what he can do and what he cannot do.
    Let us assume, for instance, that some of the anomalies will be removed in the next Army and Air Force (Annual) Act and that that which will be an offence under this Bill will become an innocent and discarded anomaly under the next Bill. If Pilot Officer Pendulum does something in Jamaica it may be a crime but if he does it in these Islands it may be all right. Meanwhile the poor man will be wandering in mid-ocean and when he gets three miles from these Islands the crime will become an innocent act or the innocent act a crime.
    It is not only that these things are unsettling to those who already carry on a somewhat disturbed and disturbing career. I should also like to say a word or two on behalf of that much maligned man, the barrack-room lawyer. All lawyers are good, but some are better than others. The barrack-room lawyer really has a useful place in the world.

    1453
    It is as well that men should stand up for their rights and it is occasionally advisable that they should know them. If Pilot Officer Pendulum happens to combine other risks with those of being a barrack-room lawyer, or the Air Force equivalent, then he really is going to break down from sheer exhaustion, simply because we now have improved communications to such a degree that it no longer takes three months to send the Act or Pilot Officer Pendulum to and from Jamaica and we still have this extraordinary out-of-date anomaly in connection with this Bill.
    If the right hon. Gentleman will consult for a moment with the Under-Secretary of State for Air—perhaps we could have a reply from the Under-Secretary of State
    for Air—I am sure he will be convinced that the Air Force at any rate will no longer put up with this nonsense. If we give them three months they will go to the moon and back or circle round the world time after time. Yet a tremendous period is allowed for this modest journey to and from Jamaica. It is impossible to go on like that. Let us take this opportunity of putting it right.
    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, 252; Noes, 203.

    Division No. 56.]

    AYES

    [5.43 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col, O. E.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Holt, A. F.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

    Hope, Lord John

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    De la Bère, R.

    Horobin, I. M.

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

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

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

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

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

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Donner, P. W.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

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

    Barlow, Sir John

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

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Baxter, A. B.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Duthie, W. S.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

    Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Fell, A.

    Jennings, R.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

    Fisher, Nigel

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Foster, John

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Birch, Nigel

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

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

    Black, C. W.

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Lindsay, Martin

    Bossom, A. C.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Braine, B. R.

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

    Godber, J. B.

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

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

    Gower, H. R.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Bullard, D. G.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    McAdden, S. J.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Harden, J. R. E.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Channon, H.

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

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

    Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

    Colegate, W. A.

    Hay, John

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Heath, Edward

    Markham, Maj. S. F.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

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

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Maudling, R.

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

    Redmayne, M.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Teeling, W.

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Renton, D. L. M.

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

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Russell, R. S.

    Tilney, John

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Oakshott, H. D.

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Odey, G. W.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Vosper, D. F.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Shepherd, William

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

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

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)

    Osborne, C.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Partridge, E.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Wellwood, W.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Peto, Brig C. H. M.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Wills, G.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Storey, S.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    York, C.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Raikes, H. V.

    Summers, G. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Mr. Drewe and Mr. Kaberry.

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Albu, A. H.

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwel)

    Edwards, Rt. Han. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Keenan, W.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Ewart, R.

    Kinley, J.

    Balfour, A.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Bence, C. R.

    Finch, H. J.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Benson, G.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Logan, D. G.

    Beswick, F.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

    Bing, G. H. C.

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

    MacColl, J. E.

    Blackburn, F.

    Gibson, C. W.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Glanville, James

    McInnes, J.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Gooch, E. G.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Boardman, H.

    Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    McLeavy, F.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Bowden, H. W.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hannan, W.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Hardy, E. A.

    Monslow, W.

    Carmichael, J.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Moody, A. S.

    Champion, A. J.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hastings, S.

    Morley, R.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hayman, F. H.

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

    Clunie, J.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)

    Mort, D. L.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Moyle, A.

    Collick, P. H.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Cook, T. F.

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Murray, J. D.

    Cove, W. G.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Nally, W.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hoy, J. H.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Hudson, James (Eating, N.)

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

    Grossman, R. H. S.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Daines, P.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Orbach, M.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Oswald, T.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Padley, W. E.

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Paget, R. T.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

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

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Janner, B.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Deer, G.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Dodds, N. N.

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

    Paton, J.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Pearson, A.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Peart, T. F.

    1456

    1457

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Steele, T.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    West, D. G.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Pryde, D. J.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Swingler, S. T.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Rankin, John

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Reeves, J.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Wigg, G. E. C.

    Richards, R.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Williams, Rev. Llewelyn (Abertillery)

    Ross, William

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Royle, C.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

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

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Timmons, J.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Viant, S. P.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Weitzman, D.

    Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to left out stand part of the Clause."
    The committee divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 205.

    Division No. 57.]

    AYES

    [5.48 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Davies, Rt. Kn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Hurd, A. R.

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

    De la Bère, R.

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Alpert, C. J. M.

    Deedes, W. F.

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

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Hyde, Lt.-Col H. M.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Donner, P. W.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

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

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Jennings, R.

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

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

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Fell, A.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Barlow, Sir John

    Finlay, Graeme

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

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

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Bell, Philip (Boiton, E.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Foster, John

    Llewellyn, D. T.

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

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Longden, Gilbert (Herbs, S. W.)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Birch, Nigel

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)

    Bishop, F. P.

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Black, C. W.

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    McAdden, S. J.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Godber, J. B.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gower, H. R.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Brains, B. R.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

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

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Grimston, Hon. John. (St. Albans)

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

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

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

    Bullard, D. G.

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

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

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Burden, F. F. A.

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

    Markham, Maj. S. F.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Hay, John

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Maudling, R.

    Channon, H.

    Heath, Edward

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

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Colegate, W. A.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hollis, M. C.

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

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

    Holt, A. F.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hope, Lord John

    Nutting, Anthony

    Crouch, R. F.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Odey, G. W.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh. S.)

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon W. D.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

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

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

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

    Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Osborne, C.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Partridge, E.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Tilney, John

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Shepherd, William

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

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

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Stevens, G. P.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

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

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Wellwood, W.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Redmayne, M.

    Storey, S.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Summers, G. S.

    Wills, G.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    York, C.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Teeling, W.

    Roper, Sir Harold

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Russell, R. S.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Mr. Drewe and Mr. Kaberry.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Finch, H. J.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Albu, A. H.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McInnes, J.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Ayles, W. H.

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

    McLeavy, F.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Gibson, C. W.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Balfour, A.

    Glanville, James

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Bence, C. R.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Benson, G.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Beswick, F.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Blackburn, F.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Monslow, W.

    Boardman, H.

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Moody, A. S.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Hannan, W.

    Morley, R.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hardy, E. A.

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

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Mort, D. L.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Moyle, A.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hastings, S.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Murray, J. D.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

    Nally, W.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Carmichael, J.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)

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

    Champion, A. J.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Holman, P.

    Orbach, M.

    Clunie, J.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Oswald, T.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Padley, W. E.

    Collick, P. H.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Paget, R. T.

    Cook, T. F.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

    Cove, W. G.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Paton, J.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pearson, A.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Peart, T. F.

    Daines, P.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Janner, B.

    Porter, G.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

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

    Proctor, W. T.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Pryde, D. J.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Deer, G.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Rankin, John

    Dodds, N. N.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Reeves, J.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Richards, R.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    Keenan, W.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Ross, William

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Royle, C.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Kinley, J.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Ewart, R.

    Logan, D. G.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    1460

    1461

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Steele, T.

    Timmons, J.

    Wigg, G. E. C.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Swingler, S. T.

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

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

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Weitzman, D.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    West, D. G.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.

    Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Leslie Hale: I did not intervene in the discussion which has just terminated because I was anxious to facilitate it and not to waste time, since we have a long and somewhat arduous programme before us. I would say a few words now by way of preliminary exordium.
    All of us felt when the Secretary of State for War first intervened that we were going to have a much more agreeable and constructive debate than we have had on some occasions on military matters, but now I feel that the Committee is being treated with a little discourtesy from the other side. We had a long discussion, with many military experts present on the other side, but not one of them rose to make a speech.
    Then we saw an incident which I think unparalleled in Parliamentary history. Towards the close of the debate, the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) twice rose and sought to catch your eye, Mr. Hopkin Morris.
    The Deputy-Chairman: These remarks have nothing to do with the Clause or with the Bill.
    Mr. Hale: I submit that they have everything to do with the Question which we are discussing, which is whether the Clause shall stand part of the Bill. We have to take into our minds the atmosphere and the circumstances of the debate in deciding whether we are to give the Bill a passage in those circumstances.
    6.0 p.m.
    Surely it is open to and appropriate for any hon. Member at any moment, out of deference and respect to the Committee, to call attention to the difficulties under which the Committee is labouring? The point I wanted to make, Mr. Hopkin Morris—and I find it difficult for you to
    1462
    rule me out of order before I have made my point—is that this did happen. It is within the recollection of all hon. Members that the hon. Member twice rose to catch your eye but, as no one on that side had risen for so long, you did not look to that side of the Committee. It would be a pity if we continued on those lines. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to co-operate with us in getting this business through constructively and with decent discussion.
    I have finished on that point; indeed, I have almost finished my exordium altogether. I hope I may say one personal word. I want to say with what great personal pleasure I found myself co-operating in constructive military operations with my hon. Friends the Members for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), and Dudley (Mr. Wigg). It recalls nostalgic memories of those halcyon days in the sergeants' mess of the Keep Left Regiment—
    The Deputy-Chairman: It may be interesting to recall those nostalgic days, but it is not in order on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Hale: I am much obliged, Mr. Hopkin Morris. It was only in the nature of a preliminary exordium to give me a little self-confidence, and I will now come to consider the merits of the Clause itself. First let me say that it is all very well for the Committee to be told that the Clause is in an Army Act which has not been much rephrased since 1869 and is based on the military practice of the reign of Queen Anne, and now a little archaic. But the words in this Clause in a Measure of 1952 are really far from impressive and it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I take the paragraphs in inverse order.
    Subsection (3) is really a quite remarkable proposition of law. In your absence earlier, Mr. Hopkin Morris, we had some discussion as to where one gets the best law—whether in the law courts, the barrack

    1463
    room or the wet canteen. I think my right hon. Friend said the wet canteen was the most valuable place, but in any case it is certainly not found in an Act of Parliament, because subsection (3) reads as follows:
    "A person subject to military law or to the Air Force Act shall not be exempted from the provisions of the Army Act or the Air Force Act by reason only that the number of the forces for the time being in the service of Her Majesty, exclusive of the marine forces, is either greater or less than the numbers hereinbefore mentioned."
    Unless there be some obsolete provision of which I have never heard, I am utterly incapable of understanding what is the reason for this subsection. Is it seriously suggested that if a person serving in the Armed Forces is brought before a court martial, he can say, "You are only authorised to have 555,000 soldiers and I am the five hundred and fifty thousandth and first, and therefore I plead that I am not subject to military law." That is the only ground for putting it in the Bill. I am not being facetious. It is the only thing the Clause can mean because, if it does not mean that, it is meaningless and unnecessary.
    Subsection (2) says:
    "The Army Act and the Air Force Act, while in force, shall apply to persons subject to military law or to the Air Force Act, as the case may be, whether within or without Her Majesty's Dominions."
    At some time we shall have to consider the effect of the Statute of Westminster upon these proceedings and how far we are entitled to legislate with regard to Armed Forces which may be in Australia or South Africa or in Canada. However, that is not the principal point I rose to make. I want to know what is the meaning of "subject to military law," and what military law, and whose military law.
    There is this extraordinary selection of phrases whereby we are told that the Air Force Act, while in force, shall apply to persons subject to the Air Force Act while the Army Act applies to persons subject to military law. Hon. Members may think that is a queer statement, but that is precisely what is meant if we take out the words "Army Act." If an Act is passed to apply to certain people, surely it is not necessary to have a separate Subsection to say that it
    1464
    applies to those people, because obviously it does.
    Those are two minor points to which I wanted to direct the attention of the Committee, and now I want to consider a substantial point involved in this Clause. Some of my hon. Friends have been wondering whether there is some curious constitutional principle involved in the determination of the Secretary of State for War not to accept the Amendment recently debated. But it is well within the knowledge, of all hon. Members on this side of the Committee at any rate, that this is a question which involves the Bill of Rights. It is because the Bill of Rights laid down in 1689 that no standing Army should be kept in Britain that it is still necessary for us to pass an Act annually.
    May I say to the hon. Member who so recently joined our deliberations that when I referred to 1689 there was no intention whatever of crossing the Irish Sea in the course of this debate? The time has really come when the House of Commons has to consider seriously two propositions in connection with this. The theory is that the Bill of Rights is so inviolate, is so much a bulwark of our State, is one of those documents which ranks with Magna Charta, is one of our chief social liberties, that it would be almost indecent to tamper with it.
    There is no foundation for that except in sentiment. Magna Charta never gave any rights to anyone except to a few barons. It is within the recollection of this Committee as—Mr. Bernard Shaw pointed out that whenever we face a time of emergency, we suspend all our liberties anyhow—I do hope you are not leaning forward in your Chair, Mr. Hopkin Morris, with the intention of rising—
    The Deputy-Chairman: This dissertation may be very interesting, but it is not relevant to the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Hale: With great respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I suggest that it is a constitutional argument of great importance, and may I say how it is relevant? This Act is to limit the Forces for 12 months only, and at a time when we are asking people to join the Forces for 30 years or 22 years, I am saying that this

    1465
    Clause makes utter nonsense of the proposition that we are asking troops to serve for 20 years when we can only establish our Army for 12 months. We are saying in this Clause that it will not go on after 30th April, 1953. If, after that date, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), formed a Government, it is very likely that it would not go on. So we have to face that proposition, and I suggest that the time may well have come when the Secretary of State should seriously consider whether we should amend the Bill of Rights.
    Is it really of any relevance today? In these days of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, can it really be said that the Bill of Rights is of any effect whatever? Can it be said that there is any principle remaining of any great importance which we have jealously to maintain when we have abandoned so many liberties?
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member knows well enough that he is travelling too far afield now.
    Mr. Hale: I am much obliged, Mr. Hopkin Morris, and I am sorry. I said that I was gathering self-confidence. That is sometimes the trouble. I generate a little over-confidence and then I find myself straying from the straight and narrow path. I will try not to mix my metaphors and I will attempt to eschew similes, hyperbole and rhodomontade and to pursue the narrow path of constructive criticism and suggestion.
    I am not suggesting that I would ask any of my colleagues to vote against this Clause, but I suggest that the Secretary of State might say that he and his colleagues will consider this matter in the next 12 months and will then say what they really think about it, if they are still in office. It is fantastic that we should go through the task each year of passing a new Bill to maintain an Army for 12 months when everybody knows that the troops are joining up for 14 years, 22 years, and so on. They are tied down by contracts to an amorphous organisation that will cease on 30th April next. It makes us look rather foolish that we carry on this fantastic fiction from the 250-years old Act and each year go through this process.
    The whole Committee will agree that this year we are performing a very useful
    1466
    duty in trying to bring the matter up to date and in trying to make helpful and constructive suggestions. No one seriously suggests that we shall have to do that every year. Indeed, if only we could have a little more participation from hon. Members opposite, we could do such an effective job in the next hour or two that we should be able to make a very real and radical improvement. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear these points in mind.
    Mr. Jack Jones: I intervene with a certain hesitation in a debate of this kind. It has never before been on record in the House that I have said anything about armies, navies and air forces, and probably I might have to declare an interest in the matter. I happened to be one of those much maligned regimental quartermaster-sergeants who was appointed, not because of any political bias, but because it happened to be the late Father of the House who saw to it that I got that particular job.
    I turn to the part of the Clause which, in my opinion, is of great importance. Like other speakers, I want to see the Act amended. Often I have seen, in the barrack room, in the orderly room and even at courts-martial, Private Blogg standing with his hat off and trembling, not knowing what he was accused of, let alone knowing the offence he had committed. The time has now arrived when men joining the Army and men presently in the Army should know exactly what is the Act under which they are serving.
    There has been a lot of talk about barrack room lawyers. My experience of them was always that they were not legally trained, but that they could always forecast and bet on the result that would be arrived at the following day, and that they were always right. They knew the result of the case before it was heard.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Motion before the Committee is that Clause 2 stand part.
    Mr. Jones: I realised before you called my attention to it, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that I was getting out of order. I was about to refer to the words of the Clause, which lay down that:
    "whereas no man can be forejudged of life or limb …"
    What I want to submit—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is not even on the Clause.
    Mr. Jones: I was about to admit that, Mr. Hopkin Morris, before you drew my attention to it. Possibly I shall have something to say about that later. I suggest that the fullest time ought to be given by the Government in seeing that the Act can be made up to date. I often used to think, as one who helped to apply the Act, that had we burnt the lot and the King's Regulations also and put the 10 Commandments in their place, we would have done a good job of work.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must not make a Second Reading speech.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Before we part with the Clause, I should like the Secretary of State to deal with a point which I tried to raise on my Amendment but which was very little touched upon during the discussion on the two Amendments. What we have done, as I understand it, in the last Division is to decide to leave in the Clause the words from "force," in line 32, to the end of the Clause.
    Why is it necessary to provide that the Army Act and the Air Force Act should remain in force for two different periods of time, according to whether troops are, on the one hand, within Great Britain and Northern Ireland or, on the other hand, within or without Her Majesty's Dominions?
    The Deputy-Chairman: As I understand it, the hon. Member is now going back to the Amendment on which his question might well have arisen and have been properly put. We have disposed of the Amendment and are now on the Motion that the Clause stand part, the Amendment having been negatived.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, what we have done when the Committee divided is to negative a certain Amendment. The argument I want to put is that it is unreasonable that two different periods of time should be provided in the Clause, one in subsection (1, a) and another in subsection (1, b). I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us why it is necessary to continue what I regard as an absurdity.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That may be true, but that was the subject matter of the Amendments.
    Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, the question on which the Committee divided was whether the provision of the Army Act should be continued in force for a further 12 months or for a further 15 months. The whole of the arguments addressed to the Secretary of State were directed to the point that since the Army Act calls for a great deal of Amendment, it would be desirable on this occasion to extend its provisions for 15 months, so that next year we can have plenty of opportunity between the end of March, when the vote occurs, and July to revise the Army Act. The Committee has decided against the Amendments moved in that sense.
    I am putting an entirely different point. I am asking why it is necessary or desirable to perpetuate a distinction for the continuation of the Army Act as regards some part of Her Majesty's Forces for 12 months, and as regards other members of Her Majesty's Forces for 15 months.
    Hitherto, pursuant to provisions of great antiquity—the Bill of Rights and so on—the House of Commons has given the Government of the day permission year by year, and no longer, to continue a standing army in this country in time of peace. For some time, we have come to a stage at which the Government of the day are asking for permission that there shall be a standing army and that the Army Act shall remain in force for 12 months with regard to Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, but that the Act shall remain in force for 15 months as regards all territories outside Great Britain, for subsection (1, b) expressly states:
    "elsewhere, whether within or without Her Majesty's dominions …
    which means, in fact, overseas.
    The significance of the argument is that hitherto the House has always been very jealous not to give the Government of the day permission to have a standing army in time of peace for more than 12 months. Throughout the centuries it has always been regarded as quite reasonable that the House of Commons should entrust the Government of the day with the great privilege of having a standing army for 12 months, but not more.

    1469
    It will be seen from the Preamble that this is
    "A Bill to Provide, during twelve months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force."
    What puzzles me—the Committee have had no word of explanation from the Secretary of State about this—is why the Committee are now being asked to give permission for the Army and Air Force Acts to remain in operation for 15 months outside Great Britain.
    Mr. Head: Perhaps if I intervene I may be able to help the hon. Member. The same procedure was adopted last year. The hon. Member will appreciate that it then terminated on 15th July, so that due to the operation of last year's Act the period is actually a year.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not concerned with what happened last year. I am concerned with what is happening this year and what has happened throughout the centuries. During those years, Parliament has only given to the Government of the day permission to have a standing army for 12 months. There is no substance in what the Minister says.
    It would be quite simple for the Bill to provide that the Army and the Air Force Acts should remain in operation until 30th April, 1953, in regard to all troops, whether in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or anywhere else. That would be the normal thing to do—to continue the Army Act and the Air Force Act either until 30th April, 1953, or, as was suggested, until 31st July, 1953. I am asking that the two periods should be made one. This is the first practical Suggestion that we put forward to introduce some semblance of common sense and simplicity and rationality into this Army Act. I do ask the Secretary of State to agree that in future the Measure should operate uniformly for 12 months—not for 12 months as regards some troops and for 15 months as regards others.
    Mr. Donald Chapman: I think that this debate has had a most unfortunate start. I thought its whole object was to make some constructive Amendments. Now the Secretary of State is asking us to accept this Clause unamended. I want, therefore, to
    1470
    look at what the Clause implies, now that it states without Amendment that the Act shall expire next year on 30th April. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, if he is to reply, will give us some details about this. The Government owe it to the Committee to say how they envisage the Clause will work out next year. I should like to know what they have in mind for a time table.
    Subsection (1. a) says that the Bill will expire on 30th April next year. I understood the Secretary of State to suggest that there will be a complete recasting of the Measure, and that next year we shall do what the Opposition are trying, without any help from the Government side, to do this year. How do the Government expect this Clause to work in the year 1953? As I understand it, the Bill next year cannot be discussed until the Army Vote A has been passed. That brings us somewhere near the beginning of April. Yet the right hon. Gentleman is now insisting that by 30th April next year we are to have a new Annual Bill—and that all in the rush of the month of April. How, in Heaven's name, is that to be expected?
    If the right hon. Gentleman will only look at his calendar next year he will find that Easter falls at the beginning of April. Good Friday falls on 3rd April. If Parliament is in Recess for a few days, even for as long as this year, we shall be resuming again in the middle of April. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is expecting us to consider all the Amendments that are bound to arise from both sides of the Committee and completely to recast the Measure in something like a fortnight. That is most unreasonable, but that is precisely what he is letting us in for by insisting that we pass this Clause without any Amendment at all We are entitled to ask the Under-Secretary of State what timetable he expects the House of Commons to work to this time next year.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That has nothing to do with this Clause.
    Mr. Chapman: All I am asking is that the Government spokesman should explain to us how this Clause is going to work. I am sure that that is a relevant question, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I ask how the Clause will work. Does the Under-Secretary of State envisage that the

    1471
    Budget due this time next year will be postponed, or brought on two months earlier or later?
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is not asking how the Clause will work but how the Government's timetable will work.
    Mr. Chapman: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I think I have made the point I wanted to make. Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us how he expects that the promise earlier made to review this Measure next year will be carried out? Because, as I understand it, from a careful reading of the Clause in the light of the debate, we shall be faced next year with the same situation as that with which we are faced now. The Government will be asking us to swallow every Amendment without discussion in order to get the Measure through in time. That will be the unfortunate effect of passing this Clause unamended. I am sure that we shall regret that enormously this time next year.
    Mr. Swingler: I think we all appreciate on this side of the Committee that the Under-Secretary of State is at the moment in a very difficult position. There is no Law Officer on the Treasury Bench, and we all know that the Solicitor-General has some secret which he will not reveal about this magic date of 30th April. That has, so far, prolonged the discussion in the Committee to a very considerable extent.
    Like my hon. Friends, I recall an assurance given by the Secretary of State for War that he would consider this matter of altering the date so that more time would be given for a comprehensive review of the Act, to get rid of the obsolete parts, and so on. I think we are entitled now to ask for an assurance—or an interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance—as to what is to be done. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), I should like to know what the timetable next year will be, because, after all, that is what we are discussing.
    The Deputy-Chairman: No. We are not discussing what the timetable will be next year, but that this particular Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Swingler: This Clause lays down that one part of the timetable next year must be the Annual Army Bill. It will have to be produced before 30th April. That is one thing we are discussing in this Clause. That part of the timetable is laid down. No additional time is being given by this Clause. There is no additional time given for this exhaustive review that we were promised. What we are entitled to ask for is an interpretation of what the Secretary of State meant when he said we shall have more time next year, or be in a better position to undertake this review of the Army Act.
    I do not expect that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to reply until the Solicitor-General has come back from his cup of tea, or wherever he is, but I do hope that, at some time during the proceedings, we shall have an explanation of why it is that Ministers are so insistent upon retaining this date of 30th April in this Clause.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Earlier in the discussion the Secretary of State for War gave as a reason for not accepting an Amendment certain advice which, we gathered, was tendered to him by the Solicitor-General. When challenged to tell what the advice was, the Secretary of State for War withdrew the remark he made on the ground that he had not fully understood or had not properly heard what the Solicitor-General's advice was on the subject. Unfortunately, shortly after that the Solicitor-General left the Committee, no doubt for very good reasons.
    I want to join my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) in his request that the Solicitor-General should give the Committee the benefit of his advice on the subject, and, in particular, the reasons why it is not possible for the Government to accept any alteration in the date suggested in the Clause.
    The Committee is placed in a very difficult position, because it may well be that there is some point of constitutional importance involved in the matter which creates the adamant attitude adopted over this Clause by Government spokesmen. Before the Committee is asked to come to a decision as to whether this Clause shall stand part of the Bill I hope that they will have the benefit of the

    1473
    advice of one of the Law Officers of the Crown which will help satisfy us that there is some really fundamental reason.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Hale: There are four Law Officers of the Crown and not one of them is here. We have been discussing a purely legal point now for some time, and it is really too bad that the proceedings of the Committee should be deliberately prolonged by the absence of the people who might easily be able to put an end to this discussion.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I must confess that my feeling of frustration which is shared by many of my hon. Friends is very much increased by the absence of the Law Officers. We are being asked to accept a proposition for which there may well be some valid legal argument. But until it is propounded, until the Committee has the benefit of the knowledge which at the moment remains locked in the heart of the Secretary of State for War, we are at a very considerable disadvantage. I suggest there is still time for some message to be conveyed to one or other of the Law Officers of the Crown to come to the Committee.
    The matter should not be left entirely to the Under-Secretary of State. I am not blaming him for the difficulty in which he finds himself. If his Minister, or he himself, were able to clarify the legal difficulty, which presumably exists, I have no doubt he would have already done so. It is because the Law Officers are not present that the Committee finds itself considerably handicapped.
    Mr. Wigg: I wish to add my voice to the pleas which have been made that the Under-Secretary should tell the Committee why it is that this Bill can only remain in force until 30th April, 1953. I do it for no party or debating reason, but because we have put on the Order Paper a number of Amendments of great importance. I hope that the Minister will accept some of them out of hand, but there are others which we could dispose of quite quickly if either he or the Under-Secretary of State would say, "The implications are rather wide but we will consider it and give the Committee an undertaking that next April, if we are still in Office, we will put before the Committee something along the lines which are suggested"—or
    1474
    at least, that they will give an undertaking that there will be further consideration.
    We have pressed the Secretary of State and have been given no reason at all why this Bill can operate only to 30th April and not to 31st July. I am sure there is a reason. It may be a reason of personal convenience, but there must be a reason. Everybody must have some reason—if they are outside a lunatic asylum. Surely the Under-Secretary, if he will treat the Committee with the respect that we all wish, will tell us or give us a hint of the obstacle and so make it easier for us in dealing with the later stages of the Bill.
    This is a perfectly genuine plea, and I carry all my hon. Friends with me in saying that our first Amendment was put down for the sole purpose of helping the Government so that next year we could have a real tidying up of these matters. We can make a start this year, but certainly we could make a good job of it in the next Army Bill. Instead, we are being treated with complete arrogance by the Secretary of State and the Patronage Secretary, and if our deliberations are held up the responsibility rests with them.
    Mr. Swingler: On a point of order, Sir Charles. We have been discussing this Clause, which contains matters of legal complexity, for over 40 minutes, during which time there has been no Law Officer of the Crown present. May I have your permission to move to report Progress in view of the absence—
    The Chairman: No, I cannot accept that.
    Mr. Swingler: —in view of the absence of a Law Officer?
    The Chairman: I cannot accept that.
    Mr. Bing: One of the difficulties in which the Secretary of State finds himself in regard to this Clause is that there has grown up confusion between what was the original Army Discipline and Regulation (Commencement) Act, 1879, and the present Mutiny Act which is enforced annually. Owing to this confusion we are reduced to the position that we have to make all the Amendments to the Army Act and the Air Force Act in this most inconvenient way.

    1475
    I do not join with my hon. Friends who have deplored the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown. Under certain circumstances that may be a good thing. But I am glad to see present the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe), because any point which the Law Officers may have overlooked he will be able to deal with admirably, and we hope to have his advice later on.
    I suggest to the Secretary of State for War that he consider whether the whole idea of an annual Army Act is a good thing or not. Would he consider the possibility of appointing a committee to go into the whole question of the Army Act with the idea of revising the whole thing; and possibly while retaining the annual Act, nevertheless leaving the other merely as a formal Measure just to impose the discipline of the Army in accordance with the code which we do not have to amend or look at each year?
    This disadvantage of having to look at it each year results really in the Bill not being looked at in any year. One always feels that it can be done next year, and so it is always put off. That is what we are complaining about. The right hon. Gentleman has said he would amend the Clause, but not this year, and we ask "why?" His answer is that he can easily do it next year. Would not he consider the possibility of doing away with the Annual Army Act altogether?
    I notice that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) disagrees with me. It is a point on which possibly we are not all agreed, but I throw it out as an idea, because it seems to me that we in this House have a responsibility to supervise the law as it applies to the conscripts and the Regulars. But we cannot do it under these circumstances and need new machinery. We did try to make a suggestion which did not commend itself to the Committee.
    What we want to hear from the Solicitor-General or from the Secretary of State for War is why it is absolutely essential to have this date. If there is a reason why 30th April is the date on which for ever after, so long as the British Commonwealth of Nations continues, the Army Act must be passed, it is useless to direct ourselves any longer to considering this Clause. If there is no
    1476
    particular reason why it ought to be altered we ought to have some indication of the legal advise tendered to the Secretary of State which has made it impossible for him to depart from this, and why the Committee has to be persuaded to come to this point of view. I hope we shall get it.
    I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he thinks that any other machinery would be possible to enable us to correct the Act. For instance, we might include a provision—the right hon. Gentleman might care to move one later—permitting this part of the Act to go through but reserving the latter part to a later date so that we could discuss the Amendments later when we have rather more time.
    It is unfortunate—and I say this again because it needs the greatest emphasis—that when we are dealing with new crimes which might affect the lives of people even under the age of 21, we have to do it at a time when there is this degree of rush and hurry. All I ask is whether the Secretary of State cannot think of some means by which he can deal with the matter. He has rejected the means which we suggested. If he would tell us why he advised his hon. Friends to reject the method we suggested, that would help us in arriving at some alternative method.
    Mr. Head: There has been a fairly full discussion of this Clause. A number of substantial points have been raised which I will either attempt to answer now or undertake to look into. I would say at the outset of my remarks which, I hope, will end this discussion that there has been a good deal of inconsistency among hon. Gentlemen opposite. There has been one set of hon. Gentlemen who say, "Let us make it 30th April, because that is logical and sensible and it would give us plenty of time." Another set of hon. Gentlemen say, "Let us have 31st July and that will give us longer." A third set of hon. Gentlemen would like to abolish the annual review altogether, so they would have no time at all.
    There are also many hon. Gentlemen opposite who say, "The late Government had no opportunity of going through this Bill, because they had so much legislation that there was no time for it." I would point out that all Governments have legislation and that, in just the same

    1477
    way as they did, we also have legislation. They are asking that, during the time when this legislation should be going through, the period available for the discussion of this Bill should be immensely protracted. If hon. Gentlemen opposite argue that they had not much time to amend this Bill because of the pressure of legislation, it must surely occur to them that we, too, have legislation.
    Mr. Hale: What about the eight weeks' Christmas Recess?
    Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman may refer to that, but I am talking of future legislation.
    I have given the undertaking that we will reduce this anomaly between the dates. I am in complete agreement with hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is an anachronism. This Amendment has not been long on the Order Paper. The position is not as simple as hon. Gentlemen appear to think. I have given an undertaking, and I would point out that it will make no difference whether the Amendment is made this year or next year.
    In reference to the other questions raised, I said at the start; and I say it again, that we all know that there are a lot of anachronisms in this Bill. If the House of Commons were to make a real job of it and go through the Bill with a fine toothcomb, there would not be 107 Amendments on the Order Paper; there would probably be 1,007. I say to hon. Members that we must be reasonable. We are embarking on something which it is impossible to complete in one, two, or even three, Sessions of Parliament.
    Mr. Strachey: Why not make a start?
    Mr. Head: Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they had no time for this in the last six years, but when the present Government come into power they suggest that we should exclude all our legislation to make up for lost time. This matter will only be put right if we tackle it in a reasonable way. To attempt to deal with the whole question at one time is unreasonable and hopeless. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have put down a large number of Amendments. It will be my intention wherever possible to accept those Amendments. It was unfortunate that the very first one we came to is one which I could not accept.
    1478
    As we come to subsequent Clauses it will be my endeavour to accept Amendments and to do the best we can for the Bill. I see a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite waiting to rise. I suggest, in the circumstances, that the wisest course would be to get on to what all Members want and that is to the introduction of Amendments which will have a good effect on the Bill.
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3.—(AMENDMENT OF DEFINITION OF "ACTIVE SERVICE.")
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Paget: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out "Subsection (1) of."
    The effect of this Amendment is that, by the omission of these words, the word "Section" would be left, and the whole of Section 189 of the Army Act would be repealed. We have put this Amendment down largely for exploratory purposes. We want to know whether the traditional subsections—that is subsections (2) to (6) of Section 189 of the Army Act—are really required in view of the enlarged definition of "active service" which occurs in the Bill.
    The most important subsection of Section 189 is subsection (2), which provides:
    "Where the governor of a colony in which any of His Majesty's forces are serving, or if the forces are serving in a Dominion or out of His Majesty's dominions, the general officer or brigadier commanding such forces, declares at any time or times that, by reason of the imminence of active service or of the recent existence of active service, it is necessary for the public service that the forces in the colony or under his command, as the case may be, should be temporarily subject to this Act, as if they were on active service…."
    I ask these questions sincerely. Why do we have those limitations? Is it because the forces have recently been on active service or because of the imminence of active service? Why is it that those two, which I should not have thought were particularly likely reasons for putting soldiers under active service conditions,

    1479
    are the only conditions to apply in our Colonies?
    If there was a dangerous civil situation, if there were riots in Gibraltar, or anything of that sort, would not that be a possible reason for requiring that troops should be deemed to be on active service? If that be so, does it come within these words? Again, on the question of the imminence of active service, we might have troops in a Colony which we expected to be invaded. I suppose that is what is meant by:
    "… the imminence of active service …"
    It is expected that a stroke will be made against the territory and, therefore, the troops are put on active service to resist it. I can understand that, but I find it a little difficult to understand that troops should be deemed to be on active service because they have recently been on active service. I do not know the answer to that. It seems to me to be a little difficult to understand what that action is, and, therefore, I would—
    Mr. Head: There can often be occasions where men have been on active service and where a lull occurs, but where a recurrence of such a situation seems likely.
    Mr. Paget: I should have thought that one would not put them on active service because the occasion for active service had stopped, but because the occasion for active service might occur again. That would seem to me to be another instance of imminence.
    I am still a little puzzled to understand why people should be put on active service merely because they have recently been on active service. On the one hand, the fact that they have recently been on active service seems to me to be a poor reason. On the other hand, I can imagine quite a lot of reasons, other than because they are or might shortly be required to be on active service, for putting them under active service conditions.
    This seems to me eminently one of those Clauses on which we should be unreasonable to require the Government to make up their mind in too much of a hurry, but I want to point out these difficulties to enable the Government to apply their mind to them and to see if this is really suitable in the light of the new definition.
    1480
    There is another point to which I want to draw the attention of the Government, and one which again puzzles me because I do not quite know what the answer is. In the Manual of Military Law, which is the latest addition as far as the research department of this House is concerned, there is one of those stick-ins which form so large a portion of any manual. It is an amendment of 6th May, 1931, and it says:
    "Troops may be on active service even before embarkation for the seat of war if the circumstances are such that they can reasonably be held to be attached to or to form part of a force such as specified in this subsection. Under the provisions of Section 188 such troops if on active service at the port of embarkation would continue to be on active service during the voyage."
    I do not know whether that is still in operation. If it is, why not include it in the section? If it is not in operation, what has happened to it, because, as far as I can discover, it is not in Section 189? Is it held that under Section 188 there is power to make troops on active service? Is that the section which they have in mind? I am wondering what that little amendment stuck into the Manual is and where it comes from. Is it still in existence or not? If it has been there ever since 1931, is it not time that it was put into the Act?
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The hon. and learned Gentleman—
    Mr. Hale: On a point of order. Will it not prolong our deliberations, Sir Charles, if we get a reply from the Minister immediately and then have to ask someone else to reply later?
    The Chairman: In Committee hon. Members can speak as often as they like.
    Mr. Hale: I was only suggesting it as a matter of convenience.
    The Chairman: In Committee hon. Members can speak as often as they like, if I call them.
    Mr. Hale: It seems a rather expensive process of time.
    The Solicitor-General: I thought that if I sought to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's question now it might be for the convenience of the Committee and save time. He has asked a number of questions and I will try and give a reply

    1481
    to each one. The last question he asked was with regard to the note in the Manual on Military Law. The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that the definition of "active service" applies to a person serving with or in a force which complies with the other conditions specified in the definition so that in each case if a part of the force with which he is serving is on active service within the meaning of that definition, that member of that force is on active service. In each case it comes to a question more or less of fact, as to whether he is a member of a force which comes within the other part of the definition.
    Mr. T. Driberg rose—
    The Solicitor-General: I am trying to put the position as shortly and as clearly as I can to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). The question of whether there is or is not active service is really a question of fact. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at both the definition in the Bill and the definition in Section 189 (1) he will see that in each case it is a question of fact. If the case comes within that definition, then those troops are on active service.
    Mr. Paget: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman a question? What is meant by "force" in this connection? Is it battalion, corps, brigade or platoon?
    The Solicitor-General: It covers a wide variety of military forces. That is the best answer I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the importance of Sections 188 and 189. He will see, first of all, that where the troops are in the Colony, it rests with the governor of the Colony to make the declaration and not with the general officer commanding. Where they are not in the Colony, it is the general officer commanding who makes the declaration.
    1482
    He can only make it where, as the Clause says, there is imminence of active service, that is to say when things are threatening.
    Then there may be de facto active service; that is to say, conditions within the definition and followed by deemed active service when such conditions cease to obtain and yet where the position is not entirely settled and where it is necessary to keep troops on active service for some further time. That is the reason. One might call it the tapering off from the de facto active service position to the normal peace-time position, and it is really necessary to retain those words.
    Mr. Driberg: I wanted to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he repeatedly referred to the definition which the Government seek to substitute for the subsection they are removing from the Army Act. But that definition contains the word "enemy" and, therefore, it seems to me that in this discussion we are, in a sense, prejudging the discussion which we shall no doubt be having on Clause 4 as that Clause gives us a new definition of the word "enemy."
    I have an Amendment down on that point, but I do not, of course, yet know, Sir Charles, whether you are going to be good enough to call it or not. I naturally hope that you are, but meanwhile some of us are not at all satisfied by the new definition of "enemy" contained in this year's Bill, and that is why I put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman that our present discussion is a very difficult one, since we are discussing—
    It being Seven o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Mr. Speaker: It might be for the convenience of the House if I indicated the course I think might be found convenient on this Bill, because there is not only the Second Reading of the Bill to be discussed but also three instructions to the Committee which is to consider it. It might commend itself to the House if, on Second Reading, I were to allow a debate which included the points mentioned in the instructions and also any general points on the Bill, on the understanding that if speeches are made arguing for the instructions which are to follow later we shall then, at the end of the discussion, put the instructions separately without further debate.
  If that course commends itself to the House, I shall be happy to do that, and it might then be found convenient—I have no power in the matter, it is entirely for the House—for the debate to end at 9.30 so as to allow the instructions to be put from the Chair.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: I rise to support what I hope will be the passage of this Bill through its Second Reading stage. It is a Private Bill promoted by the British Electricity Authority. On such an occasion one must declare one's interest. I have no interest in either the nationalised form of electricity or the supplying free enterprise industries connected therewith. I have only the interest of a native of the Principality and a natural desire, therefore, for the passage of all legislation which, on balance, I consider likely to be beneficial to North Wales in particular, to the Principality as a whole, and, indeed, to the whole of the British Isles.
  This Measure may be described as a non-political, or perhaps more appropriately a non-party Measure. Though promoted by the British Electricity Authority it required the consent of the Minister of Fuel and Power under Section 10 of the 1947 Act. That consent was given by the Minister of Fuel and
  1484
  Power in the last Labour Government, and I am instructed that after very careful consideration that sanction was ratified by the present Minister of Fuel and Power.
  The projects mentioned in this Bill were contemplated, before the industry was actually nationalised, by the North Wales Power Company, who might be described as the predecessors in title of the British Electricity Authority. The British Electricity Authority continued the investigations into the various schemes and the necessary surveys. Therefore, all those schemes are now included in the Bill.
  As hon. Members are aware, the proposals are to extend the catchment areas of the existing stations at Dolgarrog and Maentwrog and to construct a new hydro-electric system near Ffestiniog and also three related generating stations, with full powers to erect and maintain all necessary aqueducts, reservoirs and similar works as described in Clause 4 of the draft Bill.
  Five other schemes were originally contemplated, but those are not included in this Bill. It is true to say that some local authorities have pressed for the implementation of some of the other schemes, in particular the Rheidol scheme, and I shall say something later about the connection between those schemes and the schemes at present under consideration.
  I am instructed that the present proposals involve approximately an average annual output of electricity of 84,500,000 units. I am advised that the new generating capacity is likely to be in the region of 45,500 kilowatts. The average cost per kilowatt installed is estimated as likely to be £94 5s., and I am further advised that the complete cost per unit sent out will be about 6d.
  The, probable saving in coal is likely to be in the region of 55,000 tons per annum, and the amount of steel required has been estimated at about 2,500 tons. I should like to point out that that is less than the amount of steel which would be required for steam works of similar generating capacity. On the other hand, it is fair to say that a large amount of cement will be involved—in the neighbourhood of 37,700 tons, which would be considerably more than would

  1485
  be required for steam stations of similar generating capacity.
  I should like to put forward for the consideration of the House certain other aspects which I see to be favourable to the Second Reading of this Bill. Once the original capital has been expended, there should be no subsequent requirement of heavy capital expenditure on raw materials connected with it. The operation of the schemes is likely to be extremely economical in manpower. I am advised that the capital required for all the schemes originally contemplated by the Power Company prior to nationalisation would be something in the neighbourhood of £30 million, but the schemes in the present draft Bill would cost approximately only £4½ million of the total of £30 million.
  Though these costs may be comparatively high we must offset against them the fact that the operating costs would be considerably less than the operating costs of alternative schemes, and in particular of steam generation. Also the life of the plant to be erected must be longer than the life of any steam generation plants. I am advised that the probable life of this kind of hydroelectric project would be in the neighbourhood of 80 years or more whilst the usual amortisation period for steam generating plant is about 25 years. The amount of steel required is less than would be required for steam plant of similar generating capacity.
  I should like hon. Members to reflect also that hydro-electric power may be described as flexible and has advantages when one is dealing with special requirements and heavy loads at peak periods. It may also appeal to many hon. Members that the North Wales area, like Scotland, is predominantly mountainous and has a heavy rainfall. Those areas are the parts of the British Isles most suitable for hydro-electric schemes. If we in these islands are to develop this kind of generating power at all we must obviously do it primarily in North Wales and Scotland. That may be a powerful argument in favour of the Second Reading of this Measure.
  On the other hand, there are obviously certain objections some of which have been indicated on the Order Paper. There are fears that the schemes will interfere
  1486
  with the amenities and natural beauty of a very lovely part of the British Isles. We are told that there are real fears that the local and other water supplies may be similarly interfered with by the passing of this Bill. These are, indeed, reasonable objections. I should be the last to advocate passing a Measure which would be likely to ruin the beauty of the part of the Principality of which I myself am a native. I should be the last to advance it if I thought this Bill would have that effect.
  But it may be of some comfort to hon. Members to know that discussions have taken place between the British Electricity Authority, who are the promoters of this Bill, the National Parks Commission and the Minister of Housing and Local Government whose Department is a most important department in connection with these objections. In the light of these consultations the promoters, realising fully the validity and reasonableness of these fears, will later be prepared to accept Amendments providing for proper control not only to protect the amenities and natural beauties to which I have referred, but they will go further than the matters normally covered by town and country planning. They will cover, for instance, the disposal of spoil, the appearance of the aqueducts and other works and also the restoration of land affected by this Measure.
  There is another fear that the passing of this Measure may commit us, as it were by precedent, to the passing of other Measures relating to the original projects involving a larger proportion of the total estimated expenditure of £30 million. But surely that is not so. If it is desired to bring these other Measures before the House they will have to be considered on their merits, in the form of Bills, in the usual way, and I hope hon. Members on this occasion will discuss this Bill on its merits and will leave those other matters to be considered on their merits.
  The third real fear—a fear which predominantly affects Members of constituencies in North Wales itself—is that the scheme might provide for the generation of power which will be used not for the benefit of North Wales itself but rather for areas in the adjoining parts of England. I am advised that while it is true that the schemes will supply power to the grid, and in that way there may

  1487
  be demands which will lead to an export of power generated under these schemes, most of the current generated will be used in North Wales itself. I am further advised that Wales at present imports fully three-quarters of its requirements of electricity, and that position is likely to continue despite the passing of this Bill.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am sorry to interrupt at this early stage, but the hon. Gentleman has said that Wales as a whole imports three-quarters of its electricity. Would he give the source of that information? I challenge it absolutely.
  Mr. Gower: I have been told verbally that that is the case. I have no actual figures with me, but I understand that Wales as a whole does import approximately three-quarters of its electricity requirements. I cannot divide that between North and South Wales. It may be that a disproportionate amount is used in South Wales. I would not put my statement higher than that. Finally, it is extremely likely that the erection of these works will provide electricity for adjacent rural parts of Wales where at present the provision of electricity is extremely difficult, costly and inadequate.
  That is a very brief and perhaps inadequate outline of the objects of this Bill. I should like to stress to hon. Members who have these very reasonable fears that the Authority are fully prepared to accept Amendments the nature of which I have tried to indicate; and while there may be opposition fundamentally to this Bill, I hope that my few remarks will have satisfied those hon. Members whose objections do not extend to complete opposition to this Measure but arises merely because of the fear that it may involve the destruction of amenities.
  7.16 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I find myself almost completely in opposition to the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). My opposition is not concerned only with scenic and amenity considerations, which I believe rightly to be the prerogative and responsibility of the Welsh Members. I am concerned with financial and economic considerations, for I believe that the measures that are proposed in this Bill are extravagant and
  1488
  do not use our financial and economic resources to the best advantage, particularly in terms of coal conservation.
  There is a generally misunderstood misconception of how our fuel and power economy should be balanced, by those who say that because hydro-electricity is produced from water and does not use any coal in the process, it must therefore be good. Those people generally conveniently omit to consider the enormous capital costs involved in hydro-electricity installations.
  Let me say, at the outset, that I do not agree with my hon. Friend that this Bill should be treated in isolation from ensuing Measures. It is the intention of the British Electricity Authority to create in North Wales no fewer than eight major hydro-electricity establishments. They are the extension to the Maentwrog scheme, the extension to the Dolgarrog scheme, a new scheme at Ffestiniog; then, if those three schemes are approved, the British Electricity Authority will proceed with a new major scheme at Rheidol, followed by new schemes at Mawddach and Conway, and, finally, the schemes on Snowdon itself and at Nant Ffrancon.
  It will be observed that the British Electricity Authority are proceeding on the basis of introducing the least offensive schemes first. Lord Citrine is flying a gaily coloured kite. He hopes to seduce the House of Commons into believing that this Measure is innocuous and that, therefore, succeeding Measures will meet with less opposition. I believe that all eight schemes should be considered in unison and as part of the same general proposal. The cost of it, as my hon. Friend mentioned, is £30 million if the Nant Ffrancon and Snowdon schemes are excluded. If they are included, the cost will be £40 million. For that £40 million there will be 300,000 kilowatts of power available on installation, or 300 megawatts. Those are the basic desiderata of the scheme.
  What is perhaps important at the outset is that I should make my position quite clear in regard to rural electricity in Wales. I do not wish to be attacked later by nationalistic Welsh newspapers accusing an English hon. Member of seeking to deny rural Wales its legitimate needs for electricity supply. On the contrary, rural Wales and the North Wales littoral has every bit as much right to

  1489
  electricity supplies for its farmsteads and small holdings as any other part of the rural areas of the United Kingdom.
  What we should consider, surely, is how these rural electricity supplies may be provided most economically and most speedily. I believe that we cannot provide them economically in these hydro-electric Bills, and that, most certainly, we cannot provide them speedily, because the whole scheme of hydro-electric development in North Wales will be spread over 15 years, whereas, as I hope to show, the rural districts of the North Wales littoral can be provided with electricity within a period of two to three years from now, by using the existing installations and power stations augmented by current development and construction.
  At present, there is building at Connah's Quay a very large and orthodox steam power station. To that power station is being connected a 132 KV. line along the North Wales littoral, and terminating, I believe, at its western end almost at Bangor. It is to go through the transformer station at Dolgarrog, where current will be transformed down from 132 KV. to 33 KV., and again transformed at sub-stations from 33 KV. down to 11 KV. lines for the more remote parts of the rural area. That line is capable of providing for all the rural needs of North Wales, especially if the Hawarden sub-station and the connections with the grid at Crewe and elsewhere are also employed.
  I mentioned the Connah's Quay power station in course of construction, and it is interesting to note—and I say this principally for the record—that the Connah's Quay power station is to have a capacity of 180,000 KW. The interesting thing is that that power station is only to be worked on a load factor of 41 per cent. which is generally about one-half of the maximum capacity of a modern steam power station. The hydro-electric schemes which provide a total of 300,000 KW. work to a load factor of less than 20 per cent.
  My case with regard to rural electricity supply is simply this. If the Connah's Quay power station at present under construction were to work on a proper load factor of 80 per cent., the additional 40 per cent. over the present 40 per cent. would yield sufficient electricity for the
  1490
  whole of North Wales without any difficulty at all. In that regard, I would say that this is not only an individualistic view of mine, but that I am reinforced by possibly the highest planning authority in this country—Professor Sir Patrick Abercrombie—who, in his report on these hydro schemes to the County Council of the administrative County of Caernarvon wrote this:
  "The simplest would appear to be to raise the load factor of the new station at Connah's Quay (installed capacity 180,000 KW.). This has been placed abnormally low at 41 per cent., doubtless to work in with the Authority's policy of using certain stations as base load and others as semi-base.
  If Connah's Quay could be run at 80 per cent. load factor (a high but not impossible load) by arrangement of the Merseyside Power producting units, it would produce 1,260 million KWH. in place of 650 million KWH. or thereabouts; and would thus provide more than the 500 million KWH. dropped from not using the new installations of North Wales hydroelectric power."
  Professor Abercrombie is undoubtedly absolutely right, for this one power station, perhaps aided by smaller stations, is the answer to rural electrification in North Wales.
  I now want to say something about comparative costs. This is highly technical, but I will try to reduce it to everyday terms, although there are few electrical engineers in this country who would ever agree on the merits or demerits of hydro-electric schemes. For years we have been arguing about these North Wales proposals, but I will try to put the matter in as simple language as I can. A hydro-electric scheme has a very high capital cost, but a low cost of operation. A steam power station has a relatively low capital cost, but a high cost of operation, for it has to be fuelled with coal.
  There are hazards connected with both types of generation. The hazard with the steam station is the availability of coal at a time when our coal budget is in a state of grave unbalance. The hazard in connection with a hydro-electric scheme is principally, of course, the fact that the water supply is not by any means certain, and that the abstraction of large quantities of water from these catchment areas might seriously affect agricultural development, river flow and various other technical points of that kind.
  Mr. Harold Watkinson rose—
  Mr. Nabarro: I do not want to give way, because my time is limited.
  Most people seem to imagine that hydro-electric schemes last for ever, but that is not so. Perhaps they will last for 75 years.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: Or 100.
  Mr. Nabarro: Nobody knows, but I am prepared to be advised by a countryman of the hon. Gentleman who interrupted and who is a high authority on this subject, and who draws our attention to the dangers of siltation in these schemes. For instance, Mr. R. M. Prothero, a geographer, until recently at Edinburgh University, wrote in "Nature" on 7th July, 1951:
  "Precise information is practically nonexistent. In the United States, by 1934, already 13 major dams had silted up completely during an average life of 29 years, but although such spectacular examples are lacking here, silt may accumulate in a short time and seriously reduce the capacity of reservoirs. A case is quoted of one of the Lancaster Corporation reservoirs which has lost nearly half its capacity in 78 years, but as regards the Scottish hydro-electric reservoirs, silting does not appear to have been allowed for in the calculated capacities, and unless we are informed to the contrary no doubt the same applies to those proposed in North Wales."
  This is a very real hazard, but let me pass on to an approximate estimate of the capital costs.
  In the case of a hydro-electric scheme, the capital cost per kilowatt installed is not the £94, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry. I denounce that statement emphatically. Lord Citrine wrote to me on 7th February, 1952, and said that the average capital cost per kilowatt installed was £122 for hydro schemes in North Wales. Why should it be £122 for North Wales and £200 per kilowatt installed for a hydro-electric scheme in Scotland? The answer is that the North Wales scheme will cost £200 per kilowatt installed by the time it is completed, whereas steam station costs today average £60 per kilowatt installed. Therefore, although the length of the life of a hydro-electric scheme is three times longer than that of a steam station, the capital cost of a hydro-electric scheme is three times as great as that of a steam station and in
  1492
  terms of amortisation per annum the one cancels the other out.
  Mr. Watkinson: May I ask what evidence my hon. Friend could adduce to prove that the capital cost per kilowatt produced is anything like £200?
  Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend is very poorly informed on the matter. If he refers to the Scottish debates, not long ago on the Scottish hydro-electric schemes—
  Mr. Watkinson: I sat through them.
  Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend says he sat through them. If he will come to me after the debate I will give him the memorandum issued by Mr. Banks, the chief information officer of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, in which he quotes the figures of £200 per kilowatt. There is no reason why that should not apply to North Wales as conditions are very similar.
  The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Is my hon. Friend saying that that is the cost?
  Mr. Nabarro: I am saying that Lord Citrine said that it is £122 per kilowatt installed and I am saying that when the hydro-stations are installed it will probably be £200, which is the present Scottish cost.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: As the hon. Member is referring to the Scottish scheme, perhaps he will tell us where he gets the kilowatt figure. Until electricity is produced, the capital cost produces nothing. Where does the hon. Member get the kilowatts; how does he arrive at a cost of £200? Is it in the first year, or over 30 years?
  Mr. Nabarro: That question is quite irrelevant because, in calculating the capital cost of electricity schemes it is normally based on cost per kilowatt installed and the right hon. Gentleman the former Minister of Fuel and Power will readily agree that that is the case.
  I pass to a further point in connection with the installation, the load factor of the schemes in North Wales. The load factor is less than 20 per cent. In the case of Dolgarrog it is 15.4 per cent., at Maentwrog 14.7 per cent. and at Ffestiniog 15.75 per cent. A load factor

  1493
  of less than 20 per cent. means that the capital vested in the scheme is less than one-fifth employed whereas in a steam station the load factor is as high as 80 per cent. but at an average of 60 per cent. Therefore, not only is the installation cost three times as high in a hydroelectric scheme as in a steam station, but the use of the power once the installation is completed is only one-third in a hydro scheme as compared with a steam scheme. That weights the capital cost case against hydro schemes by something like ten to one.
  Great play is made, and my hon. Friend referred to it, about coal conservation. I have rarely read such a Dutch auction as the figures put out on these North Wales hydro schemes in the last few years. The House will be interested in these figures, all of which can be checked. The divisional controller of the British Electricity Authority, in the "Manchester Guardian" on 22nd December, 1948, said that the eight hydro schemes in North Wales would save 500,000 tons. In the "Electrical Review," page 143, on 27th January, 1950, the same gentleman said that the eight schemes would save 400,000 tons—he pulled it down by 100,000 tons.
  The predecessor of the present Minister, on 25th July, 1949, when replying to a Parliamentary Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling) said that the coal saving in the eight schemes would be 374,000 tons. Lord Citrine wrote me on 7th February, 1952, and said that the saving on six schemes only would be 252,000 tons—still going down—but even allowing for the exclusion of the two schemes at Snowdon and Nant Ffrancon it is still a reduction. When a calculation is made, based on the thermal efficiency of a new power station today, at 28 per cent., the coal saving on the six schemes to which I have referred—that is, excluding Nant Ffrancon and Snowdon—is only 182,000 tons.
  Here is the crux of the case. To save 182,000 tons of coal per annum the British Electricity Authority want to invest £30 million. That is sheer nonsense. If hon. Members will read the debate on fuel efficiency on 7th March, 1952, and take the trouble to refer to a case I quoted from a Kidderminster carpet factory, relating to the installation of back pressure generation for the sum
  1494
  of £100,000 they will see that 6,000 tons of coal a year were saved. Hon. Members should compare that with the saving of coal in the North Wales Hydro schemes and they will arrive at the conclusion that it is ten times as great, relatively, as the saving in those hydro schemes. In other words, the most extravagant way of trying to save coal is to invest in water power.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker), will recall that on 9th October last, at the Dorchester Hotel, he absolutely confirmed my view when a member of the audience asked why the Severn Barrage scheme did not go ahead. His reply was that the Severn Barrage scheme would cost £100 million sterling in order to save one million tons of coal a year and that by capital investment used in other directions we could get a much greater saving of coal. That is the view of the right hon. Member and on record in black and white, and it is my view today about the North Wales schemes.
  The coal economy of these hydro schemes in North Wales is negligible compared with the capital investment cost. The capital investment cost is, in my view, extravagant and the yield is problematical. The load factor is so low as to make them most uneconomical. The cost to the consumer of a unit of electricity is the same if it is generated by hydro as if it is generated by a steam power station. Much quicker electrification in North Wales could be obtained by using the Connah's Quay steam power station augmented by the high tension line along the North Wales Littoral.
  Over the whole picture must be considered the danger of spoliation of one of the finest areas of mountain scenery in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that any planning authority control over these proposed schemes will safeguard all the amenities. Thus, on financial grounds, on economic grounds, on agricultural grounds, on scenic grounds, and on piscatorial grounds I believe that these schemes stand condemned. I refuse to contribute tonight to any scheme of electricity development in North Wales which will lead to the spoliation of the mountain grandeur of that country, and I shall vote against the Bill.
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) into the maze of financial, technical and piscatorial excursions to which he treated us, but I wish to join with him at the outset in reminding the House that this Bill should not be dealt with in isolation. I do hope the House will bear in mind that the Bill is the first of a series of measures by which the British Electricity Authority hope to implement a vast and complex scheme to harness the entire watershed of Snowdonia for hydro-electrical purposes.
  It is true, as the hon. Member said, that the Bill embodies the least controversial of the proposals of the Authority but, nevertheless, it is of the utmost importance that this House should closely scrutinise its provisions for it does give very clear indications of what the Authority have in mind in regard to the five other much larger and more complex schemes it is proposing. What the B.E.A. are trying to do under this Bill will be the very minimum which they will try to do and seek to do in the rest of Snowdonia.
  Let me say at the outset that I do not object in principle to an appropriate scheme for the utilisation of the water surplus of North Wales for hydroelectricity. The position about the sources of fuel and power is such that we are bound to use, within reason and with proper safeguards, the surplus water that we have in this country, as well as coal and oil, when we can get it. In my constituency the British Electricity Authority, if I may pay them this compliment on this occasion, are setting up a kind of windmill which will capture the four winds in order to generate electricity.
  We must look forward to the utilisation of water power, within reason and with proper safeguards, side by side with the use of coal and oil, but this Bill does not set out to utilise the water surplus in Snowdonia in that careful and proper fashion. The Bill with all its implications, is, I submit, unacceptable, and if it is given a Second Reading I hope it will be sent upstairs together with a set of instructions on the lines of those set out on the Order Paper, which will convert the Bill into something like that which is
  1496
  proper in the circumstances both of North Wales and of this country. I believe it must be drastically modified in many of its provisions and I hope that will be done.
  In the Bill, the B.E.A. are asking for everything and conceding nothing. They are literally asking for the earth, and, indeed, as one reads the terms of the Bill, it seems at times that the Authority are begging for opposition. This is all the more surprising in view of the intense public interest and concern over the B.E.A.'s proposals since they were first announced some years ago.
  One would have thought that, fully apprised as they must have been of the grave reservations which local authorities, agricultural interests and amenities societies felt over the Authority's proposals, the Authority would have promoted a conciliatory Bill, a Measure genuinely providing the safeguards which are reasonably sought.
  But the Bill does nothing of the sort. It brushes aside, with an air of technocratic arrogance, all the reasonable pleas made to the Authority over and over again during the past three years. At times I have felt that the Authority in their dealing with genuine objections to its proposal have shown an impatience with anybody who in any way suggested that their schemes for the use of water power in Snowdonia should not have absolute priority.
  What are the objections? The objections up to now have not been properly considered or requested, not even in the speech of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). The first is the obvious one that the Bill in its present form will do irreparable damage to the natural beauty of one of the loveliest parts of Wales—and that means of the whole world. There are to be miles of tunnelling, wide and deep, pipes, dams, dynamos, aqueducts and all the attendant disfigurements of the landscape and the piling-up of rubble and mess, as well as the drying up of the sources of streams and rivers and lakes which form an integral part not only of the beauty of this part of Wales but indeed of the livelihood of the people who live there.
  In the terms of the Bill, all this is done without providing in any serious way safeguards against the worst excesses of

  1497
  this type of utilitarian vandalism. My complaint against the British Electricity Authority is this: that, having decided that they ought to have a scheme utilising water power in North Wales, they did not produce a Bill in which there were genuine provisions to meet the kind of objections which we are putting in the House tonight.
  North-West Wales, of which the area mentioned in the Bill is part, is one of the few remaining corners of this country where the crowded populations of our industrial towns may hope to repair for a proper open air holiday amid scenes of natural unspoiled beauty, and it is, in fact, part of the new Snowdonia National Park. There are not many areas of this type left in Britain. Ribbon development and industrial expansion have all taken toll of the green and pleasant land with a result that we are hard put to it for a stretch of natural country to which ordinary folk may go for a change from the grim and crowded conditions of work and life to which they are ordinarily subjected.
  Naturally, in this area a large and efficient tourist industry has arisen. The scenery is a capital asset, yet we hear that the Bill as it stands will not only impair the livelihood of a large proportion of the local inhabitants who gain their living from tourism, but it will also deprive some millions of industrial workers of the North and centre of England of one of their favourite and, I think, most beneficial holiday retreats.
  There is no attempt in the Bill to meet these points. Quite the contrary. In the Bill the B.E.A. seek to take over the planning powers of the local authorities for the areas with which they are dealing. Perhaps I may mention one or two Clauses. Some of the Clauses in the Bill are incredibly drastic in the way in which they arrogate to the British Electricity Authority the full planning power in that part of the world. Clause 6, for instance, empowers the B.E.A. "notwithstanding any other enactment" to build, free of all planning control, about three dozen constructions and apparatus from dams and dynamos to ancillary and satellite conveniences.
  Clause 8 says that the Authority may dredge and blast the beds of lakes and rivers and deposit the mud "as they think fit." Clause 23 empowers the
  1498
  B.E.A. to build generating stations and enables them to produce and manufacture
  "any product or thing arising or used in such generation."
  By the terms of Clause 12 they can take their time over all these things. They can spread them over ten years. They can gouge and tear and mangle the landscape, leaving masses of rubble about the place for ten years. In fact, before the streams are to be dried up, they are to be polluted.
  Colonel L. E. Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Gentleman has told a most gloomy story about this, but has a single local authority complained? Is be aware that the Authority concerned have had a special planning officer with them during the whole period, that he has met all the local authorities and that there has been no objection from either side to the plans proposed in the Bill?
  Mr. Roberts: In that case I should very much like to know why the two county councils concerned—Caernarvon and Merioneth—have gone to the expense and trouble of employing major experts on the technical and scenic beauty aspects and also counsel and Parliamentary agents, and have lodged Petitions of which, presumably, the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) has received a copy. If there is no objection from the local planning officers and from the local county officers, why have they taken these steps to petition against this Bill?
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think this point ought to be cleared up. There is no objection to this Bill. There may have been an objection to the total scheme but as far as I know there is no objection by any authority to the measures contained in this Bill.
  Mr. Roberts: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite wrong. The petitions of the county councils of Caernarvon and Merioneth, and also of the North-West Wales River Board, are directed specifically against this particular Bill, and they are directed in the terms in which I have been trying to speak in the last few minutes. Quite simply, as far as this area is concerned, the Clauses in this Bill mean the setting aside of the provisions of the National Parks Act and the River Boards Act in

  1499
  favour of the British Electricity Authority.
  I suggest that that is quite intolerable. Many other hon. Members wish to speak in this truncated debate and I have no time to follow up this amenity point, but I suggest that if this Bill is given a Second Reading, the Committee upstairs should insist that whatever works are set up under this Bill must be subject to local planning authority consent and, in turn, there must be consultation with the Royal Fine Arts Commission or, alternatively, the National Parks Commission on the question of landscape.
  The second great objection is on the question of water supply, and this is, perhaps, a little more technical. The proposals of the British Electricity Authority assume that there is in North Wales a large supply of water at high levels which is not now and never will be required for domestic and industrial consumption. That assumption is questioned by the local authorities, by the National Farmers' Union in that part of the country and by a large range of technical experts, among whom is Mr. Frank Chapman.
  As has already been mentioned, the rainfall there is high, reaching as much as 180 inches a year. I come from that part of the world and I can testify to the very heavy rainfall which occurs there. But the point is that it is not susceptible to easy catchment because of the rock formation, which breaks up the pools. That is proved by the fact that the British Electricity Authority will have to do so much tunnelling to scoop together the water which is in theory available but in practice is very difficult to gather in reservoirs.
  Consequently, although prima facie there is a good deal of water there, in practice very little of it is available for domestic, agricultural and other use. Indeed, we have come to this, that in 1945 the Caernarvon County Council asked Messrs. Howard Humphreys, the consulting engineers, of Westminster, to report on the availability of water for municipal purposes in their area, and the engineers felt bound to report that the county of Caernarvon was inadequately supplied. Part of the reason given was
  1500
  this extraordinary difficulty of collecting together what water did fall upon the topmost peaks.
  It follows that if the availability of water in this part of the country is already inadequate, a large scale abstraction on the lines described in this Bill is going to set up very serious difficulties. Not the least concerned in this respect are those who earn their livings from the pastureland of the hills—the hill farmers—who rear thousands of sheep every year, producing wool and meat, and who are going to find their pastures subject to gradual drying up and also to impediment by the innumerable constructions for which the Bill provides.
  Secondly, the farmers on the lower reaches of these mountains who, up to now, have had to depend upon sources of water such as stream and lakes, will find that the scooping up of the rainfall at a high level will tend to dry up or reduce the water in the streams and lakes, with results detrimental not only to the pastoral industry they follow but to health.
  This is not imagination; it is what has happened whenever these not too plentiful sources of water have for some reason or another been interfered with.
  Mr. Clement Davies: In mid-Wales we have had two experiences of this sort and nothing of the kind imagined by the hon. Member has ever happened. We have the supply to Liverpool at Lake Vyrnwy, and there is the one at Rhaidr which supplies Birmingham. The suggestion of the hon. Member is pure imagination. If he goes to mid-Wales, he will find that every statement he has made is falsified.
  Mr. Roberts: I submit that one cannot falsify statements in regard to the position in North-West Wales by reference to the position in Central Wales. We are dealing with the position in Snowdonia, as attested by men of eminent calibre who have gone into this matter at least as carefully, as far as Snowdonia is concerned, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has gone into the matter as far as Montgomery is concerned. I say no more except that that is the consensus of opinion of those who have studied the question of water supply in Snowdonia.

  1501
  That is the view of the county council and it is my view, as one of the members for that county. I believe my colleague on the other side of the House, who represents the other part of the county, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas), will go a very long way with me in agreeing that there is real danger to the livelihood and the work of the farmers and hill farmers in that part of the country from the magnitude of the proposals which the British Electricity Authority are putting forward. Time does not permit me to deal as fully as I should like with the water position.
  There is just one more point—the feeling among the local inhabitants. I believe that this was mentioned by an hon. Member. If this Bill goes through, the local inhabitants feel that there should be some provision to ensure that they will benefit by the works put in progress. In Wales we are fully accustomed to having our national wealth impounded, carried past our very doorsteps and exported. Today, in every county, in North-West Wales, not excepting the county of Montgomery, there are farmers who can see from their kitchen windows pylons or pipes carrying power or water to the large conurbations of the Midlands and who have had no hope themselves of enjoying the same benefits.
  We say that this pillage of the Principality must stop; and if there is an appropriate Bill as amended by the Committee, empowering the British Electricity Authority to engage in reasonable works of development, with safeguards from the point of view of scenic amenity and water users, additionally to that, as the two Petitions say, arrangements should be made so that the people who live among this natural wealth will not be subjected, as their fellows in other parts of Wales have been, to the multiplication of frustration and the feeling that this wealth is being taken away past their doors without them being able to participate in it.
  I hope that the House will decide to give a Second Reading to this Bill, and decide also that there shall be full instructions to the Committee to safeguard the various interests which I have tried to describe.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Raikes: In intervening in this debate as a Member for an English constituency, I can at any rate claim to be a resident in North Wales, and on that claim I am prepared to make some observations in support of the Second Reading of this Bill.
  First of all, I should like to say that I disagree with practically every word spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), and I wish to deal—because, after all, this is a debate—with one or two points he made. Both he and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) fastened on the point that it was not what was in this Bill that mattered so much; but it was a precedent for what might be brought in later.
  I propose to try to devote my remarks to what is in the Bill. I have always thought that the argument which says, "Because eight drinks taken at some time next year may be bad for me, to have one drink this evening must be bad for me" is rather a poor form of argument. After all, every measure brought forward by the B.E.A. will have to be debated on its merits in this House from time to time, and I submit that our task today is to decide the position of this Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster talked a good deal about Connah's Quay. Now I do not set up as an expert, although I sometimes consult experts, which is perhaps better. I am assured on expert advice that Connah's Quay, even if it operated at 80 per cent., cannot meet the North Wales peak load.
  Mr. Nabarro: I quoted Sir Patrick Abercrombie. I presume, therefore, that my hon. Friend is denying the truth of Sir Patrick Abercrombie's statement.
  Mr. Raikes: I am not dominated even by the magic words "Sir Patrick Abercrombie," any more than I am dominated by the fact that my hon. Friend says in such vigorous tones, as he always does, "This is right." I am sure he thinks it is, but I have an equal right to suggest that he is not infallible.
  So I come to the next question, of siltation. I rather waited, when my hon. Friend raised the dangers of siltation, knowing how accurate and careful he always is, to hear an example given of how siltation had shown its ugly head

  1503
  in a hydro-electric scheme which had been running in Wales for 50 years. In fact, there has never been, on the eviddence up to date, any sign of siltation whatever, and I see no reason, with the alarming picture drawn by my hon. Friend, why siltation should suddenly appear in North Wales.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that there are very strong grounds for believing that the discharge of silt from the reservoirs already existing at Ffestiniog have resulted in the somewhat disgraceful state of the River Deudraeth, near its mouth.
  Mr. Raikes: I also know that in a scheme which has been running for 50 years there has been no siltation. It is perhaps right to say that obviously B.E.A. should occasionally, in the spring, check the aqueducts to make quite sure that they are maintained clear. The dangers do not appear to have been very great, but it is a matter which the Authority must and should watch.
  My hon. Friend then made great play about what he described as the wrong figures put forward for the cost per kilowatt for a hydro-electric scheme, and he said he had a letter from Lord Citrine to show that the cost would not be £94.5 per kilowatt but £120 or £130. He did not, however, make it plain that Lord Citrine's letter was not referring to this scheme. He was referring to the possible cost over the general scheme if the whole thing came into operation. On this scheme the figure of £94.5 per kilowatt is correct, and I challenge my hon. Friend to deny it.
  Mr. Nabarro: I have here the schedule which Lord Citrine sent. In the case of the Dolgarrog extension, which cannot for normal purposes be regarded as a capital scheme on its own, the cost is £50 per kilowatt; in Ffestiniog the cost is £93 per kilowatt; in the case of Maentwrog, Lord Citrine could not give me a figure at all. The average overall cost is £122 according to Lord Citrine—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
  Mr. Nabarro: I was only intervening.
  Mr. Raikes: Well, I challenged my hon. Friend and I am delighted that he should reply to my challenge. His reply does not alter by one iota what I have said, which is merely that on the scheme we are considering this evening the average as calculated by B.E.A. is £94.5, and not £120 to £130.
  I will add only one further observation. It is all very well for my hon. Friend to talk about the cost of £60 per kilowatt for power stations as compared to the higher cost of a hydro-electric scheme. To get the figure right, like must be compared with like, and one must calculate and appreciate the difference in amortisation between a hydro-electric station of 85 years and 25 years for a power station, together with the cost of maintenance, and so on, to get a fair comparison. I merely comment that it is my view—I admit I may be wrong—that if like were taken with like the power station scheme would be a good deal nearer £130 than £60, taking everything into consideration.
  Having crossed swords with my hon. Friend—and, after all, if this House is not the place to cross swords, what is it?—I should like to refer to the points made by the hon. Member for Caernarvon about the amenity situation. As one who lives in Wales, I appreciate, as I think all sides of the House do, the importance of preserving the beauties of Wales. I might even go so far as saying that, whatever may be the economic advantages of this scheme—and in my view they are considerable—if they were to mean that the beauties of Snowdonia are to be desecrated and destroyed, we might well say that it is not worth while. The hon. Member was honestly expressing very great anxieties. I am told that the British Electricity Authority is prepared to meet in a reasonable way in the Committee stage the sort of objections that have been put forward.
  My objection to an instruction to the Committee is that if we laid something down it would tie the Committee's hands. If this Bill is given a Second Reading, it is for the Committee to go into the whole question of safeguards, and it also provides another opportunity for the British Electricity Authority and the local authorities to negotiate further on the subject and bring evidence before the Committee itself.

  1505
  May I, for a few moments take one or two of the points which have caused alarm. I am assured that there is no question of having open pipes and as far as transmission lines are concerned, where there are proper grounds for preserving the scenery they will be brought underground rather than have pylons erected, which are, of course, destructive of scenery. I am assured that the general desire is to meet those sort of points, which to my mind are really important Committee points and, which if we are not unreasonable, can be successfully dealt with.
  There is the flow of water. The question arises of what is an adequate flow, and that again must, I think, be considered in Committee, when evidence can be taken. There is no question of principle involved here; it is simply a question of trying to balance things in such a way that there is the proper flow, and, at the same time, there is the advantage which many of us hoped for under this scheme.
  Other points raised would be most valuable for consideration in the Committee stage, but I submit that, looking at the whole picture and at the possibility of considerably reducing the dependence of Wales upon outside electricity, this scheme has much to commend it. It has been suggested to me that we might avoid controversy on this matter and that we may also consider the fact that when we compare figure with figure hydro-electric schemes compare very favourably with the other kind of electrical production. We must also bear in mind that hydroelectric schemes are about 50 per cent. less when it comes to the cost of construction.
  I say that this Bill should receive a Second Reading and should go upstairs to the Committee with the knowledge that in the Committee stage the amenity question must be properly dealt with in the interests of the Principality of Wales. I am convinced that it is only on those lines that we should permit the Bill to go forward.
  8.13 p.m.
  Mrs. Eirene White: Some two years ago Lord Citrine and his officials on the Electricity Authority met the Welsh Members of all parties in this House for a preliminary discussion on this scheme. At that conference a number of
  1506
  us put to Lord Citrine very strongly the point that the Authority should do what they have done in this Bill, and submit to the House the least controversial part of the scheme. Many of us felt that if they went straight to the heart of the matter, which, in fact, is the heart of Snowdonia, they would have no chance whatever of giving to the people of Wales an opportunity of judging precisely what this scheme involves, not, I would submit, in comparison either with central Wales or with the North of Scotland, but in the limited context of Snowdonia and its neighbourhood.
  The difficulty which we face is precisely that the area of Snowdonia is small and the margin of error very small indeed. If one makes a series of irreparable mistakes then one is damaging something for which all of us are trustees, and which we cannot lightly regard. Therefore, we advised Lord Citrine—and it was no sleight of hand on his part, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—that he should do what he has done, which is to present to the House the less controversial scheme.
  We said that we would have it most definitely understood that whatever decision might be reached on the scheme it should not be taken in any way as a precedent for the other schemes. I think that must be emphatically said by everyone, for these schemes must be treated on their merits. If, having seen the results of the schemes, whether the physical or the psychological results, we then feel perhaps more amicably disposed to one or other of the schemes—some will never get through—then they can be discussed later.
  Mr. Spencer Summers: Do I understand from the hon. Lady's argument that the British Electricity Authority are willing to give time for this scheme to be seen and decided by public opinion, and are prepared to hold up the other ones for 10, 15 or 18 years if necessary?
  Mrs. White: That is a matter for the British Electricity Authority, but they would be extremely ill-advised to bring in any other scheme until the scheme which we are discussing tonight has been completed. What the actual intention of the B.E.A. may be I cannot say, but I admit

  1507
  to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) that one cannot help, when discussing the scheme before us, thinking of the other ones as well, just as recently we were discussing Bechuanaland with South Africa at the back of our minds.
  We should give this Bill a Second Reading. I have listened to the various arguments that have been put forward. The hon. Member for Kidderminster, for example, made great play with the power station in Connah's Quay, which is in my own constituency, and which as he said is now in the course of construction. It will be some time before it is in production.
  As it is in my own constituency, I naturally took the opportunity when meeting officials of the B.E.A. to put to them the point mentioned by the hon. Member as to why they could not use Connah's Quay power station to supply the needs of North Wales rather than embark upon this hydro-electric scheme. I am not myself a technician and I cannot judge of the technical aspect. The reply I was given, it is only right to inform the House, was this—the Connah's Quay power station would be of some use in supplying the coast towns of North Wales but there would not be a great deal of output for use in other directions. There is a large atomic energy station not very far away, for which much of the power will be needed.
  One of the major problems of the Connah's Quay power station, and the reason why it was suggested that it would not be working to the capacity mentioned by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, is that the coal used has to be hauled a very long way, a point to which the hon. Member for Kidderminster paid no attention whatever. The high costs of a steam power station are inevitable when coal has to be brought from a very long distance.
  I was assured that the necessary coal of the right type would not be available from Wales or the Lancashire coalfields but would have to be brought from the Midlands. Although we may have further information tonight from the Minister, in the view of the Electricity Authority, Connah's Quay was not in itself the full answer to the needs of North Wales.
  1508
  I would like to emphasise that all of us in North Wales are very much concerned that we should be fully assured that North Wales will have a full share of the electricity generated. After all the Scottish hydro-electric scheme attained its popularity, I understand, because the people of the Highlands were assured that whilst there would be some export they would have the benefit. We have not had from any quarter the fullest assurances, not only that North Wales will have a reasonable share of the current but that the price will be equitable as well, and that there will be satisfactory distribution arrangements.
  What has held up rural electrification is not just generation of the power but the whole apparatus of distributing that power in rather difficult rural areas. Are we to be assured that the B.E.A., if they receive permission to go on with the scheme, will indicate that they will do something perhaps a little extra for North Wales in the matter of rural electrification, because that would sugar the pill quite considerably?
  I do not wish to take too much time, because other hon. Members wish to make their contributions on the Bill, but I would like to say to the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that if the British Electricity Authority are prepared to be so amenable and so complaisant in all these matters, why did they not have the Bill so drafted that we did not have to bring up all these complaints?
  After all, this matter has not only been discussed for many years in the Principality, but in this House almost two years ago we discussed these very points with Lord Citrine and the highest officials of the authority. Surely, if they were in earnest in this matter of consulting the feelings of the people of North Wales, they would have given instructions to their draftsman to draw up a Bill which would meet us in advance. Had they done that it would not be necessary to put to the Committee the instructions upon the Order Paper.
  How can one really take seriously the idea that the Authority are in earnest about their concern for planning when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) pointed out, they have produced the Bill with a Clause in it like Clause 6? I will not

  1509
  weary the House with reading out the various types of installation, buildings, etc., which may be erected by the Authority under the Bill as it now stands without reference to anybody whatsoever. The Authority are complete judges in their own cause, as again in Clause 23, in the matter of building generating stations.
  That kind of thing makes it difficult for those of us, of whom I am one, who, in general terms, would not be opposed to the Bill, when we face those outside who do oppose the Bill. We are confronted with the argument, "Yes, but if they really mean what they say surely they would have seen that the Bill, produced after all these months of discussion, was more in keeping with the protestations that they made, of care for public opinion."
  I would end on that note. It is partly a matter of public opinion. On some of the technical aspects and the physical aspects, such as the conservation of water and so on, we are uncertain, but there is no doubt that if the scheme is to be a success and is not to be obstructed at various points the feelings of the people of North Wales should be more closely consulted.
  One should not be left with the feeling that this is an extraneous body trying to carry out a scheme of its own, a scheme which is not really part of the development of the Wales for which we care so much. I hope that after the debate we shall pass the Bill, but that the Committee will see that the suggestions made are followed up. Otherwise, there is no doubt that we shall be obliged to reject the Bill on Third Reading.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Watkinson: I support the Second Reading of the Bill. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is not in his place. I warned him that I was going to deal with his speech, so that I do not feel any compunction in doing so.
  I congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) on the presentation of the Connah's Quay point, which is one of the most important in estimating the relevant merits of thermal stations and hydro stations. So many of these thermal stations are inaccessible, so far as coal is concerned, and that makes
  1510
  nonsense of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster on the question of relative costs. It is not a bit of use having a thermal station if it costs a fantastic sum to get coal to it.
  I would come to another point which I think is of interest, and perhaps is the major point in discussing the Second Reading of the Bill. Although I cannot claim to be an inhabitant of that delightful corner of North Wales, I have, with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, scrambled up most of its crags and gullies, and I would say that anybody who has tried to get up Great Gully, on Craig-y-Ysfa, on a wet day will not disagree when I say that whatever else that district has or has not, it has a plentiful supply of water. Are we to allow that natural resource to go to waste or are we to use it in the national interest and in the interest of the people of that part of Wales?
  I would now refer to a point which largely destroys the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster. He very carefully did not say that at the recent World Power Conference it was stated on the best information available, that the total coal resources of this country were estimated to last only 200 years, at the present rate of extraction. We all know that if we are to meet the constantly rising curve of electricity and power consumption that the rate of extraction has to increase very materially, but even at the present rate we have only 200 years of life for our coal industry. Surely on those grounds we must give the most careful consideration to any possible means of supplementing our power resources. I believe that here, in North Wales, we have a possible and practicable way of doing that very thing.
  Mr. Joseph T. Price: I invite the hon. Gentleman to give the House his views on the possible development of atomic energy in the next 200 years, which may see the expiring of our coal resources. It is very germane to the argument.
  Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I thank the hon. Member; I was just coming to that very point. Whatever the prospects are for an atom scheme or schemes, although I know there is a pilot scheme operating at Harwell which will raise steam, one

  1511
  has yet to be built with a normal operating basis, and we have yet to find out what the cost of it would be and even whether it would be a feasible proposition to replace the present thermal coal power station by an atomic power station. In the meantime, we should be foolish if we neglected to develop any other source of power.
  I listened to the hon. Member for Kidderminster in the Scottish debate when he admitted that the cost of thermal or hydro-generation is about the same. Apparently his only objection is that he claims that it is, in effect, a wasteful use of our resources to spend £30 million or £40 million, which ever way one looks at the scheme, on developing it. Let us examine that for a moment, with the background that coal is a wasting asset while water, particularly in North Wales, is an asset in perpetuity—
  Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: One of the things that this Bill proposes to do is to divert the surplus water supplies into Cardigan Bay, where they will be of no value to anybody.
  Mr. Watkinson: If I may quarrel with my hon. and learned Friend, that was not my reading of the Bill because, by the time the water are diverted into Cardigan Bay, they will have fulfilled both their functions, namely, the generation of power and, what is more important, the maintenance of flow in the present rivers and streams. After all, it is an obligation on the Authority that they shall preserve the measure of flow laid down in the Bill. Also, I think it follows from my reading of the Bill that they would have an obligation to keep that flow going in dry months—
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no obligation on the Authority to maintain any flow at all in the rivers and streams which are not mentioned in Clause 15 while, in the case of the rivers mentioned therein, the flow in some cases will be reduced to 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. of the normal flow.
  Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman has made the point very nicely, that the right thing to do is to give this Bill a Second Reading and to send it upstairs where these points can be thrashed out in Committee.
  1512
  I made that reference to the streams in answer to the interjection of my hon. and learned Friend, but the point I am dealing with is that in the national interest, and in the interest of the people of North Wales, we must not throw this scheme on one side. That is what we shall do if we reject the Second Reading of this Bill without the most careful consideration. In giving a Second Reading to this Bill I am only prepared to accept the principle that this is a national asset of which we must make use, but we must surround it with appropriate safeguards.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts), he, like myself perhaps, has sometimes enjoyed visits to Switzerland, which lives not only on its tourist trade but also on the generation of power from hydro-electric schemes. They have there a very fine synthesis of a good hydro-electric industry without in any way interfering with the amenities of the countryside from the tourist or any other point of view. I believe that could be done in North Wales with proper safeguards inserted during the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will my hon. Friend allow me to interrupt?
  Mr. Watkinson: I will, but it will take time from other Members who wish to speak.
  Mr. Fraser: How many mountains in Wales are over 15,000 feet high?
  Mr. Watkinson: In reply, I would ask my hon. Friend on how many mountains in Switzerland can one find a hydroelectric scheme at 15,000 feet? Now may I deal briefly with one or two other technical points, after which I will sit down to make way for other hon. Members who wish to speak.
  There are one or two other important points which should be dealt with to support what I believe is the necessity for a hydro-electric scheme, unless it is claimed that it will ruin the district as a whole, which no other hon. Member has yet endeavoured to contend. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the life of a hydro-electric scheme can be in any way compared with the life of thermal station. A thermal station starts with

  1513
  an efficiency of about 30 per cent. By the time it is about 10 years old it is completely outdated, and by that time, if other schemes have been developed properly, efficiency is of the nature of only about 20 per cent. of that of a new scheme. A hydro scheme, however, is rather different. I know of one in Sweden that was built in 1910 and is still giving absolute satisfaction. What is more, it has had no major replacement plant.
  Compare that with the difficulties of a thermal station, which needs heavy and constant maintenance. Compare the number of skilled maintenance men employed in a thermal station with those engaged in a hydro-electric scheme. The difference is very significant to a country which is short of skilled manpower. Compare, for example, the wear on the turbine runner, the main moving part of a hydro-electric scheme. After many years' service, there is only a very slight cavitation, which can be cured by lifting out the runner, doing a little welding and re-grinding it, and when it is put back the runner is good for probably another 20 to 30 years. That is a very great difference from the problem presented by the turbo-alternator in a thermal power station.
  We are desperately short of many things in this country and are short, too, of many of the things which go into thermal power stations. We are short of valves, boiler plant and equipment, and a great many other things which must be provided for a thermal station but which are not needed in a hydro-electric scheme. In a hydro-electric scheme, there is a need for plenty of concrete—cement is not in too short supply—but only a very limited quantity of steel. Building is done with natural materials, which, in many cases, can be provided locally. From what I have seen in Scotland, Switzerland and in other countries, I maintain that if a hydroelectric scheme is built well, there is no interference in any way with amenities; in fact, in some cases they can be improved.
  Mr. Summers: Oh.
  Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps, in the Summer Recess, if we have one, my hon. Friend would like to come to Switzerland with me, where I will prove my case and he can pay for it.
  1514
  I hope I have shown that the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, on the narrow technical aspect, is not quite as persuasive as it appeared when he made it in his own inimitable fashion. I think he was doing what in the language of the Navy would be termed "blinding the House with a little not very accurate science." I hope, therefore, that in considering the Second Reading of the Bill, the House will not take too much account of the very powerful tones in which my hon. Friend asked for the rejection of the Bill on purely technical grounds. They simply do not exist. I am sorry that he is not present to hear me say so, although I gave warning that I proposed to say this. If we are to consider the thing in terms of capital assets, I put my money into the hydro scheme every time.
  I hope that with that in view, the House will give what might be called a conditional Second Reading to the Bill and will be determined to secure the wellbeing of that most beautiful part of the country. Nobody wants to do that more than I.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I support the Second Reading of the Bill Like the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson), I completely reject the argument of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). If it were valid, it would have been decisive against the hydro-electric schemes in Northern Scotland, which have, in fact, proved to be a magnificent investment for the nation. Capital cost, even at £200 per kilowatt, makes it a very good investment on present prices, and, as has been said, much of the capital resources and most of the labour required for hydro-electric schemes could not be used for making coal-using power stations.
  I had to deal with this matter when I had the honour of holding the office of Minister of Fuel and Power. I regard it as a very important question, to which the House is right to devote the most careful attention. I tried to treat it as very important. I had many consultations with the National Trust, the National Parks Commission and others. I paid two visits to North Wales to look at the thing myself. I went once with the engineers of the B.E.A., who showed me the

  1515
  existing hydro-electric schemes—the stations and their work—the extensions of those schemes which are now proposed, and the plans for new projects. Then, I went by myself, with no companion but the large-scale maps on which the existing works and those projected were shown.
  After that I went to Scotland to see what has been done there. I wanted to study on the spot the social and economic results of hydro-electricity in Scotland. I wanted to examine how the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board had dealt with the amenity problem, the problem of preserving the beauty of the countryside, with which they had inevitably been confronted in their work.
  I do not want to dwell on the economic and social results they have obtained. As everyone knows, they are remarkable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) said, not long ago, they have arrested the depopulation of the Highland Glens and are helping to repopulate some land which had been abandoned. Electricity is being increasingly used in agriculture. If it could be used for drying grass it might make a major contribution to the problem of meat production in this country.
  I believe that it can be so used. Above all, electricity is transforming the lives of the people who live there. Think of what it means to a Scottish family when electricity comes into a crofter's or a shepherd's home.
  Mr. H. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much it would cost the shepherd or crofter for it to come into his home?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not want to go into that—
  Mr. Fraser: It is rather important.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The shepherds and crofters are extremely anxious to have it, as it would bring them light, hot water, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, wireless and television some day soon.
  Mr. Fraser: Some day?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Television, some day. It transforms the life of the housewife and of the family.
  1516
  I believe that the North of Scotland Board is beginning to make a great contribution to our peak load problem, that is, to the general resources of the B.E.A. Their present installed capacity is 900 megowatts and it will soon be much more. It is sometimes said that it will help to establish industries in the Highlands. There, I confess, I have mental reservations. An extension of the holiday and tourist industry, yes, certainly electricity would greatly help, and I believe that to be immensely in the interests, not only of the Highlands, but of the country as a whole. About other industries I have grave doubts. But, in general, the social and economic side of the results in Scotland must be carefully studied in relation to the projects for North Wales.
  So, also, must we study their work in preserving the beauty of the countryside. They have made great progress in that since they began their operations, and constantly they have had two objectives in view—so far as possible not to change the character of the country; and, second, where changes are inevitable, to do as little as possible to spoil existing beauty, and as much as possible to create new beauty. I think that in both those purposes they have been notably successful.
  I will mention a few points on which criticism by those who care about the countryside has in the past been concentrated. It is said that the power stations and other buildings destroy the beauty of the country. The North of Scotland Board's power stations and workers' houses have been built in stone. Indeed, Mr. Tom Johnston and his colleagues have done magnificent work in opening quarries, getting new apprentices as stone masons and reviving in Scotland building in stone, which was dying out. They have done splendid work in siting and surrounding all their buildings, their power stations and their workers' houses, with trees and grass and so far as possible they have done everything that can be done to make the places as beautiful as they can be.
  Some stations they have succeeded in putting underground, so that when people go along the valley they hardly know there is a station there at all. They have made dams, and some of them are noble structures. I defy anybody to

  1517
  go to Loch Sloy and not think that the dam there is a noble structure. Some of their artificial lakes, like the one which exists at Maentwrog, are things of beauty; and as for the piscatorial reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Kidderminster I am certain that the Scottish Board have produced more fishing than they have destroyed.
  Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to refer to my piscatorial interests. I have been a member of the River Dee Catchment Board which has one of the most famous salmon fisheries in the country, and the water abstracted for industrial manufacturing purposes is one of the principal reasons for the decline in the value of the salmon fisheries.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: That bears absolutely no relation to the creation of artificial lakes in Scotland, where the Scottish Board have provided a lot of new fishing which did not exist before.
  Pipelines are an eyesore to those who love the country. I hate them and think that new pipelines are a grievous objection to any scheme. But in Scotland they have begun to make tunnels instead. They do not cost any more and are more advantageous in other ways. They are using mechanical stone cutters such as are used in Eastern Germany, and I believe now in Western Germany, for cutting roadways in coal mines.
  There is, of course, the problem of the spoil from the tunnels, and some people have said, "How can you fail to destroy the beauty of a place if you have an enormous pile of rock?" What do they do in Scotland? They put it in a valley where it is only seen from a very few places, cover it with soil and seed it was grass. In a very short time it becomes a new natural feature and, unless one had known the country before, one would not know it was there.
  The leats, or artificial water courses, are sometimes regarded as eyesores. In Scotland they have found it possible and even advantageous, to cover them, so that they are hardly seen at all. Small streams may be diverted, but, again, it is hardly possible to know it had been done. The objection to the leat is largely overcome. As for the diversion of rivers and streams, particularly from
  1518
  beauty spots, they have determined a minimum flow and, in some places, even when the flow was at its lowest I should not have known that water had been taken away unless I had been told.
  Then there are the transmission lines, which I regard as by far the gravest threat to the amenities. In certain special beauty spots the Scottish Board have put transmission lines underground. But that is extremely costly, and there are places in Scotland where, as I think, the country is gravely spoilt by the lines of pylons which the Board have put up.
  Mr. Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the problem of transmission lines remains whether electricity is generated thermally or whether it is generated hydro-electrically.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: It is the same. The problem is whether the electricity is to be generated in a given place or not. The type of transmission line depends on the quantities which are to be generated.
  How does all this apply to North Wales? I submit that North Wales presents an entirely different problem from Scotland. The people in North Wales, of course, should get electricity for their farms and homes, and nobody wishes to deny it to them. But North Wales is not Scotland; there are not the same great open spaces of untouched country. It is a very small piece of lovely scenery, of matchless beauty, all of it visited by enormous numbers of walkers, mountaineers and tourists, including a greatly increasing number of dollar tourists.
  I believe that from all the schemes put forward for North Wales the maximum installed capacity could not be above 350 megawatts. Last year, the British Electricity Authority installed 1,113 megawatts, so that this is a relatively very small contribution to the resources of the nation. I believe that it would be utterly grotesque to think of industrialising this area. It would be economic nonsense to do anything which would noticeably reduce its natural beauty; and, certainly, I think that we ought not to do it for the purpose of producing electricity for export to the rest of the nation.
  Applying these principles when I held the office of Minister of Fuel and Power. I came to the conclusion that many of

  1519
  the schemes which had been put forward were open to decisive objection. I believe that a dam, or an artificial lake, near the Gladstone Stone in Snowdon would be a desecration. I believe that a diversion of water from the Fairy Glen and the Swallow Falls, near Bettws-y-Coed, would be utterly wrong. I see grave objection to the Mawddach scheme and to placing lines of pylons across a lovely mountainside. I think that, whatever scheme is adopted, whether it is the schemes in this Bill or others, the best Scottish practice about tunnels instead of pipelines, covered leats, and so on, should certainly be adopted, even if it does add something to the cost.
  I believe that the three schemes proposed in this Bill, if carried out in the way I have suggested—the Dolgarrog extension, the Maentwrog extension and the Ffestiniog station—are not open to serious objection. The National Parks Commission advised me that they take that view, and I believe that many of my hon. Friends share it. I believe that these three schemes will provide the additional electricity required for this area, and I believe it can be distributed without putting up unsightly pylons.
  For these reasons, I decided, shortly before the General Election, that I would agree to the introduction of Bill to promote these three schemes.
  Mr. Nabarro: Then the right hon. Gentleman is the culprit.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I never saw the Bill, because the General Election followed, but I have considered very carefully the instruction put down by my hon. Friends. As at present advised, I am strongly in favour of this instruction, and, on those terms, I favour the Second Reading of this Bill. But it is not, in my view, a precedent for any of the other schemes which have been proposed. When I agreed to these three projects, I warned everybody in the clearest terms that, if I continued to hold that office, I would probably not agree, either then or in the future, to any other scheme.
  Throughout, I followed one guiding principle: that there is something here at stake which is far more important than the immediate economic saving we could make. This lovely mountain country is sacred to the people of Wales. It is a
  1520
  priceless possession for the people of Britain as a whole. Through the centuries, the natural beauty of our islands has been the inspiration of our national greatness. Let us do nothing now or later to imperil or destroy that heritage.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Thomas: I was very pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker), holds very much the same view as I do about this part of North Wales. I am also very happy to say that, in this debate, as indeed in many others on Welsh affairs, one is able to go over the points without party controversy and join forces occasionally with people with whom one does not normally agree. I find that, in fact, I am in complete accord with practically everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) and the hon. Lady who represents Flint, East (Mrs. White), and I am happy to think that hon. Members of this House who represent constituencies in that area have attained a large measure of agreement in this matter.
  We have heard hon. Members tonight express their interest in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), who opened it, stated that he was interested in this matter because he is a native of Wales. Other hon. Members have stated that they are interested in the matter because they have either been climbing on the mountains of Snowdonia or else have lived for a time in Wales.
  I want to announce my interest in this matter. Indeed, I have two interests. The first is that I represent a constituency which contains one of these schemes, and the second is that I was born within a few miles of these three schemes and know them very well. I think that, possibly, the hon. Member for Caernarvon and I know that part of the world as well as anybody.
  We have heard about Scotland. We have also been told about the proposed hydro-electric schemes for the whole of this area. I agree with the hon. Member for Caernarvon that we must not regard these three schemes in isolation, although for the purpose of this debate I shall confine myself to what is contained in this Bill. The right hon. Member for Derby, South, talked about the beauty

  1521
  of hydro-electric schemes in Scotland. It is very difficult to see the beauty in the hydro-electric works proposed in the three schemes contained in this Bill.
  I would remind the House what the three schemes are. There will be an extension of an existing power station in Dolgarrog by a five-mile leat. This will cut across two rivers, the Afon Ro and the Afon Dulyn, two rivers well known to many around that area. They are indeed charming rivers and pass through extremely picturesque and beautiful surroundings. The other scheme is that of Maentwrog. That, again, is an extension of an existing hydro-electric work, and is just another five-mile leat. How those two schemes can be made beautiful, I cannot understand at all.
  The third is the creation of a new hydro-electric scheme in Ffestiniog. Most of the work is to be around Blaenau Ffestiniog, which is not a particularly beautiful area. But there are to be one or two disturbing constructional works, such as the power station and subsidiary buildings in the valley of Ffestiniog, which is indeed a most beautiful part of Wales.
  Very few people have paid much attention to the fact that two of these schemes are wholly and one partly in the newly designated National Park of North Wales. I want to stress that matter because it is a point of great importance in this debate. We have been told that this Bill is merely the forerunner of various other schemes which the British Electricity Authority propose, and, indeed, I believe that is so.
  I was very interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Garston (Mr. Raikes) that the British Electricity Authority are now prepared to do all they can to meet our objections, that they will go before the Select Committee and that they will give way on many points. For that reason alone it appears to me that this debate has been worth while.
  I and hon. Members opposite have been interested in this matter for some time, and we have certainly had no assurance until today. That being so, I should be very happy to see this Bill go before the Select Committee. Nevertheless, I should be happier still if I thought we also had an instruction from this House to assist the Select Committee to act in
  1522
  happy accord with the B.E.A., who no doubt will do all they can to further our wishes in this matter.
  We have heard about the value and the disadvantage of hydro-electric power. Both have been put very simply and exactly by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I should like to speak about the effect of these three schemes on the community as a whole. First, I think we are entitled to have regard to the effect of these schemes on Britain; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South, said their effect on Britain would be negligible.
  Second, what is to be their effect on North Wales? We hope that at full capacity they will assist the industrial parts of North Wales, round Wrexham and the industrial border; but the effect will be practically unfelt, because all these schemes are small and cannot produce sufficient electricity to make any appreciable difference to that area.
  Third, what will be the effect on Caernarvonshire and Merioneth? These schemes will all be within those two counties, and I ask the House to consider exactly what it will mean to have a tremendous undertaking like this in what is in fact a rural area.
  The objections to this Bill are well known to the House. I ask the House what benefit Caernarvonshire and Merioneth and their immediate areas will receive from the Bill, and what will be the disadvantages. We have heard about the supply of electricity to the rural areas of North Wales. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South, mentioned that point, and said that in Scotland people are now happily provided with plenty of electricity and are looking forward to having television shows.
  It is well-known that we need electricity in the rural areas of North Wales, especially in Caernarvonshire and Merioneth. If I thought that this Bill would bring electricity to those rural areas, I should give it my very hearty support; but the problem in North Wales is not one of generating electricity. There are not many people in the rural areas of Wales, and the problem is, and has been for some time, one of distribution. It seems to me that the supply of electricity in the rural areas of North Wales will be

  1523
  set back further if this Bill goes forward, because if we embark on expensive schemes like this we shall defer distribution from our existing supply stations.
  It is obvious that what is intended to be done at Maentwrog and Dolgarrog is to supply the grid for the benefit of the industrial areas, either in North Wales or over the border, during peak periods. We must disabuse our minds of any idea that the people in the rural areas of North Wales will derive any benefit from that.
  It is very important that we should have ample electricity in Ffestiniog, and indeed there is a great demand for it there. I hope that this Bill will mean that there will be more electricity available for that area. If it does, I shall welcome that part of the Bill, because, as a result of the Bill, new works will be provided and a new station will be built. I hope that the Authority will have regard to the priority of the local people, and I hope that they will help to build up industry around Ffestiniog. Apart from this, on the whole we can expect little in Caernarvonshire and Merioneth from this enterprise, because most of the benefit will go away from us to the industrial belt.
  As to the water supply, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson) mentioned that the British Electricity Authority are very happy to allow adequate compensation water and a minimum flow in the rivers, but if the Bill is studied one finds the following figures. In 11½ square miles of land to be intercepted by the River Eden in the Maentwrog scheme only 6 per cent. of the average daily flow will be left. In 5¾ square miles of land to be intercepted by the leat in the Dolgarrog scheme the amount of water in named streams—the unnamed will be completely dry—is to be 6 per cent. In the whole of the Ffestiniog area the water left in the streams is to be 7 per cent.
  It is obvious that this is totally inadequate. One must have regard to the requirements of the riparian owners—the farmers—of that area. There is also another most important point. It is not just a question of people coming from England to view the beautiful scenery in North Wales; it is an industry. We must have regard to the tourist industry, and
  1524
  it is essential that we should have at least one-third of the average daily flow left in the streams.
  I consider this a very important matter. I agree that the Select Committee must—it is bound to by Standing Order No. 160—go into these matters and must report back to the House about the water question. Nevertheless it is right that the House should ventilate its opinions about the matter so that the Select Committee will know that the amount of water envisaged at the moment is regarded as derisory.
  The hon. Member for Caernarvon mentioned a grave objection to the Bill. It is an objection which I feel deeply. It is the planning and amenities objection. It is astounding that a statutory authority like the British Electricity Authority can bring forward a Bill which attempts to strip all the planning powers from local authorities.
  The hon. Member referred to Clauses 6 (a and b), 8 (1 and 2) and 23 (2), which completely brush aside the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, the National Parks (Access to Mountains) Act and the River Boards Act. It is essential that something should be done about those Clauses on the Committee stage.
  I should like to go even further than that. The permitted development which is allowed to these statutory authorities under the General Development Order, 1950, should be withdrawn by the Select Committee, because it is too dangerous as the Bill is at present drawn. No permitted development should be allowed to the B.E.A. in this case. Instead, it should be entirely in the hands of the local planning authority—the local county councils—or a joint board, or a joint advisory committee, we hope, for the Snowdonia National Park.
  I am sorry I have delayed the House for so long, and I should like to end by saying that I feel it would be in the interests of those planning authorities if they were assisted in this matter, because there is something new within the planning district now. They could be assisted by an amenities committee, set up by the Minister and composed of people who know the requirements of, and the objections to, hydro-electric works. It could advise the Minister and advise the planning authorities and the B.E.A.

  1525
  In conclusion, I would say that the Bill as it stands is open to serious objections. It has been a severe threat to the Snowdonia National Park and to some of the main principles of the National Park system, and I think it establishes damaging precedents for the future. I do not wish to object to a Second Reading, but I hope that the voice of the House will carry to the Select Committee so that the necessary Amendments can be made.
  9.11 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I intervene for only a few moments. It is a pleasure to follow a fellow Welshman. We are a very tolerant and very good-natured people in Wales and it seems to me that our good nature has been rather heavily trespassed upon tonight, for there have been eight speeches, of which four have been made by Members who, if they go to Wales at all, go during July and August and then think they are really acquainted with our country.
  This is a Bill which primarily and mainly concerns Wales, and North Wales in particular, and the supply of electricity to North Wales and to rural Wales, for which so many of us have been asking and about which we have been agitating for so many years.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House which of the Clauses provides for the supply of electricity to rural Wales?
  Mr. Davies: Surely the whole Bill does that
  Mr. Greenwood: It does not.
  Mr. Davies: It provides for the production of electricity in Wales, which I hope will be used for Wales. Too often we have been supplying electricity, water and coal across the border, and we should also consider our own supply. We have been very anxious about this matter for a very long time, and especially about supplies of electricity to our villages, to our cottages and to our farms.
  As I have only a few moments, may I at once deal with some of the objections? I was surprised at the objections made by the two hon. Members representing the County of Caernarvon and I interrupted to suggest that they were drawing upon their imaginations. If they had been to see what has been done in
  1526
  other places, I do not think they would have said what they did say. I gave instances of what had happened in mid-Wales, in an area within their reach. I agree that what has been done there is not to supply water to Wales. We are supplying Liverpool and Birmingham with water, but here I suggest that we ought to supply electricity for ourselves, as well.
  When one goes to see these places, they are real beauty spots. My own county is a very beautiful county, but if an hon. Member comes to stay with me, as some right hon. and hon. Members have done, and I want to take them on a special visit where they can see beautiful sights, I usually take them to Lake Vyrnwy, in the Llanwyddyn Valley. The same thing applies to the southern part of the county, in the Rhaiadr Valley. They are both beautiful.
  Then there is the suggestion that water is being drained away. Well, we have at Lake Vyrnwy drained water from an adjoining valley by tunnelling underneath, and there is no eyesore whatsoever, nor is there a noticeable deprivation of water for our use. In fact, we still suffer from too much water, especially in the lower valleys.
  Mr. James Griffiths: In the wrong places.
  Mr. Davies: In the wrong places. We have had deputations to see Ministers on the question whether more of these head waters could not be blocked and so help to lessen the amount of flooding from which we still suffer.
  Both the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) and the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) referred to the anxiety of the local authorities about planning. I am delighted to hear it. The local authorities must have changed a very great deal in these last few years, because the amount of planning that has been done by local authorities, or their concern about amenities or anything else, was non-existent in 1937 when I went through Caernarvon. Anything which shows an improvement in that way is certainly to be encouraged and admired.
  The answer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was supplied by another hon. Member above the Gangway; but the hon. Member for

  1527
  Kidderminster was not here to hear his own figures being demolished, so I will not go into that. What is more, the hon. Member was given notice that his figures would be demolished—
  Mr. Nabarro: To be quite truthful, I went upstairs to the HANSARD office to check my speech before it went to print. Not a single figure of mine has yet been demolished.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Member was not here to know what was done. He absented himself. At present we are short of coal and anything which can bring heat, light and power without the necessity of getting coal should have the support of us all, and those people who are still against the use of water power should volunteer to go down and get more coal themselves. Anything which will relieve the miner from having to go down into the bowels of the earth should have the full support of everybody in the House. Whatever Amendments may have to be made to this Bill in Committee, on the general principle it should receive the unanimous assent of this House.
  9.19 p.m.
  The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The House usually likes to hear a few words from a Government spokesman on a Private Bill and I think there are one or two reasons why this is particularly the case in the present Bill. First of all, under the Electricity Act, the British Electricity Authority have to get the permission of the Minister of Fuel and Power before they can promote any Private Bill and, as we have heard tonight, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) gave his consent and I confirmed it. That is a reason why I think the Government should make a statement to the House.
  Secondly, the British Electricity Authority, as a nationalised industry, have not felt themselves able to do all the things which the normal promoter of a Private Bill would do when it is coming before the House for Second Reading. I think that that is one of the reasons why we have had a certain amount not only of misunderstanding but of talking at cross-purposes, in our discussion tonight. I think that is particularly so with regard
  1528
  to what I consider to be the most important subjects we have discussed—with all due deference to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—the questions of amenity and water.
  Normally, as we all know, the promoter of a Private Bill arranges through his Parliamentary agents for certain Members to take up the case, and actually enters into negotiations with the Members who have objections. A certain process of negotiations takes place, even before the Second Reading is reached. In this case, all that process of, so to speak, promotion and negotiation has not taken place. I think the House will probably agree that that is right, because there is a certain objection in principle, I believe, to a nationalised industry getting into the position where it is promoting even a Private Bill with the dangers of having so to speak, a Parliamentary connection. Therefore, one has a certain sympathy with them, and the Government ought to come in a little to explain the consultations that have taken place, which normally would have been known to the House already.
  Perhaps I ought to say one word on the general question of economic policy raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster. He always makes such stimulating contributions to our debates on fuel efficiency—so much so that, considering how interested the Department is in fuel efficiency, I at one time came to regard him as the Ministry's secret weapon because of the advance publicity which he gave to the ideas upon which we were so keen. In this case, his technical enthusiasm has been answered by a number of my hon. Friends. Naturally, the hon. Gentleman would not feel that he has been answered sufficiently—
  Mr. Nabarro: They are not qualified.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend says they are not qualified to answer, but, after all, in this House we are not engineers or technicians. We normally proceed, as I think we must, on the basis of taking the expert advice we receive from the duly authorised technicians whom we are able to consult. It might interest the House if I said a few words on that aspect. I take the case of Ffestiniog because I think it is a good typical example which brings out the issues rather well. The capital cost of the Ffestiniog scheme is

  1529
  £3,325,000. For an equivalent steam installation, the capital cost would be £2,358,000. Therefore, the hydro-electric scheme costs about £1 million more. The running cost of the hydro-electric scheme is £21,000 a year. The running cost of the steam system, because of the cost of fuel, would be £265,000 a year.
  In the case of Connah's Quay, if my hon. Friend were right the fuel would probably have to come from the Midlands and there would be the rather costly and difficult question of transportation, and I do not think we could get the problem solved with quite the case which he suggested. I appeal rather to his technical conscience. Does he really feel it could be solved by increasing the load factor of the Connah's Quay station? After all, what is increasing the load factor? It is not increasing the size of the station: it is only running the station for a larger proportion of the year—which, incidentally, means running it for a larger proportion of the day and night.
  In effect, his solution, carried to its logical extreme, would be to provide extra electric power in North Wales, but to provide it in the middle of the night at a time when nobody wanted it at all. That would be the effect, carried to its logical conclusion, of merely raising the load factor. My hon. Friend would have to double the size of the station, which I am advised is not possible in the site involved, and would cost about £11 million.
  Mr. Nabarro rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I really must pass on.
  I think we must accept the view of the technicians who, at any rate, advise me that there is a perfectly good business proposition involved in these schemes, as was, indeed, the view not only of the British Electricity Authority but of the North Wales Power Company before, so that we have here an extraordinary measure of agreement between private enterprise, a nationalised industry, and a famous firm of engineering consultants who have made electric power stations and hydro-electric schemes in other parts of the world, and also, incidentally, erected the Sydney Bridge.
  This House has a reasonable technical basis to go on, and we ought to regard this as a reasonably business-like scheme,
  1530
  but it is the amenity questions which are the important and practical ones. Here I should like to say at once that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has been in touch with the British Electricity Authority and with my Department, and the result is that the Authority wish to put back—there is no question of them being forced—into the Bill the ordinary planning Clause, which is the standard form for planning in Private Bills. I believe that the House would find that that would be a more convenient and workable system than a special instruction of an amenity committee, because it brings every building or work authorised by the Bill within the category of developments, which are specially treated under a general development order based on the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act.
  The order, in terms, permits all forms of development authorised by a private Act and specified both as to their nature and the land on which they are to take place in the Act. But it restores control, which operates in respect of the erection, construction, alteration or extension of any building, including any bridge, aqueduct, pier, or dam, or the formation, laying out or alteration of a means of access to any road used by traffic, and so on. The local planning authority would thus come back into the picture.
  We think that some further safeguards are necessary beyond what would be specified in some of the instructions and beyond what would follow naturally from the reinsertion in the Bill of this standard planning Clause. We think it should be obligatory on the British Electricity Authority to consult the Royal Fine Art Commission and the National Parks Commission about building and other works, and they ought to employ a landscape consultant, whose advice ought to be available not only to the British Electricity Authority but also to the National Parks Commission.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: This is very important so far as our attitude and interest in amenity is concerned, but does it mean that there should be the approval as well as the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission, and, secondly, would the National Parks Commission be referred to in the matter of the whole question of landscape alteration or treatment?
  Mr. Lloyd: It is consultation, and I do not think we were actually considering going so far as to make it mandatory. I think that would be going a little further than is really required.
  Another matter which we consider to be of considerable importance is the treatment of spoil arising from the excavations and the treatment of the banks of leats, fences, walls, and so on. Then, in the last resort, if there was a dispute between the British Electricity Authority and the local planning authority we think that proper provision should be made for reference of the whole dispute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and myself for final decision, which would give to this House a status in connection with the matter.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: I am sure we have all listened with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman has said and we are deeply grateful to him. In the course of his statements he has referred to the British Electricity Authority and then to "we." He said that the British Electricity Authority agree and then, "we" should do this and do that. Are we to take it from what he is saying now that the British Electricity Authority as well as the Ministry will be in favour of putting this into the Bill at a later stage?
  Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, certainly. Perhaps I may finish by referring to the question of water. It really is not necessary, as I am advised, to have a special instruction in regard to water, because this House has had to deal with this water problem many times before on other occasions. There is a Standing Order, No. 160, which I will not quote because I do not think the House would
  want me to go into that degree of detail, which gives very special powers and instructions to the Committee to deal with the question of water and to see that the matter is properly dealt with in the Committee.
  There, also, we thought—when I say "we" I mean that the British Electricity Authority have agreed partly as a result of representations which we thought fit to make—that in the last resort in some of these cases there should again be references in regard to any dispute to the Ministers whom I have previously mentioned.
  In those circumstances I feel, although this is not a Government Bill, that I may say that the British Electricity Authority have been carrying out their duties in regard to the economical provision of electricity by bringing forward the Bill. It is the duty of the Government, in view of the responsibility upon the Minister of Fuel and Power, under the Fuel and Power Act, to give their permission for the Bill to come before the House. In all the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the Bill is really what we all want to see, if the amenity objections are fully met in Committee—because this is one of the great national shrines of Wales and indeed of all our islands—I advise the House to agree to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Dr. Stross rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 40.

  Division No. 58.]

  AYES

  [9.33 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

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

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Crouch, R. F.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

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

  Bullard, D. G.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

  Banks, Col. C.

  Burke, W. A.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Bence, C. R.

  Champion, A. J.

  Deer, G.

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Donner, P. W.

  Blackburn, F.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Drewe, C.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Collick, P. H.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Boardman, H.

  Cook, T. F.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Field, W. J.

  Kinley, J.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Fienburgh, W.

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Finch, H. J.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lewis, Arthur

  Ross, William

  Forman, J. C.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Royle, C.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. G. (King's Norton)

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

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Gooch, E. G.

  McGovern, J.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  McInes, J.

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Steele, T.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Stross, Dr. Barnett

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Studholme, H. G.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  MacMillan M. K. (Western Isles)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Grimond, J.

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Marples, A. E.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Hannan, W.

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

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Hargreaves, A.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Harrison, J. (Notingham, E.)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Moody, A. S.

  Tilney, John

  Heath, Edward

  Morley, R.

  Timmons, J.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

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

  Turton, R. H.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Mort, D. L.

  Viant, S. P.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Moyle, A.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Holt, A. F.

  Murray, J. D.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Nally, W.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Weitzman, D.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

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

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Oswald, T.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Padley, W. E.

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

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

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

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

  Parker, J.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Pearson, A.

  Wigg, G. E. C.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Popplewell, E.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Porter, G.

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Wills, G.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyten)

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Raikes, H. V.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Keenan, W.

  Rankin, John

  Mr. Gower and Mr. Watkinson.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Redmayne, M.

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Jennings, R.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Baldwin, A. E.

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

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Barlow, Sir John

  Logan, D. G.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Channon, H.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Godber, J. B.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Wellwood, W.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Partridge, E.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Horobin, I. M.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

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

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

  Richards, R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Summers and Mr. Nabarro.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) desire to move the Motion standing in his name?
  Mr. P. Thomas: I beg to move,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to provide for the protection of the natural beauty of the Snowdonia National Park and of access thereto by restoring to the local planning authorities the planning
  1534
  powers which the Bill takes from them and by requiring the Minister of Housing and Local Government to appoint an amenity committee to advise and assist the Minister, the local planning authorities and the electricity authority.
  Mr. Nabarro: I beg to second the Motion.
  Dr. Stross: Those of us who have our names down to a similar but a little more comprehensive Motion to give instructions,

  1535
  tions, are prepared, in view of what the Minister has told us and in view of the reassurance that he has given—and given not only sincerely, but in a most frank and forthcoming fashion—to withdraw our instruction, on one condition: that hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who support the Motion which has been moved, withdraw theirs. Otherwise, we shall vote against their instruction.
  Mr. Speaker: In view of what has been said, does the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) desire to withdraw his Motion?
  Mr. Thomas: In view of the assurances that have been given by the Minister in this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) does not desire to move his Motion?
  Mr. G. Roberts: In view of what the Minister had to say, I do not wish to move the Motion standing in my name.
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Ilford North (Sir G. Hutchison) desire to move his Motion?
  Sir G. Hutchinson: In view of the fact that it has not been possible to debate the Motion, and I am precluded from doing so, I do not desire to move it, Sir.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

    Clause 3.—(AMENDMENT OF DEFINITION OF "ACTIVE SERVICE.")
    Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 17, leave out "Subsection (1) of."
    Question again proposed.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) was making a short interjection at the time the debate was adjourned and we were discussing
    1536
    the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), which in its terms as here stated is perhaps a little deceptive. It seeks to leave out Clause 3 (1) but the result is really effectively to repeal the whole of Section 189 of the Army Act.
    I always very much regret to express any sort of difference with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton. I think I may say that we agree on almost every subject under the sun except politics. I am bound to say, although I observe many hon. Members in the Committee who were not present to hear the able speech he made, that I do not personally face the matter in the same way as does my hon. and learned Friend.
    This, in my view, is an exceedingly important Clause and one which should not be disposed of as summarily as was foreshadowed in his speech. My hon. and learned Friend only referred to paragraph (2) of the subsection and there are a number of important paragraphs. The matters to which we are referring are in subsections (2) to (6) of Section 189.
    Subsection (2) says:
    "Where the Governor of a Colony in which any of His Majesty's forces are serving, or if the forces are serving in a Dominion or out of His Majesty's dominions, the general officer or brigadier commanding such forces, declares at any time or times that, by reason of the imminence of active service or of the recent existence of active service, it is necessary for the public service that the forces in the colony or under his command, as the case may be, should be temporarily subject to this Act, as if they were on active service, then on the publication in general orders of any such declaration, the forces to which the declaration applies shall be deemed to be on active service for the period mentioned in the declaration so that the period mentioned in any one declaration does not exceed three months from the date thereof."
    I agree with the intervention of the Secretary of State for War. It is quite clear that my hon. and learned Friend had not quite apprehended that these orders have to be renewed at least once every three months and, therefore, the point about a condition of active service having preceded is not an effective point because it may be a question merely of renewing an order after an emergency or between emergencies, but the renewal must take place not because of the preceding or possible emergency, but because

    1537
    the original order has expired. That seems to be clear.
    I approach my next point with a genuine diffidence. I am the last to say anything which might cause even a blush to appear on the face of the Secretary of State for War and as an ex-lance bombardier I approach this with a real and almost girlish and virgin diffidence and reluctance. After all, the public interest must prevail—and if the hon. Member opposite will restrain his ebullience for a few seconds, I shall be happy to listen to him—
    Sir Peter Macdonald: I wanted to ask a question.
    Mr. Hale: If the hon. Member will allow me to continue for a moment, he can ask all the questions he wishes. I apologise again, but, as an ex-lance bombardier, I ask, ought this to be trusted to a brigade commander? Really, brigadiers are two a penny today. I did my most effective service as a lance bombardier, but there are at least four or five ranks in the Service above brigade commander and this is a high responsibility for a brigade commander to take.
    We are putting him on a level in this matter with a governor of a Dominion, because this Act takes no notice of the passing of the Statute of Westminster. It seems to me a matter which the right hon. Gentleman must consider, eliminating any personal reminiscences and approaching the matter objectively as a matter of importance and public interest.
    Now the next point is very difficult—
    Sir P. Macdonald: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) says he approaches the matter as a virgin lance bombardier. I have served in the Army, but I have never heard of that rank. Would the hon. Member mind defining what is an acting virgin lance bombardier?
    Mr. Hale: I at once withdraw my offer to answer questions, because here is a question which I cannot answer. Eliminating the "lance bombardier," I should find it very difficult to define an "acting virgin." It is a state which when once terminated there is no question of resumption as an acting rank. But I certainly did not describe myself in any such remarkable way.
    1538
    I wish now to come to my next point. We are discussing the circumstances in which the term "on active service" could be applied either in Britain, the Colonies or the Dominions. "On active service" as everyone knows, is a term which gets very rapidly applied in time of war. I served in a little wooden hut on the roof of some works known as the Crown Derby China Works in Derby, where we had a small machine gun of limited range which could not possibly reach any aeroplane had the pilot been foolish enough to fly over us. But we were on active service. We realised we were on active service because all of us knew that if we ever did fire the gun the roof would collapse, and therefore we were really in more substantial danger than some of those playing a more gallant and active part.
    I am glad to see that my hon. and learned Friend has taken his place, and I am sorry that in his absence I expressed an opinion on the somewhat indiscriminate way he had approached the matter and had not faced up to some of the problems which do arise. I must refer to the definition in the Act of the expression "governor" in its application to a Colony because it is a very wide definition indeed:
    "The expression 'Governor' in its application to a colony means the officer, however styled, who is for the time being administering the government of the colony."
    It is important we should understand this.
    If one was trying to discover an area where there may probably be trouble in the future, one would naturally think of Bechuanaland. At this moment who is the person who is administering Bechuanaland? It may be the resident whose functions are generally represented as advisory—the "man on the spot" to whom my hon. and learned Friend referred to with such approval on a previous occasion. My hon. and learned Friend says that the man on the spot always knows more than the man who is not there, although historically speaking the man on the spot has always proved to be wrong. Is it Seretse Khama, or is it someone who is to be elected chief of the Bamangwato tribe, or who is it? Or is it some collective ruler of the whole three territories? There is no definition which makes this clear.

    1539
    What is more serious, however, is the reference to Dominions in the Clause, despite the Statute of Westminster. Everyone knows that we have no more legal right now to talk about active service for British troops in one of Her Majesty's Dominions than in any other part of the world.
    There is one other matter to which I must refer, and I must differ from another of my hon. and learned Friends. I think it was the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) who referred, I thought somewhat indiscreetly, to the provisions of the Schedules to this Act. He read out that apparently under the Army Act every British soldier billeted in billets has for all these years been entitled to 4 oz. of bacon for breakfast, 1 oz. of marmalade, 1 pint of tea with milk and sugar; 10 oz. of meat for lunch, 3 oz. of bread, 8 oz. of other vegetables and 4 oz. of pudding, to 4 oz. of meat for supper—
    The Chairman: I propose to call an Amendment dealing with that point later on.
    Mr. Hale: I am obliged. I entirely agree.
    We are dealing with active service and civil disturbance, and if it should be thought that nothing was being done about it, we are faced with this possibility. It will have to be carefully considered, because there will be difficulties, not merely amongst the people who do not get the allowance, but among those who are responsible for supplying what they have not got.
    It is quite true that that sort of thing in 1952 is quite irrelevant. Really, it looks like a preparation by the noble Lord the Minister for the Co-ordination of Food and Agriculture of a pre-election menu of red meat for the Beefeaters in the Bloody Tower. It certainly has no reference whatever to the conditions of ordinary service which our sons and daughters have to observe today.
    We have to consider these things, and I suggest that we consider them seriously. I deplore the attitude of the Government in this matter, when we are seeking to amend the Bill and they are opposing our Amendments. They did not do it when they were in opposition. We have had a useful discussion, and we have tried to
    1540
    be objective and constructive, but we have had no assistance at all from the other side.
    It is quite shocking that when there are a great many men with military experience on the other side of the Committee, apparently, they should be precluded from taking part in the debate. Why, even the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), when we were dealing with the breakfast of the British soldier, never raised the question of porridge for the Black Watch.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but really, in the torrent of his oratory, I was not able to get a word in edgeways.
    Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that tribute; I always do give way when I am asked.
    I come now to paragraph 3 of the subsection, which provides, in general, that if at any time
    "the governor or general officer or brigadier for the time being is of opinion that the necessity continues he may from time to time renew such declaration for another period not exceeding three months, and such renewal shall be published and have effect as the original declaration, and if he is of opinion that the said necessity has ceased, he shall state such opinion, and on the publication in general orders of such statement, the forces to which the declaration applies shall cease to be deemed to be on active service."
    The publication of orders means in the general orders of the unit, and nowhere else. It is to be published in what are called Part 2 orders, and really this is quite an extraordinary provision. That officer can go on for three months saying in Part 2 orders that the men are on active service. I do not want to say anything ungenerous, but the right hon. Gentleman may remember that the commanding officer has an interest in this matter.
    When considerations of active service apply, the discipline can be much more strictly enforced and, subject to any Amendments that have been made recently, we have provisions for field courts-martial instead of general courts-martial, which is a very important matter. It seems to me that it is rather remarkable that we should continue leaving this matter to some brigade commander at

    1541
    any time, without giving any special reason, except saying that he thinks there has been or will be some other emergency and who can place troops under his command on active service. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point.
    Mr. Paget: As far as I can see, there does not have to be any emergency at all, because the Section merely refers to the imminence of the service.
    Mr. Hale: It is a curious point, and I did rather accept what the Secretary of State for War said on this matter. If we assume that the emergency is over, we come then to this period of three months during a temporary quiescence.
    Mr. Paget: Subsection (2).
    Mr. Hale: Subsection (2) says
    "after or before an emergency."
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. Paget: That is rather curious.
    Mr. Hale: Unless the theory may be that in a severe emergency the general orders would prescribe active service for the whole of the forces in the area.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Could not this argument within the Labour Party be carried on in another chamber, Sir Charles? Cannot the hon. Gentlemen opposite retire elsewhere?
    The Chairman: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman because I could not hear what was said.
    Mr. Hale: The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) asked whether the argument within the Labour Party could be carried on in another chamber. He did not specify which chamber, but I suppose he was thinking of another place. My hon. and learned Friend and I have no particular aspirations to go there. We really are trying to get through this long and complex Clause which runs to many hundreds of words and which I do not suppose the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight has read, even if he can read.
    Then we get the conditions of the paragraph about publication to which I have referred before. It must be made by proclamation and published in the "Official Gazette" of the Colony. It is something like the "London Gazette." If
    1542
    one happens to lend money on deferred terms, one is interested in the "London Gazette," but it is not normally the type of reading in which people who study "Jane" in the "Daily Mirror" every morning are interested.
    Those are two fairly substantial provisions and personally I am glad they are in the Bill. That is not what I am seeking to attack at all. These powers, of course, are also exercisable under Subsection (6) by an air officer in similar circumstances. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very substantial matter. I know he will agree—because he is very fair—that the Sections need the greatest possible revision.
    The reference to a governor of the Dominions is almost an affront for us to continue to perpetuate. I do not want to intrude a personal note in this matter, but I personally would not like to see the hon. Member for Oldham, West, allowing a huge botch like this being passed merely because someone says we have not time to discuss it and because we want to get back to the British Museum Bill which has been waiting 10 weeks for discussion.
    I personally would have no objection whatever to sitting at a week-end if necessary to see some important legislation got through with decency and courtesy and with full consideration and debate. No one would deny that at the end of a debate one knows a good deal more about the problems one has to confront and about the necessity for emendation and elucidation of these matters.
    One word in conclusion. Reference has twice been made, once somewhat churlishly by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, and once most politely and intelligently by the Secretary of State for War, about differences on these benches. It is truly quite surprising that anyone should expect that we should come with ready turned out opinions made in a mould and measured to a purely party style. This is a question of the House of Commons in Committee. It is a question where each and everyone of us on these benches is seeking to assist the House in producing Amendments which will improve the Bill.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Nonsense.
    Mr. Hale: The noble Lord has only just come in, and therefore it might have been a little wiser for him to have listened to what was being said. If he wants to make an interjection, I would suggest that he should ask himself why from half-past three this afternoon right throughout this discussion no back bencher on the other side of the Committee has risen and made a speech at all. And the one man who did rise twice to make a speech was chased out of the Chamber and has never been seen since.
    It is quite monstrous that hon. Members opposite should say, "We are not prepared to assist the Committee to debate and we shall grumble if you fellows talk." I thought the Navy was the silent Service, but the Navy has never been as silent as the brigade commanders have been this afternoon and this evening. It seems that the Army and the Air Force are now the silent Services.
    The Chairman: I do not think that can arise on this Amendment.
    Mr. Hale: I am much obliged, and I would respectfully agree. Indeed, I had left the point—I was tempted to do so by what I thought was an ill-timed interjection by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). I have tried to indicate quite briefly the points which appeared to be of major importance on this Clause. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will want to develop some of those points, and indeed to make their own. For the moment I would be satisfied with that.
    In conclusion, I should like to say that I personally regret that the Solicitor General thought fit to reply so soon to the first speech in the debate. It is quite true he can rise again, but the impression he gave that he wanted to curtail the discussion—even though he did not mean to give it—is regrettable when we are trying to get on with constructive legislation.
    Mr. Driberg: When the debate was suspended at seven o'clock, I was addressing a few observations to the Solicitor-General who had then just spoken, and I apologise to him and to you, Sir Charles, for not being in my place when the debate was resumed prematurely owing to the unexpected and, if I may say so. Un-
    1544
    characteristic taciturnity of our Welsh colleagues.
    The point I was addressing to the hon. and learned Gentleman was what may be at first a rather simple one yet which is a little complicated to grasp. He was referring repeatedly in his speech to the definition of "active service, engaged in operation against the enemy." Therefore, he was necessarily referring all the time to "the enemy." The point about the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill this year is that Clause 4 of it offers a new definition of the word "enemy." It is a definition which widens the meaning of the word considerably in its military application and it is a definition about which some of us are greatly worried.
    As I was saying in the earlier part of my speech, I have an Amendment on the Order Paper which may or may not be called, but I hope the opportunity will occur to address oneself to this point. The point I am making now is that by using the word "enemy" in a definition in an Amendment of this Clause we are in a sense prejudging that questionable use of that word "enemy" in a later Clause. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will speak again in order to reassure us on this point.
    There is another point in the definition on which I would simply seek information either from the Solicitor-General or from the Secretary of State for War. It is the question of a definition of a foreign country. I want to know simply whether the Sudan is a foreign country or not under this definition. There are, of course, as we know R.A.F. personnel serving in the Sudan and possibly some Army personnel—though I think that is covered probably by the Sudan Defence Corps. In any case, is the Sudan for the purpose of this definition a foreign country or not?
    Mr. Swingler: It is, definitely.
    Mr. Driberg: I venture to take issue with my hon. Friend about that, and I hope that the Secretary of State for War will be good enough to judge between my hon. Friend and me when he comes to speak. I do not think there is anything definite about it, and I am very surprised indeed that my hon. Friend thinks there is.
    Mr. Swingler: If my hon. Friend looks at Section 190 (24) he will find:

    1545
    "The expression 'foreign country' means any place which is not situate in the United Kingdom, a Dominion or a Colony, and is not on the high seas."
    Mr. Driberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I always am when he is helpful to me during my speeches, but he has not quoted enough from paragraphs (23), (23A), and (24). If one is searching for the exact identification of this territory which I have mentioned, and which I need hardly remind the hon. Gentleman is neither a dominion nor a Colony, but an Anglo-Egyptian Condominium—
    Mr. L. M. Lever: It is a protectorate.
    Mr. Driberg: I do not think it is a protectorate. If my hon. Friend wants to interrupt me, perhaps he will get up and do so. He says it is a protectorate. I do not think it is. It is an Anglo-Egyptian Condominium. The Egyptians have abrogated their share in the Condominium. However, we still insist on recognising it, and we refuse to recognise their abrogation of the Condominium.
    The point is that paragraphs (23), (23A), and (24) of the definition Section, Section 190, define respectively Dominion, Colony and foreign country, and in paragraph (23) we find these words:
    "The expression 'Dominion' means any of the following Dominions, that is to say—Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Eire, India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Newfoundland."
    Paragraph (23A) says:
    "The expression 'colony' means any part of His Majesty's dominions"—
    I suppose that should be "Her Majesty's dominions"—
    "exclusive of the United Kingdom, and of any Dominion, and includes any British protectorate."
    Then we come to the point at which my hon. Friend quoted:
    "The expression 'foreign country' means any place which is not situate in the United Kingdom, a Dominion or a colony and is not on the high seas."
    At first sight, that would seem to apply to the Sudan.
    Mr. Head: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Sudan does count as a foreign country.
    Mr. Driberg: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for intervening.
    1546
    I was saying that it might seem at first sight that the Sudan is a foreign country, since it is neither situate in the United Kingdom, nor is it a Dominion nor a Colony, and, quite manifestly, it is not on the high seas. But if the right hon. Gentleman says that it counts as a foreign country, how does it happen to have a British Governor-General, and how is it that the British Foreign Secretary answers Questions about it in this House? How can he take responsibility on behalf of a foreign country? Does the Foreign Office think that it is not a foreign country, while the War Office thinks it is a foreign country?
    Mr. Head: The fact that the Foreign Office answers Questions about it is an indication that it is a foreign country.
    Mr. Driberg: Oh, no. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. He is quite new as a Minister, but even so, he was a very competent back bencher in the last Parliament, and he knows perfectly well that Ministers can only answer Questions about matters for which they are Departmentally responsible. He knows perfectly well that if he or any other back bencher questioned the Foreign Secretary about the internal affairs of any foreign country, whether Greece, Spain, Italy, France or any other foreign country, that Question would not be in order. It would be rejected by the Table.
    The Chairman: I think this matter with which the hon. Member is now dealing hardly arises at this point.
    Mr. Driberg: I have not succeeded in making the trend of my thoughts clear, and I apologise to you, Sir Charles. What I was trying to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman was the exact status of the Sudan in this definition, and whether it is or is not a foreign country.
    He said, speaking offhand, that it was treated as a foreign country, and I was venturing to point out some of the difficulties in doing so. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, as the learned Clerk to the Table would advise any back bench Member, that it is not competent to put to the Foreign Secretary a Question about the internal affairs of any foreign country—and yet we can put Questions to him about the internal affairs of the Sudan, so that, quite clearly, it is not a foreign country in that sense.

    1547
    If there is any doubt about it, I should have thought that special reference should be made to it in one of the definition Clauses. It would be quite simple to add a new meaning referring specifically to "The Anglo-Egyptian Condominium of the Sudan." That is the second point on which I hope the right hon. Gentleman or the Solicitor-General will be able to oblige us.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Paget: Whatever else has happened as a result of this debate, I feel that it has amply justified us in putting down an Amendment which made this Section of the Army Act available for discussion. In the first place, I am not for a moment suggesting that we should press this Amendment to a Division. It seems to me that probably the Clause as it stands is better than nothing.
    Nevertheless, it is equally clear that the words are not satisfactory by reason of the fact that words like the imminence of active service, or the recent existence of active service, provide an inadequate description of the occasions to which active service ought to apply. Perhaps by next year the Government will have thought out a more adequate definition.
    Mr. L. M. Lever: They will not be there.
    Mr. Paget: Well, whatever Government is there. This is a duty which goes from Government to Government—to get this in order. It is equally the duty of an Opposition, whichever party it may be, to draw to the attention of the Government that which requires putting in order.
    What alarmed me a great deal more was what the Solicitor-General said about the other part of this definition because, as it applies to any particular man, it apparently depends—and I think that is right on the wording—on whether he is a member of a force. There is no definition whatever of what is a force for this purpose. Is the British Army of the Rhine a force? Is a section a force? Is a battalion a force? It seems to me to be left completely vague.
    This is a section which is the basis of criminal responsibility. It is the basis of such criminal responsibility as often involves the death penalty. I am often reminded, in dealing with that question, as well as with some other questions with
    1548
    which I was dealing in Germany, of a quotation from Lord Digby when he spoke on the impeachment of Strafford. Speaking then of the criminal law, he said:
    "Let us have none of these vague charges. Let a cross be placed clearly upon the door and then let he who enters be punished."
    That, I believe, is the fundamental wording which should apply to any criminal charge. If we are to charge men with crime, then in advance of their action we must have defined that crime with precision. We must have put the cross clearly upon the door. When we find, as the basis for a capital charge, a number of words and conditions which the Solicitor-General quite frankly acknowledge were so vague as to be quite incapable of definition that it would depend on a question of what was a force and what was not for the purpose of any particular crime—or who was a member of the force—then I felt we should all be agreed that, as a definition of the crime and as the basis of criminal charges, that must be unsatisfactory. I do not feel there is a difference between us on this.
    Owing to the absence of time and the urgency with which this Measure, year after year, has to be forced through, it may not be possible to get out a satisfactory answer this time. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel that this is such an important matter that it ought to be given priority and that he ought to bring us something better on the Report stage, even this year. He may feel that it is so important, involving life and death as it does, that this is something where clarity should be provided this year. At any rate, he should make sure that we have it next year.
    Mr. Head: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for his speech. I agree with him that this Amendment, as an exploratory Amendment, has been useful in respect of this Clause. I can give him an undertaking that we will bear in mind what has been said and that it will be our attempt to improve it. Whether we can improve it on this occasion is something which I hope he will leave to me and to my assistants. It would be patently wrong for me to give any undertaking that in the short time available I could make the kind of improvement that he and, indeed, all of us wish.

    1549
    I have been asked to make certain comments on the remarks of the Solicitor-General and of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) who, I am sorry to see, has had to leave the Chamber.
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: For a short while.
    Mr. Head: For a short while. I am sure he will be back.
    He and other hon. Members expressed anxiety concerning the fact that somebody of the rank of brigadier could deem a man to be on "active service." There are many anachronisms in the Bill. It says, "If he is in wireless touch." In these days I think that the occasions when he is out of wireless touch will be comparatively few and far between, and there is a definite obligation in the Bill that if such touch can be established he must gain the prior consent of the Secretary of State to carry out that action.
    I can assure the House that this particular Section of the Army Act, which the original Amendment suggested should be left out, is one which, despite its known imperfections, is of considerable importance to us at present. In these cold war conditions the exact time when one would require to deem a man on active service, either before or after active service will, I think, quite often arise, and without the powers it would be extremely difficult to deal with the really novel situations which keep occurring under these present cold war conditions.
    The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) said that he was in great difficulties on the question of the Sudan. In a way he selected a duck-billed platypus of a country which obeyed no particular rule. I can assure him, on the best authority, that the Sudan counts as a foreign country; although I agree that in a lot of ways it is not so treated and Questions can be asked about it. For the purposes of this Bill it counts as a foreign country.
    Mr. Driberg: Would it not be simple to name them?
    Mr. Head: That is a thing which I will look into and take advice on.
    The hon. Gentleman was also worried about the question of the definition of
    1550
    "enemy." I know it is not entirely satisfactory, but I have given an undertaking to look into this Clause and when we pass on to the next Clause we can look back to see how, in the light of this discussion, this word "enemy" fits in. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton for the sensible remarks he made at the end of his speech, and I give an undertaking to the Committee that I will look into this matter and see what can be done at this time or in the future to make this Clause better and more lucid.
    Mr. Wigg: I am sure we are all obliged to the Secretary of State for his undertaking to look into this matter, but there is one aspect of the Clause which worries me a great deal. When we were discussing the National Service Act, it was never in the minds of my hon. Friends, nor I think of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the use of National Service men outside this country would be a permanent feature of our policy. Indeed, the idea was that National Service men should be taken into the Armed Forces, trained, and in due course revert to reserved service and there be available should an emergency arise.
    Unfortunately, the world situation has worsened and it has been necessary to use the National Service men, first in Germany, and then gradually they have gone further and further East until they have landed in Korea. It is one thing to send to a strange part of the world a young man who, of his own volition, has entered into a contract to serve, which includes service overseas. After all, he knows that he is likely to be posted there.
    But it is quite another thing to take thousands and thousands of young men straight from civilian life and send them, for example, to Germany, where they find themselves in very strange circumstances, only a short distance away from their homes, where they might even commit a boyish escapade which would be of no great importance if they were in civilian clothes, or perhaps serving in a depot in this country, but for which they find themselves facing trial by court-martial on a charge involving a very long term of imprisonment.
    Mr. Driberg: To be quite fair to the War Office, under the last Government, those National Service men who were the

    1551
    first to go to Korea did not go their straight from civilian life. They had a period of training in Hong Kong. There was the Middlesex Regiment and—
    Sir Peter Macdonald: I know of many cases where they went straight to Korea and never saw Hong Kong at all.
    Mr. Driberg: I did not say there were no cases. I said that in the bulk of cases those who went first to Korea, the first British troops to go to Korea in the late summer of 1950, were the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the Middlesex Regiment, and they both went from Hong Kong.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Driberg: I am at the moment interrupting my hon. Friend, with his consent. We cannot all speak at once. I was merely saying that those troops went to Korea from Hong Kong where they had been training for a considerable time.
    Mr. Wigg: I only mentioned Korea to illustrate how far this House has departed from the original conception of the use of the National Service man.
    What was uppermost in my mind was Germany. We know that a considerable number of young National Service men are going to Germany as part of their normal training. Indeed, we are led to believe that that is to be the training ground for the bulk of our Forces. Therefore, young men are going there as a matter of course—and going there, be it noted, not to serve on foreign service, but on home service.
    Quite clearly, whilst we must for the time being accept the definition of "active service" laid down in Clause 3, I very much hope that this will not be a permanent feature. It was all right for the Regular Forces. It was all right to send a fellow to Egypt, or wherever he happened to be called upon to serve, who, when he got there, might find that charges he had to face were prefaced by the words "whilst on active service." But it is not good enough for National Service men, and we may have to find a special method of treating Germany.
    I am wholly dissatisfied with the prospect of National Service men being permanently faced with the possibility of reaping the only possible consequence
    1552
    should they commit a breach of regulations and find themselves on a charge, either before their commanding officer or before a court-martial, of getting a much heavier penalty than would have been possible if they were serving in a depot in this country, and in circumstances in which the Service is precisely the same. They might find themselves in barracks in Germany just as remote from the civilian population and from the realities of life as they would were they serving in Aldershot, Catterick or on Salisbury Plain.
    10.30 p.m.
    I hope that the Secretary of State will face the fact that the House and the country have been forced to use the National Service man for a purpose for which he was never intended when the Act was passed. I must be honest and say that, although I was in favour of the National Service Act, and have made that plain both inside and outside the House of Commons. I know that many of my hon. Friends would have been more doubtful than they were when they came to vote for it had they thought the National Service man was to be used for any other purpose than to create a reserve.
    Therefore, it is the responsibility of any hon. Member in any part of the House to take special care to safeguard the rights of the National Service man in this matter.
    Mr. John Dugdale rose—
    The Chairman: I think we should come to a decision. We have been over an hour on this Amendment.
    Mr. Paget: I was about to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, Sir Charles.
    The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?
    Mr. Dugdale: I wanted to know whether, in fact—
    The Chairman: Order. No one has refused to give the hon. and learned Member leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Hale: On a point of order. My right hon. Friend was on his feet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am addressing

    1553
    the Chair on a point of order, in spite of the discourteous noises from the other side. There was a certain amount of confusion, Sir Charles. I was respectfully calling your attention to the fact that to my clear recollection the voices were not collected as to whether it was the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment should be withdrawn. I was also calling the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to the fact that a Member of his own Front Bench was on his feet. It would not have been our wish to seek to withdraw an Amendment until we had heard his observations.
    The Chairman: I asked whether it was the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn. I did not hear "No" from anybody. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I did not hear it, anyhow.
    Mr. Paget: On a point of order. You looked at me, Sir Charles, and I said I was about to ask leave to withdraw, but then I saw my right hon. Friend was getting up and I sat down again. Clearly, if my right hon. Friend has something to say, I do not want to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    The Chairman: I am sorry if I made a mistake. I understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman was asking leave to withdraw.
    Mr. Dugdale: I shall not detain the Committee long. I did not wish to get involved in the interesting question of the Sudan, but I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty in his place and I want to know whether consultations have taken place between the War Office and the Admiralty on this matter. It seems to be a matter of considerable importance which may affect the Admiralty if there is a complete re-definition of the words "active service." If consultations have taken place between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War, it is obviously bound to affect the Navy and we must be quite certain that there has been adequate consultation and what the result of it has been.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Head: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he has anticipated our debate. I wish he was right. We have not yet reached the question of
    1554
    active service. We are now on the question of leaving out subsection (1) of this Clause, but it will come.
    Mr. Paget: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Paget: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out "a foreign country," and to insert:
    "an area comprising the whole or a part of a foreign country which has been declared to be an area of special danger to life or property by an order issued in accordance with the procedure laid down by subsections (2) to (6) of section one hundred and eighty-nine of the Army Act."
    Perhaps, Sir Charles, you will first permit me to say that last time when we were discussing the Home Guard Bill, I am afraid I was extremely rude to the Solicitor-General. I thought he had been rude to me. He assured me afterwards that he had not been, and when I looked at the OFFICIAL REPORT I was bound to say that I thought the words he had used had been quite misinterpreted by myself. In the circumstances, therefore, I want to take this opportunity to apologise.
    This Amendment attempts to improve on the Government's effort to do what I recognise to be a very difficult job—to define "active service." I am not suggesting that even if, as I hope, the Government accept it, we shall have a perfect definition, but I do suggest we shall have a rather better one.
    The Government's definition of "active service" is:
    "'active service', in relation to a person subject to military law, means service in or with a force engaged in operations against an enemy …"
    Let us pause there. Later they are proposing, in Clause 4, to define "enemy" as including
    "all persons engaged in hostile operations against any of Her Majesty's forces."
    One does not wish to be frivolous, but is a person who fires a pea-shooter at some soldiers on the march and is then chased engaged in operations against Her Majesty's Forces? These are very wide words, difficult to define. But let me pass to the next part of the definition: "is engaged in a foreign country." As a matter of pure construction, where is the subject of "is"—the force or the

    1555
    person? I suppose it is the force that is indicated. But to continue:
    "is engaged in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life or property or is in military occupation of a foreign country."
    My Amendment deals simply with that part of the definition which provides
    "or is engaged in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life and property. …"
    No special definition of operations is given in the Act, and therefore one must take the ordinary Oxford Dictionary definition: "Active processes; activity; performance; discharge of function."
    I cannot imagine any military force anywhere that is not engaged in the function of the protection of life or property. Every military force has some person or property over whom they set a sentry, so that everybody in the force by this definition is on active service. If the Government want to provide that anybody in a foreign country is on active service it would be simple to say so. On the basis of that definition, any soldier in a foreign country who is part of any sort of a force must be on active service, because that force will be engaged in discharging somewhere the function of protecting life or property. That must be so.
    Realising the width of that definition—and bearing in mind all the time that this is the basis of the gravest criminal charges and consequences—we considered whether it was possible to place some limitation upon the width of that definition, and it is an attempt so to place a limitation which we suggest in the Amendment. What we say is that instead of "a foreign country," there should be inserted:
    "an area comprising the whole or a part of a foreign country which has been declared to be an area of special danger to life or property by an order issued in accordance with the procedure laid down by subsections (2) to (6) of section one hundred and eighty-nine of the Army Act."
    Those, of course, are the subsections which we have just been discussing.
    There would not be a governor in most foreign countries, but there is a Governor in the Sudan—
    Mr. Driberg: A Governor-General.
    Mr. Paget:—which is one foreign country. Therefore, I presume that an ordinance by the Governor-General of the Sudan would be the method of bringing this into operation and that that ordinance would have to be approved by the right hon. Gentleman.
    As to the position of Malaya, I am not quite certain. Is it a Protectorate? Is it a foreign country for the purpose of that Section? Perhaps this information can be given. If it be a foreign country, then it would be on the basis of this definition; but I imagine that the Governor-General would be the person to issue the ordinance if the Amendment be accepted; otherwise it would be the General Officer Commanding.
    I should have thought that it was not desirable to provide that all the troops, all the time, in a foreign country were to be deemed to be on active service, and that that should apply only to particular areas. I cannot help feeling that it was probably Malaya and the Canal Zone which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind in proposing the new definition. It is in that sort of area where this provision is required, and I submit that the best way to define that sort of area is by the procedure, which already exists, which is applicable to a Dominion or a Colony.
    After all, there is not such a lot of difference between the sort of control that we have in the Sudan and Malaya and the sort of control which we have in, say, Kenya. Surely, the same sort of procedure should be applicable to both. I commend the Amendment to the Committee and to the Government. While the definition is by no means perfect, it is an improvement.
    Mr. Strachey: This Amendment has a good deal of substance. The whole question of the definition of active service is a most difficult one and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has re-emphasised, we do not pretend to have solved it. The biggest difficulty which I see in the form of words proposed by the Government is one which my hon. and learned Friend has not mentioned: that is, the position of our Forces in Germany.

    1557
    10.45 p.m.
    Under the Clause as I see it, we should perforce have to regard the whole of the British Army of the Rhine as permanently on active service so long as it was in occupation of Germany. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is the next Amendment."] I think that it comes under this Amendment, too. Here, my hon. and learned Friend has moved to substitute for "a foreign country" some part of a foreign country designated because special circumstances have arisen there; and I have Germany in mind.
    Under the following subsections it should be possible to declare particular areas of Germany to be a part of a foreign country in which our troops would be on active service, but it seems far too wide to have the words of the Clause as put before us by the Government, whereby all our troops in Germany, all the time, would be on active service.
    This Amendment, like the next, is designed to remedy that situation. I am well aware that what the Government are proposing is nothing new, because, under the old definition—
    The Solicitor-General: I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman is proceeding to discuss the next Amendment; could I ask, therefore, if we are to discuss both together?
    The Chairman: If it is for the convenience of the Committee to discuss them together, I agree.
    Mr. Paget: I submit, Sir Charles, that they concern quite separate points. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) is proposing to move the next Amendment, which is concerned with military occupation and not the guarding of life and property. In Germany our troops are in military occupation and this Clause would put them on active service. The next Amendment provides something different—where they are in a foreign country guarding life and property, but not in occupation.
    The Solicitor-General: Then the right hon. Gentleman has been discussing an Amendment not under consideration.
    The Chairman: They are two separate points, and I shall call that at the bottom of the page separately, which is what I originally intended to do; I understood
    1558
    that the Committee wanted to take them together.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: On a point of order. Would it not save time if they were taken together?
    The Chairman: It might save time, but the Amendments are different.
    Mr. Strachey: As I see it, the Amendment which we are now discussing is fully relevant to the British Army of the Rhine and its position in Germany. At the moment, it is a military Force in occupation of a country, but what will occur when negotiations with the German Federal Government are completed?
    Mr. Head: The future position of the British Army of the Rhine forms part of the next Amendment; it cannot form part of this.
    Mr. Swingler: Further to that point of order. Is it not clear that all forces which are in military occupation of foreign countries are forces engaged in foreign countries in operations for the protection of life and property? On the other hand, all forces engaged in foreign countries for the protection of life and property are not necessarily in military occupation. Therefore, my right hon. Friend is perfectly right, and we can discuss both the points on this Amendment, but we can also take the next Amendment separately.
    The Chairman: My Ruling is that we are discussing the two Amendments separately, and I hope that hon. Members will keep to that Ruling.
    Mr. Strachey: If you, Sir Charles, rule that the point I am trying to make is more germane to the next Amendment, I will endeavour to make this argument on that Amendment. I think it applies to both Amendments, but I am quite indifferent as to which Amendment on which I make it. Perhaps you would give a Ruling on the matter.
    The Chairman: Perhaps as the right hon. Gentleman has started to make his point on the first Amendment he had better carry on.
    Mr. Strachey: It seems to me that the position of the British Forces in the Army of the Rhine is profoundly affected

    1559
    by this Amendment which we are discussing. After we had made our settlement with the German Government they would not be forces in military occupation of a foreign country, to wit, Germany. It seems to me that these limited words which my hon. and learned Friend has proposed will be far better, because I do not see otherwise how we can avoid having the whole British Army on the Rhine permanently admitted to be on active service and that, I am sure everyone would agree, would be most undesirable.
    We are not going to join the European Defence Community, but the whole future of that great section of the British Army which is associated with European defence will almost certainly be stationed, at least as far ahead as we can see, in Western Europe. But we hope and believe that conditions there will become increasingly stable, and it would be totally inappropriate to classify them as "on active service."
    Therefore, what I understand my hon. and learned Friend has tried to do is to see that we get the definition "on active service" narrowed to the point where there will be no danger of our being compelled to say that these Forces are on active service. It seems to me that both Amendments are equally applicable and most applicable of all to the vital question of the status of the Force which we call the British Army on the Rhine.
    Mr. Swingler: The objection to this definition, taking the last three lines of it, is that it means that every soldier and every airman in a foreign country is to be permanently on active service. What we want to know from the Secretary of State for War is whether it is his intention in this definition to make every soldier and every airman permanently on active service when stationed in any force in a foreign country. If we take these two lines together:
    "in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life or property or is in military occupation of a foreign country".
    that is all inclusive, one could imagine, under every circumstance. It would make all British troops and airmen in Germany, or the Canal Zone or Malaya, permanently on active service subject to the most stringent discipline punishment and so on.
    1560
    I think that the Secretary of State for War must very well see the objection of my right hon. Friend to that point because it is quite clear from a common sense point of view that very large numbers of these troops are no more on active service than troops in the United Kingdom. In fact, from any point of view, it is desirable that they should be under a much less strenuous discipline than the troops in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Driberg: My hon. Friend is speaking as though the troops in the United Kingdom were not on active service. But it is quite clear from the definition of "enemy" in the next Clause, which we have not yet come to consider, that under the definition in this Clause troops may very well be on active service when in the United Kingdom, engaged for instance in industrial disputes.
    Mr. Swingler: Of course my hon. Friend is perfectly correct. When we come to it we shall have to consider the circumstances under which certain bodies of troops in the United Kingdom might be placed on active service but there again the Clause provides for the possibility of defining these circumstances.
    The great objection to the definition we are now considering is that it is so wide that there are no exceptions at all to troops stationed in any foreign country being on active service. That is the real objection that we have to consider. We want to know from the Secretary of State for War why he desires that troops in Germany Malaya or the Canal Zone should be permanently under the most stringent discipline and the strictest code compared with troops in the United Kingdom. Very many arguments could be adduced for saying that troops in the United Kingdom should be under a stricter code of discipline than troops stationed in foreign countries unless the latter are actually engaged against enemy forces.
    Therefore, my hon. Friends and I have tried to draft this definition in narrower terms to state under what circumstances troops in foreign countries should be classified as on active service, realising that there are very many circumstances when they should not be so classified. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State for War will either find it possible to accept this Amendment or will at any

    1561
    rate give an undertaking that he will himself re-draft it or provide some other definition or qualification to this line in his definition so as to limit the circumstances under which these troops are to be put on active service.
    I think it is quite clear that there is a distinction between the two which is stated here, but obviously the Secretary of State for War cannot argue that there are no circumstances under which a force engaged in a foreign country is not engaged in operations for the protection of life and property. Obviously, all troops in a foreign country are in a force which is engaged in the protection of life and property. Therefore, under this definition, they are all to be put on active service. That is highly unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Minister will find it possible either to re-draft this Clause or to accept my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: There is a further complication to which no reference has as yet been made, and which I think ought to be raised at this stage. I do so because I hope the Secretary of State for War will help to remove a difficulty which exists at any rate in my mind if not in the minds of other hon. Members. The difficulty arises in this way. From certain points of view British troops serving in B.A.O.R. in Germany, or in B.T.A. in Austria or in Trieste are regarded as still being on home posting.
    11.0 p.m.
    Therefore, it is possible for a man serving in the Army to be in a foreign country, engaged in operations for the protection of life or property, and yet to be technically, from certain points of view, still on home posting. The matter has been raised on previous occasions and it has been officially stated that, subject to certain conditions, British troops serving abroad, in the circumstances to which I have referred, are nevertheless regarded as being on home posting.
    There are, therefore, two kinds of troops on home posting. There are those serving in this country and those who are serving abroad. That calls for some further elucidation and I hope that the Secretary of State for War will have regard to what may be an additional factor which ought to be borne in mind in attempting to come to what, I hope, will
    1562
    be a reasonably satisfactory, if temporary, solution of the problem, which the Amendment, moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), seeks to clarify.
    Mr. Dugdale: Might I again raise the point that I raised a little earlier? I do so because I see the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place. As we are discussing a completely new definition of active service, which may be introduced, may I ask whether consultations have taken place between the Admiralty and the War Office as to whether there would be any effect on the Navy of this definition, and what the result of those discussions were? It is of some importance, and I hope for elucidation on this matter.
    Mr. Crossman: I would add one further point. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising this point, although it anticipates, to some extent, the sense of the next Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), has already raised one issue, which was not made clear by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government. It is not only the troops in Germany who matter. We want to know whether this phrase, "any military occupation of a foreign country," applies to troops in Germany, Trieste, and Austria.
    Do we regard Austria, for instance, as completely on a par with Germany? Do we regard Trieste in the same position, because we must know, before we come to the next Amendment, what is the precise intention of the Government with regard to this Clause. It does seem ridiculous that a man can be posted back to England from Malaya or Korea from an overseas posting and then be posted to Germany, Trieste, or Austria as a home posting and find himself under the same code of military punishment as if he were on active service.
    Either one is in a home posting or one is overseas. With regard to these three territories of Germany, Trieste, and Austria, the man has the worst of both worlds. He is both at home and overseas. Before we come to the Amendment in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, we would like the Secretary of State to clear up this point because we have much wider issues to discuss on the later Amendment.

    1563
    We think it would be convenient to have the smaller points cleared away before we reach the broader issues of the later Amendment.
    Mr. James Simmons: I do not feel that we are getting the co-operation we ought to on this definition of "on active service." There are innumerable hon. and gallant Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee, who have had experience of active service and who have won the V.C. or the D.S.O. When we were on that side of the Committee, they applied their minds, thought, energy, and intelligence to helping in these debates. I do feel that this definition of active service is a very important issue. We are in Committee, where we have a quiet exchange of opinions, seeking to arrive at an agreed conclusion.
    I was surprised to hear one hon. Member suggest that hon. Members opposite had an interest in the Army but we had not, for I do not agree; some of us have a great interest in the Army, and especially in the citizen Army. I agree, however, that the preponderance of professional soldiers is to be found on the other side of the Committee, and who is better qualified than the professional soldier to assist the Committee to reach a clear conclusion about what is active service?
    I am astonished at the mute, inglorious Miltons on the other side of the Committee. There are many familiar faces who used to sit on Spion Kop on this side of the Committee which are not to be seen on the Government benches tonight—brigadiers, colonels, generals, majors—
    Mr. Crossman: Do not go below major.
    Mr. Simmons: Why is this definition of active service important? Because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said, we are now sending our National Service men out to various parts of the world and we want to know whether they are on active service or not. We are calling up lads who, up to the age of 18, have been going to the cinemas, or to the "dogs" two or three times a week, going to dances with their girls, enjoying themselves; and we are sending them to places like the Canal
    1564
    Zone, where absolute boredom is their lot.
    What is the reaction of these young lads? Can we wonder that some of them get into trouble. They get into trouble because of sheer boredom. I have a son out there, and I know what I am talking about, so it is no use hon. Members opposite becoming irritated. I have a son who is serving in the Canal Zone who says it is absolute boredom. He has not committed any offence, but he has told me about the kind of things that go on there.
    There are a lot of bad things going on in the Canal Zone, and we cannot blame the lads if they get into trouble. We must blame the conditions out there and under which they live. It is important to know whether these lads, who are breaking out because of these conditions of absolute boredom, are to be punished as being men on active service or not.
    I appeal to some of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite to be a bit matey in this matter. After all, we Service men are all comrades together. We want to do the best we can for the lads in the Forces. Let us pool our brains and our ideas and get a real definition of active service for the sake of the National Service men.
    Mr. Head: It would be wrong if, in response to that challenge, I did not rise at this moment to attempt to pool my brains with those of hon. Members opposite. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who moved the Amendment, made a very wise remark at the outset of his speech when he said this was a very difficult matter—this question of a definition of active service. I would suggest to hon. Gentlemen that they are making rather heavy weather of this Clause. One hon. Gentleman looked up the dictionary and read out various definitions, but I would point out that in the Clause it refers to a force "engaged in operations." That phrase, in normal parlance, means actually taking specific steps for the protection of life and property.
    I can see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) getting restless. There have been hon. Gentlemen who have suggested that the presence of a force itself in a

    1565
    country means that it is engaged in operations and in the preservation of life and property. I would suggest that the presence of a force has a steadying effect, and, therefore, it has an indirect effect on the preservation of life and property. But that is not referred to in this Clause, which deals with a force engaged in operations and not sitting passively in a country.
    Hon. Gentlemen are making heavy weather over a force sitting quietly in billets in a foreign country. This Clause is to cover forces engaged in operations. [Interruption.] I am talking about the Amendment. If it is causing the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East any embarrassment, I am sorry. He has promised us a full debate when it comes to his Amendment, and he has made a speech on this one. I apologise if I have misled him.
    Mr. Swingler: Surely any military force in a foreign country is bound to be engaged in operations? Surely the very fact of posting guards and having sentries implies being engaged in operations and in the protection of life and property?
    Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman, from his own experience, should know that a force posting normal sentries is acting on a routine basis. This definition concerns a force engaged in operations. There can be no other interpretation. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen should let me go on. All I am trying to point out is that "engaged in operations" is understood to be taking positive and active steps, and not routine steps.
    The question of interpretation arises. As has been said, it is difficult to make an exact definition, but whatever the definition, its interpretation must be left to the responsible authority. Hon. Gentlemen have been worried and said that if we did this we should be compelled to make all forces everywhere on active service. But there is no compulsion whatever.
    The point is that the interpretation of this definition "engaged in operations"—for example in recent operations in Egypt, and during the cold war—and the right to take these steps is of immense advantage to the authorities. There may well be a delicate situation in which it is not desired to create a stir, but in which these steps can be taken if necessary.
    1566
    That interpretation, together with the phrase "engaged in operations," has, after a great deal of thought and discussion, been arrived at. I can assure the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) that we have been in touch with the First Lord on this matter. There was complete agreement between all the Services on it.
    Mr. Driberg: And with the Under-Secretary of State for Air?
    Mr. Head: Of course. But there was no question about that. I was asked a specific question about the Navy.
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. Driberg: The right hon. Gentleman says he has had consultations with the Admiralty. Can he tell us, for instance, about the position of the Royal Marines who have been in operations inland in Malaya? Because in the previous Clause there is a reference to
    "… forces for the time being in the service of Her Majesty, exclusive of the marine forces."
    Does that mean that the Royal Marines are not covered by this definition?
    Mr. Head: They will come under the Naval Discipline Act, as I understand it. We cannot prejudge that question, which, I understand, is under review. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been full consultation with the Navy in this matter. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East, was particularly disturbed about the question—I am afraid I am following him somewhat into a discussion of the next Amendment—
    Mr. Crossman: May I ask a question, before the right hon. Gentleman comes to that point? I raised the question of Suez. I should like to get the position quite clear. Were the men on active service when things were quite quiet, or did they become on active service when—to quote the words of the Solicitor-General—the warning signal was raised? That is the really vital question.
    Do we understand that, on the right hon. Gentleman's view of these things, for some years in Suez they were not on active service; that then suddenly something happened, and they were? If the right hon. Gentleman holds that view, I would suggest to him that the Amend-

    1567
    ment would be a good deal superior to the Clause. I do not understand the Secretary of State for War. On his argument people are always on active service in Suez. There is a difference between the time when there was no active service to do and the time when there was active service to do. Our aim is to make the difference between those two. It is the responsibility of the Government to declare the state in which active service is necessary. Is that, or is that not, the case under the present Clause 3 definition of active service?
    Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman has given a quite good example in instancing Suez. Perhaps I could elaborate that point. There has been a period when the troops in the Canal Zone have not been on active service at all.
    Mr. Crossman: Up to when?
    Mr. Head: Before the war there.
    Mr. Wigg: This is the point I wanted to raise. If the men were not on active service until the recent troubles, then I think the right hon. Gentleman's definition has point. If, on the other hand, they were not, I think the proposed amended definition is better.
    Mr. Head: I do not know the exact dates—they were not announced to the House of Commons—but there was a time when they were not on active service, and a time at which they were on active service. They were when I came to office, and the step was taken by the late Government.
    Mr. Crossman rose—
    Mr. Head: I cannot give way again yet. The hon. Gentleman has spoken already, and I have allowed him an interruption—which was one of the longest I have ever heard. [Interruption.] I know the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) thinks I always avoid dealing with anything he says.
    Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman does.
    Mr. Head: They were not on active service before the war in the Canal Zone. That is the first condition.
    The second condition is, they were deemed to be on active service under
    1568
    Section 189 of the Act—a different question from this. The third instance is, they were on active service because they were engaged in operations for the preservation of life and property—in recent events in the Canal Zone.
    The Amendment says there is to be an area defined by the authority responsible. If we take this instance of the Canal Zone, it would be sensible to define that area and limit it to the Canal Zone itself. If there is a sudden emergency it might well be that operations would have to take place outside that zone because it would be very limited in extent. It is the opinion, therefore, after considerable thought, that to attempt to draw a line, to define the actual area where troops are on active service and where they are not, would lead to great difficulty and anomalies.
    The point about this definition, which I agree one could argue about for a considerable time, is its simplicity, and that interpretation is left to the authorities concerned.
    Mr. Paget indicated dissent.
    Mr. Head: I know the hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but I cannot agree with him in his dictionary definition. As far as I know, everyone would interpret "engaged in operations" as not being consistent with the normal static duties of a force in a foreign country. It is on that basis that this definition has been made, and it is because of the difficulty of drawing a line that I must resist the Amendment. In admitting the difficulty, I believe that sensible interpretation is as good a solution as we are likely to get.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am prepared to go a certain way on this matter with the right hon. Gentleman. It is not a matter very apt for a Division on the party line. When listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and recognising the desirability of approaching this matter from every kind of angle, I took the view that he was exaggerating the all-inclusiveness of the existing definition.
    If we take the case propounded by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State, of what the situation would be in Germany if a treaty of settlement is

    1569
    arrived at with Germany, and British troops remained in Germany and, whilst they so remained, no hostilities broke out with any other Power, what would be the position then? On that hypothesis it seems to me that we have there a Force which is not engaged in operations against an enemy, which is not engaged in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life or property.
    At that point my inclination is to take the view expressed by the Secretary of State because on that hypothesis, there being no state of hostility, no actual threat against life or property, the British Forces situated on German soil can hardly be properly described as being engaged in Germany in operations for the protection of life or property.
    Mr. Swingler: I should like my hon. Friend to explain what this military Force was there for if not for the protection of life or property.
    Mr. Irvine: There are many things a force can do without engaging in operations. A force can sit and wait. A force can carry on all sorts of non-operational activities.
    Mr. Paget: But surely if that force posts a sentry it is thereby engaging in an operation for the protection of property or of persons. What else is a sentry posted for?
    Mr. Irvine: I consider that the sentry is not a force. We can have a force in a foreign country that is not operational.
    Mr. Crossman: Then it should not be on active service.
    Mr. Irvine: If it is non-operational, it is excluded from this definition. I differ from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme when he says that this definition is all-inclusive.
    Mr. Wigg: I want to bring this argument down from the clouds, away from the lawyers, to a practical issue. In what places are these young men on active service? In Asia, for example, or east of Suez? Will the Secretary of State answer that, I will give way. It seems that. I cannot get him to answer. Again, what are the stations in the Mediterranean where British troops are not on active service? I would suggest Malta and,
    1570
    perhaps, Cyprus. One of my hon. Friends asked whether men are on active service on the Continent of Europe, say, in Trieste and Austria; and I am certain that wherever there are British troops on the Continent they are on active service.
    I never get an answer from the Secretary of State; we always have to drag it out of him, and that is one reason why we have to put so many Questions on the Order Paper. I suspect he does not know who is on active service and who is not. Would any other hon. Gentleman opposite like to answer what stations are on active service? Here they are, these so-called men interested in the welfare of the troops, putting Clauses before the Committee—
    Mr. F. P. Crowder: Would the hon. Gentleman give us his most careful definition of what he means by active service? Let us have a clear answer.
    Mr. Wigg: I will give a clear answer. What the Committee, the young men, and their parents want to know are the stations where troops are on active service. It is difficult to define, and since I am not a lawyer I shall not attempt it. I want to know from the Secretary of State, and I think he does not know. The answer makes all the difference to the young men. The Secretary of State has committed himself to this Clause, as he has committed himself to many other Clauses in this Bill, and he has no idea what he has committed himself to. He has shown himself tonight to be not only incompetent but, as I always suspected, utterly irresponsible.
    Mr. E. Fernyhough: I should not have intervened if I had not been disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's reply. He failed to deal with the very important point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). It is the question of whether men serving in Austria, Germany, or Triente are on a home posting. It appears that they could be defined as being on a home posting, yet they are subject to a law different from that to which those serving in this country are subject.
    That appears to me to be completely ridiculous. If some of the men on a home posting are somewhere abroad and

    1571
    some are in this country, the same military law should apply. Had the right hon. Gentleman listened for a few moments, he would realise how impossible is the position and how much anxiety he can cause to Service men and to their parents.
    11.30 p.m.
    Serving men have a right to know the conditions under which they are serving and whether, if they do a certain thing, penalties will be applied in Trieste, in Germany and in Austria that will not be applied in this country. It is not asking anything in the way of a favour to say that we should be given this information, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to settle this important point so that if any of our constituents who are serving on a home posting but are nevertheless abroad, come to us for advice, we can give them the guidance and information which they are seeking.
    If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to give this information, thousands of men will be left in the dark and thousands of serving men may find themselves guilty of crimes in respect of which they had no knowledge that they would be charged when they committed a particular action. This is important, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give us this information so that we can pass on to the next Amendment.
    Mr. Paget rose—
    Mr. 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 proceeded to a Division—
    Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. I rose to make my point of order before the Patronage Secretary moved his Motion, and I ask you to hear it.
    Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I saw my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) rise to put his point of order. It is scandalous.
    Mr. Paget: I ask that I may make my point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] My point of order is this—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. There is a Division now in progress, and I cannot accept a point of order.
    Mr. Strachey rose—
    Mr. de Freitas: What Division?
    Mr. Hale: On a point of order. No voices have been collected.
    Mr. Strachey: I know of no Division which is in progress.
    Hon. Members: Where are the Tellers?
    Mr. Hale(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris. May I ask, for the guidance of the Committee, what procedure is now taking place? With very great respect to you, for some minutes you have been engaged in private conversation. None of us heard the voices collected, and I venture to assert, with the greatest respect, that the voices never were collected; and never was the Committee asked to decide—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is, "That the Question be now put." Tellers for the Ayes [Interruption.]
    Mr. Hale(seated and covered): We were never asked for the voices.
    Mr. Fernyhough(seated and covered): Further to that point of order. Can you assure us, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that the Division bell has rung, if the Division is actually in progress?
    Mr. VOSPER and Mr. HEATH were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.
    Mr. Edward Shackleton: On a point of order. We really are faced with a quite unprecedented situation. I am sure you acted because you believe you heard voices, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but may I ask, what particular voices did you hear? I have been sitting here, not taking part in the debate, and was listening most carefully and I assure you that we are faced with a situation which is unprecedented. What redress have hon. Members for a situation which strikes me, personally, as one which we

    1573
    on this side of the Committee find very difficult to accept?
    The Deputy-Chairman: There is none, for the Amendment is past. The only consolation is the consolation of philosophy.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: You explained, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that Tellers were put in for the Ayes, but not the Noes. If I recollect the procedure correctly, Tellers are not put in by either side until after an attempt is made to collect the voices if either side presses for a Division. I did not hear the customary phrase, "Clear the lobbies," nor, I respectfully submit, was there any of the normal procedure leading up to a Division; I did not, for example, hear either side put in Tellers.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think I used the phrase—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—at any rate, the position is decided. I call Mr. Crossman.
    Mr. Stewart: If you used the phrase, I think it is clear that it could not be heard by any hon. Members, nor by the servants of the House, whose business it is to act on hearing the phrase, and to signal that a Division is in progress.
    Mr. Wigg: I quite agree that, having given your decision, there is no redress open to us, but may I ask if, since we have several hours ahead of us, we can have an assurance that no such incident will occur again?
    The Deputy-Chairman: If there were less noise when one put the Question, hon. Members would hear.
    Mr. Shackleton: It was not the noise, but the lack of it which was remarkable. You spoke, Mr. Hopkin Morris, of the consolation of philosophy as our only comfort, but I do submit that there are other steps which could be taken.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Call the Speaker.
    Mr. Shackleton: Further, may I ask what is likely to appear in HANSARD with regard to the collection of voices?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot say about that.
    Mr. Shackleton: I hope you will consider the situation carefully, because there will be a report of what did take place; and from that I think it will be clear that no voices could be heard.
    Mr. Wigg: You said that the difficulty was because of noise in the Chamber, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I want to make it clear that I am not raising my point because of noise, but in relation to the fact that you did not say what you said you said.
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Swingler: May I put this point, with the utmost respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris? I should like your Ruling on it. Is it in order for Government Whips to engage the Chair in private conversation at a time when hon. Members are trying to raise points of order in order to get your Ruling on Procedure? It is within the recollection of hon. Members that the Government Chief Whip and other Whips engaged you in a private conversation while hon. Members were trying to get a Ruling from you on what was actually taking place. I should like a clear Ruling on that question.
    The Deputy-Chairman: When they were engaging me in conversation, they were putting in the Tellers.
    Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that you, Sir, quite properly no doubt, as it seemed to you at the time, refused to take certain points of order on the ground that a Division was then in progress. It now becomes evident that no Division was in progress. Is it not, therefore, a little unfortunate that you and the Committee were deprived of the opportunity of hearing those points of order which might have been of some help?
    The Deputy-Chairman: A Division was in progress. The Tellers had been accepted.
    Hon. Members: What about the bells?
    Mr. Strachey: This does seem to me to raise the question of the character of the voices which you, Sir, Mr. Hopkin Morris, admitted to have heard. Were they inner voices? After all, you told us that our only consolation is the consolation of philosophy. But it is rather a mystical brand of philosophy if these voices are purely inner voices. I think this is a point of some substance, because the appeal of one side of the Committee is perfectly clear, unanimously clear, that no such voices were raised. It does become a matter of some substance, if the

    1575
    record of the House is to be a true record of what happened, that no Division was challenged. With respect, we on this side of the Committee feel aggrieved that a record, which seems to us all to be a mistaken record of the events which took place, will go down on the records of the House.
    The Deputy-Chairman: If I made a mistake about the voices, I certainly thought I heard them in the noise that was going on. But that is another matter. I certainly thought voices were saying that no one had proceeded to a Division. The matter cannot be discussed any further now. Mr. Crossman.
    Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. As later on some of us will want to consider putting down a Motion regarding your competence to occupy the Chair, in view of what has happened, may I ask—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member can certainly put down a Motion, but he cannot discuss the merits of it.
    Mr. Wigg: I am not trying to discuss the matter. I am asking about one matter which can be decided here and now. Did the bells ring throughout the House? If they did not, there is substantial evidence that you did not say what you say you said.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Further to that point of order. If your recollection is correct, and you did use the phrase, "Clear the Lobbies" we have the situation where that phrase was used and was certainly not acted upon in the ordinary manner by the officials of the House. Would you at least direct that an inquiry be held into why your instructions on that occasion were not carried out?
    The Deputy-Chairman: This discussion should not now proceed any further. If hon. Members wish to put down a Motion challenging me, they are at perfect liberty to do so. But to continue this discussion is completely out of order.
    Mr. Wigg: Would you accept a Motion from me, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to report Progress so that we may send for Mr. Speaker to report to him what has happened? Clearly the rights of the Opposition are not safe in your hands.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Hon. Member must withdraw that remark.
    Mr. Wigg: Certainly, I will withdraw it. But I repeat my original request and ask if you will accept a Motion to report Progress so that we may send for Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "What for?"] In order to report to Mr. Speaker what has happened. I therefore beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Mr. Hale: May I call your attention, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to the fact that for several minutes I have not been able to hear what has been going on, partly because of the noise, and partly because you were not speaking as clearly as you do normally. I am very anxious to know what is going on, because I do not want to raise a point of order which has already been raised.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That has been the difficulty for some time past. But the Question now is, "That I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
    11.45 p.m.
    Mr. Hale: I wish to support the Motion which has very properly been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in view of the unfortunate circumstances which have transpired. No one wishes to criticise the Chair in any shape or form, and I have no intention of doing so, but it is, of course, a relevant matter in considering whether the Committee should at this stage decide to report Progress and ask leave to sit again in order to consider the things which have happened in the last 10 minutes or so. [Interruption.] I have been accused of being inaudible, but I have never before been accused of being unnoticeable. Not only have I been here for some considerable time, but I have tried to catch your eye, Mr. Hopkin Morris, on several occasions.
    I will recapitulate some of the matters which gave rise to this misunderstanding. I do so in no sense of criticism, but, because it is material to the Motion we are discussing, to decide whether we are so tired that we are beginning to err in our recollection of matters and whether it is worth while continuing the debate in this atmosphere.

    1577
    I was going to raise a point of order, but decided against doing so because I did not wish to add fuel to the fire. But then two things happened. The first was that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley who speaks with great authority on this matter—[Interruption]—this, again, is an indication of the temper of the Committee. All the military experts on the other side of the Committee have not opened their mouths, but they are now criticising my hon. Friend, who has devoted many years of study to this matter, a matter on which we on these benches have already regarded him as a very considerable authority.
    However, be that as it may, speaking with considerable authority, he put points of great importance to the Secretary of State for War, and no one will deny that up to now this debate has been conducted in a spirit of conciliation and that no attempt has been made from this side to exacerbate anybody, or, indeed, to say one irritating word.
    What happens? My hon. Friend asks a series of questions and is treated with contempt. No one suggests an answer. The Secretary of State remains recumbent and then rises and leaves the Chamber while this important question is being discussed. We are all tired and I myself am very tired. I personally would prefer to listen instead of talking, but so little is being said to help us from the other side—
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Sit down.
    The Deputy-Chairman: If hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will give the hon. Member an opportunity of being heard, then perhaps we can keep to the actual Motion before the Committee.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On a point of order. I distinctly heard the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) shout to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), "Resume your seat." Is that in order, Mr. Hopkin Morris? Is that not a trespass on your rights as Chairman of this Committee?
    Mr. Hale: Let us resume the debate. No one wants to worry about matters of that kind or to pursue them. Much as I admire my hon. and gallant Friend, I always prefer to be the protector of my own reputation.
    1578
    I suggest that, when unprecedented things happen, it is the hour of the day which is responsible and because people have been put under a considerable strain. We have to consider, now, the Motion under consideration, which, of course, is fully debatable. I hope I may say, too, that most of us are aware, however good-tempered we try to be about these discussions, however constructive we attempt to be, and, however we try to confine ourselves to the narrow path of debate and try to limit ourselves to making constructive speeches of elucidation, clarification, and so on, that no one will deny, as the hours go by and fatigue begins to weigh upon us, there is some lack of clarity and that the debate takes on rather a lower tone.
    It is within the recollection of the Committee that during two debates, which continued into the early hours, we were deprived of the services of two of our most valuable hon. Members because, at some time, a little lack of understanding and, perhaps, because of some obstinacy or determination to assert rights rather more fully—
    Mr. Driberg rose—
    Mr. Hale: Does my hon. Friend wish to interrupt? I am always grateful to him for his rhetorical style.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. I have been trying patiently to listen to what my hon. Friend is saying and I cannot hear a word because of the noise coming from the other side of the Committee. Can I ask you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to keep the other side of the Committee quiet?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I must say I myself cannot hear what is being said and I hope that hon. Members, on both sides of the Committee, will give an opportunity to any speaker of being heard.
    Mr. Lewis: Further to my point of order. I sat here patiently to try and hear what my hon. Friend was saying and I now ask you whether, with your permission, I could ask my hon. Friend to repeat what he was saying?
    Mr. Hale: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, but may I come to the main point on this issue?

    1579
    We have tried to make progress. It was, from many points of view, clearly unfortunate that there was a type of Motion on the Order Paper which interrupted our discussion earlier today and which necessarily involved some mutilation and lack of concentration. I see similar symptoms in the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
    I think I am right in saying that, earlier in the debate, it was said there were 107 Amendments upon the Order Paper, so far. It is fair to say that the Secretary of State for War did himself say that that was something like 593 amendments less than he expected. Something like 700 constructive Amendments could be put down upon this Bill.
    The right hon. Gentleman has intimated his intention to accept some Amendments, which will necessarily involve the Report stage, so that it is clear there will have to be prolonged discussion on another day.
    Therefore, Mr. Hopkin Morris, would this not be an appropriate moment to report Progress? Hon. Members are put in circumstances of singular difficulty during all-night Sittings, and we do not undertake them unless it is necessary to serve the interests of the House.
    If the Motion is accepted and Progress is reported, it will enable some of us to get home to our beds tonight, whereas if the debate is continued and Progress is reported in a couple of hours' time, when most means of public transport have ceased to be available, then we shall be put to an added and unnecessary difficulty which might well be avoided.
    I do not suggest that that is an important matter. I have said that I am willing to sit all week-end to discuss the Bill if necessary, because it is so important, but what is extremely important and is a material matter for the Committee to consider is whether we are now developing the sort of temperament which will make for a careful, patient, considerate, useful and constructive legislative approach to the Clause. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) indicating the assent of the Liberal Party to the proposition.
    Mr. J. Grimond: It indicated that I was awake.
    Mr. Hale: I am glad to have at least that qualified assent. The Committee ought to consider whether this is a sensible way of proceeding. No one can say that at any time during the afternoon there has been an attempt to prolong the debate unnecessarily. Think of the matters we have been discussing. There is the whole question of the definition of active service—perhaps the most vital thing we can discuss on the Clause, because it is a matter which will rule so many items of subsequent discussion. It rules the question of courts-martial, questions of pay, and so on.
    The Deputy-Chairman: This is a Motion to report Progress, not to discuss other parts of the Bill.
    Mr. Hale: I was not thinking of discussing them. I was saying that up to now we have made progress. We have dealt with the whole question of active service. If we report Progress, I apprehend we may well find—and I am giving my honest recollection of the matter—that the Committee has never given assent to the proposition that the discussion should be terminated at that point or that the Amendment should be negatived.
    That is an exceedingly important matter, and it is an additional reason why we should consider this Motion quite seriously. There is talk about shortage of Parliamentary time. That is too bad, coming from people who deliberately compelled us to go away in the midst of winter. I had no opportunity of going to the Riviera—
    Sir William Darling: Or Moscow.
    Mr. Hale: Or Moscow, or indeed to indulge in the lazy contemplation which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was enjoying, I think in Switzerland, during that delectable period when we were told the Government were planning the production of houses.
    Sir W. Darling: Did the hon. Gentleman not go to Tangier?
    Mr. Hale: The hon. Member is very wrong in his recollection, because he was good enough to pair with me the night I

    1581
    returned. The fact is that while Parliament was sitting I left the House on a Friday to go to Tangier and was back here on the Monday afternoon, and I suggest that that can hardly be regarded as a gross neglect of the public interest, particularly as I was going on political matters of the greatest possible importance.
    Let me recapitulate, if I may. This sort of thing cannot go on. We have fought against it, we have struggled against it. I have complained about it before, and it is true that there appears to be a lack of co-operation from the Government benches. At moments when a clear explanation might have terminated the discussion, we have had an obstinacy which inevitably arouses opposition. There should be more co-operation from the Government in view of the spirit in which we commenced the debate, and in which I think it may be said that we are continuing the discussion now.
    In those circumstances, I should like strongly to support the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. It is just on midnight; we are on the verge of a new day. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) is not in his place to misinterpret my words again; I said on the verge of a new day. I ask the Committee to say that they will now accept the Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    12 midnight.
    Mr. Crookshank: I have listened very attentively to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and I could not quite make out why he thought it was necessary to report Progress except that he was tired and wanted to go home. Well, let him go. Certainly we do not have to report Progress for that purpose. Indeed, I am very doubtful if we have made sufficient progress in this Bill to justify us reporting that we have made it.
    The only other reason I gathered from him, apart from an obscure allusion to Tangier, was quite beyond my knowledge. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's private affairs are, and I do not want to know them. Apart from that, the only other observation of any importance which I gathered was when he suddenly turned round and said he admired the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg).
    1582
    It is the fact that this is an important Bill and unfortunately the time within which it has to be enacted is short, if we are to have an Army. I dare say the hon. Gentleman does not want to have one. But most of the Committee have always considered that an Army is a necessary adjunct of our life, and indeed of our general position in the world.
    In support of the Motion, the hon. Gentleman said there were 107 Amendments down. I have not checked that, but it seems to me that if it is true that is all the more reason why we should proceed rather than go home because he is tired. Finally, in his impassioned peroration, he said that he had heard the clock strike midnight. So did I. If we are on the verge of a new day, as he said, I would remind him that it is no longer 1st April. Perhaps some of the levity which may have been associated in his mind with that important date will now pass away, and we can get on to the serious business of adequately discussing this Bill.
    I hope that the Committee will act with the dignity with which it normally deals with important Measures, will throw out this Motion, and consider some of the Amendments which the Opposition, in their wisdom, have thought worth while discussing. It is not all that late. It is only just after midnight, and I think we now had better proceed with our work. There is a lot in front of us, and let us do it with such brevity, dignity, and decorum as we can muster, and not accept the suggestion to report Progress. If the hon. Gentleman is tired and wants to go home he has, at any rate, my permission to do so.
    Mr. 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 proceeded to a Division—
    Mr. E. Fernyhough(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris. May I ask you whether, in your recollection, you have ever known a Motion to report Progress put after less time for discussion than on that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)?
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Swingler: Oh, yes it is.
    Mr. Driberg: The Chair is just a stooge for the Chief Whip.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That remark will certainly be withdrawn.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Driberg: If it was overheard, I withdraw it at once.
    Mr. Arthur Henderson(seated and covered): On a point of order. It is not the case that when a right hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench is actually on his feet, it is not the practice to move, "That the Question be now put," or to accept it?
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Strachey(seated and covered): On a point of order. Are we not on this Front Bench entitled to define our attitude at all to the question?
    Mr. VOSPER and Mr. HEATH were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.
    Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put accordingly, and negatived.
    Mr. Hale: May I, on a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris, respectfully seek your guidance. I do not want to put it in a controversial way or to stir up animosity. I ask you to tell the Committee whether, on thinking over the matter now in the light of what has happened and in your recollection—and certainly not within my limited recollection of seven years in the House—there has been any precedent for the acceptance of a Motion to close a discussion immediately on the conclusion of a speech made from the side of the Committee opposite from that from which the Motion was moved and without any reply being made from this side and while my right hon. Friend was on his feet.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order. Mr. Crossman.
    Mr. Driberg: On a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris. In the course of the recent Division you instructed me to withdraw a derogatory remark which apparently had been overheard. I wonder if I could have been heard to make that remark and whether I could have withdrawn it since I was not wearing a hat at the time? Surely points of order are only in order during a Division if the Member is seated and covered. That did not occur to me at the time, I say it quite frankly, otherwise I should not have felt myself in a position to withdraw the remark.
    Sir W. Darling: Further to that point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris. During the Division, from this somewhat remote perch I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) say, regarding your Ruling, "Disgraceful" and "Shameless".
    Hon. Members: "Shameful," not "shameless."
    The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Crossman.
    The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. CROSSMAN:
    In page 3, line 26, leave out from "property," to end of line 27.
    Mr. Crossman: It is now difficult to resume the debate on the substantial things we have been discussing because we have been deeply disturbed by the events of the last half-hour. The Amendment I rise to move concerns the last five words of Clause 3 of the Bill, but I must remind you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that in the interval between discussing the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend and my own Amendment, two things have taken place of a quite extraordinary character. First we have had a Division taking place without any voices being collected. Secondly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] The Chairman will decide order, not hon. Members.
    An Hon. Member: The hon. Member is the Chairman now.
    The Deputy-Chairman: May I appeal to the Committee to conduct the debate in such a way that hon. Members can be heard, and with a due sense of the dignity of the Committee itself?
    Mr. Crossman: I am sure, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that you will appreciate that I am

    1585
    explaining the reasons it is difficult to resume the debate on my Amendment with the same equanimity and good temper as we had half an hour ago. Then we had a Motion to report Progress, when the Leader of the Government side made a speech, and before even a spokesman of our Front Bench could make his point clear, the vote was taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] The Chair has to decide order, not hon. Members.
    The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot review those things now. If the hon. Member will move the Amendment standing in his name—
    Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris, surely it would be more decent, if hon. Members opposite want to raise points of order and do not want to get on their feet to do it, if they conveyed them to you privately.
    Mr. Crossman: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, to leave out from "property," to the end of line 27.
    I appreciate, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that you realise that I was expressing the reasons why I found it difficult to resume this debate in the same spirit of co-operation in dealing with the Army Act as before the unfortunate and unprecedented events of the last 45 minutes. Because of those, some of our confidence on this side of the Committee has been shattered, and the behaviour of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite has been part of the reason why our confidence has been shattered. But we had better resume the debate in the best spirit we can. Unfortunately, this pseudo-Division that took place—[Interruption.]
    12.15 a.m.
    Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. The hon. Members for Burton (Mr. Colegate) and Southgate (Mr. Baxter) and others are continually shouting "Order!" and making my hon. Friend's speech inaudible. Could we have a Ruling whether order is to be maintained by you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, or by the hon. Members opposite?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I will ask both sides of the House to preserve order. The question of order is for me, and I hope that the Committee on both sides will observe that. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he must not review the past.
    Mr. Crossman: I was not describing the past, but describing why it is difficult for this side to regain the co-operative spirit that had been manifested from 3.30 p.m. until a short time ago in discussing the Army Act. Before these unfortunate events we had been seriously discussing a matter of major importance with regard to the Army.
    Now we have had a very discordant period in which our confidence has been shattered, and we shall have to regain that confidence slowly, and in the course of the next 20 minutes we must try to struggle through and understand that, in spite of the majority, the rights of the minority may still be guaranteed. I am confident that they will be guaranteed in the future.
    May I turn to the Amendment? For Members who were not present I will now spend a few minutes explaining what had been going on previous to the incident.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: On a point of order. Would not the rule about tedious repetition be broken if the hon. Gentleman carried out his threat or promise?
    Mr. de Freitas: It is impossible to tell whether it is repetitive or tedious until it has been heard.
    Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) had the same thought as I. For the large majority of Members who have come in here to destroy the rights of the minority there is no possibility of tedium; they have not heard a word of it. Some of us, and I include the Secretary of State for War, have been trying to disentangle the nature of active service abroad, and it would be instructive for the Lobby fodder if I briefly touched on the nature of the previous Amendment, on which we had the pseudo-Division. This Amendment, which was moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) contained substantially one of the points I wish to discuss.
    The Amendment that stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends proposes that in Clause 3 we should delete the words, "or is in military occupation of a foreign country." I would not have had to say this if the obstreperous Lobby fodder which has poured in below the gangway…
    Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman said, "or is in military occupation of a foreign country." Does he intend to leave out "property", which I understood was included in his Amendment?
    Mr. Crossman: If the Secretary of State could read my Amendment he would observe it runs from the word "property". We are discussing this Amendment as it has been set down on the Order Paper and not as it has been improved by the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Head: I accept that.
    Mr. Crossman: At least, the minority must have the right to have their Amendments moved in the form in which they move them and not as an unwritten Amendment of the Secretary of State for War. Perhaps we could get back to the substance of what we were discussing. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not be pompous."] Pompous?
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: Sanctimonius.
    Mr. Crossman: If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want to listen to the debate, let them return to the Smoking Room, because before the unfortunate incidents which brought them here in search of sensation, we were having a serious discussion. [Interruption.] We cannot get on with the serious discussion, Mr. Hopkin Morris, unless they are prepared to take part in it or get out. May I ask you to maintain order on that side?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I have already asked—
    Mr. Fernyhough: Name them.
    The Deputy-Chairman: This disorderly conduct, from both sides of the Committee, is regrettable. I make an appeal to both sides to continue the Committee in order.
    Mr. Wigg: You appeal to both sides, Mr. Hopkin Morris. Surely, it is within your recollection that within the last minute the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), the hon. Member who sits behind him, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) and the brainless Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) have all interrupted with offensive remarks, and you did not interrupt them.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot hear everything that is said in the noise.
    Mr. Swingler: With the utmost respect, may I say that during the last hour or so a number of strictures have been addressed by you to this side, but none have been addressed to the other side?
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is not correct.
    Mr. Swingler: Oh, yes, it is.
    Hon. Members: Order.
    The Deputy-Chairman: There must be no reflections upon the Chair.
    Mr. Crossman: We have suffered under a good deal of provocation. If anti-democrats behave anti-democratically, it does not make it easy to run the House of Commons, and in the last hour we have had the parody of democracy in this place. A minority which has sought to have its voice heard has been overridden time after time by the opprobrious shouts of people who entered here knowing nothing about the discussion. I am attempting to return to the substance of my Amendment, and am constantly diverted by voices from below the Gangway on the other side. I ask for your protection, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to return to the substance of the Amendment.
    I hope that the Secretary of State, at least, will pay attention to the points we have to raise, because I know that he cares about this. We shall only be kept longer if hon. Members opposite cannot keep quiet for a few minutes. Let us go back to what we were discussing before the unfortunate incidents which upset our conclaves.
    The Secretary of State for War has already agreed that there are grave difficulties about the definition of the words "active service." What we on this side are concerned with in the Amendment is that the British soldier who is sent to Germany or Austria is, under the Clause, on active service. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that as long as there are included the words
    "or is in military occupation of a foreign country"
    and as long as we have not concluded a peace treaty with Germany or Austria and we are still in some difficulties with the Italian Government about Pola and

    1589
    Trieste, our troops in those three areas can be defined to be
    "in military occupation of a foreign country"
    and that, therefore, under the Clause they will be on active service.
    If we could get that clear from the Secretary of State to begin with, we could shorten the discussion. Can we get it quite clear that under the Clause any soldier serving in Germany or Austria will be regarded by the War Office as being on active service? Is that right?
    Mr. Head indicated assent.
    Mr. Crossman: I would point out that the learned Solicitor-General, long before the "Lobby party" entered the Chamber, had spoken, in his usual dramatic style, about the phrase "active service." It was, he said, a warning: a signal; that there was a time when things were becoming dangerous, and such was the time for "active service"—quote, quote. But now, we understand, nothing of the sort is the case. When there is no danger, when things are quiescent, the unfortunate soldier, from every point of view except that of punishment is at a home station while he is still on active service in Germany or Austria. The man from Korea is brought home, but "home" may mean being transferred within a week to Germany or Austria—and that not counting as active service abroad.
    So, we have a soldier brought home from active service—capital "A" and capital "S"—and then put on active service—quote, quote—from the point of view of being liable to being punished more severely than his fellows if he is moved out of England into Germany or Austria. What we are seeking is the removal of the words, and perhaps there would be more intelligent co-operation if the "Lobby fodder" would go out and get the thing we are talking about. I will read out the Government Clause:
    "'active service'. in relation to a person subject to military law, means service in or with a force which is engaged in operations against an enemy or is engaged in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life or property. …"
    Few will dispute that; but now come the crucial words, put in to make our men in Germany or Austria, on active service,
    "in military occupation of a foreign country."
    1590
    We suggest that the last eight or nine words should be deleted. In our view we should not, in future, regard the British soldier in Germany or Austria as on active service unless he is specifically stated to be so.
    Owing to the crypto nature of the Division, the position was not clear. There would have been no doubt about active service being something stated by the Government in accordance with the learned Solicitor-General's view as expressed in his remarks about the warning signal. But that has been taken out, and, unfortunately, this sensible Amendment has been squeezed out as a result of this regrettable collaboration between those who should not collaborate; and we are left with a negative Amendment which merely ensures that the soldier in Germany or Austria is liable, merely because he happens to be there, to a series of military punishments which he would not have if stationed nearer home in England. I think the hon. Member for Wood Green knows as well as I do—
    12.30 a.m.
    Mr. Beverley Baxter: On a point of order. Twice tonight I have been referred to as the hon. Member for Wood Green, and it will appear tomorrow in HANSARD. The hon. Member who represents Wood Green is a Socialist and it is not fair to him.
    Mr. Crossman: I appreciate that point—
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir L. Ropner): Order. The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) rose to a point of order which, I am afraid, I did not understand.
    Mr. Baxter: On a point of explanation. Is it right that an hon. Member should be referred to by another hon. Member by his wrong constituency, and therefore perhaps create a wrong impression in the records of the House which would not be fair to the hon. Member who represents the constituency mentioned?
    The Temporary Chairman: I would prefer to think that the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) made a mistake.
    Mr. Crossman: When I started to speak, the words "Daily Express" came

    1591
    into my brain. Then I thought of the words "Sunday Pictorial" and I thought it would not be fair. So I tried to address the hon. Member by his constituency, and I got it wrong. The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) knows perfectly well that to educate the illiterate one must repeat a statement over twice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I notice that it is sinking in.
    I notice that the crypto Division to which I have referred on four occasions in the last 20 minutes is now something which those on the other side of the Committee who staged it discreditably—who know in their own innermost hearts that they were dishonouring Parliament by their behaviour—now realise that if we repeat it often enough, if we can en-ensure outside this place that the events which took place a half-hour ago are well-known to the people of this country, it will not redound to the credit of the Government party.
    Mr. Baxter: Do not be such a silly ass.
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. I was not in the Chair, and I do not know what the hon. Member for Coventry, East, means by a crypto Division. But I can tell him that he is out of order in going back in the debate. He must devote his remarks to the Amendment before the Committee.
    Mr. Crossman: With respect, Sir Leonard, I was answering an intervention which you did not describe as out of order. Surely if the hon. Member intervenes I have the right—
    The Temporary Chairman: I heard no intervention which was out of order. Had I heard such an intervention I should have called attention to the fact.
    Mr. Crossman: With respect, the hon. Member for Southgate challenged me on my use of the words crypto Division. Surely that challenge allowed me to reply, since he went back in the debate.
    The Temporary Chairman: No. The hon. Member is out of order, and the hon. Member who interrupted was out of order.
    Mr. Crossman: With very great respect, it surely would have been preferable
    1592
    if a decision that two hon. Members were out of order had been taken when the Member supporting the Government was first out of order and not when the minority Member was out of order.
    I would like to resume the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I think hon. Members should learn something about what we were doing between 3.30 and the unfortunate incident to which I have referred. I can see that the Secretary of State for War has been deeply upset by the events of the last hour. I can quite appreciate that he, who really cares about the Army and who knows that the issues we are discussing are important, should be so insensed, indignant and impatient at the delays to legislation caused by the unfortunate incident which took place within the last 45 minutes.
    I would say to him that we did not get on very fast with the first Amendment. We put forward a perfectly reasonable Amendment and he gave no reason whatever for rejecting it, because, I suspect, the brief he got contained no reason for rejecting it. Therefore, what could he do?
    The Temporary Chairman: I seem to have some difficulty in making myself clear to the hon. Member. He is out of order in going backwards and is not in order in referring to a previous Amendment to the Bill. If he does not relate his remarks to the Amendment under discussion, I must ask him to resume his seat.
    Mr. Crossman: I would ask the Secretary of State to remember what happened between 3.30 and 7 p.m. and to remember that on this Amendment—since we have a substantial case—it would be unwise to say "No" without stating any reasons, or to move the Closure or to get a pseudo Division. All those things would be unwise because they would only prolong our discussion. I suggest that the Committee should come back to its collaborative attitude since, despite the intense hatred and indignation of those below the Gangway, everyone agrees that what we propose in this Amendment is the right thing to do.
    No one doubts that it is unjust to treat as on active service from the point of

    1593
    view of punishment and nothing else a British soldier in Germany or Austria, and that we should omit these words and thereby treat Germany as part of our home station.
    I wish to make one concluding observation on the Clause. Hon. Members opposite, at least when they were in opposition, were intoxicated by the notion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I would not withdraw that. I was using a metaphor. I say they were intoxicated by the notion of a united Europe. They have all told us that there is no real division, that the Channel no longer divides these islands from the Continent of Europe. We are all stratetgically united.
    If we are strategically united with France and Germany, is it not a little old-fashioned to regard a soldier stationed in Germany as being stationed in an overseas station because, in fact, he is doing the defence of the home country in as vital and profound a sense as if he were stationed in Kent or Sussex. Therefore, it is not only a question of the injustice to the individual, but a question that we should now understand that so long as we have Armed Forces they will be stationed in Western Europe, that the home station of our Army, for those who are concerned with preserving our agricultural production, will no longer be on Salisbury Plain as far as we can avoid it, but in German "Salisbury Plains" where German agricultural production is used for these destructive purposes. That seems to be one of the few advantages of winning the war.
    Since we are to have our troops permanently in Germany, and since Germany is to be the home station, why do not we regard it as a home station even from the point of view of the punishment? There is not a supporter of the argument who cannot believe that the European Defence Community, to use its high faluting name, should have its soldiers wherever necessary. They are necessary in Western Germany, and that is the home station of a large section of the British Army.
    I admit this is a big forward move by a minor Amendment by a few back benchers to the Secretary of State's proposal, but it only indicates the importance of the reform of that Act which we are now arguing because when we are living in 1952 an Act which was gradually
    1594
    drafted between 1650 and 1907 is a bit out of date. Foreign service becomes something quite different when we have a sphere of European unity by strategic necessity.
    Therefore, I suggest to the Secretary of State that not only from the point of view of justice to the soldier but, from the point of view of his own philosophy, and the preachings of the present Prime Minister—at least, when he was Leader of the Opposition at Strasbourg—he has changed a bit since—when he used to talk of a United Europe, from the point of view of strategic necessity, the further East our defence line can be pushed in Germany, the safer we are. We should regard British troops in Germany as in a home station and not on active service unless they are specifically declared to be on active service.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up the point before the discussion goes any further? He has indicated, in his Amendment, that the definition of active service is that troops, who are stationed in Germany and Austria, would, under its terms, be regarded as being on active service. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), has based his remarks on that assumption and has pleaded that the troops, who are in Germany, should be regarded as being on a home station.
    I always understood, although I may be wrong, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), also understood, that that was the case with regard to the Army troops in Germany. I understood it was the case, with the Air Force personnel in Germany, that they were regarded not as being on active service, but as being part of the Home Command. In other words, a soldier or an airman serving in Germany today, and, indeed, in Austria, is regarded as being on home service. Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up that point?
    Mr. Head: If it is of any use, I would be only too glad to do so. I am a little astonished by the right hon. Gentleman's statement and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), because during the whole of the last six years, these particular words, of which they complain, were in their Army and Air Force Acts, and the

    1595
    Army and Air Force were on active service in Germany throughout this time.
    Mr. Henderson: I am not suggesting the words, "on active service," were not in the existing Act. Of course they were.
    Mr. Head: What I meant was that in the old Act a man is on active service when he
    "is in military occupation of a foreign country."
    That was in the Act during the whole of that period, and, for that reason, the Air Force and Army in Germany were on active service.
    Mr. Henderson: I am not raising a point of law but of fact as to whether they were regarded by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and by my late Department, as being on active service. The point I am making is in contradistinction to the troops in Germany and Austria. The troops in the Middle East were continued on active service under Section 189 (2), because every three months I was required to authorise the continuation of that state of affairs. That seems to suggest that, in the one case, they were only regarded as being on active service as the result of operating Section 189 (2) and in Germany and Austria, Section 189 (2) was not required, nor were they regarded as being on active service.
    I merely suggest to the right hon. Gentleman—I am not trying to set a trap in any way—that, in his own drafting, he can get all he requires, if he accepts the Amendment my hon. Friend has put forward. I think he would agree that where troops are in occupation of a country, without any violence or active hostility being directed against them, there is no reason why they should be regarded as being on active service.
    The test should be that which he applies in the first part of his own Amendment—
    "means service in or with a force which is engaged in operations against an enemy"
    —that is obviously the case where a state of war exists—
    "or is engaged in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life or property."
    One can understand that, but what is difficult to understand is the suggestion
    1596
    —which apparently is not accepted in the Service Departments at present—that merely because you have a force in peaceful occupation of a foreign country, it should be regarded as being on active service, as apparently it is the view of the right hon. Gentleman that it should be under his Amendment.
    While one has to be very careful not to draw a subsection like this too narrowly, it seems to me that if the right hon. Gentleman were to accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend his own proposals would still be effective.
    12.45 a.m.
    Mr. Head: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to clear up this point and I shall be glad to do so. He was careful to say that he was laying no traps but, if he is not in one himself, he is not altogether on the straight and narrow path here. He referred to the fact that he continued the "deemed" definition as regards Egypt every three months. That was under 189 (2). But that is different from the subject we are now discussing; it has no relation to it. That is one way of being on active service, but another way, which is what we are now talking about, is under the definition. The whole time the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend were in office—and they do not seem to have been aware of the fact—our troops in Austria, for instance, were on active service.
    Mr. Driberg: The right hon. Gentleman said that before, and I have looked up the Section to which he referred. What he is saying is quite true, but is not the phrase about military occupation covered by a phrase which is a little difficult to understand and which is not in the new definition—"if not inconsistent with the context"? I do not know what that phrase means, and possibly the right hon. Gentleman can explain, but does it not widen the issue and give some kind of loophole—if the right hon. Gentleman knows what I mean?
    Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman somewhat compressed his remarks, but in fact the phrase "not inconsistent with the context "does not affect the issue. They were classed as
    "in military occupation of a foreign country."

    1597
    That was a clear definition. For the last six years these troops have been under active service.
    Mr. Paget: The phrase
    "in military occupation of a foreign country"
    is defined in The Hague regulations and it is a state of affairs in international law which can exist only in war-time. Recently the state of war between this country and Germany was terminated. Does not that terminate the military occupation as far as the term is concerned? If not, then the military occupation of a foreign country in the Act has a different meaning from that in international law and in The Hague Convention.
    Mr. Swingler: The longer this discussion goes on the more confused we are becoming, and it is a pity that somewhat previously the gag was imposed and had the effect of preventing the Secretary of State from making his reply about the general position of our Forces. We are now getting the facts in bits and pieces, and if he could now make a statement about our Forces generally we would be able to discuss the question of active service generally, and not merely the position in Germany and Austria.
    We should like to know the position east of Suez, and how many of our Forces are on active service. If what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said is correct, it is quite obvious that this piece is superfluous because it is covered by the previous part of the definition relating to the protection of life and property in a foreign country. Obviously, if the phrase "in military occupation of a foreign country" only applies in time of war it is not required at all in the definition of active service because all the other conditions are likely to be fulfilled.
    I think the right hon. Gentleman agrees that this is a very serious question from the point of view of discipline, punishment, the code of conduct, and so on. The Committee ought to be in possession of all the facts of what this re-definition of active service does mean. We would like to know just what is the whole position of our Forces, and which are on active service and which are not, in all parts of the world.
    Mr. M. Stewart: We are all indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his inter-
    1598
    vention so far in the debate on this Amendment, which has helped us to understand the situation a little further. But I trust that it will not be his last contribution to the debate on this Amendment. We have had a valuable point from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), which deserves an answer, and now we have had an important contribution from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) which, possibly, throws quite a different light on the words "military occupation."
    Let us take the situation since the end of the German war. The right hon. Gentleman has quite rightly pointed out that the law at that time, and from that time was that these men were on active service. I think he will agree, and so will the Committee, that immediately after the defeat of Germany it was sensible and desirable that the men stationed there should be on active service. But what we have to consider now is whether it is desirable several years after the end of hostilities at a time when we are entering into quite a different relationship with Germany, that men in that country should be considered to be on active service.
    This question I would particularly address to the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, would he, on the best legal advice he can get, agree with my hon. Friend that the term "military occupation" can only have meaning in time of war? If he agrees on that point then, of course, the men in Germany cannot now, or in the future, be on active service. Does he consider it desirable that the men in Germany should be on active service at the present time? If he does consider it desirable, I trust that he will tell the Committee the reasons why he thinks that that is desirable now, five or six years after the war has ended.
    Further, if he thinks it desirable that they should be on active service, he must then, surely, address his mind to my hon. and learned Friend's point that, possibly, if my hon. and learned Friend's interpretation is true, they would not be on active service, even if the Clause goes through in the form which the hon. Gentleman is recommending to the Committee. But if the Secretary of State for War takes the view that my hon. and learned Friend is wrong, and that the words "military

    1599
    occupation" do not mean in the Army Act what my hon. and learned Friend suggests that they mean, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what, in his opinion, they do mean?
    Earlier tonight the Secretary of State for War gave us his opinion of the meaning of the words "engaged in operations"—to which I refer not with any desire to go back to that earlier debate, but merely by way of illustration. He defended his opinion by an appeal to common sense and to ordinary usage among military persons. But, of course, what matters in the end, when we are discussing the definition of active service, is what interpretation a court will put on these words.
    If a man is subject to a court-martial, what the court-martial has to decide is, whether the man, at the time of committing the offence, was on active service or not. That court-martial will have to address its mind to the legal meaning of this term. As a result of an Act passed in the last Parliament—and a very valuable Act—the matter may be taken beyond the court-martial by an appeal to an appeal court, and, if my memory serves me correctly, in certain circumstances, the question of the meaning of these words may be argued in the House of Lords.
    It is not sufficient, therefore, I say with respect to the Secretary of State for War, for him to give us merely his opinion of what the words "military occupation" mean; it is not sufficient even to reinforce that by appeals to common sense, the ordinary use of language among soldiers, or to other like arguments that may appeal to most Members of the Committee: we shall want a genuine legal opinion on this point. I would suggest it would be useful to have the Solicitor-General here—if I were encouraged to suppose from previous experience that he would add to our comprehension of the legalities of the matter.
    There is a further point that must be considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, pointed out, rightly, that we are entering now into military arrangements with foreign Powers of a kind, I think, not previously known in our history; and that will raise, often in an acute form, the meaning of the
    1600
    words "military occupation." Once again, if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton is correct in his assumption that they have the meaning only in time of war, our whole discussion on this matter is nugatory.
    I will proceed for the moment on the assumption that my hon. and learned Friend made a mistake. I make it purely as an assumption so that the Committee may proceed for a few minutes. If he is mistaken, and "military occupation" has the meaning in time of peace, can it apply to the arrangements made between Powers which are friendly disposed towards one another but who send their troops to be quartered in one another's territories?
    Mr. Paget: What I said was that
    "in military occupation of a foreign country"
    has been defined under international law and under The Hague Convention, and has a definite meaning there. It creates definite rights and liabilities under international law. Military occupation can exist only in that meaning—while there is a state of war. One can be in military occupation of an enemy only during war. When the war stops, military occupation ceases.
    1.0 a.m.
    Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. As I understand it, then, the point is this. It may be that the words "military occupation" here mean what they mean by The Hague definition. I am inclined to think that they do not; otherwise, the whole of our discussion would have been pointless. Let us assume, therefore, that they do not.
    The point I am now putting, partly to the Secretary of State for War and partly to the Solicitor-General is this: we are entering into an epoch in which there will be an increasing number of arrangements made between Powers, well-disposed to one another, to quarter their troops in the territory of each other. I believe I am right in supposing that where that is done as the result of a formal treaty or agreement, such as exists between this country and Egypt, then we should not refer to troops put into a foreign country on that account as being in military occupation of that country.
    But what is the position where the troops of one country are stationed in the

    1601
    territory of another not as the result of any formal treaty, but simply by mutual understanding between those countries? It might be that it would be held by legal authority that such troops would be considered to be in military occupation. At any rate, I am quite certain that we ought not to proceed to pass the Clause in this form, when such agreements will become increasingly common. In view of that, we ought not to continue in the Army Act these words "in military occupation" until we have had it established beyond doubt that this will not put men into unreasonable jeopardy as a result of agreements entered into for the common defence of Europe.
    That is why I think the Committee is greatly indebted to those of my hon. Friends who have raised this point, which will become of increasing importance to us as the relations between ourselves and the other partners to the Atlantic Treaty develop.
    Mr. Strachey: A substantial point emerges here. As I understand this position, the right hon. Gentleman both declares and desires that the new definition of active service should mean that in the future, as in the past, our troops in Germany, Austria and Trieste and Western Europe should be on active service—
    Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman mentions Western Europe. I do not know whether he is referring to, say, France. We should not be on active service there. I thought I had made it plain. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have realised that it does not apply to troops stationed in France.
    Mr. Crossman: Or Trieste?
    Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman mentions Trieste. Again, that is a different point because our troops are there not by virtue of this definition which we are discussing, but under the "deemed" definition—the Section 189 (2) definition.
    Mr. Strachey: That is interesting and it makes my point. The Minister recoils in horror at the suggestion that our troops stationed in France should be on active service under this definition, because they would not he in occupation of a foreign country. Our whole point is that we are rapidly approaching a point where that would be true of Germany
    1602
    also, and it would be quite inappropriate to have our troops in military occupation of a foreign country in those circumstances, or on active service in Germany.
    Mr. Head: In the event of a contractual agreement or treaty being concluded with Germany, that would cease.
    Mr. Strachey: This Clause says:
    "is in military occupation of a foreign country."
    It might have ceased, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) suggested, when the state of war between this country and Germany ceased. It seems not at all clear and it seems, at any rate hazardous, to leave this Clause as it is.
    It may or may not apply as our relationship with Germany, for example, changes. After all, the right hon. Gentleman does not know and cannot now know what our new relationship with Germany will be and whether or not it will change the meaning of this Act, so that our troops are no longer in military occupation.
    I asked the same question about Austria and Trieste. To leave unchanged from the old Act this definition—that, mandatorily, any troops could be held by the courts to be in military occupation—is quite inappropriate to the changed relations that we are having with these countries, such as Austria, Germany and Trieste, where our troops have been in occupation and will still stay there in a new relationship.
    The Secretary of State should look into this and, on the Report stage, assure us if he can—I doubt it—that if we leave these words in there is no danger of having to regard these troops in those countries as permanently on active service. If he cannot give us that assurance, he should alter the words to fit the new circumstances. We certainly shall not want to have these troops automatically on active service when they are for long periods in those stations. That is the substantial point. I think it would satisfy us if we could have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman of the character I have suggested.
    Mr. Irvine: At this stage the Committee would be greatly assisted by the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General. There is

    1603
    doubt about the meaning of "military occupation", and the definition goes to the root of the controversy. I share the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that a country cannot be in military occupation of another country with which it is at peace. But my hon. and learned Friend suggested that that view of the definition was confined to The Hague Convention and matters of that kind. It would be of interest to the Committee if the Solicitor-General could tell us whether there is any authority in English law on the point and the effect of these words.
    I do not know whether the cessation of the emergency has any effect upon the matter. After all, we have had a Statutory Rule and Order in 1946 bringing to an end the state of emergency. Inside the country, that has had very considerable effects in bringing to an end all kinds of legislative provisions which were effective only during the emergency. I do not think it is likely, but it is conceivable, that the declaration of the cessation of a state of emergency might alter the status of British troops in Germany. I doubt whether that is so. I should have thought that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton was right, and that their status will be altered only when a treaty of peace is concluded.
    Mr. Paget: It is clearly in my recollection that within the last year there has been some form of either declaration, Order or Royal Warrant bringing to an end the state of war between Britain and Germany.
    Mr. Hale: Perhaps I can assist my hon. and learned Friend. What he has in mind, I think, is that there are certain Statutory Rules and Orders which fix the determination of the emergency as the date upon which certain things could happen and about which there could be matters of litigation. Certain Statutory Rules and Orders have been made bringing to an end the state of emergency without, of course, affecting our general relations.
    Mr. Paget: What I have in mind is that a German can now sue in the British courts and is no longer an enemy and precluded from doing so.
    Mr. Hale: That is correct.
    Mr. Paget: That has been brought about because the state of war has been brought to an end, as I understand it.
    Mr. Irvine: If I may resume my speech, undoubtedly there was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said, a Statutory Rule and Order in 1946—No. 893—which put an end to the state of emergency, but I cannot believe that it has had any effect whatsoever on the status of our Forces in Germany or in bringing to an end the condition of military occupation.
    What is open to doubt, after all this discussion, is whether that status is brought to an end even by the conclusion of peace, and upon the answer to that question depends the correctness or otherwise of the arguments brought forward earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), who interpreted the Section as it exists as being all-inclusive and without any exception. Whether he is right or whether my contrary view is correct, there is a hiatus and if a peace settlement with Germany is arrived at and no hostilities with any other power have commenced and British Forces are in occupation, it may be that British Forces in Germany are not in military occupation. In these matters the Committee deserves, as it desires, the advice of the Solicitor-General.
    Mr. Head: Before my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General gives the definition of military occupation, I undertook to give—I could not do so last time because of the Closure—the areas as they stand at present, that is to say, under normal conditions—not under military occupation—they are Cyprus, Gibraltar, Malta, Hong Kong, Aden, Jamaica and Bermuda. Under military occupation, therefore—under active service—are Austria, Germany, Malaya, Korea, Trieste and the Canal Zone.
    Mr. Driberg: Those are under military occupation?
    Mr. Head: Trieste is under Section 189 (2) and Germany and Austria are under the definition in Section 189 (1). I should not like to commit myself on Malaya, but I think it is de facto; and the Canal Zone is the same.
    1.15 a.m.
    Mr. Driberg: May I ask if this applies to foreign countries occupied by the Forces of our Allies? I refer, particularly, to Japan. Obviously, a soldier in Korea is on active service, but if he goes to Japan on duty, or, as I believe is usual, on leave, he is in a country recently occupied by the Americans? Is he covered? Then, what about the rarer case, where the soldier might go to one of the other zones of Germany occupied by our Allies?
    The Solicitor-General: I think I can answer the question about interpretation. The phrase "military occupation of a why, foreign country" is of great antiquity, and does not require any additional defence. Where troops are in a foreign country under a treaty or other agreement no one could say that they were in "military occupation"; and the presence of such troops would not automatically operate to put them on "active service." When there is military occupation, it means that, to a considerable extent, the military authorities have taken over control, and then one gets automatic 'active service" at that time.
    The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that there could only be military occupation in time of war; but is that stating the situation accurately? One many have it for some time after a state of war has been terminated. I recall that on 9th July, 1951, the then Foreign secretary informed the House of Commons that the state of war with Germany had been terminated but went on to say that the right of occupation continued; and it may well be that this operated to make the British troops there automatically on active service. But, if hon. Members would distinguish between the presence of troops in a foreign country, and the military occupation of that country, they would agree that there is no need to vary words which are already well understood.
    Mr. Crossman: I must protest at this reply. The Solicitor-General has not answered our points at all. He tells the Committee that there need be no varying of the words at all, and although we now have German Government in Germany with which we have ceased to have a state of war I suggest that occupation costs of £160 million a year seem to
    1606
    imply occupation. We have ended the state of war, but why should there be a different type of punishment administered to a British soldier who happens to be in Western Germany, instead of Luxembourg, Belgium, or France? From the point of view of active service there is no difference between being quartered in Bonn, Paderborn, Brussels, Luxembourg, or Liege.
    I suggest that it is frivolous for it to be said that the point raised from this side is not understood; it is not a legalistic point, but simply a question of why the British soldier is treated differently; why in Germany, he has all the disadvantages of a home posting, without the advantages accorded his colleague who is stationed in Britain, and is subject to different treatment so far as punishment is concerned if he happens to be in Germany or Austria. I suggest that the Committee must get an answer from the Government as to how they justify the situation in which they themselves admit that a state of war with Germany has ended, and we are only technically occupying the country in order to get the occupation costs, and a solider may have quite different sentence imposed on him because he is on active service in Germany whereas, in Belgium, he is not on active service.
    We must demand an answer to that point, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question my proposal to leave out those words is one which the Government should accept. The Minister himself admits that the only two countries to which these words apply any Germany and Austria. They do not apply to Trieste, which comes under clause 2. The only two countries to which these words apply are, therefore, countries in which "active service" has no meaning at all unless it has a meaning in the adjacent countries of Belgium and Luxembourg, France and Holland. It is no use saying at the end of a long debate that we need not change anything.
    Mr. Driberg: Would the solicitor-General answer the specific question I put to him about Japan, whether British soldiers on leave or on duty in Japan are covered by this definition?
    Mr. Crossman: The Secretary of State for War has gone now.
    The Solicitor-General: He has gone for the moment, but I do not think that the hon. Member has any reason to complain about a purely temporary absence.
    Mr. Crossman: Not so long as he answers the question.
    The Solicitor-General: May I say to the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) that the question I rose to answer was the question which I understood had been put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of his speech. The phrase,
    "military occupation of a foreign country,"
    may be applied to a wide variety of countries in different parts of the world at different times. He is seeking to apply it solely to Germany in relation to Belgium. There may be that variation, but there is a great deal of difference between where troops are resident in a country by agreement and where they are in occupation of a foreign country.
    The hon. Member for Coventry, East, said, inaccurately, that it meant that a soldier on active service would receive higher punishment—
    Mr. Crossman: Different punishment.
    The Solicitor-General: Greater punishment—
    Mr. Crossman: Different.
    The Solicitor-General: Well, different punishment if he was not on active serve. I would correct him to this extent. The maximum punishment is increased very often on active service, but it does not follow that a sentence would be imposed on a soldier in Belgium which was different from that imposed on a soldier in Germany if they both committed precisely the same offence in the same circumstances.
    Mr. Crossman: With respect, it does not follow. But under this Clause he is liable to it. What I am asking, and the Solicitor-General has still not answered my question, is why we should make a soldier in Paderborn liable to different punishment than a soldier in Belgium by the definition of the words "active service" or "military occupation."
    I do not know whether the Solicitor-General listened to the definition of the
    1608
    Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the only two countries in the world to which these words "military occupation" exclusively referred were Germany and Austria. He admitted that the Suez Canal Zone came under Section 189 (2). He admitted that only with regard to Germany and Austria could one talk of "military occupation" as a sub-specie of the genus "active service," whereas the others were either de facto or for reasons of defending property only in these two countries. Therefore, what we are saying is why not delete these words about military occupation since all they mean is that a British soldier in Austria and Germany may be liable to different punishment from that of a colleague of his in other parts of Western Europe. To this we have received no answer whatever.
    Mr. Driberg: Could I ask, for the third time, whether the Solicitor-General would be good enough to answer my point which I think he was about to answer when my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), butted in again, with all respect to him? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say, quite straightforwardly, whether this definition covers the British soldier, who is obviously on active service when in Korea, when he goes to Japan on leave or duty which is an American occupied territory?
    Mr. Bing: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will not answer that one, perhaps he could answer a point of mine when he deals with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). The Solicitor-General said it did not really matter very much so far as punishment went whether a man was on active service or not. This is a most important point, and it is, therefore, important that the Committee should be clear about it.
    Let me take an example. If under Section 6 (1) someone treacherously gives a watchword or counter-sign different from that which he receives, he is liable, if on active service, to suffer the death sentence. If not on active service the most he can get is two years' imprisonment. I am not saying whether that offence should be punished in that way or not but if it is it really is of importance that we should decide what is active service and what is not. So far as I have been able to follow the discussion,

    1609
    it seems to me that the Committee is not very clear as to what the point is.
    Of course, the words
    "or any military occupation of a foreign country"
    come from the old definition, but they are affected, and very largely affected, by the inclusion of the words which go before them:
    "or is engaged in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life and property."
    Quite clearly, the man who is in a different class—who is in military occupation of a foreign country—is the man who is there in some capacity other than for protecting life and property. Therefore, we have a second class of person who is not there to protect life or property, but yet is there in military occupation.
    If the situation is such that he does not require to be there to protect either life or property, but should suffer the death penalty because he gives a password which is different from the one he received seems to me to be a thing which the Committee ought at least to consider, and I would, with great respect, suggest to the Solicitor-General that he has not quite seen the point at which we on this side have been hammering away.
    To take an example. The American articles of war approach the matter in a different way. They describe their crimes in relation to whether a state of war exists or not. Our difficulty is that we are continually expanding this idea of active service, and it has no relation to active service as it originally existed in the old articles of war. Then we regarded active service as a condition when a man was in the face of the enemy. Now that we have extended it to such a degree, and quite understandably so, a crime like desertion can take place anywhere and its seriousness is not affected by where the man is but what are the conditions when he deserts.
    It is just as bad to desert here if one is being sent to a war as in Korea. To cover that sort of thing, we are expending all the time this conception of active service. Before we allow this to go on any further we ought to look at it again.
    1.30 a.m.
    I am glad to see the Secretary of State for War back in his place. I will not weary the Committee by repeating what I have said, but, if I may put it like
    1610
    this to the Secretary of State, I would say there is a grave danger in expanding continually this idea of active service. In the case we are dealing with, there is now a new category of active service, which consists of somebody, who is not either protecting life or property, but is, somehow or other, in military occupation of a foreign country.
    It is said that military occupation of a foreign country must arise out of a state of war, or the conclusion of a state of war, and that it cannot arise by means of contract. I think that we are on difficult and complicated grounds of international law, into which I hesitate to plunge. Quite clearly, after the 1914–18 war, we were in military occupation of the Rhineland. How were we there? By virtue of a contract. We were there by virtue of a treaty, a treaty of peace between the defeated country and the successful—the victors.
    We very often can be in military occupation by virtue of a treaty. From what has been said, does this new military occupation arise as an occupation as a result of a treaty, or does it merely exist as a military occupation, which is a one-sided act of one military personage. I hope that we can get some enlightenment on this, and that the Government will not just move the Closure in the middle of the discussion, because it only projects the discussion on to the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill. If we get this clear here, we shall be able to deal with it much more quickly. There may be every good reason for doing it.
    The Committee ought to be careful how they extend matters involving the death sentence. That is what the Committee are doing tonight. They are seeking to pass a Clause which makes liable to the death penalty people who had not previously been liable to it. Before we pass that we ought to think about it and make certain that we understand the meaning of the words by which we are doing it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may understand the meaning of the words, but they have not been able to make them clear to me.
    I am glad to see the Leader of the House back in his place. He said that we had to get this Bill through quickly. Had he been in his place earlier, when we took a great deal of time trying to

    1611
    clear up a difficult question, we need not, perhaps, have to clear these things so quickly, but, if I go back on this matter, I shall be out of order. In these circumstances, the most we can do is to press the point so that it is clear to those concerned that they know under what conditions they may be liable to the death penalty for some act, which, if committed somewhere else, would merely involve a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.
    When we are conscripting people into the Army and exposing them to this sort of thing, they are entitled to some degree of certainty. If we re-publish the Army Act, we ought to clear up this matter. What are foreign countries where troops are neither for the protection of property nor life, and yet in which they are in military occupation? Why should it be said that a man who gives the wrong password on one side of the Belgian frontier is liable to two years' imprisonment, but is liable to the death sentence if he gives the wrong password on the other side?
    By what logical basis can one approach that? We have to try to make the Act logical, but this makes it even more illogical. The one thing that ought to be cleared is the difference between active service and other types of service. That is always the difference which is drawn throughout in the offences under the Acts. Unless we can get this matter clear, we do not know which offences are major and which are minor. If we do not get that clear, the only thing the Committee can do is to press to remove those offences. While it is reasonable to say this is the sort of offence to be punished in normal times by two years' imprisonment, it is another thing to say we do not know what active service is or when this very penalty might bring down on someone a sentence of death.
    If the Solicitor-General says, "That is all right because no one will think of imposing sentences in that way," then why not repeal the provisions? We cannot have provisions to sentence people to death for these offences committed when they are on active service and then say, "We have no intention of doing that—and yet take no steps to repeal the provisions.
    This is why the debate has arisen. On the one hand, there is the continual exten-
    1612
    sion of the definition of "enemy" and, on the other hand, there is the continual extension of the definition of "active service," which makes it necessary to look very carefully at the provisions of the Act. If we could get clear what is "active service" the debate might be considerably shortened. If not we must look very carefully at the Clause.
    I appeal to the Patronage Secretary to allow the Solicitor-General to speak a few words—or one of the hon. Members behind him, who has been let into the secret of this meaning. I hope that the Solicitor-General or the Secretary of State will clear up what this means. I understood the Secretary of State to say that Hong Kong is home service and is not active service. How can it be said that a man who gives away the password in Hong Kong in present circumstances can be sentenced only to two years' imprisonment, while a man who gives it away in Germany can be sentenced to death? It is not logical, and we are entitled at least to some explanation of it. We keep on making this point, if I may say so—
    The Chairman: I am glad the hon. and learned Member has said so, because I am getting tired of it.
    Mr. Bing: I appreciate that you are getting tired of hearing it, Sir Charles, but, with respect, so are we. We are repeating it in the hope of getting an answer, and in that hope I leave the matter.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reply to my right hon. Friend's suggestion? It is a practical point. We hope that the negotiations which are taking place with the Bonn Government will result in a contractual agreement being reached between that Government, on the one hand, and the British, French and American Governments, on the other hand. In that event a different situation will arise. Technically, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, military occupation will still continue for the fixed number of years, but surely the position will be radically and fundamentally altered from the point of view of the question of active service?
    My right hon. Friend suggested that the Secretary of State should look carefully at the words "military occupation of a foreign country" in the light of the

    1613
    situation which may well arise in Germany, apart from Austria, in the event of agreement being reached between the Bonn Government and the three Allied Governments.
    Mr. Head: The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) said he was concerned about the position of troops overseas and about which form of service they were on—active service or normal overseas service. He suggested that they would not know under which they were serving and the severity of the punishment which they might incur. That information, of course, is published; it is a standing instruction that it is published in all orders, and I can assure him at the outset that there is no fear whatever that the troops concerned do not know under which code they are placed.
    He went on to refer to the question of military occupation, and how, on the one hand, they are on active service, and he gave the instance of Germany. It is perfectly clear, and I would have thought that this was apparent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, when he was Secretary of State for Air, that in the event of a contractural agreement the status of military occupation will cease and the troops in Germany will be serving under perfectly normal conditions. The sooner that happens the better I shall be pleased.
    The same applies to Austria. If a treaty is negotiated then at once our troops will revert to normal status. Japan has two types of troops in it at the moment. The first are those on leave from Korea. They retain their legal status of being on active service. That has always been the case when troops are on leave from active service.
    The others are the static troops permanently stationed in Japan, and they are also on active service because, although a treaty has been negotiated, so far we have not reached a state of agreement whereby they cease to be in that particular status. Military occupation of countries could not possibly occur in other European countries, as some hon. Gentlemen fear, where, because of agreements, we stationed troops in them. We could not have troops in France, Scandinavia, or Belgium which could possibly be construed as being in military occupation.
    1614
    One may argue the rights or wrongs of troops being under active service in the period from the end of a war until a treaty is negotiated, but that has always been the procedure. Until a treaty is negotiated we are responsible for the government of a country. There may be considerable uprisings, difficulties, and disturbances, and we have the responsibility of dealing with them. The powers of the Government in Bonn are at present strictly limited, and until they are fully recovered in a contractural agreement we have a definite responsibility for security.
    I do not believe that there is any misunderstanding of what military occupation is. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has his Hague Convention, but it has always been interpreted as a continuation of occupation, subsequent to a war, by forces until a treaty is negotiated and sovereignty is returned. That is what we are doing. The sooner we get treaties negotiated and get back to normal the better I will be pleased, because no one wants to continue a system longer than is needed.
    Mr. Strachey: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with Trieste?
    Mr. Head: The situation in Trieste is somewhat different. It would not be entirely easy to state exactly to whom Trieste belongs. I think that, very wisely, the Government decided not to put the troops in under military occupation. In fact, I think it would be wrong to do so, but there is a considerable state of tension in the territory, and the position is that the troops are deemed to be on active service.
    1.45 a.m.
    Mr. Crossman: May I ask one more question? We all hope that a treaty will be signed with Germany and Austria. While it is quite possible that we shall sign a treaty with Western Germany soon, we may not sign a treaty with Austria for years. Does that mean that we must expect that for years to come our troops in Austria will be subject to a quite different disciplinary code from that of the troops in the rest of Europe? I cannot see why we should do this. We can say there is a certain de facto situation.
    Take the Canal Zone. It was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman him-

    1615
    self that the troops in the Canal Zone for long periods were not on active service. Is not that right? Right. Then came the point where danger arose and we said they were on active service. Is that right? Right. What I am asking is why we cannot deal with the troops in Western Germany and Austria in the same way, and keep them normally not on active service, and do the same as we did in the Canal Zone.
    The Secretary of State has not answered my point, that in every other particular they are treated with the disadvantages of home troops. It is a home posting, and men can be brought from Korea to England, and then sent straight away to Germany, as though they were at home at first.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchinson): The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that they should be taken out of the military occupation category, and that de facto powers should be used to reinstate them? He does not get rid of his difficulty.
    Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman has not yet grasped the simplicity of what we are proposing. What we are proposing is that we could treat Western Germany in the same way as the Canal Zone, where, for long periods, the soldiers were not on active service but were put on active service only when a crisis blew up—when, in the unforgettable words of the Solicitor-General, the "warning signal was sounded." Then active service was announced. Why cannot we give the men in Germany and the men in Austria the same rights that we give the men in the Suez area, and put them on active service only when active service is necessary? There has been no answer to that question at all.
    Mr. Head: I can give a brief answer to that.
    Mr. Crossman: We have not had it, though we have waited an hour and a half.
    Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman is not altogether correct in saying that. All the time hon. Gentlemen have been rising to speak. I waited till they finished to do my best to answer. Had I intervened earlier hon. Gentlemen would have asked, "Why do you curtail the debate?"
    Mr. Crossman: I withdraw my remark.
    Mr. Head: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
    In Germany we may still have a state of affairs—I am not saying that it has arisen—in which, if I may use the expression, there are no bangs going off, but there is considerable tension. De facto means prospective bangs—what may happen in a moment of ominous quiet. When we go into occupation of a country after a war we find that difficult situation. Hitherto, we have always terminated that state of affairs with a treaty. That possibility, to some extent, has been vitiated in the present case by the present political situation in Soviet Russia. I think and hope that in Germany we may soon have a settlement. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in Austria that possibility is more remote. Then it is within our powers to make a special situation and to deem that the troops are not on active service.
    Mr. Crossman: Good.
    Mr. Head: But de facto does not cover the situation in which no bangs are going off. I hope I have given an adequate explanation. I could discuss this legal point with the hon. Gentleman behind the Chair, but I do suggest that we have had a long time on this Clause, and that if we could pass it now it would be a good thing.
    Mr. Paget: I want to ask a question. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could deem them not in Austria. Where does he get the power to deem them unless we pass a statute?
    Mr. Head: I cannot believe that it is beyond our powers somehow to institute a state of affairs, supposing there was no Austrian treaty for 20 years and we were in the most friendly relations with Austria. I am only suggesting that some means could be found.
    Mr. Paget: Could we act on it?
    Mr. Head: We might come to the House for it. But I think all hon. Gentlemen will agree that to have been at war with a country, to finish that war and to fail to negotiate a treaty for 20 years is a state of affairs which has never happened before and, I hope, will never happen again.
    Mr. Crossman: One other question—
    The Chairman: We have been a long time on this.
    Mr. Crossman: I am sorry, Sir Charles, but we are concerned with an important matter of the position of British troops. We are getting a little way ahead.
    We are now told that because, in the case of Germany, the Secretary of State anticipates the end of military occupation, he will leave the words in the Bill, but because, in the case of Austria, he does not anticipate that happening, he will also leave them in the Bill. That does not make any sense. We are told that in the case of Germany, if we are lucky we need not worry about the Bill because it will not mean anything; but in the case of Austria he believes that it is possible to find some way of getting round the words he is now writing into the Bill. After all, this is a Clause to define military occupation.
    Mr. Head: I only said that I hoped that soon we would get a contractural agreement.
    Mr. Crossman: I quoted the right hon. Gentleman verbatim. He says that he hopes it will not apply to Germany. He thinks it may apply to Austria, which is the only other country, and that in the case of Austria it is not beyond the wit of man to get round the Clause he has just drafted. What is the point of drafting the Clause if it is to be got round in the only country where the Secretary of State anticipates its being applied? In the case of Japan we are told that when sufficient countries have ratified the Treaty this will not apply.
    I suggest to the Committee that it has been useful to discuss this for an hour and 40 minutes if only to discover that we have a new Clause brought into the Army Act which the Secretary of State is confident will not be required to be applied to Germany, and which he hopes to get out of applying to Austria. Why should we not omit these words?
    What will happen in Austria if the British soldier is not on active service there? Says the Secretary of State, "We cannot calculate for the time when the bangs are not going off." Does he tell me that Austria is more dangerous than the Suez area or Hong Kong or Malaya; that because Austria is particularly
    1618
    dangerous we have to draft one Clause dealing only with Austria, and we have to make sure that in Austria our men will suffer the death penalty for giving the password away? We really must know why the Secretary of State is drafting a Clause which, in his view, if things turn out well, only applies to Austria, and there he hopes it will not apply. Could he tell me why such a Clause has been drafted?
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Chairman: The Question is, "That the Question be now put."
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    Mr. Paget: The Patronage Secretary moved to report Progress.
    Hon. Members: He did.
    The Chairman: He started to move that. I think he made a slip of the tongue. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Anyway, the Question I put was, "That the Question be now put."
    Mr. Hale: On a point of order.
    The Chairman: There can be no point of order.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    We have had a very good discussion, but there is a great deal left, with many important Amendments to the Bill which it would be better to take, perhaps, at a more reasonable hour. I must say, frankly, that we are a little surprised—those of us who remember pre-war days—to find the great interest in the Army taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    There are a number of important Amendments on the Order Paper, including a number of new Clauses, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, if it would help right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, would be very happy to have some discussions with

    1619
    them on the points they raise to see whether we can facilitate business, because this is an important Bill about which there is, under the Statute, a time limit. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen care to get into touch with my right hon. Friend he would be very happy to meet them. Possibly this suggestion, which I throw out in the most helpful spirit, may curtail further lengthy debates, at any rate on this Bill. I hope that this will allow the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) who, a couple of hours ago, said he was anxious to go home, to have his wish fulfilled and get home before 2.30.
    Mr. Strachey: We on this side certainly congratulate the Government on the good sense of this decision, if on no others. We take it as a recognition of the fact that we have put up points of considerable substance, which it has been necessary to discuss. Some of them the Government may agree with and others they may disagree with, but the idea that this Bill could be taken through Committee in one Sitting has proved entirely chimerical, and rightly so. Therefore, we entirely agree with the decision that we should ask leave to sit again and resume our work on the Bill at another Sitting.
    Mr. Crookshank: I should make it clear that we shall have to resume tomorrow, or rather this day. After the business I announced on Thursday we shall have to resume the debate on this Bill.
    Mr. Strachey: The Leader of the House means that we resume not immediately tomorrow afternoon, but after the business announced. That is a matter for the Government to say. We shall be very much prepared to go on with these deliberations. They have proved fruitful and will prove fruitful again. We feel that our efforts tonight have certainly not been wasted and that they will produce—they have already begun to produce—a very much improved Army Act.
    Mr. Wigg: I hope that when we resume the Secretary of State will arm himself with a few facts. We should have made much more progress had he understood the original point. All that we wanted to do was to extend the period of the Act for three months. We
    1620
    could afford two hours had the Secretary of State had the grace to make himself aware of what areas were under active service and what were not. If he could spend some time tomorrow in studying his brief and understanding some of the facts, we should make much greater progress than we have done.
    I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friends when I say that there is no point whatever in our making contact with the Secretary of State until he has armed himself with the facts because otherwise it would be an entirely one-sided argument.
    2.0 a.m.
    Mr. Fernyhough: We on this side welcome the Motion which the Leader of the House has just moved. I am only sorry that he did not accept the Motion in the same terms which was put from this side roughly two hours ago, because had he given that advice to his hon. Friends when he told my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham. West (Mr. Hale) to go home it would have been received with delight.
    It has been rather soul-destroying to those who have looked around the Chamber for the last two hours to find Tory Members lying about, some of them asleep and half of them not knowing what was going on, and all of them kept out of the debate merely because of the Whips, who would not allow them to go home. It is a treat, therefore, for once in a while to find the Leader of the House proposing something which meets with the general approbation of all those present, and I have no doubt that when the discussion is resumed he will get from this side the same co-operation as we have tried to show during the early hours today.
    Mr. Driberg: I should like to express a slight difference from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in his censures on the Secretary of State for War. I thought, certainly in the latter part of the debates that the right hon. Gentleman was most helpful and forthcoming, and he showed, as has been said, that this has been a useful debate, because he intervened repeatedly to say that he would consider this or that point and make this or that concession, which shows that the points made from this side of the Committee were valuable points.

    1621
    If the Leader of the House would stop twittering to his neighbour for a moment and listen, I should like to congratulate him also on knowing, by telepathy, that it has been such a good debate. It has certainly been a good debate, but we have not seen the right hon. Gentleman here and he could not have known that except by telepathy or messages which have been passed to him.
    The Leader of the House, who indulged in one of his characteristic silken sneers at my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) about wanting to go home a couple of hours ago, must know perfectly well, as has been said repeatedly on the occasion of late-night Sittings, that if there is to be a very late Sitting, most Members on this side either prefer the Sitting to stop when my hon. Friend suggested it should stop, just before midnight, when public transport is still running, or go right through until public transport starts to run again.
    From that point of view, this is a strictly class Motion which the Leader of the House has moved. Whereas most hon. Members on this side have real difficulty in getting home at this time at night, we know that perhaps, not most, but many hon. Members on the other side, have their cars waiting to take them to their town houses in Eaton Square and elsewhere.
    Mr. Simmons: As we are to report Progress, we ought to be able to make better progress next time we meet. We on this side have appealed to hon. Members opposite who have expert knowledge and advice to help us in our discussions, but they have remained silent. It certainly does not create the atmosphere in which progress can be made if the Leader of the House—who is now sniggering behind his hand—will insist on sneering at and casting slurs upon hon. Members on this side of the Committee about their military service. Some of us on this side have had military service, and some have suffered as a result, to the extent that an all-night Sitting in this Chamber is a physical strain. We come here to do our best, and it is not right that hon. Gentlemen—I emphasise "Gentlemen"—on the other side should show their gentlemanly upbringing by sneering at those on this side who have suffered war disabilities.
    1622
    We have done our best to make the lot of the lads in the Forces—and especially the National Service men, who are citizens in uniform—as good as possible. [Interruption.] Why do hon. Members opposite make so much noise? I left school when I was 14 to start to earn my living. I was only a private in the Army, and cannot claim the culture and charm of some of the hon. and gallant Members opposite, who sneer at me. But I am going to defend the people on this side who served just as gallantly as hon. Members opposite who flaunt their military titles.
    One must have been an officer before one can be described as an hon. and gallant Member; privates are never described as "gallant" in this House, and I say that we are sick of the sneers from the colonels and the generals and the admirals on that side. If they want more progress when we next discuss this Bill, then let them act in a different manner.
    Mr. Swingler: It is a pity that so many hon. Members who have attended so little of this debate appear now to be so keen on going home. We have little progress to report, and if there is an enthusiasm prompting hon. Members on this side of the Committee to continue then we should do so.
    It has been said from the other side that there has been a co-operative spirit, and it was stated at the start of the debate that our Amendments would be carefully considered. But none of the Amendments put down have, so far, been accepted; on the contrary, there has been an obstinate refusal to agree, without adequate reason for so doing, and although the Secretary of State for War has attended all of our discussion and has intervened to deal with questions put to him, I hope that in the continuance of our debate he will show himself a little more forthcoming in accepting some of our Amendments, so that we may get on instead of spending so much time on points of detail while there are many new Clauses to which we should give much more full consideration.
    Mr. Wyatt: I think we should have something more definite from the Leader of the House about what our future course will be if we report Progress now. All we have heard so far is that we shall start discussing this Bill again tonight at 10 o'clock. Is this good enough?
    Mr. Driberg: There is also a Church Measure.
    Mr. Wyatt: That means that we may not start discussing this Bill again tonight at 10 o'clock. It may be that we shall not start discussing it before 12 o'clock. This Church Measure is of great importance; a number of my hon. Friends take a deep interest in it and they will have a great deal to say on the subject.
    Is the Leader of the House suggesting that this vitally important Bill should be discussed in a hole-and-corner manner at 12 o'clock tonight, that we should then report Progress and then begin again on another evening? Let us look at the position. We begin the Amendments to this Bill at page 273 on the Order Paper and end at page 290. We have got through only the first page of Amendments and there remain another 17 pages. We are anxious to improve the Army Act as fast as we can, but the best we can do has only resulted in disposing of the first page of Amendments.
    The Leader of the House should tell us what he proposes to do tomorrow evening when he reports Progress and, perhaps, we have got to page 274. There is no legislation whatever to be brought before the House. Therefore, we could very well have several days, perhaps a week, so that we could sit down sensibly, and at an early hour, to revise the Act, which has not been revised since 1689.
    The Government have nothing whatever to bring before the House. Not even in their miserable Election programme have they anything outstanding. They have no hope, by legislation, of redeeming their broken promises in the near future. So why not have a series of days put down for the discussion of this Act and let us get the job done properly?
    The Leader of the House has behaved in a most disreputable way by saying that all we are to do is to have a couple of hours in the middle of the night. We want a series of days in which we can discuss this in a reasonable way beginning at 3.30 in the afternoon.
    2.15 a.m.
    Mr. Hugh Delargy: Unlike some hon. Members, I very much deplore this Motion. I arrived here fairly early this morning prepared to remain here all night and, indeed, for that matter until the morning after. I have made a deep
    1624
    study of the Army Act, and several Amendments and certain new Clauses have my name attached to them. It is rarely indeed that the House has the benefit of my advice and they might listen to my advice on this matter.
    Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) I am entitled to be called an hon. and gallant Gentleman. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) I held commissioned rank, and it is for all those reasons that I made such a deep study of this Act to help my right hon. and hon. Friends draft certain Amendments and new Clauses. Therefore, I think it is quite disgraceful to send me home at 2.15 in the morning when I have not had a chance to express my view even on the Amendments to which I put my name. I thought they would be reached long ago.
    I agree with my hon. Friend, who was also a Service Minister, when he says it is disgraceful that the Army Act should be discussed in this hole-and-corner fashion, merely between 10 o'clock at night and 2 o'clock in the morning. I think the men in the Services will not be at all pleased at their questions being discussed in this manner between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. I believe that this is the Tory revenge for the Service vote against them in 1945. It is common knowledge that 90 per cent. of the men in the Forces—and we are discussing both the Army and Air Force at the moment, and also the Navy—voted Labour.
    The Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong. We are not discussing the Army and Air Force Bill at the moment, but whether or not we should report Progress.
    Mr. Delargy: I understood that the Motion was to report Progress on this Bill, and I am merely pointing out that we have made such little progress with it that we should not adjourn. I have no doubt that the men in the Services will take note of these things, and will realise that we on this side whom they elected as against those on the opposite side are doing our best to protect their interesets whereas hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing their best to gag us.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Surely we are to have some reply from the Leader of the House. I hope that before we deal

    1625
    with this Motion the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what are the Government's intentions with regard to the future of this Bill. I would like to have the attention of the Leader of the House because, after all, he has a responsibility to this House. It is his duty to make it clear what are the intentions of the Government if we accept this Motion.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) said, there are a great many Amendments on the Order Paper and there are a great many new Clauses to be considered. It is not our fault that we have to consider them this year. We invited the Secretary of State to accept an earlier Amendment which would have facilitated postponing consideration of a great many of these Clauses until next year, but that Amendment was not accepted.
    The Committee is now faced with the duty of considering these Amendments and new Clauses. They all have to be considered some time before the end of April. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what the Government's intention is if this Motion is accepted. How long is he proposing that we should stay tomorrow night? Is he proposing that we should merely sit for two or three hours, or throughout the night? Is he proposing that we should have a day or two next week in which to finish consideration of this Bill in Committee?
    Surely it is treating the House with something like contempt to leave us in complete mystery and ignorance as what are the Government's intentions. Here we are with the Easter Recess about to take place and which the Leader of the House has announced, and here we are with the Secretary of State pointing out that this Bill has to be passed by the end of April. It has to go to another place after leaving this place. We are quite prepared to sit here throughout the night, despite the inconvenience of doing so, to deal seriously with these Clauses.
    The Leader of the House has moved to report Progress and has asked us to resume consideration of the Bill late tomorrow night. I do think it is not treating the Committee with the consideration we are accustomed to expect, even from the Leader of the House. It is needless to leave the Committee in ignorance of the Government's intentions. It is of great inconvenience to hon. Members not
    1626
    to know when they ought to be prepared to resume the discussion. Therefore, I hope the Leader of the House will respond and let us know what are his intentions with regard to the future consideration of this matter.
    The Chairman: The Quesion is, "That I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
    Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order.
    The Chairman: There is no point of order.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Heath.]
    2.22 a.m.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Mr. Mellish.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order. There is another Bill for Second Reading on the Order Paper, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Marine and Aviation Insurance (War Risks) Bill. It was announced for today when the business for the week was announced on Thursday. It is the next item to be called. It may very well be that it cannot be called, because, as I understand the matter, no Motion was put down to suspend the Rule and that, although the Committee stage of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill was exempted business, the Second Reading of the Marine and Aviation Insurance (War Risks) Bill cannot be taken. Can we have your guidance as to what is happening?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot say what is happening to the Bill. The Government moved the adjournment of the House. Mr. Mellish.
    Mr. Hale: With great respect, the Question, "That this House do now adjourn" has not been put to the House. I rose, the moment it was put, to raise this point of order and to ask your guidance and assistance as to what had happened on this Bill, on which I had come prepared to speak.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The Motion was moved, "That this House do now adjourn," and the hon. Gentleman

    1627
    who has the Adjournment is Mr. Mellish, whom I have called. There can be nothing else.
    Mr. Hale: I will not hold up my hon. Friend, but it is reasonable to ask why an important Bill is thrown over in this way.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Mellish.

  PORTS EFFICIENCY COMMITTEE
  2.24 a.m.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: I am glad that we have been able to reach the Adjournment debate. It is a matter of importance and I want first to say to the Minister how grateful I am he has come to answer the debate himself. It shows that he, at any rate, regards this matter as of some importance.
  On 11th March, in another place, there was a debate on cargo handling and consequent upon that debate, in which a number of noble Peers took part, it was stated by the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power that a Ports Efficiency Committee was to be appointed. Since then the Minister has announced the names of the members of this Committee and has given their terms of reference; but I will not go over them as the Minister knows all about them.
  I want to say to the Minister of Transport that the appointment of this Committee has caused some concern among those who have an interest in the docks industry. Of all industries, surely, no industry more than the docks industry has had more reports. The pigeon-holes of the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Labour must be full of reports of this industry. For some time, there has been a spate of independent inquiries by outside bodies, and allegations have been to the effect that most of the trouble regarding the turn-round of ships has been due to the men.
  The first thing I want to ask the Minister is this: What is the position about the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive? This was a body to which powers were delegated by the British Transport Commission, under the 1947 Act, to provide reports on the efficiency of the industry. They have already provided
  1628
  reports and prepared schemes on certain facilities, and they have already prepared reports on the ports of the Mersey and London and given them to the Minister of Transport.
  In view of the fact that this authority has power from Parliament to prepare reports, why has it been necessary to appoint this outside body? In view of the fact that there have already been a number of reports on the dock industry, it is difficult to see why this new Committee has been appointed. It is one which, with respect, I and many of those I support think is made up of vested interests in shipping, plus representatives of the port authorities of London and Liverpool. It appears to us that the only purpose of appointing this Committee is so that it will produce reports which are satisfactory to those special interests and which are not necessarily in the best interests of the industry as a whole.
  If the members of the Committee are to do the job which they have been appointed to do, they must look at what has been a glaring fact for a long time—some of the restrictive practices of the employers. All we have heard about outside the industry and in speeches in another place are the restrictive trade practices of the workers. Let me tell the Minister, and put it on record so that the Committee know—if they do me the honour of reading the HANSARD report of the debate, as I hope they will—about some of the things going on in the industry today.
  It is a fact, as the Minister knows, that there is a grave shortage of craft, of lighters. We ought to ask ourselves what the employers are doing in the light of this grave shortage. It is a fact that lighterage firms are holding up shipping work for a whole day or more when they are unable to place a barge alongside a craft to deal with the cargo in the hold. In spite of this, the firms refuse to allow the cargo to be loaded into the barge of another company which is already at the ship, because that company would want the freightage. On the other hand, if there is a barge already in the vicinity, the firm owning it refuse to loan it to another company in the hope that, as a result of the refusal, they themselves will get the freight.
  Thus we have the position in which there is a barge alongside the ship, but,

  1629
  if the cargo in the lower hold is being dealt with by a firm different from that owning the top cargo, then one firm refuses to loan its barges to the other because the question arises of who is to get the freight. That is only a small instance of what is going on all the time, and such instances can be seen by any one who cares to go to the river front in the morning.
  There is also the problem of lighterage firms allowing their craft to be used as floating warehouses. Rather than offend the merchants who give them work, they allow their craft to remain loaded with grain for a long time. The great problem is that of the use of craft, and I can give the Minister an example of what I mean. A short time ago there were eight craft kept in the Surrey canal and, five minutes walk away from the barges, 200 men were unemployed. There were three ships—I can name them—which could not be discharged because of shortage of craft, and yet craft were being used as storage space.
  If the men who were unemployed had been used to discharge the craft, they would have been discharged in a day and work on the ships started. That was not done, and this was a managerial responsibility. We had a recent incident in which a refrigerated ship with a cargo of grapes was held up over the week-end, and the employer would not allow any work to proceed on the ship, in order to force up the price of the grapes so as to get a better price in the market the following week.
  These things have been reported before. They have been reported to other committees and are generally known. Indeed, if the Minister will look at the report in 1947 of the Committee on the Turn-round of Shipping he would see some caustic comments about the employers in the lighterage industry. As far as I know nothing has been done. The new Committee must really investigate incidents such as a ship arriving and a craft placed alongside it, but the work being held up because the employers have failed to put a lighterman in charge. This sort of thing goes on in the firms which are represented on this Committee. It has happened in the Furness Withy berth in Surrey Commercial Docks.
  Sir Ernest Murrant, who is chairman of the line, is on the Committee. In
  1630
  other words, a member of the Committee is applying restrictive practices. The Minister shakes his head, but it is true. A member of the Committee set up to see how the turn round of ships can be speeded up is applying restrictive practices. Unless the Committee reports honestly about the restrictive practices of employers its report will cause a great deal of friction.
  Since 1924 the trade unions have been asking for the constitution of the Port of London Authority to be altered. I will not go into the present constitution, but it is fair to say that the labour side has no representation as such. We have been asking since that year for this body to be reconstituted to allow four groups—producers, consumers, merchants, and technicians—to have representation on it. We have asked for nine from each group, with the exception of four from the technicians, to make a total of 31. At the moment the P.L.A., which was established to unify the port, has not done its work because we have the competitors of the authority on its board. What a fantastic position. It must be altered.
  It is no use making criticisms without offering constructive alternative proposals for the industry as a whole. We know that there are great difficulties, but let us be fair to the men. With regard to mechanisation, a great deal has been done by the men themselves. Most of the heavy cargoes have been mechanised More could be done, but the facilities are just not there. Berthing and warehousing facilities are still not available. What we have to do is to cut out some of the cut-throat competition which exists between many of the employers. There is a scramble for labour with firms absorbing casual labour in excess of their requirements, so that it should not be available for other firms who may have work for the men and hope thereby to get the work themselves. That sort of thing is going on and this Committee will find it so if it probes properly.
  On behalf of the dock workers I can say that they are sick to death of the constant allegations that they are not pulling their weight. The Minister must realise that over 90 per cent. of them are on piece-work, and no one on piecework is not going to give of his best. Reference was made in another place to men going outside the docks for cups of tea. That may be so in a small

  1631
  number of cases, but we must not indict the whole industry because of the action of a few.
  We must get a different spirit in this industry if we are to have better turn-round of shipping. There are grave practices by the employers themselves. In 1945, the port employers issued a booklet, which is well known to all who are interested in dockland, in which they declared quite clearly that they thought that in the future the men should revert back to the sort of conditions in which my father worked many years ago. The employers thought that in 1945.
  The employers in this industry are out of date by comparison with those in other industries. They regard labour as means to their personal profits. They do not consider the interests of the country as a whole. If this Committee is to do a good job of work it must look to the malpractices of the employers.
  There is just one other point I must touch on, relating to mechanisation. The other day, in another place, Lord Waverley made reference to a grain elevator named after himself, the Sir John Anderson. It cost £150,000. He said that the men were refusing to work it. The men do not appear to have been consulted about that job. The trade unions, the head office of the trade unions, the National Joint Council of Labour, the supreme body, were not consulted about this beforehand.
  The employers do not understand that they should consult the men beforehand—before installing new machinery of this sort. But in an industry of this kind, in which the men cannot forget yesterday, they fear being made redundant by this new machinery, and they fear hurt to themselves and their families. They should not be condemned wholesale for that, and they should be consulted. There are good and bad ones. We want to get the best out of them.
  It has been pointed out recently that at Liverpool, which is a port to come under the jurisdiction of this Committee, an 8,000 ton ship could be discharged during the war in from two to two and a half days. That is perfectly true, but in Liverpool, under a regional port director, the men were then working all night
  1632
  and all day. They are not working those hours today. They are working only one shift. Why? Dock workers do not mind working overtime, if they are paid overtime rates of pay. All things like this can be dealt with simply if they are approached in the right spirit.
  If the Minister will give consideration to some of these problems, that will be useful. The Committee should, too. It should look into the malpractices of the employers. If it does not, or if it merely finds fault with the dock workers, it will only create a good deal of friction. Everyone knows that in dockland today we have depleted berthing facilities, depleted shipping space, depleted warehousing capacity, depleted barge carrying capacity, and, at the same time, ships with full cargoes, instead of with part cargoes as in former days.
  Let us see some action by the Ministry of Transport. When those things are done I am certain that if the dockworker has decent employers to work for, which he has not had in the past and has not got today, I believe that he will not only give of his best but will do more than he is doing today because he will have the tools to do it with.
  2.40 a.m.
  Mr. Hugh Delargy: I shall be brief, as I want the Minister to give a reply, but I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). He has said, as it has been alleged so often, that the dockers have been criticised for lack of energy, lack of initiative, lack of work, and so on. It has been said that in other countries the loading and unloading of ships is carried out much more quickly. But in other countries they work night and day and here we do not. I emphasise what my hon. Friend has said, that the Minister and his Department should do something about the shortage of craft, about berthing facilities, about shedding, and also about a few more amenities for the dockers. Then they could give far more co-operation than at the moment.
  I am amazed and distressed that on the Ports Efficiency Committee there is no representative of the dockers. The field is wide enough to choose from—there are 100,000 dockers. So why is there not one docker included on it?
  2.41 a.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay): I am certain that hon. Members of the Ports Efficiency Committee will read this debate with great interest, even though it comes on at an hour when our spirit is willing but the flesh may be getting a little weak. When the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) started to speak he questioned the wisdom of the appointment of the Ports Efficiency Committee, and then proceeded to make an extraordinarily good case for having it.
  If I may take him up on what he said at the beginning of his speech, he referred to the various reports that have been made in the past and said that they had been pigeon-holed in my Department. Two of them, to my knowledge, are now sitting in one of the desks in my room, and they are certainly not pigeon-holed. These reports have been worked on and have contributed substantially already to the results we want.
  But there is a difference between these reports and the job of this Committee. It is worth reading out again the Committee's terms of reference:
  "To investigate the working of the ports of the United Kingdom, and in particular the ports of London and Liverpool, and to secure the co-operation of all the interests concerned including shipping and inland transport authorities in ensuring a quicker flow through the ports of inward and outward cargo; and to report from time to time."
  One of the things which the hon. Gentleman wants is to secure the co-operation of all the interests concerned. These words mean that there have been reports and that action has been taken on them. But no one in the country who knows anything about it, least of all the hon. Gentleman himself, is satisfied that the results are flowing in the ports. Clearly, there was need for as high-powered and effective a body as could be got together to go into what has been happening in the past, to see what has been happening as a result of the reports, to put them together and work for greater co-operation between all those concerned to see that the turn-round in shipping at the ports is improved.
  With regard to the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, and its power to make schemes, I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension of the powers of that Executive under the Act. It has constitutional statutory
  1634
  powers to submit to me schemes for reorganisation of harbours, but it does not cut across the work of the Ports Efficiency Committee.
  I am going fairly fast through the main points, because I have not much time, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will interrupt me if I have not covered them all. I thought the hon. Gentleman said something a little unworthy about vested interests. When he reads it tomorrow I think he will wonder whether he meant what he said. He said he was frightened that the men on the Committee—very honourable men—might produce a report which favoured their own vested interests. Really, I do not think that is a very proper observation.
  Mr. Delargy: They should not be exposed to temptation. The Minister could have chosen many other good men.
  Mr. Maclay: If we are to have a committee to do a job like this, we want men who know the job—
  Mr. Delargy: The dockers.
  Mr. Maclay: I will deal with that later. There are still seven minutes to go. Would it be conceivable to have a Committee of this kind without a ship-owner on it? I do not think that it would.
  Mr. Delargy indicated assent.
  Mr. Maclay: I have the hon. Gentleman's agreement on that. It might be argued that if there is to be a shipowner on the Committee at all there will be a vested interest of some kind.
  Mr. Mellish: This Committee comes into being at a time when we have had a spate of reports from outside bodies—a chamber of commerce, Aims of Industry, and the debate in the House of Lords. Then when the names come to be announced, it cannot help but be commented on that the people concerned have a vested interest in the industry. One can hardly expect them, if there is anything wrong with the industry, to find the fault in their own part of it.
  Mr. Maclay: The whole nation has a vested interest in this issue. The hon. Member will find that this Committee will do its job with absolute honesty, with the one purpose of getting the ships

  1635
  turned round and achieving greater output in the docks. It is inconceivable, after glancing at the names of members of the Committee that anything else could happen. They are all men of the highest integrity, and I know that the hon. Member would not wish to seem to cast any reflection upon them.
  Then there is the question of a docker on the Committee. Mr. Tom Yates, the General Secretary of the National Union of Seamen, is on the Committee. There were certain consultations, and I think that we should not go into that aspect of it any further. Mr. Yates was completely acceptable to everyone concerned, and greatly acceptable to myself, for I knew him when he was working in Glasgow. When it comes down to the work of the Committee applied to particular ports, there will be full opportunity for dockers to express their views.
  Already the Committee is moving and has made certain recommendations to London. I have no reason to doubt that they will be accepted. If they are, there will be a reconstituted port operations consultative panel on which there will be dockers' representation. The dockers have nothing to fear; they will get their say where it is going to be most useful to them and to everyone else.
  Mr. Mellish: When this Committee reports, will the reports be made available to all of us who are interested?
  Mr. Maclay: That is a question of which I should like notice. They will make progress reports from time to time.
  The hon. Member touched on the question of the constitution of the Port of London Authority. I do not think he expected me to go into that large question this evening.
  Mr. Mellish: I want the Committee to do so.
  Mr. Maclay: At least, the Committee will read tonight's debate carefully. It is quite a handful and the question might be looked at.
  1636
  Then there is the information the hon. Member gave about the grain elevator. That is news to me. It will be studied, and we shall see where we get with it.
  My final word about the ports is that there is a vast complexity of factors that will get a ship turned round fast or slow. That is the whole difficulty of the port problem. Often when it is thought that something that really matters has arisen it slides away. On the question of restrictive practices, I would say that just as the hon. Member made the point that there are good and bad dockers, so I would say that there are, obviously, good firms and bad.
  One of the jobs of the Committee will be to see what they can do to weld port operation into a more effective whole. The ports had to put up with a lot of damage during the war and it is a pity that it was not found possible to use available resources since 1945 to do more restoration work and get them back to a state of maximum efficiency. That is a thing which only Governments can struggle along with, with the resources that are available and I hope very much that the time will come when we can get the British ports right up to the standard of equipment, buildings and structures that they ought to have. That goes, too, for amenities for the dockers. It is a very real problem at a time like this, in trying to get on with what is everywhere recognised to be very desirable work, to get better conditions for the dockers in the ports.
  I finish by repeating that everything that has been touched upon in the debate tonight is, obviously, the kind of thing that the Ports Efficiency Committee will be studying. I assure the hon. Member with complete confidence that they will produce absolutely unbiased and genuine reports and results—I am sure that there will be results—to the great benefit of dockers, shipowners, and everybody who wants to see our ports working properly.
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes to Three o'Clock a.m.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (TRICYCLES)
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (TRICYCLES)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Loans, Sunderland (Interest)
  Loans, Sunderland (Interest)
  Derbyshire County Council (Offices)
  Derbyshire County Council (Offices)
  Halstead Place, Kent (Preservation)
  Halstead Place, Kent (Preservation)
  Town and Country Planning Act
  Town and Country Planning Act
HOUSING
  Defence Regulation 68CA
  Defence Regulation 68CA
  Rent Restriction Acts
  Rent Restriction Acts
NATIONAL FINANCE
  British Museum (Reading Room)
  British Museum (Reading Room)
  Home-Grown Tobacco
  Home-Grown Tobacco
  Private Industries and Agriculture (Subsidies)
  Private Industries and Agriculture (Subsidies)
  Stallion Ownership (Taxation)
  Stallion Ownership (Taxation)
  Pension (Increase) Acts
  Pension (Increase) Acts
  Purchase Tax (D Levels)
  Purchase Tax (D Levels)
  Light Oils (Increased Duty)
  Light Oils (Increased Duty)
  Dog Licence Duty
  Dog Licence Duty
  Arts Council (Picture Purchases)
  Arts Council (Picture Purchases)
  Medicinal Turpentine Duty (Yield)
  Medicinal Turpentine Duty (Yield)
  Sterling Area (Economic Plans)
  Sterling Area (Economic Plans)
  Balance of Payments (Command Paper)
  Balance of Payments (Command Paper)
  Foreign Travel Allowance
  Foreign Travel Allowance
  War-Injured Civil Servants (Treatment)
  War-Injured Civil Servants (Treatment)
  Customs and Excise (Prosecutions)
  Customs and Excise (Prosecutions)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Productivity (Co-ordinating Responsibilities)
  Productivity (Co-ordinating Responsibilities)
  Bedding Fillings (Specification)
  Bedding Fillings (Specification)
  Australian Import Restrictions
  Australian Import Restrictions
  Development Areas (New Factories)
  Development Areas (New Factories)
  Distribution of Industry Act (Administration)
  Distribution of Industry Act (Administration)
  Stocking Manufacturers (Nylon Allocations)
  Stocking Manufacturers (Nylon Allocations)
  Pottery Exports
  Pottery Exports
  Gelatine
  Gelatine
  School Caps (Shrinkage)
  School Caps (Shrinkage)
  Scarce Imported Materials (Distribution)
  Scarce Imported Materials (Distribution)
  Scandinavian Wood Pulp
  Scandinavian Wood Pulp
  Softwood Imports
  Softwood Imports
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Plant Hire (Charges)
  Plant Hire (Charges)
  Buildings, Oxford (Demolition)
  Buildings, Oxford (Demolition)
  Building Materials and Housing Act (Loans)
  Building Materials and Housing Act (Loans)
  Commercial Garages (Building Licences)
  Commercial Garages (Building Licences)
  Dilapidations Claim, Kent
  Dilapidations Claim, Kent
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (LIGHTING)
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (LIGHTING)
EMPLOYMENT
  Elderly Persons (Committee)
  Elderly Persons (Committee)
  Building Workers, Greater London
  Building Workers, Greater London
  Stirling
  Stirling
  Disabled Persons, Sunderland
  Disabled Persons, Sunderland
  Pottery Industry
  Pottery Industry
  Coalmining (Foreign Workers)
  Coalmining (Foreign Workers)
  Dock Workers
  Dock Workers
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Call-Up (Under 45)
  Call-Up (Under 45)
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
SCOTLAND
  Ayrshire Hospital Incident (Report)
  Ayrshire Hospital Incident (Report)
  Herring for Oil and Meal (Prices)
  Herring for Oil and Meal (Prices)
  Houses, Merrylee (Purchase)
  Houses, Merrylee (Purchase)
  Hill Farming Act (Improvement Schemes)
  Hill Farming Act (Improvement Schemes)
  Salmon Fisheries Acts (Prosecutions)
  Salmon Fisheries Acts (Prosecutions)
  Education (Expenditure)
  Education (Expenditure)
  BRITISH HONDURAS (BROADCASTS FROM GUATEMALA)
  BRITISH HONDURAS (BROADCASTS FROM GUATEMALA)
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Health Pensioners, Irish Republic
  Health Pensioners, Irish Republic
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Private Patients (Pharmaceutical Prescriptions)
  Private Patients (Pharmaceutical Prescriptions)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  SERVICE PERSONNEL (EMOLUMENTS)
  SERVICE PERSONNEL (EMOLUMENTS)

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

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Read 2ª, and committed.

SMOKE SCREENS OVER PUBLIC ROAD
2.35 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the American Air Force authorities have been given permission to lay a smoke screen across the Barton Mills to Brandon road, A 1065, at Lakenheath; how many accidents have been reported to the police due to these smoke screens, and what liability rests on the American authorities for such accidents.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that the American Forces are here by invitation of Her Majesty's Government, and that while they are here they must take part in training exercises just as our own Forces do. There is no question of permission being given to the United States authorities for the purpose. The police have information of two accidents which have taken place during smoke screen exercises by the United States Air Force. The United States Air Force has machinery for dealing with civil claims in respect of accidents, but there would not appear to be any question of criminal liability, in view of the terms of the United States (Visiting Forces) Act of 1942. Everything is done to mitigate risk or inconvenience to the public when training exercises are carried out, either by our own Forces or by those of our Allies, but I
1168
will ask the noble Earl, the Minister of Defence, if he will see whether the present arrangements for this purpose can be improved.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask whether a suggestion can be made to the American Forces that it is completely unnecessary to set up a screen alongside the road just where the trees start, with the wind blowing up the road, so setting up an absolutely impenetrable cloud, while no troops are exercising at all?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only tell the noble Lord that that will come, perhaps, within the scope of the last part of my answer—namely, to see whether the present arrangements can be improved.
LORD SANDHURST: I am very much obliged.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (BORROWING POWERS) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
MOTOR VEHICLES (INTER NATIONAL CIRCULATION) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order): An Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
2.43 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE rose to call attention to Economic Affairs; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for initiating this debate to-day. By the choice of the Prime Minister, many pivotal positions in the Cabinet are held by members of your Lordships' House, and of those several are directly concerned with economic and financial issues. Amongst your Lordships are also men of great experience and acknowledged renown in such matters. Therefore, though we are constitutionally debarred from seeking to amend the financial provisions for the year, it is highly desirable that we should review here the

1169
major implications of the Government's economic policy; and, in my view, Her Majesty's Opposition would be lacking in their duty to the nation if they did not require from the leading spokesmen of the Government in this House an exposition of their views on these matters. I should have liked to await the publication of the Economic Survey of the year, but that would almost certainly have necessitated the postponing of this debate into May. We are already in possession of the three instalments promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ending up with his Budget speeches in the other place, and we should, therefore" be in a position to see and appreciate the full picture of the Government's financial and economic policy.
I regret to have inform your Lordships that having listened to, or read, nearly all that has been said by Her Majesty's Ministers in expounding and defending this policy, and having given careful thought to their remarks, I find myself in considerable confusion. If I stood alone in this I should naturally attribute it to my own limitations. But when I find that there are others, some of whom are not in my own Party, who are also confused—and among them are people with whom I frequently find myself at variance—then I am confirmed in my view that the confusion is inherent in the policy itself or in the exposition of it or, possibly, even in both. The first major discrepancy lies in the contrast between what was said earlier of the gravity of the crisis and the remedies which are to-day being put into operation to deal with it. The second discrepancy is concerned with the relative importance to be attached to the monetary weapon. Other discrepancies—some of which I shall refer to in due course—are also in evidence. I will not waste your Lordships' time by quoting the precise remarks that were made about the crisis, but, broadly, what was said by the Government was this: that when they took office they were confronted with a wholly unprecedented situation, which was very grave and which demanded terribly drastic remedies likely to cause great sacrifices to the people of this country. It was only in that way, we were told, that we could avert national bankruptcy, public and private shortage of food for consumption and shortage of
1170
materials for industry, which, if actually occurring, would mean grave unemployment, industrial ruin and stagnation. To arrest this imminent danger the whole nation must be prepared to make phenomenal sacrifices and to face new austerities. The date of the Budget was brought forward in order that the drastic remedies might be imposed in time.
That was the position before the Budget. In the event, what have we got? We have got, of necessity, certain cuts in imports, the net results of which, owing to Commonwealth and foreign counteraction, are, unfortunately, likely to fall far short of the gross gain which was immediately apparent. We have got, I understand, a raid or the stockpile, so carefully built up by the Government's predecessors. We have got an excess profits levy which was envisaged by the leaders of the Conservative Party before the Election. We have got a number of changes in taxation and benefits which, we are told, must be looked at together as a group. They do not appear to deal directly with the crisis, but all of them, taken together, are an implementation of certain Conservative predilections expressed long ago. Finally, we have a swingeing increase in the bank rate, designed for the express purpose of slowing down the creation of new capital. As to personal consumption, Mr. Butler said that he did not propose to take any budgetary steps to reduce purchasing power below that of last year. We may like the Government remedies or we may dislike them. We may, perhaps, regard them as regrettable necessities. I myself have views on some of them which are none too favourable. But the essential question is whether, taking them for better or for worse, in the aggregate they do resolve the problem set by the crisis. I do not think anybody will deny that fact. It is just here that my principal perplexity arises.
After the earlier statements, in common with the mass of the thinking public, had assumed that drastic new personal sacrifices were going to be demanded of all of us. We were keyed up to face our equitable share of then. The announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer midway in his Budget speech therefore came as an anti-climax, and threat and execution seemed to be directly at variance. I can suggest only three pos-

1171
sible explanations. The first is that the earlier talk about the crisis was grossly exaggerated—to express it vulgarly, that it was a kind of political ballyhoo. I do not take that view. I reject it, because the facts and figures convinced me at the time, and still convince me, that the situation was extremely serious. The second is that Mr. Butler's remedies are inadequate, or at any rate likely to prove inadequate, except on the most optimistic assumptions. That I understand to be the view of the Economist newspaper. The third is that, embedded in the Government's policy, are steps of a more serious character which mortgage the future to meet the exigencies of the present. Prominent among these is the catastrophic rise in the bank rate with the avowed object of restraining new capital investment. Between these two last explanations I hesitate to pronounce judgment, because I do not know the precise estimate, or even the comparative order of magnitude of the contributions required from each of the factors involved.
To elucidate the position, I will ask certain questions, to which I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who I understand is replying for the Government, will give me answers. First, are we even now in possession of the full economic programme, or are other instalments still to come? Secondly, can he give us for the financial year commencing to-day the net estimated increase or decrease in the stockpile, setting this against the similar figures for last year? Thirdly, can he do the same for the estimate of internal industrial capital development from public and private sources combined? Fourthly, what increase does he expect in aggregate production? And, fifthly, do the Government hope to increase the volume of exports, and if so, by what percentage? With these figures before us, we may be able to judge how far the measures the Government are taking to meet the crisis are adequate.
My perplexity regarding the Government's policy does not end with the matter of the adequacy of their remedies for the crisis. I am also greatly concerned with the Government's action in returning to dear money. Here, also, I find it hard to reconcile what has been done with the statements made in this House in response to questions of my own in November last year by the noble Viscount and on
1172
20th February of this year by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. Speaking no doubt from briefs supplied to them by the Treasury, they gave emphatic assurances that money control was only to be one, and not the principal one, of the methods of keeping hold of the situation. In stating this they were in line with what Mr. Butler himself had said when he remarked:
"I do not believe that in present circumstances monetary policy by itself can have any decisive results."
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I quote this as showing that the noble Viscount was in line with his own Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT SWINTON): I still am.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is all right. But I will now give a quotation from the Economist of March 22. It is as follows:
"One conclusion emerges with ever-increasing sharpness. Monetary policy appears as a central figure in the whole performance, and the part it may have to play, perhaps is intended to play, looms steadily larger. It is certainly an incomparably bigger part than anyone outside the official circle expected to see, and much bigger, too, than the Chancellor himself was envisaging when the first moves towards monetary orthodoxy were made last November."
I have seen similar statements elsewhere and I agree with them. Finally, if the expectation of the Economist proves correct and the remedies put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Government should prove in the end inadequate, what ground have we for assuming that there will not be a further turn of the monetary screw?
Now, this question of dear money was the theme of the speech that I made in this House in February, and I am certainly not going to repeat to-day what I said then. But it must be quite evident to noble Lords that the injurious consequences, in war or in peace, which I foresaw then from the rise of one half of one per cent. in the bank rate must be greatly enhanced by the further rise of no less than 1½ per cent. Moreover, the other repercussions will be much greater. To begin with, there is the question of the direct cost to the Exchequer of the

1173
increase in the service of the National Debt brought about by the increase of the bank rate. I prefer not to speculate on what that additional cost will be, and, therefore, I am going to put one further question to the noble Viscount. I would ask him to give me the authoritative estimate of the gross and of the net increases in the cost to the Budget of this rise in the bank rate from 2 to 4 per cent. Whatever it is—and it is certain to run into tens of millions of pounds—all that is an additional sum which will have to be met by the taxpayers of this country.
But, serious as that is, in my opinion it is only a small part of the injury inflicted on the public and private economy of this county. Dear money clogs the arteries of industry and commerce and hampers and hinders the captains of industry from developing the resources of the country by adding to the plant of their undertakings. This is not an incidental, unfortunate effect of dear money; it is its main purpose. The selection it imposes in so doing takes no account of the advantages to the welfare of the nation of one form of capital development as against another, as can be the case with a physical control, but is dependent solely on the monetary gain anticipated by the promoter.
I recognise, of course, that in an emergency of the kind with which we are faced it is probably necessary to make some reduction in fresh capital development—I said so the other day, following the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It is, of course, as true of the nation as a whole as it is true of a single individual who, finding himself short of cash and credit, has to abandon some of his most cherished plans for development. But do not let the Government delude you into thinking that they are painlessly and cleverly averting bankruptcy, when they are merely mortgaging the future to meet the exigencies of the present; and do not let the bankers, who, however solicitous they may be for the welfare of the country, are not entirely disinterested parties, delude you into thinking that putting up for everyone the cost of borrowing is an admirable and salutary achievement.
Very likely I shall be told—perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, following the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will say so to-day—that there is real proof
1174
of the success of the budgetary proposals of the Government in the improvement of the value of sterling in exchange for dollars on the money market. For what it is worth, that is certainly a good sign; but how much it is worth I should be sorry to have to assess. Personally, I am always on my guard against laying too much stress on these day-to-day quotations. I specially said this when the position was the other way round, last November, when the prices of securities on the Stock Exchange were falling steadily against the Government. In any case, only a very few people who are in the know—and I certainly do not claim to be one of them—are in a position to read the omens of the erratic flight of the fickle birds of "hot" money.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships much longer, or to deal with many of the financial and economic proposals in the programme of the Government. Many of them will no doubt be dealt with in this debate by other noble Lords speaking from these Benches. But before I sit down there is one group of proposals about which I must say a few words—I refer to the changes introduced by the right honourable gentleman Mr. Butler in the latter part of his Budget speech which have the effect of redistributing benefits and taxation. I described these changes earlier as not contributing directly to meeting the crisis, and I believe this to be strictly true. I am aware, of course, that the Government claim that they do contribute indirectly by increasing the incentives to production, although this seems to me very problematical. Even if there is some merit in them on this account, however, I am afraid that there is much demerit, also, in. raising food prices, which is likely to result in new claims for higher wages. However, it is not of these aspects that I propose to speak.
Conservatives have for a long time past expressed their disapproval of the food subsidies. They have based their claim for the withdrawal or reduction of the subsidies on the ground that they were wasteful, saying that while some deserving people benefited from them, they were lavished unnecessarily on others who could well afford to pay the full economic price of the necessaries of life. They said, therefore, that they would substitute for subsidies other reliefs which would be

1175
more equitably distributed. I would ask your Lordships to examine how far, in actual fact, this claim has been substantiated in the Government's policy. Food subsidies, it is true, benefited rich and poor alike; but as they were on staple foods, and not on luxuries, they were a per capita relief. Income tax reductions, on the other hand, which have been substituted for food subsidies., increase with income, so that the poorest wage earners get nothing at all out of the reductions, while those who pay larger tax draw greater benefit. Even the child allowances—which operate to help the larger families—do not discriminate between rich and poor; and they, in common with the reductions in income tax, do not accrue to the same member of the family who is responsible for expending the household money. No doubt the vast majority of good, decent folk who earn wages will pay over some of these increased reliefs to their wives; but there will be many who will retain for their own use, to be spent on smokes, drinks and other things, some part of the increases. And to the extent that this is done, the increase in the housekeeping money available for purchasing food will not be the equivalent of the increase in food prices.
There remains the question of the disregard in the Budget changes of the pledge given in his pre-Election broadcast by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. There is no question that this pledge was given in quite specific terms. The noble Lord said—and I do not think it has ever been questioned:
"There is an Election story going about that the Conservatives would cut food subsidies. This is not true."
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): May I interrupt the noble Lord? I know the last thing in the world he would wish would be to be unjust to me. Would he mind reading the next sentence?
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I will read the next sentence with the greatest pleasure. The noble Lord said:
"There is an Election story going about that the Conservatives would cut food subsidies. This is not true. What we want to do is to get rid of the need for subsidies."
LORD WOOLTON: I thank the noble Lord.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have quoted the second sentence, as I was asked, but it does not detract in the least from a perfectly categorical statement. There is no question, further, but that this pledge was broken, not slightly but substantially, because no one can pretend that £160,000,000 is not a very considerable sum. I am no mealy-mouthed politician, and I have had considerable experience of public life. I am well aware that a Government is sometimes forced to disregard some of the pledges of its more ardent supporters, given in the heat and hubbub which surround an Election, and that sometimes there will be cases which concern even individuals who, after the Election, become Ministers of the Crown. But here was what I may call an ex-cathedra statement made in an official Party broadcast by a prominent member of the Conservative hierarchy. The public were entitled to regard it as constituting a specific pledge by the Party, and to imagine that a Conservative Government, formed after the Election, would be bound by that pledge. There can be no doubt that it must have influenced a considerable number of votes.
As your Lordships will appreciate from your knowledge of me, I am not one to impute unworthy motives. I assume, of course, that the noble Lord in making this statement did so in perfectly good faith, in the firm belief that he was stating the intentions of his colleagues. I assume that the future Chancellor of the Exchequer was not privy to that statement before it was made. I assume that the noble Lord, when he found his promise broken, tendered his resignation, as is a recognised practice in such cases. When he made his speech to his supporters—which is reported in The Times of March 22—in which he is alleged to have said:
"Neither my colleagues nor I have any regrets for what we have done. We have no apologies to make … "
I assume that he did not mean that he had no regrets for having unintentionally entirely misled the electorate on an important issue. The fact remains that the pledge was broken, and that an official statement was subsequently issued from No. 10 Downing Street—and, therefore, presumably on the highest authority—saying:
"There is no question of Lord Woolton resigning. He has the Prime Minister's full and continuing support."

1177
It only remains for me to say one thing, and I say it in all seriousness. For my part, I should not have thought that such a decision was in keeping with the honour and dignity of a great Party. I will leave it at that. I beg to move for Papers.
3.13 p.m.
LORD LAYTON:My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken on the issue which he raised last or, indeed, on the political implications in his speech. I think what we can most usefully do is to consider the Budget and the economic situation in all its implications. When we debated the economic situation six weeks ago there were some signs that the drain upon Britain's reserves of gold and dollars, though still very heavy, was slackening. We did not then know what steps the Government it would take in the Budget, which was to be the third step in the Government's campaign to relieve what is an extremely serious situation. The Budget, with its further import cuts and the sharp rise in the bank rate, has duly come and gone. Though there are some indications that the reserve position has shown further improvement, we still do not know how low our reserves will be at the end of the first quarter. If the expert forecasts are correct, that reserve can hardly be much above the level reached when Sir Stafford Cripps devalued in 1949. I understand—though many of your Lordships will know better than I do—that there is a short position still open in sterling, and in one sense this is a source of strength, for sooner or later it must be closed by the purchase of sterling. If, in the meantime, the reserve continues to fall, the Government will be faced with a very grave decision. Without pursuing that matter any further, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will be able to give us an encouraging impression of the state of affairs in that regard.
In the meantime, there are many things to be said about the situation created by the new orientation of policy created by the Government's first Budget. For my part, and subject to certain qualifications which I will mention shortly, I welcome very much the general attitude adopted. I do so for many reasons, and not least because it is a step in the direction of bringing more flexibility into our national economy. For the first time for several
1178
years the increase in the total amount of revenue taken in taxation has been checked, and the reduction of the food subsidies has made possible some substantial remissions of taxation. If this policy of reducing both sides of the national account is pursued persistently, as it should be, we may hope that 1952 will prove to have been the high-water mark in the proportion of the national income taken by the Government in various forms of taxation. I include in that figure local taxation. So long as this figure remains somewhere about 40 percent. of the total of the national income, the economy of this country is bound to be kept in a straitjacket of control and restriction, leaving no room for the expansion of activities by private enterprise. I would add, also, the very important consideration that while the present situation persists there is no margin of taxable capacity available to meet a war or any other kind of emergency. I therefore regard this first attempt to reduce both sides of the national account as of the first importance.
The smoothing out of the income tax in its lower ranges is also to be commended, both on grounds of equity and also because it partially removes the disincentive effect of sharp rises of income tax at particular stage in the scale. The system of graduating our chief direct tax by means of allowances was never designed for a tax with a standard rate as high as the war-time level of something like 10s. in the pound. Liberals have for a very long time insisted upon the advantages of direct taxation, as against indirect taxation, since it has the great merit of being adjusted in proportion to capacity to pay. That argument loses force when direct taxation reaches a high war-time level of income. I do not want to pursue that any further, but it explains why many of us, thinking in Liberal terms, regard the modifications and the smoothing out of the income tax scale as of first importance. A very humble member of my own staff observed on Budget night that he thought that the change in income tax was the most constructive development of which he had heard since the war.
Though, on the whole, the Budget is an indication of a change in the economic climate, it is little more than a slight

1179
break in the clouds. The level of taxation and expenditure is still extremely high. On the incentive side, the effect upon overtime earnings of the adjustment of allowances goes only a very little way towards removing the grievance that the worker retains a smaller proportion of every pound that he earns on overtime than if it were earned as part of his normal wage. If we turn to the employers' side of the picture, it must be said that the excess profits levy, even in its new form, is a departure from the sound principle of encouraging enterprise. It cannot be right to make concessions to businesses which are doing no better than in 1947, 1948 and 1949, while taking away a rising proportion of the additional profit which the pushful firm is earning. It is undoubtedly true that there are many cases among the lower-paid workers where the increased cost of food will not be covered by tax or other concessions. I hope the Government will make still further efforts to meet the case of groups of real hardship.
The Liberal Party hold the view that this problem cannot be fully met except by reform of the income tax, in conjunction with modifications of the general system of social service contributions. Hard cases must be met, but the fact that there are hard cases is no reason for maintaining an excessively high level of taxation in order to pay huge subsidies. After all, expenditure on food in this country to-day, is a lower percentage of total current expenditure than it was before the war—and not unnaturally. But it is also a very much lower percentage than in many other countries. And the balance of spendable income of the average man, the average worker and the average small salaried man, includes items which are certainly "squeezable" in an emergency—and this is an emergency. I am thinking of drink, entertainment and tobacco, for example, which make up figures which probably equal much more than half of the total food bill.
I am also in agreement with that other important element in Government policy referred to by Lord PethickLawrence, the raising of the bank rate. I agree with him that cheap money is desirable as a long-range policy. But if this were made into a universal rule it
1180
would mean that we must deal with conditions (the noble Lord seemed to contemplate this with equanimity) such as those with which we are faced to-day solely by direct control. The noble Lord spoke of the degree of emphasis that the Government place on the monetary policy and other measures, but his remarks might have led us to conclude that in his judgment the monetary weapon should not be used at all. Direct controls are a clumsy way of inducing millions of people to act on their own initiative, in harmony with the needs of the time and to conform, without being told in every detail the necessities of the situation.
I would also call attention (I do not think the noble Lord, Lord PethickLawrence, has referred to this point) to the fact that a cheap money policy has a bearing on saving. I agree that it is most desirable that personal savings, as distinct from savings imposed by taxation, should be revived in our national economy or in any other economy that is in any sense free. Yet they have largely disappeared. I will not quote the figure of personal savings as given in the White Paper on the national income, for that figure seems to be a very dubious one. I will mention only the figures of small savings covered by the Savings Movement. In the "bad old days" before the war they amounted to more than 3 per cent. of the national wages bill. Last year they were less than one half of 1 per cent., and in 1949–50 they were negligible. Yet, as Britain becomes more and more an equalitarian community we must look to substantial savings from wage earners and from the medium and lower income brackets generally. If it is to be a free economy it is essential that the habit of saving should be restored. The whole economy should be designed to make it possible that savings by all classes should be resumed. But if the rate of interest is negligible, and if prices are expected to keep on rising, so that money is worth less next year than it is this year, there is no inducement to save. Savings will evoke more effort in a period of declining prices, where it is expected that goods will be of greater value later on.
That, my Lords, brings me to another matter of a general character which I wish to mention, which may influence our judgment of the impact of the various items in the Budget. I refer to

1181
the signs of deflationary factors at work which may in due course outweigh the present inflationary influences. The setback in the textile industries is one of these. This is not only affecting Lancashire but, as was pointed out many months ago, is practically a world-wide phenomenon. There are many other signs of deflation. More than once I have emphasised in your Lordships' House that severe and sudden cuts in imports, designed to correct an adverse balance of trade, tend to spread, to check our own exports and finally produce a lower volume of trade all round. The Australian cuts are a striking example to us of w hat this process looks like from the other side of the fence.
Here is another specific example. There has recently been a recession in the prices of newsprint and pulp. In this case there are many factors at work. But the change of direction was touched off by the cancellation of orders in Scandinavia by Argentina which has not been able to earn enough foreign exchange to pay for them. India, too, has recently experienced the bursting of a speculation boom which has brought clown the price of many commodity prices, and this is producing reaction in the East. Lastly, I will mention a report from Canada which has appeared in the week-end Press. It states that the Liberal Government of Canada is being urged by the Oppositions to make gifts of Canadian meat, wheat and strategic minerals to European countries of N.A.T.O. this year, in addition to mutual aid and arms shipments. The figure given is £100,000,000 sterling. The last sentence of the report reads:
" Farm authorities predict unsaleable surpluses to nearly this value "—
that is, this value of £100,000,000—
"this year of beef, pork, milk products and feed grain."
Now, these example do not prove that a slump is round the corner. But they do suggest that there are fairly widespread deflationary influences at work. Rearmament is a very heavy weight on the other side of the scale, but it is mainly confined to a few industries. In its early stages it is a dislocating factor, and makes its full impact on labour only after a considerable delay. That is the experience of rearmament in war time. The influence of rearmament may well be smaller and
1182
less immediate than is sometimes supposed. It is a brake. It is difficult to judge how powerful a brake it will be on the deflationary influences. But I am not on that account suggesting that we should at once rush in ane1 take counter-measures. On the contrary, a fall, not only in the inflated values of food and materials but in prices generally, is desirable. We cannot hope to get back to a healthy condition without it. We have lived in a world of rising prices so long and with so little intermission that we have almost forgotten that in recent history the periods of falling prices have been those in which the standard of living of the masses of the people has improved most steadily. They are times, too, in which it is easier to secure and maintain an equitable relationship of wages and salaries between different industries and occupations. I am sure that these long-range considerations as to what things we should aim at in the issue of prices must be present in the minds of my trade union friends.
We are considering a very difficult problem, whether there is to be restraint or whether the wage level is to be allowed to rise in this country, increasing costs at a time when we may be on the verge of deflation abroad and, therefore, going into a situation where a high wage policy would be disastrous to this country. I venture to underline once again the need for co-ordinated action with other countries. I will not repeat what I said on this subject in the debate which we had in February, but recent events have emphasised the need for keeping in step with the Commonwealth and Europe. May I first say a word about Europe? We have in being in Europe in the O.E.E.C., the appropriate apparatus for continuous consultation. Last week, I thought that in this debate I should have to say something on that matter which would he very critical of the Government, who seemed to be failing to appreciate the full importance of this instrument. But events at Paris at the week-end have taken the sting out of my attack. Like Balaam I came to curse but I have stayed to bless. Rightly or wrongly, Europe had formed the impression that Britain had decided to emasculate the O.E.E.C., and the proposed cut of 50 per cent. in the expenditure of the O.E.E.C. would have had that effect. It was proposed that it should limit its operations to two functions, the

1183
liberalisation of commerce and the European Payments Union.
It is very good for every international institution, like every Government Department, to be subject to severe pruning from time to time, but you cannot cut the cost of an institution in half without cutting out many of its functions. Europe's belief that that was the intention of Her Majesty's Government has produced fierce, bitter Press comment throughout Europe in the last two months. Fortunately, I am glad to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on his first visit to the O.E.E.C., dispelled those forebodings. He made it clear that Her Majesty's Government intend to give their full support to the O.E.E.C. A great effort is to be made to strengthen the financial position of the European Payments Union before the end of its financial year in June. A steering board for trade is to be set up to consider all the problems of commercial policy of concern to all the members of the Organisation, which presumably means not only the problem of quotas and licences but also that of tariffs and export taxes.
It is also decided—and this I regard as of great importance—to continue the Organisation's functions in co-ordinating production and investment. I endeavoured in February to state the case for that policy, and I am glad to see that the recommendation of the Strasbourg Assembly, made last December, that the trade unions and employers' organisations should be brought into the closest contact in this matter of harmonising production, is, according to the decisions made at the week-end, to be carried out. How far an exercise of this kind of trying to plan a 25 per cent. increase in production in five years is of practical importance depends largely on the action of those taking part in it. If people like the Ministers, the leaders of industry and so forth, who determine policy in the various countries, are not interested, it becomes merely an academic exercise in statistics; but if they are interested, then it should certainly increase the productive efficiency of Europe as a whole.
Lastly, it has been decided that the O.E.E.C. shall be the principal body to handle the economic planning and management of the Western Atlantic
1184
Community. Mr. Porter, head of the American Mutual Security Agency in Europe, said on Sunday that this decision is based on a desire to see that rearmament does not halt progress on the economic unification of Europe. In his opinion, the Organisation had proved its ability to achieve harmony among the European nations, and the United States wished, therefore, that it should be a centralised contact between the United States and its allies in Europe in the economic field. That is a decision of great importance, shared between the United States and Great Britain, and it will have far-reaching repercussions, provided the conditions I have indicated are fulfilled—namely, that all concerned are made parties to the discussions and their active interest is enlisted behind the whole operation.
I have emphasised these prospects in Paris because I think their moral must apply also to the Commonwealth. Britain is no longer the world's arbiter in economic affairs. She can no longer rely solely upon decisions in Threadneedle Street to correct her situation when she gets into difficulties. We have consciously to try to adapt our whole economy to the new pattern of world trade to which I referred six weeks ago. Between ourselves and the Commonwealth and Colonies we need to co-ordinate our policy, not only in the matter of currency but also in regard to investment and trade. But experience in Europe shows that this cannot be achieved by occasional meetings. On the contrary, it requires continuous contact at all levels, from Ministers downward. The Commonwealth Conference in January was a promising start in this direction. My last word is to repeat what I said more than a month ago, that these methods must be developed if we are to overcome our difficulties and shape Britain's course smoothly into the new pattern of trade which lies before us.
3.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this is the third economic debate which we have had in almost as many months. I must apologise to your Lordships if I always seem destined or detailed in these debates to go in "second wicket." The noble Lord who introduced this Motion covered a certain amount of old ground but broke some new ground as well. I will try to deal as faithfully as I can with a number of detailed questions which

1185
he put to me, and then, with your Lordships' permission, like the noble Lord, Lord Layton, to whom the whole House is grateful for that wide-ranging, farseeing speech which we have just heard, I should like to ask the House to consider some of the aspects ("major implications" I think the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, called them) of the measures which we are taking, and to consider them against the whole background and as part of the comprehensive plan of which the Budget is the third chapter.
Unlike his claque on his left, who interrupted him too soon and cheered in the wrong place, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the crisis has not been in the least overrated. I do not need to emphasise to your Lordships that the only way to salvation is a plan which is comprehensive, adequate and complete. I am quite content that the noble Lord should challenge the plan on the grounds of adequacy, but not—as I gather some of his friends below him do—on the ground that it is unnecessary. It is quite reasonable to discuss any and every element in the plan, but I think your Lordships would agree that it is not reasonable that the items in the plan should be discussed in isolation. If you say that any of them are wrong, then you ought to supply an effective alternative. Certainly, no one is entitled to underestimate the gap in the trade balance and the drain on the reserves, by wishful guessing. I reminded the House last time of what I think is a classical example of wishful thinking—namely, that in the very last estimates of the Socialist Government, while they were still in office, Mr. Gaitskell, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, underestimated the gap and overestimated what he would be able to do by his measures by no less than £400,000,000. My Lords, we just cannot afford to do that again. That way bankruptcy lies.
Therefore, when the noble Lord asks me whether our measures are adequate, and whether he is to-day in possession of all the steps which the Government propose to take, or whether, as the year goes on, there will be further disclosures, I can answer him only in this way: certainly, less than we have done would not see us through. That, I think, is the answer to those who say that the remedies are excessive and to others who say that the remedies are, inadequate. It is inter-
1186
esting to have this fire from the two flanks, which really are tiring at each other quite as much as they are firing at us. Of course, no one can say with certainty whether these measures will enable us to pull through. It does not depend on us alone. We Live to remember that it is a great Commonwealth affair, in which all are doing their best. We may yet have to resort to further measures, and we shall not hesitate if we have to. All I can say is this. We have made the best estimate of the trends of trade and prices. These may move better or worse. I should not alter the estimate which has been made, certainly at the present time. Also I should certainly say that the steps which we have taken, and most of all the final steps taken in the Budget, are without doubt having a very good effect. That is so, in regard to not only the restrictions of imports, which are becoming effective, but also to the Budget, which, by its realism, its soundness and its constructive approach, has, without doubt, made an excellent impression abroad and done much to restore confidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, asked me a number of questions about the basis upon which we have estimated. He referred to stocks, capital investment, production and exports. Let me take stocks first. The noble Lord will not expect me, any mere than he expected his own Government when it was in power, to disclose details of our strategic stockpiles; but I will give him these two assurances. First, we intend to see that, so far as materials can be obtained in the world, the essential needs of our industry will not run short. Supplies of some materials, like nickel and copper, are scarce. But the International Materials Conference is doing an excellent job of work and I think we can say that we shall certainly get our fair share. We shall certainly strive to develop every source of supply. In regard to steel, we can look forward to a large increase from the United States, although if a strike should unhappily occur there is no doubt that supplies would be temporarily held up. The second assurance I would give to the noble Lord is that we shall not draw stocks down below what is safe and reasonable. We are much better placed than we were a year ago in this respect. Let me take from published

1187
figures one item which has been peculiarly the subject of criticism—namely, softwood timber. The last published figures showed that stocks of softwoods at the end of December, 1951, were 724,000 standards. The corresponding figure at the end of December, 1950, was only 217,000 standards. The noble Lord will therefore see that there is a considerable margin, and he need not be too anxious on that score.
Then he asked me about internal capital investment. A fairly accurate figure can be given for the past, although I do not know that it is absolutely accurate. After all, it is arrived at by collecting statistics and seeing what has been done. It you take the preliminary National Income and Expenditure Estimates and refer to Table 8, you will there see, under a number of different headings, the figures for the investment which is actually believed to have taken place in 1951. The total comes to £1,185,000,000. I do not guarantee that that figure is right to £10,000,000. I am going to be quite frank, as I always try to be in your Lordships' House. I doubt whether it is useful to try to give any accurate figure for the future. That does not in the least mean that we do not know the direction in which we are seeking to guide investments, or the measures that we are taking to make our policy effective. But I am bound to say that I think an aggregate figure is rather meaningless. It must include a very great variety of items, some of which will increase and some of which will decrease. Because I think it is more intelligent, I would rather put it in this way to the House: we know that we must concentrate our resources of money and materials where the national need is greatest. That means that both investment and materials—for example, steel—must be directed into those channels. We must learn from the past, when undoubtedly too much was attempted. That meant that too much was started not always in the right direction, and in consequence too little was finished. That is why a large number of things are held up to-day. It is much better to start and finish what you can do.
Where must we concentrate? Obviously, we have to concentrate on coalmining, which is vital both at home and in our export trade. We must concen-
1188
trate on power, which is needed in the works. Although the building of power stations has to be kept going and accelerated, there must be the maximum of economy in construction. We must save steel, money, and time; and the saving of all three goes together. We must concentrate on the development of oil resources and refineries. I do not know whether the word "Abadan" will be written on Mr. Morrison's heart, but it will certainly for many years be written on the wrong side of our national balance sheet. Then, transport must be adequately maintained, and we must continue the development of our steelworks in order to produce the necessary raw materials. As to other industrial developments, we must concentrate financial and material resources wherever it is most necessary to promote exports and defence. I really think that that is, if I may say so, a more honest and more informative answer than if I tried to give the noble Lord a figure.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot accept that view. I know that when I was in the Cabinet we regularly had brought before us an estimate to enable us to judge how far we were spending too much or too little upon capital development. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the present Government to have something corresponding to that, and to give some information about it. The point I was trying to find out was whether the Government were trying to close the gap by reducing capital expenditure. It seems to me that, possibly, it may be necessary to reduce the amount spent on capital expenditure. I think that Parliament is entitled to know whether the gap is being closed mainly in that way or only to a very small extent, and also that we are entitled to have some figures put before us.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am well aware of the practice which prevailed in this connection in the last Government. I am well aware that hardly a week passed without a Paper being presented, giving estimated figures down to the last decimal point, of what investment was going to be undertaken, when it was going to take place and where. All I can say is that I think most of those estimates were hardly worth the paper on which they were written. And one

1189
of the reasons for the situation in which we now find ourselves, I think, is that a good deal of activity was directed in the wrong direction because of this meticulous overestimating and over-planning. I am not saying that you should not plan; of course you plan. But you should plan in a broad strategic way, in the way in which a Commander-in-Chief in charge of a battle plans. You do not plan right down the scale so as to try to direct the operations of every battalion and every platoon. Of course we are reducing investment to what the amount of money available will allow—and not only money but other factors as well. I think one of the mistakes which the noble Lord and his colleagues were always making arose in this way. In a sense money is a symbol, but they were constantly accepting written figures in terms of money without in the least knowing whether there was going to be available the steel or the raw materials or other resources.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes you did. I have the chance of answering, and I propose to exercise my right of reply. Now we know the facts. They liked doing it in one way; I like doing it in another. That is what happened. You proceeded to do these sums of money, with the result, for instance, that you planned power stations all wrong. You were a million megawatts, or whatever it is called, on the wrong side because you looked at a monetary sum rather than at the real needs of industry. Incidentally, you built those power stations far too expensively and like cathedrals. In some cases it took about five years to do it. I think the House will agree that our approach is more realistic, and I am prepared to take an even money bet—if I am not using improper language—that at the end of the year we shall have shown a good deal better results than the noble Lord and his friends did.
But let me pass on; I have been diverted. I turn now to the question of production and in this connection I will give the noble Lord a figure. We aim at an increase in production of two hundred and fifty millions.
LORD PAKENHAM: Two hundred and fifty millions of what?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Two hundred and fifty million pounds worth of production. Really, I have just been told by noble Lords that it is nonsense to talk about things, and that I must talk about money. Now when I give the noble Lord a figure in money he says: "Why do you not talk about things?"
LORD PAKENHAM: As a matter of fact I did not ask the noble Viscount why he did not talk about things. It appeared to me, and to a good many other people also, I believe, that the noble Viscount did not know what he was talking about. He just said "two hundred and fifty millions" and then had to consult his notes to see what it was.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I did not. No doubt sometimes one makes a slip in giving a figure, and one is entitled to correct it. I think that on the whole I generally try to get pretty accurate information when I come to this House. But I will not get "hot wider the collar" yet; I shall come to some other things which I am sure will interest the noble Lord in a moment I have told the noble Lord what we propose. We estimate an increase of £250,000,000 in production. Now is that a reasonably fair amount to ask? On the whole I think it is. It depends, of course, on the materials which will be available and it depends on what, in the jargon of to-day, I have to call increased productivity—which means harder work and efficient management in the widest sense. And I am bound to say this. I think the great constructive reform in the Budget, the incentive of tax relief, will have a very great effect.
The noble Lord said that it could not be much of a crisis because people are going to have as much to consume as they had before. He entirely left out that they will have as much to consume as before only if they get this £250,000,000 worth more production, and that this does depend on harder work. In exports, we are aiming at a £50,000,000 increase. That will not be easy in a buyers' market, with increasing competition. But there is still a great unsatisfied demand for capital goods and many engineering products and ships. That is why we have to concentrate our resources on, and speed up production of, these things. If some markets contract temporarily, there are good openings in others—I think Canada is a

1191
very good example. We have good will and selling capacity, and we have our great reputation for quality. In the allocation of materials, I am learning constantly of new openings for goods, often of high conversion value which industries with ingenuity and knowledge of markets are developing. And may I say, in passing, that I very much hope that firms who are finding these new ventures profitable and worthwhile are sharing the knowledge with their workpeople—indeed with everyone in their works. I am certainly not inclined to reduce that target of an extra £50,000,000 worth of exports.
Of course, no speech from Lord Pethick-Lawrence would be complete without the "King Charles' head" of the bank rate. He asked me specifically—I am afraid I must deal a little in detail with this matter because he asked me so many detailed questions—what was the estimate of the gross and net increase in the cost of the service of the National Debt attributable to the increase in the bank rate. As a result of the raising of the bank rate to 4 per cent. on March 11, the Treasury Bill tender rate, as we know, went up on the following Friday to just over 2¼ per cent., and has remained at about that figure in subsequent weeks. But we cannot know at all whether it will stay at that rate or go higher or lower—the object of our policy is to restore flexibility to the market. In fact, we cannot tell (and if I knew I certainly should not say) whether the bank rate itself will stay at 4 per cent. for the whole of the year 1952–53. For this reason, it is quite impossible to make any estimate of the extra cost to the Exchequer over the whole year. Indeed, to attempt such an estimate would involve making some assumptions about the future course of events, and any such assumptions might themselves have an unfortunate influence on those events, since they would be taken as an indication of the Government's intentions.
It is obvious, of course, that each additional half per cent. on every £1,000,000,000 of floating debt means an extra £5,000,000 per annum. But this figure gives no clue to the total extra charge for the year when the rate itself may vary and allowance has to be made for official holdings, and income tax which is collected on all this, or on the
1192
great bulk of it, in due course. Further, any comparison with the past is also complicated by the alteration in the size of the unfunded debt brought about by the funding operation of last November. It would, therefore (I say this quite frankly) be premature and misleading to make any estimate now of the increased cost to the Exchequer over the full year of the recent increase in interest rates. Any such estimate would present a very one-sided picture. The Treasury is a borrower and, like any other borrower, it regrets a rise in interest rates. But the Treasury and the Government are bound in the national interest to take a much broader view of all the implications of monetary policy; and it is our conviction that, so regarded, that policy will produce for the community as a whole, and therefore for the Budget itself, benefits in terms of a more realistic attitude towards costs and prices which, in the long run, will outweigh any immediate short-term cost to the Exchequer in a narrow sense. That extra cost must therefore be set against the more indirect, but no less real, benefit which the Budget will derive from a general strengthening of the economy. There certainly is no doubt at all (and I challenge anybody to deny this) that the monetary policy of the Government has increased confidence at home and abroad. Certainly the success of a policy is not a signal for its abandonment.
I do not want to go over again all that has been said in debate on the necessity of bringing in the monetary weapon as an adjunct to the other measures to rectify our economic situation. No one has disputed that all practical measures must be taken to combat inflation. No one has disputed that credit must be restricted and directed into the right channels. What those channels are, I think, is indicated in what I have said about investment. No one has disputed that neither of these aims could be achieved so long as the old system operated, under which the Bank of England bought Treasury Bills from the money market and thus provided cash to the banks, to an unlimited extent, at a very low fixed rate. Nor has it been disputed by anyone—certainly not by any who has the practical job of giving or refusing credit—that it is absolutely impossible for the banks, notwithstanding all their readiness to co-operate, to

1193
restrict credit, when cheap money was available to them in unlimited quantities to meet every demand that could be made upon them.
None of our critics has attempted to answer any of those arguments or offered any practical alternatives to the flexible use of the bank rate. The whole point of bringing this monetary weapon into play is its flexibility. That is the answer to the allegation that if the Government use the monetary technique, that technique becomes the dictator of economic policy. It is certainly not, and it will not be, our master but our servant—and it is a very useful and, indeed, indispensable, servant. I will, in less technical terms, add this. Apart from the misunderstanding, genuine or assumed, of how the bank rate works, I must say—if I may be permitted to use the expression—that a great deal of bunkum is talked, if not here, outside, about its effect. To hear some people talk you would believe that every working man was living on a substantial overdraft from his bank. Most of them would never have heard of a bank rate unless they had been regaled by week-end speeches about "a bankers' ramp," or been the recipients of literature on the subject edited, perhaps, by Lord Pethick-Lawrence or Lord Pakenham. And even if they read this literature, I doubt whether they would be very much wiser.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, asked me to say what will be the effect of the higher bank rate on long-term rates. It is certainly not possible to say this. There is no automatic mathematical connection between long and short-term rates. The level of the bank rate is, as I think everyone fully appreciates, only one factor amongst many affecting the prices of gilt-edged securities and therefore the long-term borrowing rate. The object of our policy is to restore confidence, both internal and external, and the gilt-edged market reflects confidence or lack of confidence which our policy creates. I think all that is clearly borne out by what has, in fact, happened in the gilt-edged long-term market. After the bank rate was raised by 1½ per cent. (and if there were an automatic mathematical connection between short and long-term rates of interest. one would have expected an enormous decline in the price of gilt-
1194
edged securities) long-term gilt-edged securities were marked down only about two points, and since then they have shown some appreciation.
However set the noble Lord may be in his convictions or his prejudices, I think he will agree that I have at any rate tried to answer fairly and fully the rather difficult questions, which he put to me.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I agree, but the last point that the noble Viscount has been answering, I have never pat to him. It was not in my speech; it was not in a note I sent him. It is an addition of his own. I am glad to have it and I agree to a very considerable extent with what he said.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think someone was speaking to me. I gathered that he had said that. At any rate, it certainly was on a note he was good enough to send me. This is not unimportant, and I hope he will pass on our common agreement on this subject to a number of his friends who ate saying quite different things about it in the country.
My Lords, I will now turn for a moment or two to the broader aims of our policy which are made effective in the Budget proposals. I should like to repeat that all our proposals are a comprehensive inter-dependent whole, and must be treated as such. Last time the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said that he must attack us on moral grounds because in effect our aim, or at any rate the result of our policy, was to relieve the rich at the expense of the poor. He has been good enough to tell me that he to-day proposes to seek to justify those observations, praying in aid our Budget proposals.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount misrepresented me last time and he misrepresents me again, but I will put him right when I come to reply.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sorry if I misrepresent the noble Lord. I read his speech again very carefully, but certainly I do not wish to misrepresent him. Noble Lords will be able to appraise more fairly and accurately the true situation, and draw whatever inference it is reasonably fair to draw from it, if I remind them of certain facts. I hope that a cold douche of reality will not quench the noble Lord's eloquence or unduly cramp his style. It was said

1195
of the Bourbons that they forgot nothing and learned nothing.
LORD BURDEN: Can a cold douche cramp the noble Lord's style?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sorry; I will try to come up to the high standard the noble Lord always sets us. The late Government conveniently forget most things, though I would not say that they learned a great deal. Therefore I should like to refresh the memories of the noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who opened the debate, has repeated the attack on the so-called "cuts" which we have made. I should like to ask the noble Lord who has just corrected me in my metaphor for a little enlightenment. When is a cut not a cut? That is a rather interesting question. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will tell me how I should describe it when it is done by a Socialist Government.
There is certainly no doubt about the facts. Successive Socialist Chancellors have imposed ceilings on social expenditure. I must admit that on one item, that of education, we have increased our Estimate by £8,000,000 above the Socialist Estimate of last year. Both Sir Stafford Cripps and Mr. Gaitskell put a ceiling on expenditure on the Health Services. As Mr. Gaitskell said, quoting Sir Stafford Cripps:
"It is clear that it is not possible to permit an overall increase of expenditure on the Health Services. Any expansion in one part of the Service must be met by economies, or if necessary by contraction in others."
Similarly in food subsidies, Socialist Chancellors of the Exchequer imposed a definite ceiling. Their action over food subsidies is particularly revealing, I think, and it was on food subsidies that the noble Lord concentrated. In 1949, Sir Stafford Cripps said that the effect of a prospective increase in subsidies, if food prices were to be kept pegged, would be to raise these subsidies to £568,000,000. He imposed a ceiling of £465,000,000. A year later Sir Stafford Cripps lowered the ceiling from £465,000,000 to £410,000,000. In ordinary language, I should have thought that to reduce a total from £465,000,000 to £410,000,000 was to cut it. But I want to meet the susceptibilities of noble Lords opposite. Therefore, when they reduce the amount
1196
spent on food subsidies between one Budget and the next, we must not call it a cut, we must adopt meteorological language, and call it "a depression of the ceiling." Very well, let us call it a depression of the ceiling. Anyway, there is no doubt about the facts or the effect. I shall have something more to say about food subsidies in a moment.
From what I have said, it is clear that when Socialist Chancellors of the Exchequer and a Socialist Government had responsibility, they recognised, in a much less difficult situation than that we face to-day, that expenditure on social services must be strictly limited if we are to remain solvent. Of course, there is the primrose path advocated to us last time by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I have been refreshing my memory of his speech, too. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said he thought the right approach was to devote as much of our resources as were needed to maintain the standard of living to which our people were entitled (I do not know what the word "entitlement" means: we are entitled to the standard of living we produce, and we cannot in the long run get any other, because we are all in this together), and then to see what was left to pay for rearmament—and presumably, also, for the exports by which we live, though he forgot to mention that. Well, that is another version of the aphorism, "Let us eat, drink and be merry, for to-morrow we die." I do not know whether this is the kind of professional advice Lord Silkin tenders to his clients. If he does, I can only hope that his office is within convenient reach of Carey Street!
To do the late Government justice, that was not their policy. They said that there must be ceilings. They were right; and they were also right when they said that we can maintain our ceilings only by strict economy in administration, by reducing services if the cost exceeds the ceilings or by imposing charges. That is the only way. I think it reduces the legitimate difference between us to our further reductions in the food subsidies—our further "depression of the ceiling." Socialist Ministers are entitled to say, if they are honestly of that opinion, that while they would have refused to increase the food subsidies, they would have tried to maintain expenditure on subsidies at the existing level, however dangerous the

1197
effect on our internal and external economy. Of course, if they had done that, there would have been an increase in the price of food. It is admitted that of the estimated increase in the cost of subsidised foods of 1s. 6d. per person a week, only 1s. 2½d. can be attributed to the cut in food subsidies. In deciding whether this cut was right or wrong, we must consider it in connection with all the tax reliefs and other benefits which accompany it in the Budget.
We have always maintained in all our publications and in all our speeches—let them single out my noble friend Lord Woolton, but we are all in this together..
LORD PAKENHAM: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Certainly, I should greatly resent it if that were not appreciated. We have always maintained that food subsidies were the worst and most uneconomical way of helping the less well-off and those most in need to meet the cost of living. Subsidies are bad because they conceal the true position. As Sir Stafford Cripps said, we get "prices out of all relation with realities." But they have an even more serious effect. They are given indiscriminately, utterly irrespective of need. Rich and poor alike are subsidised. We have always maintained that we thought the right way to deal with food subsidies was by family allowances and adjustment of taxation. It is perfectly true that, though we said we had every intention of dealing with food subsidies on these lines, we did not intend to do so immediately. But until we came into office we were entirely ignorant of the terrible financial mess in which the country was. I say this: certainly we were, and so was the whole country. Never was a country more kept in the dark and more misled. I say this for myself and for every—
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Viscount has just made the grossest misstatement that I have heard in my time as a member of this House, and my membership goes back six years. He said that the country was kept in the dark. He said that never was a country kept so much in the dark. He knows that that is not true, if he thinks it over.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I know that it is absolutely true. I do not withdraw one word of it. I remember when Mr.
1198
Gaitskell made a speech to the bankers. Who had the least idea, after Mr. Gaitskell's speech to the bankers, that we were on the verge of bankruptcy? Go and read the Election speeches—I see the noble Lord rising, beat I am not giving way.
LORD PAKENHAM: Go and read your Election speeches.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We have been asked to read our own broadcasts. All right. I say: "Go and read the speeches and broadcasts delivered throughout the length and breadth of the land during the last Election." Who would have supposed that during the one month when we were fighting the Election the E.P.U. situation was going to be no less than £89,000,000 to the bad, 80 per cent. of which we had to pay for in gold? Of course, the country knew nothing about it. If the country was to be informed of the truth, I will tell the House, as I did before, what the Government should have done. The answer is simple—and if they had done it, I should not be making this kind of speech to-day.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will tell you what it was. My justification—
LORD PAKENHAM: There is not any.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is quite all right. I intend to stand at this Box and say exactly what I mean to say. I will not be put off by Oxford Union interruptions. I propose to say exactly what I have in mind.
LORD PAKENHAM: Keep your temper.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Really, the noble Lord must contain himself.
LORD PAKENHAM: That is good, coming from you.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am glad the noble Lord is amused.
LORD PAKENHAM: No, I am not.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: He will be laughing on the other side of his mouth presently. I should not be making this speech if the late Government had done the one honest and straightforward thing

1199
it was their duty to do—namely, to come to Parliament last September and have a one-day Session, in which they could have exposed the truth to the country, and taken those measures which we had to take last November. If that had been done it would not have been necessary to accuse them—as I do accuse them to-day; I do not withdraw a single word of what I have said. We should have been in a far less bad position.
EARL JOWITT: Perhaps I might ask a question. I may say that I very much regret the tone and temper of this debate, which is not in accordance with our traditions. I should like to ask the noble Viscount this. Has Mr. Butler, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for whom I have a great regard, ever alleged that he was misled, that any statement was made that was untrue, or that he did not know the facts?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I cannot quote from the speech, but I am certain that no noble Lord on this side of the House, nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would differ from one word of what I am saying now. I say that in the presence of my colleagues. We certainly did not know. I would say this in regard to subsidies. We should have been cowardly and guilty if we had not tackled the position now. In regard to the tone and temper of the debate, that remark comes very well from the front Opposition Bench, which has done nothing but make personal attacks on my noble friend Lord Woolton.
There is no doubt that what we have done was realistic, necessary, right and fair. Let us see how the compensations balance the cut. We must take the two together. We shall increase the family allowances; we shall increase the pensions and the insurance benefits. We are proposing large reliefs in income tax. There are, first, the increases in the single allowance, marriage allowance and child allowance. We calculated that these would relieve 2,000,000 people altogether of income tax. Then there is the improvement in the structure under which the initial rates rise less steeply. Finally, there is the great encouragement of the rate of relief on earned income. For years we have all been preaching the need for higher output, but at the same time the
1200
income tax system has acted as a deterrent. It may be that this was exaggerated in men's minds, but there was no doubt at all as to how they felt about it. It was continually said: "The harder I work, the more I pay." Now the relief is a real incentive to harder work. My noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence said he did not think that husbands would pass it on. Speaking from personal experience, I think that most wives will see that they get a good share of the increase.
It has been said that we exaggerate the benefits which are being given. What are the facts? There are about 20,000,000 people with incomes above £135 a year. If one takes into account the wives, children and other dependants of these people, they account for the greater part of our population. On the level of incomes at present ruling, 16,000,000 of these people would, but for the Budget, have been paying income tax. Every one of those people will receive some income tax remission under the Budget, and 2,000,000 will be exempted from the tax altogether. Of the 4,000,000 who are not liable to tax, and who will, therefore, receive no income tax relief, 2,000,000 are married people with two or more children, who will receive the benefit of the increased family allowance. Of the remaining 2,000,000 nearly 1,000,000 are single people, most of them boys and girls. These figures are based, of course, on incomes as they at present exist. The whole purpose of the relief in the Budget, however, is to encourage people to work harder and earn more; and if they do so they will benefit not only themselves but their country. I could give the House many examples of how this would work, but I will not delay. I think I can best sum up by saying this. I know that careful critics will be able to extract examples in which, by setting the 1s. 2½d. increase in food prices against tax relief, a particular man, if he works his normal number of hours at his existing rate of wages, will be a few pence a week worse off. I am not content to answer this merely by quoting the far greater number of cases in which men will be better off. But I would say that, with the new reliefs, if a man works an extra hour he will usually more than recompense himself for the extra cost.
There is one shot still left in the Socialist locker. They say: "True you

1201
are giving these great reliefs to the mass of the tag payers, but you are also relieving the rich." The total relief which goes to people with incomes above £2,000 a year is very small: it accounts for only about 5 per cent. of the total. Ninety-five per cent. of the relief goes to incomes below £2,000 a year; and no less than 70 per cent, of it goes to incomes below £15 a week. You must have it that way. For the List thirty years or more the structure of the income tax has been such that, where you give relief in raising the initial limit, or the allowances, or alter the point at which one rate of tax merges in another, you must apply the reliefs automatically all round. Income tax will not work any other way. This has been accepted by all Chancellors, whatever their complexion. It therefore follows that people in the higher range of income get a bit, too. For example—I make a present of this to noble Lords—for a married man with one child, having an earned income of £2,000 (and the relief remains constant from just above that figure) the relief under Mr. Butler's Budget is £59. Under Sir Stafford Cripps' Budget in 1948 lie got £86; and under Dr. Dalton's Budget in 1945 the same man got £98. Therefore, I do not think we have been particularly generous to the rich.
If the account is fairly cast up, it is not just barely balanced: the great majority will find themselves better off. And not only better off on present showing: they are given incentive and encouragement, in a Budget which is not only realistic, fair and just, but has shown the world our confidence in ourselves and done much to restore their confidence in us.
4.29 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I feel it must be a matter of general regret that the noble Viscount Lord Swinton, on this occasion should not have taken the duties which fall to him in a rather more serious vein. The country is greatly strained as to the economic outlook, and there is much bewilderment as to the effects upon our future of the economic measures which are proposed in the Budget, or otherwise. My noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence put before the House a reasoned and carefully considered statement of his views—views which are in accord with
1202
those of a large number of people, irrespective of Party affiliations. He asked the noble Viscount who would be speaking for the Government a number of questions which people are asking everywhere, and which the country has a right to know. They were, not frivolous Party debating points such as, if I may say so with respect, my noble friend received in reply, but serious questions, designed to throw some light upon a very dark situation. I should like the spokesman for the Government who will wind up this debate to fill in the gaps which the noble Viscount has left.
I am sorry, too, that he should have introduced into the debate in this House the slander—for it is nothing else—upon the late Chancellor of the Exchequer which he did. There is not one single word of truth in it, and the sooner it is withdrawn the better for the reputation of those who make it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has several times gone out of his way to pay a tribute to his predecessor for his frankness and candour in all his doings. The fact that the country was overtaken by a balance of payments crisis due to the terms of trade swinging sharply against us—which all who take the trouble to study this question understand full well —has nothing whatever to do with the disclosure or non-disclosure of material facts. The material facts were disclosed as an ordinary matter of routine by the published Papers and also by the statements which were most clearly made. The noble Viscount has been long enough in public life to know that that is true.
Now I think we might try for a few moments to see whether we cannot get some information upon the obscurities which are still left of the Government's economic intentions. There can be little doubt that the Budget (which was received by the country with studious restraint) has, upon examination of its effects, proved a bitter disappointment. If, in fact, our economic plight were as parlous as the noble Viscount would make out—and I do not deny that it is serious—nothing has been done which will put it right. My criticism of the Budget is this: it proves to have been inadequate, and its adequacy is one of the tests. What was required? Economic measures were required which would have closed the gap in our balance of

1203
overseas trade, reduced luxury consumer expenditure and so stimulated production as to make it unnecessary unduly to depress the standard of life to maintain our export and armament production. But that is not what has happened. The Budget has had a most deplorable effect upon trade and industry, and so far from stimulating greater efforts it has taken away incentives to try and expand our export markets in the difficult places which are left. By the reduction of the food subsidies, whatever their theoretical justification, we have immediately inflated our costs, and by the raising of the rate of borrowing we have, in the long term, deflated our demand. We get an immediate inflationary effect by setting in motion the cycle of price rises and wage increases, and a long-term deflationary effect by restricting capital development and the increased production which flows from it.
That is a very serious criticism of the Budget. Let us see whether it can be maintained. The immediate effect of the alterations in the food subsidies and the taxation allowances is to give rise to widespread demands for wage increases which have hitherto been held in check. There can be no doubt about that. The immediate effect, therefore, whatever its theoretical justification, is to set in motion the inflationary spiral. Nothing could be more destructive of our hopes of increasing our export trade, and thus closing our gap in the balance of overseas trade, than a rapid rise in our costs. But the Government have done the one thing which can be absolutely guaranteed to raise the cost on every kind of export article. It is a fact that the food subsidies were, in effect, a hidden export subsidy. The foreigner got the benefit of the lower wages which the worker could accept because of them, and the home consumer paid for it in taxation. Therefore, the food subsidies were a very ingenious form of export subsidy—a subsidy which could not be made in any other way without infringing all sorts of international anti-dumping trade agreements. We are going to suffer immediately further difficulties with our export trade as a result. There is no doubt that there has been set in motion an inflationary spiral which is gathering momentum very fast.
1204
Now let me turn to one other aspect of the Budget which I myself deplore, and which I think has a depressive effect upon the whole of trade and industry out of all proportion to its monetary importance. That is the reimposition of an excess profits tax. There is a case, in circumstances such as this, for taxing profits and for taxing high profits heavily. But there are many ways of taxing profits which are preferable to this worst of all ways. The previous Government imposed a tax upon distributed profits, and that tax upon profits arising from all sources if they are distributed is, in my view, the best form of profits tax, because it is directly anti-inflationary in its incidence and because it provides a most direct incentive to use the profits of industry for the replacement of the capital which trade and industry wear out. This tax, which in part replaces it, does the exact opposite. It is inflationary and I suggest that it has no advantages of any kind; and that it was put into this Budget and in the Election Manifesto by somebody in some mistaken belief that it was a vote catcher, regardless of its bearing on the national economy. It is a direct attack upon the marginal earnings of enterprise. What business man, whether in business for himself or as a trustee for shareholders and in a joint stock enterprise, will feel fully entitled to embark upon the risks of enterprise in the hope of, say, getting a foothold in new export markets, when he has to face the facts that by this tax 30 per cent. of any profits he makes will by it be taken in this new levy? When he has provided for the profits taxes and income tax, 80 per cent. of the earnings of the enterprise are drained off. What is left to replace the capital or to carry on the business in the years that are ahead?
A tax on distributed profits has a direct effect in encouraging company directors to keep the profits in the business, to replace as and when possible the capital wear and tear of the business. Now the expenditure of accumulated profits upon capital machinery and plant of all kinds, factory buildings and so on, is under direct Governmental control. If it is in conflict with the needs of the export market or rearmament, the Government have complete control over it; physical control by licences. You need a licence for most machinery; you need a licence for new capital buildings; and nobody

1205
can, against the national interest, spend undistributed profits upon capital goods unless it suits the Government to allow him to do so. But distributed profits flow into the volume of money pressing to buy consumer goods, and therefore I say the method by which the previous Government taxed profits was greatly preferable to this excess profits levy. Moreover, this tax discriminates against new and thrustful enterprises. It favours conservative, unimaginative, unenterprising types of business. It is the new business which has to reach out for new markets and is making the new equipment designed for technological development which pays most of this tax. In 1948 and 1949 these companies were just pulling out from the difficulties of the war. They are going to pay the maximum of this tax. These are the very industries that are expanding and that need to keep the utmost they can to buy their plant and expand their business.
Therefore I say that, judged by its effect on the situation it was designed to ameliorate, the Budget is a failure. The noble Viscount has been spending a large part of his speech telling us about the effect of the income tax allowances. All that leads to increasing the demand for consumer goods. It is a demand which ought to be restricted at this time, but the Budget has done little in that direction. It has run up our costs; it has started an inflationary spiral; it has made it more and more difficult to replace and repair the wastage of capital which is one of the most grave features of our trade and industry to-day. It has done nothing to close the gap in the balance of overseas trade, except for the crudest and most ineffectual cuts in our imports. The immediate effect of these restrictions in our imports has been the refusal of our customers abroad to buy our goods. What can have possessed those who represented the British Government at the Commonwealth Conference that they should have entered into arrangements of this sort? What is the effect between ourselves and the Australian Commonwealth? Our textile industry is badly affected. The Australians are going without the manufactured goods which they so badly need and which we could supply.
LORD BARNBY: I have just landed back from Australia, and from what I have seen I can say that the restrictions
1206
have been largely at the instigation of organised labour, who themselves are suffering from violent unemployment as a result of over-importing goods from Britain.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I know that that is so. We should face up to these problems as a family. Our balance of trade is the balance of the British Empire in trade with countries outside. I understand that it is sterling goods more than dollar goods which the Commonwealth countries have now restricted. I hope the Government will explain to-day why it has been possible for a Commonwealth Conference to have resulted in such a mutually destructive policy. I hope that before this debate closes we shall hear from the Government some justification for what certainly appears to me and to many others to be a policy which is very difficult indeed to explain.
4.49 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I feel I ought to begin with an apology. I have not long been a member of your Lordships' House, but I have made for myself a condition that it was not desirable for me to attend this House only upon those occasions when I intended to make a speech. I do not believe that that is the right way to treat a debating assembly. Unfortunately for me, my other activities make it impossible for me to come here regularly. I am very busy in the north building a new town. I am even more busy at the moment in the academic and, I believe, even more useful purpose of studying some of the past economic history of this country, in particular the age in which I grew up, the last ten years before the outbreak of the First World War. I believe that from that period one can draw a lesson of how to act which may be of real value to-day, not as a moral for to-day or to-morrow, but as a lesson from that age to this age. With the difficult, contentious and practical issues with which this debate has been mainly concerned up to the present I have neither the time, nor indeed the qualifications, to deal. In regard to that, I would associate myself largely with what was said by my noble friend who sits on these Benches in approval of the general line of the Budget as opening a chink, at any rate, to greater freedom of the individual in spending. For my part, if the Budget had

1207
not made that cut in the subsidies, I should have been equally disappointed. That is all I want to say on that practical point. Let me now come to the lesson which I, at any rate, draw from such studies as I have been making of the past.
LORD WOOLTON: Will the noble Lord move nearer the microphone, for I am anxious to hear what he is saying?
LORD BEVERIDGE: I am sorry. I did not realise that I was not being heard. I think that one can learn something from the last ten years before the First World War and the present age. I do not, of course, mean for a moment to suggest that the problems of the two ages are in any sense whatever the same. In those days, in the absence of any trade union organisation or minimum wage legislation, we had sweated, miserably low wages. We had want through insecurity, old age, sickness and all the rest of it; and we had unemployment. But, through all that unemployment and misery, the general standard of living, the real wages of the great mass of the people in the country for fifty or eighty years, has risen more or less continuously. That was the feature of that age, a generally rising standard of living, combined with acute poverty and want for lack of adequate provision against it. In that age, also, there was no doubt at all about the premier position of Britain in the industry of the world. Now the position is quite different. Very largely we have got rid of insecurity, we have got rid of unemployment. We have, of course, to-day got rid of anything like sweated labour. But we have not got rid of our problems; we have only changed them.
I maintain that the two main problems that we have to-day in economic affairs are, first, the problem of how to maintain and advance our general standard of living, in spite of full employment; and, secondly, how to preserve the value of money in spite of the growth of collective industrial organisation of all-embracing trade unionism, either monopolies or near-monopolies or solid bodies of employers, industry by industry, each industry separately. Those two problems, of course, are related but distinct. I am not going to say anything about the second except that I do not
1208
believe a solution to the second problem, that of preserving the value of money in spite of this collective industrial organisation, will be facilitated by speeches by any responsible person such as that to which we have listened, even from the noble Lord who has just preceded me, suggesting that it is reasonable and, therefore, that it must be right, for any rise in the cost of living to be met by a demand for further money wages. I think that problem will not be helped by that kind of attitude in any responsible quarter.
I want to speak only of the first problem, the problem of maintaining and advancing our standard of living in spite of full employment. That way of putting it suggests that there are dangers in full employment. It is obvious that our general standard of living no longer depends upon distribution of wealth. It depends upon production. The equalisation of incomes has already gone so far—some may think it has gone too far, but at any rate it has gone so far—that there is nothing further to be hoped for in that direction from further measures of distribution. When I speak of "equalisation," I am not thinking only of equalisation of incomes as between what used to be called the rich and what used to be called the poor, but of the differences between skilled men and unskilled men, which have progressively diminished. There has been a general equalisation throughout. You cannot get anything further along that line.
The general standard of living cannot be advanced materially by playing about with money wages. The greatest of all illusions to-day in the minds of our people is that the pay packet makes the worker's standard of living high. It does so only if it succeeds in raising the level of production. Of course, what we can consume each day depends on what we can produce each day. It depends upon our output per man-day compared with the output per man-day of other nations. One must mention, of course, that any standard of living that we have in this country depends on international trade. We are no longer in the position that we were in just before the First World War, with large numbers of nations not undertaking industry at all, ready to supply agricultural goods and materials for our exploitation, to our advantage. Therefore,

1209
we must make our output per man-hour as high as we possibly can. That is the right line of action for us, and only that will preserve, let alone advance, our standard of living. It makes industrial efficiency absolutely essential.
Is our industrial efficiency to-day and is our output per man-hour in every industry in the country as high as it could be and should be? That is the question we must answer—I will not say how far and how exactly: I cannot hope to attempt a survey of all industry. But let me mention just two industries, one of which I am now concerned with, and in the other of which, in another capacity, I was deeply and passionately concerned before the First World War. The first industry is building. The most growing need in these days, of course, is that of housing; and, naturally, the efficiency of the building industry is more vital than that of many other industries. We have only to look at such reports as the Gird-wood Report on the building industry to see that we have not done it. I do not know what the position is to-day (I have not the latest report), but I think we must say that, if the building Operatives and their employers are now doing all that they can reasonably be asked to do for the remuneration they receive, then they and the rest of the, people of this country must make up their minds that they will not get the homes that they want, and ought to have, at anything like the rent they feel they ought to pay. That is obvious.
Let me take another industry, one with which I was deeply concerned when I was a young man before the First World War, the industry of dock labour. It was of vast interest in many quarters because of its great social evil of casual employment, degrading men to the level of cattle; degrading them to hopeless miserable lives in the gamble for wages. The other day I read, and I daresay some of my noble friends read, an article in the Manchester Guardian called "Everything stops for tea." That was an article describing the kind of things seen in the Liverpool docks. The writer went very carefully. He did not say that what he saw applied to everybody, because he knew it did not. But there were stories of idleness, of slack ness, of indiscipline, and of widespread restrictions on
1210
the use of machinery. You can hear the same stories about other docks. If in general the people who work in our docks are doing all that they can reasonably be expected to do far the money they are getting, then we in Britain must make up our minds that we shall compete in international trade with shackles round our arms and legs, shackles of undue cost in competing in international trade. I said that this casual employment was of great interest to many people before the First World War. It happened to be the interest of a much greater and more powerful person than myself in those days, the present Prime Minister. In the first Election address which he made, when standing for re-election after being appointed President of the Board of Trade in 1908, he referred for the first time to the need for the decasualisation of the lock labourers. That was then his interest, as well as the interest of many others.
I have mentioned those two industries, and have said that I do not accept all these stories as true; I do not accept anything as yet proved. All I say is that the question of whether we are getting from the operatives and from the employers in all our industries a fair return in output for what they get as wages is a matter that needs investigation. Let us have the facts about it. It is obvious that full employment has dangers. It has the danger of endless rise of prices for the same output. It has the danger of weakening discipline. It has the danger of encouraging idleness. It has the danger of making people not mind whether or not they do a particular job. Obviously, full employment weakens the incentive to output; it removes the incentive of fear.
I wish to dissociate myself completely and utterly from the view, expressed by some people, that we shall never get the economic condition of this country right until we have a dose of unemployment. I do not want a dose of unemployment. It is frightening. I think those who advocate a dose of unemployment often forget that the very slacknesses, the "going slow" and the restrictions which they now deprecate, were, in large part, born in times of unemployment. When a bricklayer, laying last row of bricks of a house, knew that when that house was finished he would be "on the street,"

1211
without any unemployment benefit, he did not need any trade union to tell him to cut down the number of bricks he laid. Out of that grew the ca'canny and the restrictive practices. The trouble is, of course, that ca'canny and restrictions which were bred by this situation have lasted into full employment—why, we do not know. Therefore, I suggest that we ought to get all the facts, and I want to put facts before remedies. I believe that remedies are always most likely to be best if the facts have been studied.
That brings me back to what I spoke of in the beginning, the moral to be drawn from the experience of the last ten years before 1914. There was then severe unemployment, and unemployment was a subject of heated political debate. There was one set of people, the employers, declaring that there was one way of curing unemployment. I did not agree with them in that debate, but fortunately the Government of the day, faced with this problem of unemployment, said, "Let us have a Royal Commission to investigate the facts." The Royal Commission on Poor Law and distress through unemployment was appointed by a Conservative Government in 1905, and reported to a Liberal Government in 1908. The Commission recommended a number of remedies—the creation of labour exchanges and all the rest of it—to be put into force. But more than that, they showed all the facts and produced the basis on which that Government and all subsequent Governments could work. I want to ask your Lordships, would it not be worth-while to-day to consider applying the same method of further impartial investigation of the quite different, though equally serious, social problems with which we are now faced?
We have had in the House to-day a certain amount of heat in discussing our problems. In my view what we need is light, rather than heat. The trouble is said to be lack of industrial efficiency. Why do the Government not consider having a Royal Commission on industrial efficiency, commissioned to test impartially and relentlessly all charges of inefficiency in discipline and restrictions, on either side of the wage bar. Such a Commission could compare our output per man-day with those of other nations. I want this Commission as essentially a
1212
fact-finding Commission, but I do not mean that if they want to suggest remedies they should not do so. They may find ways of suggesting remedies. There was nothing to prevent the Poor Law Commission from suggesting remedies, as they did. But I attach more importance in this case than I did in the case of unemployment before the First World War, to the finding and publicising of the facts of our industrial output, our output per man-day, and our industrial conditions. True, many excellent bodies in different industries have made careful studies into these things. But who knows about it? Who in the great mass of people has ever had this in his mind? I suggest that what we need, above all, is to get at the facts and then to bring them home, not merely to the Government but to every man and woman in the country, in order to show them upon what their standard of living depends, and how they themselves can raise it.
5.11 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I hope that what I am going to say is not going to "hot up" the debate again, but I want to draw the attention of noble Lords opposite to certain facts which, to a certain extent, I think have been denied by them. I am going to say this with a smile and I hope it will be received with a smile, because we did get a little warm. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, stumped to the Box and said that what my noble friend Lord Swinton had said was entirely untrue. I have here one or two extracts from speeches that I think it is just as well that the House should hear. We know that at the Mansion House on October 3, 1951, Mr. Gaitskell made a very strong speech. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, will deny that at that time it must have been clear to the Socialist Ministers that from the end of last summer we had been heading for very serious trouble. That is not denied. Our small gold and dollar surplus of 54,000.000 dollars in the June quarter changed dramatically to a gold and dollar deficit of 638,000,000 dollars in the September quarter. The Treasury must have been aware of the current trend. The Socialist Cabinet could have taken action then. They could have made import cuts and called the Empire

1213
together at once to face the crisis. Instead, they decided to go to the country. The problems ahead appeared to be too much for them to face, and they were bankrupt of any policy to deal with the situation.
It is very often remarked that from time to tine a consistent and clear idea was put forward by various responsible Ministers to acquaint the people of this country with the real situation. I have no recollection of anything of that sort being done. I can remember various statements which I am going to quote and which, in many cases, within a very short time reveal a complete somersault in regard to the situation. In the debate in another place on January 30, 1952, Mr. Gaitskell himself made this admission—I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; Vol. 495, col. 218:
"I accept that while we were in power maybe more should have been done. …
I think everybody agreed it would have been better if the Finance Ministers' Conference could have been held some months earlier."
That is a perfectly straightforward statement, which I accept.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord to ask him to read the rest of the quotation, if he has it?
LORD TEVIOT: I am afraid I have only that piece.
LORD PAKENHAM: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Gaitskell went on to explain that it could not be arranged. I do not think there was any lack of initiative on our side.
LORD TEVIOT: I thank the noble Lord for that information. Then, at Leeds on October 18, Lord Milner, who has just come to this House but whom I do not see here now, said:
"This country was never so prosperous."
My Lords, that is a statement quite outside the re alms of reality. I do not say that the noble Lord had the inside knowledge of the Cabinet, but at that time he was Deputy Speaker in another place, and he must have known a good deal; yet that was the statement he made. Then the former Prime Minister said at Lowestoft, on October 9, 1951:
"Mr. Churchill says, as he says so often, that this country is declining and we must 'stop the drift.' You know that is quite
1214
untrue, but ever since we came in he has been prophesying ruin, and that the country is going downhill. … Take the verdict of independent persons and take your own verdict, and you will find that so far from sliding and slipping back we have made wonderful progress to recovery."
If that was really Mr. Attlee's view at that time, based on the information he had, why was there an Election? The Government had been in office for eighteen months and they had another three and a half years to run. If the outlook was so good and there was none of this crisis to which I am going to refer again in a moment, why not go on?
Then Mr. Gaitskell, again at Leeds, on January 4, 1952, said:
"The Government are no doubt painting the picture as black as possible for political reasons. … We must be on our guard against 'crisis' talk as an excuse to set back the clock of social progress."
In our terrible situation that statement was riot very enlightening or helpful to the man in the street and humble individuals like myself, who had not the knowledge of noble Lords opposite. Then again, the former Prime Minister, on January 19, at Manchester, spoke in these terms:
"The Conservative Government is trying to create an atmosphere of scare and is crying out that everything is in danger and that this country's position is awful. Perhaps they will try to spring some Election on you on which you must all rally round the one man."
Within ten days of that speech—namely, on January 31—Mr. Attlee said this:
"We are perfectly seized of the gravity of the situation and we are prepared to support, as we have supported, those measures which are necessary; and we shall not go round the country saying 'It is all due to the Conservative Government.'"
To read such statements does lead one's mind to a state of bewilderment. How is it that such contradictory statements can be made by responsible Ministers? I really do not think noble Lords opposite were justified in getting so cross when my noble friend happened to mention that these things are in the picture. I have been a little distressed to note that in the last fortnight or three weeks there seems to have been in operation some sort of scheme of personal attack in another place, and now it has extended to this House. With regard to the attacks on the Prime Minister, I believe that he is well able to take care of

1215
himself. Anyone attacking him would need to be on a very good wicket indeed to be able to deal successfully with his bowling, and I think he disposed very effectively of those batsmen who did attack it. Now, alas ! we have come to this sort of thing in your Lordships' House. We had an attack yesterday on the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. I was glad to note that he was able to deal very adequately with it. I thought his reply was admirable and I was pleased that the Leader of the Opposition withdrew his Motion after the explanation which was given to him. Now we have had an attack to-day. I knew it was coming but I did not think it was coming so soon. Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who, I am sorry to note, is not in his place at the moment, started off by making a quite absurd attack on my noble friend Lord Woolton. When we think of the things that have been promised and of the promises that have not been carried out by the Party opposite, one wonders at them taking such a line. I do not wish to raise a lot of trouble, but I have here some really terrible things.
LORD CALVERLEY: From the Daily Mirror?
LORD TEVIOT: This is the sort of thing that has been printed, and the Labour Party cannot escape responsibility:
"Welfare with Labour or warfare with the Tories"
—and there are all sorts of pictures. Accompanying the words "Warfare with the Tories" is a picture of a broken down, bombed street with a soldier carrying a little child. I hope that noble Lords opposite do not agree with that sort of thing. And there are other publications of that nature which are really quite deplorable.
LORD CALVERLEY: Shocking!
LORD TEVIOT: No, I am not going to give way.
LORD CALVERLEY: I do not want you to.
LORD TEVIOT: We on this side have suffered from these insinuations, and I thought that a little retaliation would meet with your Lordships' approval. Here is another printed query:
"Will your boy die in Persia?"
1216
And again:
"They would take us back to poverty and insecurity at home and the threat of war abroad."
I say to noble Lords opposite that they must not throw too many stones, for it is easy to find things of this sort in their own publications—they are all over the country.
My Lords, I find, like everyone else who speaks at this late hour—to use a phrase well known in this House—and after such admirable speeches as we have heard, that the greater part of what I was going to say has already been touched upon. I entirely agree with every word said by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I thought that he explained the situation—concerning which I have some notes—extremely well. As your Lordships know, in the course of a discussion some time ago we had from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the noble Lord, Lord Brand, very exhaustive and learned statements on the subject of the bank rate, and I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has today dealt admirably with that matter. Now I come to the question of the subsidies. My noble friend Lord Woolton in his broadcast mentioned rumours that the Conservative Party were going to reduce old age pensions, cut the food subsidies, abolish rent control, put up the cost of living and reduce family allowances. He said:
"There is not a word of truth in any of these charges."
Then there was the charge of warmongering made against the Conservatives. That was used very freely in the last few days before the General Election, and undoubtedly it frightened the women—there is no question about that; I saw evidence of it myself. As to family allowances, noble Lords opposite, the trade unions and the Labour Party generally were very much against the initiation or those allowances. I see the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, looking at me, and I am sure it will be within his recollection that when we were both in another place Miss Eleanor Rathbone was always pressing for family allowances, but the trade unions and the Labour Party were always against it because they said it would prejudice them in demands for higher wages. It would, they suggested, upset their method of dealing with the

1217
employers. Old age pensions, we find, are being put up, and family allowances also. There is a reduction in food subsidies, but this has been much nullified by the increase in old age pensions and family allowances. These increases will do much to help those who may be particularly affected by the reduction in subsidies.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he surely is not denying that a pledge about food subsidies was given and broken.
LORD TEVIOT: I say that here was an omnibus statement. You may pick out one thing, as you have done, but you have not referred to the fact that the old age pensions were not reduced, that we did not abolish rent control or put up the cost of living, and that we did not reduce family allowances. You did not mention that these allowances went up. I consider that the items in an omnibus statement of this sort counter-balance very happily. Let me remind the noble Lord of this. I think it was the present Prime Minister who said, in effect: "Here is a policy we are going to attempt to carry out, but I cannot tell you what I can do until I have seen the books." As my noble friend here has said, the books, when they came to be examined, were just about as bad as they could be. Certainly they were a great deal worse than we thought it possible they could be. Every single Minister who has had to deal with this situation has told me that.
There is just one other thing I want to say with regard to food subsidies. I have for a Ling time taken the view that food subsidies mean less food. Now some of your Lordships might regard that as rather a foolish thing to say, but if you analyse it I do not think you will find that it is. The Minister of Food may get an opportunity to buy somewhere in the world a large quantity of food which would help to feed our people. Once a ceiling is placed on food subsidies, then the Treasury has to be consulted, and the Treasury at once say: "If you are going to buy this food you will undoubtedly go above the ceiling." Therefore, my view is that the operations of Ministers responsible for foodstuffs coming into this country are apt to be stultified when there is this ceiling and the Treasury have the dominating voice.
1218
Another question that is asked is, "Who is paying for the food subsidies?" We have been told for same time now that direct taxation has reached the stage of diminishing returns. So it comes to this: that those who have to pay for the food subsidies are the people who have to pay the tremendous duties that are imposed on tobacco, whisky and beer, and who pay purchase tax and all the rest. They are paying for them themselves, and a great Chancellor of the Exchequer has evolved this plan of reducing the food subsidies to a certain extent—which, after all, Sir Stafford Cripps did; but Sir Stafford forgot to supply those people, who were perhaps going to suffer from it, with compensating allowances to make up for it. It is all very well to go on talking about "free this" and "free that" nothing is free. Everybody says that there is a free Health Service. Who pays for it? There is no question about it: the consumer, the taxpayer and workman—and all of us are working. It is all coming out of our pockets. There is nothing free at all. I do not think there is anything more I have to say. As I said, I was going to touch a little on the various questions with which my noble friend, Lord Swinton, dealt admirably, but at this late hour I will not detain your Lordships any longer except to say that I hope I have not "hotted-up" the atmosphere again. I notice some smiles on their Lordships' faces. I will sit down.
5.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, in this debate so far we have, as we often have in debates in your Lordships' House, points of agreement and of disagreement which do not always correspond with the normal Party lines. In this debate, the pattern seems to me to be rather unusual. In the first place, I think it is widely agreed that we are now in a very serious economic condition. The suggestion was made at one point in the debate elsewhere that the condition could not be as serious as was thought in some quarters, but I do not think that that suggestion was seriously pursued. Of course, it may be due to bad luck, but it is certainly understandable, that the end of our honeymoon in the Welfare State has coincided with the end of the honeymoon in Australia on rather similar lines, though it was due there to rather different

1219
causes. That means that we are fighting not only our own troubles but a whole set of other troubles caused by difficulties in the countries to which we wish to export. I think that by and large we are agreed about that.
Speaking in a general way, I also think we are all agreed that it would have been far better if some of the measures which were taken in the Budget by my right honourable friend could have been different. So at that point perhaps it is fair to say that we began in this debate to start the game of political "Old Maid"—that is to say, we all began to say that this or that measure was a bad one; and we went on looking round to see who was to pay the bill which undoubtedly will have to be paid. Unless I have been particularly inattentive in the course of this debate, I seem only to have heard speakers denouncing measures that have been taken; I do not seem to have heard any noble Lord say what he would have done in order to make good the provisions which have been made in the Budget. The discussion seems to me to be likely to be very academic if we simply condemn the measures which have been taken without saying what we should do in their place.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, who I see is not here at the moment, said that economic measures ought to have been taken which would have closed the gap and diverted luxury production to armaments. I am sorry that he did not go any further and say what he thought those economic measures ought to be. I should have thought that was just what had been in the mind of my right honourable friend when he took the measures that he did in the Budget. The noble Lord went on to say something else—and again I apologise for mentioning it when he is not here. He said that the rise in prices and so forth had done away with all hope of increased production. I think that the message which should go out from your Lordships' House as a result of this debate should be not a cry of defeatism but a challenge to make our position good. For that reason, I hope that the message which goes out this evening from your Lordships will be the one of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, rather than that of the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot. I agree that there were many things which the noble
1220
Lord, Lord Wilmot, mentioned which sounded very attractive to the ears of the noble Lords on this side. In fact, one might almost describe some parts of his speech—I hope without offence—as a speech of Satan rebuking sin.
But let us come back to these measures. We all have things we do not like. We should all have liked to reduce taxation of the lower income groups, in order to provide more incentive. I think that my right honourable friend has strained himself to go as far as he can in that direction. When we talk about the removal of the subsidies, and so forth, taking away all hope of increased production, may I come back to something which the noble Lord, Lord Layton, said, which, if I understood him aright, was this: that there were some items in the Budget of the lower income groups which, to use his word, were "squeezable"? Well, my Lords, the Economist newspaper has been quoted more than once this afternoon, and I noticed that in last week's issue it was mentioned that the present cost-of-living index, dating from 1947, is not confined only to the barest necessities but includes all sorts of things. If noble Lords refer to the Economist they will see a list that includes things like chocolate-covered biscuits, hair cream and repairs to motor bicycles. So you see, my Lords, for the people in those groups, if we are to judge by the cost-of-living index there does seem to be a little margin. It is wrong to say that there is no margin at all.
Then we come to the question of incentives to industry. That, perhaps, is a subject more usually discussed from these Benches than from the Benches opposite. Let me say frankly that I agree, in theory, with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, said. Of course we should like to see the tax on capital, if you like to put it that way, brought to a close. Of course, the position about profits and taxation is fantastic, looked at from certain points of view; but the word "profit" has really become an accountant's term of art; it bears no relation at all to the amount of money which a company may make in any one year, which is at their free disposal, or can be given to the shareholder by way of dividends. The profit position, as we all know, will not become realistic until allowances are given for the replacement of machinery to become realistic,

1221
too. I am not going down that road any further this afternoon because the hour is late and because I think my noble friend Lord Rothes will have something to say later on in the debate.
I want now to come to the question of inflation; but before I do so, let me say this. Of course, there are things that none of us likes in the Budget, but we have to start somewhere and we have to break the vicious circle. And it is my belief that my right honourable friend has balanced the opposing factors as closely and as fairly as he can, and if, as we believe, these measures meet with success, next year will be the time when some of our dreams of this year may come true. But let me come back for a moment to this question of inflation. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, seemed to want to make it appear that the Budget had caused an immediate outbreak of inflation. I really cannot accept that view. I cannot accept that at the time when the late Government went to the country there was not a roaring inflation in progress. What about the agricultural labourers; what about the engineers? Were the movements to raise their wages last time due entirely to the arrival of a Conservative Government? I think not. But that is not a point on which one wants to go in for hard swearing. I believe the facts will prove that what I say is right.
Having said that, I want to come down to a somewhat lower level of business, where, indeed, I am rather more at home. I have been trying to think what ought to be happening arid what probably is happening in the board room of the ordinary company which is trying to play the game and produce goods for export. That is what a great number of people are doing in this country at the present time. We can moan about the rise in the bank rate; we can moan about the excess profits levy—though perhaps our moaning will be best done when we know exactly what shape that clause takes in the Finance Bill when it comes to your Lordships' House. But we can also have a look round and see whether the whole thing is the Government's fault—any Government's fault—or whether we should say to ourselves sometimes that "the fault lies riot in our stars, but in ourselves." In other words, is the average business quite without blame? Is there anything more it can do?
1222
If we look at the question of salesmanship, I think it is probably fair to say that our salesmen in this country have never really been "put to it" since about the year 1939. During the war they had no selling to do—I met many of them in the Home Guard, where they were usefully employed. Since the war they have nominally been selling things, but in practice most of the goods that come from this country have been, by and large, selling themselves. It is only now that the really good salesman is going to come into his own—he has not been tried out as yet. The time has now come to see whether he can still do his stuff. In the same way that other people, such as the tea brokers, the foreign exchange brokers, and so on, have had to come out of cold storage and do their stuff, so the salesmen of this country have got to come out of cold storage and do their stuff, too. Up to now it has been perfectly easy to sell everything that we could produce at more or less any price that we liked to name. As inflation went on—and inflation has been going on—it was quite easy to put up the on-cost, increase the selling prices, and so forth, and still get away with it, because the buyer overseas wanted our goods, despite the rise in costs and the lengthening periods of delivery.
Now we come to a time not only when it is vital for us to increase our exports, but when we are running into a period of competition with the Germans and the Japanese. It is not for nothing that ships on the Continent are now being built with Japanese plate—and one could multiply instances of this sort. So we must face the fact that the export effort which we are going to make is going to be dependent not only upon our salesmanship but also upon the timely delivery of our raw materials to the works. There private enterprise is in the hands of the Government, whoever they may be, and that is so particularly in regard to steel. Here I declare an interest, because I am connected with a firm which uses steel—and I say that in the engineering industry one of the chief foundations of sales abroad is the supply of adequate steel at the proper time. One of the ways in which we can keep our orders is not merely by not increasing our prices, but by shortening the time of delivery, which in many cases now is far

1223
too long for the overseas buyer to wait. That is a most important point. I am certain, also, that many of us rejoice in the fact that my noble friend Lord Swinton has as big a say as he does in matters of this kind.
I come back to this question of inflation. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, predicts, we are going to have another round of inflation in this country, are we not going the right way to get priced-out not only of those markets we want to enter, but of those we want to hold? I believe that this is the greatest danger that we are facing at the present time. Therefore, I think—and I say this advisedly—that it would be utterly wrong for anybody to suggest that because of this Budget we are going to have inflation, and we have got to have it, and we are therefore going to haul down the flag. To my mind, that is the most important point which comes out of this question of holding our exports; and the question of holding our exports is, to my mind, the most important point which should come out of our discussion of the economic situation. If we can succeed in halting inflation, then I believe there is great ground for hope. That operation of halting inflation is one which lies not entirely with any Government, whoever they may be, but with the mass of the people, whether they are employers or workers, who are engaged in producing the goods for export on which not only the success of the Chancellor's Budget, but the safety of our country, depends. If we can halt inflation, then I believe we may start the new financial year with very good grounds for hope. These are far too early days yet to say what will be the effects—they are not shown in three weeks or a month. The way to judge it, I suppose, will not be so much by debates in your Lordships' House or anywhere else, as by the daily trend of sterling; because, if I am not much mistaken, we shall reach the winning post on the day that the pound is convertible; on that day it will be shown beyond all doubt that the measures now being discussed have proved successful. But, as I say, that is a task not merely for the Government, but for everybody in this country who is in any way concerned with finance, commerce or industry.
5.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I intervene merely to inform your Lordships that, as there is still a large number of your Lordships who wish to speak, arrangements have been made through the usual channels for dinner to be provided in the Peers' dining room. If your Lordships will notify the dining room if you wish to dine, and at what hour, the debate will continue without an adjournment for dinner.
5.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will bear with me, as one engaged in day-to-day management in business, if I briefly draw your Lordships' attention to some practical considerations which I believe have an important bearing on the economic life of this country, both now and in the future. The basic fact that I have in mind is that we are predominantly an industrial and commercial country, and unless in this broad sense industry has every chance of robust health and vigorous development we are doomed to national decline and bankruptcy. This may sound strong language, but looking back over the years is it not clear beyond a peradventure that the growth of the population from 16,000,000 in 1801 to 50,000,000 in 1951, has been possible only on the back of the immense industrial development which took place during that period? Is it not equally clear that, if that development falters, and if in fact the process is reversed by the withering of industrial and commercial enterprise, we shall be faced with national decline and disaster of unparalleled magnitude? I hope that I have made my first and basic point clear.
My second point is that the health of industry, on which almost all depends, has in recent years become increasingly impaired by the scale of taxation levied upon it—taxation, moreover, which has been computed on a basis of fallacious profits. The Budget provides that the Exchequer should take, in one form or another, something approaching two-thirds of the profits of industry, and that that proportion should be taken right out of the business, so to speak, in hard cash. The State, now the senior partner with a two-thirds share, leaves none of it in industry to finance its growth and development, as was the invariable practice of the private partners in industry in

1225
other times. Thus, industry is being forced to live on its capital at a time when greater production and efficiency are being called for. It does not seem to be sufficiently realised that increased production and efficiency do not depend only upon the willingness of workers but also upon the adequacy of capital.
If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to return for a moment to what I referred to just now as taxation based on fallacious profits. It seems that this point is only just beginning to be fully appreciated—namely, that in the inflationary conditions which have complicated our affairs and blurred our vision in recent years, the profits on which the State's share is calculated are grossly overstated by conventional accounting methods. I refer to the fact that those profits halve been, and continue to be, assessed—at any rate for taxation purposes—before provision has been made for the increased cost of replacement of plant and machinery, and, indeed, of trading assets in general. The profits of industry on which taxes are levied are thus, under present conditions, grossly overstated, and therefore the State is taking in real terms much more than two-thirds of the real profits. The most notable outward symptom of this is that, almost without exception, large and apparently flourishing companies find themselves running out of capital in spite of their pursuing, in the vast majority of cases, a reasonable, conservative dividend policy.
May I give your Lordships a simple example which will perhaps illustrate this fundamental problem—and I do so with great restraint? If some of your Lordships had joined together twenty years ago and had formed a company to buy and operate a new cargo ship costing £100,000, the profits for purposes of taxation would have been arrived at after charging depreciation based on the original cost of the ship and its estimated life. Now after twenty years the ship is at the end of its life and has to be scrapped and replaced. The accumulated depreciation, as allowed for taxation purposes, would have amounted to £100,000, and would be represented, theoretically at least, by cash at the bank of £100,000. But when your Lordships go to the shipbuilders you find that the cost of replacing the ship at present day prices will
1226
be no less than £400,000—four times its original cost.
It may be that your Lordships have not the money to replace it, and in that case it is clear that you must either go out of business or get others to join you and put up the £300,000 of additional capital required. Incidentally, under prevailing conditions, it might not be by any means easy to find people ready and willing to do that. It is clear that, during the life of the original ship, the State in computing its share of profits by way of taxation has made no allowance for the increased cost of replacing it. This principle—or perhaps I should say this evil—is present in greater or less degree in every industrial undertaking operating plant and machinery. The practical effect is that industry is becoming debilitated by the weight of taxation and by the way that taxation is calculated. Unless something is done to modify the computation of profits both for taxation and for other purposes, a sort of pernicious financial anæmia will completely undermine the vitality of industry.
The leading accountancy bodies are, I know, on this account extremely disturbed at the shortcomings in an inflationary period of conventional accounting, based on what they call historical cost. It is, I gather, a matter of great difficulty and complication to depart from conventional accounting methods, but I venture to suggest that there are ways and means by which the most serious evil could be tackled without revolutionary changes in accounting methods. The root of the evil is that at present profits are overstated because the charge for depreciation is based on historical cost and not on cost of replacement. The position would be very much alleviated if, in arriving at the profits, the charge for depreciation were based roughly on current values. There is no need in this regard for a horde of valuers to get to work, because current values for insurance purposes are available in virtually every case. I would suggest, therefore, that they might form a sound basis. If this reform were agreed and adopted by the Revenue and by the commercial community, current profits would at least bear some sensible relation to realities and most of the trouble would be eliminated. Of course, the backlog of inadequate depreciation accumulated over recent inflationary years would not

1227
be eliminated, but that, in an imperfect world, is clearly unattainable.
I apologise to your Lordships for having digressed on what may appear to be a matter of detail, but it is, I believe, one of the root causes of, and a very serious factor in, our present troubles. To restate my general theme, it is that the economic well-being of this country is utterly dependent on healthy and vigorous industrial and commercial enterprise. If that is wrecked by high taxation, aggravated by inflation, all will be lost. I therefore beg that Her Majesty's Government should, as a matter of urgency, address their attention in the first place to the particular aspects to which I have referred.
6.0 p.m.
LORD HUNGARTON: My Lords, our economic difficulties are caused by manipulation of currencies or by the high cost of food. In my opinion, the scarcity of food which makes it dear, and so forces up the cost of living, is at the root of our problem. The high cost of living is reflected in everything produced. About 1942 a conference of forty-four nations was held at Hot Springs which resolved to raise the standard of living throughout the world—a grand resolve. What has been done? I was one of those people who at that time put up their hands in glee. I thought this was grand. But many of those nations have forgotten the resolution. Food is the first essential in raising the standard of living. It is true that some attempt has been made to produce more food, but this has not been taken seriously by many countries. Britain has done well to increase her production by close on 50 per cent., but we can, and must, do much better. Our Commonwealth has vast potentialities and that is where I think we need to look for help in the production of the food which is so badly needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr, has said that unless the world doubles its food production in the next twenty-five years millions will die from starvation. I believe he is right. But what a task to double, as he suggests, the food production of the world! I say that as a producer—and only those who are on the land can realise the task which that means. But if Lord Boyd-Orr is right—and many
1228
think he is—what are we doing to produce this extra food? We are not getting down to one or two fundamental problems of to-day. This question of greater food production should be tackled immediately, and tackled very seriously. I suggest that a conference of leading men who really understand agriculture should be brought into being from our Commonwealth countries at the earliest possible moment. I say that because I believe that some of the Colonies can produce the things which matter at a more economic rate than we can. On the other hand, there are certain things that we can produce much better than can some of the Colonies. It is essential, if we are going to raise our food production to the extent we should, that we should get together and know what the other is doing.
I realise that it is not easy to solve this problem. Some of these countries are becoming industrialised, as Britain did one hundred years ago. Far too many men are leaving the land, and a policy must be agreed by the conference I have suggested to encourage many workers to return to the land. Men are now leaving the land at the rate of something like 20,000 a year. It seems ridiculous that men should be leaving the land today. They are having this difficulty in Australia, too, and the result is that during the last seven months of last year Australia exported to this country only about 15,000,000 lb. of butter, whereas in the previous year she had sent over 71,000,000 lb. The difference in the export of eggs to this country from Australia is considerable; it has been reduced from 17,000,000 dozen to about 6,500,000 dozen; and so with other foodstuffs. That is obviously wrong. I am disturbed about the future. Whatever we may do, however we may manipulate money in this country, or in America or other parts of the world, unless we have the abundance of food we need we shall not get anywhere.
The world requires food in abundance—I will not say cheap food. The day of cheap food is over, and no one wants to see a return to the kind of cheapness we had in the 1930's. But the price of food can be lower than at present. What we want is an economic level. I make, very respectfully, this observation to our cousins in Australia. If they had had at

1229
present a large exportable surplus of foods, it would not have been necessary for them to make the cuts in imports from Great Britain. In the meantime, we must make a terrific effort to produce much more—at least 25 per cent. more—food than we are doing at present. I know that it can be done. I firmly believe that an abundance of food will play a great part in the economic recovery of this country and in that of the whole world.
6.6 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, at the outset I want to make a strong protest against one minor point in the Finance Bill. It is contained in Clause 32 (2) and in the first section of the Eighth Schedule, which specifically includes investment trusts within the scope of the excess profits levy. They were excluded by Socialist Chancellors of the Exchequer in previous Finance Bills. I make no secret of my interest in this matter. I am a director of several investment trusts, and therefore it is my duty to call attention to anything that may mean an injustice to my shareholders. As your Lordships are well aware, investment trusts are not trading companies; they are simply organisations to which investors have entrusted their funds on the supposition that the management and directors can invest them to better advantage than can investors themselves.
The effect of including these trusts in the excess profits levy is, obviously, that they will become subject to this tax twice and, in some cases, as I could show, even three or four times. I do not want to weary your Lordships by going into detail on this matter, because we know that nothing can be done about it in this House; but I think it is somebody's duty to draw public attention at the earliest possible moment to this manifest injustice at which I am quite sure, had it been introduced by a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer, the whole Conservative Party would have snapped as one man. I hope that some influential Conservative in another place who is not afraid to give emphatic expression to his opinions will, on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, move to omit these objectionable sentences, and that he will be heartily backed up by the whole Conservative Party and thus induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to change
1230
his mind. There need not be any fear of defeating the Government on this issue, because, of course, no Socialist would join in remedying an injustice to a capitalist.
I now turn from the particular to the general. It is, of course, the business of the Opposition to oppose, and the Opposition are doing their best to oppose the proposals in Mr. Butler's Budget. I have not heard any very constructive suggestion; but it is just as well to remember that, had they been returned to power at the last Election, it would be up to them now to deal with the undoubted financial crisis which did exist and which still exists. I was particularly interested in that portion of the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot's, speech, in which he denounced the excess profits levy. I agree that the excess profits levy is a highly objectionable tax, but the Socialist Party, you must remember, have always inveighed, and still inveigh, against what they regard as the too-high degree of profits. It is safe to say that if Mr. Gaitskell had been now Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would have made a further attack on profits in the Budget which he would have produced. I should like to make a challenging assertion on this subject of profits. What could have been more clear or more instructive than the speech which we have had the pleasure of hearing from my noble friend, Lord Rothes, just now? What he said was that taxation is far too high for businesses to continue to exist. I make the assertion that there is not a single business in this country to-day which, on the present scale of taxation, is able to put enough to reserve to replace in the long run its plant and buildings. Therefore the paramount need of this country, as has been said time and again, is for a reduction of taxation, and that can be brought about only by a reduction of expenditure.
About two years ago, I inflicted upon your Lordships a speech in which I advocated a reduction of expenditure to the, tune of £600,000,000 a year, with, of course, corresponding reductions in taxation. That has been rendered impossible by the ruinous rearmament programme which has been forced upon us. But I am delighted to see that Mr. Butler has followed the example of Sir Stafford Cripps and effected economies in the food subsidies to the tune of £160,000,000. Do not let us fall into exaggeration on this

1231
subject of the increased cost of living made necessary by the reduction in the food subsidies. One shilling and two-pence halfpenny a week is exactly one cigarette a day or one bottle of beer a week, whichever sacrifice you may think fit to make. Nor do I think we should be too much led away by the hard luck of the lowest paid members of the wage-earning community who are earning about £3 10s. to £4 a week and who receive no relief under Mr. Butler's taxation proposals but, on the contrary, suffer that extra burden of 1s. 2½d.; because those people who earn only £3 10s. to £4 a week are, almost every one of them, young girls and boys of tender age who are living at home with their parents and who have no family appendages or responsibilities (or, if they have, certainly ought not to have at that age !). If they are forced to make a further contribution towards the necessities of the country to the tune, as I say, of one cigarette a day or one bottle of beer a week, I really do not think it is a matter to make very much "song and dance" about.
For the rest, Mr. Butler has relieved no fewer than 2,000,000 people from the payment of any income tax. He has devoted a large part (I think it is £80,000,000) of the savings which he has made on the food subsidies towards effecting reliefs for those 2,000,000 and, in accordance with the best Socialist principles, he has added to the cost of motor driving and tacked on the excess profits levy. Do not let us exaggerate on the subject of the excess profits levy. After all, the total profits in industry, I think I am right in saying, are something like £2,700,000,000 a year, and Mr. Butler's levy is calculated to produce only £100,000,000 per year, which is something like about 3¼ or 3½ per cent. increased tax. So although, as the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, has so eloquently pointed out, taxation upon industry as a whole is ruinously high, yet the addition to it is not so serious as all that. The fact is, as I see it, that the masses of the people of this country have for the last six or seven years been wrapped, and are still wrapped, in a cocoon of economic illusion, the threads of which are woven out of unprecedented sellers' markets, loans and doles from America and elsewhere, hidden subsidies, the spoilation of
1232
the rich, the devaluation of the pound and so on. Perhaps a cocoon is not a very apt simile, because the chrysalis in this case shows little sign of emerging of its own volition. It would seem that the emerging process will have to be effected from outside, which will be extremely painful.
That leads me to another fact—or at least, in my submission, a fact—namely, that large masses of people in this country, salary and wage earners, say, from about £800 or even £1,000 a year, downwards, take it as a matter of course that every time the cost of living rises their salaries or wages shall rise with it automatically, in order to make good the difference. It is not necessary to tell your Lordships that so long as that process continues, so long must inflation continue and increase. The public have been told that time without number, not only by capitalists and Conservatives and people of that sort, but also by Socialist leaders. But the masses of the people either do not realise it or will not accept it. Therefore, in this connection it appears to me that Mr. Butler's Budget takes one first step towards reality.
He asks them to pay a little more for their food; to get somewhere near the real cost of their food; to do away with about one-third of the hidden subsidy which they have been enjoying on food. If the result of that is that they demand wage increases to cover it, then we are lost, as the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, pointed out in his speech. Therefore it seems to me to be deplorable if leaders of public opinion—I do not want to create any antagonism anywhere—give either open or veiled encouragement to wage-earners to put in now for increased demands. I see that the Trades Union Congress issued a circular the other day which certainly did not discourage the idea. It seems to me essential that the people of this country should realise that the peak has been reached for the time being, and that it is only by their increased productivity (which is harder work) and probably with slightly less social services (which is less pay) that we can possibly make both ends meet. Everybody realises that expenditure in this country is far too high and that taxation must be reduced by the reduction of that expenditure.

1233
That brings me to the cost of rearmament. It is not always right to take it as a matter of course that one's political opponents are wrong. I must say that for a long time past, as soon as I heard that we were to spend £3,600,000,000 on increased armaments I thought it was more than we could afford; and when that figure was increased to £4,700,000,000—and, indeed, I think the Prime Minister the other day in another place mentioned £5,000,000,000 as the figure—I thought it was absolutely impossible for us to meet that expenditure combined with the cost of the maintenance of the Welfare State. Nov how that expenditure could be safely reduced is more a matter for argument in a Defence debate or a Foreign Affairs debate, and I do not propose to go into that now. But I must say that I agreed with Mr. Aneurin Bevan when he made his well known utterance last June. I never thought to find myself in agreement with him, but I am bound to confess that I did.
I listened to his spokesman, Mr. Crossman, speaking in the Defence debate in another place, and I am bound to say that I thought he made a brilliant speech; but perhaps that was because I agreed with almost everything he said. In the course of it he was specifically asked what he would do to make both ends meet, and he said that he thought the defence expenditure should be reduced to £1,000,000,000 a year and that if we could increase our exports by £300,000,000 a year both ends could meet, there would be some possibility of reduction in taxation and we should be economically sound. Where I do not agree with Mr. Bevan is that I am afraid that in existing circumstances our exports will not increase by £300,000,000 a year and therefore the Welfare State will have to give way a little more; but that remains to be seen. All I would argue at this present time is that economy has not been tackled (I was going to say that the present Government have hardly begun to tackle economy on the lines which I think will eventually be necessary) and I urge the Government to do much more in that direction than they have done hitherto.
I want to say only one more word and that somewhat repetitive of what I have ventured to say before. The idea
1234
that one Party is malevolent to the Welfare State and the other Party benevolent is, of course, quite wrong. All politicians care more than anything for votes. They will always try and do their best for the workers who form the majority of the electorate, because that is the popular thing and gets votes, and the opposite is the unpopular thing and loses votes. Therefore it is quite absurd to say that the Tories are against the workers and want to depress their standard of living; on the contrary, they want as much as the Socialists to keep it up. What the people of this country do not realise is that in the end no Government can save them; it is only their own exertions that can do that.
6.24 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, there are so many experts in your Lordships' House, not only on economic matters but on nearly every matter, that it is somewhat terrifying for one who is not an expert to intervene in a debate of this kind. However, I conceive that one of the functions of your Lordships' House is the expression and exchange of opinion, as apart from information, and in the very mellow atmosphere created when one finds Lord Blackford agreeing with Aneurin Bevan and Richard Crossman I am encouraged to proceed.
I think I am right in saying that the dictionary defines "crisis" as "a moment of danger, of suspense." I feel that to talk about the present situation as being an economic crisis in that sense is quite wrong. The economic situation from which we are suffering is something deep-rooted and long-ranged, not something of the moment, not something transitory. I am therefore this afternoon not going to talk about the Budget, or about the immediate and topical aspects of it, but I should like to say a few words about some of the more underlying causes. I am more encouraged to do so because of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the debate in January when he made the very much quoted statement:
"It is the harsh truth that our economic position in the world has been deteriorating for about half a century."
As I say, that statement has been very much quoted but it has hardly been followed up, even by the Chancellor himself, either in that debate or in the Budget debate. In our debate the noble

1235
Viscount, Lord Waverley, qualified the Chancellor's statement, saying:
"there is one respect and one only in which our situation has deteriorated steadily during the last fifty years, and that is in respect of our overseas investments."
I am not an economist but I venture to suggest that the Chancellor was right and that the noble Viscount's qualification was wrong. I think the Chancellor's statement is an excellent starting point for an examination of our present economic position.
The facts are, of course, extremely well known. They are so obvious that I would apologise for bringing them before your Lordships' House if it were not for the fact that they are, as it were, so obvious as to be apt to be overlooked. It is of course a truism that the two world wars have caused a most serious loss of our overseas investments, and that if Britain to-day had those investments which were sold during the wars our balance of trade position would be considerably better. But it is also true that British overseas trade never fully recovered from the dislocation of World War I. Let me take as illustration the position of the textile industries. It is a particularly appropriate illustration, in view of the present unemployment depression and fear in that industry. Before World War I the textile industry supplied well over one-third of the total value of British exports. Cotton in 1913 had an export value of £127,000,000, out of total visible exports of about £450,000,000. Of course, during the 1914–18 war our overseas markets for cotton goods were almost completely lost, and after the war we never fully regained them. We did not regain them for the well-known reasons that native textile production in our Far Eastern markets had developed and the textile industries in America, Canada and Australia and other countries had been expanded. That was not wholly due to the war but it was accelerated by the war.
After World War I our cotton exports never regained their pre-war figure. From an export of, I think, something like 7,000,000,000 yards in 1913 we never rose above 4,500,000,000 yards in the post-war period; and in 1938, we were down as low as 1,450,000,000 yards. Then in World War II, history, so far as that industry is concerned, practically
1236
repeated itself, and we have not again recovered even the 1938 figures. I believe that last year cotton exports were about 1,000,000,000 yards, including the re-export of Japanese Grey cloth finished here. The case of cotton is perhaps the most striking but I believe that it is typical of the overall long-term tendency in the export trades for all our consumer goods industries. As I think the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said, it is our consumer goods exports that are having the most difficult time at present.
Again, I know that I am stating the obvious but I mention that it was during the nineteenth century, and up to about 1913, that our large favourable balance of trade permitted the building up of the overseas investments which were drawn on in the two world wars. But that favourable balance of trade which prevailed in the nineteenth century and up to World War I had disappeared before World War II came. We had an adverse balance between 1936 and 1938 of the order of £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 a year. It has been calculated (the figures are not mine) that at present prices that would have represented an adverse balance of the nature of £400,000,000. So that if World War II, with all its destruction of wealth, and its dislocation of trade and loss of overseas investments, had been averted, we should still to-day have been facing an adverse balance of trade, unless the tendencies which were operating before World War II had been reversed; and it would have been an adverse balance of such magnitude as to constitute a quite formidable economic situation. In view of that fact, I suggest that it is completely mischievous and misleading to talk about the present situation as though adverse balances were something new—something that had come about only under a Labour Government, and as though the Labour Government were responsible for the long-term trend which had produced adverse balances before World War II.
Now, since the war, our export problem in consumer goods, which was with us between the wars, has been masked to some extent by a world shortage of that type of goods—in fact, by a sellers' market, to which reference has been made, and, of course, to the absence of Germany and Japan as full competitors. I am not yielding to anyone in giving

1237
credit to the British people for the production and export drive of the last six years, but, despite all the effort, only in 1949 and 1950 have we had a favourable balance. As was pointed out in our last debate, there were special and favourable factors in those two years. Unfortunately, they are the type of favourable factors that I am sure none of us wants to see recurring. In a trade sense, but obviously not in the wider human sense, the world has a surplus of consumer goods. The countries that formerly produced only or mainly primary commodities, have developed, and are developing, their own secondary and manufacturing industries; and they are producing for themselves the things that we formerly produced for them. Above all, in the world situation the enormous increase in the productivity of the United States overshadows everything. To say in the face of that state of affairs that our economic position has deteriorated only in respect of overseas investment s is very wide of the mark.
In that connection, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said:
"Our sterling-dollar unbalance is due largely to the continuous inflationary pressure of the last seven years and could have been avoided."
To say that, I submit with respect, is to ignore the physical realities of what has been happening in the world in the past fifty years, and its effect upon our very vulnerable trade position. I might add that the deterioration in our terms of trade to which the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, drew particular attention in our last debate is, in a sense, the answer to that statement. I said a moment ago that in a trade sense the world had a surplus of consumer goods. It is not really a surplus, it is a shortage of effective demand, because there can never be a surplus in a human sense while hundreds of millions have so few of the essentials of life. But if the world has what I may call an apparent surplus of consumer goods, it certainly has an unfilled demand for capital goods. As I think the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said, it is our capital goods industries that at present have their order books filled, and in many cases are behind in their deliveries to overseas customers. I feel that it is there that we have to look for the more hopeful aspects of our present situation.
1238
In what I thought was one of the most interesting speeches in our last debate, the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, urged the importance of developing the undeveloped and under-developed parts of the world. He spoke of getting for the under-developed regions—I quote:
"that constant flow from the western industrialised worlds of several billion dollars a year."
That was a quotation from the Rockefeller Report. What does it entail? It means the export to the under-developed and undeveloped regions of capital goods. And, because these regions are undeveloped and under-developed, it means the export of the capital goods to them for a very long time as unrequited exports. That, however, is something which in our present position we cannot afford. Obviously, we cannot supply the capital requirements of the underdeveloped regions out of an adverse balance.
During our long period of favourable trade balances we did, of course, play a very large part in the development of many of the then under-developed regions of the world—some of them are now our formidable trade rivals. The only country which to-day has a big export surplus, and could play the part which Britain played in the nineteenth century, is America. But America is not playing that part. That is not said as a criticism. The world has changed and the techniques which were appropriate (or at any rate the techniques which prevailed) in one historical period are no longer suitable in another. In my view, overseas investment is no longer mainly suitable for private enterprise. For one thing, public opinion would not stand for the degree of exploitation of native resources and peoples which in the past made very large profits and made that type of investment attractive. On the other side, the state of the world is such that few private investors would be prepared to take the risks involved.
I therefore suggest that the financing of what the Rockefeller Report calls the "constant flow of several billion dollars a year," is a matter, not for Governmental but for inter-Governmental action—in fact, for an international loan or series of loans not loans to this; country, but loans to and for agreed development projects. This is action in which I think the United Nations might take a lead, and I

1239
suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they might take the initiative in bringing the matter before the United Nations. I believe that a bold lead by the United Nations for international financing of great development works would bring fresh hope to the people of the world. It would give hope for world trade, and for the satisfying of human needs; it might make a substantial contribution towards world peace, and be of greater value than some of the arid debates.
But even if we get international financing of development works, the capital goods have still to be produced, and here I want to press on the Government the case for expanding our capital goods industries. I am encouraged to believe that that may be in mind, because there was a reference to it in the noble Viscount's speech—though, if he will pardon my saying so, a rather vague reference, which I hope may be expanded later. The point I am trying to make was so well put by the Observer on Sunday that although most noble Lords will have read the paragraph I ask their indulgence to quote it. It refers to:
"the inescapable fact that we simply cannot afford to maintain in this country a textile industry on the old scale."
It goes on to say:
"World production of textiles is much greater now than it was before the last war, while world trade in textiles has not vet returned to the pre-war level. Other countries are producing for themselves what we once produced for them.
In order to survive economically we must recognise that more of our resources and our man-power will have to be used in future to make machinery and other capital goods which the younger developing countries are unable to make so easily for themselves. This shift in industry cannot be brought about suddenly, but it must be achieved. The Government should have the courage to say so plainly."
I am not to be taken as subscribing fully to the pessimistic view taken by the Observer about the future of the textile industry, but the argument about the change of stress from consumer goods exports to capital goods exports is, I think, very sound. If I might interpolate something here, I think we have a duty to see that Lancashire and the other textile areas are not allowed to drift back into the unemployment of the between-the-wars period, the fear of which is haunting them already. We have to take
1240
every possible step to develop new industries in those areas and so introduce a very necessary degree of diversification of industry. And, if I may be allowed a further digression, I would say that measures which reduce the purchasing power of the people of this country have a very serious effect upon this question, because, despite its importance in the export field, 75 per cent. of our cotton production is for domestic use. Therefore, the maintenance of the domestic market is important; and accordingly maintenance of domestic purchasing power is important. So if we cannot help Lancashire's export trade to any considerable extent, it is certainly within the compass of the Government to maintain and not depress the domestic market.
To return to my main theme. The Observer asked the Government to have courage, but I would add on this particular point that the Government should also, in this respect, have caution. Particularly they must see to it that short-term measures do not cut across or hamper development of the capital goods industries. Here I join with my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence in my dislike of the instrument of the bank rate, that blind instrument which tends to restrict useful and necessary development equally with non-essential development. I think that noble Lords will agree that, as the useful and necessary is often the less profitable, it is the useful and necessary which tends to be more severely curbed and restricted by a dear money policy. I hope the Government will take such action as they can, through the Capital Issues Committee or otherwise, to see that the expansion of the capital goods industries is made possible in relation to finance, materials and labour.
I had intended to make a reference to agriculture, but as we are to have a debate on that topic in a few weeks' time, I wish at this stage only to say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Hungarton that the increase of agricultural production here is one of the most important contributions that can be made to closing the gap. In that connection, I would beg that we should at an early date have on agriculture some statement of Government policy of a long-term nature calculated to produce in the farming community that confidence which will lead to increased food production here.

1241
I am sure it can be got. But there has been no indication yet of anything in Government policy that would be likely to bring it about.
My last point is with regard to our present rearmament programme and its effect on our economic situation. I am almost tempted—in fact, I think should allow myself to be tempted—to say that Lord Blackford and I are for once in agreement. I think that the programme of spending £4,700,000,000 in three years is no longer valid. I believe it has now become, possibly, £5,200,000,000 in four years.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: You are both recruits for Mr. Bevan.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Yes and no. I think I might say that we can both agree with him on certain things, without necessarily agreeing with him on everything. But the programme, whether it is £4,700,000,000 or £5,200,000,000 and whether it is to be spent in three years or in four years, is, I suggest, in present circumstances an unreal programme. If war is really imminent it is not enough. If the danger of war has receded—as we are told it has—then I regard that programme as a heavier burden than our economy can bear, and I think it should be re-examined.
In conclusion may I say that I think it would be almost worth while to set up a Royal Commission to examine the real nature of our basic economic problems. The result might be only to enlarge the area of agreement on this subject, but that in itself would be worth while. And, incidentally, it might produce a definition of inflation which, I think, would be useful in this House, where it was so carefully avoided in our last debate. But, whatever the definition, inflation seems to be something that has gone on, with only minor interruptions, from the first Elizabethan age to this, and it would be much easier for the non-technical people in the House, like myself, if we could get some agreed meaning for that word. If the area of agreement on the nature of our problem could be widened, I do not know that we would necessarily be, but we might be, nearer to agreement on how to deal with it, and I still feel that there would be ample room for all our major political differences. I have tried—I hope not too dogmatically, but I am afraid at
1242
too great length—to say how I see the basic problem and to indicate a little of what I think might be done about it. I started my remarks by giving one of the dictionary's definitions of "crisis." But there is another definition" and that is that "crisis" is "the turning point.' I think we are, as a nation, at a turning point. If we are, again, in a crisis to take, as we have in the past taken, the fearful, timid way of contracting our whole economy, then the future is black indeed. But if at this turning point we take the way of bold measures to adapt and modernise and expand our economy, then Britain has still an important and useful part to play in world trade, which will earn for her people the high standard of living to which their past and their present entitle them, and for which, may I say, given the opportunity, they have always been prepared to work.
6.50 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I do not intend to follow Lord Archibald in detail but I would suggest some slight caution about greatly relying on international loans, because it seems to me that these loans, unless they are the result of private domestic savings in the various countries concerned, are purely inflationary measures, creating purchasing power for capital goods without, at the same time, stopping the corresponding demand for consumer goods. I was going to inform the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that I rise as an innocent, because I was one of those people who were quite unaware of the extreme gravity of the situation last autumn. I knew the position was bad, but I had no idea that the position was quite so bad as it turned out to be. Of course, I have no access to private and secret information, but I try and keep myself as reasonably well-informed as most members of the public could be expected to be informed, and I was ignorant.
We have been talking a great deal about this Budget and I should say that the first thing that struck me about the attacks on the Budget was what I thought a grossly misleading attempt to make out that it was a Budget taking money away from the poor and handing it to the rich. That attack has been made by all sorts of people, and those people seem to have ignored (I can only presume in ignorance, or with true

1243
deliberation) the fact that petrol tax falls with particular gravity on the rich. Presumably the excess profits levy will fall chiefly on them, and, above all, the accompanying increase in the bank rate has knocked slices off the fortunes of every rich man in the country to-day. He must be a very fortunate man who has not lost at least 10 per cent. of his fortune over the last few months. My own attitude to the Budget was fully justified, I thought, by the attitude of the enemies of Britain. When the Daily Worker froths at the mouth we can be pretty certain that we are doing something that is right; and the extreme enemies of Britain—the Communists and fellowtravellers—made more fuss over this Budget than I have seen them make over anything. I personally welcome it, as I think a step back towards tradition, back to the days when we raised the minimum amount of money out of all the pockets of the people to do what we thought was necessary for them. I know that there is a big surplus this year, but that surplus has come about purely from the fact that savings are so inadequate that the Chancellor has to provide Government savings to lend to the local authorities.
I think the last few years have shown us that a Budget is an imperfect instrument as an instrument in combating inflation. In fact, it may even be an imperfect instrument in combating deflation, but we have had no opportunity of seeing that. I think the fact that some people say the Budget is inflationary while others say that it is deflationary gives support to my remarks. The fact of the matter is that any Budget which does not relieve taxation is, to my mind, of an inflationary nature at our present level of taxation. Furthermore, you just cannot plan for one year ahead. These astrological figures which noble Lords opposite love so much have been disproved time and time again when the succeeding year's Economic Survey has made nonsense of the prophecies. It cannot be an astrological instrument. The proper method of controlling the economy, if we wish to control it, is to control the volume of credit, and that is a day-to-day matter of great flexibility and delicacy. In the last five or six years,
1244
that control has failed—failed because deliberately it was never exercised. The rate was kept unnecessarily low and there was no limit on the amount which could be released on credit.
My Lords, what is the real price of money? Of course it depends in every case on the tax position of the borrower; but if you take Government stock as being on a 4 per cent. basis to-day, and deduct 9s. 6d. in the pound off the interest, you can say that long-term Government money is approximately on a 2 per cent. basis. That does not compare unfavourably with the price of money years ago. Surely nobody can call 2 per cent. net a high rate for money. In any case, what should be the price of money? Surely in the last resort it is the price at which people can be persuaded to save their money and other people can be persuaded from not dissaving it; so that the real price should be a different thing for different people. Here, my Lords, is rather an important law, which is this: the lower the tax, the lower the rate at which you can reasonably hope to persuade people to save money, and this is an additional incentive to try to get taxes on income lower.
Of course, the trouble about the noble Lords opposite is that they belong to a Party which likes savings but hates the savers. They love to eat the eggs, but when it comes to feeding the geese they grudge every spoonful. As a goose-keeper, I know geese will not lay unless you feed them properly, and the savers will not save unless they are properly treated. I have never been able to discover the line—and there must be a line somewhere. On one side of it, the saver is a patriotic saving citizen and, on the other, he immediately becomes a wicked capitalist to be soaked in this world and the next. I have never yet discovered where the line is drawn. There must be a line somewhere in the minds of the noble Lords opposite, if not somewhere on paper in one of the articles or in the Memoranda of Association of the Labour Party.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I interrupt, for the sake of friendly record, to point out that, to the best of my recollection, we have never described capitalists as "wicked." I know that noble Lords opposite believe we think they are wicked, but we do not really.
LORD HAWKE: We have had a pronouncement from one of Her Majesty's ex-Ministers, one of the intelligentsia of the Labour Party. I am very satisfied.
Cheap money naturally discourages saving, and it encourages dis-saving. There has been a tremendous amount of dis-saving going on over the last five or six yea's. The high-tax payer finds that he can buy a farm, perhaps at a net cost of half of one per cent. to himself, and he indulges in all sorts of capital expenditure which he would not do otherwise. The demand for all this has meant that there has been much too great a demand on capital; and there has had to be, to match it, the creation of credit the whole time. So we have had a perpetual tendency to inflation ever since the days of Dr. Dalton. I was one of those people who prophesied disaster from Dr. Dalton's cheap money policy from the first days of its institution, and I do not take back any word of what I said: I believe it has been the most disastrous factor in bringing us to our present state.
There are one or two smaller and more specific points in the Budget proposals to which I should like to refer. I do not think any noble Lord in this debate has yet said any thing about the purchase tax. As the father of a large family, who perforce have to be brought up on utility goods, I greatly welcome this change in the incidence of the purchase tax. The so-called blind spot was a grave difficulty about the previous system: goods of medium grade could not be bought because a heavy tax had to be charged on them and nobody was prepared to buy them. As an instance, I suggest to your Lordships that you go and search the shops for an ordinary bedsheet of more than 100 inches long. There may be some. But I have always found that a sheet of 108 inches long is at least £1 more expensive than a sheet 100 inches long. I understand that the one falls within the utility range, and the other does not. The next time your Lordships are making beds, I recommend you to do the necessary arithmetic to make a 100 inch sheet, possibly shrunk a little, stretch over a 78 inch bed—it is a bad proposition. The extra eight inches is worth something every time, but it is not worth £1 or 30s. more. The new system will ease the burden of the con-
1246
sumer in ways of that sort in which the old system had serious blots. Some people say that the new datum line is too low and therefore goods attract tax at too low a level. I think it is too early to say that, because I am inclined to think that the price of certain goods has not yet reached its bottom. I do not want to give advice to the housewives, like the famous guide who put Lancashire out of work—I will not go further than that.
With regard to food subsidies, there is only one noble Lord in your Lordships' House who I admit cares more for the people's food than I do, and he sits in front of me—Lord Woolton. I welcome greatly this change in the food subsidies. I should have liked to see the whole lot go; I believe it would have been greatly to the benefit of the consumer. The nation will never be properly fed so long as the Treasury have a vested interest in keeping down the quantity of food in the shops. When we get a free market in food, with corresponding reductions in taxation which will allow people to have the extra money to spend, then the nation will start to be properly fed. I hope that in administering the changes in the food subsidies Her Majesty's Government will concentrate the remaining subsidy on the fewest number of foods, so that there may be the widest area over which the Treasury have no vested interest at all. The noble Lord, Lord Hungarton (he has left the Chamber) said that food is too dear, and we must bring the price down. I think that if that cry goes out to the people it will produce an unfortunate and misleading impression. Food is too cheap at the moment for the necessary food to feed the human race to be produced. I would ask the noble Lord to compare the number of sacks of wheat which it took to buy a locomotive in 1911, or the number of yards of calico you got for a sack of wheat in 1911. I think he will find that on that basis food is cheaper to-day than locomotives or calico.
Finally, having been engaged for a good part of my life in a trade connected with Lancashire, I should like to say a few words on that subject. At the moment Lancashire is undoubtedly the victim of a world-wide recession in cotton goods. There are two sides to it. First, there is the long term, and secondly, the short term. I believe that in the long term it may well be that Lancashire's capacity to produce is rather more than she will

1247
be able to exercise in the years ahead. But if there is to be contraction, let it be an orderly contraction, and not the "free-for-all" which was rather the old Liberal school idea and which ruined Lancashire between the wars. Above all, let the contraction not be accompanied by any decrease in output per man-hour. In fact, the larger the output per man-hour, or per man-loom, or whatever it is, the more likely it is that the whole of Lancashire's present capacity can be employed—but I believe it is a matter of some doubt.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am sorry to step in and possibly take the words out of the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, but would it be fair to the old Liberal school to suggest that they were in power between the wars?
LORD HAWKE: No. But Liberal ideas were very much in power in Lancashire between the wars, and people there found the utmost difficulty in getting together for an orderly contraction. Over a period of twenty years I watched the whole enormous business committing suicide, largely through lack of co-operation. We now come to the short term. Undoubtedly, prices have been too high. Once upon a time there was a world price for cotton, which was arranged in the Liverpool market: to-day there is no Liverpool market. American middling, translated into Lancashire terms, would probably cost to-day about 3s. a pound. There is a shortage of non-dollar cotton in the world, and the result is that non-dollar cotton—Egyptian, Indian, and so on—has been bid up far above that price. Before the war, as producers of cotton as well, we used to reckon that 9d. a pound was a very good price for cotton. Therefore I maintain that the American price, supported by the American Government, at present levels is definitely too high. The consumers of the world, when they saw prices rocketing still higher owing to speculation over the Korean war—and cotton goods are much speculated in in all the Eastern markets—rushed in to place their orders before the prices went up, and now there is no question that they are over-bought: the shelves of the world are full, prices are still on the high side, and the consumers are holding off. They will not go into the market and we
1248
shall not get the pipeline cleared until the consumers are really tempted. The difficulty is that the housewives of Britain have rather lost their yardstick as to what cotton goods ought to cost. This is where my noble friend in front of me, who was once connected with a great merchanting organisation, can come in. It is the advertiser who has to step in—
LORD PAKENHAM: To whom is the noble Lord referring?
LORD HAWKE: My noble friend Lord Woolton. It is the advertiser who has to step in and show the public when the prices have come down to a reasonable and safe level to buy. Any price based on the American Government's farm-support prices for cotton is obviously a pretty good average to take, provided that all the unnecessary profits, and so on. have been squeezed out in between. These recessions have happened before—I have seen them. And that is the traditional method of dealing with them—price cuts. Somebody takes the risk of cutting his loss and selling the stuff even more cheaply than he can buy it to-day. The housewives come in, the shelves are cleared, fresh orders go through to the mill and the process starts up again. There is no quicker method of curing constipation in the pipeline than a dose of bank rate.
7.12 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I promise not to keep your Lordships very long. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who I believe has a large family of girls (I think he has six), that if he goes into the market for what was a utility cotton gown, he will find that under the D. Scheme he is going to pay 5s. 6d. per yard more.
LORD HAWKE: I should like to interrupt the noble Lord, because I was arguing precisely the opposite. I said that nobody yet knows where prices will settle down. I fully expect to find that the better quality will come down below the datum line.
LORD CALVERLEY: I was saying that this D. Scheme is the very devil's scheme. He will find (I quote from to-day's Manchester Guardian) that he is going to pay 5s. 6d. a yard for good cotton fabric to clothe his daughters. It was utility stuff before and was fit to

1249
gown my own wife and the wife of the noble Lord. I quote again from the Manchesher Guardian. Another popular line is going up to 3s. 11½d. under the new D. Scheme. I mention all this because I am going to confine my remarks for the next seven minutes to textiles. I start with cotton because the Lancashire cotton industry is in a more critical state than the wool and worsted industries in Yorkshire, the West of England and the southern parts of Scotland. The noble Lord talks glibly about"recession"—we call them "slumps." If he goes into Oldham or Rochdale he will see the beginnings of a new incentive—the incentive of an empty belly, an attempt to make ends meet in a different way from what they have been doing these last few years. The noble Lord also said that he did not know there was a crisis. I am not an economist and I do not often write letters to the Press, but last August I wrote to one of the principal American papers and said that trying to complete the rearmament programme in three years was going to strain our economy to the breaking point.
Leaving cotton for the moment, I will go on to woollen and worsteds, in which trade, on the operative side, I have spent practically the whole of my life. There is not too much gloom and despondency, at any rate on the worsted side. I would remind the noble Lord that only about thirteen to fifteen months ago "tops"— which is the finished article of the wool comber; 64's merinos, as they are called—went to the ridiculous price of 355d. per pound owing to the American stockpiling. There is very little American—
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? If he is giving the causes of the rise in the price of wool, will he add Russian buying to American stockpiling?
LORD CALVERLEY: Compared with the American stockpiling the Russian buying was infinitesimal. I have not the exact figures, but the whole world knows that the Americans went to Australia and bought on the spot, and were even taking away the wool which usually comes to the London wool sales. I would remind your Lordships that, whilst it filled the sheep farmers' wallets full of dollar bills, it sent the price of
1250
64's merino to an utterly ridiculous level. Yesterday, the price of the same commodity had come down to 124d. per pound, which is getting somewhere near reality. But what happened? There was no basis of buying what we call these "tops" in the market. Therefore, the largest single unit of wool combers in the world has been compelled to pass a dividend.
If I had money to invest, and if your Lordships have any money left, I would recommend you to invest it in that particular company of wool combers at the price of the shares obtaining to-day. I was saying that we have had this unreality thrust upon us. If the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, had been on the Bradford Exchange—which he has not—he would know that what I am saying is absolutely true. I was present at the conference when the President of the Board of Trade came to Bradford. I was permitted to join in simply as a friend of the President, and I was glad to do so. There was the utmost desire on both the trade union side and the employers' side to come to an understanding, which they did reach. I asked for advice from one of the biggest companies which takes the raw wool to the finished article, and they said: "What we are suffering from is that the stocks are too great." To use the Lord Hawke's phrase, "The pipeline is choked up." But they anticipate they are not going to put the shutters up. That is true of the worsted wool trade, which is different from the woollen trade.
Turning to woollens, I may say that asked one firm, who have earned one-fifth of the dollar income from Canada and from America, how they were situated. They said: "We have plenty of orders for the next few months, simply because we have specialised. We will not use inferior rags in our wool: it is all pure wool, and we are looking forward to having a good trade both in New York and in Canada." Their only fear is of this new 4 per cent. bank rate. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has gone. He is the mouthpiece of the joint stock banks, and I hope that the joint stock banks will deal with the matter of overdrafts and such things in a better way than they did in the slump of 1921. But, My Lords, I have not come here to spread gloom and

1251
despondency. So far as woollens and wool textiles are concerned, I think that as soon as we can get a basis of values we shall be able to get going again. In the meantime, however, there is unemployment. Certainly there is unemployment in Lancashire. Some people have been working for the principle of holidays with pay, but if we are not careful the workers in Lancashire are going to have long holidays on nothing but unemployment pay. It is for the Government to take action.
It is a custom in the Northern parts of this country for people to go in for new clothes at Whitsuntide. The Lord President will know of the custom. I am suggesting to him that he should go to the Cabinet and suggest that the purchase tax should be taken off altogether from, say, the week after Easter until about a fortnight after Whitsuntide. It is an unwritten law in the North Country that at Whitsuntide every boy should have a new suit and every girl a new dress, and, if the older people can afford it, for them to have a yearly outfit in order to feel fit to go to the Sunday school anniversary. I put it seriously to the noble Lord that if he has not seen in the Manchester Guardian the cry from the heart from a leading employer on the cotton side he should make a point of seeing it. There is obviously a pipeline that has to be cleared, and the only way to clear it is to get that 75 per cent. of trade which is cotton's contribution to the home trade of this country. Let the businesses clear their warehouses as far as they can. The way to help them is certainly not to put a 5s. 6d. per yard tax on utility goods. The way to help is to take the tax off; otherwise in a few months' time there will not be the money to buy new clothes—unless it is taken out of some such fund as National Savings. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, mentioned savings and seemed rather to twit some of us on this side, who were brought up on Smiles' Self Help. We do not want the savings of the people to be dipped into too much.
Let us, then, clear the pipeline; let us get on with supplying new goods of the best quality. The reason why the firm of which I have spoken are able to stand up to competition from America or anywhere else in any market is because their goods are quality goods. The noble Lord
1252
spoke as if no progress had been made in the cotton trade, but the cotton trade production is to-day the finest in the world. The trouble is that the Japanese are getting to know the trade marks and try to use them on inferior articles. I fear a recession—they called it "rationalisation" after the First World War. What I am afraid of is a slump. Now, my Lords, I believe that the Lord President is the greatest psychologist we have in politics.
LORD WOOLTON: I am flattered.
LORD CALVERLEY: I am very serious about this matter of the purchase tax.
LORD WOOLTON: Is the noble Lord requesting me to ask the Cabinet to take the tax off for six weeks only?
LORD CALVERLEY: I am not an Oliver Twist. What I am asking for is very little. The noble Lord knows that in the North, Whitsuntide is the time for new clothes. The people have a week of processions in Manchester, all in their new clothes. Take the tax off, even if only for, say, eight weeks. Take it off altogether if you will, but at any rate for eight weeks, because of the psychological effect. This would give people the chance to clothe their children as they should be clothed. I know the Lord President will do his best.
7.28 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I seem to have dropped into a sort of textile "pocket" in this debate. I am almost tempted by my friend of long standing who has just spoken to make a contribution to this debate which in length would recall a debate which took place last week in another place; but I have no intention of inflicting a contribution of that character upon your Lordships. A debate of this kind can be carried on in an atmosphere of restraint from political controversy—though even the serious-minded at the fun fair must occasionally be given the opportunity of cracking a few coconuts. We should not like to have a debate entirely devoid of those amusements. The impression one gets, on coming back after a long journey abroad, is that such a debate as this is of a seriousness which should lead one to avoid all forms of political controversy.

1253
It seems to me that most of the debate so far has been, perhaps properly, concentrated on the short-term analysis of our position. There have been relatively few remarks about the long-term complications of our immediate position, but concern about that is inescapable unless there is going to be a fundamental change of thinking. The voter seems to have to forget many of the political assurances that have been made since the war—more leisure and a highly developed Welfare State, synonyms for affluence. After all, we are not richer; we are poorer than we used to be. Many of us remember the assurances after the First World War —"Homes fit for heroes to live in," and all the gay hopes that were held out for the prosperity that would come and what the country could afford. We rapidly found that our expectations were doomed to disillusion.
It seems to me that the hard logic of economics is no more escapable to-day than it was then. The fundamental question seems to be: How are we going to feed 50,000,000 people in these islands on a reasonable basis while trying to import 60 per cent. of what we eat? Momentarily, all the talk is about balance of payments, but surely the terms of trade are what may well concern us more. It is when one travels into the areas of the world where food is being produced, places like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States—I have travelled long distances in recent months—that one realises that it may well be that the happy position which has been referred to in this debate, when in the 1930's food could be bought almost at our own price even though the basis of the values of our exports was itself low, will never return. There is an awakening of 1,000,000,000 Asiatics and Africans to the fact that they are entitled to have more food to eat, just as the lower-income-bracket people in this or in any other country have proper aspirations to a higher standard of living. Our standard of living, low as it has been in the past, is high to-day compared with that of 1,000,000,000 people who are now being alerted and are yearly getting more determined to have their share of what is going in the world.
An increasing proportion of the food production of the world—obviously it is increasing— is being used up by the indigenous populations. That must continue.
1254
Therefore, prices and the terms of trade seem unlikely to fall in our favour as they did in the 1930s. I realise how in Australia now the exportable surpluses of dairy products, such as beef, are falling. Beef is only one item. As the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, knows well, beef exported from Australia last year showed a catastrophic fall. I think it is right that little New Zealand exported more beef to Britain than the Argentine and Australia did together—at least so the meat controller in Australia told me. Anybody who knows Australia, New Zealand and the Argentine can realise what a catastrophic position that is.
Migration to Australia is making itself felt. Local consumption is bound to increase. The same is apparent in Canada, in the case of Australia, how much the present flow of migration will continue is at present uncertain, but self-sufficiency in all countries in manufacture is increasing, and the finding of substitute markets seems to depend on raising the standard of living in new areas in the world. Just recently, the Australian example of the vigorous limitation of imports commended itself to organised labour. They want to be protected against the inflow of merchandise which may swamp them through over-importation from Britain. The position is not dissimilar in Canada to-day. They also are feeling the effects of high importation from Britain.
I noted with interest during the debate on textiles that even among representatives of organised labour, emphasis was put on the fact that there must be protection in Britain against the inflow of goods produced by low-cost Japanese labour. I am informed from authoritative sources that, roughly speaking, the basis of wage payments in Japan is only one-third of what it is in England. In other words, British labour wants protection against cheap Japanese labour. Let us remember that to-day the cast of comparable labour in Canada is three times what it is in Britain. Are we, therefore, to say that if British labour calls for protection against Japanese labour, it is unnatural that labour in other countries is going to seek protection against low-cost British labour? These are very complicated matters.
I turn to the supply of food for the United Kingdom. Lower costs alone seem likely to permit the export volume to assure the exchange necessary to pur-

1255
chase our imports. What really is the use of talking of greater effort from workers working on half time, or of greater efficiency through new plant, when three-shift operation on the highest class of equipment is resisted by trade union practices? Bluntly, more output at lower cost seems to me the only hope, and seems to be the problem for which a solution must be found. That brings me to the remarks of my noble friend, Lord Beveridge. We are accustomed to listen with the greatest attention to his speeches, for the great service that he has done for this country in two World Wars and continuously in between times, and before as well, entitle him to be listened to with the greatest attention. I noted that my own humble remark was put much better by him: he said that we must have the highest output per man per day. I cannot expect him to reply now, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will give me a reply on this point.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am afraid I did not hear it.
LORD BARNBY: I am referring to Lord Beveridge's statement that we must have a higher output per man per day. Did he mean through longer hours? We like to assume that the British worker gives a big output for the hours he works. Is it the noble Lord's point that to maintain our standard of living we must work longer for the same pay?
LORD BEVERIDGE: I deliberately put it not as "output per man-hour" but as "output per man-day," making it possible to get the greater output in the day either by working harder or more efficiently during the same number of hours, or by lengthening the hours. It was to cover both those possibilities.
LORD BARNBY: Thank you. I return to exports. As to the dollar area, in which we want to increase the volume of our exports, why not offer advantages on exports? It should not be beyond the wit of man to devise the means, and other countries have succeeded in doing so. That brings me to the remarks of Lord Wilmot, who emphasised that we should concentrate on the production of goods that could be exported. I wish he were in his place because I would have emphasised to him the difficulty of
1256
getting the fluidity of workers to achieve that very desirable object. Now as to the textile industries, to which I must make a brief reference, it is a misfortune that so much emphasis was put on them last week, because that is the best way of encouraging everybody the world over not to purchase British goods. I would suggest to Lord Calverley some different ways in which purchase tax might be applied. One might be by differentiating between wool textiles, as against cotton. I would recommend that to the Lord President of the Council. After all, wool is a sterling area commodity of which we want to encourage the import; and cotton is, in the main, a dollar area import which is very expensive.
In regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke said, I would point out that American cotton is much too dear because of the price parities which are written into the law of the United States. You cannot reduce the price of American cotton without reducing the price parities; therefore the same remarks would apply to wool. We have at present the absurd spectacle of the United States paying out fabulous amounts in order to keep prices up, and we paying out large sums of money to keep the price of food down. I suppose indirectly it goes back to the United States from the money which they are pouring out, the 80 billions which I understand they have given in support of Europe since the war. Reference has been made to the strength of sterling. It would seem to anybody coming back from Canada that if a fraction of the confidence of the U.S.A. which has been shown to Canada could be shown to Britain as a result of convertibility here, our balance of payments would quickly be assisted. It is as well to know that 2,000,000,000 of United States dollars went into Canada in 1951. In the meantime I should like to know whether Government encouragement cannot be given to migration within the Commonwealth—a movement of the people to the food. Surely a strong group of populous Commonwealth countries is the hope of Britain. I came back from the distant parts of the Commonwealth only three days ago, and while I know that internal administrative regulations and business problems in all these countries are different, one from another, I could not help

1257
noticing the great superiority of Canadian methods of correction of current difficulties by the use of the minimum amount of controls, quotas, licences, bureaucracy, and ballyhoo generally. That seems to me to be a good target for our Government.
7.45 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, far be it from me to stand between your Lordships and your dinner. I expect we are all hungry at this hour of night. There are, however, two small points I should like to make. I, like Lord Barnby, have been away. I was away at the time of your Lordships' debate in February on the economic situation. My first point arises out of that debate. I find it extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, should have had to marshal all the facts as he did to show that we in this country were in an inflationary state. It is a state which has been recognised all over the world and which is generally accepted, I think, in this country; and it really needs no argument, except perhaps on the part of those people who are unwilling to face the situation which has developed as a result of the last six years of government which we have had since the war. I personally find it quite extraordinary to have to argue the point at all.
Looking at the situation to-day, some three months of this year having elapsed, I find, frankly, very little comfort in the improvement which it has been suggested is taking place, or alternatively, on the other line of argument, that the situation is not so bad as it was supposed to have been owing to the introduction of what is reputed to be a rather mild Budget. The situation which is particularly depressing at the moment, so far as I am concerned, is that raw material prices and commodity prices in the world generally have been falling since the beginning of last year, 1951. If noble Lords wish the data produced, they are contained in two well-known indices of raw material prices, one published in this country and the other the United States Bureau of Labour Index of Raw Materials. Both of those show that the peak of raw materials was reached in March or April of last year and has been falling steadily ever since—but not, however, in this country. The indices require very little explanation, the
1258
major raw materials which will occur to your Lordships—wool, cotton, copper, lead, tin, rubber—have all been falling for the last twelve months, and yet prices in this country have been rising. They have been rising for the very simple reason that we have been in a highly inflationary state here All the indices which are usually consulted to find out whether or not there is an excess of purchasing power show that that has been the case in this country. I do not think that the point really needs labouring any more, except for the fact that it is pretended by the Party and leaders of the Party of the noble Lords opposite that this is not the case. It is abundantly the case. Deposits in clearing banks have been rising. The velocity of the circulation has increased and yet, as I repeat, the price of raw materials elsewhere has been falling, but not here.
Now the other side of the picture, which creates an almost equally disquieting situation, is that production in this country has not risen in the last two months. There are two main indices of production; at the present moment, they show slight divergencies which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, well knows, but they are practically static. The index of production in the statistical summary shows a fall since the latter part of last year. If, therefore, you find yourself in a country, in a situation where raw material prices are falling, the cost of living and prices are rising, wages are rising, and production is either static or falling, then you will have the elements of a first-class critical situation to which remedies must be applied. Those remedies Her Majesty's Government are seeking to apply, but in the arguments that have been developed about those remedies the distinction has always been made wrongly, between, on the one hand, what has been proposed in the Finance Bill and Budget and what ought to have been done, and, on the other, the financial steps proposed.
It seems to me—I do not think that mans. people will dispute it—that those two elements must be taken together. For the last seven years successive Governments have pursued a policy of cheap money which has required the creation of credit to keep money cheap. And, as a remedy for the inflationary consequence of that policy, the last two

1259
Chancellors of the Exchequer in the late two Governments have sought to mop up that purchasing power by budgetary means. This is obviously a point very germane to what the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, was discussing in his opening speech. They have tried to remove the purchasing power by budgetary means; in other words, to impose taxation and cut subsidies which would take away a purchasing power which, in the view of a great many of us, ought never to have been created. Those methods of curbing or holding in control the price structure and the wage structure of this country have failed. Prices have risen inordinately, the cost of living has risen and wages have risen. In other words, whilst we have unnecessarily created purchasing power in order to keep money cheap, the remedies applied by budgetary means have not been successful.
As I see it, what Her Majesty's Government have done, in Mr. Butler's policy as outlined in the Budget speech, is to depart from using that remedy only to cure what had become a critical situation—critical in the terms outlined by Lord Balfour of Burleigh; critical on the issues to which I have referred—and have decided, by means of a modest Budget surplus, only modestly larger than the one Mr. Gaitskell achieved in an inflationary Budget year, to apply financial remedies which will in fact diminish the amount of money and purchasing power in the country by monetary means. These two elements in the present policy are obviously quite inseparable and cannot be discussed the one without the other.
It is argued that dear money is necessarily bad. Dear money is obviously not desirable if it can be avoided. But it seems to me to have been shown quite conclusively in the last seven years that the remedies which it has been sought to apply have been unsuccessful, and therefore an additional remedy is required—which is what the policy announced in the Budget speech amounts to. The effects of high money rates are classically well-known to anybody who has ever gone into economic history. It is perfectly true that in theory (and in Socialist theory, rules and regulations can achieve the same object; but in fact they do not) the way to achieve the restriction of credit
1260
and of money is, as other speakers have said, both this afternoon and in February, to make each person conscious of the undesirability of borrowing money if it can possibly be avoided, because it is too expensive. Instead of the bank manager having to say to each individual client, "Look here, I think your overdraft is too large. Will you kindly reduce it?" now the client goes to the bank manager and says, "Look here, I think my overdraft is costing a little too much." In other words, the consciousness of restriction has been imposed on the people by the financial machine and by the financial restrictions which higher money rates inevitably produce.
There is a second point which it seems to me is almost equally important—namely, that to try to mop up purchasing power, and to keep prices in control by budgetary means, and by rules and regulations which in the end depend on legislative action for their efficacy, is a rigid and a very difficult method. Moreover, having once been imposed these statutory orders cannot readily be altered from one day to another, or from one week to another. If, instead of adopting the financial means which Mr. Butler has adopted, he had sought to budget for a much larger surplus, that could have been done only by the imposition of taxation, which inevitably must run for the whole of a Budget year and cannot readily be altered during the course of that year. The financial mechanism, the bank rate and all that that implies—is far more delicate in its administrative application. It can be modified from week to week. The bank rate can be dropped this week. A statutory order or a clause in the Finance Act applying a new tax or impost cannot be altered from week to week.
The advantages of using the financial weapon seem to me to have been neglected, both in the speeches of noble Lords opposite to which I have listened to-day and in the speeches made during the debate which took place at the end of February. To have a 4 per cent. bank rate to-day does not mean, and was never intended to mean, that we are going to have a 4 per cent. bank rate or a 5 per cent. bank rate for all time. Personally, I regret that last year the bank rate was not raised higher than 2½ per cent. Had it been raised higher I think we might have seen more obvious signs of what I

1261
believe is beginning to happen—namely, a general restriction of purchasing power in this country. We are seeing some sign of that taking place in a decline in the deposits it clearing banks, and if not a decline in advances, at any rate a very much smaller increase in advances this year than we have been used to for many years. The decline in deposits is very remarkable, and, has brought the total of the last available figure down to a level which we in this country have not seen, I think since the early part of 1950. That is the direction in which these mechanical financial devices are intended to operate and are beginning to operate. It is a matter of great regret to me that they were not put into operation five months ago, because the deterioration in the situation which has taken place since November of last year is so marked as to warrant the use of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's phrase used in the February debate—namely, that we are now facing six months of the most critical time in our economic and financial history. That can be said with full truth and without any exaggeration whatever.
My Lords, that is the one aspect of the economic situation with which I wanted to deal. Before sitting down, I want to say one word about what might be called the external side. The internal side can, and I think probably will, be remedied if the measures which Her Majesty's Government have taken up to date are severe enough. The only latent doubt I have is that they may not be severe enough at this late stage. If they have to be tightened up they will become much more unpleasant in every way than those with which we are already familiar. The external side seems to me even more difficult to remedy at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord Brand, spoke in February, of our liabilities to other countries, our liabilities within the sterling area and our liabilities without the sterling area.
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in the course of his remarks to-day, expressed the hope that this year would see an increase in production of some £250,000,000, and an increase in our exports of some £50,000,000. If, last year, the Government over which noble Lords opposite and their colleagues presided had taken the steps which then ought to have been taken, it would have been perfectly possible, I believe, to
1262
divert some production consumed internally into the export trade. There were still many countries that were short; there were still many countries that could have taken that extra £50,000,000 worth. To-day it is extremely doubtful whether there are major customers of this country which are in a position to buy these exports. In the case of Australia, I am extremely doubtful; in the case of other large Commonwealth countries, also, I am doubtful. To lock round to-day and find customers for an extra £50,000,000 worth of exports over the total of last year is going to tax the ingenuity of everyone in this country within and without the Government.
But there is one element in our external balance of payments where an almost immediate result could be produced. That is not in exports, but in the diminution of a certain category of imports—I am referring to food. I am not suggesting that food imports should be cut down any further. What I am firmly convinced about is that the production of internally produced food in this country can be stepped up more quickly than can the export of manufactured articles. Returning from Australia about three weeks ago, through America, and in conversation with American friends (many of whom bear names which would be familiar to all your Lordships in the House this evening as being amongst our best friends in the United States; and, thank God, we have many), I found that all, without exception—from those in the food-producing industries themselves to those who are not even remotely connected with the production of food—believe that the first immediate step which could successfully be taken here, and which would produce a result in twelve months, would be to increase the output of domestic foodstuffs.
I do not want to go into statistics at this hour of the night, but at the present time we are producing approximately half the food we eat in this country. There is no reason why, within twelve months, we should not produce 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. more, and, within five years, 25 per cent. more. That is open to Her Majesty's Government today, and it has been open to any other Government which has been in power before. But it is an opportunity which

1263
until now, I regret to say, has been grossly neglected. The price of food to-day is quite immaterial compared with the quantity. We shall, I understand, have a debate in your Lordships' House after the Recess on food, and it is obviously not a subject to enlarge upon at this late hour. But I believe that as an element in our external balance of payments, as a method of building up a surplus of earning power abroad, a reduction in food imports by internal production, and doing whatever can be done to stimulate exports, are the only means by which we can secure that modest surplus with which to make a beginning in reducing our liabilities to the Commonwealth countries, to the sterling area and, above all, to the dollar area.
8.6 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in welcoming back the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, and the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, from Australia. I gather that while they were there things underwent a change. Of course, we had hoped that as they were visiting Australia, unofficially but, in a sense, on behalf of this House, the change would have been for the better. It seemed otherwise to the gods. None of us, I am sure, blames the noble Lords for the adverse development in Australia. We thank our lucky stars that they were there or thereabouts, for just think how bad the cuts would have been if they had not been visiting Australia during that period. Lord Rennell said that he did not wish to stand very long between the House and dinner. I do not wish to stand very long between the House and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. We have a high regard for Lord Selkirk's potentialities, and we feel sure that they will be realised, though I believe that he may have a rather difficult task on this occasion.
I cannot begin to deal in the way that would be expected of a Government spokesman with a great number of the issues that have been raised—for example, the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, for a Royal Commission. I do not know whether he has a chairman in mind. He knows where my vote would go, and if he is looking for a "bottle-washer," as in times past, he
1264
might do worse than look along this Bench in these days of partial unemployment. I am certainly very sympathetic to the noble Lord's proposal. Then, of course, there is the very grave question of Lancashire. I have a strong feeling that the House may wish to discuss the position in Lancashire before we are very much older. I think that in that subject the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and I will find something upon which we shall not disagree. The noble Lord has a much more intimate knowledge of Lancashire than I, but we both feel very strongly about the position there. Indeed, I think we all feel that the question of Lancashire is the gravest single economic question of the hour.
Other and, in a sense, wider questions have been raised, but I will confine myself to but a few of them. I believe that some noble Lords have been hoping that I shall rather "hot things up" during these concluding remarks of mine. That is not at all my intention. Just as the noble Marquess the Leader of the House yesterday disclaimed any desire to indulge in a slanging match, I also will try to remain calm and to maintain the policy of relative detachment which the noble Marquess adopted so effectively yesterday afternoon. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has explained that—for reasons which I entirely understand and appreciate—he cannot be with us now. That, of course, makes the position, in one sense, a little harder to deal with. But he warned me some time ago that he would not be able to be present. As regards the personal attitude which the noble Viscount exhibited towards me at one moment, and which seemed to me rather extraordinary at the time as coming from the Deputy-Leader of the House towards another and younger Peer, I can only say that I appreciate that he was labouring under a strong desire to defend a colleague. I make my excuses in my mind for him, and if he reads these words he can be sure that I have forgiven and forgotten anything he said to me.
But the noble Viscount did make a grave charge against the late Government. He accused them—although I did not take down his words and I am in the recollection of the House—of keeping the Opposition and the country in the dark about the economic position. I say that that charge is an outrageous one, unless the

1265
noble Viscount is able to substantiate it, which I am quite sure he is not able to do. At the risk of delay, I feel it is necessary for the record that I should read you verbatim—and I think I am in order in so doing—what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Butler, said immediately following the Election. I will not read you all he said, but these are the principal words. This was after the Election. In November Mr. Butler said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Coms., Vol. 493, Col. 191):
"It has been generally known for some months that our balance of payments was deteriorating and that unless vigorous remedial action were taken we should be once more in crisis as in 1947 and 1949. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is sitting opposite me now, in a debate in July, said that the position was getting worse. In his speech at the Mansion House on 3rd October he announced that the dollar deficit for the third quarter was 638 million dollars compared with a surplus of 56 million dollars—a surplus in the second quarter and of 360 million dollars in the first quarter. Those who listened to him could not have doubted that whatever Government were returned to power an ugly situation would be bequeathed to them."
I ask the House to note those words very carefully:
"In fact, the worsening has continued over the last few weeks."
In order that I may make plain that Mr. Butler was not making any sort of charge, I will quote from Mr. Gaitskell, who followed him. He said (Col. 212):
"The right honourable Gentleman was good enough to say that at the time I made the speech the figures were as I gave them. Of course, that is true, but evidently fresh calculations have been made which indicate some rather less favourable prospect. The right hon. Gentleman did not give us—I make no complaint about it—very many assumptions on which the estimates were based."
Mr. Butler, if he disliked that way of putting it or thought it exaggerated, had every opportunity of interrupting. I think those two quotations refute completely what the noble Viscount has said.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): I think most of my colleagues would agree that although we knew the situation was bad we did not realise directly after the Election quite how bad it was, and it has been further borne in on us as time has passed. I do not say that in any controversial sense. I think anybody would say that we had not a conception at the
1266
Election or immediately afterwards how seriously the situation had deteriorated.
EARL JOWITT: A very serious accusation was made by Lord Swinton, which I thought reflected on the honour of all of us in the late Government. I gather that the noble Viscount does not suggest that we kept back any figure whatever. Perhaps we did not all realise what the figures meant, but it is not suggested, I understand, that any single figure now presented was kept back.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that what my noble friend intended to suggest was that neither the country nor we were fully aware of the seriousness of the situation at that time. I am not making a charge against the noble Lord but I state that as a fact, and I believe that to be a fact which will be borne out by my colleague.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am grateful to the noble Marquess for what he is saying. It is something he has said on earlier occasions in this House and it is not something which we resented, though to my mind it is capable of an answer. The short economic point is that the situation did in fact deteriorate, very rapidly during the month of October, or during part of it, in which the Election was actually taking place. What the honourable Marquess has just said is totally different from what the Viscount said earlier today, to which we take the strongest objection. I express the hope, as I feel the Viscount appeared to be speaking in something of a frenzy, that when he has calmed himself he will express his regret and make a complete withdrawal.
As I say, I do not wish to become unduly controversial but there are a number of points I should like to make about the Budget. When I talk of the Budget, the House will perhaps allow me to use the expression in rather a compendious way to cover the whole economic policy that the present Government have introduced since they came into power. I would use these epithets about it, which become slightly more controversial as they proceed, in order to indicate the general drift. First, it is essentially a Conservative Budget. Secondly, it is a surprising Budget—I am talking of the policy generally now. Thirdly, it is a confusing Budget. Fourthly, it is an irrelevant Budget. Fifthly, it is a "breach

1267
of promise" Budget. Sixthly, it is an unjust Budget; and seventhly, it is a damaging Budget, all of which perhaps makes redundant the eighth point that it is a thoroughly bad Budget.
My Lords, there are three aspects of this policy. With one of those—the general physical method of attempting to reduce imports and stimulate exports—I am not going to deal to-night. I do not say all has gone well or that all has been wisely conceived. There appears to have been a frightful muddle over the Australian trade, but we have not yet obtained sufficient information about that to pass complete criticism. But broadly, with the effort to cut imports and increase exports we are in sympathy in principle.
Now I come to what might be called the purchasing power aspect of the whole policy. There I have in mind the monetary policy on the one side and also the point that was dealt with by Lord Rennell—the budgetary surplus. If the House will bear with me for a few minutes, I should like to read a few extracts from independent observers (and none of them from people particularly sympathetic to ourselves) to show exactly what I mean. I will not attempt to labour a point that Lord Pethick-Lawrence made, but as he received no answer at all I make no apologies for putting this again to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. When we debated these matters on February 19, we did so in a very grave atmosphere, both from what was said inside the Chamber and from things some of us learned from the views of other members in private discussion. I think we all came away very much depressed about the balance of payments situation. I would just remind your Lordships, for example, that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 175, Col. 35):
"I do not think that the gravity of this crisis is as yet anything like fully realised by the people outside."
That was the general note that was struck. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh—who I am sorry has not participated in the debate to-day—at the end of a powerful speech, quoted Professor Lionel Robbins with some approval. These are the words the noble Lord quoted approvingly, and indeed, passionately, of Professor Lionel Robbins:
1268
"Stop the inflation, stop it at all costs: that is the paramount need of the moment in the economic sphere. If we meet it (which we can do very easily if we have a mind to do so)"—
then the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, put in,
"if we can have the co-operation of all men of good will"—
and went on with the quotation—
"we can still have a future of high promise. If we do not, then I fear our days are numbered. … "
That is the quotation with which the noble Lord wound up his speech. To quote a very different authority, but one that I am sure is no more biased in our favour—at any rate, I have no reason to suppose so—The Times Educational Supplement of March 28 said:
"The request for a 5 per cent. reduction on all local estimates was delivered at a time of great economic alarm."
That was the view they took of the educational cuts last winter. What do we find now? I think The Times summed it up correctly. To the best of my recollection, The Times described it as "a hopeful Budget"; and that was the general attitude of the Press which would incline to the Right Wing in politics.
Without wishing to quote too much, I would remind your Lordships of what the Economist said soon after the Budget:
"Both in its details and in its general shape Mr. Butler's Budget has taken the world by surprise."
Clearly there was a strong element of surprise somewhere about this Budget. The Economist went on to point out that:
"Mr. Butler is giving away in reliefs more than he is taking back in tax increases and cuts … "
Now the surprise—and, I am bound to say, the confusion—has become greater, if one can judge by the current number of the Economist, where we read:
"But the Budget implied that after all there was little inflation to fight, and in replying to the Budget debate the Chancellor last week made explicit his fears of a recession of trade. Outside opinion has, for the most part, obediently taken his word for it."
So that now it is very doubtful—and I have quoted only authorities who are certainly not on the Labour side—whether the Government consider they are tackling inflation at all. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will deal with that point. I put is specifically: Do the Government still take the view

1269
that we are in an inflationary situation, and that we must fight it at all costs?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would ask the noble Lord whether he considers that we were in an inflationary position.
LORD PAKENHAM: I think the whole world thought that we were in an inflationary position. But these things change very quickly. I am not saying that what was said at an earlier stage was wrong merely because it becomes untrue at a later stage. The noble Earl is bound to have more information than we have, and I ask him to give us the view of the Government as to whether we are fighting inflation or deflation, or inflation in some quarters and deflation in others. I put that to the noble Earl because, in view of what I have read out, I think that any fair-minded person would agree that, taken as a whole, people are much surprised and confused, as my noble friend Lord PethickLawrence said.
I now come to the question of irrelevance. Still confining ourselves to the purchasing power aspect, it is agreed that, after all, we do not want to cut down consumption; that the total consumption of the country this year is to remain the same as last year. That brings me to my next heading—namely, public expenditure. In the light of the view which the Government have now expressed, but which they had not expressed when we had our earlier debate, I say that if the consumption is to remain where it is, how can the noble Earl justify these cuts which we discussed on earlier occasions? We have criticised these cuts before as irrelevant. Even on the Government's estimates hen (I am speaking of the health charges and the cut in education: I will say something about the cut in food subsidies in a moment), when there were supposed to be sacrifices coming, we said that these cuts were irrelevant. Now we know that sacrifices in consumption are not being called for from the people as a whole. Yet the schoolchildren have to suffer some losses of education, and people have to pay extra for filling of teeth, and so forth, and for prescriptions. Those people have to suffer; their consumption in some way has to be interfered with. Why should they be singled out" if consumption as a whole is to remain where it is? The only effect of
1270
singling them out is to make sure that everyone else has a slightly better time, while they have a slightly worse time. That calls for an answer. I say to the noble Earl that his own argument is bound to be very much affected by the general line taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. The whole line of argument which I understood was presented before seems to me now to become completely inadmissible.
I come next to the cut in food subsidies. These, of course, are particularly irrelevant. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who set a good example in a heated debate by speaking throughout with a smile—and I will try to emulate him and smile at everybody, though I always find it an effort, and it is sometimes rather painful for the onlookers—attempted to justify Lord Woolton's promise, and the way it was broken by the Government, by arguing that the cut in the food subsidies was made necessary by the discovery of how bad the situation was. I think that is a fair reproduction of one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I would say this: that the cut in the food subsidies seems to me, on Mr. Butler's own showing, to be in no way connected with the trade crisis. Is that a fair account of Mr. Butler's position? I do not ask the noble Earl to intervene, but I would ask him to reply to that. As I understand it, whether or not there was a balance of payments crisis, these food subsidies were to be cut eventually. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said that the Conservatives had always disliked the food subsidies, and that they would cut them eventually, but, in some way which was not explained, the crisis makes it necessary to speed up the cuts.
I cannot understand why the crisis should affect the attitude of the Conservative Party to the food subsidies. If they dislike them, then possibly they should cut them; but that has no connection with the balance of payments, because the effect of cutting the food subsidies is obviously deleterious to those struggling in our export trade, and otherwise, to make both ends meet. When all is said and done, the most obvious effect of the cat in the food subsidies is to raise the cost of living—no one can doubt that; and it is bound to lead to some increase in wages, to increased costs, and

1271
to damage to the export trade. Therefore, I say that that policy is not only a breach of promise, but highly damaging to the country, and particularly to those labouring to balance our trade accounts.
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord have increased the food subsidies greatly? Conversely, the same thing ought to apply. To encourage the export trade you ought to double or treble your food subsidies. Would the noble Lord have done that?
LORD PAKENHAM: I cannot speak off-hand for my colleagues. Noble Lords can laugh, but that is a perfectly fair answer: the noble Earl may laugh at that. In a moment he may be asked some questions, and he is a member of the Government. I should think that some increase in the food subsidies might have been justified. I am not in possession of the knowledge possessed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether that is so or not. I would not be dogmatic about it.
LORD HAWKE: And increased taxation to match?
LORD PAKENHAM: I should think that would be necessary, yes. The noble Lord made an interesting speech and he must not tie me down. I am giving an off-hand opinion, without access to the facts. The noble Earl's Government has therefore cut the food subsidies and increased the cost of living, and nobody can seriously argue that that is going to help the export trade. It is a breach of promise.
I will not labour that point, except to come to the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. I think on the whole he is a maligned man. I think he is in danger of being victimised by public opinion and by the public opinion of his own side as well, because really the noble Lord was not alone in this pledge. We must not forget what Mr. Butler himself said. He said on October 12, at North Berwick:
"In present circumstances, while we fight and strive to reduce the cost of living, we shall maintain the food subsidies."
LORD WOOLTON: I did not hear that. Would the noble Lord mind repeating it?
LORD PAKENHAM: Yes, because I think it should be of great assistance to the noble Lord in some of these internal discussions he must be having with his colleagues—I make him a present of it. Mr. Butler said at North Berwick on October 12:
"In present circumstances, while we fight and strive to reduce the cost of living, we shall maintain the food subsidies."
Therefore, I well understand the noble Lord's offer of his resignation, which we understood was confirmed by an important nod of the head—I understood Lord Woolton to nod when it was said that he had offered his resignation. In my opinion that offer does him great credit. But I am afraid that I feel very strongly that it does no credit to the Government who refused to accept it. I am bound to say that Mr. Butler's resignation would have had to be accepted at the same time, which perhaps made it a little awkward for the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister. I do not want to get too deeply involved in this question of resignations. The House once spent a whole day discussing one case, and "a good time was had by all." I think the noble Marquess could perhaps teach Lord Woolton something about resignations. He comes of a great family and one of the most honourable facets of his family is their gift of resignation. The noble Marquess once resigned, and all honour to him. I think one of his uncles resigned, and certainly his grandfather did. His grandfather, to whom he has made proud reference, resigned from Disraeli's Government. Disraeli is now the hero of the Party and he felt that his honour would not be safe in his keeping. I hope the noble Marquess feels that his honour is as safe in the keeping of his colleagues, because I am bound to say that it would be safer outside. I am not going to level this criticism against the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, personally. I think the whole Government shared in this thing, and in the long run they must stand or fall by public judgment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord is terribly tender about honour, but when we make any accusation against the honour of his Party nobody is so furious as he is. I think he might allow us to look after our own honour and we will leave his Party theirs.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am very sorry indeed, but in public life it seems to me the painful duty of an Opposition to criticise the Government on these broad issues. I am sure that the noble Marquess, who hits extremely hard and never resents being hit back, will admit that. Our debates would become a kind of tea part,' if we could not accuse noble Lords of breaking pledges, when they have broken them so flagrantly as they have on this occasion.
I will net detain your Lordships much longer. I have set out to justify each of the epithets which. I have used. I found myself reading this sentence taken from Britain Strong and Free, a document which I need not place in the hands of noble Lords opposite, because they know it by heart. It is the Conservative manifesto. It says:
"A Government will be judged according to the effect of its programme upon rising costs and prices."
When we study their programme and, above all, this most controversial feature, the cut in the subsidies, which is clearly bound on general admission to raise costs and prices, then I find myself returning to the moving end of Mr. Churchill's Life of his father where these words appear:
"There is an England which stretches far beyond the well-drilled masses who are assembled by Party machinery to salute with appropriate acclamation the utterances of their recognised fuglemen; an England of wise men who gaze without self-deception at the failings and follies of both political Parties of brave and earnest men who find in neither faction fair scope for the effort that is in them; of 'poor men' who increasingly doubt the sincerity of Party philanthropy. It was to that England that Lord Randolph Churchill appealed; it was that England he so nearly won; it is by that England that he will be justly judged."
I say only that it is to that England that this Budget makes no appeal at all. It is that England which this Budget has no earthly chance of winning. It is by that England that this Budget will be justly judged, and will be justly and finally and most severely condemned.
8.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, we have had a fairly long debate, and I should like to say this. Many noble Lords have spoken and enlightened our debate. I will attempt to answer but very few, and I hope that they will appreciate that what has been said will be carefully
1274
looked at in detail. If I may, I am going to take up the noble Lord on one thing only. We have been asked whether we knew in this country what the situation was at the time of fix General Election. Let me tell you what I knew and what my reaction was—I would even go so far as to say what was the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Milner. We have heard his quotation at Leeds, and as the noble Lord was not here I will quote it again. He was quoted as saying:
"This country was never so prosperous."
The noble Lord was not a member of the late Government.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: What date was that?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: October 18, 1951, at Leeds.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Precisely; under the Labour Government.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord was not a member of the Government and I am certain that he said it in all sincerity. I am certain that that is what he believed at the time. Many noble Lords spoke at the Election. I wonder how many really knew that, at the rate at which gold was going out in the last six months, it would all be gone by September of this year? That is the nature of the crisis which we are being called upon to face. I merely ask: How many noble Lords on either side of the House were really apprised of that fact? I believe very few indeed.
We are faced with this very great crisis of the utmost complexity—complex not only in its effect upon our life, but complex because it extends all over the world. In this light we are asked: Are your remedies up to the gravity of the situation? That was the gravamen of tie speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. In other words: Is this Budget too hard or too soft? For various reasons, at the present juncture a mere physical pulling in of our belts is not going to help, or, at any rate it is not going to help a great deal. Consumption, provided production is up, will probably be the same in the present year. But I am sorry that noble Lords opposite are tending to take the line, so far as I understood it, that the Budget is too hard.

1275
At least, that was the burden of the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, so far as I can understand it. But if that were advanced it could only mean that the gravity of the situation was less serious than has been represented.
We are not concerned with either the popularity or the unpopularity of the Budget. That, in the present circumstances, is irrelevant. What concerns us about the Budget is its effect. We like to think that it is moderately fair, and we should perhaps look at what has happened in previous Budgets. We should consider, in a world of inflation, how it will help those least well off. In the times in which we are living, with many people receiving National Assistance, people are constantly being adversely affected by the influence of inflation. The noble Lord emphasised the question of the balance of payments. We have been living since the war in a sellers' market; we have had Marshall Aid; we have had a devaluation. Each one of those steps has been to our advantage. We are now facing a sterner situation without any of these factors entirely with us. The sellers' market is certainly less strong than it was; we have no Marshall Aid; and we are trying to face up to the situation as it is.
There are one or two other points with which I should like to deal. We have limited imports over a wide field, as far as possible arranging cuts in such a way that industry continues to get essential materials. That is essential. But, on the other hand, cuts will fall mainly on unrationed food and manufactured goods. The cuts will be made at the expense of stocks not only of food and tobacco, but also of certain raw materials. Secondly, we are endeavouring to ensure that materials are available for firms engaged on export work. Much of these materials come from the same source as those required for the rearmament drive; and we have had to cut our investment programme. Obviously we do that with the greatest possible reluctance. We have no other source from which we might make good our export trade. And this is one of the elements to-day; we cannot make it good strictly from the consumer market. Owing to the failure of the opportunity of exporting we have, reluctantly, to make cuts in our investment programme.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The noble Earl says that we are making cuts in our investment programme. That was the question. I put to the Government, but I understood that the noble Viscount was unable or unwilling to answer. I am very interested to know that the noble Earl says that the Government are making cuts in our investment programme. I should be very much obliged if he would give me some idea of their magnitude.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is well known; there is nothing new about it. But unfortunately I am not in a position to give the noble Lord details at this moment. One of the things we are trying to avoid is making numbers of prophecies. We are not making any prophecies about what the cuts in investment will bring in this matter. I want to emphasise this, because it is often given out of its context: that we are not saying that there will be the same amount of consumer goods in the market unless production increases. If it does not increase that position will not arise.
Lord Pakenham asked what we consider the present position to be, whether inflationary or deflationary. Well, my Lords, I can say simply this: that experience has shown since the war, and indeed for a long time before, that inflation is probably the greatest temptation of almost any democracy. It is the easiest possible way in which the Government can score off the people without their knowing it. I do not think that there is any doubt at the present juncture that we are engaged to a major extent in preventing the inflation left by the previous Administration. What has been done? We raised the bank rate in November; we had a funding operation in November; and we have raised the bank rate since. We have had a restriction on hire purchase and restrictions on capital issues. I want to be clear about this: that—as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, emphasised—we consider this matter of the bank rate to be of very great importance, not only because of its effect in this country psychologically, but also because of its effect abroad as an earnest that we really are taking the situation firmly in hand.
It has been emphasised that we should use more direct and positive control. The disadvantage about price controls is that their influence is not always strictly confined to the subject to be controlled; they

1277
tend to spill over and affect many other things that they are not meant to affect. The obvious example is the black market: the moment you impose price controls you raise the possibility of a black market. If you put on price controls you may create queues and put up prices in other directions. We are using price controls, but we say that they are not the only way. If I may say so with great respect, the late Government were not strikingly successful in dealing with inflation, and they should look with some leniency at our use of this instrument at a time when inflation has been one of the most important factors to be reckoned with, and probably will still be so. The noble Lord, Lore Pakenham, asked about our policy regarding inflation.
LORD PAKENHAM: My question arose out of Mr. Butler's striking attitude in his Budget speech, which was commented on in the Economist and elsewhere.
THE EARL of SELKIRK: I would describe our policy as a policy of "flation"—that is to say, the endeavour to obtain a balance. In a complex world it is easy to fall down on one side or the other.
A question has been raised in regard to Lancashire. I would say only that Lancashire is earnestly engaging the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and I have nothing to add except that the causes of the Lancashire difficulties had arisen before the present Administration came into office. It is possible that it might have beep stopped more easily, though I do not think it could have been. The difficulties arose at the end of last year and are now becoming more apparent. But it is largely because of this situation that we have not sought, by and large, to restrict the consumer market. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, and the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, who emphasised the importance of keeping textiles on the market as far as possible. There is at present considerable resistance to textiles overseas.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, raised the question of food subsidies. He expressed great anxiety about the reduction of Government money in payment of food subsidies. Now, my Lords, it is being said increasingly that a food subsidy is a kind of social service invented by the Socialist Government.
LORD PAKENHAM: Who said that?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It was invented by Sir Kingsley Wood.
LORD PAKENHAM: Who said that?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place—but that is by the way. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord opposite would make a statement of that character but, none the less, it has been put forward, that in point of fact it was invented in the first place by the Socialists. With great respect, what happened in 1949 was that Sir Stafford Cripps, so far as the house- hold consumer was concerned, did exactly what was done in this Budget, except that he provided for no countervailing advantages. I quote what Sir Stafford Cripps said. Your Lordship; will recall that he reduced the fold subsidies by £120,000,000. He said this:
"The major part of this adjustment must, of course, be by retail price increase."
It is true that, technically, it was not a cut, but actually it was a cut. So far as the household was concerned, it was in precisely and exactly the same position. Any Chancellor of the Exchequer dislikes food subsidies and we regard them as wasteful and as hiding the real situation.
We have had a remarkable speech to-day from the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, on the question of efficiency, and what he said was re-echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Archibald. Lord Beveridge asked for a Royal Commission on industrial efficiency. This is an extremely complex subject. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, referred earlier this year in the course of one of his speeches to the question of efficiency and incentives. I would suggest that it is of the utmost importance that we should examine that question closely. We are anxious to prevent, on the one hand, any interruption of effort and, on the other any interruption of result. We think it is a great pity that there should be an interruption. In other words, the one should be seen quite clearly as emerging out of the other. We have felt widely that under a Socialist régime there is little reward for doing well, and the penalty is diminished for doing badly or for failure. We think that is wrong, and feel in the broadest sense that men

1279
should realise as fully as possible that, where they expend their energies and ideas, it is hard that they should not have the opportunity of adequate reward. I feel, too, that we should endeavour to get away from the idea that a man works for a boss who is making money out of him; we should adopt the outlook which I believe is much more prevalent in America, that a man is working with his boss, and it is up to the trade unions to see that the man gets a fair deal—in other words, that the man is identified in the success of the business with his own boss.
I wish to express sympathy with the importance of the points raised this afternoon about income tax. I should like to say one or two words on that matter, because we attach great importance to financial incentives. We do not suggest that the financial incentive is the only incentive. But we agree that it is one. For instance, a married man with two children who is earning £9 a week has his tax reduced from 2s. 1d. to nothing. On every £1 overtime that he works his tax is reduced from 3s. 10d. to 1s. I am suggesting that these figures are not unimportant. Then the question of the Health Service was raised. I do not propose to say very much on that point now, except this: that, frankly, if the Health Service had been put on a sounder basis when it was started, a substantial number of the difficulties which have arisen would never have arisen. But it is a big subject and I would rather not launch on it at this time of night, as we have been sitting now since half-past two. I do not feel that I could do justice to the subject, which is too large to be taken out of its context. In conclusion, noble Lords opposite have been very pleased about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that our situation has been deteriorating for fifty years.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I am sorry to interrupt, but I think it is most unfair to say that we have been "very pleased" about it. It suggests that we are pleased that there has been a deterioration, which I am sure the noble Earl did not mean to imply.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No, the noble Lord is quite right. I should not have put it that way. I should have said they derived a certain satisfaction
1280
or relief. Will the noble Lord accept "relief" from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
LORD ARCHIBALD: No. I think it is "interest" rather than "relief" or "satisfaction."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Be that as it may, there is no point in it. We have accepted that statement, and I think that everyone will recognise that for fifty years the standard of living in this country has been rising. Obviously, that situation cannot continue. We have been talking, for reasons which I stated earlier, about the short-term situation. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, emphasised the question of the long-term situation. If I may, I should like to say a word about that. We have seen industrialisation grow up all over the world—that is common knowledge. What perhaps is less common knowledge is that it has happened almost entirely at the expense of agriculture. I was surprised to learn (I believe I am correct in saying this) that to-day the percentage of industrial workers in Australia, which we often look upon as an agricultural country, is greater than that of the United States of America. It is a somewhat striking fact.
In this matter, we are peculiarly affected, because we are especially dependent on food imports and we must, therefore, produce whatever it is that will enable us to gain food for this country. This is a matter of the utmost importance, and I should like to say here that the point which the noble Lord, Lord Layton, made about flexibility, both in technique and in adjustment to a new situation, is absolutely right. It is of the greatest possible importance. Many of us feel that the tendency in the last seven years has been for this country to become stereotyped, to become narrow, to become fixed in form rather than readily adjustable to new situations. We have got to increase production. It was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Hungarton, who has left the Chamber, and by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, I believe, that we have to make full use of all our land, including our marginal land, and that if we do not do that we shall indubitably gravely lower the whole standard of living in this country.
We hope (we do not claim to have gone very far) that we have made a basis for a dynamic economy which will

1281
gradually enable the full skill and resources of the people of this country to be deployed. I do not think anyone questions that the real energies and capabilities of this country in terms of the individual are hardly touched, and that we have a long way to go before we learn how to harness to the full all available means for a useful contribution to society. This is a task in which we have not, as I say, gone very far, but I think we have achieved something. In doing this we have served not only ourselves but also a large part of the world who look to us for leadership—not only, if I may say so, in material things but also in immaterial things, for the things for which we stand in our free institutions, and for our way of life. If we go down or if anything happens to us, we lose far more than ourselves: we lose a standard and an ideal for the rest of the world.
9.0 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I am sure I shall be consulting the interests of all your Lordships if I confine my remarks to a very few moments before we bring this debate to an end. I feel particularly grateful to those who have taken part in this discussion, not least to the noble Earl who has just sat down for the very courteous way he has dealt with the debate and for the information and the arguments which he has put forward in support of the Government. I have listened to nearly the whole debate. I much regret that I was absent when the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, spoke, but I shall read his remark; in Hansard with great interest. I think that the speeches which interested me especially and gave me great pleasure were those of my old friend, Lord Blackford, my friend, Lord Archibald, and the exceptionally interesting remarks of Lord Rennell, who was the only person, it seems to me, who really dealt cogently with the point I was trying to put with regard to dear money. I shall think over carefully what he said to see how far it modifies the view which I had hitherto formed.
I want to make only a very short reference to one or two of the points made by the noble Earl who spoke just before me. I do not want to reopen this question as to w hat blame is to be attached to the Labour Government over the crisis,
1282
but I think we must all face this fact quite fairly from a non-Party point of view: that this crisis blew up with extraordinary rapidity in a matter of weeks, Lind almost of days. A very short time before the adverse position arose, we were still rejoicing in the surplus which we had had until a very few months before, and then the crisis blew up, as I say, in a matter almost of days. The real question between us on this matter—and I do not think it ought to be denied—is that it is quite true that every person who is keenly interested in finance was not aware of the rapid degree with which the crisis deteriorated. The real question is, were the Labour Government and our Chancellor of the Exchequer in any way to blame for that fact? The answer, surely, is that they were not, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer took every means in his power of stating the rapidly growing crisis and those people who were capable of following it like the present Chancellor realised—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We had a very interesting intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Milner, who was a distinguished Member of the other House at that time. He himself during the actual Election campaign was actually unaware that there was anything wrong. That seems to me to show—I am not making any charge of evil intention on the part of the Government—that they utterly failed even to convince their own most experienced supporters that such a situation had arisen.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I hesitate to rise, but I have not been given the courtesy of having had it mentioned to me that any words of mine were going to be repeated by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk., and the noble Lord, Lord Teviot.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: With great respect, I did mention it.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: On what occasion I do not recollect. The point is that I have no doubt that I may have used those words, probably to my constituents. It is perfectly true that my constituents at that time, mostly working-class constituents, were probably more prosperous than they had ever been. I am sure that they are not so prosperous now, and will probably be less prosperous in the future.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have no wish to be disrespectful to the noble Lord. The point was, what was the effect likely to be on his constituents at the time he made it?
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think we are getting away from the point. I do not deny that the great bulk of the people of this country, including distinguished politicians, were ignorant of the rapid degree with which our financial position was deteriorating. We are all agreed on that. The only question is, was any blame attachable to the Labour Government and, in particular, did they deliberately keep the public in the dark? I contend that there is no evidence of that whatever. In the midst of the General Election, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made speeches. The fact that they did not reach the general public is because the general public, as a rule, do not take much interest in these financial matters until it is brought right home to them. There is no particular ground for saying that anything more should have been said at that time. After all, it does not seem to me that the fact that this crisis grew up with extraordinary rapidity, like a storm, really affects the situation that when the Conservative Government came to be formed they found a situation which they had not suspected. The Labour Government would have been in the same position, because the situation so rapidly deteriorated but that does not affect the actions that they were to take, except those that were directly concerned with the crisis.
Another point that I wanted to make is with regard to the cuts in the investment programme. I said in my opening speech that I was greatly confused, I did not know how far the Chancellor's proposals were adequate for the purpose of meeting the crisis and I could not judge whether I thought them sound or not until I knew correctly the proportions in which the cuts fell upon the body politic. In particular, what I wanted to know was whether they were going to fall on current consumption, or upon the production of the future in the shape of cuts in capital development. To that question I received no answer at all from the noble Lord, Viscount Swinton. I asked that question in perfectly good faith. I wanted to be in a position to understand what up to this moment I
1284
have not succeeded in being able to understand—how far the cuts going to be imposed are justifiable or otherwise. Until I get that information I shall remain confused and I shall refuse to consider the Budget satisfactory.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I say this, very shortly. I do not want to prolong the discussion, but the point is that it is almost entirely from the engineering industries that we can get exports to-day. Now those industries are the same industries to a great extent that are wanted for armaments. We have, for that reason, most reluctantly to put investment behind exports and rearmament. With that, I think you will agree.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I quite understand. I am not in the least saying that the Government is not entitled to make some cuts in investment. I am quite sure the Labour Government would have had to do so also. All I am asking for is a perfectly reasonable piece of information to get some conception in advance of what the Government expect to do in this matter. I do not, of course, expect accurate minute figures, but I want to get some sort of idea of the order of magnitude; and that Lord Swinton was unable to give me.
I am not criticising him for that. I say that as I have not got that, certainly my feeling of confusion and uncertainty remains. The Government have been very fond of talking about targets in regard to things for which they were not necessarily estimating. I should have thought that at least some target would be forthcoming showing what proportion of the gap was to be closed by cutting the investment programme. However, as they do not in the least seem to know, we must let it go at that.
There is one other point that I want to take up with the noble Earl who has just spoken. He said that the Government set great store by the increase in production. I am very glad to hear that they do. All I hope is that their optimistic forecasts will be realised, although I think that is extremely doubtful. From the bottom of my heart I certainly hope that their full £250,000,000 worth of additional production will prove to be a fact. I put this to the noble Earl. He said that in so

1285
far as it is not reached, of course the purchasing public in this country will have to go short of commodities. But that is not the full bottom of the matter, because if with a certain amount of purchasing power this additional production does not take place, then the result will be that there will be too much money running after too few goods, and we shall have inflation. Therefore, if that is not to take place, some other remedies must be found by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before it too late, to meet the situation. I do not think the matter is quite so simple as the noble Earl seemed to indicate.
My Lords, with those few remarks I close what I have to say. I feel that this has been a very useful debate. I think that perhaps it could have been a little
1286
more useful if the Government had felt able to be a little more forthcoming; but if they feel that they cannot, we must go on and we must hope, as the year develops, to get the information to judge in retrospect what I certainly am not able to judge in prospect—how far this Budget is adequate and how far the remedies which are being adopted are suitable and proper to meet the emergencies of the case. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, with drawn.
The Lord Beveridge—Took the Oath.
House adjourned at a quarter past time nine o'clock.