Sitting of 9 April 1952

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 24th April.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FALMOUTH) BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Exchange, Sale
    Mr. F. J. Errollasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what are the reasons for the slow progress being made on the completion of the Sale telephone exchange; and if he will, in the interests of economy, proceed with the installation work more quickly in view of the fact that additional expenses are often occasioned by leisurely rates of construction and installation.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): The building is now complete and installation of equipment should begin this month. All the work on this exchange is proceeding as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Erroll: Does my hon. Friend realise how grateful my constituents will be for the most excellent improvement in the speed with which this exchange is being completed?

    Bristol
    Mr. Coldrickasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what number of
    2712
    applications for telephones he has received since October last from Bristol; and how many have been supplied.
    Mr. Gammans: One thousand, seven hundred and thirty applications were received, and 1,414 telephones have been supplied.

    Kiosk, Merstham
    Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morganasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for telephone kiosks to be installed on the new housing estate at Merstham, Surrey.
    Mr. Gammans: One kiosk will be provided as soon as a site is agreed upon with the local authority. New cables are required before other kiosks can be provided.

    The Hartlepools
    Mr. David Jonesasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many separate telephones and how many shared lines have been installed in The Hartlepools telephone district since 30th October, 1951.
    Mr. Gammans: The reply is, 63 exclusive lines and 85 shared lines.
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephone installations were outstanding in The Hartlepools telephone district on 1st April, 1952.
    Mr. Gammans: There were 225 on the waiting list, and 75 were being provided or were under inquiry.

    Kiosks, Glasgow (Damage)
    Mrs. Alice Cullenasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will state the extent of damage to telephone kiosks caused by vandalism in Glasgow in the past 12 months; and the cost of repairing the same.
    Mr. Gammans: In the past 12 months there were 393 cases of damage to the structure or equipment of kiosks in Glasgow, costing £1,653 to repair. In addition 7,000 panes of glass were broken, costing £1,170 to replace.
    Mrs. Cullen: Will the hon. Gentleman consider schemes which could reduce some of this harm in Glasgow, and save the expense? Surely there is some way of dealing with this trouble and of saving the expense?
    Mr. Gammans: It is a very serious state of affairs, and we shall be grateful for any help given to us by anyone to help to cure it.
    Mrs. Cullen: Will the hon. Gentleman consider a scheme if I put it before him?
    Mr. Gammans: Of course.
    Mr. A. Woodburn: Will the hon. Gentleman approach the Secretary of State for Scotland to see whether education authorities could do something to bring this matter to the notice of the children?
    Mr. Gammans: That, in fact, has been done, but the education authorities are rather reluctant to give too many lectures on this subject—they have been asked to do so by many authorities—because they do not believe that this mischief is primarily done by the children.
    Mr. A. C. Manuel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that putting ordinary glass in these kiosks is quite unsuitable in some areas where these incidents repeatedly occur? Would he consider putting in cube glass—thick panes—that can stand up to wear and tear?
    Mr. Gammans: That is one of the matters now being considered—to what extent it is possible to strengthen these kiosks—but what one would like to see is a cessation of this wanton damage.

    Brixton
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Liptonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what is the latest total of outstanding applications for telephones at the Brixton exchange; and what were its figures for the corresponding dates in 1951 and 1950.
    Mr. Gammans: 1,500 at 31st March, 1952. At the corresponding dates in 1951 and 1950 the numbers were 1,213 and 999.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this, as is the case in so many other respects, shows the steady deterioration there has been since the present Administration and he himself took over?
    Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Gentleman waits for the answer to the next Question, he may not be so pessimistic about the present Administration.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that the deterioration started in 1950, and probably a good deal earlier?
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many new telephone subscribers were connected to the Brixton exchange during the past six months; and how many he estimates will be granted during the next six months.
    Mr. Gammans: There were 176 connected during the last six months. The estimate for the next six months is 110, but the rate of connection should be substantially increased towards the end of this year, when the work of extending the exchange is completed.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am still very pessimistic as a result of the answer that he has just given? Will he, perhaps, consider circulating this Question and answer to all the outstanding applicants for connection to the Brixton exchange?

    Personal Case
    Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Assistant Postmaster-General when Mrs. Haddon, 268, Essex Road, who has been waiting for a telephone for four years, may expect to receive one.
    Mr. Gammans: I regret that a date cannot at present be given. A new cable is required, but because of many urgent commitments elsewhere, and the general limitation on capital development, it is not possible to undertake this work at present.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that four years is a very long time to wait? Will he do his best to expedite this case, about which there are special circumstances?
    Mr. Gammans: Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to put on the telephone immediately all those who have been waiting four years or more.
    Sir Edward Keeling: On a point of order. Is it not an abuse of Question time to put a Question like No. 35 down, considering that there are hundreds of thousands of people who have been waiting more than four years?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Further to that point of order. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that Questions of this type were repeatedly put down to his predecessor, and that, if any abuse has occurred, it occurred in those days?
    Mr. Speaker: In answer to the point of order, the Question is in order. There may well have been special circumstances about this case of which I am unaware.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Licences, Scotland
    Mr. John Taylorasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many television licences had been taken out in Scotland by 1st April, 1952.
    Mr. Gammans: Twelve thousand five hundred and sixty on 31st March.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister not agree that this disposes of the facetious and unworthy statements in some London newspapers that the Scots have been having their television sets without buying licences?
    Mr. Gammans: I am not yet in a position to say to what extent licences have been taken out compared with the number of sets sold in Scotland.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that the number of sets bought would be greatly increased if he could persuade the Scottish local authorities to waive some of the many too stringent regulations which they have made for the erection of aerials?
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Does the Minister think it fair that the Scots should be criticised for not immediately taking out licences when they are surely entitled to see if their sets are working? Would the hon. Gentleman convey something of the gratitude that some of us feel towards the engineers in Scotland for the absolutely perfect reception which we are getting?
    Mr. Gammans: I can assure the hon. Lady that my remarks were not meant to be taken too seriously, and certainly did not refer to Scotland in particular.

    Station, Wenvoe
    Mr. Robert Crouchasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how much of the county of Dorset will be covered by the new television station at Wenvoe.
    Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. expects that the whole of Dorset will be covered by the high-power television transmitter at Wenvoe. Reception should be satisfactory throughout the county, but in those parts more remote from the transmitter it will depend to a greater extent on the use of a suitably placed directional receiving aerial and freedom from interference. At first, transmissions will be started on lower power, and this will mean that reception will be more subject to interference particularly in the southern half of the county.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply will be appreciated very much in the county, and is he further aware that we hope he will soon be able to put the transmission on high power, because the people of Dorset have made a great contribution towards the life of this country?

    Pontop Pike
    Mr. Charles Greyasked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) if he will consider transferring the present low-power transmitter from Kirk o'Shotts to Pontop Pike as soon as the high-power transmitter has been installed at Kirk o'Shotts; and if he will make a statement thereon;
    (2) if he will consider transferring the low-power transmitter from Wenvoe to Pontop Pike when the high-power transmitter has been installed; and if he will make a statement thereon.
    Mr. Gammans: The difficulty of establishing a television service from Pontop Pike does not lie in the provision of a low-power transmitter, since one could be made available in due course from one of the high-powered stations. The other capital investment involved such as a suitable building, a high mast and other equipment, cannot yet be approved and I regret, therefore, that I cannot add anything at present to the statement I made in reply to the hon. Member on 2nd April.
    Mr. J. Hallasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will give an estimate of the cost of the transfer of a redundant low-power television transmitter from Wenvoe or Kirk o'Shotts to Pontop Pike.
    Mr. Gammans: The cost of dismantling and reassembling a low-power

    2717
    television transmitter would be about £3,000, but this would be only a comparatively small part of the total cost in erecting a transmitter station.
    Mr. George Chetwynd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when he provides television equipment for the North-East, he will get considerably more revenue from it than he seems to be getting from Scotland?
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the low-power transmission is already giving very great satisfaction in Scotland? Can he give any idea when this will become redundant through the introduction of the new transmitter?
    Mr. Gammans: The trouble is not the actual transmitter but what goes with it. It requires a steel mast, it requires buildings and it requires a lot of other things as well as television receiving sets. These are the factors which prevent us from putting up this transmitting set, and not the cost of the low-power transmitter itself or the cost of removing it from somewhere else.
    Mr. J. Hallasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what practical difficulties prevent the transfer of a redundant low-power television transmitter to Pontop Pike.
    Mr. Gammans: There would be no practical difficulty in transferring a redundant transmitter to Pontop Pike when it is possible to undertake the other work required to provide a television service.
    Mr. Hall: Taking into account the small amount of money involved, and the satisfaction which would be given to a great number of people, does not the Minister think it would be better if he could change his mind?
    Mr. Gammans: Nothing would give me greater pleasure, but it is not a small amount of money which is involved. The transmitter itself is a very small part of the total cost.
    Captain L. P. S. Orr: In view of the fact that Northern Ireland is the only region which has no television coverage whatever, will my hon. Friend resist these voluble and vocal attempts of other places to jump the queue?
    Mr. Gammans: A pledge has been given to the North-East Coast, and that pledge will be honoured.

    Interference
    Mr. C. R. Hobsonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many of the committees set up to deal with the problem of the emission of electromagnetic energy in relation to television interference have reported; and when he expects to be able to make the appropriate regulations under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949.
    Mr. Gammans: Two, Sir. Regulations will be laid before the House as soon as possible but I regret that I cannot give a date at present.
    Mr. Hobson: Will the Regulations which are to be made deal with the emission of electro-magnetic energy from petrol-driven motorcars?
    Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Could my hon. Friend say whether it is a fact that these Regulations have been made out but have been referred back to the Advisory Committee? When does he expect the committee's views upon them? Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a matter on which we have been trying to get some answer in this House from both him and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), who asked the Question, for some years?
    Mr. Gammans: The point is, as I explained last week, that the Advisory Committee have asked that the Regulations should be submitted to them. The reason for the delay in making these Regulations is the difficulty of defining a precise method of determining the degree of interference. I can assure both the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) and my hon. Friend that I hope there will be no undue delay in bringing them before the House.
    Mr. William Palingasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, and when, to eliminate interference with television reception by power-driven boats.
    Mr. Gammans: The regulation dealing with power-driven boats will be the same one as that relating to new motorcars. My noble Friend has agreed that the

    2719
    Advisory Committee shall be consulted on the terms of the regulation, and when this has been done it will be laid before the House.
    Mr. Paling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that people living in the vicinity of the area in which power boats are in action allege that the interference is much worse than that from any other form of electrical vehicle or other type of vehicle? Is he aware that these people are very annoyed because their pictures are suffering through very serious interference? I hope he will take note of this.
    Mr. Gammans: I can assure the House that we should very much like to get this matter settled as quickly as we can. I know there is a lot of misgiving about it.

    B.B.C. Charter
    Mr. Barnett Jannerasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what is causing the delay in arriving at a decision in respect of a new agreement or charter being entered into with the British Broadcasting Corporation.
    Mr. Gammans: The only reason for the delay is that the Government wish to give adequate consideration to this very important matter.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the House also wants to give adequate consideration to any proposal which the Government have to put forward? When is he likely to be able to give us the White Paper which was promised, so that we know what the Government's intentions are?
    Mr. Gammans: The House will have the opportunity for which the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), asks.
    Mr. Janner: When?
    Mr. Gammans: The late Government took nearly six months before a White Paper was laid before the House. This is a matter into which it would be most unwise to rush.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that the Government are giving time for big business to bring pressure to bear in order to get commercial sponsoring?
    Mr. Gammans: That is a most ungenerous thought, if I may say so. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that there is not a word of truth in it.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I understand from that answer that the Government are not giving way to big business?
    Mr. Gammans: The Government are not giving way to anybody in this matter. The question is that they require adequate time before the White Paper is laid before the House. The late Government took nearly six months. This Government have taken only a short time.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the next Question, and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) has asked it.

    Reception, Cornwall
    Mr. F. H. Haymanasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what is being done to improve radio reception in West Cornwall.
    Mr. Gammans: I understand from the B.B.C. that they are making an extensive investigation into reception of the West Home Service programme in Cornwall to find out whether the strength of the signal can be increased. The main hope of improvement must, however, lie in the provision of very high frequency sound services when that is possible.
    Mr. Hayman: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that a somewhat similar answer was given last July, and that we in Cornwall are very dissatisfied with the B.B.C. engineers and with the Post Office in this respect? Is he aware that we expect something better to be done at once? Cornwall is the most important county in England, and we shall not have a television service for a long time to come, so that we have every right to expect this research, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will pursue it further.
    Mr. Gammans: As Cornwall is a county which is dissatisfied with both the present Postmaster-General and the past one, it shows a fine sense of impartiality.
    Mr. Hayman: In view of the unsatisfactory answer that I have received, I beg

    2721
    to give notice that I shall raise the question on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Sponsored Programmes (Application)
    Mr. David Loganasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what representations have been received from organisations of large business firms for sponsored or commercial broadcasting.
    Mr. Gammans: One firm of advertising agents on behalf of five large industrial companies has recently applied for permission to provide sponsored television programmes.
    Mr. John Profumo: Is my hon. Friend aware that on this side of the House we are getting sick and tired of these constant attacks on private enterprise business—[Interruption]—I have not finished—particularly in view of the abysmal failure of nationalised concerns? In the case of this problem of the future of the B.B.C., would it not be better to regard it solely from the point of view of the benefit of the public—rather than from that of the mildewed mentality of party politics?
    Mr. C. R. Attlee: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong objection to the idea of sponsored television up and down the country among people of all political views—except those who put private profit before public benefit?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is also a large body of opinion throughout the country which believes, as regards television, that a certain number of commercial sponsored programmes would be a good thing?
    Mr. Gammans: I suggest to hon. Members of this House, including the Leader of the Opposition, that they wait until the White Paper is published.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this very wide issue now.

  POST OFFICE

    Government Departments (Telegram and Telephone Services)
    Brigadier Terence Clarkeasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what attempt has now been made to see that
    2722
    each Government Department is debited with the cost of telegram and telephone service provided by the Post Office; and what progress has been made in this connection since he took office.
    Mr. Gammans: I hope to make a statement on this subject shortly after Easter.

    Post Box, Merstham
    Mr. Vaughan-Morganasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for a post box to be installed on the new housing estate at Merstham, Surrey.
    Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir as a matter of urgency.

    Contracts (Severance)
    Mr. William Palingasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what expense, due to the severance of contracts, will result from the decisions to start no new buildings this year.
    Mr. Gammans: I do not expect there will be any.

    Postal Orders
    Mr. Hobsonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what was the profit on the issue of postal orders in 1951–52.
    Mr. Gammans: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 19th March to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Rev. LI. Williams).
    Mr. Hobson: In view of that reply, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to withdraw the Post Office (Amendment) Bill, in view of the intention further to increase the poundage on postal orders, which already show a substantial profit; or will he approach one of his hon. Friends so that an Amendment may be put down to the Bill that it "be read this day six months"?
    Mr. Gammans: Far from there being a substantial profit, there is an estimated deficit of £130,000.

    Defence Work (Cost)
    Mr. Hobsonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what is the estimated cost of defence work falling on the Post Office Vote in 1952–53.
    Mr. Gammans: I am assuming that the hon. Member is referring to provision

    2723
    made in the Post Office Estimates for 1952–53 laid before the House in February and not to capital expenditure. The debt annuities for the year 1952–53 include a sum of about £600,000 in respect of work which has been specially carried out in connection with the present defence programme starting 1950–51. In addition to the debt redemption, there will, of course, also be a charge for maintenance, but since the plant is new, that should not be very large.
    Mr. Hobson: In view of that reply, will the hon. Gentleman approach his noble Friend with a view to the capital allocation for the Post Office being increased for the ensuing year?
    Mr. Gammans: The Question does not refer to the capital allocation. It refers to the Post Office Vote. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Order Paper, he will see that he has put down "Post Office Vote," using a capital V.

    Birth Control Literature
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to make it an offence to send literature on birth control by post to persons who have not requested the issue of such literature to them.
    Mr. Gammans: No, Sir.
    Mr. R. J. Mellish: Is it not a fact that recently the Minister of Health made a statement about this matter? As literature of this kind is being sent through the post, is there nothing we can do about it?
    Mr. Gammans: This is a highly controversial question about which it would be necessary to lay before the House special legislation, which would not primarily be the concern of the Post Office.
    Mrs. Cullen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sending of this literature through the post causes annoyance and embarrassment to people who have not requested the delivery of such literature?

    Private Mail (Opening and Detention)
    Mr. John Rankinasked the Assistant Postmaster-General under what regulations made by his Department is censorship of private mail conducted in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Gammans: There is no censorship of private mail in the United Kingdom. The conditions under which a postal packet can be opened or detained by the Post Office are specified in Sections 17, 18 and 56 of the Post Office Act, 1908, and in the Foreign Parcels (Customs) Warrant, 1885, and in the Foreign Postal Packets (Customs) Warrant, 1948, of which I am sending the hon. Member copies.
    Mr. Rankin: How many postal packets have been detained for inspection in Scotland during the last six months? Can the hon. Gentleman give us the corresponding figures for England and Wales and also for Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman had better put that question down.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a question which I could not get put down? Is he going to address himself—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the question was out of order when tendered at the Table, it is equally out of order as a supplementary question.
    Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order. Is it, then, proper Ministerial practice for the hon. Gentleman to incite me to put down a Question that is out of order?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know that there was much incitement about it.

    Air Mail (Carriage Rates)
    Mr. W. R. D. Perkinsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General in what way the rate paid by his Department for the carriage of air mail varies from the international rate agreed by the Universal Postal Union.
    Mr. Gammans: The internationally agreed rates are maximum figures and apply only where a postal administration uses a foreign air line. So far as first-class mails of United Kingdom origin are concerned, rates paid for the use of foreign carriers vary from 2.43 to 5.25 gold francs per tonne-kilometre, according to the route and carrier. The rates paid to British carriers vary from the sterling equivalent of 2.9 to 5.32 gold francs per tonne-kilometre.
    Mr. Hobson: Can the hon. Gentleman say how that rate compares with the internal rate pound for pound per cargo?
    Mr. Gammans: Yes. It is, so far as B.O.A.C. is concerned, five-and-a-half times the freight rate, and so far as B.E.A. is concerned, two-and-a-half times the freight rate.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what rate is paid to British European Airways for mail on international services and on internal services respectively; and how these two rates compare with that paid to foreign airlines.
    Mr. Gammans: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to letter mails of United Kingdom origin. The rate paid to British European Airways is 132 pence per long ton/mile for international services; the rate paid to foreign air lines similarly to European destinations, is 3.0 gold francs per tonne-kilometre, equivalent to 137 pence per ton-mile. On internal services, British European Airways are the sole carrier; the rate paid varies on different routes, but is based on the freight rate, plus 33⅓ per cent.
    Mr. Perkins: Is the Minister aware that if British European Airways received payments equal to that paid to their foreign competitors by the Post Office, their revenue would be increased by over £60,000 a year? Why is this preference given to foreign airlines over British airlines?
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Does the Assistant Postmaster-General realise that subsidising British airlines is consequently subsidising the Post Office?
    Mr. F. Beswick: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that whereas this rate for air freight is higher than that for ordinary cargo, a priority is required for air freight which does not apply to ordinary cargo?
    Mr. Gammans: As indicated by these supplementary questions, there is very strong controversy on the question of whether or not British European Airways are subsidised by the Post Office or vice versa.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is it not a fact that B.E.A. are making a profit on the present rates?
    Mr. Perkins: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Officers (Age)
    Air Commodore A. V. Harveyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many officers serving in the Royal Air Force of air rank are under 40 years of age.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): I have been asked to reply.
    None, Sir.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Does not my hon. Friend think that this is a very highly unsatisfactory state of affairs, and does he realise that officers who held air rank during the war have gone back to being group captains for seven years? Will he not take a leaf out of the Army's book, where a major-general attained that rank at the age of 38? This is a young man's service and if we could get some younger men at the top, it might be possible to get better aircraft.
    Mr. Birch: If my hon. and gallant Friend would look into the situation, he would find that promotion prospects in the Air Force are certainly not worse than in the other two Services.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: Does my hon. Friend not agree that we have excellent precedents for youthful promotion in the Air Force?
    Mr. Birch: During war promotion is always very much quicker.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May we have an assurance that the Under-Secretary of State for Air is all right?
    Mr. Birch: My hon. Friend is ill.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am sorry.

    U.K.-Based Staff (Overseas Service)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of home-based civil servants of his Department serving abroad in the clerical, executive and works group, including mechanical

    2727
    and electrical engineers, scientific, technical, draughtsmen and other categories, respectively.
    Mr. Birch: As the answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: Could my hon. Friend indicate whether he considers the position to be satisfactory, or whether his Department is under-staffed or overstaffed in this respect? If it is overstaffed, does he hope to make reductions?
    Mr. Birch: I do not think that the position of postings overseas is unsatisfactory at the present time.
    Following is the table:

    AIR MINISTRY U.K. BASED STAFF SERVING ABROAD AS AT 1ST APRIL, 1952—

    Total numbers

    EXECUTIVE

    91

    CLERICAL

    82

    WORKS GROUP:

    Professional:

    Civil Engineering

    54

    Mechanical and Electrical

    28

    Surveying

    20

    Lands

    6

    Drawing Office:

    Architectural

    19

    Mechanical and Electrical

    19

    Technical:

    Civil Engineering

    100

    Mechanical and Electrical

    102

    Surveying

    24

    Others:

    Stores Grade

    7

    379

    SCIENTIFIC

    207

    OTHERS

    230

    Total staff (U.K. based) overseas

    989

  CIVIL AVIATION

    London Airport (Bad Weather Alternate)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he can now make a statement about the development of a bad weather alternate to London Airport.
    The Minister of Civil Aviation (Mr. John Maclay): I presume the Question refers to the proposed development of Gatwick Airport as a bad weather alternate and as a base for some other air transport activities. I hope to be able to make a statement about this in the near future.
    Mr. Beswick: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that six months ago he said he was going to work fast in this and other matters? Can he say how near is the "near future"?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member knows very well some of the difficult problems connected with this matter, which is being pressed on as fast as possible.
    Mr. John Grimston: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the important thing is to make London Airport an all-weather airport?
    Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Gentleman also keep before him the claims of Prestwick as a Transatlantic air terminal?
    Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Member knows, so far as is possible, a good deal is being done there.
    Mr. Frederick Gough: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable apprehension with regard to the Gatwick proposal amongst the inhabitants of the new town of Crawley? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will proceed slowly in order to avoid any unnecessary inconvenience and annoyance to people in that very important new town?
    Mr. Maclay: No, Sir, I could not give an assurance to proceed slowly. I will give an assurance that I will proceed with great care. My hon. Friend has brought the question of noise to my attention on several occasions.

    Aircraft Insurance (Rome Meeting)
    Mr. Gerald Williamsasked the Minister of Civil Aviation if the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation has announced the date of a meeting to complete the new convention on compulsory insurance of aircraft.
    Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. The meeting to complete the Convention on Damage caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface will open in Rome on 9th September.

    Independent Operators (Aerodrome Facilities)
    Mr. J. Grimstonasked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether he will give an assurance that the facilities at Blackbushe Aerodrome are adequate for their regular use by Hermes aircraft.
    Mr. Maclay: The runways at Blackbushe are adequate for regular use by Hermes aircraft and the airport is equipped with suitable navigational aids. The passenger accommodation is being extended to deal with expected increases in traffic.
    Mr. Grimston: As long as the passenger-handling facilities are inadequate, will my hon. Friend consider allowing London Airport to be used for these aircraft.
    Mr. Maclay: I think the answer to that is covered by the hon. Member's next Question.
    Mr. J. Grimstonasked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether he will implement Section 16, subsection 3, of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, and allow Hermes aircraft operated by independent operators on scheduled operations to use London Airport until such time as an alternative airport with adequate facilities is available.
    Mr. Maclay: Section 16 (3) of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, deals with the facilities to be provided for charter and not scheduled services.
    As regards the second part of the Question, I will certainly consider any requests made by independent operators of scheduled services although, with the introduction of tourist travel, the facilities at London Airport are likely to be used to capacity in the future.
    Mr. Grimston: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that specific pledges were given at the time of the passing of the Act of 1949, and that the previous two Governments have tried to wriggle out of those pledges.
    Mr. Maclay: I am examining these points very carefully.

    Aerodrome, West Hartlepool
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether, in view of the fact that Boldon airport is no longer available for immediate use as an international airport and the fact that West Hartlepool airport is the only available airport to serve Tees-side, he will take steps to see that this airport is given all possible facilities, particularly designation and advertisement in the "Air Pilot," as an airport where Customs facilities are available on demand.
    Mr. Maclay: I regret that, in the absence of evidence of substantial overseas air traffic from West Hartlepool, I cannot agree to the designation of the aerodrome, but special arrangements have been made for the Customs clearance at West Hartlepool of the two regular international services expected to use it in 1952. The facilities at present available at West Hartlepool aerodrome are already recorded in the "Air Pilot."

    Low Flying Aircraft, London
    Dr. Reginald Bennettasked the Minister of Civil Aviation what circumstances have led to the recent marked increase in the number of large aircraft flying over the centre of London at low altitude, even at times when the wind was not along the east-west runway at Heath Row; and what is the identity and purpose of the De Havilland Rapide aircraft that frequently circles Westminster at about 1,000 feet.
    Mr. Maclay: I am unable to confirm the statements on which the Question is based. Generally speaking, there are fewer aircraft flying over the centre of London when the wind is in the east. If my hon. Friend cares to give me further information I shall be glad to investigate the matter.
    Dr. Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that this morning at 9.45 a Viking crossed over this House at about 2,000 feet going south-easterly, another one at 9.55, another one at 10.15, a D.C.6 at 10.25, a Viking at 10.40 going south-west and another Viking going south-east at 11 o'clock? If these were over Westminster, is not this the longest possible transit of London, for it entails about 40 miles of flying over built-up areas, and is not every one of these transits adding to the risk of another accident like the ones New York has had?
    Mr. Maclay: My hon. Friend's very interesting observations will certainly be noted with care and will be examined.

    B.E.A. Internal Services
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    59. MR. JOHN RANKIN,—To ask the Minister of Civil Aviation why he proposes to return British European Airways internal services to private enterprise, in

    2731
    view of the fact that the services are now being successfully operated.
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon about the nationalised industries, and in view of the nature of my Question, which deals with much the same subject, could I ask permission from you, Mr. Speaker, to get the Minister to give a reply to my Question?
    Mr. Speaker: No, I am afraid not. I have not been asked by the Minister to facilitate him to give an answer.

  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  Mr. J. Grimondasked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in his investigations into the nationalised industries.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): It is only gradually that the full results of the policy of nationalisation become apparent. The most noticeable case at present is, of course, in the sphere of transport, where severe increases in London Transport fares have taken place under the authority of a judicial body over which neither Her Majesty's Government nor the House of Commons have any control. Further heavy increases in railway passenger fares outside London are pending as the result of the decisions of the Tribunal.
  We intend to de-nationalise road haulage at the earliest possible moment. Details of the Government's intentions in this respect will be announced shortly after the Easter Recess.
  It was announced in the King's Speech on 6th November that a Bill would be introduced to annul the Iron and Steel Act with a view to the re-organisation of the industry under free enterprise and with an adequate measure of public supervision. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply amplified this on 12th November and said that the creation of an Iron and Steel Board, embracing the whole industry, would be an essential feature of the Government's proposals. Meanwhile he has given a direction to the Corporation not to alter the financial structure or management of the publicly-owned companies or to sell or dispose of the undertakings or securities without his consent.
  2732
  Serious increases in the cost of gas and electricity do not require any special comment by me today.
  Good results have been achieved in the coalfields.
  Mr. Attlee: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain, for the benefit of the House, how the de-nationalisation of road transport can do anything to prevent the increase in railway fares?
  The Prime Minister: If the Leader of the Opposition will look at the Question asked by the hon. Member, he will see that it was of a general character and dealt not merely with road transport but with the nationalised industries.
  Mr. Attlee: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he had been present at the debate last night, he would know the difference between Conservative promises on generalities and their dealings with the particular? I was interested because I understand—and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that all authorities on transport are agreed that if we are to keep the railways going they must be integrated with the road services. As he seems to have discovered a different way, I thought that perhaps he could throw some light on it.
  The Prime Minister: As to the question of generalisations versus particularisations, as I said, the Question was in general terms; but a similar question might have been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman in former times as to whether, in regard to the solving of the housing problem, he and his party were not equally falsified by their performance.
  Mr. Attlee: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, although it is quite true that the Question was a general one, the answer was particular?
  Mr. Grimond: I welcome the Prime Minster's statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in so far as it may lead to the removal of some of the obstacles to cheaper transport, but will he give an assurance that he will protect the public against monopolies, whether private or public? Secondly, is he in a position to make any statement as to the steps which he may intend to take to give greater control to consumers and to Parliament over those industries which will remain nationalised?
  Captain Robert Ryder: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in regard to the supplementary question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that in the Provinces, where there is competition, the cost of transport is considerably cheaper than it is in the London area?
  Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind when investigating these matters that there is a very large body of opinion in the country which believes that there was a considerable amount of sabotage in the nationalised industries by people who desired to bring them into disrepute in the country?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any foundation for such an assumption. We, on the other hand, encountered a lot of difficulties in clearing up the mess which was made in regard to these industries. In reply to the first part of the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), it seems to me that, in regard to transport, the great thing is to meet the needs of the consuming public, while at the same time safeguarding the conditions of employment of the railwaymen.
  Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask the Prime Minister to read the last sentence of his reply again, as I gathered from that that the Government are convinced that the nationalisation of the coal mining industry has been a blessing and a boon to the country?
  The Prime Minister: I have always thought that the men who do this hard manual work, with danger, and far from the light of the sun, should have special consideration, and I used these very words long before many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite were born, when introducing the miners' eight-hour day Bill.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: This is becoming too large a question for discussion now.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Forces, Korea (Miners, Release)
    Mr. George Sylvesterasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether, in view of the
    2734
    increasing need for more miners, he will consider releasing from Her Majesty's Forces all miners with underground experience who were serving in Korea and the Far East last summer, and were not then allowed to apply for release, but are now repatriated.
    Mr. T. Dribergasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he will cause it to be made known to all ranks in the three services that ex-miners who were serving in the Far East last year, and were therefore debarred from applying for release under the general scheme in order to return to the mining industry, may now apply for such release as individuals.
    Mr. Birch: As I informed the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) last Wednesday, there is no question of reopening the general scheme.
    Steps are, however, being taken by the Service Departments to bring to the notice of all ranks that ex-miners who were debarred from applying for release from the Forces to return to the mines under last year's scheme because they were then serving in the Korean theatre may apply for release for this purpose on completion of their service in Korea.
    Mr. Sylvester: Will the Minister make this generally known to these men because an injury was done to them in that they were serving their country and could not take advantage of the scheme; and, secondly, in view of the fact that his right hon. Friend, about a fortnight ago, said that there were nearly 12,000 vacancies in the mining industry, would not these men be of assistance to the mining industry, because they could go into productive work with very little training and at less cost than it takes to train trainees?
    Mr. Birch: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, the orders will go down in the ordinary way, and that has been arranged. The second part of the question involves re-opening the whole scheme, and that, as I have several times said, we are not prepared to do. We are not changing the policy of the last Government, and I think that it would be unreasonable to open the whole matter again.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the orders go down to these men in such a way that they understand that the Government

    2735
    realise that they should come back to the coal mines because they can render better service there than in the Forces?
    Mr. Driberg: Will the hon. Gentleman do his best to make sure that this information reaches all ranks, as very often there are deficiencies in information which filters through company orders and so on, as he well knows?
    Mr. Birch: It will be done in the way that all these things are done. It will go through Army Council Instructions and so forth.

    Imperial Defence College (Outside Lecturers)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence how many outside lecturers have been invited to speak at the Imperial Staff College in the past six months; and what were the subjects on which they spoke.
    Mr. Birch: Thirty-seven outside lecturers addressed the students at the Imperial Defence College during the six months ending 31st March, 1952.
    Apart from those of a military nature, the talks covered the main aspects of national and international affairs.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is it not a fact that Mr. Arthur Horner addressed the Imperial Staff College on Communism? While I appreciate the desirability of fostering friendly relations between officials in the various nationalised industries, can the Minister indicate the consistency in a policy which sends a man to instruct Army officers on Communism and which denies Mr. Edgar Young the use of naval uniform for propagating Communism?
    Mr. Birch: One of the subjects studied at the Imperial Defence College is very naturally Communism and the cold war, and I imagine that it was thought, when this gentleman was asked to lecture there, it might be valuable to hear something, as it were, from the horse's mouth. This, in fact, is one of the obligations for which we are indebted to the late Government, because Mr. Horner has lectured there several times before.
    Mr. Hamilton: Would the Minister invite Mr. Edgar Young to give a talk to the Navy?
    Lord John Hope: Did Mr. Horner get paid for his services and, if so, how much?
    Mr. Birch: Mr. Homer has been paid for his services, but it is not the usual custom to disclose the amount paid to individual lecturers.

    Training Grounds
    Sir William Darlingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence how much land is retained for training purposes by the three Service Departments in England, Wales and Scotland, respectively.
    Mr. Birch: The following acreages of land are held for training purposes in England, Wales and Scotland respectively, either on freehold or on leasehold or requisitioned under Defence Regulation 51:

    England

    357,450

    Wales

    48,150

    Scotland

    35,900

    In addition, the Service Departments have training rights under Defence Regulation 52 over the following areas:

    England

    85,900

    Wales

    11,000

    Scotland

    23,000

    Mr. Beswick: Does that include aerodromes?
    Mr. Birch: No.
    Mr. P. W. Donner: Can my hon. Friend say what proportion is requisitioned?
    Mr. Birch: Not without notice.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why the ratio of retained land in Wales is so much higher than in either England or Scotland? Does he appreciate that there is great discontent in Wales because of the allocation of so much land for these and other Government purposes?
    Mr. Birch: The hon. Gentleman will realise that it is very important not to take really good agricultural land for these purposes, and that is one reason why mountain regions tend to be used. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs has intervened in this matter and that the claims of Wales have been met to a very considerable extent.

    Commonwealth Forces (Transfer of British Personnel)
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will consider adjusting the present Regulations so that it is made easier for members of Her Majesty's British Forces wishing to transfer to the Forces of the Commonwealth to do so.
    Mr. Birch: Applications from serving personnel of the British Forces to join Commonwealth Forces are considered on their merits. It must be borne in mind that we are doing our best at present to encourage men and women to stay in the United Kingdom Forces. The Commonwealth Governments have, however, been assisted on a number of occasions in recent years to recruit British ex-Servicemen into their Armed Forces.
    Mr. Harvey: Will my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly desirable that there should be interchangeability between these arms, and as these Forces are serving together in many theatres, could he see his way to remove the restrictions altogether?
    Mr. Birch: There are frequent exchanges of personnel. This is rather a different question, that of recruiting into the Commonwealth Forces. My hon. Friend will realise that we have the interests of our own Forces to keep in mind.
    Mr. Erroll: Is my hon. Friend arranging for corresponding recruiting campaigns in Commonwealth countries to recruit men to the United Kingdom Forces?
    Mr. Birch: No actual recruiting campaigns are going on, but we give assistance to ex-Regulars. I do not think that any general Commonwealth plan would be of very great value in this matter.
    Mr. Driberg: When the frequent exchanges of personnel, about which the hon. Gentleman speaks, take place, what happens about the widely differing scales of pay between the different Commonwealth Forces?
    Mr. Birch: I cannot say without notice.

  MINISTRY OF FOOD

    Tea Ration (Increase)
    Mr. Coldrickasked the Minister of Food if, in view of the representations made by the tea trade to increase the tea ration from 2 ounces to 2½ ounces, he will now increase the ration.
    Mr. John Arbuthnotasked the Minister of Food whether he is yet in a position to make a further statement about the de-control and de-rationing of tea.
    The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): The withdrawal of the subsidy on tea announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take effect from 15th June.
    The trade has undertaken that blends of sound quality tea will be on sale at 3s. 8d. a lb. in sufficient quantities to meet any foreseeable demand. This is the same as the present average price and only 4d. more than the present low priced tea. This means that although the subsidy is withdrawn the existing weekly ration of low priced tea will cost only ½d. more.
    Also, in view of the improvement in supplies the tea ration will be increased from 2 oz. to 2½ oz. a week from 10th August.
    This is a first step towards the complete de-control and de-rationing of tea, which I hope will be possible by the end of the year.
    Mr. Coldrick: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether that decision has been taken at the request of the tea trade and not in accordance with the general interests of the community?
    Major Lloyd George: That is a most extraordinary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer it."] I will give the answer, as I always do. I take full responsibility—of course I do. This was in the national interest and was not done for any one section.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend's encouraging reply mean that, in the case of the cheaper grades of tea, only 'half the present 8d. subsidy which is being removed will be passed on to the consumer, and that the trade will bear the rest?
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. That is so.
    Mr. Frederick Willey: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the housewives appreciate that cheap tea is always the most expensive in the end and that this is a trick which will not deceive them? Will he also read today's "Financial Times," which confirms everything I said last Monday, that this ration ought to have been increased weeks ago?
    Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of looking through the figures for the time when he was at the Ministry, he will see that this might have been done about two years ago.
    Mr. Peter Remnant: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend received any assurance from the exporting countries that they will not increase their export duties, and does his announcement mean that London will be permitted to re-export teas on the London market?
    Major Lloyd George: I should be very glad if my hon. Friend would put that question down.
    Mr. Richard Adams: How long does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman expect to take in replacing the present rationing system for all foods by this new price rationing system?
    Mr. F. Willey: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory replies by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall take further steps to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity to explain to the House the full facts of the case.

    Price Increases
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food if he can now give the food items with increases affected by the Budget.
    Major Lloyd George: I cannot add to the reply which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Lady on this subject on 24th March.
    Mrs. Mann: One commodity at least was mentioned in the announcement made earlier by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Can he say whether the ½d. per week extra which he has announced is arrived at by comparing the highest prices with the lowest? If the highest price is 4s. 8d., and the lowest 3s. 8d., how does he arrive at a ½d. per week extra?
    Major Lloyd George: The average price is 3s. 8d., as I said in my answer to the last Question, and, as I pointed out, the actual increase on the lower-priced teas will be ½d. per weekly ration.
    Mrs. Mann: Is that on 2 oz.?
    Major Lloyd George: On 2 oz.
    Mr. Beswick: What will be the increase on the better grades of tea?
    Major Lloyd George: One can, of course, buy teas at very high prices. What will be happening is that those who are paying the higher prices for tea will be subsidising those who are paying the lower prices.

    Cheese
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Food what is the estimated amount of cheese which is expected to arrive from New Zealand during 1952.
    Major Lloyd George: The present estimate is 80,000 tons. But, as the hon. Member is aware, no very precise figure can be given so early in the year.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this is a serious reduction on last year's figures?
    Major Lloyd George: Certainly, Sir. That is one of the troubles we are up against. The dollar trouble has something to do with it; if it had been handled better we should not now have been in all this difficulty. The other trouble is the shortfall from New Zealand.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say what he expects the total supplies from all sources to be this year compared with last year?
    Major Lloyd George: I think there will be a drop of about 30 per cent.
    Mr. Mellish: Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will admit that his own party said that there was plenty of food in the world and that all they had to do was to let the private buyers go and buy it? Why does he not do that?
    Major Lloyd George: That is perfectly true, but it must be recollected that we have to get the money with which to do it, and it will take more than the time that we have had to make up for what has happened in the last six years.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Government's inability to buy New Zealand cheese when available may eventually affect our market there?
    Major Lloyd George: That really is not so. The amount available in New Zealand is less than it was last year.

    Meat Ration
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the improvement in supplies and the prospect of further supplies, he will now restore the meat ration to 1s. 5d.
    Major Lloyd George: Not at the moment.
    Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman pay some attention to the views of the meat trade, who believe that it is quite possible and proper to raise the meat ration now?
    Major Lloyd George: I must also pay attention to the figures which I know, and therefore I am acting on the information which I have, upon which I prefer to act.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. C. R. Attlee: Might I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the business for the week of resumption after the Easter Recess?
The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. Assuming that the House agrees to the Motion to adjourn tomorrow until Monday, 21st April, for the Easter Recess, the business for the week of our return will be as follows:
MONDAY, 21ST APRIL — Second Reading:
Empire Settlement Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution, which it is hoped to obtain by about 7 p.m.
Committee and remaining stages:
Customs and Excise Bill (this is largely a consolidation Measure which has been reported upon by a Joint Committee of both Houses).
New Towns Bill.
2742
Consideration of Motion to commit the Rating and Valuation (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Standing Committee.
Report and Third Reading:
Electricity Supply (Meters) Bill, if there is time.
TUESDAY, 22ND APRIL—Conclusion of Committee stage:
National Health Service Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 23RD APRIL—Second Reading:
Housing Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
THURSDAY, 24TH APRIL—Supply [10th allotted Day]:—Committee.
Subject for debate to be announced later.
FRIDAY, 25TH APRIL—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
During the week it is hoped to take the Motion to approve the MacBrayne Mail Contract, and consider any Amendments which may be received from another place to the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.
Mr. Attlee: Arising from the business fixed for Tuesday, 22nd April, when the Government hope to get the conclusion of the Committee stage of the National Health Service Bill, can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about how far he expects to go on that matter today?
Mr. Crookshank: I think it is premature to say. It remains to be seen.
Mr. Attlee: Is it not a little premature to be so optimistic about Tuesday, 22nd April?
Mr. J. Langford-Holt: My right hon. Friend has intimated that he hopes to get the Second Reading of the Empire Settlement Bill and the Committee stage of the Money Resolution by seven o'clock on Monday, 21st April. Do we understand from that that if there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to speak—and there is a considerable number—no action will be taken by the Government to terminate the discussion at seven o'clock?
Mr. Crookshank: I only said it was hoped that that time-table would suit the

2743
convenience of Members. Hon. Gentlemen must not confuse the number of Members who want to speak with the length of the speeches they want to make.
Mr. Frederick Lee: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will give time to discuss the very important Motion put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) and supported by Members on all sides of the House?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government immediately to reconsider their proposals with regard to Purchase Tax in order to alleviate the rising unemployment in the textile industry.]
Mr. Crookshank: I have noted that Motion.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nally.
Mr. T. Driberg: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I should like to seek your guidance on a matter. There are three Notices of Motion to be moved by the Prime Minister, and I should like to seek your advice as to whether the second of those Motions, which has to do with the adjournment of the House tomorrow, is debatable or not?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is.
Mr. Herbert Morrison: Can the Leader of the House say when we can expect that the Government's White Paper on the future of the British Broadcasting Corporation will be available? I know there was a Question about it this afternoon, but I gathered then that the answer was that it was still uncertain.
Mr. Crookshank: It certainly has not changed since the answer was given to the Question.
Mr. A. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, after the Recess, a Motion will be moved to remit the Scottish counterpart of the Housing Bill to the Scottish Standing Committee?
Mr. Crookshank: I shall have to look into that with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. W. Nally: I have every regard for the Front Benches on both sides of the House, but I quite clearly understood that a little while ago you, Mr. Speaker, distinctly called out my name and that a
2744
point of order was then quite properly taken, as it has precedence. With great respect, why is it when someone on one of the Front Benches gets up after the point of order has been dealt with, he gets a precedence over me and I am not called again?
Mr. Speaker: I think that is right, but the sequence of events was broken by an irruption from the Front Bench.
Mr. Archer Baldwin: Referring to the business on Monday, 21st April, when we return, may I reinforce the plea which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) about the importance of the debate on the Empire Settlement Bill? Would my right hon. Friend give us a full day in which to debate this subject, not because of the number who may want to speak, but because of the importance of the subject.
Mr. Crookshank: I quite appreciate that, and my hon. Friends need be under no misapprehension about it. I merely put it down as a first Order on the Paper. Some of the other items are purely technical and formal, I hope.
Mr. Nally: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that discussions are now going on at the Ministry of Agriculture about the farm Price Review, and it is understood that this morning a figure of about £50 million was being discussed, which will be borne by the consumers. Sometime next week an announcement is to be made as to the exact figure. In view of the sum involved, its serious implications on the cost of living, and so that we can discuss more fully this £50 million—which comes on top of the doctors' £40 million—will the right hon. Gentleman make a day available for the subject?
Mr. Crookshank: All this seems very hypothetical, and I cannot fit in hypothetical questions with the programme for the week when we meet again after the Easter Recess.
Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that under the previous Government it was arranged that there would be three days available in Government time for the discussion of matters affecting the public corporations, apart from whatever time the Opposition might find in Supply time. Can the right hon.

2745
Gentleman say approximately when he will be ready to discuss the allocation of these three days, which, I presume, this Government will adhere to, as we did?
Mr. Crookshank: I cannot state any day yet.
Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Would it ease the position for the right hon. Gentleman and those hon. Members who wish to have a full day for the Empire Settlement Bill if I were to say that I and my hon. Friends who are interested in the Customs and Excise Bill are prepared, in those circumstances, to allow the Committee stage to go through without putting down any Amendments or taking up any points? Will that be of assistance to the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Crookshank: Like the other matters that have been raised, I shall cobsider that carefully, but I recognise the generous action of one of the newer leaders of the Opposition.
Mr. John Baird: On a point order. I have been on my feet repeatedly and have not been called, Sir, I want to put a rather important point of business of a non-party nature.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but so did many other hon. Members.

DISABILITY AND WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS (INCREASE)
The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I should like, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the leave of the House, to make a statement about disability and war widows' pensions.
The Chancellor announced in his Budget speech an increase from 45s. to 55s. a week in the standard basic rate of disability pension for 100 per cent. disablement, with proportionate increases for lower assessments. This improvement will take effect from the first pay-day in May and will apply to about 695,000 pensioners. He also said that there would be some increases for war widows and that I would make an announcement in due course.
I am glad to say that with effect from the first pay-day in May the standard rate of 35s. payable to a widow who is
2746
over 40 or receiving an allowance for a child or who is incapable of self-support will be increased to 42s. The amount of the increase for comparable widows of officers will be £18 a year. The new rates benefit about 150,000 widows of both world wars. Application will not be necessary.
The revision of both disablement and widows' pensions is now proceeding and I hope that all pensioners affected will have received their increased awards by about the end of July, with arrears from the first pay-day in May. The cost of these improvements will be about £10 million a year.
I also take this opportunity of announcing that it has been decided to increase from £52 10s. to £57 a year the allowance towards maintenance and running expenses paid to those severely disabled war pensioners to whom my Department has supplied motor cars. The increased allowance will take effect from the 12th of March, 1952, and application will not be necessary.
Mr. George Isaacs: I am sure the Minister will be aware that the whole House welcomes the statement he has made, especially that part relating to widows' pensions. In particular we shall all welcome his decision to make the payments from the first pay day in May and we wish to commend him upon that prompt action.
Mr. Amory: I appreciate that very much, particularly coming from the right hon. Gentleman who, when Minister of Pensions, took such an interest in the well-being of the disabled.
Mr. Stephen McAdden: With reference to that part of the statement dealing with disability pensions, has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the front page of the "British Legion Journal" for April, which purports to show that a 100 per cent. disabled man received formerly 45s. and now can receive only 55s.? Is that a correct statement of the case either before or since his answer, and if not, will he correct it?
Mr. Amory: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to this picture and I am surprised that the headquarters of the British Legion should have thought fit to approve of this picture and caption, because I believe it to be a complete

2747
misrepresentation. The clear implication of that picture was that the unfortunate amputee concerned received only 55s. with the improvement I have just announced, and that was all. In fact, the very least he could get if he were a single man and able to work would be £4 8s., if he were unable to work, £6 3s., and if he were a married man, he would get more. If he were a married man with children and in need of constant attendance, he could get a sum which might go up to as much as £9 1s. 6d., including the new family allowance. I cannot think that the Legion authorities are best serving the cause of the disabled by propaganda of this kind.
Mr. James Simmons: Is the Minister aware that we are very pleased that he has continued the policy of increasing the car allowance, but that as the car allowance has now been increased by £12 over a period of years and the motor-propelled tricycle has no petrol allowance at all, would he kindly consider whether some little recognition should not be given to the difficulties of those using motor-propelled tricycles?
Mr. Amory: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a separate question. In the case of the motor tricycles, the Departments concerned, the Ministry of Health and my own Department, are responsible for the whole cost of maintenance, and the petrol consumption is a good deal lower than that of cars.
Sir Ian Fraser: While thanking my hon. Friend for having answered some of the questions which I ventured to put to him just after the Budget, may I ask him whether the Ministers concerned propose to receive a deputation from the British Legion, who desire to put before them the inadequacy of the rise which has recently been made in the basic rate so far as the overwhelming majority of war pensioners are concerned?
Mr. Amory: As I have told my hon. Friend before, I am always glad and prepared to receive a deputation from the British Legion. As regards the alleged inadequacy of the present increase, I
2748
think the House will agree that the cost of living has risen substantially over the past six years and, personally, I am very pleased that the Government have found it possible at a moment of unprecedented financial difficulty, and in their first Budget, to make a useful contribution to the increased cost of living.
Mr. Ernest Popplewell: I understood the Minister to say that the increased pensions related to widows over 40 years of age. Is there anything for the widow under 40 years of age?
Mr. Amory: The widow under 40 who is in receipt of an allowance for children or is incapacitated will qualify for the rate I have mentioned. The widow under 40 who is not incapacitated and has no children will continue to receive the pension of 20s. a week. It has not been found possible under present circumstances to increase that.
Sir I. Fraser: May I ask my hon. Friend to give me a specific reply to my question? Will the Ministers receive this deputation before the Finance Bill goes through its final stages?
Mr. Amory: I am not prepared to say today on what date it will be possible to receive a deputation from the British Legion. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that I have not yet been approached on that subject. However, I say again what I have said before, that I am prepared to receive a deputation from the British Legion.
Mr. Leslie Hale: In making this review, has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of considering the basis of need test for parents' pensions, which now seems to be a case of hardship? If not, will he take an opportunity of making a review of this matter which I know was commenced by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Pensions shortly before the Election?
Mr. Amory: I know the hon. Gentleman is interested in that matter and we have been in correspondence about it. It is not covered by what I have said today, but I have it always under consideration, and I am looking forward to discussing it with the hon. Gentleman.

ATTACHE CASES (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Sir Richard Acland: On a point of order. I am reluctant to trespass on the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask you to give us a firm Ruling on the question of attaché cases which, as the result of the proceedings last night, has been left in a state of great uncertainty, particularly when the proceedings of last night are contrasted with what happened just under five years ago, when a somewhat similar incident was drawn to the attention of the then occupant of the Chair. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) will appreciate that I raise this point with no personal animosity against him. Indeed, there are very few hon. or right hon. Members on the other side for whom I have a greater regard. But it will be found—
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a point of order and I am asked to give a Ruling. I cannot possibly do so unless I can hear the point.
Sir R. Acland: It will be found in column 2582 of today's HANSARD that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in concluding the matter, used these words:
"May I say … that … I did not leave the Chamber with the attaché case for any reason except to accelerate the progress of the debate and to ensure that the frivolous and ridiculous interruptions should be brought to an end. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 2582.]
That decision, made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, was allowed to stand. It clearly carries with it the implication that if he, or any other Member, had not been concerned to accelerate progress, the case could have remained in the Chamber, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman with it.
This contrasts with what took place on 9th July, 1947, when the Official Reporters recorded, in the middle of a speech by the first Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), that there was an interruption; whereupon my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), who had, apparently, brought in a case, rose and asked, on a point of order, whether there
2750
was anything wrong in his doing so. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Crookshank) then said:
"We do not know what is inside it."
and hon. Members—HANSARD does not say from which side of the House; perhaps, from all sides—said:
"Take it away."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 2218.]
Major Milner, as he then was, gave a direction that although Ministers were entitled to bring in despatch boxes to assist them, if necessary, with their speeches, other hon. Members were not entitled to bring in any sort of cases at all. Although my hon. Friend who now sits for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), pressed Major Milner about this question of inequality between right hon. and hon. Members, the Chairman adhered to his Ruling and insisted that cases of any kind should not be brought in and that, if brought in, should be taken away. I feel, therefore, that we might have the matter cleared up; otherwise, it is the thin end of the wedge. We might have these benches looking like a railway left luggage office.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Baronet was kind enough to tell me that he would raise this point of order. I have considered the matter. There is nothing to be found in writing on this subject. It is all governed by the ancient usage of the House, and according to that usage there are certain articles which it is out of order for hon. Members to bring into the Chamber. They are, quite briefly, these:
Weapons. This prohibition does not apply to Court officials and to hon. Members who happen to be moving or seconding the Address in Court dress.
Decorations. These should be removed before entering the Chamber, except in the same two cases.
Sticks and umbrellas. These are not permitted unless the hon. Member concerned has a disability which makes their use reasonable and proper.
Despatch cases. These should not be brought into the Chamber.
An hon. Member is quite in order in bringing into the Chamber any books or papers which he may require to consult or to refer to in the course of debate; but with the exception of Ministers, whose

2751
despatch cases and official wallets are under a special dispensation, despatch cases should not be brought in.
I hope the House will agree with me that the Messengers who, under the direction of the Serjeant at Arms, remind hon. Members if they should unwittingly be transgressing these old customs, perform their duty with the utmost courtesy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—because it is easy for an hon. Member to forget these rules. I hope that this Ruling is firm enough for the hon. Baronet.
Mr. Frank Bowles: Further to that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I ask this question? There has grown up recently in the House a tendency for hon. Members to produce exhibits, such as a fish or other things of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Eggs."] Yes, eggs. I cannot remember all the things; I did not know this was to be raised this afternoon.
I should be glad, Sir, if you would give an indication that that also is rather unbecoming to the dignity of the House. I remember that on one occasion there was a suggestion that the Postmaster-General should produce the little gadget that was designed to be put on motorcars to stop interference with television, which was deplored. I think the House would agree if you would say that no exhibits of any kind, whether eggs, hats or pieces of clothing and the rest, or even red meat, should be allowed.
Mr. Speaker: I agree that there are possibilities of mischief in introducing into the House exhibits such as eggs and other things, but there is a very old precedent going back to the time of Mr. Burke for the introduction of exhibits into the House. I had the pleasure of listening quite recently to an hon. Member who illustrated an Adjournment debate on clothes with a very interesting display of textiles. I should prefer to leave that to the good judgment of hon. Members.
If it is really necessary for an hon. Member to produce an exhibit to illustrate his argument, I see no reason why I should prohibit it in advance. I hope, however, that hon. Members will respect the spirit of our usages, which is that our Chamber should not be encumbered with matter from outside that is not relevant to the discussion.
Brigadier Christopher Peto: Further to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Is there any limit to the size of bags which hon. Ladies may bring into the House?
Mr. Speaker: The rule against despatch cases dates from a period before we had the advantage of hon. Ladies as Members of the House. I understand that the handbag in a lady's equipment fulfils the office of pockets in male garments, and I further understand that ladies' garments are not usually provided with pockets. I think, therefore, that it would be unreasonable to prohibit ladies from carrying handbags in the House. As to their size, I should prefer to leave that matter also to the good sense of the hon. Ladies who are Members of the House.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can we also have an assurance that it is in order for hon. Members to bring coins of the Realm into the Chamber, but not to throw pennies at Ministers and ex-Ministers?
Major H. Legge-Bourke: Further to that observation, may I ask you, Sir, whether your Ruling applies to bags from which cats might otherwise be let out?

DIVISION LISTS (PUBLICATION)
Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: May I briefly raise a matter and ask your assistance, Mr. Speaker? It concerns the Division Lists published as an appendix to the Votes and Proceedings. Early this morning, in Committee, we divided on an Amendment concerning sums to be paid by aliens for surgical appliances. In Votes and Proceedings it is recorded that 22 hon. Members voted for the Amendment—incidentally, against the advice of the Leader of the House. These names are not given in Votes, but usually they are given in the appendix to the Votes. Today, the names of those 22 hon. Members are not in the appendix, presumably because the list went to the printers too late.
Hon. Members are in the difficulty that it is impossible to find out who were those 22 Members. I am told that the only list of names is now at the printers. I ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, making arrangements so that, in future, hon. Members can find out from the Table the names of hon. Members voting in late Divisions. It is rather more than an

2753
academic point, because there are many hon. Members who want today to know whether there is any truth in the rumour, which deeply distresses us, that one Member of the Government was among the 22 rebels.
Mr. Speaker: I should be very glad to consider that matter. The House will, I think, agree that, when we have these very late Sittings, it is very much to the credit of the printers that they can produce the Votes and Proceedings even in the form in which they are put before the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Division Lists, of course, take much longer to print, especially when there is a large number of them. All I should like to say is that I will consider the point which the hon. Gentleman has
raised and see whether I can do anything about it.
Mr. T. Driberg: Further to that point of order. Would it be possible to consider putting a duplicate or copy of the Division List in question in the Library with the typescript of the report of late Sittings which is already available there?
Mr. Speaker: I will consider that also.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the National Health Service Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided. Ayes, 285; Noes, 255.

Division No. 78.]

AYES

[4.0 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hay, John

Alpert, C. J. M.

Cranborne, Viscount

Heald, Sir Lionel

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

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

Heath, Edward

Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Anstruther Gray, Maj. W. J.

Crouch, R. F.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Arbuthnot, John

Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwoed)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

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

Cuthbert, W. N.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Baker, P. A. D.

Davidson, Viscountess

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Deedes, W. F.

Hollis, M. C.

Baldwin, A. E.

Digby, S. Wingfield

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Banks, Col. C.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hope, Lord John

Barber, A. P. L.

Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.

Hopkinson, Henry

Baxter, A. B.

Donner, P. W.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Drewe, C.

Horobin, I. M.

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

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

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Duthie, W. S.

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

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

Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

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

Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Erroll, F. J.

Hurd, A. R.

Bennett, William (Woodside)

Fell, A.

Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Birch, Nigel

Finlay, Graeme

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

Bishop, F. P.

Fisher, Nigel

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Black, C. W.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

Bossom, A. C.

Fort, R.

Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

Bowen, E. R.

Foster, John

Jennings, R.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Brains, B. R.

Gage, C. H.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollak)

Kaberry, D.

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

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Keeling, Sir Edward

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

Gammans, L. D.

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Lambert, Hon. G.

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

George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

Lambton, Viscount

Bullard, D. G.

Glyn, Sir Ralph

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Godber, J. B.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Burden, F. F. A.

Gough, C. F. H.

Leather, E. H. C.

Butcher, H. W.

Gower, H. R.

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

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

Graham, Sir Fergus

Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Gridley, Sir Arnold

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

Carson, Hon. E.

Grimond, J.

Linstead, H. N.

Cary, Sir Robert

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Llewellyn, D. T.

Channon, H.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Harden, J. R. E.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

Clarke Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Low, A. R. W.

Cole, Norman

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Colegate, W. A.

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

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Cooper, Sqn Ldr. Albert

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

McAdden, S. J.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

McCallum, Major D.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Storey, S.

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Pitman, I. J.

Studholme, H. G.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Powell, J. Enoch

Summers, G. S.

Maclean, Fitzroy

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Sutcliffe, H.

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Profumo, J. D.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Raikes, H. V.

Teeling, W.

Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

Rayner, Brig. R.

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

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

Redmayne, M.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Markham, Maj. S. F.

Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)

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

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Robertson, Sir David

Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Tilney, John

Maude, Angus

Robson-Brown, W.

Touche, G. C.

Maudling, R.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Turner, H. F. L.

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

Roper, Sir Harold

Turton, R. H.

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Mellor, Sir John

Russell, R. S.

Vane, W. M. F.

Molson, A. H. E.

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Vosper, D. F.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

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

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Scott, R. Donald

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Nicholls, Harmer

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Watkinson, H. A.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Shepherd, William

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Wellwood, W.

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

White, Baker (Canterbury)

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Williams, Gerald (Tunbridge)

Nutting, Anthony

Snadden, W. McN.

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Odey, G. W.

Soames, Capt. C.

Williams R. Dudley (Exeter)

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

Spearman, A. C. M.

Wills, G.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Speir, R. M.

Wison, Geoffrey (Truro)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

Wood, Hon. R.

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

Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

York, C.

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

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Osborne, C.

Stevens, G. P.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Partridge, E.

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

Major Conant and Mr. Oakshott.

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Clunie, J.

Glanville, James

Adams, Richard

Cocks, F. S.

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

Albu, A H.

Coldrick, W.

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Collick, P. H.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Cook, T. F.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Cove, W. G.

Grey, C. F.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Awbery, S. S.

Crosland, C. A. R.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Crossman, R. H. S.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Baird, J.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Balfour, A.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

Bence, C. R.

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Hamilton, W. W.

Benn, Wedgwood

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Hannan, W.

Benson, G.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Hardy, E. A.

Beswick, F.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hargreaves, A.

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

Deer, G.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Bing, G. H. C.

Donnelly, D. L.

Hastings, S.

Blackburn, F.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hayman, F. H.

Blenkinsop, A.

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

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

Blyton, W. R.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

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

Boardman, H.

Edelman, M.

Herbison, Miss M.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Bowden, H. W.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Hobson, C. R.

Bowles, F. G.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Holman, P.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Houghton, Douglas

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Hoy, J. H.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Ewart, R.

Hubbard, T. F.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Fernyhough, E.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Field, Capt. W. J.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Burke, W. A.

Fienburgh, W.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Finch, H. J.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Butler Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Callaghan, L. J.

Follick, M.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Carmichael, J.

Foot, M. M.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Forman, J. C.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Champion, A. J.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Janner, B.

Chapman, W. D.

Freeman, Peter (Newprt)

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Chetwynd, G. R.

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

Jager, George (Goole)

2756

2757

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

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Oldfield, W. H.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Oliver, G. H.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Orbach, M.

Swingler, S. T.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Oswald, T.

Sylvester, G. O.

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Padley, W. E.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Paget, R. T.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

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

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

Keenan, W.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Pannell, Charles

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

King, Dr. H. M.

Pargiter, G. A.

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Paton, J.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Pearson, A.

Thurtle, Ernest

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Peart, T. F.

Timmons, J.

Lewis, Arthur

Porter, G.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Lindgren, G. S.

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Tomney, F.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Logan, D. G.

Proctor, W. T.

Viant, S. P.

MacColl, J. E.

Pryde, D. J.

Wallace, H. W.

McGhee, H. G.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Watkins, T. E.

McInnes, J.

Rankin, John

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

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Reeves, J.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

McLeavy, F.

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Wells, William (Walsall)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Reid, William (Camlachie)

West, D. G.

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Rhodes, H.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Richards, R.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

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

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Wigg, G. E. C.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A B.

Manuel, A. C.

Ross, William

Wilkins, W. A.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Royle, C.

Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

Mayhew, C. P.

Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

Mellish, R. J.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Williams, David (Neath)

Messer, F.

Short, E. W.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Mikardo, Ian

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Mitchison, G. R.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Monslow, W.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

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

Moody, A. S.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Morley, R.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Winterbottom, Richard (Brighlside)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Snow, J. W.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

Sorensen, R. W.

Wyatt, W. L.

Mort, D. L.

Sparks, J. A.

Yates, V. F.

Moyle, A.

Steele, T.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Mulley, F. W.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Murray, J. D.

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Nally, W.

Strachey, Rt Hon. J.

Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Holmes.

Question put, and agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock; that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock; and that at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[The Prime Minister.]
4.10 p.m.
Mr. T. Driberg: I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise for detaining the House for a moment or two. But I feel I ought to draw your attention, and the attention of the Leader of the House, to the fact that if we pass this Motion in its present form we may be depriving ourselves of what is very often one of the most valuable features of our proceedings.
The second part of this Motion says:
"that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock."
It does not say that none of the Questions printed on the Order Paper be taken after twelve o'clock. It says absolutely no Questions. Therefore, I take it that if any hon. Member asks your permission to ask a Question by Private Notice tomorrow at the end of Question time he will be out of order in doing so.
Furthermore, should any Minister exercise his discretion and ask your permission to answer one of the Questions on the Order Paper which have not been reached, again he would be out of order in doing so. I suggest that, quite inadvertently, there has been a slip in the drafting of this Motion. I do not know whether it would be in order for the Leader of the House to offer, perhaps, a manuscript Amendment, or something of that kind, because otherwise I do not see how, at any rate, those hon. Members who may wish to ask Private Notice Questions tomorrow can do other than vote against the Motion.
I do not know how many there are, but as you will know, Sir, particularly when an Adjournment, or a period of Recess is approaching, there is, naturally enough, an increasing pressure of Private Notice Questions. It would be a very great pity if, by passing this Motion, we were to deprive ourselves of that opportunity, because I must repeat that this Motion is absolutely worded and does not allow any Question at all, even a Private Notice Question, after twelve o'clock.
4.12 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) in this matter, because I recollect an incident which occurred just before the Adjournment at Christmas which might possibly be repeated if this Motion goes through unchallenged.
You, Mr. Speaker, will recollect that before the Christmas Recess many hon. Members on this side of the House tried for some weeks to get both the Minister of Education and the Prime Minister to say, in answer to Questions, whether or not it was the intention of the Government to cut the education services. Just before the Adjournment, on the Thursday as we were due to adjourn on the Friday, Questions were asked of both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Education, but no answer was given.
Within a matter of hours of the House adjourning for the Christmas Recess the Minister of Education made a statement of great importance which, we feel, should have been made to the House. This afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) asked about the possibility of farmers being given another £50 million. This is very important, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) will support me. If, between now and the Adjournment, the Minister of Agriculture reaches a settlement to give £40 million or £50 million to the farmers, and if this Motion goes through, then, as I understand, it will not be possible for the Minister to tell the House that he is going to give £40 million or £50 million to the farmers.
I believe that we should at least protect not only the rights of the House and the rights of hon. Members, but should protect Ministers and give them the opportunity of making statements such as this. I think you will agree, Sir, and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am sure, will agree that it is far better to have a discussion on matters such as this and to have the facts given to the House, rather than that they should be given during the Adjournment period.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House will take the opportunity to deal with the very vital point which my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon

2761
has raised, and will give us an assurance that it will be possible for us to put Private Notice Questions, if they are accepted by you, Sir, as being in order, so that if we think there is a need for a Question to be put we will not be ruled out of order because we have passed this Motion.
Mr. Speaker: Two hon. Members have expressed apprehension that if we passed this Motion it would prevent the Chair from accepting Private Notice Questions or prevent Ministers making statements, if that were necessary. It would not have that effect. This is a variation in respect of Questions under Standing Order No. 8, paragraph (3), which says that as a general rule no Questions shall be taken after half-past three, except such Questions as Mr. Speaker may allow to be asked by Private Notice, and other matters of an urgent character. So I can reassure the hon. Members who have expressed fears on the matter that the acceptance of this Motion would not prevent me from accepting Private Notice Questions tomorrow or statements being made.
Mr. Driberg: I am grateful to you, Sir, for clarifying the matter, but should not it be clarified on the Order Paper? Naturally, I accept what you say, but it would have been perfectly simple for the Leader of the House or the Government Whips to have put down on the Order Paper a Motion which said that no Questions would be taken after twelve o'clock, except such Questions as you, Mr. Speaker, allow by Private Notice to Ministers.
May I ask the Leader of the House through you, Sir, whether, to make the matter more exact and more orderly, he will consider doing that on future occasions?
4.20 p.m.
Mr. George Chetwynd: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Tomorrow I have a Question which is well down the Notice Paper and may not be reached. I consider it is of public importance as it deals with imports of steel from the United States. It may be necessary to ask the Minister of Supply to answer it after Questions, provided that you will allow it. What I wanted to ask you now was, whether that would be possible if we passed this Motion.
Mr. Speaker: If it were desired by the Minister to answer a Question on grounds of public importance, this Motion would not prevent that from being done.
Sir Robert Grimston: I think it will be in the recollection of many hon. Members on both sides of the House that this has been the form in which this Motion has been put on many occasions, and that it has never led to any difficulty at all.
4.21 p.m.
Mr. Herbert Morrison: I should be much obliged to the Leader of the House if he would confirm what has just been submitted. My recollection is that in the days of the previous Government, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was Leader of the House and when I was Leader of the House, this Motion was moved in this form. If that was so, then it seems to me a little difficult for us to press objection to it now, especially in view of what you, Mr. Speaker, have said.
I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has said about the actual wording of the Motion. It does appear to be somewhat categorical and rigid, but I cannot quarrel with it because I have an unholy memory that I moved it in exactly the same form myself, without any such results as these today.
In view of the Ruling which Mr. Speaker has given, it seems to me that my hon. Friend's point is really safeguarded for tomorrow, but if the Leader of the House would clear up the question whether this is the usual form, and would, perhaps, undertake to look at it to see if it requires—I am not trying to commit him at all—revision for future occasions I should think that we could then let it go, if the right hon. Gentleman will give us those assurances.
4.22 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The right hon. Gentleman's memory may be holy or not. He called it unholy. However, it is quite clear in this case. This is the common form, and it was certainly used by the previous Administration. In view of that, and in view of Mr. Speaker's statement about the possibility of Private Notice

2763
Questions and statements, there seems to be no point in continuing this discussion further.
Mr. Driberg: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider for future occasions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—putting the intention in form on the Order Paper? What harm would it do to have on the Order Paper a Motion expressing exactly what the House wishes?
Mr. H. Morrison: I do not want to commit the right hon. Gentleman necessarily to alter the form, but I think there is a point in my hon. Friend's earlier request. If he would be good enough to look at the matter to see if it is satisfactory, and to satisfy himself about it, without committing himself as to the future, it would be useful and acceptable. Then we could get on.
Mr. Crookshank: I am prepared, without—as the right hon. Gentleman said—any commitments, to look at this matter, and I feel very gratified that right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that right hon. Gentlemen sitting here are more suitable for looking into these matters which, for six years, they never looked at at all.
4.24 p.m.
Mr. George Jeger: We are very grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your clarification of this difficulty, but I wonder if you would elaborate this a little in connection with an eventuality that may arise that a Minister may make a statement tomorrow at the conclusion of Question time, as the Minister of Pensions did today, to be followed by a number of questions put to him. Will it be in order, if a Minister makes a statement of some importance, for hon. Members to rise, as they did today, to put questions to him arising out of the statement he makes, though not Questions on the Order Paper or Private Notice Questions?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, but there is one consideration which, I hope, the House will bear in mind tomorrow. It is that if there is a statement, and if there is prolonged questioning following it, that will eat into the time of Private Members who, at great trouble to themselves, have put down matters for discussion on the Adjournment. I should feel it my duty in the Chair, were I here, and those questions were to arise, to try to limit to a reasonable amount any supplementary
2764
questions. It would certainly be in order to ask supplementary questions.
Resolved,
That this House do meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock; that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock; and that at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Monday, 21st April.—[Mr. Crookshank.]
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bing.
4.26 p.m.
Mr. Richard Adams: On a point of order. I would appreciate your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a similar difficulty in regard to this Motion. Some of my hon. Friends and I should like to ask how it is possible to make certain that this Motion refers to April, 1952, and not April, 1958. Permit me to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that until some few years ago it was customary to word this Motion so that the year could be identified; and that custom is still pursued in the Journal.
Though I do not suspect the Government of any evil intentions on this occasion, I should like to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that, if this Motion were passed in its present form, it would be quite possible, after the House has risen for this Easter Recess, for the Government to say that they intended it to be an Adjournment until April, 1958.
I do not know how they will overcome their difficulties in regard to the Finance Bill and the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, but I do submit to you seriously that, if we pass this Motion in this form without identifying the year, we shall commit ourselves into the hands of the Government, and that it will be up to them to choose when to bring the House back again.
Mr. Michael Stewart: Further to that point of order. May I respectfully, before you give your Ruling on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Adams), recall to you, Mr. Speaker, an episode earlier in the history of this

2765
House which, I suggest, may be of some help to you in judging the validity of the point raised by my hon. Friend. I refer to the episode of Mr. John Wheble in the late 18th century. Mr. Wheble was a printer who printed what purported to be reports of the debates of this House. At that time the House took the view—as we should now consider, mistakenly—that such attempts to report its debates were a breach of Privilege.
An Order was, therefore, issued by the House to Mr. Wheble. The reason why I raise this matter is to show the importance this House has always attached to precision in the matter of dates. The Order issued to Mr. Wheble ran as follows:
"Ordered, That John Wheble do attend this House on Tuesday next."
Mr. Wheble disobeyed the Order, and it was urged in his defence that the words "Tuesday next"—which, indeed, may be considered to be more precise than the words in this Motion—were not a clear instruction to him since the only date on the Order was contained in the words "die Jovis," which, I understand, mean Thursday, and it was argued on Mr. Wheble's behalf that it was expressed in a language which it was not obligatory on His Majesty's subjects to understand, and that, therefore, the words "Tuesday next" had no clear meaning, since there was no date after which Tuesday could be next.
Further to illustrate the great regard that this House has for precision, I would observe that it was further argued that, when the Order was issued from this House to somebody outside it containing the instruction that he should attend this House, the words "this House" were not sufficiently precise; for when Mr. Wheble received that Order, he was, of course at his own house, and that, most properly, he should have been considered as having obeyed the Order by staying at home.
I must confess that what happened to Mr. Wheble immediately after that is not clear, but at least it is certain that, in the long run, the House was not able to proceed in the way which it had intended against Mr. Wheble, and the principle with which it was concerned—the reporting of the debates of this House—was ultimately conceded. It is possible that the House on that occasion might have disciplined Mr. Wheble as, however ill-advisedly, it none the less intended to do.
2766
We have to consider the fact of the intention of the House, and I would respectfully draw your attention to the fact that, very unwisely, the House on that occasion found itself in that difficulty because of the lack of precision in the way in which it expressed its views in official documents. I am sure that the Leader of the House would not wish to follow the example of the disastrous Administration which was conducting the affairs of this country at that period of the 18th century, when they attempted to discipline Mr. Wheble.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman could help us by moving a manuscript Amendment either to put in the word "next" as an addition to "April 21st," or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central, suggests, the insertion of the date "1952," for it is not only 1958 which could be referred to here, but a period longer than that, by six, nine or 11 years respectively. It is my respectful hope that what I have said on this occasion may be of some help to you, Sir, in deciding the validity of the point raised by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Speaker: In reply to that point of order, I think the hon. Member who raised it answered it himself. The meetings of this House depend on far more powerful constitutional motives and safeguards than on the printing of "1952" on the Order Paper. This Motion is in common form, and, it being a Motion for the Adjournment for Easter, I think the intention is perfectly clear—that it means 21st April of this year. In giving that Ruling I do not feel at all embarrassed by the case of Mr. Wheble, because the facts do not appear to me to be on all fours at all, and there is, therefore, no necessity to amend this Motion.
4.33 p.m.
Mr. Adams: May I respectfully draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that, as recently as the 1920s, the common form of this Motion was not the form which appears on the Order Paper today, but was more meticulous in its terms? When the Motion referred to an adjournment to a subsequent date in the same month, it referred to such-and-such a date instant of that month.
Last year, the Adjournment was moved on 1st August, and the terms used were, "That this House do adjourn until the 16th day of October next." In other

2767
words, we have always made it perfectly clear until recently, and our intentions were perfectly clear until, on this occasion, through the incompetence of the Government, the old form of words has been altered. If we accept this as common form, some Government, worse in its intentions than the present one—though that is difficult to imagine—or a Government with more pronounced intentions, might put down a Motion for the Adjournment, and we might subsequently find after the House has adjourned that Members had not understood and were not aware what the Government had in mind; the House might even be adjourned to another year.
I have made some inquiries on the point, and I find that Monday, 21st April, does not refer only to Monday, 21st April of this year, but might refer to 1958 or a whole series of years after that. Therefore, I suggest that, as a further safeguard, we might ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Leader of the House to draw up a more meticulous form of words that more precisely indicate the intentions of the Government.
Mr. Anthony Marlowe: May I say a few words on this point? What matters, of course, is how these words are understood by the hon. Gentlemen to whom they are addressed. If it be the case that hon. Gentlemen who have professed no understanding of these words do not really understand them, and do not turn up on the appointed date, we shall really have to do our best to get along without them.
Mr. Adams: Further to that point of order. I suggest that the hon. and learned Member is completely wrong. All hon. Members here today hope that they understand the intention of the Motion on the Order Paper, but the danger lies, as we have pointed out, in assuming that the intention of the Government coincides with the words which we are asked to approve in such a Motion, and it may be that a situation could arise in which the Government might be saying that they interpreted the Motion differently from the way the House did when it passed it.
4.36 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I do not know if I can help you, Mr. Speaker, by seeking to add "1952" to the Motion but, leaving that matter aside, I suggest
2768
that this matter raises very important questions of principle which this House should discuss before we break up for the Easter Recess. Two of my hon. Friends and myself have an Amendment on the Order Paper proposing that the reassembly of this House be postponed for only one day, and we have done that in all humility and out of a spirit of reasonableness, which I hope will be interpreted in just the same way as the spirit in which the Minister of Pensions made his announcement today. It is when we have a reasonable approach to a matter that we are likely to get down and study the matter properly.
We on this side of the House all appreciate that the demise of the Crown and difficulties of that sort made it necessary for the Government to take a shorter Easter Recess than it sometimes does, but, in fact, the Easter Recess has sometimes been for one week and sometimes two. We suggest that the House should return on the Tuesday, and we do it for this reason. Whenever the House has previously adjourned, either for one week or for two, it has always met again on a Tuesday, and therefore there is here a departure from principle, and we say that this House ought to be very careful how it departs from precedent. Precedents are of the utmost importance in Parliament, and, if we do not allow ourselves to be guided by precedents and Standing Orders, we should find ourselves in difficulties.
It is very proper that one should take this opportunity of making some inquiry on why this change has been made. Of course, the reason for the return of the House on a Tuesday is an obvious one; it is to enable hon. Members, who not only have duties here but in their constituencies, to get together with their constituents and learn their opinions. I can appreciate that the Minister of Health may feel that, under present circumstances, that is undesirable. If his hon. Friends would go among those who elected them, they would become completely demoralised. We are entitled to know if that is the object of this departure from precedent, but I rather suspect that, whatever the Minister of Health may think, he will not say that, but that we will be told that the reason why he is doing this is in order to get Government business through.

2769
I think that is the point he would make, and it is rather like the criticism that some of us have been making on the Government's programme. If the situation is so bad, then this is far too little, because if the right hon. Gentleman intends to get his programme through we should not be meeting on Monday week, but on Bank Holiday Monday. If, on the other hand, it is the object of the right hon. Gentleman to abandon part of his programme, then obviously we should consider which part of the programme he is abandoning so that the House may be in a position of assessing whether we really need come back on the Monday or not.
Therefore, it is most important that we should take the opportunity of this historic occasion for looking at the whole matter. I say that this is a historic occasion because, of course, this was the original Motion which used to be moved on the last day of the Session, and it was moved in those days—as will be seen if one looks at the old Reports—just for this particular purpose. The difficulty was that the last day of the Session was one on which some Members did not always attend, and, unfortunately, on one occasion this Motion was talked out. Then a very unfortunate situation arose, unknown to most of the hon. Members who had gone home—the House had to reassemble on the next day pursuant to Standing Order.
Therefore, we have departed from this system of having this Motion which enables us to discuss future business and have instead the general Adjournment Motion on which, of course, such a discussion would not be relevant. But it is particularly relevant at the moment, in view of the Rulings of Mr. Speaker, which I think, if I may say so with all humility, we all appreciated and concurred in, that business questions should be addressed to the business of the coming week and not to hypothetical cases, as to whether the right hon. Gentleman is or is not going to put down all the Motions which some of his hon. Friends behind him are urging upon him.
There is a third reason why we should consider this question in some detail. When we adjourned for seven and a half weeks we had a short debate on that matter, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health recalled what was
2770
said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He pointed out that my right hon. Friend had said on a previous occasion that this rather more lengthy Adjournment was necessary in order to allow Members to arrange their affairs, and the right hon. Gentleman said he thought a similar Adjournment was necessary in order, again, to allow Members to arrange their affairs.
When I come to discuss and deal with, as I hope shortly to do, the actual business, it will be seen that if the programme is to be completed the House will probably have to sit until 27th February next without rising again at all. Under those circumstances it will be reasonable, I think, to allow hon. Gentlemen opposite a clear week-end—not at the holiday period—in which to arrange their affairs. There are a number of hon. Members whose business and other things obviously make it necessary for them to make other arrangements, and the House ought not to decide to sit until 27th February unless, first of all, we have a look to see what—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I cannot see anything about 27th February in this Amendment.
Mr. Bing: May I put the point I am developing? It is relevant to see for how long this Adjournment is to be if we are entitled under those circumstances to discuss the length of the other periods at which we are going to start, because, obviously, if business is in such a position that we cannot possibly conclude it all without ever having any other period of Adjournment, then there is an advantage in making this one a little bit longer.
Mr. Deputy - Speaker: That goes beyond the Amendment. The Amendment is very simple; it is to leave out Monday, 21st, and to insert Tuesday, 22nd, and I think any argument going beyond that is out of order.
Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order. May I respectfully remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—
Mr. R. T. Paget: On a point of order. In my submission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this is the one occasion on which within the Rules of Order we may discuss forthcoming business. We cannot do it on the business Motion

2771
because there we are confined to the next week. In the old days the Motion for the Adjournment of the House was an ordinary Adjournment Motion. According to Erskine May it was Opposition time, and it provided the Opposition with the opportunity to discuss forthcoming business. Now, owing to the fact that that Motion was once talked out, the Motion to adjourn the House tomorrow has ceased to be Opposition time and has become Private Members' time. Therefore, it ceases to be available for discussing forthcoming business.
The Motion which is moved today—and I submit that this is according to Erskine May—is the one opportunity with which we are provided to discuss the Government's intention regarding the legislative programme and what they are going to introduce and the timetable. I very respectfully submit, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—and I am hoping later to catch your eye—that this is a very important question and that this is the one opportunity we have to discuss it.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I should have thought that would have been more appropriate on the main Motion than on this Amendment, which is quite narrow.
Mr. Paget: With regard to that, I do not know if it would be for the convenience of the House if the matters were discussed together. Whether we adjourn tomorrow or the next day, or whether we adjourn on some other occasion, I should have thought the broad question of discussing what is the legislative programme was relevant on all those matters and that it might have been for everybody's convenience to discuss them together and thus save the time of the House.
Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. May I venture respectfully to refresh your memory, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps I might be allowed to answer one thing at a time. On the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I imagine that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is in the course of moving his Amendment. If he does not move it, he will have exhausted his right to speak again and will not be able to move it later on.
Mr. Hale: I rose to intervene in the course of the speech of my hon. nad learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) and I said, I hope audibly, "On a point of order." You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, called my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) who had not, in fact, at that stage announced his intention to rise on a point of order.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot allow that to be said. The hon. and learned Member for Northamtpon did indicate a point of order, and I called him on that account. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw that remark. It is not true.
Mr. Hale: If you say that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, then, of course. I do withdraw it. But my impression is that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton said it only after I had used the words. The second point is a more important one. We had a debate on 6th December last on a Motion tabled by my right hon. Friends to vary the date of the Christmas Adjournment. On that occasion, Mr. Speaker was in the Chair. The terms of that Motion were to antedate the proposed date of the Adjournment by seven days, that is, to substitute 22nd January for 29th January, and, therefore, I apprehend that the same rules as applied to that particular Motion will apply to this one.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood the hon. Member was raising a point of order. What he is saying is rather confusing, and if he put it more simply I might understand it.
Mr. Hale: I am trying to call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to a precedent on this matter which happened only a few months ago and about which, I suggest, it would not be improper for me to refresh your memory. As recently as 6th December a similar Motion was moved and Mr. Speaker ruled that the discussion could be a wide one. My hon. Friend the Member for Malden (Mr. Driberg) spoke on Korea on this Motion and, furthermore, immediately before hearing a Motion on the Christmas Adjournment, my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) sought to move the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9 on a matter of public importance.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think I follow the point of order quite clearly, but on that occasion I do not think there was an Amendment as narrowly drafted as this, which is to leave out Monday, 21st April, and insert Tuesday, 22nd April.
Mr. Hale: I am sure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church has many things to say which would fall within even the narrowest of Rulings, and therefore may I respectfully refresh your memory, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on the Ruling, because I have the volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT before me? The Amendment then was to insert 22nd January instead of 29th January. That was what was being discussed, and a large number of hon. Members spoke and a great many matters were raised, which I suggest were general matters, under the principle stated in Erskine May that this is a Motion for the Adjournment of the House and it is an opportunity on which we can very specially review the progress of Government Business.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can only repeat what I said before. The general Motion is for the Adjournment for Easter, but this Amendment which it is sought to move is very narrow.
Mr. Frank Bowles: On a point of order. The Amendment has not yet been moved and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch is speaking on the main Question. I submit that it is only when he moves the Amendment and it is seconded that this debate becomes narrow.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am quite aware of the position, but I pointed out to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch that if he does not move his Amendment he will forfeit his right to move it.
Mr. Bing: I was giving way to hon. Friends who wish to raise points of order, and I was merely emphasising, by means of the Amendment I intend to move when I have finished the remarks I have to make on the Motion, that this departure from precedent crystallises the position we are in. No doubt at some stage we shall be able to obtain some reply as to why this period has been chosen at all.
If I may resume where I left off the argument when some of my hon. Friends
2774
came to my assistance, we are now entering upon a period—and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health sufficiently appreciates the fact—which is governed by Rule and Standing Order No. 16 and the Gibson-Bowles Act. [Interruption.] No, not named after the present distinguished Parliamentarians bearing those names. In this period, which ends on 5th August, the average amount of time for legislation other than financial business has been until now 25 days. I do not know whether the Finance Bill will not take rather longer this time than is the average. I say that because I know that a great number of hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to raise questions on the Excess Profits Tax, the Purchase Tax and matters of that sort which may result in the Finance Bill debate going on rather longer.
Let us suppose that the financial business only goes on for the average period of 25 days. In that case there are standing on the Order Paper now 10 Bills which have not yet received a Second Reading. There are the Committee stages of one very contentious Measure, the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill and another Measure that will take a day or so at any rate in Committee—the Post Office Bill. Naturally, this whole matter arises out of and is one of the difficulties which is inherent in the working of our democracy. If hon. Members opposite only poll a minority of the votes in the country, our democratic system works in such a way that they only have a small majority of the seats in this House. That being so, it is really quite impossible for them to put through legislation, and for them to attempt to do so would only run the House into all sorts of difficulties. There are two possible methods. The first is to have no Recess at all. I do not think we should attempt that because we should not achieve anything by it.
It is worth while looking at the actual figures of the possible time. I should like to quote to the House what is said by the two authorities to which hon. Members instinctively turn when they desire guidance on procedure. The first is Erskine May and the second the observations made from time to time by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. The 14th Chapter of Erskine May, the classic chapter which deals with the arrangement of Sessional Business,

2775
ends with these words, which I think the whole House should consider before it assents to this Motion, because they really go to the root of our constitutional practice:
"The conclusion which emerges from the facts, collected in this chapter from the whole range of procedure, is that, while a Government is placed by standing order in effective control of the time of the House, and while it can and sometimes does use its influence over the majority of the House to remove any and every impediment to the full exercise of this control, yet reasonably adequate safeguards exist for the rights of the minority and of private Members as individuals; for these rights are inextricably embedded in the procedure by which Ministers secure the passage of indispensible portions of national business, and no Government could go far in withholding these rights without bringing the machinery of Parliament to a standstill."
That is what we are facing—the possibility that by attempting to adjourn and give the usual holidays and yet force through contentious legislation we shall have the whole business of Parliament brought to a standstill. Before we lightly go away we should make quite certain that there will not be some constitutional crisis through the failure of hon. Gentlemen opposite to get through legislation that is absolutely necessary to the national interest.
There is another point to which I should like to allude in passing. One of the most unfortunate things that could possibly occur in this House would be some large dispute between the Chair or the Chairman of Committees and the House or the Committee as a whole. Without going into the question of merits such a conflict is bound to arise when a Government attempts to force its business through the House. It has been long the tradition of the House to appoint as Chairman of Committees, and Deputy-Chairman, a Member of the Government Party. That dates from the idea that the Chairman should be used to assist in getting Government business through.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I will not allow that to be said. I occupied that position when the party to which I do not belong was in power. I do Pot think it is fair to say that.
Mr. Bing: I was making no reflection on you whatsoever, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and with great respect if you had just waited until my next sentence you would
2776
have seen that the impression, which perhaps I have erroneously created, was the exact opposite of what I was about to explain to the House.
That has been the old tradition and in those circumstances the occupants of the Chair, who have a very difficult task to do, are placed in the appallingly difficult position that at some time they have to exercise a judicial discretion when dealing with a Motion which is moved by the party which they support, because of the tradition of the House in alternating the Chairman of Ways and Means in accordance with party. That may be a reason for departing from the usual procedure, and I do not suggest that there has ever been anything that was not fair and proper with regard to the conduct of a Deputy-Speaker and yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in dealing with the problems that arise. But it is one of the difficulties.
We do not want to bring our Parliamentary system into disrepute by allowing a situation to arise where this problem is always coming forward. There is no Member who, when he has not delivered a speech, and the Closure has been moved, does not feel in those circumstances that the Closure has been moved unfairly. Therefore, we want, if possible, to avoid a political situation where Government business can only be got by the continual movement of the Closure.
I suggest therefore, that the House ought to approach this problem and, subject to what the right hon. Gentleman says, it ought to have not only this Recess that he is proposing, but the rather longer one which is proposed in my Amendment which I hope to move later on. If we do that, it will involve an alteration in Government business, and we ought to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to alter Government business.
When this matter was being discussed on a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health expressed his view of what should be the proper conduct of the House. I should like to read to the House what he then said, so that he can tell us whether he now considers that this is the right course for us to pursue. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues propose to move when we are sure of the ground, to make the necessary preparations and not to take false

2777
steps. They do not propose to rush into every kind of fantastic legislation, if that is the complaint. The post-war Parliaments have, I think we can all agree in retrospect, legislated ad nauseam, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo) was right. We ought not really to give the old Mother of Parliament legislative indigestion."
That is exactly what is happening at the moment. Then the right hon. Gentleman added these pregnant words:
"It is not necessary. We have got to digest the legislation we have already passed."
I congratulate hon. Members opposite on their digestive system.
"Legislation, after all, is only one of the most important functions of Parliament. Careful administration and control of finance are equally important, and this House really should be, and is and has been in the past, the great forum of debate for the nation."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 13th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 940.]
If we are going to be the great forum of debate for the nation and we are going to pass all this legislation and digest it, we shall need every moment of time that we can secure.
Let us see whether, in fact, that is physically possible, because we on this side of the House have all been puzzled as to what are the right hon. Gentleman's plans. I think he can take it from me that the latest possible date for prorogation is 27th February, 1953, and it would be impossible under financial arrangements to carry Parliament on any further than that if the necessary votes were got before 31st March. In those circumstances, if we take after 5th August and we sit every day, according to my calculations we have got 143 sitting days in which to carry through legislation; that is after Supply is finished on 5th August.
But we must have some regard for another place. They, too, have to pass legislation and so, in fact, the number of effective sitting days which we possess are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 120. That would involve what some hon. Members may consider undesirable—not rising for Christmas before Christmas Day itself. That would mean sitting absolutely continuously. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman proposes to have a few days break at Christmas and a few days break in August, that will reduce his total number of days to somewhere around 110. If one looks at the average number of days which are taken in various other
2778
matters one will see that about 10 to 15 of those days must go, so that he will have rather less than 100 days in which to get his business through.
There is an important Motion on the Order Paper signed by 40 or more hon. Members opposite.
[That this House is gravely concerned at the absence of effective public control over the nationalised industries, in that these are not, in practice, accountable either to Parliament or to the consumers whether on questions of policy or administration or for the standards and prices of the goods and services which they provide; and urges Her Majesty's Ministers, pending the Report of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries, to reply to Parliamentary Questions relating to those industries for which they are, respectively, responsible by statute; to introduce, without further delay, legislation to denationalise those industries which it is intended to restore to private enterprise; and to undertake an early review of the best means whereby, in the cases of those industries which are to remain nationalised, the inevitable evils of monopoly may be mitigated or controlled in the public interest.]
That calls for the immediate introduction of three Measures which were mentioned in the Gracious Speech of His late Majesty from the Throne. When can we get those three Measures dealing with iron and steel, the reorganisation of transport and the third matter to which we on this side of the House attach great importance—the further control of monopolies?
When can we get those Measures? Suppose the right hon. Gentleman imposes the Guillotine. Suppose he is determined to force it through at all costs. I have done a little research into previous experiences of that sort, and I do not think any of these Bills could be carried with the use of the Guillotine under 15 days from the Second Reading onwards. In those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman will have 45 days. He has only got a few days until 5th August. He is in this position: I reckon that he will have to give another 20 days to complete the legislation which he has already brought before us.
Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to sit with only a break of two days at Christmas and a break

2779
for the actual Bank Holiday itself, he will still be left with some 20 to 30 days spare. But I think he is forgetting the fourth matter.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I respectfully ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to try to keep nearer to the Amendment.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We are in a little difficulty here. I can quite understand that you might find it necessary to curtail the discussion on the Amendment, although in fact the Amendment has not yet been moved, but I should have thought, with all respect, that a discussion on a substantive Motion itself can be as wide as to embrace easily everything that my hon. and learned Friend has been saying. Some of us want to intervene, if we are lucky enough to catch your eye, on similar matters.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point is that we are not discussing a substantive Motion. We are discussing an Amendment which is being moved.
Hon. Members: It has not been moved.
Mr. Bing: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am using my right to speak to the main Motion. The fact that the Prime Minister did not see fit to explain, and the Minister of Health was, we suspect, unable to explain to the House, the course of business, is no reason why I should not speak to the Motion which they have seen fit to put before the House. I am asking whether or not we ought to have an Easter Recess at all, whether this Motion should be moved at all, because if the right hon. Gentleman withdraws it we could sit right through.
There are two Measures which the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten—the Supplies and Services Act and the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Those Measures expire on 10th December. I hope I have the right hon. Gentleman's attention, because these are serious points. We want to know how business is going to be arranged. If he looks in the Gracious Speech, which he may recall merely from a nostalgic point of view, he will see that in that there is a definite pledge with regard to this legislation expiring on 10th December. The Gracious Speech says—
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
House counted, and 40 Members being present—
5.10 p.m.
Mr. Bing: I can well understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite should immediately leave the Chamber when I was proposing to refer to the Gracious Speech from the Throne. It is sad reading for them because it catalogues a series of promises which they failed to carry out. I do not want to go into the whole matter. I merely ask what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do on one issue, because whether or not we adjourn for Easter will depend upon what his legislative intentions are about the Supplies and Services Act and the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947.
In the Gracious Speech the policy of the Government was outlined as follows:
"You will be asked to authorise for a period the continuation in force of certain emergency enactments and defence regulations which are due to expire next month. My Ministers will, however, review the whole subject with the aim of reducing the number of these controls and regulations and, wherever possible, embodying those which must be kept in legislation requiring annual renewal by Parliament"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 53.]
When the right hon. Gentleman replies, he will no doubt tell us how many Acts he thinks must be passed before 10th December, because he should realise that, while we on this side were prepared to give an easy passage last year to this Measure, we shall not be so inclined this coming year, and it will mean that there will probably mean two or three weeks discussion on the great number of emergency regulations which otherwise the right hon. Gentleman will have to renew one by one.
Even supposing we do not have any Recesses at all, as far as I can work it out there is not much prospect of carrying out the right hon. Gentleman's programme, and we want to know is which items are to be dropped. Perhaps I might make a suggestion. As hon. and right hon. Members opposite have lost the confidence of the country, this Parliament should, for so long as it continues, be concerned largely with the problem of amending legislation. If I may say so, my hon. Friends gave an admirable example of how that could be done over the Army Act. We did not choose to

2781
take advantage of the constitutional difficulties in which the right hon. Gentleman found himself. We agreed to have a Select Committee to examine the matter.
All other matters of that sort could perhaps be dealt with in that way, but that would mean removing contentious legislation from the programme. If we do not do that, what is the alternative? The constitutional machinery of the country comes to a standstill. In discussing these matters, hon. Members on this side of the House are only exercising the constitutional rights for which they were sent here. Because the right hon. Gentleman cannot send business upstairs and give enough time to discuss these matters is no reason why we should abrogate our rights, which were enjoyed by hon. Gentlemen opposite throughout the 1945–50 Parliament. We should not abrogate our rights entirely in order to facilitate contentious legislation for which the right hon. Gentleman has no mandate. That would be a complete betrayal of the reasons for which we were elected, and we are not prepared so to do.
We are determined, for example, on a Bill like that to increase the poundage on the Post Office, to put down a reasoned Amendment, in order to consider for a day whether or not the provisions that make the Post Office self-accounting should not be reimposed. That is a perfectly proper exercise of Parliamentary time. But if we do this, the right hon. Gentleman must see that there is no time for his contentious legislation. He must know what is to happen to the business of the week. We do not want to arrive at a position in which the Finance Bill is not passed, and in which there is no authority for the collection of taxes. But that is the position into which the right hon. Gentleman is leading the House by his failure to make proper provision for time to discuss these matters.
Those are the issues before the House at the moment. I am in this difficulty, that if I move the Amendment which stands in my name I may so restrict the area of debate as to prevent the right hon. Gentleman replying. I am sure that is the last thing he wants. I am sorry that the Patronage Secretary is not here, because I wanted to make one last appeal to him not to move the Closure on his right hon. Friend. We all appreciate the motives from which he does it: party
2782
loyalty. Obviously, if he permitted the Leader of the House to speak there would be some damage done to the party cause; and nobody would criticise the Chair for accepting the Closure moved on the right hon. Gentleman, because I think it is understood in the House that he never has anything to contribute.
Mr. Speaker: I fail to relate this argument to the difference between Monday, 21st April, and Tuesday, 22nd April.
Mr. Bing: That is the difficulty I am in, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I hesitate to move the Amendment. At the moment I am speaking on the Motion, but if I move the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman may be in the difficulty of not being able to reply, and it would be very unfair to take a Parliamentary advantage of him. We do not want to take advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's lack of knowledge of the rules of the House. We all suffer equally under it and we ought to try to help him. I wanted to appeal to the Patronage Secretary to appreciate that, after all, the right hon. Gentleman is Leader of the House and we are entitled to hear him, and to hear him with respect and in silence. He is entitled to speak, and it would be rather unfortunate if the Closure were moved on him to prevent him from so doing.
I am subject to any guidance you may give us, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want it to be felt, as my name appears at the head of the Amendment, that I have taken advantage of your calling me when somebody else might wish to speak, but I think that the best course would be for me not to move my Amendment at the moment, because that might prevent a discussion on business. If it suits the convenience of the House, as I think it will, one of my hon. Friends whose names also appear to the Amendment could move it at a later stage in order that we can have a full discussion of the matter. I think that would be the best course. We felt that we ought to put the Amendment down, because it gave some indication to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that we intended to raise the matter. It is unfair not to make use of the Order Paper in order to give notice of what is intended.
Those of us who wish to raise the whole issue of the Business of the House have tried to do it in a way which is

2783
most convenient for the House as a whole. If I now resume my seat without moving the Amendment, it is not that I have lost interest in it. It is merely that I wish to be fair to the right hon. Gentleman and to give him a chance to deal now in a serious way with what is to be the business of the House for the remainder of this Session. We can see that he cannot get it all, and it is only fair to hon. Members who are working on Amendments to let them know which Measures he intends to drop. That is the only question: What will be left out?
In those circumstances, I hope that for once we shall have a serious speech from the right hon. Gentleman, and that he will tell the House what is the business before us. I do not seek to move my Amendment at this stage, for the convenience of the House, but I hope that my hon. Friends will do so at a later stage.
5.19 p.m.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan: It is rather unfortunate that, owing to other pre-occupations, Members of the Government Bench are unable to be present during the course of this debate. It is particularly unfortunate that the Chief Patronage Secretary is not here. He is the instrument which frequently brings the Chairman of Ways and Means into collision with Members of the Committee. Indeed, in the small hours of this morning the collision aroused quite considerable heat.
This is a very serious matter indeed, because we recently had an instance of where the Opposition had to facilitate the passage of the amendment of the Army (Annual) Act by a proposal which ultimately will have the effect of improving that Act and bringing it up to date. That was a by-product of the emergency which arose when it was apparent to the Government, as it was to the House, that they could not get the Army Act in time unless a Select Committee were appointed.
In other words, the House of Commons had to defer its rights of discussion, had to abandon the discussion of very important Amendments and new Clauses, not because we had no interest in them but because they could not be pressed and, at the same time, the Army Act passed in time. There we have a classic illustration of a collision between the rights
2784
of Members to debate Bills before the House and the constitutional necessities of the Government. On that occasion, the Opposition deferred to constitutional necessities and we now await what the Select Committee will decide.
This situation will arise again. As my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out—and I would urge hon. Members to realise that this is a very grave case indeed—when we come to the consideration of the Supplies and Services Bill, the Government will find themselves in a similar emergency. If they do not get that Act through in time, the vast array of powers will end and the economic structure of the country will be gravely impaired if the Measure is not carried.
I can imagine that we shall have exhortations from the Prime Minister who, towards the end of the year, will be able to point out that if these powers lapse the re-armament programme will collapse with them, because the powers of direction and the controls which are now being exercised over raw materials and in various other ways are absolutely essential to canalising the economy in the direction of the re-armament programme. Unless we are careful we shall find ourselves bullied into facilitating the passage of that Measure because the Government will have abused their position, gone on with contentious legislation and faced us with a need to put the nation's interest first, whereas the Government are putting their party interests first.
It is essential that the country as a whole should understand what is happening. When other Governments found themselves in a minority or with a very small majority, as has happened quite recently, the practice has always been either to abandon contentious legislation and confine the legislation to what is required by the Constitution and by the first requirements of the nation, or to divide their Bills into two classes—Bills which are required absolutely essentially and Bills which are not so essential.
Those which are not so essential are sent upstairs, and if they are murdered upstairs because they cannot be passed in a way which is congenial to the Government, then past Governments have always accepted their demise. In fact, I sat on Committees with the present Leader of the House, who was very dexterous in legislative assassination.

2785
In the Parliament of 1929–31, when the Government of the day had not an absolute majority in the House of Commons, they did not seek to keep all their legislation on the Floor of the House. On the contrary, they sent the legislation upstairs, even at a time when the Chairmen of Committees were armed with far less power than they possess today, and Bill after Bill fell. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Speaker: Would the right hon. Gentleman assist me and tell me whether he is speaking in favour of the Motion or against it, and how he relates his remarks in general to the Motion before the House?
Mr. Bevan: Certainly. I understand that the Amendment has not been moved, and my contention is that if the Government want to send us away for Easter, they must face the repercussions of that decision on the legislative programme. If, however, they want to carry out the programme which they have indicated to the House and which is on the Notice Paper, they will have to abandon all holidays or—and this is a more serious contention—later in the year must face us with the necessity of coming to their rescue.
I was about to say that I remember the time when Committees upstairs were used in order to prevent certain Bills ever coming on and, indeed, at the end of every Session there was a slaughter of Bills which had failed to pass through the various stages in the House, and the Government of the day had to accept their slaughter because the legislative programme had become so congested that all the Bills could not be carried.
We are, therefore, entitled to ask the Government—and this is an exceedingly serious matter—why they have cluttered up the House with legislation and not sent certain legislation upstairs. If the Government want to ventilate certain issues and to move the Second Reading of them, in my respectful submission they ought to accept the logic of the Parliamentary situation and the logic of the electoral situation, and ought not to seek to force through the House of Commons legislation repugnant to the vast majority of the people of Great Britain.
That is the issue. It is not merely a question of the constitutional procedure of the House of Commons. It is a fact—
2786
and we must face this fact—as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, that the Chairman of Committees will find themselves in increasingly embarrassing situations, having to accept Closures on discussions in Committee when quite often large numbers of hon. Members have not been able to speak. In fact, it has become so serious that it is almost as difficult to be heard in Committee now as in the House itself. That point has not been covered at all.
Last night and this morning we had one or two illustrations of it, and it is a most serious matter if the impartiality of the Chair and the objectivity of its decisions are called in question as a result of the Government seeking to avoid their own embarrassments.
That is the reason I beg and plead with the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what the Government have in mind. The National Health Service Bill is in Committee. We are to discuss it some time, I hope, tonight, and we are to discuss it again when we come back after Easter; but why does the right hon. Gentleman not face the realities of the situation? Why does he not abandon the Bill? I am quite sure that if he had the moral courage to do so, his action would be received with acclamation on both sides of the House and certainly in the country as a whole.
But we warn the Government that if they do not do it, if they insist upon forcing this legislation through the House, we cannot guarantee them any facilities whatsoever, either on the Finance Bill or the Supplies and Services Bill, despite whatever constitutional embarrassments may follow. We must not allow ourselves to be driven in this way.
We are told that we are to have two more exceedingly contentious Bills—those dealing with steel and transport. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously believe that he will get those Bills? We shall not abandon our Parliamentary rights in order to facilitate them. We shall exercise our rights to the full and seek, in the exercise of them, to avoid coming into collision with the Chair.
I seriously suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government ought to reconsider the whole of their legislative programme. They ought to abandon

2787
certain Bills uncongenial to the Opposition. I know that it is difficult for the Government, but actually the Opposition are in charge of the situation and not the Government. The Opposition are in possession of the support of the country. Bedford, I understand, has just been won. There is nothing that can do more damage to Parliament than for a Government which is in a minority in the country at the Election—which is now a heavy minority—to force legislation through for which they not only have no mandate but which is directly the opposite of what they told the country at the Election.
If Parliament is so much out of tune with what the country wants, if the Government of the day force through legislation so demonstrably against the wishes of the vast majority of the electorate, how is it possible for us continually to advise the industrial masses that they ought not to use industrial action in order to prevent legislation they do not like?
The only weapon in our armoury when we go to meetings in our constituencies and in other parts of the country, the only way to influence the trade union masses not to exercise their power to influence legislation, is when there is reciprocity between what happens here and what happens outside. Where there is no reciprocity, the Government dig a chasm between Parliament and the people, and it does Parliament a grave injustice.
5.32 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and myself are grateful for the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). It was our earnest desire that we should take this opportunity of discussing seriously the state of business in the House and of trying to face up to the implications of the situation. I deplore that on a discussion of this importance so few Members of the Government have thought fit to be here. At one stage there were fewer than 10 and they had to be recalled by a Count to reconsider the whole state of Parliamentary business on this Motion.
I say bluntly, and at once, that in the main the Government have been given every possible assistance by the Opposi-
2788
tion since this Session started. If anyone wishes to challenge that, I am prepared to give chapter and verse to substantiate my suggestion. We may have come here with some bitter feelings after the events of the last Parliament, when some of our Members were sent to the grave by the deliberate policy of collective obstruction which was advertised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), at a deliberate attempt to harass people to death or illness.
The casualties which they can count were three dead, about six permanently broken and a good many people ruined in their business. We tried to dismiss that bitterness from our hearts, and tried to remember that Parliament must go on, that a Government must govern and that the necessary measures must be taken. I should like to quote some observations made by the present Minister of Housing and Local Government in a debate on the Address, when the question of Christmas Adjournment was under discussion. Personally, I completely approve of them. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"Many people seem to believe that a well thought-out and constructive policy means a large number of complicated Bills to be passed into law. … Parliament has, of course, three main purposes: first, to vote supplies; second, to deal with legislation, mainly that put forward by the Government of the day; but third, and of equal importance, what Mr. Asquith used to call 'the Grand request of the Nation.' The right hon. Gentleman calls it 'advice and counsel,' and I think all of us know what it means. It means chivvying the Minister."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 839–40.]
I do not agree with the last sentence, and we have not tried to do that. But I agree that this is one of the occasions when we are partaking in part of the Grand inquest of the Nation," when we are considering means and methods and the general position.
Hon. Members are being put under a very great strain by the Leader of the House, but very little reference has been made to the strain that is being caused to the staff of the House, perhaps the most severe of all being that caused to the limited staff upstairs who have to record the long hours of debate and transcribe them as the business proceeds. I say quite seriously that the Leader of the House has treated the House with constant discourtesy over the last three or four months.

2789
I can quote as an appropriate example the business announced for the first day after the resumption, assuming that this Motion is carried. Let us consider the business as it has been announced for that one day which, after all, is the one day that will be under discussion if the Amendment is moved. The right hon. Gentleman said that he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Empire Settlement Bill. That Bill introduces matters of profound importance. Not only is it an important Bill, but it is one in connection with which an Amendment for rejection was tabled some days ago by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is an almost unprecedented occurrence that, although I think the initiative came from hon. Members supporting the Government, they have on the Order Paper the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally).
The Leader of the House says that he hopes to get that business through by seven o'clock. That means that there will be approximately three hours' debate, after allowing for the possibility of Private Notice Questions, and so on, to discuss a Bill and an Amendment for its rejection. That is treating the House with contempt. When one says anything like that to the right hon. Gentleman he says, "I am only expressing the hope." Also, he proposes to take the Committee stage of the Money Resolution, and he expects to get that by seven o'clock.
Then he proposes to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Customs and Excise Bill. I take a lot of notice of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch, who, I am sure, takes just as much notice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who will make the principal decision. But I am by no means certain that he is in a position to give an undertaking about this exceedingly important Bill.
Mr. Bing: Perhaps I was discourteous to the House. I wanted to intimate that, having read the Report of the Select Committee which advocates that the changes we have suggested would be better made in the Finance Bill, it might be more convenient for everyone concerned to choose the occasion of the Finance Bill rather than this Bill. This would facilitate the putting down of
2790
Amendments if we are to allow the Bill to go through. Of course, it is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition and not for me.
Mr. Hale: It is a matter for all of us to consider very carefully. It is a matter for consideration and discussion, possibly through the usual channels. Certainly, so far as we know, no such intimation has been given to the Leader of the House about this Bill of 300 pages which is the second item on the first day after the resumption. Then there is the Second Reading of the New Towns Bill, which is to be taken on the same day. Surely we are entitled to say that this is treating the House with absolute contempt. There is a programme here which could not conveniently be put through in fewer than three days.
Then there is a Scottish Motion and, to conclude, there is also on this one day the Report and Third Reading of the Electricity Supply (Meters) Bill. That has aroused considerable comment, and it may well be the subject of more comment because of the public indignation about the general position with regard to electricity meters. That is the programme for the first day after the proposed Adjournment.
I should like to refer to what happened last week and on a previous occasion. I was in the House yesterday for 15 hours waiting for the discussion on the draft Fertilisers Order which was exempted business which could be taken after the Motion to report Progress on the Health Service Bill. I observed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture sitting here through the many hours, anticipating that something would happen, perhaps a little tremulous, looking like a middleweight boxer being thrust into the ring for the first time in a heavyweight bout.
But what happened? Without any explanation to the House, the Adjournment was moved at the end of 15 hours' waiting and the other business was put off to some future date. It has happened before. I have complained about it. There was a Bill before the House for Second Reading—the Marine and Aviation Insurance Bill—a Bill of great importance and fascination, with its questions of bottomry and barratry, in which my hon. Friends have constantly shown an interest.
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is going beyond the scope of a Motion about the Easter Adjournment when he introduces questions of bottomry and barratry.
Mr. Hale: Then I will not pursue that, Sir.
The point I was making was that that Second Reading was down for debate some days ago, during the progress on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. At the end of the discussion of that Bill, the Patronage Secretary rose and suddenly moved the Adjournment of the House without any explanation. The other Bill was never called and has never been called to this day.
We are in a state of muddle, muddle, muddle, in which there seems to be a complete lack of purpose from day to day, with hon. Members who try to take a serious part in the affairs of the House being completely and constantly deprived of a reasonable opportunity of doing so. The Marine and Aviation Insurance Bill will inevitably involve consideration of the whole question of National Insurance in which we, on this side of the House, have taken a very profound interest. Obviously, it is matter of very great importance and it may be that with the Government's programme in this congested state the right hon. Gentleman thought it right to put that Bill back until after the discussion of the Finance Bill.
It may be right to do that, but I suggest that he should tell us what he is going to put back. The very first Bill on the Order Paper in this Session was the British Museum Bill. That Bill appeared on the Order Paper for something like 50 consecutive Parliamentary days. A Motion for the rejection of that Bill appeared on the Order Paper for the same number of days, in the names of three hon. Members opposite. We have sought, with questions about business on Thursdays, to find out what was the Government's intention with regard to that Measure; but there has been no information.
There have been many similar examples. There is the very important Currency and Banknotes Bill which seeks to fix the fiduciary issue at a normal figure of £1,400 million; but before it is brought to the House for Second Reading, the Treasury have increased that
2792
figure to £1,450 million. Nemesis has overtaken that Bill before it has had a Parliamentary birth.
One could go on quoting examples, but I do not want to weary the House. My learned Friend has made out what I think is a very profound case in this matter, and my right hon. Friend, the Member for Ebbw Vale has emphasised it. Everyone who values the traditions of the House and the freedom of debate and discussion must be facing the present Parliamentary situation with a genuine apprehension for the liberties, decencies and virtues of political life.
We have never been vouchsafed a single word from the right hon. Gentleman as to what he proposes to do to try to ease this situation. I know that I am speaking only for myself, but I feel certain that my hon. and right hon. Friends would agree that we should always be prepared to co-operate if we could have an early assurance that this minority Government, lacking the support of the country—and day by day receiving less support—would not try to introduce the Steel Bill, which will destroy a great industry and which is to be introduced by a right hon. Gentleman who pleaded, two years ago, that the uncertainty hanging over the steel industry would affect production, prosperity and our national well being.
If we could have an assurance that these controversial Measures for which the Government have no mandate, because they never pooled the majority of votes of the people—would be dropped, we should be most happy to spend the time of the House as it can usefully be spent in the intelligent discussion of small Measures and the passing of the necessary legislation, and keep the Government in office until the vengeance of the country descends upon them.
Earlier, I said that we have not tried to obstruct the Government. I think that something like 500 Statutory Instruments have been introduced during the life of this Government. Only in a few cases have we tabled a Prayer and only once have we taken it to a vote. We have normally taken two or three together, to facilitate business. The discussions that have taken place late into the evening appear recently to have been terminated by the right hon. Gentleman moving the adjournment of the debate when the last bus has gone,

2793
in a desire to cause the maximum amount of inconvenience to hon. Members on this side of the House. I wish he would face up to it and say whether that is his intention and purpose, because it is difficult to interpret it in any other way.
There was a proposal to extend the vacation on the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess; we now have a proposal on the Adjournment for the Easter Recess which seeks to restrict the vacation. When it was suggested that we should adjourn for seven and a half weeks at Christmas, and when one hon. Member after another got up and warned the Government that they were wasting Parliamentary time at a most difficult time of the year, a General Election having just taken place, and when we pleaded with them not to waste all this time, the only argument they put forward was, "We must have time to think."
Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that they have no more to think about now than they had then? Is there not as much need for thought at the moment, with crisis after crisis; with the Government's lack of support in the country; with unemployment and distress growing in Lancashire; with announcement after announcement that menaces our security, including the further New Zealand cut in British car imports announced today? Have they not something to think about, and would it not be wise for them to start thinking? I have tried not to be discourteous to anybody, but the House will remember that the original intention was that the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) should be Leader of the House. But it was found that his greater pre-occupation and responsibility as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would make it difficult for him to discharge this exacting duty at that time.
I think the time has come to say that the present Leader of the House cannot carry out both his jobs with justice to the House. With respect, he has not done it with justice to the House. In the last few days it has become the leadership of the Gadarene swine, and it may have some of the same results. I plead with him to consider the situation, because all those who are interested in the maintenance of the decencies of Parliamentary life deplore the fact that we are getting into this situation.
2794
I do not want to prolong this discussion, because I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to make contributions to this important debate; but I hope that, as a result of this discussion, both parties will consider the Parliamentary programme and what action can be taken to deal with it. It is abundantly clear that the Steel Bill must go. It is abundantly clear that the Transport Bill must go. I plead that this foolish and controversial National Health Service Bill, with its penalties on the crippled, on the halt and the maimed and on the blind should go, too.
I ask the Government to consider it in that light. I am perfectly certain, knowing the point of view of my hon. and right hon. Friends, that if that were done every effort would be made to try to facilitate the reasonably necessary business of the House so that we would have a chance of considering the vital measures that need fair and profound consideration.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I only rise because up to this stage in the debate we have not had any word from the Leader of the House. I suspect that he does not realise that he, with other of his right hon. Friends, are on their knees before us in the House this evening. They are totally incapable of passing the legislation which they promised during the General Election, and they are incapable of passing the legislation which they promised their own back benchers in the Gracious Speech from the Throne.
It has taken only six months for the people of this country to give their verdict on the present Government in the county council elections, and it has taken about as long for back benchers opposite to give their opinion on the promises made by their Front Bench in the Gracious Speech. It is not without significance that they should have put down Motions seeking to force early de-nationalisation on the Government Front Bench.
The only thing that surprises me is that hon. Members opposite, who were parties to one of the greatest frauds in political history in the General Election, should have retained a touching confidence in their own Front Bench when it comes to putting forward legislation promised by that Front Bench, because

2795
it is now true that nothing of that kind can be introduced in the present situation.
The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has done a careful calculation of the time it would take to pass the legislation at present before the House, and I have in my hand all the outstanding Government Bills which have already been introduced this Session. There are 24 such Bills, and they amount to 575 Clauses. Allowing for progress to be no faster than that we are making on the National Health Service Bill, and allowing for 100 sitting days for legislation in the year, it could take 23 years to pass them—23 years at the present rate, but if the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch were to decide to filibuster it might be a great deal longer.
The Leader of the House would be 82. His Parliamentary-Secretary would be 61. The Prime Minister would be 101. He might be dreaming of forming a new Government, but I suspect that he would be dealing with "the whips" in another place. I have no reason to object. I shall be only 50, the youngest Member of this House, and perfectly willing to devote the next 23 years to its business.
Of course, the Government can use the Closure. They have used the Closure in the past, but if they wish to use the Closure, I suggest they appoint as Patronage Secretary a man with St. Vitus's dance in the hope that it will get through on the nod. I am making no reflection on the Chair for accepting the Closure because, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have said, the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman are in a very difficult situation when business has to be pressed through.
I would say in conclusion that, in effect, the power of promoting legislation no longer lies with the Government Front Bench. We are willing to co-operate with them in introducing Measures which are beneficial for the general administration of the country. Indeed, in the case of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill we did a very constructive piece of work by putting down Amendments and by forcing a Select Committee on a reluctant Front Bench, and we are quite willing to do that sort of work in the future, because hon. Members on this side of the House will not tolerate class
2796
measures imposed by a party which has no majority in the country.
The right hon. Gentleman is in a very difficult position. If he gets up now and tells us that a lot of the Measures he is piloting through are to be dropped, so much the better; if he does not, the pilot who is piloting them through will be dropped—which will be so much the worse for him—because the Front Bench opposite and the Leader of the House cannot get their business through. We are discussing this Motion for the Adjournment of the House for Easter to get an assurance from the Government as to what are their intentions.
I beg to move the Amendment that stands—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I bow to the wishes of hon. Members on this side of the House, and I hope that other hon. Members will rise in the course of this debate to try to elicit from the Leader of the House some assurance as to what are his intentions.
5.56 p.m.
Miss Jennie Lee: I hesitate to believe that arguments which have been put forward from this side of the House took the Leader of the Government and hon Members opposite by surprise. I think we may begin by assuming that hon. Members opposite have had many anxious hours trying to decide their duty to their party, their duty to their Government and how they can conduct the business of this place in the next month.
The decision is probably being made at this moment not here but in a room upstairs. It is common knowledge that there are considerable differences of opinion inside the ranks of the Tory Party. I should be the last person to chide them on that score. There are also marked differences in the ranks of my party, and neither side I hope will ever apologise for that situation. We are not living in a dictatorship country. We do not admire machine politics, and we think that the rights of the individual Member of Parliament must be respected within parties as well as within this House.
I repeat that the future of this country is probably being decided in a Committee Room upstairs—No. 10, I am informed—and I say that for these reasons: the party opposite is now in a dilemma. It cannot run away from the knowledge that

2797
it has opposition in the country and, therefore, in this House is much weaker than it was at the time of the General Election. It also cannot run away from the knowledge that opinion in the country and in this House is moving in a progressive direction.
This is part of the dilemma of hon. Members opposite. Some of us can not only sympathise, we can understand, because we have had the experience between 1945 and 1950 of a Labour Government with sufficient authority both within Parliament and in the country to go ahead with great vigour in carrying out our own Socialist policy. We had to live through a Parliamentary situation following the Election of 1950 in which our majority in this House was gravely curtailed and in which support in the country for hon. Members opposite had grown, and we were faced with the dilemma of how we could conduct the business of Parliament?
There were some of us who wanted in that difficult Parliamentary situation for us to go ahead as vigorously as between 1945 and 1950 with our own Socialist policy and our promises to the electors. That was our wish, and we faced the logic of that wish. We impressed upon the leaders of our own party that they must quickly go to the country once again to strengthen their majority. It was never our case that we should force through an unwilling House of Commons, against an unprepared public opinion, legislation which it did not wish to have.
The leader of my party decided that it was better to carry on a bit longer with, what has already been suggested the Government should now do, in the main, standstill legislation and amending legislation rather than seeking to go further ahead, as our mandate entitled us to do.
That was the decision our party made. It was a perfectly proper and legitimate one. Inside our own ranks we had our say. The Left lost and the Right won. We had to postpone for a time the occasions when we could sustain Measures like an entirely new Health Service and the further expansion of national ownership and control which is essential if we are to safeguard our people's interests.
I suggest to the Leader of the House that his party is now in exactly the same dilemma as we were, the only trouble
2798
being that they are going in the opposite direction. Some of us wanted to go a bit further and faster Left but the balance within our party and within this House did not at that time enable us to do so.
It is quite clear from the discussions now going on upstairs, of which we have a certain knowledge, that there are very anxious and very ardent extreme Right Wing elements in the party opposite who are pressing on the Government that it is their duty to de-nationalise steel and to make further raids on the Health Service. If they can attack the cripples, they can no doubt exert their ingenuity to find other classes to be attacked.
But if inside the Tory Party the Right wins, the logic of that is surely an immediate General Election. There was no mandate, even at the last General Election, for the Measures which are now being put forward by the Government, and there is less mandate for them now. On the other hand, if the right wing of the Tory Party, and those who are seeking not to go as fast in their retreat as the others who would compromise on issues like the Health Service, steel and others about which my hon. Friends and I care so particularly, lose upstairs, then the Government are entitled to have a longer life, for one can mark time on that basis.
But what is utterly intolerable is for the Government to fail to make up its mind about either of those two quite clear positions. I say to the Government: go to the country and ask for a mandate to retreat further, or attempt to stand still, and we will send you to the country soon enough. What we certainly cannot have day after day and year after year is the sort of thing that is happening now. An hon. Member apparently looked forward to another 23 years in which to carry out the Government's legislation. I do not accept that for obvious reasons.
We can mark time day after day, and then in a month or two's time we shall find every Tory newspaper in the country screaming that the Socialists are bringing Parliamentary Government into contempt. Therefore, let us be explicit, even to the point of repeating ourselves, so that there may be a hope that the substance of this point will be clear not only to Parliament but to the country.
If the Government continue with their Bill to impose further health charges they

2799
are doing it knowingly—we are telling them plainly enough—and they are using up Parliamentary time in such a way that it is deliberately creating a situation in which they cannot get the Finance Bill through in time. Is that the Government's intention? Are the Government seeking to work a fast trick by expanding the time taken up by legislation to which we cannot agree and on which we must express our point of view and then blackmailing us as they did in the case of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act?
Fair and honourable warning has been given to the House of Commons. The respect that we all give to the Chair is very precious, and I believe that it is most precious to the poorest people in the country. There are elements on the benches opposite and among their supporters outside whom we must watch very carefully indeed. We see more than a sign of impatience on their part. This being a Parliamentary democracy, they must at least come and justify in daylight what they propose to do.
Therefore, let us be quite clear that if the Government go ahead with the health charges legislation and other such legislation they are deliberately and knowingly, with all the facts brought to their attention, creating a situation in which either they cannot get the Finance Bill and other essential legislation in time or they are blackmailing us to surrender our right to our own point of view and the point of view of our constituents in order to facilitate them in carrying out a reactionary programme which they have a diminishing right to do either in terms of the Parliamentary situation or the mood of the country.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Crookshank.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Swingler: On a point of order. Before the Minister replies, Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance about the course of the debate? I wish to ask you if you would give the House an assurance that you will not accept a Motion for the Closure until my hon. Friends have had an opportunity to move their Amendment?
Mr. Speaker: I can give no such assurance.
Mr. Crookshank rose—
Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: I have already given ample opportunity to speak to all hon. Members whose names were put to the Amendment, and I cannot go further.
Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, by the accident of whom your eye happened to light upon, about which I make no complaint, you have called hon. Friends of mine who have ranged very widely over the general Motion, quite properly within the rules of order, and have initiated a very important and interesting general debate on the Government programme, and so on. That is the general debate to which, I take it, the Leader of the House is now about to reply. But there has so far been not one single speech addressed to the much more limited point raised in the Amendment proposing to change the actual date from Monday to Tuesday. I and, no doubt, other hon. Members had prepared speeches addressing ourselves to that limited point, and I feel that it would be unfortunate if the debate were to be artificially curtailed before that quite different aspect of it could be aired.
Mr. Speaker: The fact that no reference has been made to the alternative date in the Amendment can hardly be blamed upon me, because I have called the three hon. Members whose names were put to the Amendment.
Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. When you were not in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, a discussion took place while my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) was speaking about the effect that the moving of the Amendment would have in narrowing the breadth of the debate, and as a matter of courtesy and to provide the Leader of the House with an opportunity to reply on the broader question, my hon. and learned Friend deliberately did not move the Amendment—
Mr. Hale: And said so.
Mr. Paget: —and said so; and said so for that reason. What he also did was to ask me to do that for him. I have risen on every occasion to try to catch the eye of the Chair when the Leader of the

2801
House did not take the opportunity of doing so, but I have been unsuccessful in catching the eye of the Chair. I should be very short if the opportunity should arise. I do ask that you should not accept a Closure Motion until we have moved this Amendment, which we regard as important and which was not moved in the first place merely as a matter of courtesy.
Mr. Speaker: What I would accept would be a completely formal moving of the Amendment, if that were required, before a Closure.
Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order. I suggest that this would be the wrong moment to do that, because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has explained, it was to leave the Leader of the House free to range over the wider field that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) deliberately refrained from moving the Amendment. Therefore, surely the Amendment would have to be moved and seconded after the Leader of the House has spoken, and surely a few brief remarks in support of it, and explainng its purpose, would be in order.
Mr. Adams: Might I respectfully suggest, Sir, that it would be most unusual to accept the Closure Motion on a debate of this kind and that it might be for the convenience of the House if, after the Leader of the House has spoken, the suggested Amendment should be moved and then voted on, after which we could return to the general debate on the Motion.
Mr. Jack Jones: In support of the claim put forward by my hon. Friend, I should like to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about the forthcoming reply of the Minister. If we do not elicit from him the date when the Steel Bill will be put before the House, could we have your guidance as to how we can know, because we are anxious to have the same time to prepare our defence as was given to the Iron and Steel Federation to prepare theirs.
Mr. Speaker: That is not for me. I have no idea of the intention of Ministers and when they propose to introduce Bills. It would be quite wrong and improper for me to make any remarks on
2802
the Closure Motion when such a Motion is not before the House, but which I shall have to decide at the moment if and when it is moved. I am told that in my absence there has been some misunderstanding about this Motion, and I would not desire to take advantage of a technicality, which I could well do, and prevent a Division on the Amendment. If there has been some misunderstanding I will give every opportunity to hon. Members, if they desire to do so, to move the Amendment formally.
Mr. Adams: Not yet.
Mr. Speaker: At some time I will accept it and put it to the House on the understanding that I do so in order not to risk a prolonged discussion or interfere with the due exercise of my authority as to the Closure if and when it is moved, but to put the matter in a proper and fair perspective. I hope that that solution is acceptable to the House. May I say that if the Amendment were moved now and I were to put the Question, "That 'Monday, the 21st April' stand part of the Question," in my judgment both the original Motion and the Amendment will be before the House. If that suggestion is taken advantage of it can be done in that way.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: May I put this point to you, Mr. Speaker? Am I right in thinking that hon. Members who want to speak on the main Motion will have an opportunity of doing so before the Amendment is moved?
Mr. Speaker: If the Amendment is now moved and I put the Question, "That 'Monday, 21st April,' stand part of the Question," any subsequent speech would be in order if it were on the main Motion or on the Amendment, as both would be before the House.
Mr. Bevan: Do you propose, Sir, to call upon the Leader of the House to make a reply to the general debate, and subsequently at your convenience, Mr. Speaker, call for the Amendment to be moved and seconded, so that we can divide both on the Amendment and the substantive Motion?
Mr. Speaker: If I have an understanding from hon. Members that they will

2803
propose and move the Amendment formally, I am prepared to accept it. Otherwise, I must abide by the rules of order.
6.14 p.m.
Mr. Crookshank: We have had a rather unusual debate and the Opposition have taken this opportunity, which was open to them, to range over a very wide field. Indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) specifically stated that the Amendment was not moved in order that there should be a free range over a very wide field. It falls to me briefly to answer one or two points which were made, and I do not intend to range over a wide field at all. It certainly would be very surprising if any Government of the day took the opportunity on this Motion to discourse at large about the Parliamentary programme which they had in mind in the ensuing months. Hon. Members opposite know that perfectly well and, for all the deep sincerity with which speeches have been made by those who have taken part in the debate, I do not suppose that they expect me to do anything of the kind.
The real point of the Motion and the Amendment is to decide for how long we should adjourn when we depart, as I hope we will, tomorrow and the Government have put down a Motion in a form which says we should return on Monday, 21st April, while others have on the Order Paper a suggestion that we should return on Tuesday on the grounds that, generally, Tuesday is the day on which the Recess ends. The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) said that there was no precedent for what we are proposing, but there he did not conform to the facts. There have been innumerable precedents, both at the Easter and Whitsun Recesses, and, therefore, there is nothing strange about it.
Hon. Members opposite will realise that, through no fault of theirs—perhaps it was difficult for them to do otherwise—in the last two days the Parliamentary business has not been progressing with the speed which had been anticipated. Therefore, the Government came to the conclusion that a day earlier in the week after the Easter Recess was not asking the House as a whole to make any very great
2804
sacrifice of leisure to come back to resume the work which lies ahead. That is the only reason why this Motion has been put down in this form.
As I say, there are plenty of precedents for it, and it has been pointed out that we have to get the business of the Finance Bill through rather earlier this year owing to the fact that the Budget was introduced earlier than usual, which compresses our time rather more than in a normal year. So it is to suit the convenience of the House as a whole that we are asking hon. Members to come back a day earlier.
As for the general questions which were asked and the points which were raised about the affairs of the party on this side of the House, the internal arrangements of the party on that side, whether the local government elections were successful, whether we ought to go to the country now, and this, that and the other thing, these points, while all very interesting, do not constitute a strong argument for resisting the Government's Motion. Now that we have had a considerable discussion and there is other business to embark upon I hope the House will be ready to come to a decision, realising that there is nothing unprecedented in what we are being asked to do. We are merely adopting what I am sure a majority of the House will consider to be commonsense.
Mr. Bevan rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman rise to move the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing)?
Mr. Bevan: I was rising to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House a simple question before he sits down. While it is perfectly true that this is an ordinary Motion, I think he will agree that this is an extraordinary situation. Does he think that he has done himself and the House justice in his perfunctory answer to a debate which has gone on for some time? Does he not think that he has done himself less than justice? If he does, then the sooner he resigns his position the better it will be.
Mr. Crookshank: All I can say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I always try to answer, is that the length of the debate should not necessarily be the governing factor in the length of the

2805
reply. I am quite sure, from the way in which we carry on our discussions in this House, that it would be to the detriment of the House as a whole if speeches from the Government Front Bench were always governed by the length of time taken by the previous debate.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance? Hon. Members know that you are a jealous guardian of the privileges of hon. Members on both sides. We also know that the Leader of the House is the servant of the House while acting in that capacity. We also know that on another occasion you rightly said that you cannot compel a Minister to reply to any question that is put. That we understand, but as the Leader of the House is the servant of the House, and as his capacity is to lead the House, can you advise us as to what procedure we can adopt to maintain the privileges of hon. Members and to see that the Leader of the House treats the House with courtesy and deals with the questions raised when a debate of this importance takes place?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I have known many Leaders of the House give answers which did not seem satisfactory to Members of the Opposition. Does the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) rise to move the Amendment?
6.21 p.m.
Mr. Paget: I beg to move to leave out "Monday 21st,"and to insert "Tuesday 22nd."
Mr. Speaker: Does any hon. Member second that?
Mr. Driberg: I beg to second the Amendment.
May I make a few observations in doing so, Mr. Speaker? I will be quite brief but, after all, we have had no debate on the narrower point of whether the date should be a day later than the date suggested by the Government.
By moving the original Motion, I take it that the Prime Minister exhausted his right to speak in this debate, but I am sure that if he were to return to the House to give a fuller and perhaps more courteous reply to the debate than the Leader of the House has given, you, Mr. Speaker, would allow him to do so, by
2806
the leave of the House. It is a pity that the Prime Minister thought fit to remove himself immediately after moving what is, after all, his own Motion, which has led to quite an important debate. Now, however, we turn to the narrower issue of whether the date should be Tuesday, 22nd April, instead of Monday, 21st. I want to advance, briefly, two reasons why that later date should be accepted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), referred to the hard work and the long hours that hon. Members—and not least the staff of the House—have put in, and of their need for a reasonable break at Easter. I would also refer to the great strain there must be on Members of the Government themselves, on the Ministers. As we can see, they are physically and mentally tired men. They are, one might say, punch-drunk—punch-drunk as a result of the county council election results and as a result of having had a taste of effective opposition from this side of the House.
On a somewhat similar occasion in 1944, in war-time, the then Leader of the House who was then, as he is now, the Foreign Secretary, referred to the very point I am making. He was pleading for an Adjournment until a Tuesday instead of coming back on a Monday. He said that Ministers:
"… are having quite as heavy burdens at this moment as at any time during the war. Monday is the one day which we have when we are able to concentrate upon our Ministerial duties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1944: Vol. 406, c. 207.]
Although it may be thought in retrospect that those were very burdensome days, we all know that the duties of a Minister in an ordinary Department are somewhat heavier in peace-time and at a time of reconstruction than they are in war-time, when, necessarily, all the national effort is concentrated on the one purpose of winning the war: perhaps the Ministers in the Service Departments had exceptionally heavy responsibilities then, but other Ministers were not so busy.
Now I will turn to one other point, equally briefly, so as not to infringe the spirit of your appeal, Mr. Speaker. I object very much to the habit some of us have and, still more, which some newspapers have, of referring to Recesses of this House as holidays. As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) fell into this bad habit this afternoon, when he re-

2807
ferred to the coming Easter "holiday," and I must rebuke him for doing so. The hon. Member for Oldham, West, referred to it as a "vacation." This may be true of Recesses enjoyed by hon. Members who represent compact urban constituencies. It is certainly not true of hon. Members who represent rural county seats. If I may, I want to quote from an eloquent speech made on another similar occasion in 1944—
Mr. Hale: I hope my hon. Friend will let me make a personal explanation. I represent an industrial seat with 20,000 unemployed, which is a substantial responsibility, but I shall be opening a discussion on world development in the south of France on Easter Monday and shall be continuing it throughout Easter.
Mr. Driberg: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is a veritable Atlas in having the weight of the whole world upon his shoulders and not only the serious constituency responsibilities to which he has referred. I was about to quote from a speech by the then hon. Member for The Wrekin, now the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate), who was lodging a similar objection to the use of the word "holiday." He said:
"… county Members—have very large areas to cover and very large numbers of people who wish to see them before we embark on this tremendous programme of legislation which is coming before this House. So far as I am concerned, and I know many other county Members who reside in their constituencies are in the same boat, the time allowed by our being recalled here on 16th January is quite insufficient for the purpose of familiarising ourselves with the numerous problems which our constituents wish to place before us. We are often told that this House … is out of touch with the electorate. Surely one of the few occasions when we can hope to remedy that is during the Parliamentary Recess—not the Parliamentary holiday—when we get an opportunity of meeting constituents who wish to see us and discuss a variety of problems with us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 1815.]
That is a cogent expression of a real and valid argument for accepting the later rather than the earlier date. Even if it is only one day later, it compensates for Easter Monday which is, I suppose, a dies non for most hon. Members, so far as constituency work is concerned. It will give them one clear week in which to meet their constituents—a week in which hon. and right hon. Members opposite can learn how
2808
far, indeed, they are out of touch with the mood and opinion of the electors of the nation.
Finally, it is obviously highly desirable that they should be away from Westminster and in places where they can do somewhat less harm than they can do here. The sooner the feeble and obsolescent gang of nonentities and half-wits and City slickers who form Her Majesty's Government today—an alliance, indeed, of the sheep and the goats—go to the country for good and stay there, in the disgraceful limbo to which history will relegate them, the better for all of us.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to propose the Question. The Question is, "That ' Monday, 21st' stand part of the Question."
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 House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. George Porter(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to call attention to the fact that when you called, "Lock the doors," certain Members on the Government side interfered with the attendant who was on duty at the door.
Mr. Speaker: I did not see that.
Mr. Porter: Further to that point of order. I ask for a report.
Mr. Speaker: Will the Assistant-Serjeant at Arms report? I did not see it.
The Assistant-Serjeant at Arms: I believe, Sir, that one or two hon. Members got through the door after your direction, "Lock the doors."
Mr. Speaker: The Division must start again. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think so. There appears to have been some irregularity about this Division.
Mr. A. Woodburn(seated and covered): As I came out of the Division Lobby, Mr. Speaker, I witnessed some rather violent scenes. It may be on that

2809
account that it is suggested that you might inquire into what happened at the entrance to the Lobby. There was certainly a good deal of violent jostling and the attendant seemed to be in some danger of personal injury.
Mr. Speaker: I did not observe anything myself. I shall find out about it. If there is any question of an irregularity in the Division, I shall have to put the Question again. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes.
Mr. I. Mikardo(seated and covered): Further to that point of order. Surely, with respect, the only effect of your putting the Question again, Mr. Speaker, is to give advantage to those very Members who acted in an irregular manner by pushing into the Division Lobby after you had called, "Lock the doors." Surely, one should not give advantage to Members who were guilty of an irregularity.
Mr. Speaker: The report I received from the Assistant-Serjeant at Arms was that certain Members moved into the Lobby—[An HON. MEMBER: "One Member."]—after the order to lock the doors was given. That is irregular. They have no business to go there after the order. I have to put the Question—
Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas(seated and covered): Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker would not the effect of giving the Division again be merely to count the numbers again? On that occasion, I saw one Member, at least, excluded from the Lobby, although he tried to get in, whereas to call the Division again would enable him to vote. Therefore, I submit, with respect, that it does not cure the position—it makes it worse, to have another Division.
Mr. Speaker: The result in a Division is no concern of mine at all. It has been pointed out to me by an hon. Member that an irregularity has taken place in a Division. The consequences of the Division are no concern of mine.
Mr. Woodburn(seated and covered): May I, with respect, suggest that it would be appropriate that the Members who thus disobeyed the customary procedure of the House should have their votes not counted?
Mr. Speaker: As we have made a mess of that Division, we shall have to start again. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 260.

Division No. 79.]

AYES

[6.40 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

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

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

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

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Donner, P. W.

Alport, C. J. M.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Drewe, C.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

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

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Bullard, D. G.

Duthie, W. S.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

Arbuthnot, John

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Burden, F. F. A.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Erroll, F. J.

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

Carson, Hon. E.

Fell, A.

Baker, P. A. D.

Cary, Sir Robert

Finlay, Graeme

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Channon, H.

Fisher, Nigel

Baldwin, A. E.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Banks, Col. C.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Barber, A. P. L.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Fort, R.

Baxter, A. B.

Cole, Norman

Foster, John

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Colegate, W. A.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lansdale)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Gage, C. H.

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

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)

Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Cranborne, Viscount

Gammans, L. D.

Bennett, William (Woodside)

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

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Birch, Nigel

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

Bishop, F. P.

Crouch, R. F.

Glyn, Sir Ralph

Black, C. W.

Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

Godber, J. B.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Bossom, A. C.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Gough, C. F. H.

Bowen, E. R.

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh. S.)

Gower, H. R.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Davidson, Viscountess

Graham, Sir Fergus

Boyle, Sir Edward

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Braine, B. R.

Deedes, W. F.

Grimond, J.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Digby, S. Wingfield

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

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

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Harden, J. R. E.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Maclean, Fitzroy

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

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

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Scott, R. Donald

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

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

Shepherd, William

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Hay, John

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Heald, Sir Lionel

Markham, Major S. F.

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Higgs, J. M. C.

Marples, A. E.

Snadden, W. McN.

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Soames, Capt. C.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Maude, Angus

Spier, R. M.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Maudling, R.

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

Holland-Martin, C. J.

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

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Hollis, M. C.

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Mellor, Sir John

Stevens, G. P.

Hope, Lord John

Molson, A. H. E.

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

Hopkinson, Henry

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Horobin, I. M.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Storey, S.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Nicholls, Harmar

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Studholme, H. G.

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

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Summers, G. S.

Hurd, A. R.

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Sutcliffe, H.

Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

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

Nugent, G. R. H.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Nutting, Anthony

Teeling, W.

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

Oakshott, H. D.

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

Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

Odey, G. W.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Jennings, R.

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

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

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

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

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

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Kaberry, D.

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

Tilney, John

Keeling, Sir Edward

Osborne, C.

Touche, G. C.

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Partridge, E.

Turner, H. F. L.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

Turton, R. H.

Lambton, Viscount

Perkins, W. R. D.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Pato, Brig. C. H. M.

Vane, W. M. F.

Leather, E. H. C.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

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

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Vosper, D. F.

Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

Pitman, I. J.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

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

Powell, J. Enoch

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Lindsay, Martin

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Linstead, H. N.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Profumo, J. D.

Watkinson, H. A.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Raikes, H. V.

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Rayner, Brig. R.

Wellwood, W.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Redmayne, M.

White, Baker, (Canterbury)

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Low, A. R. W.

Renton, D. L. M.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Robertson, Sir David

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Wills, G.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Robson-Brown, W.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

McAdden, S. J.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Wood, Hon. R.

McCallum, Major D.

Roper, Sir Harold

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

Russell, R. S.

Mr. Butcher and Mr. Heath

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Bing, G. H. C.

Carmichael, J.

Adams, Richard

Blackburn, F.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Albu, A. H.

Blenkinsop, A.

Champion, A. J.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Blyton, W. R.

Chapman, W. D.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Boardman, H.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Clunie, J.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Bowden, H. W.

Cocks, F. S.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Bowles, F. G.

Coldrick, W.

Awbery, S. S.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Collick, P. H.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Brockway, A. F.

Cook, T. F.

Baird, J.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Balfour, A.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Cove, W. G.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Bence, C. R.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Crosland, C. A. R.

Benn, Wedgwood

Burke, W. A.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Benson, G.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Beswick, F.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

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

Callaghan, L. J.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

2812

2813

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Rhodes, H.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Richards, R.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S).

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Deer, G.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Delargy, H. J.

Keenan, W.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Donnelly, D. L.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Ross, William

Driberg, T. E. N.

King, Dr. H. M.

Royle, C.

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

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

Edelman, M.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Lewis, Arthur

Short, E. W.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Logan, D. G.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

MacColl, J. E.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

McGhee, H. G.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Ewart, R.

McInnes, J.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Fernyhough, E.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Snow, J. W.

Field, W. J.

McLeavy, F.

Sorensen, R. W.

Fienburgh, W.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Finch, H. J.

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Sparks, J. A.

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Steele, T.

Follick, M.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Foot, M. M.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Forman, J. C.

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

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Gaiskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Manuel, A. C.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Gibson, C. W.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Glanville, James

Mayhew, C. P.

Swingler, S. T.

Gooch, E. G.

Mellish, R. J.

Sylvester, G. O.

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

Messer, F.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Mikardo, Ian

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

Mitchison, G. R.

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Monslow, W.

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Grey, C. F.

Moody, A. S.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Morley, R.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Thurtle, Ernest

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

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

Timmons, J.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mort, D. L.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

Moyle, A.

Tomney, F.

Hamilton, W. W.

Mulley, F. W.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Hannan, W.

Nally, W.

Viant, S. P.

Hardy, E. A.

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

Watkins, T. E.

Hargreaves, A.

O'Brien, T.

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

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Oliver, G. H.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Hastings, S.

O'Neill, M. (Mid-Ulster)

Wells, William (Walsall)

Hayman, F. H.

Orbach, M.

West, D. G.

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

Oswald, T.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

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

Padley, W. E.

While, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Herbison, Miss M.

Paget, R. T.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

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

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Hobson, C. R.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Holman, P.

Pannell, Charles

Wilkins, W. A.

Houghton, Douglas

Pargiter, G. A.

Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

Hoy, J. H.

Parker, J.

Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

Hubbard, T. F.

Paton, J.

Williams, David (Neath)

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Pearson, A.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Peart, T. F.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Hynd, H, (Accrington)

Popplewell, E.

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

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Porter, G.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Proctor, W. T.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Pryde, D. J.

Wyatt, W. L.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Yates, V. F.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Rankin, John

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

Reeves, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wigg.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Mr. Dryden Brook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a previous occasion when an incident such as this happened, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) was involved, your predecessor allowed the Division to count, but called upon the name of my right hon. Friend to be expunged from the record, and also demanded that he appear at the Table
2814
and apologise for his action. I would like to ask for your Ruling on this similar incident, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: I remember the incident to which the hon. Member has referred quite clearly, but I think that this one was different. It was reported to me that there had been an irregularity in that certain hon. Members had forced their

2815
way into the Lobby after the attendants were ordered to lock the doors. I was unable to determine how that had happened, and in the circumstances I judged that the only course open to me was to declare the Division invalid and to have a new one.
Mr. Brook: My memory of the incident which I have related is that it was exactly similar to the incident today. The name of my right hon. Friend was obtained from the attendant at the door through which he passed. The same circumstances have occurred today, and I ask that you take into consideration the Ruling of your predecessor.
Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point of order. I personally witnessed a good deal of violent jostling, in which it was clear that the attendant was in danger of being injured. I saw one hon. Member who weighs at least 16 stone being thrown back some yards. That could not have happened in any ordinary decorous procedure in the Lobby. I think, therefore, with respect, that it would be desirable that you should at least inquire into the facts and deal with them when you find them.
Mr. Speaker: I have every intention of inquiring into the facts. I certainly will do so. But at the moment when my attention was drawn to the matter I had no option but to act as I did. In answer to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. D. Brook), I would say that I well remember the incident to which he has referred, when the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) was involved. On that occasion the point was raised in the course of the Division. It was a point of order, and the right hon. Gentleman was named by the hon. Member who brought the incident to the notice of Mr. Speaker. On this occasion I had no such particularity afforded to me. All I had was a report of an irregularity. I shall certainly inquire into the matter and make sure that if there has been any roughness towards the attendant the hon. Members responsible for it incur my severe displeasure and that of the House.
Mr. R. R. Stokes: On a point of clarity, Sir. May I say there was no roughness in my case? It was complete inadvertence. The door was half open, I pushed through the door, and, unfortunately, the attendant fell over.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Further to the point of order. I do not know how definitive your Ruling is, Mr. Speaker, but with great respect I would suggest that the proper course in a case of this kind is to institute an inquiry and if, as a result, it is found that some hon. Members have pushed their way into the Division Lobby quite wrongly, then, at that stage, their names should be expunged from the Division. The proper course, I suggest with great respect, is not to order another Division, the only result is that the hon. Members who pushed their way into the Lobby are counted and those who were excluded are counted.
On this occasion it was brought to your notice while the Division was in progress not only that some hon. Members had succeeded in pushing their way into the Lobby, but that some hon. Members had been successfully excluded from the Lobby. The result now is that those who were excluded are counted in the Division. I suggest, therefore, with respect, that the proper course was the course followed by Mr. Speaker on the previous occasion.
Mr. Speaker: The incidents were quite different. If the hon. and learned Member wishes to criticise my Ruling, he must do it in the regular way.
An Hon. Member: Cheeky man.
Mr. Porter rose—
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: On a point of order—
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have one point of order at a time. Mr. Porter.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I heard an hon. Member opposite refer to me as a "cheeky man." I ask you, Sir, that he be ordered to withdraw that remark, for this reason: that it is the right of hon. Members of the House—and their duty—to raise matters of this kind in order to have the position fully and adequately disposed of to the satisfaction of everyone.
Mr. Speaker: Although I do not approve of the epithet, there is nothing un-Parliamentary about it.
Mr. Porter: With regard to the matter which I was responsible for raising, I wish to put it on record that I took the earliest available opportunity of calling your attention, Sir, not to what I thought was an irregularity with regard to the voting in the Division, but—I thought it was my duty as a Member of this House—to an assault made on one of the attendants. Therefore, whatever action is taken on the question of the voting, or the Division taken in its place, I shall be satisfied if the inquiry I want is made in regard to the assault on the attendant.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. The House has ordered the Question to be put—
Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: I must put the Question. The hon. Member can put his point of order later.
Question put accordingly.
The House divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 257.

Division No. 80.]

AYES

[6.55 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

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

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Alport, C. J. M.

Davidson, Viscountess

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

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

Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Deedes, W. F.

Hurd, A. R.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Digby, S. Wingfield

Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Arbuthnot, John

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

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

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

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

Donner, P. W.

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

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

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

Baker, P. A. D.

Duthie, W. S.

Jennings, R.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Baldwin, A. E.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Banks, Col. C.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Barber, A. P. L.

Erroll, F. J.

Kaberry, D.

Baxter, A. B.

Fell, A.

Keeling, Sir Edward

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Finlay, Graeme

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Fisher, Nigel

Lambert, Hon. G.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Lambton, Viscount

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

Fort, R.

Leather, E. H. C.

Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

Foster, John

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

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

Bennett, William (Woodside)

Gage, C. H.

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

Birch, Nigel

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Lindsay, Martin

Bishop, F. P.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Linstead, H. N.

Black, C. W.

Gammans, L. D.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Bossom, A. C.

George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Bowen, E. R.

Glyn, Sir Ralph

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Godber, J. B.

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Low, A. R. W.

Braine, B. R.

Gough, C. F. H.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Gower, H. R.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

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

Graham, Sir Fergus

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Grimond, J.

McAdden, S. J.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

McCallum, Major D.

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

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Bullard, D. G.

Harden, J. R. E.

Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Burden, F. F. A.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Maclean, Fitzroy

Butcher, H. W.

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

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

MacLeod, John (Rose and Cromarly)

Carson, Hon. E.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Cary, Sir Robert

Hay, John

Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

Channon, H.

Heald, Sir Lionel

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

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Heath, Edward

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Markham, Major S. F.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)

Higgs, J. M. C.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Cole, Norman

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Marples, A. E.

Colegate, W. A.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Maude, Angus

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Maudling, R.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hollis, M. C.

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

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

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hope, Lord John

Mellor, Sir John

Crouch, R. F.

Hopkinson, Henry

Molson, A. H. E.

Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)

Horobin, I. M.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Robson-Brown, W.

Teeling, W.

Nicholls, Harmar

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

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

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Roper, Sir Harold

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Russell, R. S.

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

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Nutting, Anthony

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Tilney, John

Oakshott, H. D.

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

Touche, G. C.

Odey, G. W.

Scott, R. Donald

Turner, H. F. L.

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

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Turton, R. H.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Shepherd, William

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Vane, W. M. F.

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

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

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

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Vosper, D. F.

Osborne, C.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Partridge, E.

Snaddan, W. McN.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Soames, Capt. C.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Perkins, W. R. D.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Speir, R. M.

Watkinson, H. A.

Peyton, J. W. W.

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

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Wellwood, W.

Pitman, I. J.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

White, Baker (Canterbury)

Powell, J. Enoch

Stevens, G. P.

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

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

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Profumo, J. D.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Raikes, H. V.

Storey, S.

Wills, G.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Redmayne, E.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Wood, Hon. R.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Studholme, H. G.

Renton, D. L. M.

Summers, G. S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Sutcliffe, H.

Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

Robertson, Sir David

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Adams, Richard

Cove, W. G.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Albu, A. H.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Crosland, C. A. R.

Hamilton, W. W.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hardy, E. A.

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Hargreaves, A.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Hastings, S.

Awbery, S. S.

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Hayman, F. H.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

Baird, J.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)

Balfour, A.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Herbison, Miss M.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Deer, G.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Bence, C. R.

Delargy, H. J.

Hobson, C. R.

Benn, Wedgwood

Donnelly, D. L.

Holman, P.

Benson, G.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

Beswick, F.

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

Hoy, J. H.

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

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hubbard, T. F.

Bing, G. H. C.

Edelman, M.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Blackburn, F.

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Blenkinsop, A.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Blyton, W. R.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Boardman, H.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Bowden, H. W.

Ewart, R.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Bowles, F. G.

Fernyhough, E.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Field, W. J.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Brockway, A. F.

Fienburgh, W.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Finch, H. J.

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

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Fonick, M.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Foot, M. M.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Burke, W. A.

Forman, J. C.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

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

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Callaghan, L. J.

Gibson, C. W.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Carmichael, J.

Glanville, James

Keenan, W.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Gooch, E. G.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Champion, A. J.

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

King, Dr. H. M.

Chapman, W. D.

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Clunie, J.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Cocks, F. S.

Grey, C. F.

Lewis, Arthur

Coldrick, W.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Collick, P. H.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Logan, D. G.

Cook, T. F.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

MacColl, J. E.

2820

2821

McGhee, H. G.

Peart, T. F.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

McInnes, J.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Popplewell, E.

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

McLeavy, F.

Porter, G.

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Proctor, W. T.

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Pryde, D. J.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Thurtle, Ernest

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Rankin, John

Timmons, J.

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

Reeves, J.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Tomney, F.

Manuel, A. C.

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Rhodes, H.

Viant, S. P.

Mayhew, C. P.

Richards, R.

Watkins, T. E.

Mellish, R. J.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

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

Messer, F.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Mikardo, Ian

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Wells, William (Walsall)

Mitchison, G. R.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

West, D. G.

Monslow, W.

Ross, William

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

Moody, A. S.

Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Morley, R.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Short, E. W.

Wigg, George

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

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Mort, D. L.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Wilkins, W. A.

Moyle, A.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

Mulley, F. W.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

Nally, W.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Williams, David (Neath)

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

Snow, J. W.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

O'Brien, T.

Sorensen, R. W.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Oliver, G. H.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Williams, W. R. (Droyleden)

Oswald, T.

Sparks, J. A.

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

Padley, W. E.

Steele, T.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Paget, N. T.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

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

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Wyatt, W. L.

Pannell, Charles

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Yates, V. F.

Pargiter, G. A.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Parker, J.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Paton, J.

Swingler, S. T.

Mr. Hannan and Mr. Royle.

Pearson, A.

Sylvester, G. O.

Main Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.
Mr. Adams: Now that we have disposed of the Amendment—
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Main Question be now put."
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The main Question has been claimed.
Mr. Adams: On a point of order. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you, having put that Question to the House, decided that further debate was necessary and, therefore, you called me when I stood on my feet. I had just made a start upon my contribution to this debate when the Chief Whip interrupted in a way that I have never seen before in this House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has got the sequence of events wrong. I called the hon. Member to speak, but, a moment or two after he had started to speak, the main Question was claimed by the Patronage Secretary, and I accepted it. [Interruption.] Order. I must put the Question.
Mr. M. Stewart: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker? Many of us, who cannot claim the wide and specialised knowledge of Standing Orders that belongs to some hon. Members, believed it to be the practice of the Chair to grant the Closure Motion if, in the opinion of the Chair, the matter under consideration has been sufficiently discussed.
You called my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Adams), and I took it that, in calling him, it was in your mind that there was still something which you believed he could usefully add to our consideration of this question. At that time, therefore, I think it is doubtful whether you could have thought that the matter had been sufficiently discussed, but about half a minute later, the Closure was moved.
Are we to understand that my hon. Friend, in the course of 30 seconds, had added all that could be added to the consideration of this matter? My hon. Friend has a gift for pithy and pregnant utterance, but I cannot think that, if you were of the opinion before he rose that the matter had not been fully discussed—and if you were not of that opinion, you

2823
would not have called him—30 seconds later, you were—apparently—of the opinion that the matter had been sufficiently discussed, by your acceptance of the Motion for the Closure. Will you please explain that, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: I will explain it. When there is a Question before the House, and an hon. Member rises to address the House, I must call him, unless there is a Motion before me "That the Question be now put." There being no Motion before me claiming the main Question, when the hon. Member rose, I called him, and, when he had been speaking for a while—I do not know the exact period, but it was not long—the main Question was claimed, I have accepted it, and now I must put it. It is not a question whether I think the hon. Member has something to contribute to the debate or not; that has nothing to do with me. The main Question has been claimed, I have accepted the Motion, and now I must put the Question.
The Question is, "That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn till Monday, 21st April."
Mr. Paget: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?
Mr. Paget: You have not collected the voices on the Closure Motion, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Standing Order 29, he will find that it is all arranged for there.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn till Monday, 21st April.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 8th April].
  [Sir AUSTIN HUDSON In the Chair]

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL

    Clause 1.—(CHARGES FOR CERTAIN DRUGS, MEDICINES AND APPLIANCES.)
    7.14 p.m.
    The Temporary Chairman: Before calling the first Amendment, I think I ought to say that I understand it has been agreed to take the first three Amendments, all to page 1, line 9, together, as they all deal with the same subject, although in regard to slightly different circumstances. If necessary, and if it is desired, there can be three Divisions after the debate.
    Dr. Barnett Stross: On a point of order. I wish to speak to the two Amendments standing in my name, but, as I see it, there is a great difference between the first two and the third, because, whereas the third is quite radical in its approach towards the problem fiscally, the first and second are really seeking for information and dealing with certain classes of people. With respect, Sir Austin, I wonder whether we might discuss the first two together and take the third one subsequently?
    The Temporary Chairman: That is quite agreeable to the Chair.
    Dr. Stross: I am very grateful to you, Sir.
    I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert:
    (2) No medical practitioner shall be required to make or recover any charge under this section.
    I find myself, at the beginning, asking for your guidance and toleration, Sir Austin, with reference to the scope of the first two Amendments. You will remember that when the Minister was considering the subject-matter of this Amendment in his Second Reading speech, he made a statement on the matter. He said:
    "As a matter of fact, we are in some difficulty over this whole matter, upon a procedural matter. I know that hon. Members will be wanting to discuss many implications of the proposed charge on doctors' prescriptions, which is to make up most of the charge

    2825
    with which we are dealing. The Bill does not deal with that at all, but I hope that sufficient latitude may be given by the Chair for that ground to be covered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 847.]
    I am, therefore, asking for your indulgence and ruling that it may be possible to make a reference, not only to the hospital and specialist services and the clinics, but to a similar situation which occurs in the countryside. If that be agreed, and that is what we have understood throughout all our deliberations, which have included this type of latitude, I shall try to be as brief as I can and stray not for a moment outside the terms of reference.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order. Surely, the fact that, on Second Reading, it was possible to refer to Regulations to be made under the Socialist Government's Act, 1949, does not enable this Committee, upon specific Amendments and specific Clauses, to range over that matter?
    The Temporary Chairman: The Amendments deal with medical practitioners and chemists who are recovering the charge, and hon. Members must not go beyond that or something that is relevant to it, but I think I must wait until the hon. Member has proceeded a little further.
    Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order. With respect, Sir Austin, it relates to this matter only in respect of the subject-matter of Clause 1, which is the hospital service, and not at all to general practitioners.
    Dr. Stross: The words "medical practitioners" having been accepted, I hope that we shall not be out of order, particularly as I have said that the whole intention and spirit of all our discussions has been not to gag hon. Members, but to allow them time and some degree of latitude, because of the very fact that some powers arise from the 1949 Act.
    That being now clear, may I say that in regard to the charges in the narrow field of the hospital and specialist services, with which I should like to deal first, we are concerned in this respect with the charges to be made to out-patients in the out-patients departments of hospitals? I feel that there is some difficulty, and we would like to indicate to the Parliamentary Secretary the sort of question which
    2826
    we want her to answer, either now or later on.
    We assume that the charges will be paid at the hospital dispensary if such a dispensary exists, and that if drugs and medicines or surgical apparatus are supplied they will be paid for on the spot to whoever is supplying them. If drugs or medicines are not supplied by the hospital dispensary it will mean that an outside chemist or person will supply them. In that case, we assume, as was discussed earlier, that neither drugs nor medicine are made up in the hospital outpatients' department, but that the patient will take the prescription and have it made up outside.
    I do not think there would be any technical difficulty or confusion regarding this aspect of the Service. I can see how it will be quite easy to say that there is a charge of 1s. and that certain exempted classes can get the 1s. refunded. Assuming that I am right and that there will be no technical difficulty in collecting the money, we come now to the difficulty with which we are faced regarding clinics. Earlier on we had a speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Colonel Stoddart-Scott), who is very experienced in the field of medicine on which he touched. He is a venereologist of great standing and repute. He pointed out the difficulties that might well arise if these charges were imposed at the clinics.
    At these clinics personal attention is given and secrecy is maintained as far as possible. There the consultant personally treats the patient and as few contacts as possible are made between the patient and any other person. I am very sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon is not present, because he said that he would be here to support me on this Amendment. We should like to know whether a charge is to be made at these clinics, or whether they come within the exempted class. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will make a note that this particular class of clinics should be exempted.
    We do not want to go back and begin to charge for a treatment which has been given free for many years. Nor do we want at this particular stage to place a financial barrier between those whom we want to cure as quickly as possible of distressing ailments of this kind and their proper treatment. Another point that

    2827
    arises in connection with this matter is, how often are we to charge these people and for what? Normally injections are given, sometimes at infrequent intervals, though not, perhaps, over such a long period of time today as in the past, when in some cases the treatment was spread over several years. Cures can be effected much more quickly today than they could 10 or 15 years ago.
    But, even so, does it mean that every time a man attends for treatment—sometimes he has two different drugs injected into him and may also be given some drug to take by mouth—he will be asked to pay the charge? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that in this matter her right hon. Friend might easily exempt this class of treatment from the charge. People undergoing such treatment do not normally get bottles of medicine or surgical appliances, so that here we are only dealing with the personal service given by the specialist to the patient.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would like to have an assurance, not necessarily now but a little later on, that this type of clinic will be exempted from the charge. As hon. Members know, these clinics are not always isolated units. Very often, in order to avoid embarrassment, they are frequently attached to the great general hospitals, although they are always called special clinics because they only treat a particular condition. Therefore, there can be no problem for the Service generally in exempting them from the charges if the right hon. Gentleman so wishes, and we strongly urge him to do that.
    Going back to the words "medical practitioner," on 27th March the Minister said:
    "I will say what is generally proposed; we are still having conversations with doctors and chemists about the difficulties arising, particularly in rural areas. The proposals are that persons having prescriptions made up by chemists must pay not more than 1s. Persons who get their medicine from dispensing doctors pay 1s. when the medicine is dispensed."
    At first sight, there does not seem to be any problem about it, but I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Service is going to find itself in real difficulty, and that very much more thought must be given to the matter than has apparently so far been given.
    2828
    I will mention some of the difficulties I foresee and which will, no doubt, be mentioned by other hon. Members. If we accept the Minister's words, it means, first of all, that patients in urban areas can be given prescription form E.C. 110 which may contain many items for different medicines and drugs for long periods at a time. The Minister told us quite frankly, and he also told the medical profession, that he is not going to interfere with the way in which medical practitioners prescribe. He has said that it is not for him to tell the doctors their business or how to conduct it. I think it must be accepted that in future heed will be taken of the fact that charges for prescriptions are being made with the effect that larger quantities will be prescribed than heretofore, especially in chronic cases. That will obviously happen in all urban areas.
    In rural areas there are 4,000 dispensing doctors. As regards those areas the Minister said:
    "Persons who get their medicine from dispensing doctors pay 1s. when the medicine is dispensed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March. 1952; Vol. 498, c. 848.]
    In these areas there are doctors who, like chemists, dispense by tariff and those who dispense by capitation. Those who dispense by tariff are obviously in no difficulty because they can dispense what they feel is necessary, charge the 1s. and then be surcharged and made to account for it. But where the capitation fee is used, the Minister and the Service will find themselves in trouble in this way. The doctor there makes up the medicines. It is because they think—
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Iain MacLeod: On a point of order. May I draw attention to the fact that this Clause to which this Amendment is proposed affects only the hospital and specialist services in the outpatient departments? Whatever may be in order on Second Reading, it is surely entirely out of order to discuss on a very narrow Amendment all the problems which affect rural doctors throughout the country and are entirely unrelated not only to this Clause but to this Bill.
    Mr. A. Blenkinsop: Further to that point. The Committee are put in a real difficulty here because, clearly, if it is intended to exclude medical practitioners from having

    2829
    to collect charges—which I understand is the intention in the clinic or the hospital—then it is impossible to discuss that except in relation to his brother doctor outside in a rural or other practice. I agree it would be quite wrong to discuss this at any length, but surely it is impossible to consider the position without reference to it.
    The Temporary Chairman: I find some difficulty in ruling it out of order because we are now dealing with the whole question of the doctor having to collect the prescription charge. Perhaps we may have the benefit of the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The Clause to which this Amendment refers deals solely with the charges in the out-patient departments of hospitals. It does not deal with the wider issue covered by the previous Act.
    Mr. MacLeod: It will be seen from line 9 that we are dealing only with Part II of the principal Act. Everything that has been said in relation to the rural doctor, and everything that has been said in the last few minutes by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), relates to Part IV of the principal Act and the pharmaceutical and medical services provided thereunder. It cannot have anything to do with this Clause.
    Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: Further to that point of order. Clause 1 (1) of this Bill refers to
    "… the making and recovery, in such manner as may be prescribed, of such charges as may be prescribed in respect of the supply, as part of the hospital and specialist services … of drugs, medicines or appliances."
    We are most desirous of having this Amendment accepted so that medical practitioners in hospitals and in specialist services will be protected against having to make the charges or recover the money from the patients. I suggest therefore—and we feel very strongly about this—that we are discussing a matter of principle, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) was giving illustrations from what occurs in rural practices.
    The Temporary Chairman: I did not realise just now that the Clause was so restricted. If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, confines himself to
    2830
    making a passing reference to medical practitioners, then we can continue to keep in order and I shall be very grateful to him.
    Mr. Frederick Messer: Further to that point of order. There is something more to be said on this subject. It must not be assumed that a general practitioner cannot be a specialist and be attached to a hospital, and consequently it is quite possible that, although he is acting as general practitioner, he is also doing work of a specialist character for a hospital, and it might very well be that he might prescribe at somewhere other than at the hospital. We want to know whether in a case of that description, and if the Amendment were carried, he would not make a charge. I suggest that hon. Members opposite are taking too narrow a view. Whilst it is quite true this Clause deals with hospital and specialist services, that does not rule out the fact that a general practitioner may be attached to those services.
    The Temporary Chairman: I ask the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, to confine himself as far as possible to hospital services. We do not want to range too far.
    Dr. Stross: I am grateful both to you, Sir Austen, and to the hon. Members who have brought this matter forward. It was obvious to me that there was a difficulty. I did not attempt to conceal it, and I put it to the Chair. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary in her own personal opinion took a narrower view of this Clause than did her right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who pleaded on Second Reading that we must go wider to get any commonsense out of it. Had we not done so we would have stultified our considerations. We cannot consider these things in fragments as if they were not joined to one another and were not part of the whole.
    I will come back to the hospital services, since I appear to have strayed too far into the rural areas. Before I was interrupted, I was saying that it was apparent that the Minister is bound to be faced with difficulties because some people will be dispensing by tariff and some by capitation. Those dispensing by tariff will find it easier to collect and charge than those dispensing by capitation. This has been well understood by

    2831
    the profession as a whole. Quite frankly, I am bringing it forward because it is commonly understood and because I am sure the Minister has been having considerable discussions on the point.
    We all hope he will solve the problem, though I feel he will have great difficulty because it is so complex. Confusion will be worse confounded in those areas where there are medical practitioners working part-time in hospital and part-time in practice, and particularly where one general practitioner dispenses by tariff and his neighbour dispenses by capitation. The confusion for the patient will be really dreadful. Those who are dispensing by capitation are complaining today that they are making a loss and will continue to make a loss.
    But I plead the case from the point of view of the individual citizen. Is it not a fact that he will receive better value from those dispensing by tariff than from those dispensing by capitation? If the Parliamentary Secretary does not feel that she can make any promise now perhaps she will say that she will bring the matter before the Minister and perhaps at a later stage we shall hear the view of the Government after consultations have taken place.
    We have seen a good deal in the medical Press about what is likely to happen. Outside, in the rural areas, it is not only medicine that is prescribed but also elastic hosiery in many cases. What is found particularly objectionable is the degradation of the status—whether in the hospital, in the clinic or in the countryside—of the practitioner himself and the spoiling of the relationship between him and the patient.
    It may be the Parliamentary Secretary believes medical men are exaggerating when they complain on this issue, but I think she knows that the majority of them do so complain, officially through their representatives and unofficially. They have used the word "degradation" and that is why I have used it. I should like to quote from a letter in the "British Medical Journal" from a practitioner which I think will help the Committee to realise how medical men feel about this. It states:
    "Apart from these considerations, in my opinion by far the most important aspect is
    2832
    the degrading and lowering effect it will have on the status of dispensing doctors. Most of us dispense for our patients because of our isolated situations, not because we want to. If we now have to collect a shilling at each consultation, find change, rattle cash-boxes and haggle over payment, each time becomes a sordid commercial transaction. I hope the B.M.A. will energetically resist this imposition in accodance with the resolution passed by the Annual Conference of Local Medical Committees."
    That was from the British Medical Journal of 23rd February.
    Now let me read only two or three lines from the editorial in the "British Medical Journal" of 9th February:
    "The method proposed to collect this money will have the effect of turning dispensing doctors into tax collectors. The onus is put on the dispensing doctor of obtaining the shilling from the patient, for his remuneration will have a sum of money deducted from it in accordance with his prescribing. Therefore if he fails to extract his shilling—or a larger sum for elastic hosiery—he may be by that much out of pocket."
    Another organisation, the Medical Practitioners' Union which put the matter very fairly if rather strongly, said this:
    "It is the rural practitioner who will have the difficult time. Used to dispensing his own medicines, leaving them at bus stops, and by a hundred different manoeuvres arranging for their collection, he is now to become a tax-collector if the Chancellor has his way."
    It is interesting that it is the Chancellor who is blamed and not the Minister, and I personally think that is right. They go on to say:
    "He must contrive to extricate the odd shilling from patients, relatives and messengers who will wrongly conclude that the charge will enrich the doctor."
    This is a thing that practitioners are anxious about, and there should be no misunderstanding about it:
    "Even if there were no special difficulties of collection it would still impose an odious job upon him for which he would be quite unrewarded. He will in addition be required to give thousands of receipts in the case of hardship—free of charge. We feel strongly that rural doctors should refuse to under take this invidious task."
    The Chair has been most kind in allowing me to develop this argument, and I am grateful to the Committee as a whole for allowing me to put the case in this way. Everyone knows that I have not attempted to do other than state the facts, give information, and ask for information. After all, this is a very serious matter, and we are none the worse for putting forward different points of view.

    2833
    The next Amendment, which we are also now discussing, seeks to add the words:
    "No chemist shall be required to determine the amount of any charge under this section."
    The chemists and pharmacists feel very strongly that they should not be dragged in as agents for the collection of money in this way, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that we should respect their wishes in this matter. I know their reasons. They feel that their duty is to dispense, and that the amount of clerical work involved would almost surely face us with a request for increased remuneration or for extra clerical assistance. Above all, they do not want to be faced with the antagonism of medical men, or of the public who come to their shop counters for service. They fear that there may be some antagonism between themselves and the local doctor or doctors, either in the hospital or outside, if they have to determine what the charge shall be and the patient ultimately complains.
    7.45 p.m.
    I have already made my position clear in our earlier debates. I see that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland smiles and appears to disagree. I am prepared to give way to him now if there is anything he wants to contribute. If a patient is given a prescription and thinks it is not to the full value of 1s., he might quite well ask the chemist how much it is worth and whether he can pay cash for it. The patient may later complain to the prescribing doctor that the prescription was worth less than 1s., and there may be difficulties between patient and doctor or doctor and patient. That is what the chemists want to avoid. But that is only part of their difficulty. They say they have enough to do finding the things to make up the doctors' prescriptions. They have a very special relationship with their patients.
    Everybody knows, especially where a chemist is situated near an industrial undertaking, that very often minor casualties are taken to the chemist first, perhaps because the doctor is out on his rounds. They do a tremendous amount of advising and treatment. That applies to an even greater extent in holiday resorts, when people get stings, abrasions and cuts, and are treated for them, or
    2834
    advised about indigestion, and so on. The chemists do not want to be brought into this to act in any specific way, major or minor, in the asking of money from the public or in determining the amount to be paid. Again, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland seems to find this vastly amusing.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I do not want to encourage the hon. Gentleman to continue his argument, which we have heard repeated time and time again during the course of this Bill. What makes me laugh is wondering how on earth he thinks the chemists ever got on before. His argument seems to me to be quite ridiculous. I suppose the chemist has never at any time in history asked for money for the drugs he prescribes? The hon. Gentleman is putting forward a most extraordinary theory.
    Dr. Stross: I have never heard anything so myopic and so failing in understanding. The hon. and gallant Gentleman belongs to a party which is interested in private enterprise. Surely he understands there is a difference between asking for money for oneself and asking for it on behalf of somebody else and handing it over. Earlier, when I wondered whether he had heard my argument before, I gave him the opportunity of intervening, but he did not do so. It is quite apparent that he has not yet understood the argument and does not understand any of the implications. But he will learn; the pharmacists will ultimately teach him.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: It ought to be pointed out that the pharmacists have been pressing this point for a long time. They have urged very strongly that, if there were to be any question of the collection of money, they would reserve the right to ask for some increase in their remuneration in order to cover their extra expenses, quite apart from the broader issues my hon. Friend raises.
    Dr. Stross: I think we can leave it at that. The education of the Joint Under-Secretary we can leave to the pharmacists, who are a very able body of experienced craftsmen and professional men, who know what they are talking about.
    Dr. Broughton: I have had the opportunity of making several speeches in the

    2835
    course of the proceedings on this Bill. So far I have been doing my utmost to try to protect the patient from the hurt and the harm which I believe this Bill will inflict upon him or her. In this Amendment, however, I turn my attention to trying to protect the doctors. As I said a few moments ago, when I intervened on a point of order, I feel very deeply about this matter.
    Before the war I was one of a small band of medical practitioners who advocated a national health service, and I reflect with pride upon the pioneer work of those days. I wanted a national health service for a large number of reasons. I will not weary the Committee by enumerating all of them, but I should like to mention the first three on the list. The first one was that I thought a national health service would be in accordance with humanitarian principles. I wanted medical attention to be available for all people in need of it, irrespective of their financial means.
    The second reason could be described as having a utilitarian purpose. I believed it would profit our country to have a healthier population. The third reason was that having a national health service would enable us to raise the status and the dignity of the medical profession. I wanted to see the doctor divorced from trade. I wanted him to be able to devote the whole of his time and energy to the care of his patients.
    When we look back in history I think it will be agreed that some centuries ago the doctor was little better than a pill pedlar; but the profession has always attracted distinguished members who, by their work and their fine example, have lifted the profession to its present honourable position.
    I believe that the medical practitioner should be given adequate remuneration to allow him to employ his full concentration upon his professional work. This collecting of shillings by the medical practitioner, whether in hospital or in rural areas, will be an interference with his work, and it is a most degrading imposition. It means that the doctor cannot hand over the bottle of medicine to the old age pensioner, to the child or to the sick person urgently in need of it, until he has extracted from the patient one shilling.
    Commander T. D. Galbraith: Nonsense.
    Dr. Broughton: The hon. and gallant Members says "Nonsense." If the doctor gives a bottle of medicine without receiving 1s. he suffers financially.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The doctors are not concerned with this.
    Dr. Broughton: I am sorry the Minister should intervene and say that the doctors are not concerned with this. This concerns the doctors very much indeed. The Minister has had to be absent from our deliberations for some time and he does not realise just what my hon. Friend and I are trying to do. We are trying to protect the doctors from having to levy charges upon the patients before they have their drugs and medicines. I think I have every right to speak on that matter and to try to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to accept our Amendment.
    The effect of this imposition which he puts upon the doctors is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can trespass into the sanctity of the consulting room, disrupting the confidential and delicate relationship between the doctor and the patient. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is laughing. I do not think that this is a laughing matter.
    Mr. Crookshank: It is not a laughing matter, but it does not seem to have any relevance. I apologise for having just come into the Committee, but what the hon. Member is saying does not seem to have any relevance to this Clause. This has nothing to do with doctors' charges; this refers to hospitals.
    Dr. Broughton: As I said a moment ago, I regret that it was necessary for the Minister to be absent from our deliberations for a while; but you will remember, Sir Austin, that this question was put to you a short time ago, and you gave your Ruling that it was in order, because there is nothing in this Bill to prevent the Minister, by means of Regulations, insisting that the doctors who are working in hospitals as resident medical officers or as specialists, full-time or part-time, should make and recover charges for drugs and medicines.
    As I said to the Minister as soon as he came into the Chamber, what we are

    2837
    trying to do is to protect the medical practitioner from such an imposition. It would be a serious, retrograde step. It is a step that would be disliked by patients and detested by doctors. I regard it as an insult to an honourable profession. It means that the doctor would be forced into employment as a part-time, unpaid, unwilling tax collector.
    Mr. Crookshank: On a point of order. I am sorry, but if the hon. Member will read the fourth line, Clause 1 (1) it talks about
    "the supply, as part of the hospital and specialist services under Part II of the principal Act …."
    and that has nothing to do with doctors having to give prescriptions and collect the charges, which is what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
    Mr. Messer: Further to that point of order. I am really surprised that the Minister should make a statement of that description. In some hospitals there will be no other machinery, unless special machinery is set up for the purpose. One can have an out-patient department of a hospital which is prescribing, where it is necessary for the doctor not merely to say that the prescription costs 1s. but to take the shilling. This Amendment seeks to prevent that sort of thing happening.
    The Temporary Chairman: I think I should say a word about the point of order. As I understand it, the Amendment is in order; but if the Minister, in his reply, says that in no circumstances under this Clause could a medical practitioner or a chemist possibly be asked to do this work, it would probably close the debate on this matter. But as far as the Chair is concerned nothing has been said which is out of order.
    Dr. Broughton: I think you went a little further in your Ruling, Sir Austin, and said that not only was this Amendment in order but that for the purpose of illustration we could refer briefly to the matter of the imposition which is liable to be placed upon medical practitioners in rural areas. I most certainly respect your Ruling, as I do all Rulings from the Chair. I should like to refer to the serious problem of this imposition on rural doctors, but I shall respect your wishes and refer to it only very briefly.
    2838
    8.0 p.m.
    Would the Minister be good enough, when he comes to reply, to let us know whether it is correct that there has been a very strong protest from the dispensing doctors? I understand that there are between 4,000 and 5,000 doctors who dispense for their patients, that they have protested about this imposition and that they are backed by all their professional colleagues.
    Perhaps the Minister, who seems so agitated about all this, would stand up at the Box now and tell us that he will accept this Amendment; then we shall know that the medical profession is protected against this imposition, and I will sit down. If he will do that, I suggest that we shall have made some progress. Apparently the Minister does not accept my invitation, and I am very sorry that he does not.
    Mr. Crookshank: I rise to make the same point as I made before. The hon. Gentleman keeps confusing this with questions which arise under the original Act with regard to prescriptions given by general practitioners under that Act, which has nothing to do with this Clause whatsoever. This has to do with hospital services and has nothing to do with rural practitioners.
    The Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Perhaps there has been an error in calling this Amendment.
    Mr. John Baird: If there has been a mistake in calling this Amendment, Sir Charles, you may have made a mistake in refusing to call other Amendments as well. Will you reconsider your whole argument?
    The Chairman: I resent that remark it is an improper thing to say.
    Dr. Broughton: We had a discussion with the Chair on this matter during your absence, Sir Charles, and it was suggested that you had been perfectly right in suggesting to the then Chairman that this Amendment should be called. I rose on a point of order and explained that Clause 1 (1) is for the purpose of making regulations to provide for the making and recovery
    "of such charges as may be prescribed in respect of the supply, as part of the hospital and specialist services … of drugs, medicines or appliances."

    2839
    There is nothing new. I am sorry that the Minister was away and that I am having to repeat all this again, but there is nothing to prevent the Minister from laying down regulations insisting that doctors employed in hospitals, whether it be as resident medical officers or as specialists, full-time or part-time, should not be compelled to make and recover charges for drugs and medicines.
    My hon. Friends and I want to protect the members of the medical profession against such an imposition. While the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) was in the Chair, he went a little further and stated that for the purpose of illustration we might refer very briefly to the matter of the collection of the shillings by rural practitioners because it was included in the same principle. If the Minister had been in the Chamber at the start of my speech, he would have realised that I am arguing on a matter of principle. I think that it is wrong that doctors should be used as tax collectors whether they are employed in a hospital or whether they are employed in general practice in rural areas.
    After that long interruption, may I return to my theme? I have been very disappointed in a large number of ways in the course of our proceedings on this Bill. First, I am extremely disappointed that the Government have not been able to accept a single one of our Amendments. Second, I am disappointed to realise what right hon. and hon. Members sitting on the Tory benches think about the medical profession. They think very little of the medical profession, as they have shown in the course of our debates.
    On the second Reading of the Bill, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made an allegation against the general practitioners, saying that they were shirking their work and pushing patients into hospital unnecessarily.
    Mr. Powell: I would point out that on the Second Reading I made no such allegation. I quoted from the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates of this House, which is a matter of record.
    Dr. Broughton: I am quite aware that the hon. Member quoted from the Report, but he quoted from it in order to use it in support of his argument that
    2840
    the charge of 1s. should be imposed upon patients attending the out-patients' departments of hospitals. On the Second Reading, the Minister, as I told him yesterday, insulted the specialists by mentioning the alleged abuse of surgical appliances.
    If we have a reply from the Minister, as I hope we shall, I should not regard it as satisfactory if we were merely told that there are discussions going on at the present time between representatives of the medical profession and the Minister as to whether doctors should have this imposition put upon them of being made tax collectors. If the Minister has nothing to say other than that there are discussions taking place at the present time, then I know the purpose of those discussions. They are to persuade, to threaten and to bully the medical profession into having to collect the shillings.
    If this Amendment cannot be accepted, I think that it would be far better if, instead of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary answering, they would send to the Ministry of Food for the Parliamentary Secretary to come and answer this question. It would be most interesting for him to stand up at that Box and say that this Amendment is unacceptable. Let him tell the House and the country that he and his political colleagues will not accept this Amendment, and by it suppress the honourable aspirations of the medical profession.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I feel that the Minister, in spite of his laughter, should he able to accept this Amendment, because it is in one sense, as he rightly says, a narrow one which it should not be at all difficult to incorporate in the Bill. It is true that in so far as it deals purely with hospital specialist services it should not be difficult for him to say that he has no intention of using medical practitioners for the collection of charges from hospitals, out-patients, pharmacists and the rest.
    Therefore, there should be no great difficulty from his point of view in including these words in the provisions of the Bill. What he has rather failed to understand—I should have thought that he would have know it from the representations which have been made—is that the profession regard it as a matter of very real principle, whether it applies in the hospital service or elsewhere.

    2841
    Indeed, I remember that the Labour Government wrote into the Health Service many provisions in order to meet that kind of representation. The medical profession were anxious to have written into the Bill various provisos and safeguards which we said we intended to provide under regulations, but they quite properly said that they wanted to see them written into the Bill.
    All we are asking in these Amendments is that what we understand to be the intention of the Government in this regard shall be written into the Bill and that, as a matter of the very greatest consequence and principle to the whole medical profession and to the pharmacists—they have been urging this upon the Minister by representations in every possible way—it should receive recognition in the Bill.
    The British Medical Association, as is well known, passed a resolution which said that under no circumstances whatever should a doctor be required to be an agent to collect a Government charge on prescriptions. The easiest way for the Minister to meet the demands of the profession would be to write into the Clause that such is not his intention and, more than that, that he will not require the medical profession to act in this way.
    We want to follow this somewhat further. The second Amendment very properly says that no chemist should be required to determine the amount of any charge under the Clause. That deals with the pharmacist who is making up prescriptions in the hospital or in the outpatients clinic. Nowadays there are many very large out-patients units, and we hope there will be many more, and, therefore, it is a matter of very real consequence whether or not a pharmacist, who is already very busy, should be required to do the extra job of calculating the extra cost of the prescription which is being made up.
    So far we have had only the vaguest word as to who is to do the work of collecting the charges and finding out what the charges are to be. One statement that we had was that it would be left to the hospital management committees to decide who would do the work. We want to know something more than that. We want to have laid before us before we leave this matter any directions or circulars which have been issued to the
    2842
    management committees advising how they are to do this. We want to know whether or not such circulars have been issued.
    We want to know whether in any of these cases this will be the job of the pharmacist. If so, it will inevitably mean an imposition upon the pharmacists which they greatly resent and which they understood the Ministry had promised would not be placed on them. It also means that extra work will be entailed and extra staff will inevitably be required.
    These are not unimportant matters. They are matters of principle which are of very great moment indeed to the professions concerned. They could be perfectly easily written in by the right hon. Gentleman without in any way infringing the general purpose of his Measure, much as we dislike it. There is no reason at all why he should not grant us this small concession and in that way demonstrate to the profession the sincerity of his oft-expressed desire not to use them in this way. I appeal to him to give the first sign of any concession that he has yet made to this side of the Committee.
    8.15 p.m.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith rose—
    Mrs. E. M. Braddock: On a point of order, Sir Charles. I noticed on the indicators that Amendments Nos. 1–3 are being discussed. I understood that when the Amendments were being discussed in the early stages it was agreed that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 should be taken together and that Amendment No. 3 should be called separately. May I have your Ruling on this?
    Dr. Stross: Further to that point of order. This question arose when I was speaking. When I was referring to the first and second Amendments I was asked whether I would include the third. I pointed out that there was a great difference in principle between the third Amendment and the first and second Amendments. The Chair was kind enough to allow me to deal with the first and second Amendments only, and so far the third Amendment has not been discussed or called.
    The Chairman: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, because I thought the three should come together—
    Mrs. Braddock: That is what is on the indicator.
    The Chairman: It was decided, however, that only the first and second Amendments should be taken together. The original idea was that the three would be taken together.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The discussion has ranged over many matters which are not the concern of the Bill, and I feel it beholden upon me to bring the Committee back to the Clause under discussion, which relates to the:
    "… manner as may be prescribed, of such charges as may be prescribed in respect of the supply, as part of the hospital and specialist services under Part II of the principal Act, of drugs, medicines or appliances."
    The effect of the Amendment would be to relieve any doctor of any obligation to collect charges in connection with the supply of drugs, medicines or appliances to hospital out-patients.
    There has obviously been a misunderstanding regarding the effect of the Amendment, because the possibility of a doctor collecting charges from hospital out-patients really hardly arises. I was surprised to find the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) suggesting that there were hospitals where there was no one else but a doctor to collect the charges.
    Mr. Messer: Is the hon. Lady not aware that hospitals have special clinics which are not on the site of the hospital and it would be the most convenient thing in the world for a management committee to instruct a medical officer in charge of such an outside clinic to collect the shillings from the patients?
    Mr. Somerville Hastings: Might I also point out to the hon. Lady that pharmacists are not on duty throughout the whole of the 24 hours in hospitals and that patients come in at all times of the day and night and righly demand treatment, and therefore the prescriptions or the medicines have to be made up by the medical officer on duty? That happens at nearly every hospital that I have ever heard of.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that that happens in every hospital that he has ever heard of, but does he seriously suggest that the majority of our
    2844
    hospitals are denuded of staff during the evenings except for medical officers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The dispensers are generally there.
    Mr. Hastings: Certainly not. How many hospitals in London have dispensers on duty during 24 hours? I have never known of one.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, Sir. Hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that they have raised an exception which is not relevant to the main issue. The hon. Member for Tottenham, as chairman of one of the regional boards, knows very well that his hospitals are not so ill-staffed that in the main doctors are doing the dispensing.
    Mr. Messer: Is the hon. Lady aware that there are special clinics, such as tuberculosis clinics, which are not on the site of the hospital and are staffed by a medical man, a health visitor and a nurse, and that in such a case it is possible for an arrangement to be made that a doctor shall take the 1s. prescription fees?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Even those clinics are staffed by people who see the patients in and mark their cards, and it should not be beyond the wit of management committees to make a satisfactory arrangement.
    Mrs. Braddock: It is unfortunate that the hon. Lady has no knowledge at all about this.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Lady is quite wrong. The possibility of a doctor having to collect charges from out-patients is very remote. It is significant that, despite the comments of the Opposition, no representations whatever have been made about this Clause by the profession, because the profession knows that this does not arise.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Lady now saying that there is no need for these words? If she is not intending that the doctors should have to do this work, then there is no reason why these words should not be put in to satisfy the medical profession, not only in this issue, but on the wider issue that is being raised.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The medical profession are apparently so convinced that it will not cause them distress that they

    2845
    have made no representations. The only representations have been the misleading speeches of hon. Members opposite.
    Dr. H. Morgan: I have not taken part in this debate, and I have not been called upon or given an opportunity to speak, but I hope that I might be allowed at this stage to make one observation. The hon. Lady is showing a complete want of knowledge in this matter, and I am surprised that she has not been well briefed by the excellent Civil Service in the Ministry of Health. Almost every statement she has made about the service has been inaccurate.
    It is a common practice in hospitals and in the adjuncts of hospitals that in the afternoons and at mid-day when the first morning rush is over that the work done is not done by the dispenser, because dispensary hours cannot last the whole of the time and there have to be a series of reliefs. What happens and what is a constant part of the work is that the medical officer or medical officers on duty do this particular work. When we are discussing a Bill of this sort we are entitled to some accuracy from the Government Front Bench.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am not saying that the dispensers do all this work. What I am saying is that there are no hospitals so lacking in staff that there is not somebody there to collect the 1s. on the prescription. There was a very wide discussion, well outside this particular Amendment, regarding the rural doctors—
    Dr. Broughton: Is that not a gross reflection on the Chair?
    The Chairman: I was consulting with my adviser at the time and did not hear what was said.
    Dr. Broughton: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to repeat it.
    The Chairman: I am sure I do not need to call upon the hon. Lady to respect the Chair.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is obvious that hon. Members opposite are determined to prevent me from answering the debate.
    Dr. Morgan: That is not true. The hon. Lady has no right to make a statement of that kind.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I do not think the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) has been here during our debate.
    Dr. Morgan: Oh, yes, I was.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Arrangements with the rural doctors are in the process of being worked out, and we believe that arrangements will be come to which will be satisfactory to both sides. I do not propose to enter into an argument on the very controversial points which have been made, when these negotiations are progressing very smoothly through co-operation by the members of the profession.
    Dr. Stross: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I am not pressing the point at all, but only asking her about a specific aspect of hospital out-patients treatment which I mentioned this afternoon.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: With the very greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, the subject which he mentioned this afternoon, namely, patients who are suffering from venereal disease, is the subject of another Amendment, and I do not think it is wholly relevant here.
    Dr. Stross: It is not going to be called.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: If it is not going to be called I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and give him the reply, although I would not think that it came strictly under this particular Amendment. It is not proposed to charge for drugs, etc., supplied at a clinic to patients suffering from venereal disease. This exemption will be made in the regulations.
    In the narrow scope of this Amendment chemists deal with few out-patients prescriptions. If a hospital out-patient gets a prescription in the hospital dispensary he will pay a shilling. If he decides not to pay the flat-rate charge of 1s. but thinks the item would cost him less that that sum, then he is perfectly at liberty to buy outside the Health Service from a chemist, and in such a case it will feature with the chemist as an ordinary transaction over the counter.
    Some hon. Members opposite spoke as if chemists never priced prescriptions or assessed the price of items which they sold over the counter. I think it was a little unfair to suggest that we were calling on chemists to render charges and

    2847
    assess the price of prescriptions as though it were something they had not done for many years.
    Mr. Hastings: Would the hon. Lady be good enough to expand that a little. As I understand her, the patient who is not happy about the cost of a prescription in the hospital's out-patient department can take it to the chemist and the chemist then decides whether its cost is less than 1s. or not. What I should like to know is, firstly, what hospital ever allowed a patient to take his medicine card to the chemist outside? It is not a written prescription but a medicine card. Secondly, how many chemists would understand the shorthand which is peculiar to a particular hospital? All sorts of funny things are written. When I was a student some of us wrote a.d.m. and a.d.t. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) will understand what a.d.t. means; "a" means "any" and "t" means "thing."
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I will not comment on the hon. Gentleman's prescribing.
    A great deal is being made on the issue of the very small number of prescriptions that would be paid for privately outside the Health Service. There are, of course, hospitals where prescriptions have to be dispensed by others because there are not the dispensers, but I cannot say straight off what the answer is to the hon. Member who raised the matter. I do not think it is beyond working out, but it is a matter which will be dealt with by the hospitals concerned. One hon. Gentleman raised the matter of charges for drugs, etc., in a clinic. The charge will apply on prescriptions for drugs which are supplied and are taken to be used outside the hospital.
    As far as the pharmaceutical profession are concerned, we are working out arrangements in consultation with them. I do not accept the comments of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are not willing to co-operate with us in this particular measure.
    One final item was raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), when he protested that the hospitals should be asked to collect charges. At present they have, and use, the machinery provided under previous
    2848
    legislation to collect charges for repairs to appliances damaged or lost through negligence, for the replacement of which patients may have to pay. In certain specialist hospitals also, charges have been collected for spectacles and dentures. I am sure it is not beyond the wit of the hospital management committees to make arrangements in respect of the other charges which it is proposed to introduce under this Bill.
    Generally, the debate has ranged wide. So far as the first Amendment is concerned, the doctor will not have to collect money in the hospital, to any material degree. In the case of the second Amendment, if the doctor prescribes something costing less than 1s., the prescription can be made up outside the Health Service as an ordinary, private, over-the-counter transaction.
    8.30 p.m.
    Dr. Horace King: We are rather disappointed with the reply which the Minister has given to the Committee. I want to deal briefly with the position of the chemists under this Bill. As a preface, I would say that the chemists were not particularly enamoured of the Health Service when it began, but that they have loyally backed it up and, in their recent discussions, they have revealed alarm at the prospects envisaged under this Bill in respect of the charges to be made.
    Just as they indicated in advance that they would support the National Health Service Act, they have indicated at their recent meetings that they are prepared to support whatever charges the Minister may propose under this Bill, but they are alarmed at what is happening. At a meeting of the North London Pharmaceutical Association on 20th March, the Vice-President expressed the view that I have tried to present when he said that the 1s. levy was unwelcome and would tend to raise a barrier between the pharmacist and the public.
    He said that in agreeing not to oppose the charges the Pharmaceutical Society had shown a commendable spirit, but the "Pharmaceutical Journal" itself says that in principle the charges are indefensible. So that if in this Committee I make criticisms that have been expressed to me by chemists who have loyally served the National Health Service, it is not from

    2849
    a political point of view but from the point of view of a profession far less likely to be labour than the people speaking on these benches, a branch of the scientific professions which has served the Service faithfully, and which is prepared to work the scheme although seriously concerned about practical difficulties
    I was amazed that in this Committee the two Ministers should argue that the chemists were behaving irresponsibly when they talked about the difficulty of pricing prescriptions because they had had to do it in times past. Neither of the two Ministers seems to know that in olden days millions of people in this country were unable to take doctors' prescriptions to chemists because they could not afford to do so. There has been a vast increase not only in the amount of business done by the chemists but also in the administering of doctors' prescriptions brought to them.
    My chemist friends have told me that in their opinion the only way in which this scheme can work is if we charge a flat rate of 1s., whatever the cost of the prescription. If the patient has the right to know the value of what he is going to be charged 1s. for over the counter—and surely the Government would not want to charge him 1s. for 3d. worth of medicine. I believe it is a fantastic suggestion that the patient should be his own pricer, which is what the Minister suggested.
    The Minister has said today, as well as previously, that if the patient does not want to pay the 1s. until he is sure that he will get 1s. worth of value, he must take the prescription away, price it and then, if he does not approve of the price, buy it in the ordinary way. But he cannot do that without going to the chemist to get the medicine priced.
    I believe that patients will demand to know the cost of the prescriptions, and the chemists tell me that this will mean extra skilled labour and time wasted in the chemists' shops of the country, which are already working very long hours at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) was right when he said that if we put extra work on the pharmacists, they will demand extra reward.
    I want to point out the special problems of the rural chemist in dealing with the
    2850
    varying charge of a prescription. A rural chemist writes to me:
    "Rural chemists never see a very large proportion of their clients. Many and varied are the means by which the E.C.10s reach the chemist from isolated farms and hamlets. Bundles of these prescriptions are brought in by bakers' roundsmen, butchers and neighbours. They are dispensed and delivered to isolated patients by the co-operation and voluntary good will service of the rural community."
    He points out that the imposition of a charge, and above all the imposition of a charge which the chemist will have to price on the spot so that the patient who is not there will know whether he is prepared to pay for it or not—all this will break up much of the co-operative rural good will in carrying out the medical requirements of people in the countryside. If the chemist has to determine the price, then the voluntary helper who is taking the prescription to the chemist for the district patient will have to decide whether the patient will be willing to pay the 1s. He will have to get a receipt if the patient intends to claim the money later on, so the patient will have to share the secret with the voluntary helper that he cannot afford to pay the 1s. and that he will reclaim it.
    A chemist pointed out to me that often the person coming for a prescription is a child who brings no money, and that there is a loss to the chemist if the 1s. is not paid at the time. Certainly if a question is put when the child is buying the prescription as to whether the prescription is under 1s. and whether the child will have to pay that sum or the 1s. itself it will make the problem fantastic.
    Again, pharmacists tell me that repeat orders for prescriptions vary in detail. On one occasion a doctor may prescribe a certain quantity of a drug which may take the cost over 1s. but may subsequently prescribe a smaller quantity of the drug which will bring the cost just under 1s. The chemists, therefore, will have to explain to the patient the difference in price between the two prescriptions. This is one of the things which makes the chemist say that the charges proposed will cause friction between him and patients.
    I want to mention also the complicated nature of the Minister's system of payment to chemists. The chemists are now being paid for prescriptions which were

    2851
    dispensed over a year ago. Indeed, I understand that they are receiving now their final settlements for prescriptions which were prescribed some 18 months ago, less the advances which the Minister has given them on account from time to time.
    Into this already difficult pattern of National Health Service finance, we shall now have to place, the chemists tell me, three groups: the new patient, the patient who pays the shilling, and the rural group, for which the Minister, I hope, will say that he is going to make some provision. The chemists imagine that the rural group will overcome the problem by some kind of 1s. stamp.
    Then there is the group for which the professional chemist, by his own medical conscience, will have to dispense free because of the emergencies that a chemist must meet in honour to his profession without worrying about money. There is the subsidiary group of prescriptions dispensed and not paid for, for a variety of reasons. Already the chemist has to divide the prescriptions which he dispenses into two groups: those under 5s. and those over 5s. He will now have to add to the division of the various prescriptions which he dispenses all this extra number of groups. The chemists feel that this will certainly delay what is already very much behind time: the settlement of their accounts.
    I therefore say in all seriousness that we cannot add to the burden of the pharmacists the burden of pricing prescriptions on the spot to satisfy the people who want to pay either cash if the cost is under 1s., or the 1s. if a prescription costs more than that amount. It is for the Minister to solve that problem.
    I do not want to weary the Committee by reading at length a communication which I have received from an outstanding chemist in my town, who is certainly not a member of my political party but who elaborates in his letter the long processes and the extra work which the collection of this charge will involve on the chemists. It is part of his argument that, in his view, the only way in which this fantastic and miserable new charge can be made is to have a flat rate prescription charge of 1s., whatever the drugs dispensed. I urge the Minister to think again about what we have been saying and to see whether he cannot in his negotiations with the chemists evolve something to solve some of the problems I have mentioned.
    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 divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 260.

    Division No.81.]

    AYES

    [8.45 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

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

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Brains, B. R.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

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

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

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

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Dighy, S. Wingfield

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

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

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Donner, P. W.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Drewe, C.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Channon, H.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Fell, A.

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

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Cole, Norman

    Fisher, Nigel

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Colegate, W. A.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Birch, Nigel

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Fort, R.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Foster, John

    Black, C. W.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Gage, C. H.

    Bossom, A. C.

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

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollock)

    Bowen, E. R.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Russell, R. S.

    George, Rt. Hon. Mai. G. Lloyd

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Godber, J. B.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    McCallum, Major D.

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

    Gough, C. F. H.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Gower, H. R.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Makeson, Brig. H. R.

    Shepherd, William

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Harden, J. R. E.

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

    Spearman, A. C. M.

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

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Speir, R. M.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Markham, Major S. F.

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

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Hay, John

    Marples, A. E.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Stevens, G. P.

    Heath, Edward

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Maude, Angus

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Maudling, R.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

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

    Storey, S.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Mellor, Sir John

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Summers, G. S.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hope, Lord John

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Hopkinson, Henry

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Teeling, W.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

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

    Horobin, I. M.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

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

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

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

    Nutting, Anthony

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Tilney, John

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Odey, G. W.

    Touche, G. C.

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

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

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Turton, R. H.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

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

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Jennings, R.

    Osborne, C.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Partridge, E.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Keeling, Sir Edward

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Pitman, I. J.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Wellwood, W.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

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

    Profumo, J. D.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

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

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Lindsay, Martin

    Redmayne, E.

    Wills, G.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    York, C.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Mr. Butcher and Mr. Kaberry.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Benson, G.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Adams, Richard

    Beswick, F.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Albu, A. H.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)

    Burke, W. A.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Blackburn, F.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Carmichael, J.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Boardman, H.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G.

    Champion, A. J.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Bowden, H. W.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Baird, J.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Balfour, A.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Clunie, J.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Bence, C. R.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Coldrick, W.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Collick, P. H.

    2854

    2855

    Cook, T. F.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon).

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Cove, W. G.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Rhodes, H.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

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

    Richards, R.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)

    Ross, William

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Royle, C.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Keenan, W.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Deer, G.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Short, E. W.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

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

    Lewis, Arthur

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)

    Edelman, M.

    Logan, D. G.

    Snow, J. W.

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    McInnes, J.

    Steele, T.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    McLeavy, F.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Ewart, R.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon J.

    Fernyhough, E.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Field, W. J.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Fienburgh, W.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Finch, H. J.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

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

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Follick, M.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Foot, M. M.

    Manual, A. C.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Forman, J. C.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Thomas, David (Aberdara)

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

    Mellish, R. J.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Messer, F.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Glanville, James

    Mikardo, Ian

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Thurtle, Ernest

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

    Monslow, W.

    Timmons, J.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Moody, A. S.

    Tomney, F.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefie'd)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Morley, R.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Gray, C. F.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

    Wallace, H. W.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mort, D. L.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Moyle, A.

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

    Grimond, J.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Murray, J. D.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Nally, W.

    West, D. G.

    Hamilton, W. W.

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

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Hannan, W.

    O'Brien, T.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Hardy, E. A.

    Oliver, G. H.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Hargreaves, A.

    Oswald, T.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Padley, W. E.

    Wigg, George

    Hastings, S.

    Paget, R. T.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hayman, F. H.

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

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

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

    Panned, Charles

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Pargitar, G. A.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillary)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Parker, J.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Paton, J.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Holman, P.

    Peart, T. F.

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

    Houghton, Douglas

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)

    Hoy, J. H.

    Popplewell, E.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Porter, G.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Yates, V. F.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Rankin, John

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Reeves, J.

    Question put accordingly, "The those words be there inserted."
    The committee divided: Ayes, 263; Noes,284.

    Division No. 82]

    AYES

    [8.55 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J.

    Adams, Richard

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Bence, C. R.

    Albu, A. H.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Benson, G.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Baird, J.

    Beswick, F.

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Balfour, A.

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

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Popplewell, E.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hastings, S.

    Porter, G.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Price, Phillips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Boardman, H.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A G.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Rankin, John

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Holman, P.

    Reeves, J.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Hoy, J. H.

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Rhodes, H.

    Brown, Rt. Hon George (Belper)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Richards, R.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Ross, William

    Carmichael, J.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Royle, C.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

    Champion, A. J.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Chetwynd, G. R.

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

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Clunie, J.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Short, E. W.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Coldrick, W.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Collick, P. H.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Cook, T. F.

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Corbel, Mrs. Freda

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Snow, J. W.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Keenan, W.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Steele, T.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Logan, D. G.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    MacColl, J. E.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Deer, G.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Delargy, H. J.

    McInnes, J.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    McLeavy, F.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Edelman, M.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

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

    Timmons, J.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Tomney, F.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Ewart, R.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Viant, S. P.

    Field, W. J.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Messer, F.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Finch, H. J.

    Mikardo, Ian

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

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Follick, M.

    Monslow, W.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Foot, M. M.

    Moody, A. S.

    West, D. G.

    Forman, J. C.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Morley, R.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

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

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

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mort, D. L.

    Wigg, George

    Glanville, James

    Moyle, A.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Malley, F. W.

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

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

    Murray, J. D.

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossandale)

    Nally, W.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    O'Brien, T.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Grey, C. F.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Oswald, T.

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

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Padley, W. E.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Paget, R. T.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Grimond, J.

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

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Pannell, Charles

    Yates, V. F.

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Younger, Rt. Hon K.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Parker, J.

    Hannan, W.

    Paton, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hardy, E. A.

    Peart, T. F.

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes

    Hargreaves, A.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    2858

    2859

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Gage, C. H.

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

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

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

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

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj G. Lloyd

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    Markham, Major S. F.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Godber, J. B.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

    Gomme-Duncan, Col A.

    Marples, A. E.

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Gower, H. R.

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Maude, Angus

    Banks, Col. C.

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Maudling, R.

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

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

    Baxter, A. B.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Beach, Major Hicks

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Hare, Han. J. H.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

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

    Harvey, Air Cdre A V. (Macclesfield)

    Mott-Ratclyffe, C. E.

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Harvey-Watt, Sir George

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Hay, John

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Birch, Nigel

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Black, C. W.

    Heath, Edward

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Bowen, E. R.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Odey, G. W.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hinchengbrooke, Viscount

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

    Brains, B. R.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

    Hollis, M. C.

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

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

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

    Osborne, C.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Hope, Lord John

    Partridge, E.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hopkinson, Henry

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

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

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

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

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Channon, H.

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

    Profumo, J. D.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

    Redmayne, E.

    Cole, Norman

    Jennings, R.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Keeling, Sir Edward

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Roper, Sir Harold

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

    Lambton, Viscount

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Russell, R. S.

    Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Cuthbert, W. N.

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

    Sandys, Rt. Hon D.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col W. (Rochdale)

    Davidson, Viscountess

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

    Scott, R. Donald

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr R.

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Shepherd, William

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Donner, P. W.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Drewe, C.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

    Snadden, M. McN.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)

    Speir, R. M.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

    Fell, A.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Finlay, Graeme.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Fisher, Nigel

    McCallum, Major D.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

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

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Fort, R.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Foster, John

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Storey, S.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    2860

    2861

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Tilney, John

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Touche, G. C.

    Wellwood, W.

    Summers, G. S.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Turton, R. H.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Teeling, W.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

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

    Vosper, D. F.

    Wills, G.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Wood, Hon. R.

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

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    York, C.

    Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    TELLERS TOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Butcher and Mr. Kaberrs.

    Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 9, at end, insert:
    (2) No chemist shall be required to determine the amount of any charge under this section.—[Dr. Stross.]
    Question put, "The those words be there inserted."
    The committee divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 283.

    Division No. 83.]

    AYES

    [9.7 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Delargy, H. J.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Adams, Richard

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Albu, A. H.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

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

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

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

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Edelman, M.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)

    Baird, J.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Balfour, A.

    Ewart, R.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Keenan, W.

    Bence, C. R.

    Field, W. J.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Fienburgh, W.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Benson, G.

    Finch, H. J.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Beswick, F.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

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

    Follick, M.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Foot, M. M.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Blackburn, F.

    Forman, J. C.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Logan, D. G.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Boardman, H.

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

    McGhee, H. G.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Gibson, C. W.

    McInnes, J.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Glanville, James

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Bowen, E. R.

    Gooch, E. G.

    McLeavy, F.

    Bowles, F. G.

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

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Burke, W. A.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Grimond, J.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Hall, Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Carmichael, J.

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Messer, F.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Champion, A. J.

    Hannan, W.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Monslow, W.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Moody, A. S.

    Clunie, J.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Hastings, S.

    Morley, R.

    Coldrick, W.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Collick, P. H.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

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

    Cook, T. F.

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

    Mort, D. L.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Moyle, A.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Murray, J. D.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Holman, P.

    Nally, W.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Houghton, Douglas

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

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hoy, J. H.

    O'Brien, T.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Oswald, T.

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Padley, W. E.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Paget, R. T.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

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

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Deer, G.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pannell, Charles

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Viant, S. P.

    Parker, J.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdigton)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Paton, J.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Peart, T. F.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

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

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Popplewell, E.

    Snow, J. W.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Porter, G.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    West, D. G.

    Price, Joseph T. (Westboughton)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)

    Sparks, J. A.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Steele, T.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Wigg, George

    Rankin, John

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Reeves, J.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Stress, Dr. Barnett

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    Rhodes, H.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Richards, R.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

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

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Ross, William

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Royle, C.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Timmons, J.

    Yates, V. F.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Tomney, F.

    Younger, Rt Hon K.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Short, E. W.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Hay, John

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

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

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

    Heath, Edward

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Crowder, Petro (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

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

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Baldwin, A E.

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Hollis, M. C.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Hope, Lord John

    Baxter, A. B.

    Donner, P. W.

    Hopkinson, Henry

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Drewe, C.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Eccles, Rt. Hon D. M.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

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

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Fell, A.

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Birch, Nigel

    Finlay, Graeme

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

    Bishop, F. P.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Black, C. W.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Fort, R.

    Jennings, R.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Foster, John

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Braine, B. R.

    Gage, C. H.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Kaberry, D.

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

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Keeling, Sir Edward

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

    Gammans, L. D.

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Lambton, Viscount

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

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Godber, J. B.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Gough, C. F. H.

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

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Gower, H. R.

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

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

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Lindsay, Martin

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Linstead, H. N.

    Channon, H.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Cole, Norman

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

    Colegate, W. A.

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

    Low, A. R. W.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    2864

    2865

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Partridge, E.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

    Storey, S.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    McCallum, Major D.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Summers, G. S.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Teeling, W.

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

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

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

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

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

    Redmayne, E.

    Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Markham, Major S. F.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Tilley, John

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Roberts, Peter (Healey)

    Touche, G. C.

    Marples, A. E.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Turton, R. H.

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Maude, Angus

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Maudling, R.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

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

    Russell, R. S.

    Vesper, D. F.

    Medlicott, Brig, F.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)

    Mellor, Sir John

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

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

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Scott, R. Donald

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Shepherd, William

    Wellwood, W.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Wills, G.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Speir, R. M.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Odey, G. W.

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

    York, C.

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

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Mr. Butcher and

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

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

    Mr. Kaberry.

    Osborne, C.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Mrs. Braddock: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert:
    (2) No hospital management committee, board of management or board of governors shall be required to make or recover any charge under this section.
    This is a very important Amendment, because it goes to the root of the whole question of charges to be made for prescriptions and surgical appliances in the hospital out-patients departments. I am very sorry indeed that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is not in her place, because I have one or two things to say and I cannot postpone them. She will have to read them later on.
    I have listened to the debate up to now and have heard at least four hon. Gentlemen who are members of the medical profession putting forward and supporting Amendments and hoping for a reasoned and sensible reply to arguments which were based upon their intimate knowledge of their profession. When she came to reply the hon. Lady showed her complete ignorance of the whole process of hospitalisation and everything in
    2866
    relation to it. What I wanted her to hear me say was that while it might be all right to stand before the microphone at Broadcasting House to make party political broadcasts and be flattered by those sections of the Conservative Party who listen to her—
    Mr. Frederick Gough: On a point of order. Is what the hon. Lady is saying within the limits of the Amendment?
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): I was hoping that the hon. Lady was about to come to the Amendment now before us.
    Mrs. Braddock: I am about to come to that, but before making my case, which will be a serious one, I think I am entitled to draw attention to the fact that up to the moment the Parliamentary Secretary has been completely unable to make any reasoned reply to explain why my hon. Friend's Amendments should not be accepted. I was saying that it is very easy to stand in front of a microphone at Broadcasting House and make

    2867
    party political broadcasts, but it is not so easy to get away with ignorance in this Committee as it is over the microphone to the country at large. On an important matter of this sort the country expects Ministers to have some knowledge of the subject being discussed, and to be able sensibly and reasonably to reply to whatever criticisms may be made.
    I was hoping that the hon. Lady would be here, because I intend to tell the Committee why this Amendment has been put down. I am sure she ought to be informed of the process involved in the outpatient and in-patient treatment in our hospitals, because until she knows that she will be quite incapable of making any sensible contribution to our discussions.
    This is what happens. A person is, for some reason or another, admitted to hospital on the medical note of their doctor or at the request of one of the specialists in the service. They remain in hospital undergoing treatment for some time. To a very large extent, we are unable to supply beds for needy patients, and doctors have to discharge patients from hospitals, and particularly from maternity units, far sooner than they ought to for the good of the patient. That is because there are such long waiting lists and the beds are urgently required for other cases.
    Because of that, there are out-patients departments to continue the treatment and attention, first, for those discharged from in-patient accommodation who need continuation of the treatment; secondly, for those whom the medical profession think can be prevented from occupying hospital beds, and so saving the service the weekly cost of maintenance charges, which are very high at the moment; thirdly, they are very often used because people are unable to receive in-patient treatment for the time that it is necessary, and in order to prevent an increase in the growth of the disease, whatever it may be, the doctor sends the patient to the out-patient department where he considers out-patient treatment to be necessary.
    This happens in almost every hospital under the control of the Health Service.
    2868
    Where the hospital has not got an accredited out-patient department, it makes emergency arrangements so that its patients can continue to visit the same doctor or specialist at the intervals at which the doctor or specialist desires to see them. For example, in maternity cases, in order to save the woman going to the doctor for her medicines, after she has been to the ante-natal clinic, the ante-natal clinic departments supply the necessary medicines. That prevents a woman in that condition travelling to the ante-natal clinic, getting a prescription and then travelling back to her doctor to get the medicine.
    If the Minister makes inquiries, I think he will find that in almost every antenatal clinic throughout the country the women who attend, rather than being referred back again to their family doctors or medical practitioners, are supplied with the necessary drugs and medicines in order to save them dragging themselves about from one place to another. I think that is the most extensive service in which medicines and drugs are issued.
    I listened to the hon. Lady when she made her last reply, and I thought that she made a most appalling statement. She said that no charge would be made for medicines or injections that were taken on the premises. I can visualise a lot of patients lining up, with nurses pouring teaspoonsful of medicine down their throats in order to prevent them having to pay 1s. for their prescriptions and having to have them dispensed outside.
    This business is getting into the most complete muddle. By the time the Minister reads the whole of that the debates and the points put forward from this side of the Committee—because there has been a great deficiency either of criticisms or helpful suggestions from the other side of the Committee during this debate—and when he comes to look at the administrative details required to put this scheme into operation, I think he will find, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) when he was Minister of Health, that it was completely impossible to administer.
    Let me put to the Minister one or two really serious points in relation to this matter. When my own Government was in control I took strong exception to the

    2869
    imposition of charges of any sort under the National Health Scheme. I made a very strong statement to my own Minister in relation to that matter, and I am making just as strong, or perhaps a little stronger, statement to the present Government, that I have no intention of suggesting to any member of the community that these charges ought to be put into operation or that they are in any way administratively possible.
    The reason I take such a strong exception to this—and I am speaking not only for myself but for many thousands of people—is that if this scheme is going to be administratively possible very detailed arrangements must be made. In one of her replies last night the hon. Lady said that it would be quite easy for a person in receipt of National Assistance to recover the cost of the medicine he or she needed.
    That means that some special adminisstrative arrangements must be made immediately, so that the person in receipt of National Assistance can obtain a receipt from the chemist, the hospital, the out-patients' clinic or the tuberculosis department, whichever is the appropriate department, and that department must have an administrative officer to write upon that receipt the name and the National Health number of the patient concerned. Otherwise, anybody can say, "I am in receipt of National Assistance."and nobody can prove that he or she is not. If an ordinary receipt is given it opens up immediately the possibility—and the Government are really asking for it—of all sorts of abuses in relation to the reclaiming of the 1s. paid by a person for the medicine he or she needs.
    9.30 p.m.
    What is to prevent anyone getting a prescription from a doctor or hospital or chemist, paying 1s. for it, and saying, "I am in receipt of National Assistance"? I deprecate the need for any individual in this country at this time in the century having to say that to any official under any circumstances whatsoever. But if this scheme is to be put into operation that must be done.
    If a person in need of a prescription has to pay 1s. to the chemist and say, "I am in receipt of National Assistance, I need a special receipt," can we estimate the number of receipts which would have to be supplied to every chemist, every
    2870
    hospital and every out-patients' department and can we estimate the amount of administrative work that will be involved every time a patient says, "I am in receipt of National Assistance, I want a receipt for the money I have paid over, so that I can have it refunded"?
    If we do not have the patient's name and National Health number on the receipt, we may say, "We will put his pension book number on it." The Parliamentary Secretary said, "All they have to do is to take their pension book to the post office and have their money refunded." Is the post office to be put into the difficulty of looking up the name and number on the receipt which a person has had to wait for at a chemist's shop in order that it may be checked up with the pension book, if it is a person who is in receipt of National Assistance and requires the 1s. refunded?
    Imagine the terrific administrative details which will have to be dealt with in relation to this matter. It is not worth the amount of money which the Government are expecting to get back. It is much easier to deal with the position as it was dealt with before. I believe that if the Minister inquired of the civil servants who considered this matter before, he would be told that that was one of the specific reasons put to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale—that the administrative difficulties in relation to this scheme were so tremendous that it was not worth the trouble of doing it.
    This procedure will have to apply in every out-patient department of every hospital. The Minister said last night, when we were discussing this matter, that the number of patients in each hospital requiring a prescription would be very small. If it is very small, is that not all the more reason why it would be foolish to designate a person to do that specific job? I do not think that it would be possible to designate only one person, because hospital out-patient departments are open for 24 hours. We cannot estimate the number of people who attend out-patient departments for accidents.
    Is the Minister suggesting that if a person has an accident in the street, is taken to an out-patient department, is attended to by a doctor and either stitched up or plastered up or has some other attention given to him, and the doctor says, "I must give you a prescription

    2871
    because you need a particular type of sedative so that you can settle down before you attend this clinic or another clinic tomorrow"—is that doctor to put the sedative down the patient's throat in order that the patient will not have to pay for it and so that it can be technically said that it has been administered on the hospital premises? But the accident might have happened at night. The patient might be able to go home and might not need to be put into a casualty bed. The doctor might say, "You have had a shock, but we do not want to keep you here. We will send you home in an ambulance and during the night you must take a prescription."
    This is where the last Amendment very definitely comes in, because the doctor may be the only one in the casualty department or the others there may be heavily engaged with casualties. If he then dispenses the prescription himself, has he to take the shilling or has he to say to the patient, "Are you in receipt of National Assistance? Can you afford the shilling?"
    What happens if the person who is knocked down has not a cent on him? Who chases round to collect the shillings which have not been collected in the outpatients' departments? I am only talking about the sort of things that may actually happen.
    Mr. Crookshank: I am sorry to interrupt the most interesting speech which the hon. Lady is making, but the Amendment is on a very narrow point. It does not really deal with the matters about which she is speaking, interesting though they are. It deals with whether or not hospital managements committees and so on should be entitled to recover charges.
    The Temporary Chairman: As I interpret the Amendment, the hon. Lady is quite right in making her case, as she believes it, on the inadvisability from her point of view of hospital management committees having to make a charge.
    Mrs. Braddock: Thank you. Mr. Thomas; I will continue. I believe that what I am saying is completely relevant, and if the Minister interferes and says it is not, I must tell him that he is in as much ignorance as is his Parliamentary Secretary. It is mainly because I know
    2872
    that there is such a terrific amount of ignorance in relation to this matter on the Government Front Bench and among those who are responsible for dealing with the Bill that I find it necessary to go into so much detail.
    To take my case a little further, management committees and boards of governors have already had from the Minister a circular asking them to go into administrative details for the collection of this money. The circular does not say that a nurse or a doctor cannot be asked to do it, or that a clerk should be designated to do it, or that three eight-hour periods should be fixed—
    Mr. Baird: Does my hon. Friend state that a circular has been sent out from the Minister before the Bill has been passed?
    Mrs. Braddock: A circular has been sent to every management committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I should like the Minister to produce the circular. It has been before every management committee or board of governors so that advice may be given to officials on how those bodies desire this to be done. The Minister ought to read the circular to us when he replies so that we know exactly what has happened. I mentioned this to the Minister when I had a word with him about the situation, so he knew that I should refer to it.
    Colonel Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: Why does not the hon. Lady produce it?
    Mrs. Braddock: I am only an ordinary member of a management committee. Copies have not been sent to every member of management committees, but only to the secretaries. I do not think I am under any obligation to produce it. It is not my circular; it is the Minister's circular. He should be the one to produce it and read it so that we can see what the situation is.
    Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: On a point of order. It is of supreme importance and interest to the Committee at this stage of the debate, in view of the statement of my hon. Friend, that the Ministry should state categorically whether or not such a circular has been distributed from his Department to the hospitals and, if so, that the circular should be read to the Committee.
    The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order. The Minister will be speaking, if he so desires, in the course of the debate.
    Mrs. Braddock: This circular must be within the knowledge of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because many of them are Members of management committees and boards of governors, and if they have no knowledge of it, quite obviously they are not doing the job for which the Minister appointed them because, they are not attending their Committees.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: The hon. Lady is wrong. My right hon. Friend has not appointed a single member on this side of the Committee to any management committee.
    Mrs. Braddock: The appalling ignorance—
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Name one.
    Mrs. Braddock: —of people on the other side of the Committee is amazing. I get more staggered by it as the weeks go by.
    Mr. Messer: The hon. and gallant Member, of course, is on a mere technicality.
    Mrs. Braddock: Of course.
    Mr. Messer: The Minister does not appoint members of management committees or members of regional boards, but he appoints members of boards of governors.
    Mrs. Braddock: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to know, and if he wants me to go into a full statement of how regional boards, boards of governors, management committees, house committees, specialist committees, and so on are appointed, I am quite prepared to do so.
    The Temporary Chairman: I think I can save the hon. Lady that trouble. It would be out of order.
    Mrs. Braddock: I quite agree with you, Mr. Thomas, but these interjections of ignorance provoke one to use what knowledge one has to enlighten some of the very dull Members which we have on the opposite side of this Committee.
    This circular requests committees to produce an administrative scheme so that
    2874
    the collection of the shillings and the amounts for the appliances can be put into operation. Up to now all I have seen is a circular, but I know what has been in the circular, and I expect at the next meeting of my management committee I will have some indication of the steps that that particular committee is going to take to administer the scheme.
    What I am trying to point out to the Minister is that if the Government proceed with this Bill, then the right hon. Gentleman cannot leave it to individual administrators or to each individual outpatient department of the hospital service. It will be a State receipt which will be issued, and it will have to be something that will be legal at post offices throughout the country. It will have to be easily discernible, and something which a person can use to recover his or her money if he or she is away from the area in which they live.
    Let us get this thing in complete order, because it is so terribly important. If a person is away from home he will get a prescription and a receipt, but according to the Parliamentary Secretary that person can only obtain the 1s. back again from the post office at which he draws his supplementary pension. That means there has got to be a national receipt which covers every section of the service so that an official receipt will be used. It will have to be a receipt that has definitely been issued by the Minister of Health, and receipt which will enable a person to reclaim the money for a prescription if he is getting National Assistance. The National Assistance Board will have to give the House at some time in its accounts an assessment of the amount of its receipts and the amount of shillings it pays out on top of its ordinary National Assistance to people who reclaim the shilling for a prescription.
    9.45 p.m.
    Because this is so far-reaching, let me put another case of a person who goes to an out-patients' department and gets a prescription and has to get it refunded. What about the person who is not in receipt of National Assistance? What about the person who has only a 30s. pension, because he is living with relatives, because he is paying no rent. I speak from experience. I kept my father at my home for 10 years without a halfpenny except his pension. He died at

    2875
    83. He had no National Assistance. There must be any amount of cases of that sort. How will they reclaim their shilling? Are they to pay that shilling out of the 30s. pension? If they attend a hospital and continue through the outpatients' department to get their prescription and require to have it returned at the post office, no provision has been made.
    We had progressed so far in the welfare state. We had taught people that they could get their pensions, whether supplementary or State pension for which they pay, through the Post Office on a book so that the person next to them would not know whether they were getting supplementation or not. It is a most degrading thing, one of the lowest things a Tory Minister could do in relation to national health, once again to make it necessary for a person in receipt of National Assistance, in order to get a receipt for his shilling prescription from the out-patient department, to have to say to the doctor or the dispenser or the clerk or the nurse or the sister, "Please give me an official receipt with my name and National Health number on it. I am in receipt of supplementation from the Assistance Board and the only way I can get my shilling returned is to produce the official receipt which the Ministry of Health say I must have to supply to the post office at which I draw my pension."
    To what depths have we sunk in relation to this matter. It is appalling. The Minister may laugh. I hope he will never be in the position of having to do that sort of thing. I would not wish it on my worst enemy. I would not wish it on one or two of the people on the other side of the Committee whom I would choke at any time I had the opportunity of so doing.
    We shall find another tendency. The medical profession has been making efforts, more so since this scheme started, to get a quick turnover of beds so that all those people who need medical attention in the hospitals can get it as quickly as possible. The doctors will say that rather than go to all the administrative trouble necessary to issue a prescription and a receipt where necessary, they will keep the patient in for an extra couple of weeks to continue or finish the treatment they require instead of giving them
    2876
    continuation treatment in the out-patient department. That would add to the hospital costs and to the Health Service costs many times more than the £250,000 that the Minister anticipates saving.
    The Amendment can be quite easily dealt with. It would save time and difficulty, and it would place, as the Minister is entitled to be able to do, on the specialist and medical profession the responsibility of deciding whether a person needs to continue attending at an out-patient department and needs to continue being prescribed for medicines through that department. That whole lot could be cut out, and the Minister would save all the vast amount of administration that his permanent officials will tell him would be necessary, if he accepts the Amendment and gives to the medical profession the trust that we have given them up to the present, by saying that if they find it necessary a person can be discharged from hospital because the bed is needed for someone much more critically ill.
    If that patient can be discharged and can continue to be treated and dispensed for through the out-patient departments in the hospitals controlled by the management committees and boards of governors; if bed accommodation for inpatients can be saved by referring someone to an out-patient department instead of being put into a bed, so that he can get his prescriptions through that department; if the Minister continues to say this and to put the trust in the medical profession, I am certain that the saving to the Service generally would be very much more than the £250,000 that he anticipates collecting from these charges.
    The hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), who sent me the postcard, has been waiting desperately to say that I made a statement on the Bill in 1949 but that when it came to the Division I voted with my party. Because this has been stated on the public platform, the hon. Member ought to have followed up his statement by saying that the reason I so voted was because my party and Government made a concession in relation to the charges. They said that they would reconsider them in 1954. That concession, I agree, was hard wrung out, but it was wrung out.
    The Temporary Chairman: I have been generous to the hon. Lady in the last few moments, because while she may feel deeply on this question, it has nothing to do with the Amendment.
    Mrs. Braddock: I quite agree, Mr. Thomas, but I could not resist the opportunity.
    I hope that the points I have put to the Minister will be carefully considered. I should like him tonight to be able to say that a case has been made out for including the Amendment in the Bill and that no charge shall be made for dispensing medicines through out-patient departments to people who go there, instead of going into hospital, for continuation treatment, or who are released from hospital and continue treatment. I am certain that if the Minister does this, he will find that the very great administrative responsibilities which otherwise would be entailed to the hospital management committees in administering the scheme—and the Estimates have been cut so fine that it will not be possible, even if it is necessary, to take on extra staff to deal with this administration—will be very much reduced.
    I hope sincerely that the Minister will accept the Amendment and will exclude from the payment in respect of drugs and medicines those people who attend outpatient departments of various hospitals under the different sections of the Health Scheme. I assure him that by so doing, bad though his administrative difficulties will be in the way of administration through the medical profession and the Post Office, he will, at any rate, relieve the hospital management committees, the staffs, doctors, nurses and out-patient departments, of the very extra responsibility of collecting a few paltry shillings from patients who attend out-patient departments.
    Mr. Crookshank: I have listened, very attentively of course, to the speech of the hon. Lady, and I am much indebted because she has brought out a number of points worthy of study, which will be studied. But we are dealing with a very narrow Amendment and, of course, it is a wrecking Amendment, because the Committee have already accepted subsection (1) of this Clause, which says:
    "regulations may provide for the making and recovery,"
    of charges.
    2878
    The hon. Lady proposes instead of that to insert a decision that:
    "No hospital management committee, board of management or board of governors shall be required"
    to make any charges under this scheme. But they are the only people who could set in motion the making or recovery of charges and, therefore, the Amendment would contradict what we have done in the last few days.
    This Clause is only an empowering Clause. The effective action will be taken by regulation, as was done on the much wider issue—the prescription issue—in the Measure of the Labour Government which was enacted. This Clause is to bring the hospital section of the problem into line with what is already on the Statute Book, and when this Clause is passed and the Bill becomes an Act there will be power under this Measure to make similar regulations mutatis mutandis to those empowered in the original Act.
    Under subsection (1) we have already granted that, and the only question I have to answer—as I say, I will note what the hon. Lady has said—is to deal with the actual Amendment, which says:
    No hospital management committee, board of management or board of governors shall be required to make or recover any charge under this section.
    If charges are to be made, of course one or other of those bodies are the people to deal with them; there is nobody else so far as the hospital world is concerned. One or other of these bodies according to different circumstances, will be concerned with the making and recovery of charges, and it will be in the regulations. That is the place to lay down in each particular case the particular authority to do this work.
    Broadly speaking, it will be the hospital management committee which will be responsible for the making of the charges. I know that the hon. Lady does not want them to collect, but this Amendment poses the question, supposing there are to be charges, who is to collect them?
    10.0 p.m.
    Mrs. Braddock: If the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment, it pre-supposes, not there will be nobody to collect, but that they will have no opportunity of collecting.
    Mr. Crookshank: Exactly. It is entirely a wrecking Amendment, and for that reason I ask the Committee to reject it.
    Mr. Hector McNeil: Would the right hon. Gentleman meet us on the point made by my hon. Friend with reference to the circular? I must make it plain I do not think it was necessarily irregular; I think it would be quite often the case that instructions might be sent out saying, in the event of an enactment taking place, that these administrative arrangements should be made. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree, however, that he would not want to leave the Committee at any disadvantage compared with a management committee or a board of governors or a regional committee.
    It would be very interesting because this dilemma which my hon. Friend has presented to the Minister is very real. Anyone who has ever been in an outpatient's department, either as a patient or having some administrative responsibility knows that the pace of an outpatients' department is frequently conditional on the clerical work which can be carried through. I will not strain the patience of the Committee by recalling what actually happens but it is a very difficult job to ensure that the records are kept coincidentally with the presentation of the patients.
    Who is the right hon. Gentleman expecting to be designated by the board of management to do this further clerical job? As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) says, how is it to be done? Must the patient have with him or her a ration book, an Assistance Board book—
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I am wondering what is the position. I thought the Minister was in possession of the Floor, and now the right hon. Gentleman is making a statement.
    Mr. McNeil: I did not think so. I thought that for the moment the Minister had concluded his speech.
    Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman had asked a question and I was going to answer it.
    Mr. McNeil: Perhaps I can explain my anxiety to see this circular and have
    2880
    explained the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman anticipates will follow from it should the Committee and the House enact in the fashion proposed. Is a patient to present himself at the outpatients' department of a hospital and satisfy the authorities there not that he is ill or sick or crippled but that he has a number in his pocket? Otherwise we shall have a black market traffic in these receipts. Some kind of number or identification must be placed on a receipt, or we are putting a premium on this business. For example, let us imagine that I am carrying a pension book and that here are my right hon. and hon. Friends, none of whom carries a book, but who all need prescriptions. It is a great temptation to me, being already in receipt of Assistance, to have a little "side business" with the receipts.
    I assume that the right hon. Gentleman has looked at that and that it will not happen, but that there will be some identification, presumably by a number of some kind on the receipt. But is a poor, aged sick woman, coming to an out-patients' department to be sent home without a prescription because she has not a shilling, or because she cannot identify herself? What is to happen to a man carried in, having had a minor injury late at night? That sometimes happens, even to hon. Members of this House. The man in the casualty department says to him, "You had better have a sedative." Are we really expecting the injured man to provide a number in those circumstances?
    Mr. P. W. Donner: On a point of order. We were listening to a speech by the Minister of Health. In 20 years' experience of this House, I cannot recall a previous occasion when a right hon. Gentleman has not only interrupted a Minister of the Crown but has proceeded to speak at length.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I have only just come into the Committee. That is why I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in possession of the Floor. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman speaking from the Opposition Front Benches was asking a question. If the Minister has concluded his speech, then the right hon. Gentleman is in order.
    Mr. McNeil: I do not want to embarrass anyone. I have a number of points to put. If the hon. Gentleman thinks

    2881
    that his right hon. Friend is being disadvantaged, of course I will give way; but if the hon. Gentleman comes into the Committee at this time of night because he has nothing else to do, he had better be quiet and not criticise the behaviour of people who have been trying to improve this Bill for a long time.
    The Deputy-Chairman: If right hon. and hon. Member will address the Chair instead of one another, it will be better.
    Mr. McNeil: I think that it is still competent for me to say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not right for him to come in so late, because he could not go to the picture house or somewhere else, and try to tell this Committee, which has now spent some considerable time on this Bill, how it should conduct its business.
    I do not want to be cross with the Minister about this. Whenever he wants to intervene, naturally I will follow Committee procedure and give way. It will be of interest to see how the circular is directed. The right hon. Gentleman has trailed himself round with the crutch that the proposal in this Bill was one which a previous Government introduced, but even if that crutch is of great comfort to him, that Measure does not cover the out-patients at all; it only covers drugs.
    This question goes much further and will inflict perhaps greater hardship. It is a distinct extension. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also tell us how he means to separate the drugs which are obtained by prescription from drugs administered on the premises. We have discussed this question before. We have had a kind of assurance on it. It is fairly difficult to understand, though I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to inform us upon it.
    Finally, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is a fair assumption that he has reason to believe that there are abuses in the out-patients' departments? It is difficult to believe that there are, and it is unfair to a noble profession, and the higher ranks of a noble profession, to leave unquestioned any inference that that is so. The right hon. Gentleman admitted to us at an earlier stage that he had no evidence of abuse of another kind, although he had heard it said that there was. Unless he has any evidence, he must make it plain that there is no abuse here and that he is satisfied that these ladies
    2882
    and gentlemen are discharging their professional obligations in the normal economic and efficient way, and that this is only a fiscal device which has nothing at all to do with the issue of drugs and medicines.
    Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I have listened to the argument put forward by the Minister of Health. At one stage I thought of asking leave to move to report Progress to give the right hon. Gentleman the chance of having a look at an out-patients' department in a hospital. I think that the Committee is taking a rather unfortunate advantage of his complete lack of knowledge of this aspect of hospital organisation. I think that there is a general sympathy on this side of the Committee for the right hon. Gentleman in the fact that he really does not know what a hospital out-patients' department is like, has no experience how it works and has little or no experience of the type of people using it.
    The right hon. Gentleman, in his remarks, described this as a wrecking Amendment. I do not know whether that is a reflection on the Chair or not, but I am sure that the Chair would not have thought of calling an Amendment which it considered to be a wrecking Amendment. I think that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has quite rightly said, this is an Amendment of great substance and importance, affecting a very large section of the community, and a very large number of those who use the National Health Service.
    The right hon. Gentleman has tried to ride off on the very narrow point that this Amendment was simply dealing with a particular aspect of the Health Service in respect of which the position created by the passing of the 1949 Act was being regularised, but that really does not affect the merits or demerits of this Amendment. It is no answer to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend, and at no stage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman did he make a single, concrete intelligent argument in answer to my hon. Friend's very sensible, detailed and documented case.
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will study very carefully what my hon. Friend has said, because she has great experience in the working of the hospital service, and has rendered great service to the

    2883
    hospital management committee on which she serves, and, therefore, has a particularly distinguished record in this respect. I think the right hon. Gentleman should bow to the superior knowledge and contribution which has been made to the Health Service by my hon. Friend, and that he should treat her arguments seriously. We therefore ask him to give some more sensible answer, instead of trying to ride off on a very narrow point.
    Let me come now to one or two other points which my hon. Friend did not cover. The problem of hospital outpatients is made considerably worse because of the shortage of hospital beds, which is particularly true in the rural areas and in the areas where hospital building programmes before the war were completely neglected. It is particularly true in Wales, and I remember Questions being asked from time to time by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) about the numbers of people on the waiting lists of hospitals both in Cardiff and in other parts of Wales.
    The cause of that difficulty was the neglect of those areas by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in the years between the wars, and this problem is doubly acute where these hospitals are very short staffed and inadequately serviced. Many people who use outpatients' departments simply do so because the physical limitations of the hospital available in their area renders it necessary for them to go to another hospital in some other area which is better served—like Bournemouth, or some other better-off part of Britain, in which a completely different situation exists, and where it is very much easier for people to get into hospital.
    If the Clause is approved as it stands, and if the Amendment is not accepted, those people who live in the areas which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends neglected in the years between the wars will suffer even worse than the people who live in the better-off areas in Britain and who are able to reap the benefits under the National Health Service which their compatriots, perhaps suffering from exactly the same illnesses, are not able to receive. The right hon. Gentleman should really look at this question of inequality as between different parts of Britain. It really is not fair that people
    2884
    who live in areas where there is a bad hospital service should be worse off than those who live in areas where the hospital service is good and who do not have to pay.
    The hospital out-patient departments are very extensively used in the rural areas, where people have to make long journeys from villages in remote areas to the centres and market towns, and, when they go to the out-patients' departments, they have to pay fares on buses or other means of transport. Are they going to be doubly penalised through having to pay for the services under this Bill as it stands?
    10.15 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are busy putting up the petrol duty so as to put up the fares of people in rural areas. They are trying to penalise them in every conceivable way, and by resisting this Amendment they are doubly penalising people living in the scattered rural areas, who not only have to pay the extra fares to get to the hospital, but also have to pay the charges because the hospitals in those areas have been neglected in the past.
    It affects those people in another way as well. Working people who have to attend the out-patient departments of hospitals have to lose time from work in order to do so. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman understands what that means. I hope he does. I also hope, as my hon. Friend said on an earlier point, that he will never have to lose time from work in order to attend the out-patient department of a hospital. It is unjust that people who have to lose time from work in this way should have extra charges placed upon them in these circumstances.
    The right hon. Gentleman in his chop-logic arguments about narrow points has not made a single attempt to answer these human problems which face the people today. Perhaps he does not care; perhaps he does not understand, or, again, perhaps it is because he is simply determined that this Bill shall go through regardless of the wishes of the people and regardless of the difficulties it will create.
    I come now to another point. One of the most extensive uses of the outpatients' departments of hospitals in South Wales is by people suffering from

    2885
    pneumoconiosis. The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends are busy asking for recruits to the mining industry at the present time. Are they proposing to reward those who have served the mining industry so well in the past by—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member is going very wide of the Amendment, which only asks that hospital management committees and other bodies shall not be required to recover the charges.
    Mr. Donnelly: With respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I am advised by those who helped my hon. Friend and myself to draft this Amendment that it refers to charges made to people who attend hospital out-patient departments. One of the largest sections of users of these out-patients' departments are members of the mining community.
    The Deputy-Chairman: This Amendment simply says that no hospital management committee, board of management or board of governors shall be required to collect the money.
    Mr. Donnelly: I am objecting to the collection of the money from people suffering from pneumoconiosis. This is a very real problem. Here we have a great industry on which the whole future of the country depends, and at the present moment we are confronted with the problem of getting more people into the mines. What hope have we of recruiting men to the mining industry if those thinking of entering it have no security regarding what will happen to them if they become disabled? Under these proposals, the people in the mining industry will be put back to the position that obtained before 1910. Is that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman hopes to get recruits to the mines?
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On a point of order. Is the hon. Gentleman going to be allowed to go through every possible disease which can affect the human body?
    The Deputy-Chairman: What this Amendment proposes is that the duty of collecting the charges shall not fall upon a particular set of bodies.
    Mr. Donnelly: Perhaps I may be allowed to continue because I have no intention of entering into an argument
    2886
    with the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). Whilst I appreciate his great interest in many other subjects, I do not wish to compare those who have to use the out-patient departments of hospitals with those who drink too much beer. That would be narrowing the argument too much.
    I would rather deal with the very real and important problem which affects the whole of South Wales, and although the hon. Member for Farnham is not a Member for South Wales—he never would be for a South Wales constituency for they would not have him—he should realise that this Amendment is very important to sufferers from pneumoconiosis and it is very important that they should not be charged by hospital management committees.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That may be true but it is not relevant to the Amendment, which says that charges shall not be made or collected by certain bodies, no matter where the bodies are.
    Mr. Donnelly: I am grateful to you, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I do not wish to pursue the point any further. I think the Minister should have been able to grasp it by now.
    I will come to the problem which has been troubling me during the whole of the Committee stage of this Bill. In the Library the other day, I came across a publication called "Campaign Guide for 1951" which has a section on the Health Service. I understand it is published by the Conservative Central Office. There was also a "Campaign Guide for 1950" and it is important to note the year because these things change from time to time.
    Page 227 of this publication is devoted to so-called Socialist misrepresentation, under the heading "Socialist Misrepresentation Answered." It states:
    "Socialist propaganda on health matters invariably contains four flagrant examples of misrepresentation."
    It says that one of these misrepresentations is that a Conservative Government would cut the National Health Service. But this Clause, unamended, would cut the Service.
    Page 230 of the publication states, under the heading "Conservative Policy on the National Health Service":
    "The attitude of a future Conservative Government to the Health Service is made

    2887
    clear in ' This is the road.' We pledge ourselves to maintain and improve the Health Service."
    Where will the right hon. Gentleman go if he commits political perjury on behalf of his party in this matter? I should hate to see his photograph appearing on posters under the heading, "Wanted for Political Murder."
    Mr. Anthony Fell: On a point of order. Is not all this wildly irrelevant?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I have already pointed out what is in order on this Amendment.
    Mr. Donnelly: I think we should know where we are going because the Minister talked about this being an empowering Clause, and the right hon. Gentleman tried to brush it off as though it were a relatively unimportant matter. I think the Committee ought to know where we are going when we have this kind of political duplicity. We have no faith in people who cannot keep their word to the electorate. We have no faith in statements made by the right hon. Gentleman to this Committee unless we see them on the Statute Book.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange, has made a very strong case on behalf of a very large section of the community who make great use of this Service. This Clause as it stands is despicable and could only have been introduced by this disgusting Government who I hope will be dismissed by a disillusioned electorate.
    Mr. Crookshank: I do not propose to deal with the discourtesies inherent in the speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), but I hope I shall be allowed to answer questions put to me. It had slipped my mind, and I apologise to the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), but, as has been quite rightly pointed out by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, when there is prospect of legislation or enactment, it frequently happens that the responsible authorities who would have to administer it are taken into consultation beforehand, on the natural assumption that there is nothing binding—it depends whether the Bill becomes an Act or not. It would be very reprehensible if it were
    2888
    the other way round and if an Act were passed which put upon public bodies certain statutory requirements about which they knew nothing.
    The circular to which the hon. Lady referred is merely that sort of document, which suggested to recipients that there was before Parliament a Bill as a result of which it was proposed to impose certain charges, and asking whether they would carefully consider what would be the best administrative arrangements within their own sphere. One hospital might want to do the work in one way and another hospital in another way. It merely suggested that they should take advice amongst themselves about what could best be done, and said that if they required any further help and advice from myself or my officers it would be forthcoming. It was the normal sort of circular sent round in the normal course of events when legislation is passing through Parliament. I hope that satisfies the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady who asked me about it, and I am sorry I omitted to mention it in the first place.
    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. I. O. Thomas(seated and covered): On a point of order. I wish to seek your guidance on the appropriateness or admissibility of a Minister coming on to the Government Front Bench, having been absent for the whole of the time during which this matter has been debated, and at the first opportunity after re-entering the Chamber moving the Closure. Is it in order for that to be accepted by yourself as Deputy-Chairman?
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order, and therefore does not fall within my jurisdiction.
    Mr. Thomas: You say it does not fall within your jurisdiction, but it certainly fell within your jurisdiction to accept the Motion when it was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. As it was obviously within your jurisdiction to accept that Motion, I now ask whether it was appropriate that you should accept it.

    Ayes, 277; Noes, 258.

    Division No. 84.]

    AYES

    [10.25 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Foster, John

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

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

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Gage, C. H.

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Galbraith, Cmdr, T. D. (Pollok)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Gammans, L. D.

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

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

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

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

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Godber, J. B.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Maude, Angus

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Gower, H. R.

    Maudling, R.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

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

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Grimond, J.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

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

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Birch, Nigel

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

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Black, C. W.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hay, John

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Bowen, E. R.

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Nutting, Anthony

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Heath, Edward

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Odey, G. W.

    Braine, B. R.

    Higgs, J. M. C.

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

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

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

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Osborne, C.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Partridge, E.

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

    Hollis, M. C.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Hopkinson, Henry

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Pitman, I. J.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Howard, Greville (St, Ives)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Cary, Sir Robert

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

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Chanson, H.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

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

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Cole, Norman

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Redmayne, E.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Jennings, R.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Kaberry, D.

    Robson-Brown, W.

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

    Keeling, Sir Edward

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Crouch, R. F.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Russell, R. S.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Davidson, Viscountess

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

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

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Scott, R. Donald

    Deedes, W. F.

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

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Lindsay, Martin

    Shepherd, William

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Donner, P. W.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

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

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Elliet, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Stevens, G. P.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

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

    Fell, A.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Fisher, Nigel

    McAdden, S. J.

    Storey, S.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    McCallum, Major. D.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Fort, R.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

    Summers, G. S.

    2890

    2891

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Turton, R. H.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Teeling, W.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

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

    Vosper, D. F.

    Wills, G.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Wood, Hon. R.

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

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    York, C.

    Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Tilney, John

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Brigadier Mackeson and

    Touche, G. C.

    Wellwood, W.

    Mr. Studholme.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Field, W. J.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Adams, Richard

    Fienburgh, W.

    McLeavy, F.

    Albu, A. H.

    Finch, H. J.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Follick, M.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Foot, M. M.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

    Baird, J.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Balfour, A.

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

    Manuel, A. C.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Bence, C. R.

    Glanville, James

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Benson, G.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Messer, F.

    Beswick, F.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Mikardo, Ian

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

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Grey, C. F.

    Monslow, W.

    Blackburn, F.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Moody, A. S.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Morley, R.

    Boardman, H.

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

    Bowden, H. W.

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Mort, D. L.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Moyle, A.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hannan, W.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Murray, J. D.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Nally, W.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hastings, S.

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

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hayman, F. H.

    O'Brien, T.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Burke, W. A.

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

    O'Neill, M. (Mid-Ulster)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Oswald, T.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Padley, W. E.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Paget, R. T.

    Carmichael, J.

    Holman, P.

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

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Champion, A. J.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pannell, Charles

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Parker, J.

    Clunie, J.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Paton, J.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pearson, A.

    Collick, P. H.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Peart, T. F.

    Cook, T. F.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Porter, G.

    Cove, W. G.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Rankin, John

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Reeves, J.

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Rhodes, H.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Richards, R.

    Deer, G.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Keenan, W.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

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

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Ross, William

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Royle, C.

    Edelman, M.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Logan, D. G.

    Short, E. W.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Ewart, R.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Fernyhough, E.

    McInnes, J.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    2892

    2893

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Wigg, George

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Snow, J. W.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Timmons, J.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Tomney, F.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Steele, T.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Wallace, H. W.

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

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

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

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Swingler, S. T.

    West, D. G.

    Yates, V. F.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Mr. Popplewell and

    Mr. Wilkins.

    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 276.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Parker, J.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Paton, J.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

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

    Pearson, A.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Peart, T. F.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Snow, J. W.

    West, D. G.

    Porter, G.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Sparks, J. A.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Steele, T.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Wigg, George

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Rankin, John

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Reeves, J.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Rhodes, H.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Richards, R.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

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

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Ross, William

    Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W.)

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Royle, C.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Yates, V. F.

    Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Timmons, J.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Tomney, F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Mr. Popplewell and

    Short, E. W.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Mr. Wilkins.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

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

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

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

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Arbuthnot, John

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hollis, M. C.

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

    Deedes, W. F.

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Hopkinson, Henry

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Donner, P. W.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Baxter, A. B.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Duthie, W. S.

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

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

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Hurd, A. R.

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

    Erroll, F. J.

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Fell, A.

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

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Birch, Nigel

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Jennings, R.

    Black, C. W.

    Fort, R.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Foster, John

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Kaberry, D.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Gage, C. H.

    Keeling, Sir Edward

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Braine, B. R.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Lambton, Viscount

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

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Godber, J. B.

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

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

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Bullard, D. G.

    Gough, C. F. H.

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

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Gower, H. R.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Linstead, H. N.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

    Channon, H.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Low, A. R. W.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

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

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Cole, Norman

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Colegate, W. A.

    Harvie-Walt, Sir George

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Hay, John

    McAdden, S. J.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    McCallum, Major D.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Heath, Edward

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

    2896

    2897

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Pilkington, Capt R. A.

    Summers, G. S.

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Teeling, W.

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

    Profumo, J. D.

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

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Marples, A. E.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

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

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Roberts, Peter (Healey)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Maude, Angus

    Robertson, Sir David

    Tilney, John

    Maudling, R.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool S.)

    Touche, G. C.

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

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Turton, R. H.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Russell, R. S.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Nicholls, Harmer

    Schofield, Lt.-Col W. (Rochdale)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Scott, R. Donald

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Shepherd, William

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Wellwood, W.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Nutting, Anthony

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Odey, G. W.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

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

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

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Wills, G.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

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

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Osborne, C.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    York, C.

    Partridge, E.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

    Storey, S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Major Conant and

    Mr. Redmayne.

    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I do this for the obvious reason that we are at quite a convenient point in the discussion on Clause 1, and I certainly imagine that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members to have some indication of the Government's intentions at this stage.
    Mr. Crookshank: I do not quite know why the right hon. Gentleman says that this is a convenient place more than any other place. It is not all that convenient. We have not dealt with the last Amendment to page 1, line 9, of the Clause—there is one more of that kind. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press the matter now. It would be just as well to go on a little longer anyhow.
    Mr. McNeil: I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to press the matter but, as he knows, many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have to depend upon the public conveyances—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is nothing at all unreasonable in that. Do not let hon. Gentlemen opposite get
    2898
    excited or amused. My hon. Friends are capable of staying here as long as is necessary; but we have perhaps had a more agreeable run than hitherto on this Bill, and without pushing the right hon. Gentleman too far in this matter, may I ask whether he is not prepared to add a little more to what he has said?
    Mr. Crookshank: The run may have been a little better, but not much better and not much more speedy. I appreciate the point which the right hon. Gentleman made, but I would ask the Committee to carry on a little further, for we still have a long way to go, and the Sitting was much delayed at the start by an unexpectedly long debate on the Easter adjournment Motion.
    Mr. E. Shinwell: I have not shared in the pleasures of this debate but, like other hon. Members, not to say right hon. Gentlemen, I am anxious to get home. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."] I am glad to have elicited applause from hon. Members opposite. I gather that they are anxious not to miss the last train or bus—by that I mean those who have no other conveyance.

    2899
    My only reason for speaking is that I want to elicit from the Minister what he means when he suggests that we should go a little further. Does he mean that he wants to extract from the Committee another one or two Amendments, either Government or Opposition Amendments; or does he mean that he intends to go on for another hour? I address the right hon. Gentleman in the most reasonable frame of mind, at any rate at this stage. There are my opinions. If the right hon. Gentleman does not like them, I can change them.
    But I suggest that it would suit the convenience of the Committee if we could gather from the Minister what his intentions are. We are anxious to facilitate the proceedings on this Measure. The Patronage Secretary advises me to get on with it. [An HON. MEMBER: "With the Amendment."] I understand from an hon. Member on the other side that the Government want to dispose of another Amendment. Having done that, do we gather that it is intended to report Progress? All this is so much in the dark. If the right hon. Gentleman could provide a little more illumination, I am sure that it would be helpful to the Committee.
    Mr. Crookshank: I think that if we were to pass to the Amendment instead of discussing this matter the Committee would not be so much in the dark. It was last night that the light failed. We are not so much in the dark tonight. Although it has been agreeable to hear the voice of the right hon. Gentleman in this debate, and such an unexpected voice, I hope the Committee will agree that we had better see how we get along; then, if necessary, Progress can be reported, and further inquiries made. The optimum would be to get the first Clause. I daresay that that would be pressing the Committee too far. That is why I think we ought to see how many of these comparatively unimportant Amendments that are coming along can be dealt with. We could then see where we stand. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now withdraw his Motion.
    Mr. McNeil: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Hastings: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert:
    (2) No charge shall be made under this section in respect of any drug, medicine, or appliance supplied to any person for whom residential accommodation is being provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948, and who is not paying the standard rate fixed for that accommodation under section twenty-two of that Act.
    This is a simple, straightforward Amendment. All it seeks to do is to absolve certain classes from payment for out-patients' services under this Bill. They are people who are not paying the standard rate and are accommodated in residential institutions run under the National Assistance Act.
    Under the National Assistance Act welfare authorities are empowered, to use the words of the Act,
    "to provide residential accommodation for persons who by reason of age, infirmity or any other circumstances are in need of care which is not otherwise available to them."
    Many welfare authorities in different parts of the country are providing admirable homes for aged patients. I have visited lately in London two such homes, in Lansbury and at Woodberry Down. These homes take in old people, some of whom pay the full charge. Most of them are old age pensioners or are people in receipt of retirement allowances or payments under the National Assistance Act.
    As regards those in receipt of payments under those pension schemes and the National Assistance Act, what happens in practice is this. They are assessed to pay for their accommodation and so on, but not in every case. So far as I am aware, some money is left to them, usually about 5s. a week, with which to provide the ordinary common necessities of life and their clothes. So far as those who are in receipt of National Assistance are concerned, the Minister has told us that he is to exempt them from payments under the Act.
    What I want to suggest is that under exactly similar circumstances in these particular homes are individuals who are receiving pensions—some of them old age pensions and some retirement pensions. I want to suggest that they should be treated in the same way as they are in exactly the same financial position. If the Minister would grant that, it would case their position very much and make

    2901
    the whole organisation of these homes very much easier, because what has happened is that for the most part these are oldish people, very often more or less infirm, and they have great difficulty in going to collect their own pensions in many cases.
    The same applies to public assistance payments. Very often those who run the homes help them a good deal by collecting these payments, and taking what may be considered necessary in payment for their residential accommodation, giving them a certain amount of pocket money.
    11.0 p.m.
    If it is insisted that these old people must go through all the paraphernalia of showing their exact position financially, then making application, and then getting back the money they have paid for prescriptions or for appliances, that will complicate things very much. I suggest to the Minister that it would be a nice gesture if he could see his way to treating this relatively small class of deserving people, all of whom are very poor, in the way I have suggested.
    Mr. Crookshank: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I did not hear all his earlier observations because there was so much noise in the Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "On your side."] I am not attributing blame, I am merely making a statement. However, I think I understood the point on which he was addressing us, as to how to deal with residents in welfare homes.
    To some extent the Amendment is misconceived, if I may respectfully say so, because persons in these homes who would require medicines would be getting them on prescriptions from general practitioners and not as out-patients of hospitals. So they are outside this Bill and dealt with in other legislation. This only deals with out-patients.
    In so far as they require appliances, I am afraid I do not see how one could justifiably exclude them from the charge which would fall upon them. It is quite true that a considerable proportion—I am told it may be as much as a third of those resident in these homes—are National Assistance patients. If they are, then they are automatically exempt. With regard to the others, should there be any case of hardship, they will come under the general hardship provisions which I have explained previously, but the bulk of the
    2902
    cases will be prescriptions under the general practitioner services, and that is outside the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.
    Mrs. Braddock: A number of these people are in receipt of pensions only. The welfare authority is empowered to take from their pensions an amount of money, which leaves them with only 5s. They will have no way of recovering the money because they are not in receipt of National Assistance. How, then, will they be able to recover any shilling they pay if they get a prescription from their ordinary doctor?
    Mr. Crookshank: I say this subject to further consideration, but one of the factors to be taken into account, as I said in reply to some questions the other day, is that what is to be left to these people after the pension rate is raised is a matter which will have to be considered in the light of the raising of the pensions, which is to be done under the Bill to be introduced by my right hon. Friend. Therefore, 5s. is not necessarily a static figure. It is important to bear that in mind. If there is any question of hardship, then the Assistance Board can give them help.
    Mrs. Braddock: It cannot.
    Mr. Crookshank: In the general case.
    Mrs. Braddock: No.
    Mr. Crookshank: Let me finish my sentence. In the general case of hardship recourse can be had to the Assistance Board.
    Mrs. Braddock: No.
    Mr. Crookshank: These cases are not on all fours with the normal Assistance Board case. Does that satisfy the hon. Lady?
    Mrs. Braddock indicated assent.
    Mr. Crookshank: I began the sentence the other way round. Therefore, I agree that we would have to see that they are fitted in. That is the whole point, and I recognise it is a little difficult. But, of course, it applies so far as this Bill is concerned—and I do try to keep to the Bill and not the Act only to appliances. The cases the hon. Lady refers to, owing to the cost of the appliances, would obviously have to receive assistance from someone.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: I hope that the Minister will say something a little more definite.
    Mr. Crookshank indicated dissent.
    Mr. Gibson: This applies to a large proportion of the old people who live in these homes. They need appliances of various kinds to a far greater degree than the general population, and they are not covered by the rule he has suggested. Unless provision is made to take them out of the class that pays—and I think none should pay for them—the very poorest of the poor are to be punished.
    They are the people living in homes provided by local authorities, mainly because they have no one to look after them and because they are poor. Many of them are not able to pay the full charge laid down in the residential homes, yet they will have to pay for these appliances, which they will often need. It seems a bit unreasonable when straight National Assistance cases are allowed to avoid the payment and the smaller number of people who are much poorer are asked to pay.
    There is another point. If this charge is to be made, the local authority running the residential home has got to build up an elaborate machinery to collect the money, to assess the charges, and to pass the sums on to the Government. The cost will probably be a great deal more than the cost of allowing what the right hon. Gentleman admits is a small group of people, comparatively, to receive the appliances free.
    I hope, therefore, that he will be a little more kindly. He must have some spark of real humanity in him somewhere, and I trust he will let it glimmer more in the interests of these men and women who will be unable to get payment for these appliances through the National Assistance Board. Unless the right hon. Gentleman gives an undertaking to arrange to take them out of the class that has to pay for these appliances, I hope that my hon. Friends will press this Amendment.
    Mr. Bevan: This Amendment deals with one of the most difficult classes of potential patients in the whole of the welfare services. Indeed, it is a class of patient which, when I was at the Ministry of Health, we had the utmost difficulty in defining under any appropriate Statute.
    2904
    Hon. Members who are familiar with the legislation may remember that we desired, in the abolition of the old Poor Law system, to provide a substitute for the very bad old workhouse, and what we wanted to do was to provide residential accommodation for old persons wishing to take advantage of it who were still comparatively able to look after themselves, but not to do any of the household chores.
    We wanted to fit them in homes of a reasonable size so as to avoid any institutional atmosphere, and I suggested that we ought not to aim at much more than 30 beds because, if we had a larger number than that, we would be back to the old institution. I said 30 at the time, but there is no rigid number. I have opened several of these homes and visited many. Some have 20, 30, 40 and sometimes 50 beds, but when we get to more than that we are once more getting into an atmosphere which is reproductive of the old workhouse system without any of the other abominal features of that method of administration.
    When these old folk reach this situation, it is very hard to find a point at which the responsibility for looking after them falls on the local welfare authority and when it should fall on the regional hospital board, because the old folk are in and out—one week they are ill and the next they are fairly all right. I remember having many discussions with local authority organisations on this matter because it is very hard, as it were, to hold them within one Statute as their physical condition makes them overlap rather into another Statute. We wanted the responsibility for personal supervision to rest with the local welfare authorities because there we have the local influence; they were looked after by local councillors who knew all about them and they could be visited by their friends and not regarded as patients for the purposes of a definition of a national health service.
    Here we have a body of people that is easily identifiable, because they are persons who pay for their accommodation. The accommodation is not paid for by the National Assistance Board; let us be clear about that. The whole idea was to put these persons in a cash position of being able to pay for accommodation. They would not have the same relationship to the local authority as under the old Poor Law system. They would get

    2905
    the 26s. a week—now raised—and would pay 21s. for accommodation. The cost of accommodation would be more than that, of course, and the local welfare authority would have to subsidise it.
    Nevertheless, the fact that they were paying 21s. a week and no more identifies them as people dependent on National Assistance. So they are identifiable in that way, and my hon. Friends are suggesting that they should be automatically exempted from any charges under the Bill because they have already fallen into a special class, a special social category, administratively able to be identified. Indeed, in certain cases they would not be, to use an award expression, "ambulant," and not able to leave residential accommodation and go to hospital. Quite frequently they would have to be visited by doctors to have apparatus fitted in the residential home.
    11.15 p.m.
    Furthermore, it is quite evident that they would not go to the chemist's shop at all. The medicine would be carried to them. How are they going to do that? The right hon. Gentleman has not been clear about it. At the moment it is perfectly clear, there being no charge, that they are in no difficulty. Once we begin to make charges all these difficulties arise. What is going to happen? Are these old people going along—if they are able to do so—after the general practitioner has visited them and has prescribed medicine for them, and out of the pocket money allowed to them pay the chemist first and recover it afterwards? This is very important.
    They cannot get it from the local authority. The local authority have not the statutory power to pay it or to provide any of the facilities that normally fall to the regional hospital boards to provide. Nor can they provide the cash, because once they begin to provide cash we are back to the old Poor Law system again. The whole idea was to lift this class of person out of the Poor Law system and to put them in the way of making a cash payment for their accommodation like any other better off citizen.
    What is going to happen? These Amendments have been on the Order Paper for some time. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for not being absolutely clear about this, because only those who have been in the centre of this administration know the complexity of
    2906
    the situation. In fact, in many cases the regional hospital boards have complained that they have been asked to undertake the welfare of people who ought to be looked after by the local authorities, and the local authorities have likewise complained that they have been asked to look after chronic invalids who, they say, should be looked after by the regional hospital boards.
    This is not a case against the Government, or any Government, because, as I said earlier, this is a class of persons who slip from one Statute to another owing to their physical condition. Nevertheless, there is a real difficulty. The local authority cannot provide the appliance or the cash, and the National Assistance Board will not provide the cash beforehand because the cost has to be incurred before they know what to pay. How are these people to pay? It really is a serious administrative problem.
    It is a problem which has only been created because of this silly Bill. It is not intrinsically a serious problem at all. It arises only because of the foolishness of the Government in going on with the Bill. What we are suggesting is that where there are persons in that category they should automatically be exempted from the charge and then no difficulties would arise.
    I really think a solution is provided by the Amendment. I do not say that its wording is necessarily appropriate. Very often Amendments are not appropriately worded, but it is up to the Parliamentary draftsmen to put them in proper order at a subsequent stage. If the wording is not in order, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should accept it in principle and should subsequently put it right. In any event, I do not think we can let it go without further consideration, unless the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to give assurances at this stage.
    Mr. Crookshank: I thought I had made it clear that there was a difficult little problem here, but I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the very amusing description he gave of the "in and out" of these patients, if one may call it that; but what we are concerned with here are the appliances. [HON. MEMBERS: "And drugs."] We agreed that the drug question came largely in the other Bill. I do not want to go into all that again. But these

    2907
    people will, in general, I suppose, if they require drugs, get them on prescriptions from general practitioners and not from hospitals. I suppose that would be so in nearly 95 per cent. of the cases. And to the extent that they get them from the general practitioners they are outside this Bill. The appliances are the important thing under this Clause.
    The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the same sort of problem has arisen before with spectacles and dentures. In those cases the residents of these homes have to pay the charges and then they obtain the money from the National Assistance Board for the purpose. That is what they do now.
    Mrs. Braddock: They cannot do it.
    Mr. Crookshank: It is no good saying they cannot; somehow they do it. They get the money from the National Assistance Board. They know what the charges will be and they receive a cheque from the Board. That happens with teeth and spectacles, and that would happen with appliances, because the extent of the charge will be known and will be prescribed in the regulations. Therefore, the principle with regard to dentures and spectacles will go forward in the case of appliances under this Bill.
    Mr. Baird: In the case of dentures, all that is necessary is for the dentist to give a certificate to a patient stating that he is going to fit dentures and that the charge will be so much. The National Assistance Board pay the patient and he pays the dentist.
    Mr. Crookshank: That is exactly what I said. They know ahead of time in the case of spectacles and dentures and the National Assistance Board send them a cheque for the purpose and the cost is paid in that way.
    Mrs. Braddock: Unnecessary administration.
    Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Lady and hon. Members opposite can have their own opinion, but they are asking what it is proposed to do. They can make what comments they like, but that is the machinery intended in the case of these appliances. I pointed out that I recognised there was a difficulty, but it really does not arise under this Bill. Prescriptions from general practitioners have
    2908
    nothing to do with what we are discussing today. We have to deal with the difficulty of these people who in one sense fall between two stools and in one sense sit on two stools.
    Mr. Bevan: The whole purpose of the scheme under the 1948 Act was to avoid an odious distinction between people who had to pay for the accommodation after help from the Assistance Board and those who were able to pay for the accommodation without help. The whole idea was that old folk should live together in the same residential accommodation without any discriminating difference. In other words, one resident ought not to be classified as a National Assistance resident and the other as able to pay full board.
    That is the whole point. A difficulty about this is that immediately that individual requires to have additional assistance he or she is identified from the rest in that home as almost a pauper and we are back where we were. Why is it necessary to torment these old folk in this silly fashion?
    Mr. Crookshank: I would not accept the word "torment." All I was saying was that this has already been done—not when the right hon. Gentleman was in office but by his right hon. Friends last year—in the case of spectacles and dentures.
    Mr. Bevan: Why should the right hon. Gentleman have a 100 per cent. black record of defects—all the defects of his own side and all the defects inherited from us? It does seem to me a rather foolish argument on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. It is not good enough to say all the time, "Yah! You did it." It is no explanation to the old people—or defence before them—to say, "You are being tormented twice because the Labour Government tormented you once." That is really not a good line at all. It is merely reducing administration to a Parliamentary charade.
    Let us think for a moment not of ourselves—of scoring points off each other—but of the old people with whom we are dealing; and let us try to visualise the situation in which they find themselves. It is easy to do this because those people have already identified themselves, because they are in those homes and are not able to pay the standard

    2909
    amount for the accommodation. So all we need do is to provide them with chits that they can hand privately to the chemist or what not; and then the whole thing is perfectly clear. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at this again before the Bill is completed, to see if we can introduce a little more humanity into it, and less cash sense all the time.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: I ask the Minister to be a little more forthcoming. The first time he came to that Box he said that this would be subject to further consideration. I thought then that we had achieved a minor victory, and that for the first time the Minister was softening. He has been a little hard during our discussions and has refused to give way on any point. At long last, I thought, he had softened on this question of the old people—the two categories of old people living in one institution; and that he had realised he really could not justify the anomaly that has been described by many of my hon. Friends.
    I say this to him. Will he be a little more generous and say that those words, "subject to further consideration," mean that he will accept this Amendment? I do not want to be guilty of tedious repetition, but those of us who know these institutions feel that this part of the Bill, like the other parts, was slipped in without sufficient consideration. We know that the Minister is being a little stubborn in resisting our Amendment, because finally he will have to. It is quite impossible to deal with these old people differently. In one room there will be an old woman who is an Assistance patient, and in another room an old woman who is a pension patient, each having 5s. to spend.
    Unless he accepts the Amendment, the Minister suggests a cumbersome piece of machinery will be set up to treat those old people. I say that that is just absurd. It is a waste of public money, and to suggest it is to under-estimate the intelligence of this Committee. Therefore, I press the Minister, just for the first time, to accept an Amendment of ours. It would be pleasant for him to go home for his Easter Recess feeling that for the first time—and, perhaps the last time—in this Committee he had done a generous thing.
    Mr. Peter Baker: I am sorry to intervene at this late hour—but this Amendment is one that anyone with a social conscience will feel very strongly about, because here, I feel, is an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to give way, for at times compassion is far more important than legislation. He is suggesting a vast piece of legislative machinery for old people who are to be exempt anyway. He will not be giving away any money of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by thus showing compassion—and the spirit of Easter, as some hon. Gentleman suggests.
    11.30 p.m.
    I should like to see the Minister give way here. It would cost the country nothing, and at the same time it would be a gesture towards these people in these homes. From that point of view, this is an important Amendment. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) suggested that we were returning to the workhouse or the Poor Law system. Whatever we choose to call it, these people ought not to be worried by forms and by getting cheques for an odd shilling, all of which is quite unnecessary.
    I hope that on this occasion the Minister will show the right spirit—not the spirit of Christmas, although we have rather lost the sense of time in the Committee—but, let us say, the spirit of Easter. I hope he will say that he will carefully consider the Amendment and will provide some means by which these people can be exempted from the Bill without destroying the principle of the shilling charge which we on this side of the Committee support.
    Mr. H. Hynd: May I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. Baker) and commend him to the mercy of the Whips? Perhaps I may add a word of mitigation for him in case he gets into serious trouble. It is greatly to his credit that he has had the courage to urge the Minister to give way on this Amendment, which is relatively small in terms of £ s. d., but which is very important in terms of humanity.
    An argument which might appeal to the right hon. Gentleman is one which has been made to him already—that there is no question of spending public money.

    2911
    Indeed, it is the opposite. There will be a direct saving of public money if the Amendment is accepted, because what the Bill suggests is that x pounds or shillings will be charged on the one hand and, after a rigamarole of forms and red tape, it will be replaced on the other hand. It is a question of taking money out of one public pocket and putting it into the other public pocket. No money will be spent by anyone except the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, in the process of taking it out of his right hand pocket and putting it into his left hand pocket, the Chancellor will be involved in expenditure for administration.
    I am certain that if such a proposition had been put forward by the Labour Government it would have been castigated in speeches by the then Opposition, who would have ridiculed the whole business. We do not want to do that. If we did, we might harden the right hon. Gentleman's heart. I feel more encouraged in this case than I have been throughout the Committee stage, for I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he realises that there is a strong case for the Amendment. He seems to have shown that clearly. Why he has not given way I do not know, unless he has determined in advance to give way on nothing this evening.
    I appeal to him to listen to one of his own supporters, if he will not listen to us, and to go a little further. We do not ask him to accept the letter of the Amendment, but the spirit, and if, having accepted the principle of the Amendment, he will promise between now and the Report stage to produce his own Amendment giving a form of words which will carry it into effect, I feel sure the Committee will be encouraged not only to thank him for having given way on this occasion but perhaps to be a little more timely when we come to deal with some of the other Amendments.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: I want to ask the Minister, because I am not clear on the point, how many people are involved in this matter. I also would like to know whether it is true that the cost of the administration will indeed be a further burden on the Treasury? If this scheme is going to be an increased burden, it seems to me a pity that we should not be given a little more information about it. There is only one
    2912
    other matter I should like to mention, as the hour is late.
    We have heard from the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) some talk about Parliamentary charades. I think that is a good description of what has been happening, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for using those words. I also feel that it is a great mistake for hon. Gentlemen in any part of the Committee to believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister is hard-hearted in this matter. When going through the Lobby recently I heard him called "Hard-Hearted Harry." It is a false description. I would ask him, to save time, merely to say that he will give further consideration to this matter. It is not going to alter the principle which we are debating, but it is going to increase the cost to the Exchequer.
    Mr. Ede rose—
    Mr. Crookshank: If I may intervene again, and I do not want to deprive the right hon. Gentleman of an opportunity to speak, I did indicate in my earlier speech that this was a difficult problem, because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has said, these are old people. The number is in the region of about 60,000.
    Mrs. Braddock: And growing.
    Mr. Crookshank: That is because we are all getting older.
    Mr. Hastings: Does that include potential patients?
    Mr. Crookshank: No. My hon. Friend asked how many were concerned now. I cannot say what the number will be next year, or in 10 years. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale pointed out, many of them are in and out, and many of them are ailing. That is all clear. The difficulty is two fold. It is partly because they are under the National Assistance Board and partly under the local authorities.
    Mrs. Braddock: No, they are not under the local authorities.
    Mr. Crookshank: So far as the charges for appliances are concerned to some extent they come under the National Assistance Board. In the case of dentures and spectacles there is an arrangement by which payment is made by the Board, and I would imagine that some arrange-

    2913
    ments would be reached for appliances mutatis mutandis. The Treasury does not come into it, but the local authorities do. Up to this stage it has not been proper to discuss this with the local authorities at any length, but before the regulations come into effect the local authorities would obviously have to be consulted. That is as far as I propose to take it.
    Mr. Bevan: The local authorities are only involved in so far as certain administrative measures may be necessary to provide these persons with means of identification. Local authorities cannot be expected to pay one brass farthing out of the local rates for this purpose. These are charges that may in certain circumstances fall on the regional hospital boards, because the difficulty here has been that in certain instances the local authorities have made arrangements with the regional boards under which patients, though they might be classified as chronic, are for a short time looked after by the local welfare authorities provided they are not chronic for too long. If they are so charged the regional boards are left to find the money automatically out of their own expenditure.
    All that the local authorities would be asked to do—I can speak for them here and shall be glad to be able to help in this—would be to identify for the right hon. Gentleman the class of persons in that category in the residential homes. So he is in no embarrassment at all. He could make the concession knowing that the local authorities would co-operate.
    Mr. Crookshank: No question of rates comes into the matter. The right hon. Gentleman has really made my point for me. He has been explaining how complicated is the administrative arrangement between the two authorities. He was doing it with his fingers.
    Mr. Bevan: I can do it another way if the right hon. Gentleman likes.
    Mr. Crookshank: It is not necessary to call upon the right hon. Gentleman in this instance. There are lots of other things which he could clear up, but that is not the point.
    He admits, and I admit, that there is already a fairly complicated structure of
    2914
    administration, and it is, therefore, quite impossible for me to accept the Amendment now, and I do not propose to do anything of the sort.
    As to the needs of these people, the basic principle on which we are working is that where persons are in need and require help to make the payment, that should be forthcoming for them. We have said that all along. As I was trying to say when the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me the second time, we shall have to discuss these matters with those who are most concerned with the present administration to see how best it can be done. That answers the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) was making just before I rose.
    I must repeat that on this Clause we are dealing merely with the hospital section of the charges and not with the general prescription charges, and the hospital appliances really come within the same system as exists for the spectacles and the dentures. The other part is a different story and does not come within the Clause, but it is a matter into which, as I have said before, we should have to look and see that the administrative structure, complicated as it is, works out all right so that no hardship on these people is involved.
    Mr. Ede: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will in his further consideration of this matter bear in mind the very sincere and eloquent speech that was made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. Baker). It showed that in this matter there is genuine concern among people who are actuated only by the desire that these old people shall be saved the amount of worry which very often comes to them when they are engaged in what are comparatively simple operations when dealt with by younger people in full possession of their faculties. The old people find it very complicated when they get involved in these administrative machines.
    I have always thought that one of the best things that we have done in the past 15 or 20 years has been the care that we have been able to give to these people in the newer, smaller homes which have been built by local authorities and others. I was a member of one of the old boards of guardians, and when I

    2915
    compare the provision that was made for the old people in the old workhouse, the big barrack-like institution, with the kind of more comfortable life that they can live in these surroundings, I feel that this is one of the greatest practical advances that we have made.
    The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) revealed what conversations go on in the Lobby into which I never go and the name that has been given to the right hon. Gentleman. I always comfort myself with the knowledge that one of his names is Comfort—so it appears in Dod—and this is one of the occasions when he can live up to his name.

    Division No. 86.]

    AYES

    [11.45 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Fell, A.

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

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lindsay, Martin

    Arbuthnot, John

    Fisher, Nigel

    Linstead, H. N.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

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

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Fort, R.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M.

    Foster, John

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Low, A. R. W.

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Baxter, A. B.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Gammans, L. D.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    McCallum, Major D.

    Birch, Nigel

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Godber, J. B.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

    Black, C. W.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Gower, H. R.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Grimond, J.

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Bossom, A. C.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Bowen, E. R.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Macpherson, Maj Niall (Dumfries)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

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

    Braine, B. R.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

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

    Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Marples, A. E.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Heath, Edward

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

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

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Maude, Angus

    Bullard, D. G.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Maudling, R.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

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

    Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.

    Hinchinghrooke, Viscount

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Mellor, Sir John

    Butcher, H. W.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hopkinson, Henry

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Horobin, I. M.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E)

    Cole, Norman

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Colegate, W. A.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hurd, A. R.

    Oakshott, H. D.

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

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Odey, G. W.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

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

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Osborne, C.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Kaberry, D.

    Partridge, E.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Keeling, Sir Edward

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Pitman, I J.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    11.45 p.m.
    I feel that I am speaking not only for hon. Members on this side of the Committee when I appeal for something to be done so that this administrative jungle shall not be established, and so that these people will be able to avoid all these difficulties when they have need of this simple help in time of considerable distress.
    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 divided: Ayes, 228: Noes, 201.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Shepherd, William

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Touche, G. C.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Turton, R. H.

    Raikes, H. V.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Redmayne, M.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

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

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Stevens, G. P.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Wellwood, W.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Summers, G. S.

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Russell, R. S.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Teeling, W.

    Wills, G.

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

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

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    York, C.

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

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Follick, M.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Adams, Richard

    Foot, M. M.

    Monslow, W.

    Albu, A. H.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Moody, A. S.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

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

    Morgan, Dr H. B. W.

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Morley, R.

    Awbery, S. S.

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

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

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

    Baird, J.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mort, D. L.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)

    Moyle, A.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Benson, G.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Beswick, F.

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    O'Brien, T.

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

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    O'Neill, M. (Mid-Ulster)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Orbach, M.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hannan, W.

    Oswald, T.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Padley, W. E.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hastings, S.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Bowden, H. W.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Pannell, Charles

    Bowles, F. G.

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

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Parker, J.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Paton, J.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Pearson, A.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Holman, P.

    Peart, T. F.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Burke, W. A.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Rankin, John

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Reeves, J.

    Champion, A. J.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Rhodes, H.

    Janner, B.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Roberts, Geronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Collick, P. H.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Ross, William

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Cove, W. G.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Snow, J. W.

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Keenan, W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Deer, G.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Steele, T.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Driberg, T. E. M.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

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

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Stress, Dr. Barnett

    Edelman, M.

    McLeavy, F.

    Summerskill, Rt Hon. E.

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

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

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Ewarl, R.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Field, W. J.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Tourney, F.

    Finch, H. J.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wallace, H. W.

    2918

    2919

    Watkins, T. E.

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    West, D. G.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

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

    Mr. Royle and Mr. Wigg.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

    Division No. 87.]

    AYES

    [11.54 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Oswald, T.

    Adams, Richard

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Padley, W. E.

    Albu, A. H.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Grimond, J.

    Pannell, Charles

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Cone Valley)

    Parker, J.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Paton, J.

    Baird, J.

    Hannan, W.

    Pearson, A.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Peart, T. F.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Hastings, S.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Benson, G.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Beswick, F.

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

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Holman, P.

    Rankin, John

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G.

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Reeves, J.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Bowen, E. R.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Rhodes, H.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Robens, Rt Hon A.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Ross, William

    Broughton, Dr A. D. D.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon E.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Janner, B.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Jenkins, R. H. (Slechford)

    Snow, J. W.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Champion, A. J.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Steele, T.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Collick, P. H.

    Keenan, W.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Corbel, Mrs. Freda

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Cove, W. G.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Stress, Dr. Barnett

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Swingle., S. T.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon Robert (Morpeth)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    McLeavy, F.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)

    Deer, G.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Delargy, H. J.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Tomney, F.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Wallace, H. W.

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

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

    Watkins, T. E.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Edelman, M.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    West, D. G.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon John

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mikardo, Ian

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E Flint)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Evans, Stanley, (Wednesbury)

    Monslow, W.

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N)

    Fernyheugh, E.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    Field, W. J.

    Morley, R.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Finch, H. J.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

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

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Follick, M.

    Mort, D. L.

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

    Foot, M. M.

    Moyle, A.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H. T. N.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Gibson, C. W.

    O'Brien, T.

    Younger, Rt. Hon K.

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

    O'Neill, M. (Mid-Ulster)

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Orbach, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Royle and Mr. Wigg.

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 223.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

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

    Nutting, Anthony

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Odey, G. W.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Heath, Edward

    Ormsby-Gore, How W. D.

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

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

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

    Banks, Col. C.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Osborne, C.

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Partridge, E.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks S.)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Birch, Nigel

    Hopkinson, Henry

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Black, C. W.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Profumo, J. D.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

    Redmayne, M.

    Braine, B. R.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

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

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Renton, D. L. M.

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

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

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Bullard, D. G.

    Kaberry, D.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Keeling, Sir Edward

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Russell, R. S.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Butcher H. W.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Leather, E. H. C.

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

    Cary, Sir Robert

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

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Shepherd, William

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)

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

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Cole, Norman

    Lindsay, Martin

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Colegate, W. A.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W)

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

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Summers, G. S.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    McAdden, S. J.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Deedes, W. F.

    McCallum, Major C.

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Dodds-Parker, A D.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

    Teeling, W.

    Donaldson, Cmdr C. E. McA.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

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

    Duthie, W. S.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Eccles, Rt. Hon D. M.

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

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

    Elliot, Rt. Hon W. E.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Cot. C. N.

    Fell, A.

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

    Touche, G. C.

    Finlay, Graeme

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

    Turton, R. H.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Fletcher Cooke, C.

    Marples, A. E.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Fort, R.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Foster, John

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Maude, Angus

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)

    Maudling, R.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

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

    Wellwood, W.

    Gammans, L. D.

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Matson, A. H. E.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E)

    Godber, J. B.

    Monckton, Rt. Hon, Sir Walter

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Wills, G.

    Gewer, H. R.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Grinston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Studholme and Mr. Conant.

    Mr. Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    2922
    It is just after midnight and the Committee has probably sufficiently discussed this Bill this Sitting. I was asked a little

    2923
    while ago, when the right hon. Gentleman moved to report Progress, how far I hoped to get. I did have in mind—although I did not think it was a good idea to say so, from the experience we have had during the debate—that we should take the Amendment which we have just finished and, if the Committee so desired, then adjourn, because that cleared off the Amendments that were down under Clause 1, page 1, line 9.
    It is quite true we have not made much progress with the Bill, but that certainly is not the fault of my hon. and right hon. Friends. Those who wish to study these things can make their own deductions and put the blame for the delay where it lies. It seems to me we would be wise now to break off our discussions—
    Mr. Shinwell: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not do it half an hour ago?
    Mr. Crookshank: Because a discussion was going on on that Amendment and we only brought it to an end by the fact that we moved the Closure, which the Chairman was good enough to accept. If there had been any desire to bring the discussion to an end half an hour ago, I would have moved the Motion half an hour ago, but only now have I been able to do it. I hope the Committee will accept it and that we may now retire and rest from our labours.
    Mr. McNeil: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has any right to reproach us for holding up progress. The Committee may remember that one way of making progress is to show some reasonableness in discussion. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think me churlish if I say that repeatedly, while expressing an off-hand sympathy for what seemed to us an important Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman has sought refuge in legalistic arguments. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if he used a generous form of words to indicate that he had a real intention of meeting a case put by us—
    The Chairman: We cannot now discuss Amendments which have been passed over.
    Mr. McNeil: With the greatest respect, I am not discussing the Amendment; I am addressing myself to an argument and
    2924
    reproach which the right hon. Gentleman chose to offer to this side of the Committee. If this Committee, or any other Committee, is to move at reasonable speed, it will depend on give and take on both sides; but there has been no give from the Government.
    Hon. Members who are familiar with the business of this Committee should reflect on this point—and it is no reflection on the Chair—that there has not been a single Amendment in these three days of discussion which has been dealt with otherwise than by moving the Closure. In some cases that may have been our fault, but it is most unlikely that it has been continuously our fault. There has not been a single concession offered by the Government. If they look for speed on this subject and want us to facilitate the movement of the Bill, they must think again about coming to the Committee in a more reasonable state of mind, considering our Amendments as they should be considered, objectively, and offering a reasoned case, and where no case is offered at any rate agreeing that they will be looked at again.
    Mr. Powell: I was not clear whether the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) was supporting or opposing the Motion. I think that it gives the Committee an opportunity that is much needed to consider the point at which we have now arrived. I do not think any hon. Member can have been present during the three-days' consideration of this Bill in Committee without being perfectly clear in his mind what was going on and what was the purpose of the procedure which he was seeing enacted.
    No one who reads with any knowledge of the matter in hand the pages upon pages of Amendments which have been put down to this Bill can be in any doubt as to the intention behind them. A small minority of the speeches—
    Mr. Baird: But a majority in the country though.
    Mr. Powell: I am coming to the question of the country in a moment.
    As I was saying, a small minority of the speeches which have been made have related to substantial points. But of the great majority, quite the reverse has been true. A distinction which cannot be exactly defined is none the less an im-

    2925
    portent and may be a vital distinction. Such is the distinction between the most determined and pertinacious opposition to legislation on one hand and that process which bears the hideous name of filibustering on the other.
    The aim of the procedure which the Committee has witnessed in the last three days has not been to improve legislation. It has not even been to oppose legislation. It has been to prevent legislation altogether. The most sinister feature of all has been this: the declared intention has not been merely or mainly to prevent this present legislation, but, through this procedure, to prevent other legislation. What we do in this place we do partly in the disharge of our duty as Members of the greatest corporation in the world. But we do it also in the performance of a duty to those out of doors. Those who sent us here—on whichever side of the Committee we sit—would not be satisfied unless we represented our respective points of view with the fullest use of the proper Parliamentary procedure which is at our disposal.
    The Chairman: I hope the hon. Member will confine his remarks to the Motion before the Committee.
    Mr. Powell: I think it is important that at this stage Progress should be reported in order that considerations which arise directly out of what has happened in this Committee may be reflected upon by all hon. Members. Opinion out of doors is already well aware of the real nature of this opposition.
    Mr. Richard Adams: On a point of order.
    The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman really believes he is rising to a point of order, I shall be glad to hear it.
    Mr. Adams: I beg to move—[Interruption.]
    The Chairman: There is so much noise going on that I have not heard the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Adams rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but The CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
    Mr. Powell: If by this deliberate abuse of the procedure of the House of Com-
    2926
    mons we destroy, as we can, in a short time, that unrivalled instrument which seven centuries have built for the protection or our rights and liberties, the people out of doors will never forgive us.
    12.15 a.m.
    Miss Jennie Lee: Early in this debate a reply was made by several hon. Members of this Committee to all the points which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has now made. Unfortunately at that time the benches opposite were empty while hon. Members opposite were resolving their differences upstairs. I apologise to those hon. Members of the Committee who were involved in our discussion in this Chamber on the Health Service charges if I have to repeat now—because I think it is important that hon. Members opposite should hear them—those arguments and some of the points made earlier.
    I believe we have come to a time when all of us in this Chamber must be extremely careful what we do about Parliamentary procedure. One of the most distinctive features about this country is that in this Chamber, even when we feel most strongly about certain issues, we nevertheless try to resolve them by argument and by keeping in mind the balance of opinion both in the House of Commons and in the country.
    Hon. Members opposite apparently were amused when I talked about them resolving their difficulties upstairs. If they had been here instead of outside they would have known that I expressed my sympathy with them and my understanding, because I do not like the tendency towards monolithic parties on either side of this Chamber. I believe that a great part of the vitality and reality of British politics is that there is an argument going on within parties as well as between parties. And if the party opposite had any mandate in terms of their strength in this Chamber or their support in the country for carrying out controversial legislation, such as the health charges, then there would be some substance in the point the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has just made.
    Parliamentary institutions are beginning to be endangered when the Government quite deliberately are responsible for using Parliamentary time for a

    2927
    Measure of this kind to such an extent that, as all of us know, not enough time will be left for the Finance Bill. As I say, the hon. Gentleman would not have talked as foolishly as he did if he had been here when I was speaking before. But the Government are deliberately creating a dilemma in which they will insist upon our passing the Finance Bill almost without hearing it, and with scarcely enough time even for the Guillotine to work.
    So I say that the correct thing to do in this situation is to drop these health charges. I ask hon. Members opposite to be responsive, as we all must be in a democratic community—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Steel Bill?"] That was almost dropped for the same reason. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There was a time when opinion in this Chamber and in the country was divided on that matter, and so there was delay and difficulty in passing that Measure.
    What is clear is that the Labour Government in the last Parliament delayed or postponed legislation on which we all felt keenly. We have not carried out yet our 1949 programme. We have not completed it. We are going to, but we are not going to do it by dictatorship methods. We are going to do it by Parliamentary methods, and we are going to do it quite soon, because it is obvious that every day adds to the support we have in the country, and we are moving to a vigorous, new Socialist Britain.
    Mr. Richard Fort: On a point of order. Is this discussion of party politics relevant to the Motion before the Committee?
    The Chairman: I was just wondering how it linked up with reporting Progress. I was waiting to see.
    Miss Lee: The Labour Government set an example, and those of us on this side, who did not represent the majority in our own party, had to wait until such time as circumstances taught those who disagreed with us that we were right. That was fair enough. We are not going to have any more health charges from a Labour Government. I do not think any of my hon. Friends will challenge that. When we had a situation in which the Labour Government had only a narrow majority here—
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: They just ran away.
    The Chairman: I find it difficult to understand how a majority in the last Parliament affects this Motion.
    Miss Lee: If I have been led astray, Sir Charles, I have been led astray in bad company. But may I reply to that interjection opposite? The hon. Member talked about running away. What happened was this. There was Socialist legislation we were all keen to see on the Statute Book, but it did not reach the Statute Book because there was not a sufficient majority here or in the country at that time. That is precisely why some of us advocated that we should go to the country and face a General Election.
    Therefore, I say to hon. Members opposite that they should now go back to the country to see whether they have a mandate even for standing still. I do not think even they would be surprised by the result; I think they know that they are abusing their position in the House when they try to pass legislation such as these punitive measures on sick people.
    Mr. G. Lindgren: I want to reinforce the arguments which have been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). We should refuse to report Progress because right hon. and hon. Members opposite have no mandate in the country for the legislation which they are placing before the House—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite interject with a comment about friendly societies. If I may, I should like to tell them that they are so ignorant of the normal character of working-class life that they do not know the difference between a friendly society and what were at one time in this country the approved societies.
    The Chairman: I think it might be of assistance to the Committee if I reminded them of Standing Order No. 25, which says:
    "the debate thereupon shall be confined to the matter of such Motion;"
    I hope hon. Members will keep within that.
    Mr. Lindgren: There must be a first time for everything in this Chamber, and that, Sir Charles, is the first time I have ever been called to order by the Chair.

    2929
    Of course, I respect your Ruling, but I submit to you that when hon. Members opposite interject a comment about friendly societies I am entitled to point out that they do not know what a friendly society is, nor do they know what an approved society is. If I am called to order for answering the interjection, I put it to you with the greatest respect that they should have been called to order for suggesting that friendly societies had anything to do with the Motion to report Progress.
    On the Front Bench opposite is the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston), who saw fit last Friday in the "Herts Advertiser," to say that a Labour hon. Member should not enter his constituency to contest a county council election.
    The Chairman: Order.
    Mr. William Hamilton: That is twice.
    The Chairman: I think the hon. Member is going beyond the Rules of order.
    Mr. Lindgren: The point is that if the hon. Member for St. Albans had to fight an election tomorrow, he would lose it.
    Mr. John Grimston: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has referred to me, so perhaps I may point out that I did not say he had no right to enter my constituency. I said he hardly had time to represent the people properly.
    Mr. Lindgren: I suggest that the people prefer my views to those of the hon. Member for St. Albans. Hon. Members opposite should test the opinion of the country. If they feel that this Bill has the support of the country and they want to report Progress, why not test the opinion of the country? I would suggest that from Land's End to John o' Groats the opinion of the country has been tested during the last week-end, and its opinion in the matter of social services is reflected in the local government election results. The people of the country have emphatically stated that they have no confidence in hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, therefore, I do suggest that if we are to report Progress we should give an opportunity not only to the House, but also to the country to report progress, and say
    2930
    whether they believe that the Government should remain in power or be swept from office.
    12.30 a.m.
    Mr. Harmar Nicholls: There is only one thing worse than listening to speeches that are irrelevant and that is listening to speeches that are humbug. The last two speeches to which we have listened have been obvious humbug. We have the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) trying to paint a picture of the previous Government with a small majority recognising the rights of the other people in the House, when we know that with a majority so small that one could hardly see it, they pushed through some of the most controversial of legislation.
    Hon. Members: What?
    The Chairman: I think that if both sides of the Committee would keep quiet I could hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
    Mr. Nicholls: If we are to examine what the country wants or does not want, it is perfectly clearly that at the time the Steel Bill was pushed through the last Parliament—[Interruption].
    The Chairman: We really cannot discuss the Steel Bill on the Motion before the House.
    Mr. Nicholls: I have every confidence that the Motion to report Progress will be approved, and that we shall have some time to think about what has gone on during the last week. I hope that during that time we shall give thought to the dignity of Parliament. The performance we have witnessed in the last two days, led by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing)—
    Mr. Bing: As the hon. Gentleman has been good enough to refer to me, he ought to have made his speech earlier when we were debating the matter. If he has any strictures to pass he should pass them on the Patronage Secretary, whose conduct has been the subject of reproof during the last two days.
    Mr. Nicholls: I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman responded to that. He recognised it has been a performance, a tragi-comic performance, and I hope that we shall have time to give thought to that kind of attitude. We should recognise that we are prepared

    2931
    to give a lot of time to really relevant Amendments on the paper. It is against the interests of the country to introduce such obvious filibustering as we have had.
    Sir Richard Acland: On the Motion that we should report Progress the hon. Members for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) and Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), have given us samples of the speeches which, beyond doubt, the Conservative Party Members will make up and down the country during the Recess which is just about to break upon us. Therefore, before we decide whether to report Progress or not it is relevant to examine these free samples of constituency speeches which have been given to us.
    Although one or two of my hon. Friends have dealt with the matter very brilliantly, I do not see why one or two more of us should not try to drive home the points so that even hon. Members opposite may at least see, even if they do not agree with, the arguments on our side.
    We cannot doubt at all that the words "obstruction" and "filibustering" will be used all over the country in the hope that the people will rise to it and will sympathise with hon. Members opposite, who undoubtedly feel that they have a blazing sense of grievance against the world in general, against the Opposition in particular and against my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) in particular.
    We even see that newspapers of a Tory persuasion are taking this point up. I noticed in one of them at the beginning of this week the phrase "The Labour Party are doing more or less what the Tories did when they were in opposition but doing it rather better." That is just the sort of thing which sums up the two speeches which we have heard from the back benches opposite.
    On this side we are not at all doing the sort of thing which the Tory Opposition did in the last Parliament, and that for two reasons. There are two great differences between our position now and the Tory position then. The first difference—
    Mr. Bernard Braine: We have one leader.
    Sir R. Acland: I hardly feel that this is a very good day for Conservative back
    2932
    benchers to raise any question of divided counsels within political parties. With my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), I take it for granted that differences of opinion within political parties on this side or the other indicate a perfectly normal and healthy state of affairs. A very regrettable disease would have overcome any political party in which no such differences were to be found.
    I want to return to my attempt to try to show the two hon. Members opposite why the speeches that they have made in support of the Motion do not represent the true position at all, and that the position is quite different from that in the last Parliament. In the last Parliament, the Conservative Opposition—
    The Chairman: I would ask the hon. Baronet not to deal with the last Parliament. We are dealing with the present Parliament at the moment, and only to report Progress.
    Sir R. Acland rose—
    Mr. A. C. Manuel: You are all right on that side.
    The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) to withdraw that remark, which reflects upon the Chair.
    Mr. Manuel: I was referring to the fact that there has never been a Closure Motion moved from that side of the Committee which has not been accepted. I have no intention of withdrawing that observation, which is factual. I did not refer to the Chair.
    The Chairman: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I thought he did. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to listen to what the hon. Baronet is saying, but there has been a continual barrage of shouting and bellowing by hon. Members opposite who have not been in the Chamber all the night. Could you please keep them in order so that I can hear what is going on?
    The Chairman: I have every sympathy with the hon. Member. I have been doing my best to keep the Committee quiet. I have great difficulty in hearing.
    Sir R. Acland: I have every respect for your criticism of what I was saying, Sir Charles. Two hon. Members opposite made speeches to indicate, first to the House and, the House being a forum from which words spread, to the country, why the conduct of the Opposition in the last few days, or months, was discreditable. They did this as part of the argument in favour of reporting Progress and asking leave to sit again. That having been done, I felt that, subject to your Ruling, Sir Charles, I might offer some reason why the conduct of the Opposition has been proper. I appreciate that one must not go in great detail into events in the last Parliament, but I feel that the situation in this Parliament might be illuminated by contrasting it briefly with the situation which existed in the last. In that Parliament the Opposition was not contending against a programme of controversial party legislation.
    The Chairman: I think the hon. Baronet cannot have understood me. I said that we cannot discuss the last Parliament on this Motion, which is a very narrow one.
    Sir R. Acland: The Bills which are being introduced, and promised for this Parliament, are as if we had introduced, with a majority of six, Bills to nationalise cement, sugar and wholesale meat distribution. If these had been the kind of Measures against which hon. Members opposite had been contending, then we could say that they were doing the same kind of thing as we are doing now. But with no legislation against which they had any objection on party principle, they were just selecting and choosing almost childish points of no importance whatever—to keep the House awake at night for the sake of keeping it awake, and for no other purpose whatever.
    Mr. C. S. Taylor rose—
    12.45 a.m.
    Sir R. Acland: We are contending against controversial party legislation.
    The other point of dissimilarity is that the Tory Opposition did not command the support of the majority of the people in the country. In the last Parliament they thought—
    The Chairman: I am very reluctant to stop the hon. Member, but it is not
    2934
    the occasion to discuss the last Parliament now, when the Motion is that I do report Progress. I must ask him to keep to the point.
    Mr. Ede: On a point of order, may I draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) spent the greater part of his time just now describing what he thought happened in the last Parliament, and he even said that we passed the Steel Act in the last Parliament—and was priding himself on the part he played, although I never noticed it at the time.
    The Chairman: I did stop the hon. Member.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: You did call me to order, Sir Charles, and I did not refer again to the question of the Steel Bill.
    Sir R. Acland: When this Parliament was elected we discovered that although the Government won a majority of seats their confidently-made claims that they represented the majority of the voters turned out to be quite false. Our position is quite otherwise. At all times during this Parliament we have represented the majority of voters—[An HON. MEMBER: "But not constituencies."]—only because of quite fortuitous circumstances arising from the way in which the electorate happened to be distributed in certain areas. We are prepared to facilitate the administration of this country under their care until such time as they see fit to go to the country. But we have not merely a right, as representing a majority, we have a duty to prevent the minority—
    The Chairman: Order: I have stopped the hon. Baronet several times for irrelevancy. If he continues, I shall ask him to resume his seat.
    Sir R. Acland: I am in your hands, Sir Charles, and will bow to your Ruling. I am only trying to make an answer to the points which were made, as I thought quite properly from their point of view, by the two hon. back benchers who spoke on the other side of the Committee.
    I am sorry that it takes rather longer to make the answer than it took to make the point, but that often is the case. It is pretty easy to get up and say "filibustering" or "obstructing;" and to imagine that there will be an echo in the hearts of those of the population who are still supporters of the Conservative Party.

    2935
    It does take a little longer to show why this charge is not rightly made against the Opposition now, and it seemed to me that I was right in saying that we who all along have represented a majority—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] All the way through this Parliament we have represented more voters than the Government party—
    Mr. W. T. Williams: Give the figures.
    Sir R. Acland: The actual figures, which my hon. Friend has just passed to me, are that 13,911,000 voters voted for our party and 13,708,000 electors voted—
    The Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. Baronet to resume his seat.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: The Government benches seem to be in a state of unhappiness today, for reasons we all very well understand, because they were missing for a long time, trying to cheer themselves up and to re-unite their ranks. Therefore, presumably, this unhappiness on the Government benches is the reason for the Leader of the House moving to report Progress. Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman does not feel that he can face leading his troops through the night. No doubt that is why it is being done.
    It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) is not here, because we have been discussing this Bill as on other nights we were discussing perfectly seriously another Bill, and all the discussion has been directed to real Amendments and to real points. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that we are engaging in the process that was recommended at some other time—of harrying and trying to drive men to an early grave—upon a public platform.
    These are serious arguments, serious Amendments. Unhappily, the Minister of Health and those in charge of the Bill have not accepted our arguments in that spirit but mechanically, all the time, have said, "No, no, no." In our judgment this Bill is a bad Bill. The same view is taken by the Liberal Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] There is a considerable electoral majority against the Bill or against the policy
    2936
    which the Government is pursuing. In our judgment it is right that we should report Progress and ask leave to sit again, except that we would sooner the House did not ask leave to sit again at all on this Bill.
    Having said that, I must add that I think the Ministers have handled the Committee stage very badly indeed. I really thought that the Leader of the House was the best choice of the Prime Minister for the job, but he is disappointing us day by day. He is letting us down. Mere negation, a lack of conciliation and unwillingness to make compromises where compromise is possible, makes it difficult to facilitate the necessary progress of the Bill.
    Therefore, while it is not for us to seek to continue the sitting, we have to express ourselves about the way the Bill is being handled and about the style of the Minister of Health. I suggest to my hon. Friends that, while we have no wish to continue on this Bill at all, we must register our protest about the way it is being done. The time has now come when we should reach a conclusion on this Motion, and I recommend to my hon. Friends that, as a protest against the incompetent and inadequately courteous way in which the business has been handled, we should without further ado go into the Division Lobby against the Government.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): I do not know whether it is an unexpected case of imagination, or, perhaps, personal painful experience, that makes the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) so sure that he knows exactly what happens in party meetings upstairs. Had he for a moment been able to look over his shoulder when he was chiding us with lack of unity, he would not have completed a phrase on the topic.
    It is not for me to use any of the old adjectives, even to the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), about the pot and the kettle; I will leave her to use them, if she thinks fit. The right hon. Gentleman complains of the conduct of this Bill. I prefer to think that the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), though not at all times very easy to follow, was very near the mark when he said—I took down his

    2937
    words for better accuracy—that my two hon. Friends who spoke earlier had quite properly made some criticisms of the conduct of the Opposition.
    Sir R. Acland: From their point of view.
    Mr. Eden: They would not make it from the hon. Gentleman's point of view. I would defy anybody to explain anything from the hon. Gentleman's point of view.
    Sir R. Acland: That is perfectly fair. But the right hon. Gentleman was purporting to quote me as if I were giving my personal point of view. All I said was that it was perfectly proper for them, holding their views, to try to make those points, although, in my opinion, they are bad points.
    Mr. Eden: We are getting on; there is almost the same kind of convolution as the hon. Baronet recommended, so that we might understand each other. I suggest that the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock was quite rightly apprehensive, in the very able intervention she made, of the judgment that the country may take of what has been happening in the last three days.
    Miss Lee: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent me. I am extremely charitable, but not to the extent of being apprehensive about hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have every reason to be apprehensive. The right hon. Gentleman's apprehension is quite understandable.
    1.0 a.m.
    Mr. Eden: I did not quite follow the full significance of that explanation, but—[Interruption]—hon. Members can be patient; I am making a reasonable reply to the debate. What I was pointing out was that I would understand if the hon. Lady felt apprehensive as to the view the country might take as to the progress we have made in the last three days because in three days of Committee we have so far reached line 9 of the Bill, and the first four lines are descriptive. When hon. Members opposite say that we shall no doubt express our views on this matter in the country they are, of course, perfectly correct. That is precisely what we propose to do.
    Mr. I. Mikardo: The people in the country expressed their views this week.
    Mr. Eden: I do not know what the hon. Member is expressing, but the hon. Member is pleased and that is satisfactory to the hon. Member, if not to anyone else.
    Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I suggest that it might be of assistance to the right hon. Gentleman, in assessing the present mood of the country, to learn that out of 21 results in the Norfolk County Council elections this evening 13 wins have been recorded for Labour.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Eden: Hon. Members are fully at liberty to cheer that and anything which can possibly encourage them. It neither depresses nor surprises me that they should be elated by those facts. What I am dealing with is the particular stage at which we are on this Bill and I was pointing out that it was possible that people in the country might take the view that we have not been making such rapid progress. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do not want it."] If the country do not want any progress made, hon. Members are, on their own admission, obstructing the Bill and will have no complaint when we point out that filibustering tactics have been used—
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    The Chairman: I think the right hon. Gentleman might be allowed to continue.
    Mr. Eden: —and draw our own conclusions and express them to the country as we shall.
    The Chairman: The Question is—
    Mr. Baird: Once again the Chairman has given way—
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    The Chairman: I understood that the Committee were willing to come to a decision.
    Mr. Baird: What I said was that once again the Chair has given way—
    The Chairman: That is completely unwarranted; I do not know what the hon. Member means. The Closure has not been moved—
    Hon. Members: It has.
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    The Chairman: The Question is, "That the Question be now put."
    Mr. Bevan: On a point of order.
    The Chairman: I was in the course of collecting the voices.
    Mr. Bevan: You ought not to be.
    The Chairman: I hope the right hon. Gentleman with withdraw that remark.
    Mr. Bevan: As I understand the position, Sir Charles, you did not understand that the Patronage Secretary had moved that "The Question be now put," and, therefore, your acceptance of the Motion from him was made under a misapprehension, but when the Patronage Secretary did move the Question you accepted it. There is no automatic obligation on the Chair to accept the Motion that, "The Question be now put." It seemed to us, as you misunderstood the previous Motion, rather difficult to understand that you automatically accepted the Motion when the Patronage Secretary moved it.
    The Chairman: I think the right hon. Gentleman completely misunderstood

    Division No. 88.]

    AYES

    [1.8 a.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hurd, A. R.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N)

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

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

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Kaberry, D.

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Banks, Col. C.

    Fell, A.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Barber, A. P. L.

    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.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Birch, Nigel

    Fort, R.

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

    Bishop, F. P.

    Foster, John

    Lindsay, Martin

    Black, C. W.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Linstead, H. N.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Low, A. R. W.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Braine, B. R.

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    McAdden, S. J.

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

    Godber, J. B.

    MacCallum, Major D.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Gower, H. R.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

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

    Grimond, J.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E.

    Harden, J. R. E.

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Harrison, Cot. J. H. (Eye)

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

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

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

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Champion, A. J.

    Heath, Edward

    Marples, A. E.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Cole, Norman

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Maude, Angus

    Colegate, W. A.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Maudling, R.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

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

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Medlicott, Brig F.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Mellor, Sir John

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

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    what happened. After having heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), I came to the conclusion that the Committee was ready to come to a decision. I therefore proceeded to put the Question that, "The Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."[Interruption.] I must ask hon. Members to give me a chance to state what I know to be true. If every time I say something it is doubted, how can I carry on? I understood that the Committee was ready to come to a decision. I put the Question to report Progress and then an hon. Member got up to speak, and at that moment the Patronage Secretary moved the Closure which I was quite entitled to accept, and which I do accept.
    Question, "That the Question be now put," and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 199 Noes, 140.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Teeling, W.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Roper, Sir Harold

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

    Nutting, Anthony

    Repner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Russell, R. S.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Odey, G. W.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Touche, G. C.

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

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

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Osborne, C.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Partridge, E.

    Shepherd, William

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Wellwood, W.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Wills, G.

    Redmayne, M.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Summers, G. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Mr. Studholme and Mr. Vosper.

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Adams, Richard

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    O'Brien, T.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    O'Neill, M. (Mid-Ulster)

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Hargreaves, A.

    Orbach, M.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds. S.E.)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

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

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Paton, J.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Peart, T. F.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Blackburn, F.

    Holman, P.

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Reeves, J.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Robens, Rt. Hon A.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Janner, B.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Ross, William

    Burke, W. A.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Keenan, W.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Cove, W. G.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon R. R.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Deer, G.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Delargy, H. J.

    McLeavy, F.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

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

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Field, W. J.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Mellish, R. J.

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

    Foot, M. M.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Gaitskall, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Monslow, W.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

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

    Mr. Hannan and Mr. Royle.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday, 21st April.

  SCRAP MENTAL (SALVAGE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]
  1.16 a.m.
  Wing Commander Eric Bullus: Though I welcome the opportunity of the quieter waters of the Adjournment I regret that I should be the one that should detain the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply on the eve, if not on the occasion, of his wedding anniversary.
  Sir Waldron Smithers: Do him good.
  Wing Commander Bullus: I am very glad that this Adjournment debate is not taking place tomorrow night, and I wish my hon. Friend many happy returns of the day and a successful term of office at the Ministry of Supply.
  It is appropriate that earlier this week we discussed the economic situation when we debated the Finance Bill on Second Reading, for that is the right background for the few remarks I want to make tonight. Every thinking person in this country knows the gravity of the situation that faces this country, and the vital necessity to extract every bit of use from our existing resources. Unfortunately, I think that there is considerable waste in this country.
  Two months ago I sought to call attention to the great wastage of apples in this country, and I pointed out that, in an average year, between 50,000 and 100,000 tons of apples were wasted, and that that represented millions of gallons of fruit juice, thousands of tons of pectin, which is imported into this country from dollar sources when we can get it, and a certain amount of animal fodder. Recently, in the Budget debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) called attention to the loss of oil, because we do very little refining of waste lubricating oil. There are many other examples of wasted materials which could be salvaged.
  But tonight I wish to speak, briefly, of the undoubted amount of waste scrap metal which exists in this country which could and should, I think, be salvaged. I am convinced that up and down this country, in homes, in back gardens, in factories, on farms, in dumps, and in
  2944
  many other places, there is scrap metal which, in aggregate, would make a considerable addition to our stocks of vital raw materials resources. The sources of foreign imported scrap have diminished in the last two or three years, and the possibility of delay of American supplies of finished steel indicated this week makes a thorough scrap drive in this country of paramount importance. Our blast furnaces are starved of scrap metal.
  I hope that the Minister will agree with what I have said and that he will be able to tell us this morning what his Department are doing in the matter. I content myself with asking a series of questions which, if we have the answers, will give a fair idea, I think, of what is being done or what can be done. In the first place, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary this: Is he satisfied, or is his right hon. Friend satisfied, that everything possible is being done in his Department to encourage and fully to publicise the collection of scrap metal in the country? May I ask whether there is any central direction and co-ordination from the Ministry or whether this is left to the iron and steel industry? What is the co-operation, if any, between the industry and the Ministries?
  May I ask whether there is an officer in the Ministry of Supply whose duty it is to attend to this matter and whose duty might be comparable to that of the Controller of Salvage, a position which existed in the last war? During the last war, too, there was the honorary advisors scheme which, I think, was a great success. May I ask whether there is any possibility of this scheme being re-started? I know that in 104 months from November, 1939, to June, 1948, the local authorities alone collected nearly 1¾ million tons of ferrous metal scrap and they also collected 53,500 tons of non-ferrous scrap. May I ask how the figures of collections made by local authorities today compare with the figures I have quoted for the war years?
  Could not the local authorities be asked to do more in this matter? I believe that householders have much old iron—old flat irons, saucepans, fenders, broken firegrates, old bedsteads, old tins—which they would gladly be rid of, if they knew just how to get rid of it. Some local authorities, I know, collect this scrap metal, but I believe that in some of the

  2945
  Metropolitan boroughs they barge such scrap down the Thames for tipping, on the ground that recovery would not warrant the cost of installing segregation equipment.
  Could not the Ministry advise here? Indeed, could not all the tips throughout the country be searched, and even the old bombed sites, although I believe there is not a great deal of scrap metal left today on the bombed sites. We know there is a scarcity of scrap and we also know there is a scarcity of tin. Recently, railwaymen were asked to look out for old scrap along their 19,000 miles of track. That appeal has, I understand, gone to the staff, which numbers 590,000.
  May I ask what is being done in the other nationalised undertakings? What of the Coal Board? Is not there some scrap in the disused collieries and other workings? Have all these been combed for the possibility of finding scrap metal? Has any help been sought from the Gas and Electricity Boards? Or the Transport Commission? Or even from the Armed Services, because it is my belief that in these undertakings, quite apart from the homes and factories, there is much scrap metal which, in the aggregate, would make a useful contribution to our supply of raw materials.
  I know that in many cases scrap merchants could not give an economic price. I therefore ask—is any subsidy being given, or has any subsidy been paid? If so, how is this administered, or does only the iron and steel industry make an offer of subsidy? In July next the last of London's tramcars will run and in the 350 miles of routes formerly covered, I maintain there is much scrap metal. Are these lines to be recovered? Cannot the Chancellor of the Exchequer be prevailed on to case the restriction on road expenditure where tramlines could usefully be retrieved?
  Mr. L. M. Lever: As in Manchester?
  Wing Commander Bullus: Yes, as in Manchester, and, I think, in Liverpool where the iron and steel industry gave a subsidy as it was an uneconomic proposition, and a certain amount of metal was taken from those lines. Some road expenditure would be welcomed in London, because the wood setts are dangerous in bad weather, and this would be a use-
  2946
  ful opportunity of repairing and maintaining these roads, and, at the same time, getting scrap metal. There are other sources of scrap, too numerous to mention. In the main it is the public who must help. I am sorry to think that expert opinion suggests that 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the people are indifferent to salvage drives.
  There is one other source that is worth investigating. There are thousands of electrical shops up and down the country holding thousands of tons of nuts and bolts in stock because there are so many different types of thread. This is waste, because so much is kept in stock that could otherwise be used. Is it not possible to have a standardised thread and thus make available all these other nuts and bolts which are really waste because they are kept in stock and are not likely to be used. Could the Ministry not give a lead here?
  These are a few suggestions. There are many others. I think the chief question which might be asked is whether the gravity of the scrap position is really realised, even by the 3,000 scrap merchants in this country? I believe the position has to be made known and kept continually publicised. An appeal must be made on the grounds of patriotism. I risk a charge of being called Autolycus, because of the picking up unconsidered trifles, but I think it will have been worth while if, by a debate such as this and by publicity, we can make our nation become more scrap conscious. If this debate helps in that matter I suggest it will not have been in vain.
  1.24 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) for the virile speech he has made. I would like to thank him for the kind things he said about me, which were somewhat embarrassing, and for giving me notice of the points he has made so clearly and concisely.
  I wish to deal only with these points relating to metal, as he would expect when he asked me to reply to the debate. He made one reference to non-ferrous metal and I will make one in my reply. I think he will forgive me if I do not reply to him seriatim. I would like to make

  2947
  a point of general principle relating to salvage and waste material. All experience has shown that the best salvage schemes are those which use practical methods of recovery of particular commodities. It is most important to salvage the maximum of materials most economically. Salvage is essentially an economic proposition, it is unquestionably the responsibility for salvage rests with the industry which uses it.
  This, I think—I hope the House will agree—is especially true of iron and steel scrap. There are 69 different types of ferrous scrap. The scrap merchants have to be, and are, experts in their trade. They and the iron and steel making industry know what can be used, how it can be used and how the materials should be collected, sorted and broken down to the required size.
  The Ministry of Supply about which my hon. and gallant Friend asked, has no administrative, executive or financial responsibility for the procurement or collection or iron and steel scrap, or, indeed, of any scrap. We naturally dispose of our own scrap as quickly as we can, but, having said that, I must add that we have a joint responsibility for the iron and steel industry and we must, therefore, be concerned, as indeed hon. Members in the House are, with the steps that are being taken to procure and collect the scrap that the industry needs so badly.
  My right hon. Friend has an honorary adviser—my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned this—who is the head of one of the largest scrap merchants in the world. My right hon. Friend has been in touch with other Ministers and has invited, and secured, their active help; for example, the Ministers in charge of the Service Departments and those in charge of other Departments who have a chance of influencing the disposal of scrap.
  My hon. and gallant Friend made it clear that he understood the importance of scrap to the steel industry. There could, of course, be no doubt about that, but any opportunity that any of us have to make it more clear should, I am sure, be taken. One ton of scrap makes one ton of new steel. This one ton of scrap in steel making can replace one ton of pig iron and thereby save one ton of coke, which is in very short supply. Scrap
  2948
  makes steel quicker and in some cases better than pig iron can.
  My hon. and gallant Friend quoted some figures. I will give him some which I think will reassure him. In 1951 just over 58 per cent. of the materials used for steel making were scrap. The previous year the proportion was 63 per cent. Pre-war, it used to be about 57 per cent.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Can my hon. Friend say how much out of those percentages was imported and how much was home collected?
  Mr. Low: The amount imported has varied over the last few years, but last year and this year there has been a substantial reduction, and it is because there has been this substantial reduction that it is so important at the moment that we should try to increase the amount of scrap which is "thrown up" as it is called, at home.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) anticipated the next point that I was about to make. My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the non-ferrous metal industry. It may interest him to know that scrap forms about 42 per cent. of the materials consumed in production. The consumption of scrap in 1951 was greater than in the war years. The steelworks purchased in 1951 about 250,000 tons of scrap more than their average annual purchase between 1940 and 1947.
  Actually, the total amount of scrap used in 1951 in the industry was just over 9 million tons. That was consumed in steelworks and steel foundries. Of this the industry's own arisings amounted to nearly half. The rest comes from process scrap in the engineering industry, from capital scrap—that is, machinery and plant which is no longer of use—from domestic scrap such as is collected by the local authorities or by house-to-house collectors, from farm scrap, and from such operations as the removal of tramlines. I shall deal with some of these in a moment.
  There is no doubt that the engineering industry, as a matter of course, gets rid of its process scrap as soon as it can. There is, however, some reason to believe that more could be done by industry to dispose of obsolete plant and machinery for which it has no further use. I have

  2949
  heard reports of excellent results in certain areas of local factory scrap drives organised by enthusiastic managing directors, and I would like to appeal for more special efforts.
  It is on the other matters that my hon. and gallant Friend has particularly addressed questions to me, and which are the particular concern of the Scrap Drive Organisation. This Organisation was set up in January, 1951, by the British Iron and Steel Federation and the Joint Iron Council in close collaboration with the National Federation of Scrap Iron, Steel, and Metal Merchants. It launched this drive with the full support of the Ministry of Supply. In December last year, my right hon. Friend saw senior officials of the Scrap Drive Organisation to discuss what else could be done to increase collections, and thus help the substantial reduction of imported scrap.
  Following that meeting the Organisation decided to intensify the scrap drive this year. Some 3,700 scrap merchants are licensed to trade in ferrous scrap, and I can assure the hon. Member that these merchants appreciate the national importance of their work. The scrap drive works through 10 district scrap drive committees, the vice-chairmen of which are leading scrap merchants in the district. The drive has been complimented by the scrap panel of the Economic Commission for Europe, which visited this country last year.
  That Commission reported that the way the drive was organised in Great Britain could serve as an example for other countries. Hon. Members may be familiar with the figure of "Jack Scrap," which appears in many advertisements in this country. It has been adopted by the German industry for its scrap drive, with the name of "Schrott Otto." Scrap merchants are making every effort to improve collections and deliveries. In the first quarter of 1952, 2,000 more tons of scrap were delivered to steel works than in the first quarter of 1951. It may well be that the substantial increase in price last August encouraged the merchants.
  Domestic scrap includes tins and other things which are put into refuse-bins and other ironware, etc., which is kept at home but no longer needed. There are 490 local authorities covering half of our population of 25 million, which are supporting the scrap drive and are separating
  2950
  and baling the scrap, or have arranged for the separation and baling of their scrap to be done by other local authorities. It might interest the House to know that to equip all the remaining important local authorities would cost at least £850,000, would take a long time, and would add to the tonnage of recoverable scrap only about 60,000 tons. I am aware of the special problem of certain riverside Metropolitan boroughs. I understand that about 6,000 tons of scrap is sent down the river each year and dumped. The only practicable scheme to save this scrap would cost about £250,000.
  The Scrap Drive Organisation is always ready to consider and advise on any proposals put forward by these local authorities or by others. There is a special problem in regard to tin cans. There is first the problem which the local authorities have in collecting and baling, and then the problem of de-tinning. If the cans are not de-tinned they are useful to blast furnaces for making pig iron: if they are de-tinned they are useful for making steel. At present, de-tinning works in this country take only some 15,000 tons of used tin cans.
  The scrap drive has also been successful in securing the agreement of some local authorities to make house-to-house collections in places where the private house-to-house rag and bone collector does not call. Experience in several boroughs, for example, Warrington, Walsall, Sunderland and Swansea indicates that there may be available about two tons of ferrous scrap per 1,000 people. This house-to-house collection is only practicable in populous areas so, in time, industry may get 50,000 tons from this source.
  Special efforts have been made to collect scrap from farms. The 1951 drive for farm scrap was launched with the full support of the National Farmers' Union. In the country the scrap drive has received good co-operation and assistance from the farmers; but in some parts of the country more can still be done. In some counties special schemes have been adopted to arrange for the collection from farms scattered over a wide area. The special scheme involves a payment per ton for the scrap at the farm, but in some cases there are arrangements for collection at nominated points, sometimes railway station yards to which the farmers bring their scrap—and there a

  2951
  larger sum is paid in respect of transport costs of the scrap to those places. The scheme is reported to be working well.
  Several questions have been raised recently on the arrangements made for the lifting of tramways no longer required for the running of trams. The total amount of steel laid in these tramway tracks which are going out of action is 50,000 tons in London and in the provinces is believed to be about 22,000 tons. The cost of lifting these rails is often heavy and special financial arrangements are therefore made by the Scrap Drive Organisation with local authorities where it is necessary. I understand that the Scrap Drive are in touch with the L.C.C. on the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.
  So far, tram lines for use as scrap have been secured from 11 local authorities. This tramline scrap is particularly good steel and, therefore, a valuable scrap to the steel-making industry. There are, of course, other sources of scrap such as the collieries, the railways and other nationalised industries. All the nationalised industries are co-operating in the scrap drive but here, too, it is important not to expect too much in the amount of scrap that can be made available by special efforts from any one source. Recently, there was a special survey of 30 collieries which disclosed that the total amount of scrap lying uncollected in them amounted to less than 700 tons.
  I might interpose here to say that as other industries are helping the iron and steel makers, so the iron and steel makers help other industry and the public by making their coke-oven by-products available. Each year they sell 22,000,000,000 cubic feet of gas to outside consumers.
  2952
  My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned nuts and bolts. It may interest him to know that nuts and bolts are now being manufactured to standard specifications laid down by the British Standards Institution. These nuts and bolts are described by the type of their thread, the pitch and number of threads to the inch. The main threads approved by the BSI are known in the trade as the BA (British Association) and Whitworth patterns.
  I hope that all I have said will assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the metal-using industry and Government Departments, the scrap merchants and the iron and steel makers are all co-operating in the renewed effort to increase the amount of scrap to be delivered to the iron and steel makers. The Ministry of Supply follow the progress of the scrap drive with the closest concern and their fullest support, but there can be no doubt that the right machinery for the drive for the collection of scrap, is that which the industry itself has set up.
  The House will probably be aware that on 5th March last my right hon. and noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced, in another place, that he was setting up an advisory panel on waste materials. The Chairman of the Scrap Drive Organisation has been appointed a member of this advisory panel. The panel will be working, when it considers steel scrap, in the closest co-operation with the Scrap Drive Organisation, and will be making inquiries in the course of the next few weeks into many of the problems which I have mentioned tonight.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to Two o'Clock a.m.

TELEPHONE SERVICE SHEFFIELD
  TELEPHONE SERVICE SHEFFIELD
  TELEPHONE SERVICE SHEFFIELD
POST OFFICE
  Advisory Council
  Advisory Council
  Sub-Offices
  Sub-Offices
  Overtime
  Overtime
  Terrington Committee Report
  Terrington Committee Report
  H.M.S. "Monarch" (American Charter)
  H.M.S. "Monarch" (American Charter)
  MEMBERS (TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPHIC SERVICES)
  MEMBERS (TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPHIC SERVICES)
BROADCASTING
  Reception, South-East Area
  Reception, South-East Area
  Foreign Broadcasts
  Foreign Broadcasts
  BRITISH EUROPEAN AIRWAYS (INTERNAL SERVICES)
  BRITISH EUROPEAN AIRWAYS (INTERNAL SERVICES)
  NORWEGIAN TANKER (BRITISH STOWAWAYS)
  NORWEGIAN TANKER (BRITISH STOWAWAYS)
  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN CONVERSATIONS
  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN CONVERSATIONS
  KOREA (TRUCE TALKS)
  KOREA (TRUCE TALKS)
  FALKLAND ISLAND DEPENDENCIES
  FALKLAND ISLAND DEPENDENCIES
  GOLD COAST (WENCHIHENE INQUIRY)
  GOLD COAST (WENCHIHENE INQUIRY)
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Students, U.K. (Moray Lodge)
  Students, U.K. (Moray Lodge)
  Liverpool Welfare Office
  Liverpool Welfare Office
  SIERRA LEONE (ELECTIONS)
  SIERRA LEONE (ELECTIONS)
KENYA
  Trade Union Ordinance
  Trade Union Ordinance
  European Settlers (Land Cultivation)
  European Settlers (Land Cultivation)
  Civil Service Whitley Council
  Civil Service Whitley Council
  MALAYA (ANTI-TERRORIST MEASURES)
  MALAYA (ANTI-TERRORIST MEASURES)
  NIGERIA (U.S.A. AIR ROUTE SURVEY)
  NIGERIA (U.S.A. AIR ROUTE SURVEY)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Arms Smuggling
  Arms Smuggling
  Mr. Zukas (Deportation Order)
  Mr. Zukas (Deportation Order)
  TANGANYIKA (MERU FAMILIES)
  TANGANYIKA (MERU FAMILIES)
  SINGAPORE (WHITLEY COUNCIL)
  SINGAPORE (WHITLEY COUNCIL)
ROYAL NAVY
  Shipbuilding and Repairing
  Shipbuilding and Repairing
  Overseas Civilian Staff
  Overseas Civilian Staff
EDUCATION
  Technical Colleges (Students)
  Technical Colleges (Students)
  Students' Awards
  Students' Awards
  Cleator Moor
  Cleator Moor
  EGYPTIAN STERLING BALANCES
  EGYPTIAN STERLING BALANCES
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Sewerage Scheme, Crickhowell
  Sewerage Scheme, Crickhowell
  Rural Water Supplies
  Rural Water Supplies
  Exchequer Equalisation Grants, Sunderland
  Exchequer Equalisation Grants, Sunderland
  Rent Tribunals
  Rent Tribunals
  RAILWAY WORKSHOPS (DEFENCE ORDERS)
  RAILWAY WORKSHOPS (DEFENCE ORDERS)
  CONWAY BRIDGE (LOAD RESTRICTIONS)
  CONWAY BRIDGE (LOAD RESTRICTIONS)
KOREA
  Captured Enemy Weapons
  Captured Enemy Weapons
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Health Visitors, Middlesex
  Health Visitors, Middlesex
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Motor Tricycles
  Motor Tricycles
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Cheese
  Cheese
  Milk (Processing)
  Milk (Processing)
SCOTLAND
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Surplus Herring (Increased Price)
  Surplus Herring (Increased Price)
  Housing Advisory Committee's Report
  Housing Advisory Committee's Report
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Welsh Board for Industry (Chairman)
  Welsh Board for Industry (Chairman)
  Bilateral Trade Negotiations (Consultation with Industry)
  Bilateral Trade Negotiations (Consultation with Industry)
  CRIME, LONDON (STATISTICS)
  CRIME, LONDON (STATISTICS)
  FIRE SERVICE (PAY)
  FIRE SERVICE (PAY)

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

FERTILISERS (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME, 1952
2.35 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, this is the first scheme to be made under the Agriculture (Fertilisers) Act, 1952, and in accordance with the provisions of the Act its operation is limited to the year beginning July 1, 1951, and ending June 30, 1952. As I indicated in my speech on the Second Reading of the Act, it puts into effect an undertaking given by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture that he will introduce a subsidy on phosphates retrospective to July 1, 1951. The scheme provides for the payment of approximately 30 per cent. of the cost of phosphatic fertilisers delivered in the year beginning July 1, 1951, to occupiers of agricultural land in the United Kingdom. Provision is made for the payment of contributions to associations of farmers, allotment holders and other small bodies who buy fertilisers in bulk for redistribution to their members. This will allow the small user of fertilisers to obtain the amount he requires with the reduction in price that the scheme allows. I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
2.38 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Henderson has not yet arrived to move his Motion, with the leave of the House I will do so in his absence. I am entirely in your Lordships' hands. Perhaps the Leader of the House would care to express an opinion.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SAL ISBURY): The situation with which we are faced is an unusual one. I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, should speak very early in the debate, because I understand he is putting the main case for the Opposition. He would be followed by spokesmen from the Liberal Front Bench and, I understand, from the Bishops' Bench. If he could speak then, my noble friend, Lord Reading, would speak after the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. If that is convenient to the House, I think it would be convenient for the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to speak now.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am quite ready.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should have added that the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, will speak second, in any case, because he has a Motion on the Paper.
LORD PAKENHAM: Would it be preferred that the noble Duke should begin?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, should formally move the Motion which is down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and then should not intervene until later on the points which he wishes to raise? Then the noble Duke could speak immediately after the Motion had been moved. I think that that would meet the case.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am perfectly ready to fall in with any arrangement which meets the wishes of the House, but I notice that my noble friend is now here.
2.40 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON rose to call attention to Foreign Affairs; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House. I took the few minutes' grace that I thought would be allowed by Prayers. I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I feel that an opportunity to discuss the international situation before we adjourn for Easter will be generally welcomed, especially in view of the fact that it is nearly four months since we had our last debate on Foreign Affairs in your Lordships' House. A discussion would have taken place a month ago but we on these Benches felt that it would be advantageous to await publication of the promised White Paper dealing with a German defence contribution and the European Defence Community. The noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, was good enough to agree.
Before I deal with these and other matters concerning Europe, I should like to refer, quite briefly, to events in other parts of the world. The situation in Korea has not changed appreciably since our last debate in November. The ceasefire talks continue to drag on at a very slow tempo without any observable sign that they will reach an early conclusion. The experiences of the months since the talks began show that there is some justification for the view, often expressed, that it is easier to start war than to start peace. We must all regret and deplore that the fighting goes on; that the talks have not, as yet, led to a cease-fire and armistice and to the opening of negotiations to restore peace to war-ravaged Korea and to the distressed Korean people. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who I believe will be speaking later, may not have anything to add to our present knowledge of the situation in Korea, but there is one matter which has recently arisen on which he may wish to say something quite definitely.
For some time the Chinese Communists have been busy charging the United States with using germ warfare in Korea and China. I cannot believe that any person of free intelligence would be tempted to give credit to such a monstrous charge unless there were the fullest and most conclusive evidence available, resulting from independent examination and investigation. In this case there is no
114
proof, only unsupported assertions. Soon after the assertion was first broadcast by Pekin radio, the International Committee of the Red Cross offered to investigate the facts, but while the United States Government immediately accepted the offer, no response was forthcoming from the Communist Government of China. Now, despite the most categorical official denials by the United States Government in Washington, and by the Foreign Secretary in another place, the accusation continues to be used as the basis of a major Communist propaganda campaign, not only in this and other Western countries, but throughout Asia and the Middle East.
Photographs purporting to substantiate the allegation have been widely circulated and published. These, I understand, have been examined by distinguished American scientists and declared to be fakes. Nevertheless, Mr. Malik, the Soviet delegate to the United Nations Disarmament Commission, has repeated the charges, and described the American Secretary of State as
"an instigator, an advocate and one of the organisers of the use of bacteriological warfare."
At the same time, he rejected with contumely the offer of the International Red Cross.
Here we have a striking example of the "big lie" technique in propaganda as it used to be so cynically practised by Goebbels. It would seem that the Communists are quite as adept in the art of political fabrications, and not inferior in their propaganda exploitation of them. I call attention to this matter because it is not always wise to ignore what is untrue. We ought not merely to treat with contempt the continued repetition of Communist falsehoods of this kind. They are not only directives to the faithful but also snares for the unwary and the innocent; and this particular one is designed to raise doubts or distress or indignation among the peoples of all lands who would abominate the introduction of such an evil practice by any country, Communist or non-Communist. I hope, therefore, that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will take advantage of the opportunity which this debate affords to issue another firm categorical denial on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and that it will be given wide publicity in

115
order that it may be brought to the attention of the general public.
My Lords, there is another matter, this time affecting Burma, which ought not to be lost sight of—namely, the existence in that country of an armed force of Chinese Nationalist troops. This force is of some thousands in strength, and it is alleged that it has been receiving arms and supplies, and perhaps reinforcements, from Formosa. I do not know how reliable are the reports to which I have referred, but what is beyond doubt is that there is an armed Chinese Nationalist force in Burma which escaped from China and which has established its base on the Burma side of the frontier. The presence of these troops on Burmese territory must obviously be a continuous source of embarrassment to the Government of that independent country, and if they should attempt to make sorties across the frontier—indeed, it is just reported that they have done so in the last few days—there is a risk that such action might be regarded as provocative by Communist China and become a danger, or a cause of danger, to Burma.
The Chinese Nationalist authorities occupy China's seat at the United Nations, and so long as they do so it is not unreasonable to expect that they will at least act in conformity with the Charter of that world organisation and will not allow any of their armed forces to use the territory of another Member State as a military base. That is manifestly an abuse of the right of asylum. Until these troops can be transferred to Formosa, surely it is the duty and the responsibility of the Chinese Nationalist authorities to order them to disarm and to respect the rights and interests of the country in which they have found sanctuary. I do not know whether the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who will be speaking for the Government, can tell us anything more about the present position and activities of these forces, or about Her Majesty's Government's attitude on the matter; but if he can, I hope he will do so.
Since our last debate there has been a marked improvement in the situation inside Egypt. Tension has been relaxed, and conversations have been resumed between the British Government and the new Egyptian Government. But in view of the delicate stage which the negotiations have now reached I do not propose
116
to refer to various aspects of the Middle East problem, which can be discussed with greater freedom on another occasion. I will content myself, therefore, with saying that I sincerely hope it may be found possible to reach a genuine agreement which will, on the one hand, ensure the effective collective defence of Egypt and the Middle East, and, on the other, give real satisfaction to the legitimate national aspirations of the Egyptian people.
Now, my Lords, I come to Europe. Here there is a whole complex of interrelated problems which are demanding almost continuous attention by the Western statesmen. Noble Lords have no doubt read with a good deal of satisfaction the White Paper on the Lisbon Conference, and the more recent first report of General Eisenhower as Supreme Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Nations' forces in Europe. Both documents show that an appreciable though limited headway has already been made, and further progress planned, with regard to the building up of collective defence forces as a deterrent to aggression and as an instrument for maintaining peace and increasing security. Responsible Western leaders are expressing the view that the war danger in Europe has receded. Mr. Eden gave it as his opinion in his broadcast at the week-end. M. Stalin, in his latest answers to Press questions, has declared that a third World War is not closer than it was two or three years ago. General Eisenhower believes that the situation is brighter than it was a year ago. And I believe that it is agreed by those who are in a position to form a judgment that there has been a lifting of the mood of depression and anxiety which set in throughout the free world as a result of the Berlin blockade, and which gradually increased when the Communists began their aggression against South Korea.
I think there can be no doubt that the factor mainly responsible for this improvement in public morale and psychology, as well as in the cautious official opinion, has been the steady build up of Western defences, under N.A.T.O., and the vast production programmes which are being undertaken to make Western defence secure. So far so good. But nothing could be more foolish than to imagine that this entitles us to "let up" on our defence efforts; that there is less need

117
than there was to press on vigorously with the collective task which we and our free partners have undertaken. In this connection, General Eisenhower has warned us that it would be disastrous
"if the favourable signs and developments recorded in his report were to put any mind at case or create a sense of adequate security; for there is no real security yet achieved in Europe; there is only a beginning."
Those are wise words, and we shall do well to keep them constantly in mind. While we can draw encouragement from the progress which has been made in a comparatively short period of time, that encouragement should be used to sustain our resolve to press on with the planned building up of adequate Atlantic defence resources.
A vital part of the task that still lies ahead is the bringing of a European Defence Community into being, as an essential part of the defensive strength of the free West. This still remains the only basis on which France will accept German rearmament. The British position was that we should welcome a European Army if it were found to be practicable. The Foreign Secretary has told us that the North Atlantic Council, at its Lisbon meeting, approved the plan as providing an acceptable method, both from the military and the political point of view, by which Germany can contribute to the defence of the West. We are not concerned in this debate with the actual details of the European Defence Community plan, which can be better examined and discussed during your Lordships' forthcoming Defence debate, but there are one or two important general points which I should like to mention to-day.
The first is that the Foreign Secretary has again made it clear that Britain is not to become a participant in the European Defence Community. That has been the British position from the outset, and it has been stated many times that we have not only European but Commonwealth and world interests and responsibilities—vital facts which we all recognise. It is, I believe, true that both France and Federal Germany have a more sympathetic appreciation of our special position than used to be the case. We all welcome that better understanding, but it is my personal belief that if we had been able to see our way to contribute
118
some force to this European Defence Organisation it would have made a profound psychological impression throughout Western Europe, and allayed certain fears which continue to trouble the French. Moreover, it would have been welcomed by both France and Federal Germany as practical encouragement to them in their efforts to break away from their historical hostility, and to get together in common political, economic, and security enterprises in a European, rather than in a narrow national spirit. We are, as I understand it, to be closely associated with the E.D.C. at all levels and in all activities short of merging any of our forces. But I should like to carry this matter a little further. We know that the French are concerned about the future integrity of the European Defence Community. The fact is that there is no real safeguard against a member nation breaking away from the Community, and the French Parliament have given expression to the concern which this absence of safeguard causes them. In the Order of the Day approved by the French Assembly on February 19 the Assembly recommended the French Government to ask the British and American Governments to guarantee, in the case of a breakdown or a violation of the Treaty by a member nation, undertakings in respect of the European Defence Community, this guarantee taking the form of the maintenance of sufficient American and British forces on the European Continent for as long as appears necessary. In the absence of British participation in the Community, it is reasonable to assume that the French Government will have raised this point and will have pressed for a guarantee on the lines indicated. The Foreign Secretary stated, as recently as last week-end, that we should be prepared to give the European Defence Community our backing and our guarantee within the framework of the Atlantic Pact. I am not clear what is intended, and I hope that the noble Marquess will be able to tell the House what Mr. Eden had in mind when making that statement.
It is expected that the European Defence Community Treaty will soon be complete and signed, and another important step will then have been taken towards a German arms contribution to Western defence against aggression. This question of a German contribution has been, as we are all aware, the cause of

119
a great deal of public uneasiness. The fear of a resurgence of German militarism is deep and widespread. None of us wants to see the re-creation of a powerful German military machine under a dominating German General Staff, and I believe it is true to say that perhaps the vast majority of the German people themselves are also hostile to the idea. Certainly, that was the very definite view which I formed, as a result of my visits to Germany and Berlin and my discussions with responsible leaders of the democratic political parties and the trade unions. Both Dr. Adenauer and Dr. Schumacher are as resolutely opposed to it as we are.
But, of course, that is not the sort of development which is being contemplated. What is proposed is a German armed contribution of a fixed proportion to the European Defence Community. It is within that context that the matter must be viewed. The reason for having such a contribution is precisely the same reason why the Atlantic Treaty nations are themselves undertaking vast defence burdens. If the antecedents had not been created by the Communists, the consequences would not have arisen for the Western world. It will be remembered (indeed, the White Paper reminds us of it) that the
British position was defined by my right honourable
friend Mr. Attlee, as Prime Minister, just over a year ago; and, so far as I know, what he said then continues to be the policy of Her Majesty's present Government. Mr. Attlee said that we have accepted the need for a contribution from Germany. I do not think the need has changed or is any less urgent. That is certainly General Eisenhower's view, for he has stated in his report that with
"maximum potential realised through the collective efforts of member nations of N.A.T.O. there is little hope for the economical long-term attainment of security and stability in Europe unless Western Germany can be counted on the side of the free nations."
Mr. Attlee went on to say that the time, method and conditions would require a good deal of working out, and he amplified this statement by setting out four conditions. The first two were that the arming and the building up of the forces of the Atlantic Treaty Nations should have precedence over the arming of Germany. The third condition was that the
120
arrangements must be such that German units would be integrated in a way which would preclude the emergence of a German military menace. The noble Marquess will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the North Atlantic Treaty Governments are reasonably satisfied that the European Defence Community plan will fulfil these conditions. The last condition was that there must be agreement with the Germans themselves. That has not yet been fulfilled, but the Treaty, after it has been signed, has to be submitted to all the Parliaments concerned for ratification, and it will not come into operation until all the ratifications have been given. Not until then will it be possible for a single German to be recruited.
While all this work on the defence side has been progressing, negotiations have been going on with regard to ending the occupation of Western Germany and giving the Federal Republic equal status. This is a matter of the highest importance, both to our relations with Federal Germany and to Federal Germany's growing association with the free West. I hope the noble Marquess will be able to give the House some idea of when this political Treaty will be completed and signed. It seems to me that the sooner this political development is brought to the stage of accomplishment the better it will be for all of us. It will soon be three years since the Federal Republic was set up, and it is vitally important that both the political and the psychological value of the change from an occupation régime to one of Western Germany's free and equal partnership in the free West should be fully realised by a speedy conclusion of the preparations.
The intention was, and I suppose still is, that the political Treaty and the defence Treaty are to come into force at the same time. I do not know whether it is still expected that the necessary Parliamentary processes will be completed without interference with the planned timetable. We know that delays have ensued with regard to the ratification of the Schuman Treaty. I think I am right in saying that only three or four of the six Parliaments concerned have so far ratified. As regards the European Defence Community Treaty, it will be remembered that, prior to the Lisbon Conference, both the French Government and the Federal German

121
Government obtained the approval of their Parliaments only with difficulty, and with conditions attached. Moreover, a new factor has been injected. If one of the objects of the Soviet Note was to embarrass both the Western Allies and the Federal German 'Government, having regard to the political timetable to which I have just referred, there can be no doubt that it was well-timed. We all know that the reunion of their divided country is the ardent desire of every German. How many of them would be prepared, or could be induced, to sacrifice integration with the West for unification? We do not know the answers to these and other relevant questions, but we can be sure that they will have a bearing on the timetable of ratifications and the implementation of the plans. The unification of West and East Germany on a basis of freedom—I repeat, on a basis of freedom —would mean the removal of one of the most unsettling factors in European and international life.
It should not be forgotten that if the Western Allies had not met with uncompromising resistance from the Russians, Germany would have been set on the road to union, with freedom, at the last Four Power Conference in Paris as long ago as 1949. But does the Soviet Union mean by its present proposals that when Germany is reunited, United Germany will be free? Is United Germany to be debarred from entering the free West in order to be brought later on into the Soviet orbit? Many such questions spring to the mind, and they cannot be brushed aside and ascribed to undue suspicion of the aims and purposes of the Soviet Union. We know from experience that we can never be sure of the Russian mind. Hitherto, the Soviet leaders have denounced German rearmament in the Western defence pattern and said that it would create an intolerable situation. They have now turned a complete somersault and are themselves proposing that Germany should have their own national land, air and naval forces, provided Germany breaks with the West and adopts a policy of neutrality. This is but the most recent example of the sudden switches in Soviet policy which make it so difficult to understand their mind and to discover their real aims and purposes.
It is not my intention, however, to comment on the various Russian propo-
122
sals regarding the unification of Germany. We may get some enlightenment from their reply to the Notes of the Western Allies. But I want to make two observations. There is surely complete approval in all parts of the House for Western insistence that if any progress is to be made towards German unity, there must first of all be free and secret elections throughout the whole of Germany. I should expect that to be regarded as a cardinal condition, not only by the peoples of the Western nations but also by the German people, whether living in East or in West Germany. My second observation relates to the Russian proposal that Germany pledge herself not to take part in any coalitions or military alliances against any Power which participated with its forces in the war against Germany. If that means an undertaking not to be party to any pact for aggression, it would be unexceptionable and in complete harmony with the Charter of the United Nations. But if it is intended to mean that Germany is to be denied rights which all other nations enjoy under the Charter and is to abstain from association with other free nations in collective arrangements for common defence against aggression—that is to say, regional associations which are strictly in harmony with the Charter and the purposes of which are not only proclaimed to be, but are, in fact, defensive and non-aggressive, despite all the Soviet Union and its satellite chorus say to the contrary—then it seems to me that the road a united Germany is required by Russia to travel is not the road of freedom and independence.
There will no doubt have to be further exchanges between Soviet Russia and the West before we can know whether a conference is possible on a basis which will allow negotiations to be undertaken with some reasonable prospect of practical results. The Russian Communists are difficult people to negotiate with, as we have discovered at past conferences. We thought that the Austrian Treaty was virtually assured at the Paris Conference in 1949, and by all normal tests it should have been agreed and put into operation long ago; but even to-day this liberated friend is still denied her freedom and independence, and the blame for that lies squarely on Soviet Russia.
But while past experiences point to the need for caution and for serious con-

123
sideration of the Russian proposals, we should not assume that a Soviet move is just another manœuvre. It may, of course, be just that. But, on the other hand, the Soviet leaders may have serious negotiations in view. I believe it is true that the defence efforts under N.A.T.O. have impressed Russia, and though we still have a long way to go before we attain adequate defensive strength, it is not unlikely that the Soviet leaders have been both surprised and impressed by the Western world's sharp reaction to Communist aggression in Korea and by the determination with which the Western nations have set about putting their common defences in order. So, if we are to go into conference, we should be able to speak from greater strength than at almost any time since the war ended; and with increased strength there should be increased confidence. We have always held that as our defensive strength was developed, the Soviet leaders were likely to become more disposed to negotiate settlements. The difficulty is to know when that point will be reached. I think that will be discovered only in talks and is unlikely to be disclosed in any other way.
At the same time, it seems to me that the Western nations would be unwise and unjustified to delay or call a halt to their present plans for strengthening their defences and for giving Federal Germany equality. The Federal German Republic is vitally concerned, in any case, and their views cannot be ignored. It is my opinion that no question of modifying our present plans should arise unless and until it falls naturally into the context of an agreement which would give Germany unity with freedom and provide satisfactory alternative means for ensuring the security of the West.
I will not take more than a few moments to deal with the last point that I wish to raise. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he has any information to give about the Conference which has been sitting at The Hague on the question of indemnification by the German Government for the damage done to the Jews under the Hitler régime. We are seven years from the end of the war and there is a tendency to forget the shameful martyrdom of the Jews in Germany and in German-
124
occupied territories. Over 6,000,000 of them were done to death and their property confiscated. But it is unnecessary for me to go into the details of this chapter of evil doings—noble Lords are well aware of them. I think we should agree that these crimes called for repudiation by democratic Germany and for such moral and material indemnification as lay in its power. Repudiation has been made and the duty to make restitution accepted in a statement submitted to the Federal Parliament by Dr. Adenauer and approved by it last September.
Since the State of Israel came into existence several hundred thousand Jewish refugees have been taken in from Europe and given the opportunity to build up a new life. That has involved Israel in vast expenditure, estimated at 1,000,000,000 dollars. There are also claims by world Jewish organisations amounting to half that sum in respect of heirless property and other restitution. In proposing a conference on the basis of Israel's claim, the Federal Chancellor stated in December that:
"The Federal Government regard the problem of indemnification in the first place as a moral obligation, and consider it the honourable duty of the German people to do everything possible to redeem the wrongs committed against the Jewish people."
He added that the Federal Government would:
"welcome the opportunity of contributing towards the building up of the State of Israel by delivery of goods."
We cannot but welcome and applaud these declarations and give full credit to the spirit and sense of justice which prompted them.
So far, I believe, these discussions on Jewish claims have been kept quite separate from the London discussion on German external debts. That seems to me to be right and proper, because by no stretch of the imagination can the Jewish claims be regarded as belonging to the category of external debts. Their nature and history are altogether different. I hope, therefore, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to keep them separate, and that both they and their two Allies will continue to give their sympathy and encouragement to the efforts to arrive at a satisfactory agreement through The Hague Conference. It is regrettable that there has been what

125
appears to be a breakdown in the discussions, and I sincerely hope that it may prove to be only temporary. It is important that the Conference should succeed. I believe that if it can reach agreement this Conference may make a real contribution towards assuaging the bitter memories of the Jewish people, and the gradual development of a spirit of reconciliation between the peoples of these two countries. That is my hope, and I believe it will be the hope of all noble Lords. I beg to more for Papers.
3.13 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD THE DUKE OF BEDFORD had given notice of a Motion to call attention to the economic dangers of the American Alliance and also to the political dangers especially as these affect Eastern affairs; and to move for Papers. The noble Duke said: My Lords, it is, I think, generally agreed that as the result of the two world wars, and other causes, in the matter of worldly power and wealth the sceptre has now passed from the British Empire to the United States of America. It is not necessarily a bad thing to have to take second place to another country, nor even to defer to the wishes of its statesmen, if their wishes and policy are wise and good. But it is a very different matter indeed if their policy or their methods are not good. Few methods could be more evil than atom or napalm bombs, and few policies could be more unwise than the continued American support of Chiang Kai-shek's Government. Noble ends are useless if the means which are employed to further them are not also noble. That is a fact which people are very apt to forget. Bad means can destroy the noblest aims. In what I am about to say in criticism of American policy I do not want it to be thought that I am anti-American. Many of the finest people in the world are to be found in the United States, and some of them, I think, are looking to us for a lead. Unfortunately, the United States, like many other countries, has not the best and wisest of her citizens where they should be, at the head of affairs.
With regard to the economic consequences of the Alliance, I have always contended that the Loan was a mistake, and that the Loan and its interest would become too heavy a burden. I suggested at the beginning that we should try to develop the resources of our Empire with
126
the aid of a reformed financial and foreign trade system. Briefly, the main features of such a reformed financial system are these. The money supply should be adjusted so that it relates to the output and import of goods. Money should not be created in the form of interest-hearing debt. Revenue taxation should be done away with, and the services of the State should be financed by the annual creation of new non-debt money, taxation being employed solely for the purpose of collecting for cancellation and destruction surplus money in order to prevent inflation. There should be no more State borrowing, and the National Debt should be extinguished as soon as possible. The fact should be frankly faced that, in an age of labour-destroying inventions and discoveries, full employment is no longer possible, and the deserving unemployed must be adequately maintained out of the funds for the State's use to which I have already referred. During the inter-war period the faulty financial system was the only important cause of poverty in this country. Now there are other causes—namely, rearmament, over-population, and the sale of our foreign investments to America during the war, making it difficult for us to obtain imports.
But although financial reform can no longer get us out of all our economic difficulties, it still remains essential, not only because it could help our economic life very greatly but also because of the effect overseas of our example. Our Dominions are still very much in the position we occupied before the war. By reason of their great resources they are lands of potential plenty, where the financial system is the main hindrance. We need to give them a lead; and particularly do we need to give a lead to Canada, so that she may escape from her unhealthy financial dependence on the United States. We need also to be in a position to say frankly to the United States Government: "We have come to realise that international money lending at interest is not a good plan, as it gives too great power to the creditor country over the life and policy of the debtor country. We intend, therefore, in future to abandon the charging of interest on our foreign loans, and we shall no longer be able to pay interest to you on yours. We will repay the principal, but we shall need a longer time in which to do it."
One of the main features of sensible foreign trade should be that a country exports goods surplus to its own requirements, and receives back only those goods which it really needs. In our trade with America, however, we are now commonly sending away goods we badly need and, in order to suit American business interests, are receiving back in part exchange goods which we do not really require from America, this being a condition of our receiving goods which we do require. That is not a fair arrangement, and I think it is one which the Americans would resent if the position were reversed. In the same way, we have agreed to sacrifice certain trading rights with non-American countries, again in the interests of American business, in a way which is not altogether fair. In considering the American economy, which has the same fundamental faults as our own, it is always well to remember that it has three main props. It has to be sustained by war and war preparations, by making gifts of goods to foreign countries, or by a policy of public works so gigantic that the American Government to-day is hardly likely to be able to undertake it.
In considering the political consequences of the Alliance it is necessary to have a background provided by the recognition of certain facts, pleasant or unpleasant, which are apt to be evaded. The first of these is that there is no reliable evidence that the Russian or Chinese Governments, unprovoked, desire aggressive war. Their people suffered too much in the late war. They are making too good progress in the cultural and economic development of their countries, and their propaganda among their own peoples is not the propaganda of countries that really want war. If they really wanted war, they would represent it as a glorious crusade to create Communism throughout the world, in which every patriotic Communist should join. Instead of that, they declare that they want peace, and accuse the other side of being warmongers. When you are conducting propaganda among your own people, to make out that you want peace when you really want war is a psychological blunder of which they are not likely to be guilty. It is true that in the past Russia was guilty of aggression against Finland and the Baltic States, but here the motive does not seem to have been the extension of
128
Communism by armed force so much as military security. The attack made on the Soviet Government by British and American forces earlier, and the coming attack by Germany (which may have been anticipated), while it still leaves these attacks indefensible, at any rate makes them in part understandable.
The next point I would make—though I am afraid that it is not one with which your Lordships are likely to agree—is that, in this age of atomic warfare these Islands, for geographical reasons, are placed in an entirely new position. They are no longer capable of successful strategic defence by military operations undertaken from within their own frontiers. So long ago as July, 1948, the Council of the Atomic Scientists' Association made the following statement:
"In the event of an atomic war, owing to the concentration of Industry and the density of our population, no country is more vulnerable than Great Britain to attack by atomic bombs or other weapons of mass destruction. It seems clear if our airfields are made bases for launching attacks by weapons of mass destruction on other countries, we must expect that our cities will be attacked by similar weapons. The most elementary patriotic reasons to ensure the survival of our nation demand that we should do everything in our power to see that this country shall not become the recipient of atomic bombs."
It seems to me that in allowing this country to become one of the principal American air bases, we are inviting, if international tension should grow worse, a crushing air attack, possibly of the Pearl Harbour character, before there has even been a formal declaration of war. And I have no hesitation in saying that in such an attack our civil defence measures would be mere pills for the earthquake. A British army wandering about on the Continent, as part of the European army, would be very little good if the homeland had been devastated behind their backs. Another mistake appears to me to be the preparation for this atomic bomb experiment in Australia before any attempt has been made to ease international tension by a policy of establishing demilitarised areas, and before really imaginative and intelligent use has been made of recent Russian concessions—which are important concessions.
The next point I would make is that if rearmament is continued it must virtually ruin this country, and probably other European countries as well. One possible result of increasing austerity without the remotest hope of any end in

129
the foreseeable future is that a considerable part of our weekly wage-earning population will turn to the only Party that can promise them deliverance from this burden—that is to say, the Communists, or at any rate the following of Mr. Aneurin Bevan. In regard to the atom bomb, I was rather struck by a point made the other day by a speaker at a public meeting. She said that over here we are all concerned with fears of what will happen if the bomb falls on us, whereas, if we are a Christian nation, as we profess, we should be far more afraid of using that diabolical weapon ourselves.
With regard to American foreign policy, the most disturbing feature about American statesmen and diplomats is their terrible lack of imagination. They seem so filled with a blind hatred of Communism that they cannot realise that it is not a phenomenon of evil without parallel in history, but merely a phase in the political evolution of certain countries. It has its good and its bad features, and it may develop very differently in different parts of the world. In countries which have never known real freedom its bad features are excessively bad, but the remedy is not to kill Communists; it is to set up something better in our own country. That we shall certainly not be
able to do so long as our economic backs are broken by rearmament. The policy of negotiation from strength is, in my opinion, a very unwise policy. It may be that some of the statesmen on the other side are of such a character that, while you are attempting to reach an agreement on world disarmament by a sensible policy of give and take between equals, they will be easier to handle if they know you are not prepared to endure treatment from them which they would not endure were they in your place.
But the policy of negotiating from strength goes far beyond this. It really amounts to trying to get such strength that you can always bully the Government on the other side into doing what you want them to do. No Government in a powerful nation will endure such treatment. We should not endure it; the Americans would not endure it. And we and they are foolish if we believe that either the Russian or the Chinese Governments will
130
endure it, even making any allowance that has to be made for the different Eastern mentality. The only result of striving for this superior strength is a ding-dong armaments race ending, if history has anything to teach us, in war. The policy of surrounding Communist countries by a complete ring of armed bases is also likely to defeat its own end by its exaggeration. It may give the Governments of these countries a genuine fear that attack will be delivered against them, so tempting them to strike before preparations have been still further perfected.
Particularly unwise is the rearmament of Germany. About the only good thing achieved by the late war was the pronounced aversion to war that it created in the German and Japanese peoples; and now even that is being thrown away. In war there is one factor more important than any other, and it is the fighting morale of the people. Now we are making a present of this factor to both the Russian and Chinese Governments. It is very unlikely that German troops, as part of a European Army, or the Japanese, will fight on oar side with any very great spirit, since they will know that, whoever wins, in the end their country is bound to be devastated by being turned into a battlefield. If, on the other hand, the price of their possibly being on our side was the granting of complete independence to Germany and Japan, it might suit them, as it would undoubtedly suit the Communist countries, to enter into an alliance with the Communist Governments against ourselves. I cannot help feeling that if some years ago, when I advocated a negotiated peace with Germany (a policy which would have saved those of your Lordships who believe in German rearmament a great deal of trouble) I had gone on to advocate the future rearmament of Germany, the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, might be no longer with us. His indignation might have caused him to explode like an atom bomb, with shattering effects on this House and its occupants. Germany should not be remilitarised. Germany should be demilitarised under the protection of the United Nations, which Russia and China should be invited to join. By an arrangement of that kind each of the protecting Powers would become a watchdog on the other, which would be a very healthy arrangement.
What I have said with regard to the rearmament of Germany applies equally to the rearmament of Japan, and its effect on the fighting spirit of the Chinese people. Japan should not be remilitarised. It should be demilitarised under the protection of the United Nations, including Russia and China. The same policy should be pursued in regard to Formosa, and the people of Formosa should be allowed to choose whether they will remain under Chiang Kai-shek or join China or become independent. Under such an arrangement, neither the American nor the Chinese Government would have any legitimate ground for complaint. A similar arrangement should be suggested with regard to Korea, which should be united under a new Government, again as a demilitarised area. In regard to Egypt, although I am glad to hear that tension is now relaxed, I feel that on balance it would be far wiser and more honourable to cease trying to force Egypt into an anti-Russian war alliance, and to keep our many times repeated promise to withdraw all troops from Egyptian territory.
With regard to such countries as Malaya and Indo-China, it is important not to be in too great a hurry to attribute all the trouble to the Communists. No doubt there are Communist agitators and no doubt there are also bandits. But I have heard, on reliable authority, that a great deal of the trouble is due to the fact that lavish promises were made to the Resistance Movement during the war but have by no means been generously kept. Moreover, there is in these parts of Asia a growing Nationalist movement. It is generally agreed that, in spite of certain very unhappy consequences, it was wise to give her freedom to India. What is sauce for the Indian goose may well be sauce for the Malayan and Indo-Chinese gander, even though it may mean considerable sacrifices for French and English settlers. Such sacrifices, unhappily, are sometimes inevitable where there has been pursued a Colonial policy which has not commended itself to many of the native inhabitants. A very dangerous error in American diplomacy is to regard wars as a kind of panacea for every act of apparent Communist aggression. War is not a panacea. By reason of its own nature and of human nature, it is now the clumsiest, most dangerous and most
132
uncertain instrument of policy that it is possible to employ. It should therefore never be used, even by
those who believe in it, except when certain conditions are strictly fulfilled. It is better to appear to give way to aggression half a dozen times than go to war on a weak and confused issue.
The conditions that should be fulfilled are, first, that every legitimate grievance of the other side should have been fully met, not merely in propaganda theory but also in fact, and that absolutely nothing of a provocative nature should be done by our side or by our protégés. The latter should be plainly warned that if they indulge in inflammatory speeches they will receive no support from us. One of the greatest curses of the age in which we live is what I would term the idolatory of abstractions—that is to say, the pursuit of noble aims by evil means. The airman who would shrink with horror from the idea of throwing a baby on the fire does not hesitate to throw fire on babies, because he is too far away to see the consequences of his action, and because his head is filled with idealistic notions about serving his country. In the same way, American statesmen, their heads filled with idealistic notions about upholding the authority of the United Nations and checking Communist aggression, cannot see that they have made a far worse hell of Korea than would ever have resulted if the civil war had been allowed to take its course; and that by that war, and especially by advancing beyond the 38th Parallel, they have made a Third World War not less likely but more likely. In the same way, military chiefs of staff, consulting maps and forming strategic plans, are apt to forget that in international relations the psychological factor is sometimes more important than military strategy also that there are such things as men and women with bodies capable of suffering agony.
As I have already suggested, one of the worst errors of American policy in the Far East has been their obstinate, continued support of the corrupt and discredited régime of Chiang Kai-shek, whom even the anti-Communist Chinese do not want back. The present Government of China is still doubtless anti-European and anti-American, and it is also quite ruthless in dealing with what it regards as subversive elements—

133
Chinese Governments always have been. But I have heard from reliable and non-Communist sources that in the economic and cultural development of the country the present Government have done more than any other Government and are less corrupt. I have no hesitation in saying that we should state quite frankly to the American Government that they have bedevilled negotiations in Korea all these long months, mainly by their refusal to recognise the Chinese Government and by their support of Chiang Kai-shek; and that if they continue in this error we shall withdraw our troops from Korea. I know that it would be said that this would destroy the unity of the United Nations, but unity is not in itself necessarily a virtue; it is only unity in wisdom which is a virtue. Unity in folly is far worse than disunity. There was unity of a kind among the Gadarene swine.
With regard to the behaviour of American diplomats at disarmament conferences, an intelligent American recently gave it as his opinion that they seemed to be trying to impress Congress at home with their speeches rather than trying to make any progress towards a settlement. They seemed to be imbued with the idea that if the other side were untrustworthy there could be no hope of making any progress. Untrustworthiness, however, is only a fatal obstacle if two parties want different things. If they both want the same thing (as, in this instance, freedom from the hazards of atomic war) there is always a chance of reaching an agreement based not on verbal promises but on rights of inspection. If the other side put forward apparently reasonable proposals, it is a fatal diplomatic blunder to sneer at them, quote past failures and bring charges of insincerity. Such proposals should be received with cordiality, and suggestions put forward from our side and the American side calculated to carry the matter further. In making those suggestions we should be careful not only never to ask the other side to do anything we are not ready to do, but never to ask them to do anything we should not be ready to do if we were in their place, which is not necessarily at all the same thing.
During these negotiations, a full report should be published, without comment, so far as possible throughout the world,
134
and if negotiations did break down we should take the utmost care to see that they broke down solely and obviously through the unreasonableness of the other side. If two or three such breakdowns took place in succession, the other side would be virtually compelled to behave reasonably in order to save face with their own people, for not even a Communist Government dare go to war if its war propaganda is unconvincing by reason of the lack of real grievance, because it knows that if it did so its people would fight with so little spirit that they would quickly be defeated. It was most unwise and unreasonable when, not long ago, Russia suggested a conference on Germany, after we had said that the agenda of the conference was not wide enough and Russia had agreed to our additions, then to refuse the Russian suggestion that the Atlantic Treaty should also be considered. In the circumstances it was a perfectly fair proposal. It is unfortunate that give and take, which are the essence of true negotiation, are apt to be dismissed contemptuously by American statesmen and diplomats as "horse trading."
Recently, too, the Russian Government made a number of concessions on the all-important question of rights of inspection. They received a very chilly response. The Americans have hardly budged at all from the Baruch plan, which even that wise, impartial body of people, the American Quakers themselves pronounced to be not entirely fair to Russia. One learns that there are a disturbingly large number of people in the United States who have taken the line "We are bound to have a war, let us get it over." Americans who think like this appear to forget that when they have "got it over" it may be that it will be all over with some of their Allies—including ourselves. Some very prominent men in America in public life have made some most disturbing statements. Mr. Foster Dulles said recently that the United States should let it be known that they would not stand idly by while any part of the world remained under Communist or Fascist rule. Senator Taft has claimed that the only way to stop a Communist attack in South-East Asia is by a Chinese Nationalist invasion of the mainland. Mr. Harold Stassen takes the same line and advocates the use of Chiang Kai-shek's troops immediately

135
for an attack on China, and the restoration of General MacArthur as Commander in the Far East. These, my Lords, are not policies of defence. They are policies of blatant aggression, and in those policies we should have neither part nor lot.
3.42 p.m.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the sincerity of the views of the noble Duke who has just spoken, and there are some reflections he made which will, no doubt, be kept in mind by statesmen and others who are concerned with international affairs. But, as I listened to him, I could not resist the reflection that but for what he calls the "American Alliance" we should not to-day be discussing Foreign Affairs in a world in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, the danger of war is receding. We discussed economic matters fully in an economic debate in February last when I ventured to give my views on the new pattern of trade between Britain and the United States. Therefore, I shall not follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, in that field. Nor will I follow him in what he said about the Far East: this debate would be interminable if we were all to view the horizon all over the world. So I propose to adopt the principle that the cobbler should stick to his last; and I propose to come back to Europe.
The Russian Note of March 19 concerning a draft Treaty with Germany is a very important document, not mainly because it is likely to result in the conclusion of a satisfactory peace but because it is designed to influence German opinion. If it succeeds in so doing it may complicate or delay completion of the promising developments which are taking place between the Western Powers and the German Federal Republic. These developments go a long way to regulating the topics which in former times would have been dealt with in a peace Treaty. I looked the other day at the chapter headings of the Treaty of Versailles, and was struck by the large number of those headings which have become the subject matter of continuous collaboration on an international basis. We are gaining some idea of what we sought to create after Versailles. It is important that these processes of internationalisa-
136
tion should be complete before the whole German question is thrown again into the melting pot. The moral of this Russian correspondence is, clearly, that we must make the greatest haste to complete our plan for bringing Germany into an international community and not leave her to develop once again into a fully-fledged sovereign State independent of the rest of the European community.
The sting of the Russian Note, however, is in its tail, which suggests the creation of a German national army. There are only three courses open to us in this matter: to re-create a German national army; to keep Germany unarmed; or to merge German Forces in a European Army. As between those three there can be no hesitation in this country. Public opinion has also pronounced on it in other countries. A recent Gallup poll showed that 77 per cent. of the public opposed the creation of a German national army. Eight per cent. of the remainder were in favour, and 15 per cent. expressed no opinion.
LORD PAKENHAM: In England?
LORD LAYTON: In Britain. This opposition would not be set at rest by the vague Russian suggestion that Germany's forces should be limited to the numbers required for her own defence. After the experience of the inter-war years, it would be naÏve to suppose that this limitation would last very long; and, once broken, the Germans would once again become the balancing factor in Europe. It is equally unrealistic to think that Germany can be kept permanently disarmed. In April, 1942, just ten years ago, the 60,000,000 people of Germany were within measurable distance of world domination. They and their allies were in possession of territory which supported one-third of the world's population at that time. German territory contains the greatest war potential on the Continent of Europe. Is it sensible to suppose that these hard-working, disciplined people would be content to accept the position of a large-scale Switzerland—a sort of buffer State, as it used to be called?
If those two possibilities are ruled out, we are compelled to consider the third possibility: the merging of German forces with those of other countries of Europe in a European Army, under a common staff. Much has been done to

137
bring this concept into being, particularly in the last three or four months. The N.A.T.O. Conference in Lisbon in February agreed, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, that the principles underlying the proposed Treaty to establish a European Defence Community conform to the interests of the North Atlantic Treaty, and the Conference, therefore, agreed upon the principles to govern the relationship between the two bodies. Time does not permit me to discuss the proposed Treaty in detail; I will content myself with underlying three points of far-reaching importance. If the scheme goes through, the total strength of the European Defence force will be settled by agreement, as well as the size of the respective contributions of the various members, presumably on the basis laid down by the French Parliament that the contribution of no individual should exceed the strength of the French contingents available in Europe. In other words, this major proposition as to the size of rearmament in each European country, and that there shall be no predominance on any one side, is accepted by agreement.
Secondly:
"The six Powers in the European Defence Community will themselves jointly agree where orders for all military material shall be placed and where they shall not be placed, having regard to various considerations including strategic considerations. Arrangements will be made to ensure that all these safeguards within the European Defence Community will have regard to the interests of Britain and the United States."
I am quoting from the document, Thirdly, there should be a common budget. Many of your Lordships will remember the attempt made twenty years ago at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva to introduce budgetary control as a means of controlling and limiting armaments. That proposal failed, but the suggestion of a common budget prepared and administered by the executive organ of the E.D.C. is a very different proposition, for it will mean that the Committee of Ministers will have continuous and intimate knowledge of the details and progress regarding not only the actual forces raised but also the development of the war potential in the different member States.
These are three of the features of a scheme which, from one point of view, covers the same ground as the Disarma-
138
ment chapters of the Treaty of Versailles: forces, armaments and armament production. But how striking is the contrast with the régime of thirty years ago! This time it is a plan, not imposed upon Germany by force but agreed to by the Federal Republic of its own volition as a permanent feature of free Europe. I would ask your Lordships to reflect how profoundly the course of history might have been changed if, in the period between the wars, we had had intimate knowledge (I emphasise the word "intimate") of the military situation, not only in Germany but in France, Belgium, Holland and the other countries. Our understanding of the situation would have been utterly different. That is implied in the present proposal. Yet the project of the European Army hangs fire—let us not deny it—for the French Government, as well as some of the other States of Western Europe, hesitate to commit themselves until they know more precisely where this country stands. Britain, in conjunction with the United States and France, declared last September at Washington that it was in the interests of us all that Germany should join a European Defence Community, and we added that we wished to be associated with it as closely as possible in all stages of its development. The French, naturally, ask us to explain precisely what we mean by "association." If this Community is established in the way proposed, the link which it will create between France and Germany will be a permanent one. It is not surprising that our nearest neighbour hesitates to be tied more closely to her traditional enemy than she is to Britain.
In the concluding phrases, therefore, of the Order of the Day passed by the French Parliament when they discussed this matter and already quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, the Deputies invited the Government—I will read the text as printed in the White Paper, though I suspect the translation is not as good as it might have been—
"to renew all its efforts, with a firm will to succeed, to obtain the participation in the E.D.C. of other democratic nations and in particular Great Britain. This solution, which constitutes a guarantee fully meeting the anxieties expressed by the National Assembly, would naturally involve the study and the perfection "—
I underline the word "perfection"—
"of those institutions and measures most likely to ensure its success."

139
Those last words, quite clearly, in simple English mean that France is prepared to re-write the Treaty if we will participate. It is a long way of putting it but it is quite clear and simple what it means. The House will observe that this Resolution closely resembles the appeal to Britain which, as I forecast last November, would be addressed by the Assembly of the Council of Europe to this country. This Order of the Day reinforces that appeal in the most authoritative manner possible.
Before discussing the action which we might take, I should like to address myself for a moment to the question whether the desire of our Continental neighbours for a "re-insurance policy" cannot be fully met by N.A.T.O. It is common ground that the European Defence Community must be a regional organisation within the greater orbit of the Atlantic Pact. But, for many reasons, N.A.T.O. cannot in itself fulfil all the purposes of a European Army. In the first place, N.A.T.O. is an alliance of sovereign Powers whose forces are contributed by their respective defence organisations on an independent national basis. Though there is unity of command, national General Staffs will continue to be responsible for the training, equipment and use of their respective forces. It is unlikely—indeed, it is unthinkable—that the Congress of the United States would ever agree to modify that provision. On the other hand, in the European Army the forces will be merged in the manner set out at great length in the White Paper (Cmd. 8492). The Germans, naturally, would not be satisfied to be merged into a composite Army if that did not apply also to the other forces that were included in it. There is that vital distinction between the N.A.T.O. forces and the E.D.C.
Again, if N.A.T.O. attempted to organise European forces in the detailed way that is contemplated in the European Army, it would involve the United States in a degree of intervention in Europe which the American people do not contemplate or ask for. The United States wants to establish in the democracies of Europe not a group of satellite States but a strong, united partner which will steadily take over an increasing responsibility for its own defence. This idea, the concept of a closely knit association
140
in Europe within the larger orbit of the Atlantic Community, applies not only to defence but to all the other aspects in which European co-operation is rapidly developing, economic and political alike. This wish of the Americans to see a closer union in Europe with which they can deal runs right through the story of their relations with Europe since the war. It was clearly enunciated in the Harvard Speech which initiated Marshall Aid. That speech, in short, was to the effect "Get together, and then we, the United States, will see what we can do." It was repeated ten days ago by the American head of the Mutual Security Organisation in Europe in connection with the O.E.E.C. It is responsible for America's second thoughts on the whole question of a European Army, and it is strongly held and enunciated by General Eisenhower himself who, before the year is out, may well be the President of the United States. May I say, in passing, that whether or not General Eisenhower is the next President of the United States, his stimulus, help and guidance will be greatly missed in Europe? If, as we all ardently hope, a united, strong and prosperous free Europe in due course emerges from the horrors of this past decade, the names of Marshall and Eisenhower will be high on the short list of those who have done most to bring it into being.
The same point was repeated again and again by the delegation appointed by Congress who came to Strasbourg to discuss European affairs with the Assembly of the Council of Europe. That delegation was not a hand-picked body. It was representative of all parts of the United States, and some of its members had not previously been to Europe. They were disappointed that the unity of Europe had not gone farther forward. They did not think that N.A.T.O. could be a substitute for European union. Several of the members of the delegation actually said that, if Europe did not get together more effectively, the United States would be less likely, and not more likely, to commit itself deeply to N.A.T.O. The unity of Europe is an implied condition of mutual aid and is stated to be America's policy in several of the Acts of Congress. America wants to back a going concern.
The text of that debate was available to members of the House a month ago.

141
The views of that delegation are very important, for they come from the source where power lies in the United States. Both at that debate and in the discussions in Congress, when the delegation was appointed, it was made clear, that though it is to America's interest and is her intention to support and sustain Europe, Congress is extremely anxious to avoid being drawn more deeply into what it regards as Europe's domestic affairs. Britain cannot take that attitude. Incidentally, I deprecate the suggestion that in regard to our relationship to European affairs we should wait on what the United States will do. That is not a course which we should adopt. It has never before happened in history. It is a completely false conception of our geographical position, of our economic position, even of our economic structure. I need not argue the point, because the view officially expressed by the leaders of the Labour Government last September, and endorsed by the present Government, is that though we cannot be a member of a European Federation, we are deeply interested in the problem and, as I have already said, wish to be closely associated with its development. That decision will, I am certain, be generally accepted to-day on both sides of the Channel.
How are we to make it work? We have been very coy in saying what we mean by "association"; yet the shape of things to come in Western Europe largely depends on how we interpret that word. I therefore warmly welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on March 19. For the first time the statement has outlined in general terms the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the Council itself and towards the various bodies that may be associated with it. I venture to hope that all Parties in this country may find themselves able to accept Mr. Eden's statement as an agreed basis of British policy. The proposal will be closely studied in the capitals of Europe and will be keenly debated at the meeting of the Assembly in May. The Secretary of State repeats his reservations about converting the Council of Europe into a quasi-federal body with legislative and executive powers. He suggests, as an alternative, that the Council, while continuing to serve as an organisa-
142
tion for inter-Governmental co-operation in general, should to a certain extent be remodelled, so that its organs could serve as the institution of the Schuman plan, of the European Defence Community and of any future organisations of that type. This device would simplify the international structure of Western Europe, prevent overlapping and avoid any tendency to widen the gap between, on the one side, those countries who wish to go far and, on the other, those who are unwilling to go far.
The idea is not in itself new. It is in accordance with the views that have emerged from the debates at Strasbourg, where the overwhelming majority of the Assembly have been deeply concerned to avoid yet another division in a continent already so grievously divided between East and West. This passionate desire to preserve the solidarity of Western Europe is responsible for decisions such as that contained in the protocol to the Schuman Plan Treaty, where it is provided that the annual report of the steel and coal pool will be laid upon the table of the Assembly for debate and discussion. This is an attempt to keep all the smaller groups somehow tied in with the larger community of Western Europe as a whole. That is the deep desire in Strasbourg, and I am quite sure that those feelings are reflected throughout Europe. What is new is the Secretary of State's proposition that a link of this kind need not be confined to the Assembly, but that Member States of the Council should be associated with all the organs of the new functional bodies. In the case of the European Army, for example, Mr. Eden suggests that
"It might be possible to arrange for countries, like the United Kingdom, whose aim is to establish a close link with the European Community, to be associated in an appropriate way, with the Parliamentary and ministerial institutions of the community, as well as with the executive organs."
In other words, what the Secretary of State is proposing is that British Ministers should take part, whether for certain purposes only or as associate members with or without a vote, in the ministerial organ controlling the European Army. Its representatives might be parties, in carefully defined conditions, to the work of the Board of Commissioners directing that Army. Similar arrangements might be made in the case of the Schuman plan.

143
I hope that I am right in my interpretation of the statement made by the Secretary of State on March 19. I do not know whether the spokesman for Her Majesty's Government can develop or further elucidate these points to-day, but they clearly go right to the heart of what we mean by "association with Europe."
I will only comment briefly on the two principal cases. We are already committed to send a permanent delegation to the seat of the High Authority of the Schuman Plan. Whether this means much or little depends on what the delegation does when it gets there. I have repeatedly insisted in this House that, whether we join the Schuman Plan or not, we must enter into established relations with the pool, partly because we are deeply concerned in the proper distribution of the limited raw materials of the steel industry, partly to agree on trading conditions in various markets, and partly because we are deeply interested in the distribution of armaments production. I suggest, however, that we should not be going far enough if the British delegation attached to the Schuman Plan were to limit its interest to that type of consideration. The Schuman Plan sets out to create a greatly enlarged single market, yet subject to social control. It seeks to retain competition as a stimulus and criterion for efficiency, while at the same time preventing the social evils which so often accompany economic change. One of its major purposes is to raise the standard of living in the basic industries with which it is concerned. This country is deeply interested in these matters, and we should contribute our experience and help to guide the development of a very great international experiment. I hope that the phrase, "the closest possible association" means that we shall, in fact, be associated in an intimate way, and that some assurance can be given to that effect.
The case of the E.D.C. is not nearly so far advanced. The Treaty is not yet in its final form and, as matters stand, it is by no means certain that it will be approved by the six Parliaments in its present state, still less that it will secure the solid support that so great and novel an enterprise demands. The offer of the French Parliament (for it is an offer), to adjust the terms of the Treaty to meet
144
the situation of Great Britain and the Scandivanian countries is still open. Basically, what our European neighbours ask of us is that we should be permanently committed to the defence of Western Europe. I think also that they fear that as time passes the influence of their most powerful associate in this composite defence force may become dominant, in spite of all paper safeguards. These fears may become more marked if world tension relaxes, and the interest of our American Allies in Europe becomes less active.
Many suggestions have been made to reduce these fears. The section of the White Paper on the relations of N.A.T.O. and the E.D.C. proposes, with Dr. Adenhauer concurring, that the two bodies should be linked by reciprocal security undertakings. The Foreign Secretary and Mr. Acheson have declared their abiding interest (I think that phrase is the strongest that has yet appeared as an indication of permanence) in the establishment and integrity of the E.D.C. Mr. Eden has described how the British forces that will be maintained on the Continent will be linked with the forces of the E.D.C., including, perhaps, a considerable measure of blending between the respective air forces. The word "blending" is new. We were told that we should not merge our forces, but it is now suggested that there should be "blending" between the respective air forces. And now Mr. Eden has suggested that we might be associated at various levels with the control organs of the E.D.C. If the inclusion of a token force within the Army itself is felt to be a necessary condition of that intimate association, I hope that this step will be given the most careful consideration by Her Majesty's Government. The proposals made so far, however, are suggestions only. I would urge most strongly that in response to the French Parliament's invitation Her Majesty's Government should express their willingness to enter into detailed discussion with France and her associates as to what these points mean before the Treaty is signed, in order to see whether we can formulate a permanent undertaking that will give our neighbours of Central Europe the reassurance they desire before they take so grave a step. I ask this not as a mere gesture of friendship, but because the unity and strength of the democratic half

145
of Europe is by far the most vital of Britain's interests.
One last comment on Mr. Eden's proposals for the
Council of Europe. I referred when I spoke in this House a week ago to the O.E.E.C. developments, and to Her Majesty's Government's relations with that body. If the Council of Europe develops on the lines proposed by the Secretary of State, as an organisation for general purposes supplemented by special, and sometimes limited, institutions for particular tasks, it will have no political organ with legislative or mandatory power covering the whole of the countries concerned. In this event—assuming that that is the evolution—it will be important to ensure, so far as is possible, that the essential principles of democracy continue to be observed by all its members. Last month, after much discussion, a Protocol to the Convention of Human Rights was drawn up and signed in Paris by the Committee of Ministers representing the fifteen countries, and if the Governments concerned will immediately now proceed to ratification the way is clear to bring into force the Convention itself. The Convention, your Lordships will remember, makes the observance of a limited number of these rights the joint responsibility of the members of the Council of Europe. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will promptly ratify these additional clauses, in the drafting of which they have taken a prominent part and so make it possible now for the Convention to become the first operative Statute of the Council of Europe. My Lords, the fight for the soul of Germany and of Western Europe generally is on. It is not only a military matter; it is an economic and political one as well, and we must carry it on with all our might and on all three fronts at once.
4.16 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, the House has listened with great profit to the words which have fallen from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Layton. He speaks with special and admired authority on matters relating to the Council of Europe and to Western and general European unity. I am sure that I shall be voicing the views of your Lordships in expressing the gratitude that we on these Benches, at any rate, feel to the noble Lord for his activity in all those matters. Like him, I shall confine
146
myself to Europe. I will not speak about the remarks of the noble Duke, except to say just one or two words. I sympathise with the noble Duke in what he said about atom bombs and napalm bombs, but I have not the same sympathy with him with regard to his general attitude to the United States. Like the noble Lord, Lord Layton, I would emphasise the profound debt which we in this country owe to the United States of America, and also the need for a close friendship between the United Kingdom and the United States, in which, nevertheless, a certain independence on our side has a proper part to play.
These debates offer recurrent opportunities for common counsel on the international scene. But, unhappily, the fundamental facts remain unchanged. The Foreign Secretary said the other day that the prospects of a Third World War were, in his opinion, receding. It is true enough that the forces of the Western Powers are getting stronger. It is also true that the forces of the U.S.S.R. and her allies and satellites are increasing as well. We have more atom bombs than we had; so have they. We can command more divisions than a year ago; so can they. The tension grows. There is war in Korea unabated. There is a cold conflict in Europe. If it continues to grow, any spark anywhere might set the world ablaze unless a new factor of quite different quality enters the total scene. The lesson of history teaches that unless a heroic new effort for peace is made from both sides, sooner or later the very momentum of waxing military strength is bound to issue in a gigantic war. Let us remember. Mr. Churchill's words, written in 1943 and quoted in The Hinge of Fate:
"A third struggle will destroy all that is left of the culture, wealth and civilisation of mankind and reduce us to the level almost of wild beasts."
The words spoken by General Eisenhower in Paris on January 22, with special reference to the tasks lying ahead for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, are very apt to the present need. He said:
"While I think that most of us believe that Europe has been doing about as much on the economic and financial side as its economy can stand, it does appear that there is room for action in the great field of moral and intellectual leadership."
Yes, there is room for action there. The danger is beyond doubt. How are we going to meet it?

147
Speaking generally, there are three possible methods: first, appeasement or surrender; second, continued increase of military strength; third, negotiation at the top level at the right time. I dismiss at once the first method of appeasement or surrender. The other two demand more serious treatment. Nor are military strength and negotiation to be regarded as necessarily opposed: on the contrary, they may be auxiliary. I propose to argue that the pursuit of the military path by itself is not enough—indeed, that, on the contrary, after a certain point it is fraught with danger. And as it is the crucial point in the defence of Europe to-day, I shall in particular question the wisdom and emphasise the peril of Western German rearmament. I shall then urge that Her Majesty's Government press forward with all their power with the method of negotiation at the top level, before German rearmament is accomplished; and that the right time for Four Power negotiation at the top level is now.
Let me then take the second method of meeting the danger, which has the most numerous and eloquent champions—namely, continued increase of military strength. I do not at all dispute the need of rearmament. I support the present and the late Governments here. The real question is when and where it is to stop. I plead that rearmament in itself is not enough, and that there is a limit beyond which nations cannot go and survive. Rearmament is not enough in the conflict with Communism. Communism is an armed doctrine, but a doctrine. You can conquer armies by stronger armies, but you cannot conquer Communism, which is an ideology, a religion, a way of life fanatically held, by force. This is where moral and spiritual leadership is required. We in the West need a stronger faith, a more ardent devotion to a more dynamic religion and a more sustained and earnest campaign to meet the needs of the underprivileged, the undeveloped, in a united and universal campaign in the name of human brotherhood against want, starvation and disease. We should be wrong to underestimate the achievements of Communism over at least one-sixth of the earth's surface, or the significance of its revolutionary appeal to the under-dog. But as practised and dictated by Moscow,
148
Communism, with its cruelty, its contempt for human life, its purges, its elimination of religion, its denial of spiritual values and human rights, carries within it the seeds of its own death in the end. We shall conquer Communism, and shall save the millions suffering from its terror, not by arms but by offering a true, instead of a false, faith, and by an unceasing and costly following out of that faith in our own action for humanity.
As to rearmament itself, there is a limit beyond which we cannot go and prosper. Whatever other extensions of rearmament may be deemed essential for the defence of Europe, I believe that the one path on which we should not go is the rearmament of Western Germany. So I turn to that matter as crucial in the present situation. I understand the powerful character of the arguments in favour: because Western Germany, in outlook and interests, is so bound up with the West, it should participate in an integrated force for the defence of European freedom. But the issue seems to me not quite so simple as that There are in particular, two considerations—first, the relation of the rearming of Western Germany to the ideal of German unity; and, second, unless the Western German soldiers are willing soldiers they are no use to a European Army. General Eisenhower has recognised that. Now, the outstanding desire throughout all Germany is a united Germany. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, noted, the Soviet Note plays on that, even while the Soviet Government refuse to take steps in the Eastern Zone to secure free elections, which are an indispensable preliminary to unity for all Germany. Dr. Adenauer believes that the rearming of Western Germany is a necessary step to German unity on democratic lines. Dr. Adenauer is a fine European statesman. He made an excellent impression on his visit to this country some weeks ago. But I do not gather that he has yet convinced his fellow countrymen. Voices like those of Herr Lemmer, head of the Berlin section of the Christian Democrats at Bonn, and Dr. Jacob Kaiser, a member of his Cabinet, have issued their warning that these proposals—and, by implication, Dr. Adenauer himself—are not sufficiently alive to the interests of Eastern Germany or adequately concerned about a united Germany as an urgent issue.

149
It has already been said this afternoon that Mr. Attlee recognised that the agreement of the Germans themselves was indispensable; and it was recognised by Mr. Acheson, and others, from very early days, that German rearmament must have the approval of the people as well as of Parliament and the Federal Government. The reports which reach me from various sources suggest that the people take little share in these great decisions, and feel little responsibility for what is being done, or proposed, over their heads. I am told that the Germans generally are divided and critical; that there is opposition in the West from the 10,000,000 or 12,000,000 (I think it is) East Germans who have been expelled from the Eastern part of Germany to the West—they are opposed because they feel that return to their homes in the East is indefinitely postponed—and there is opposition in East Germany for fear that there may be a lamentable cessation of interest by Western Germany in Eastern Germany's problems. Once rearmed, Western Germany is cut off; it is almost a separate nation. And once the West of Germany is rearmed, how can we prevent Eastern Germany from being rearmed as well? How can we prevent the frontier from having a military significance? The division already existing is hardened by steel, and is itself an explosive for the whole of Europe.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am sure the right reverend Prelate will forgive my interrupting to point out that rearming started in Eastern Germany before it was seriously considered in the West at all.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I agree; on a certain basis that is true. Nevertheless, it does not alter the fact that accentuation on arms on both sides is bound to be considerably strengthened. There is this further point. This as well as the Soviet Note, in a far more determined way, is a complete going back on the former policy, common to the Allies, of demilitarisation; and I know that there is real fear of a revival of militarism in Germany, as a result. We ought also to be sure—this is an important political point—of the attitude of the officers of the West German divisions to the Hitler Plot on July 20. Do they regard those who participated in that plot as traitors or heroes? Who will be in command? What will be their political outlook?
150
Again, I feel it is necessary to be frank about these things. It is necessary to consider the attitude of the German soldiers themselves. Those who know the Germans well, and know about German soldiers, know that the Germans are the most obedient of people and ready to fight for such a cause as the Fatherland. But will they fight for two-thirds of Germany against one-third? Will they fight willingly, knowing the warnings that have been given by Soviet Russia?
I point, for example, to the declaration made at the Prague Meeting of the Cominform and the East German Ministers on October 21 and 22, 1950, which said that restoring the West German Army
"means that the three Western Powers have gone over to a policy of aggression which is incompatible with the interests of peace in Europe and with those of peace-loving peoples all over the world."
Will the Germans fight willingly when they realise that Germany itself, for better or for worse, is likely to be the first theatre of the war? And when they are told that Germany must be defended and therefore armed, otherwise there will be a vacuum in Europe which the Soviet Forces are certain to overwhelm, they can reply, with some justice, that when the Western Powers were much weaker than now Russia could easily have overwhelmed Germany and all Western Europe, but never did. I apologise for the gravity with which I have spoken, but these things
are being said in Germany by my friends. The peril of this aspect of rearmament is important because Germany is the heart of the European problem; and the rearmament, as well as the unity of Germany, is the crucial issue in Europe to-day.
I now turn to the third possible method of meeting the danger—namely, that of negotiation: not, let me repeat, a substitute for military strength, but an urgent supplement now. Some day we shall have to negotiate: the question is, when? The present Government and the late Government all believe—and members of most Parties believe—in negotiation from strength. It is said: "The stronger we are, the less chance the Russians have of a quick victory." That is, quite rightly, the justification of rearmament. But while the West grows in strength, so does the East. The U.S.S.R. are not

151
retreating in their military programme. As was stated in this House a few days ago, a statement was made at the Praesidium in Moscow a month ago that the total military budget of Soviet Russia equals nearly 29 per cent. of the whole expenditure of Russia. Negotiation from strength can be mutual. When we are weak we are afraid of unfavourable settlements; when we are strong we insist on settlements favourable to ourselves. But unless there is a good deal of give and take, we shall never succeed in ending this terrible deadlock. Can it be broken? Signs are abroad of the making of a tentative approach. The heads of three Governments, at least, have not been completely silent. President Truman has, so far, said least in public. All three have been quite rightly warned by past experiences—there have been so many disappointments—and it is only natural that they should be reserved and reluctant. But it is good that none has turned the idea down.
On October 15, in a speech at Wake Forest College, North Carolina, President Truman reaffirmed that the aim of United States foreign policy was peace through strength, and at the same time restated United States readiness to work for disarmament and peace with Russia and all nations concerned through the United Nations. Last week, in reply to questions put by a group of editors of American papers as to whether a meeting between the heads of the Great Powers would be beneficial, Marshal Stalin said that possibly it would be. In reply to a Question in the other place asking what contribution the Prime Minister is now prepared to make to the holding of a meeting attended by the heads of the Great Powers, Mr. Churchill said he had no reluctance at all; he was in earnest, and if the circumstances and situation were favourable, he would welcome the occasion. I would also call your Lordships' attention to the words of Mr. Radhakrishnan, the Indian Ambassador to Moscow. After being received by Mr. Stalin on April 5, he said:
"There is no outstanding problem now dividing the world that cannot be settled by discussion and negotiation. It would be unwise to bang the door against every approach and give up the task as impossible. No effort should be wasted, and every effort should be made to get the top people together."
152
I know Professor Radhakrishnan personally. I had various conversations as well as correspondence with him last summer and autumn. He is no sentimentalist; he is a philosopher and a statesman. When he sees Mr. Molotov and Marshal Stalin, he is well aware of the burning issues that divide the world. Is it not possible that an Ambassador from India should understand the East and the West better than they understand one another? Should not a voice from India be heard with respect? I know of no man more concerned than he about the danger to the world if an heroic effort is not made to end the present strain.
My Lords, I think that the historians of the future will have good cause to marvel if the four Powers cannot now be brought together to thresh out matters at the top. Even an ordinary contemporary reader's study of the Chatham House fortnightly bulletins, Chronology of International Events and Documents, is very depressing. In the last two years there have been many conferences, much exchanging of notes, much strife of words, and prolonged armistice conversations. All at present are abortive. The nearest, though most disappointing in the end, was the conference of the four deputies. One can sympathise very much with them for the great demands made on their patience and endurance, and admire their resourcefulness; but in the end, after getting some way, the three deputies, under instructions, were obliged to exclude the North Atlantic Treaty, naturally enough, because other Powers than their own were involved; yet the issues which N.A.T.O. was formed to meet, because of Communist aggression, were of the essence of the problem. After all, deputies are only deputies and not principals. The time has now come for the principals to meet before it is too late, before a greater hardening takes place and the machine of rearmament gets out of control. The time has now come to meet in secret as before, in years of war, to work out a settlement of crucial problems, a formidable task involving lengthy discussion which is yet indispensable.
Those problems embrace Korea and the Far East; Treaties with Germany and Austria; disarmament and the atom bomb; cessation of all hostile propaganda; the re-establishment of the authority of the United Nations Organisation

153
as a fully inclusive organisation concerned with the total welfare of humanity and the achievement—and why should we despair of it?—of a peaceful co-existence, subject to that, of Capitalism (if that is the right name for non-Communist systems in the Western World) and Communism, and based on mutual desire to co-operate, readiness to perform obligations which have been assumed, and observance of the principle of equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of other States. My Lords, the time for negotiation at the top level is now, before it is too late, before German rearmament is an accomplished fact. I believe heartily in the United Nations. One of the encouraging signs in the present situation is the continued adherence of Soviet Russia to the United Nations. I believe also in the possibilities which the United Nations opens out for a united crusade, in which the East and the West can join, against poverty, disease and starvation, on the largest scale. I believe that in spite of difficulties and dangers—formidable though I know them to be—given courage and energy and the spirit of give and take on all sides, a meeting between the heads of the four Great Powers now would not only be beneficial but would prove by far the most hopeful way, by the help of God, to the attainment in this troubled world of justice and peace.
4.48 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARYOF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, some of your Lordships may be aware that I have been absent from this country for the past fortnight in order, primarily, to lead the United Kingdom delegation to the Colombo Plan Conference at Karachi, and also to pay a short visit to Delhi. In so doing, I had the privilege of being the first member of Her Majesty's Government to visit those countries, and I should like promptly and publicly to acknowledge the warm friendliness with which, in that capacity, I was everywhere received. But, my Lords, the result has been that, having returned only last Friday, I have not bad overmuch time in which to bring myself up to date with the passage of events or to prepare myself for the always formidable task of addressing the House on behalf of the Government upon the complex and diverse topics which are included under the general head of Foreign Affairs.
154
Nor, I must add, has my task been lightened by the enforced absence for much of the debate of my noble friend the Leader of the House, who in his capacity of Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is this afternoon attending the proceedings in memory of the late Prime Minister of Ceylon, whose premature death is deplored not only in his own country but throughout the Commonwealth and beyond. My noble friend none the less proposes to intervene in the course of the debate to deal with the subject, in particular, of the fictitious and fantastic charges made by the Chinese Government, and disseminated by the full battery of Communist propaganda, in regard to the use of bacteriological warfare in Korea. He will also deal with the speech of the noble Duke, although perhaps I may be allowed to say one word, in passing, on that speech. I hope that it will not be too disrespectful to say that, although at certain times we refer in this House to "the gracious Speech," I have seldom heard a more ungracious speech made in your Lordships' House. Listening to it, one would think that there had never been such a thing as Lend-Lease, had never been a Marshall Plan, and that the whole policy of America was to dominate and to exploit, not to rescue and restore.
It may be that, as a result of my noble friend being absent for much of the afternoon, I shall have ultimately to ask leave of an indulgent but possibly flagging House to wind up the debate at a later stage of the proceedings. Most of your Lordships will have either heard or read the recent broadcast by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in which he found himself able to give a more reassuring account of the state of Europe, and to affirm his belief in the recession of the risk of war. He has, as your Lordships know, throughout the months since he returned to the Foreign Office been engaged in a series of complicated and delicate negotiations regarding the future organisation of Europe in general, and Germany in particular, which are now well in sight of a successful conclusion.
The meeting of Foreign Ministers at Lisbon last month, together with their preliminary discussions in London, happily went far towards resolving the difficulties which at one time threatened to

155
retard progress. But even if the European situation appears calmer there are, unfortunately, still too many potentially explosive areas in the world, to some of which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has called attention in the earlier part of his speech, and it is perhaps convenient that I should deal with them, before turning to the subject of Germany and Europe which was the main theme of his speech. As regards Egypt, it is our hope that discussions in Cairo may shortly begin, and in those circumstances the House will, I am sure, not expect me to dilate at any length upon the situation. Since the dismissal of the Wafd Government of Nahas Pasha, efforts have been made by the Egyptian authorities to restore order in Cairo and to put an end to terrorism in the Canal Zone, and we have been able, as a result of improved conditions, to relax many of the restrictions and other, protective measures which we were for a time reluctantly obliged to impose. Our concern now is to obtain a settlement in Egypt which will be acceptable to us and also to the people, as well as to the Government of Egypt, and, at the same time, as regards the Sudan, to bear always in mind the wishes of the Sudanese themselves, whose right to self-determination we are pledged to support.
The noble Lord in whose name this Motion stands, on his journey to the Far East next stopped off in Burma, a country which I also visited some two months ago. Though my chief preoccupation there was with the Conference of the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, I was at the same time able to take the opportunity of being in Rangoon to meet and talk with many of the Burmese Ministers, who were also good enough to make me welcome. The noble Lord is, as I know from my conversations with them, right in thinking that the continued presence of a variously estimated number of Kuomintang troops in the province of Kentung is causing the Burmese Government anxious and continuous concern. Her Majesty's Government are at one with them in regarding these uninvited and unwelcome guests as a source of confusion and unrest. Your Lordships will remember that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place on February 5 made the suggestion that the United Nations might appoint a small
156
commission which should investigate the situation on the ground. The Burmese Government who are, of course, themselves members of the United Nations, have not, however, so far taken up that suggestion. On the other hand, the delegates of the Chinese Nationalists in Paris disclaimed any control over or support of these forces, so that any approach from Her Majesty's Government in that direction would be unlikely to prove useful, even if we were in relations with the Chinese Nationalists, which, in fact, we are not. It therefore does appear that it is the Government of Burma which must itself decide in the first place what action can suitably be taken to resolve the present impasse.
Perhaps I may next pause for a moment in Indo-China, although the noble Lord said little about that subject. Your Lordships will have seen the announcement in the Press of April 2 that M. Letourneau, the member of the French Government in charge of relations with the Associate States of Indo-China, will now fulfil the functions previously discharged by the late High Commissioner in Indo-China, Marshal de Lattre de Tassigny. Her Majesty's Government are confident that France will continue in Indo-China her policy of ensuring for the three States, Viet-Nam, Laos and Cambodia, their status of independence within the French Union, and we warmly welcome the appointment of so distinguished and experienced a Minister with whom, just before my departure for the Far East. I was happy to have the opportunity of a long and valuable conversation here in London. M. Letourneau has been intimately associated with the transfer to the Associated States of responsibility for their own government and administration, and this process is now virtually complete.
Members of the French Union assume the obligation of mutual defence against aggression, and France has not shrunk from the heavy burden in which this obligation has involved her. She has for nearly six years been fighting to guarantee the independence of the new States from Communist domination, and her sacrifices have been very heavy. This war is costing France more than £400,000,000 a year, and more than 1,000 French officers and 30,000 French other ranks have lost their lives. To those figures must be added the officers and

157
men of the armies of the Associate States which are fighting gallantly alongside their comrades of the French Union. France is doing more than protecting the gift of independence which she has bestowed upon those new States. She is barring the way to Communist aggression and subversion in the whole of South-East Asia. At great sacrifice to herself she is fighting—just as we are fighting in Malaya—to defend the ideals of democracy which we cherish, and which the many young nations in that area have adopted. In this struggle she deserves the support of all those who value freedom.
In Korea, the armistice negotiations still labour on, though perhaps the prospects are a little brighter than they were a few weeks ago. The issues under discussion at Panmunjong remain largely the same from day to day. If an armistice is, as we hope, ultimately arranged, then we must trust that it will be promptly followed by a conference upon the future of Korea, to be attended by all interested parties, and that the successful outcome of such a conference might herald the general relaxation of tension throughout the Far East. I make no reference to what the noble Lord said about bacteriological warfare, for the reason which he appreciates.
May I new transport myself mentally back to Europe, almost as rapidly as I was recently physically transported, and deal with some of the matters raised with regard to Germany? It is our intention to complete the German contractual negotiations as quickly as possible and thus to establish our relations with the Federal Republic on a new basis of equality. Indeed, we hope that these contractual arrangements and the accompanying Treaty setting up the European Defence Community will be signed within the next few weeks. Some complex and technical matters, including the important issue of the allocation of Germany's financial contribution to defence, are still in the course of being worked out, and it is therefore impossible for the moment to give a precise date.
But meanwhile, we and our Allies who share our responsibilities in Germany have made is clear, in full agreement with the Federal German Government, that, while these steps are necessary to promote European unity and peace, we also
158
desire to end the present division of Germany by such means as will safeguard the liberties of the German people. The recent Soviet Note was by no means free of doubt on this last essential point, and we have, therefore, had to ask the Soviet Government to clarify their proposals. The terms of our request for elucidation are set out in the relevant White Paper which your Lordships will have seen. If the Soviet Government shows itself ready to promote the reunification of Germany in conditions of general freedom, as that much distorted word is understood in the free world, Her Majesty's Government will warmly welcome such a solution. The proposed contractual arrangement has, after all, come into being only because of the impossibility hitherto of negotiating a Treaty; but if we are ultimately able to negotiate a Treaty it would clearly supersede any contractual arrangement.
Nevertheless, our past experiences over the negotiation of a German (or, indeed, an Austrian) Peace Treaty have not been encouraging; and we cannot allow the completion and signature of these negotiations to be held up on the chance of reaching any early agreement with the Soviet Government. It is satisfactory to note that this seems also to be the view of the German Bundestag. From the account of the important debate in that Assembly on April 3 on this subject, it seems that Dr. Adenauer received a substantial vote of approval for his policy by a show of hands. The main theme of his argument in the debate was that German reunification could come only by negotiating from strength with Western help. It could not happen spontaneously nor be effected by Russian instrumentality.
The resolutions adopted at the end of that debate by the majority Parties—no reference to which I have so far seen in the newspapers of this country—are, I think, of so much interest as showing the identity of German and Allied policies in this matter that I shall venture to read them to the House. The first is this:
"The Bundestag reaffirms, in agreement with the declaration of the Federal Government of September 27, 1951, that the reunification of Germany in a free and united Europe is the supreme objective of German policy."
The second is:
"The Bundestag considers the exchange of Notes between the Soviet Union and the three

159
Western powers of March 10, 1952, to be an important contribution towards the clarification of the pre-conditions for the realisation of this objective, confirming the policy of the Federal Government to restore an all-German democratic constitutional State."
The third is:
"The Bundestag requests the Federal Government to approach the Occupying Powers again with a view to persuading them to work for free elections for an all-German national assembly, on the basis of the election Ordinance approved by the Bundestag on February 6, 1952, and under international guarantee, and with the proviso that freedom to take decisions in the fields of internal and external policy shall be guaranteed to the State organs which will be formed as a result of these elections."
The last is this:
"The Bundestag expects the negotiations of the Federal Government with the Western Occupying Powers, concerning the withdrawal of the Occupation Statute and those concerning the security pact to be continued and the results to be presented to the Bundestag."
I think that those resolutions are worthy of your Lordships' attention, as showing to how great an extent we march side by side with Western Germany in the policy which we are advocating and pursuing.
The reunification of Germany presupposes the creation of an all-German Government by free, secret and democratic elections throughout the whole of Germany. The formation of such a Government is also a condition precedent to the completion of a Peace Treaty with Germany. But in our and our Allies' view, conditions in Eastern Germany are not such as to ensure free, democratic, and secret elections in that area in the sense that we attribute to those words. At the instance of the Federal Government, the three Western Occupying Powers, therefore, proposed in the United Nations General Assembly that a United Nations Commission be set up to carry out a simultaneous investigation throughout Germany into the possibility of holding such elections. The German Federal Government, the Allied High Commission, the West Berlin Magistrat and the Allied Kommandatura in Western Berlin have all undertaken to give the Commission all the facilities which they have requested. On the other hand, the Soviet Control Commission and the German authorities in the Soviet Zone and Soviet Sector of Berlin have made no reply to
160
repeated requests from the Commission even to discuss the facilities they require to carry out their task. Nor have they put forward any alternative proposals of their own which would provide for real freedom of elections in the Soviet Zone. It remains open to the Soviet Government, if their desire for the reunification of Germany is sincere, to give a favourable answer to the United Nations, which in our view is the proper body to satisfy itself that the requisite conditions exist.
But elections are not the whole story. It is equally important to make certain that, even after elections have been held, the resultant all-German Government has complete freedom of action, both internally and externally. As the noble Lord pointed out, any limitation on such freedom of action would be inconsistent with German eligibility to become a member of the United Nations, and might well result in the creation in Germany of a situation similar to that which has hitherto proved so insoluble in Austria. In our reply to the Soviet Government Note, as the White Paper shows, we have therefore concentrated, first, on the necessity for free elections, leading to the establishment of an all-German Government, and upon the right of that Government, both before and after the conclusion of a Peace Treaty, to continue, should it so desire of its own accord, the policy of integration with the West which has hitherto been so successfully pursued by the Federal Government. There would be little use in agreeing to discussions with the Soviet Government about Germany or to all-German elections unless these two conditions were first met.
As regards a German defence contribution, the preliminary interchanges of opinion crystallised some time ago now into an agreement that Germany's contribution should be made through the medium of a European Army which must itself: first, strengthen the joint defence of the North Atlantic area; secondly, be comprised within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation framework; and, thirdly, promote the closer mutual association of the countries of Western Europe including Western Germany. The North Atlantic Council agreed at Lisbon that these conditions were fulfilled in the present plan for the European Defence Community. The Treaty establishing that

161
Community has still to be signed and ratified, and so has its counterpart, the new contractual agreement with Germany. The actual recruitment of Germans will, therefore, not start for several months to come.
But bear in mind in this context that the European defence forces are to be under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and form an element in the N.A.T.O. forces. It is most important not to forget that. The build-up of the N.A.T.O. forces, on the other hand, is to be effected in accordance with the Temporary Council Committee (the so-called "three wise men") plan, which was approved at Lisbon The rearmament of Germany is thus, in our view, taking place in circumstances which do fulfil the conditions laid down by Mr. Attlee in February, 1951, and which are reproduced in the White Paper. I say that for these reasons: because, in the first place, the German forces will have to be built up from the beginning, from ground level, whereas the N.A.T.O. Powers, on the other hand, have already had a considerable precedence and will continue to hold that start for at least several months to come in both the rearmament and the build-up of their forces. In the second place, once German rearmament does start, it will take place in accordance with the plan for the time-phased build-up of all N.A.T.O. forces, the whole purpose of which is to make the best use of available resources in the common interest of defence. Further, the European Defence Community has been so designed as to prevent the reemergence of a German military menace. Lastly, the European Defence Community Treaty and the new contractual arrangements have been negotiated with the Germans themselves and will require to be ratified by their Parliament.
Anxiety is sometimes expressed as to the menace which may be constituted by the setting up of any new German forces. May I just point out that these European defence forces will include all the land and air forces of member States except such as are earmarked for overseas territories, for special international missions, like Berlin or Korea, and for internal security and police duties. There will be no national unit in the European Defence Community larger than what is a very small division of some 13,000 men, plus equally small supporting services. That
162
is a very important aspect. Each German division will thus depend for tactical and what is called logistical support on the Army Corps, the formation immediately above it; and the Army Corps is not a national but an integrated formation comprising various nationalities. The same principle will apply to the European Air Forces—
LORD STRABOLGI: Could the noble Marquess say how many divisions there will be to an Army Corps?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Probably the answer is that, as in our own Army and, I think, in other cases, an Army Corps has no fixed establishment of divisions. It takes into its sphere merely the number of divisions which is appropriate for the action which is to be taken at the moment.
EARL JOWITT: May I ask a question at this point, as I am anxious to follow this most interesting speech? What about the timing? The noble Marquess said just now that it would be several months before any Germans were recruited. Then he said—and rightly, as I understood it—that the plan as a whole, when it is finalised, has to be considered by the German Parliament, as it has by the French Parliament. That must be done, of course, before a single recruit can be called up.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Yes.
EARL JOWITT: Does the noble Marquess mean that he anticipates that all that will be done within a matter of a few months?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: It is, of course, impossible to give any detailed time-table but, granted that the ground is adequately prepared, these matters would now advance with—I am not going to say anything more detailed than "reasonable speed." Recruitment will remain a national responsibility but will be supervised by the Board of Commissioners, so called, who are the supra-national authorities, the supra-national executive agency of the E.D.C. That supra-national agency will also control the training and administration of the European Defence Community forces. Indeed, it is intended that only those countries with overseas commitments of the kind to which I have referred should retain a national defence administration at all.

163
Moreover, the production, import and export of war material by member countries, as well as scientific military research, will be subject to authorisation by the Board of Commissioners, which will devise and execute common armament research programmes, financed from the common budget.
The principal positive safeguard against future German aggression is surely the grouping of the N.A.T.O. nations in a defensive alliance, of which the forces of the European Defence Community will themselves form an integral part. As I have said, they will be placed at the disposal of the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. Training and territorial location of the European defence forces will be carried out in accordance with his requirements. There will be liaison at all levels between the European Defence Community and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation agencies, and joint meetings of the two Councils whenever a member of either considers that its territorial integrity or political independence is threatened. In this way, of course, the United Kingdom, no less than the United States, will be in close touch through N.A.T.O. with the working of the European Defence Community.
Although the United Kingdom will not be a member of the European Defence Community, we have announced our intention of associating ourselves with it as closely as possible, politically and military, and of linking British forces, particularly air forces, with those of the European Defence Community. I do not propose at this moment to reiterate the special reasons which make it impossible for this country actually to become a member of the European Defence Community. They are by now well known to and generally accepted by the member countries, whose recognition of their validity was no doubt greatly influenced by General Eisenhower's firm support of our attitude. But, my Lords, as my right honourable friend said in his broadcast last Saturday,
"We should be prepared to go a long way in giving the European Defence Community our backing and our guarantee within the framework of the Atlantic Pact,"
and I am sure that our friends were encouraged and reassured by that forthcoming statement.
164
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred at the end of his speech to discussions now in progress at The Hague between representatives of the Government of Israel and the German Federal Government. Her Majesty's Government have been informed of these discussions, the object of which is to determine the question of a payment by Germany to Israel in pursuance of the declaration made to the Bundestag by Dr. Adenauer of September 27 last. In the concluding passage of that statement the Federal Chancellor said:
"The Federal Government is prepared, in conjunction with representatives of Jewry and of the State of Israel—which has admitted so many homeless Jewish refugees—to bring about a solution of the financial aspects of the restitution problem in order thus to pave the way towards clearing a psychological atmosphere, blackened by untold suffering. The Federal Government is deeply imbued with conviction that the spirit of true humanity must revive and bear fruit. The Federal Government considers it the foremost duty of the German people to foster this spirit with all its power."
Any such payment would, I understand, be based upon the calculated cost of resettlement in Israel of Jews driven out of Europe by the Nazis. It would, however, obviously not be in the nature of an ordinary commercial indebtedness, but rather in the nature of some measure of reparation, of moral even more than material value, for the enormities committed during the Hitler régime. Her Majesty's Government welcome the fact that this meeting is taking place, and recognise Dr. Adenauer's initiative in the matter as a genuine step towards restoring Germany's reputation in the eyes of the world. We await the outcome with much interest, and although Press reports have appeared which indicate a hitch in the discussions, we still greatly hope for a satisfactory settlement.
I hope that I have covered the ground which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, included in his speech. Perhaps I may now come on to that of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, and he will forgive me, I know, if at the outset I say just this. We are always glad when the noble Lord participates in a debate of this kind, because he himself has given so much time, thought and labour to these various organisations, their devising and their maintenance. Therefore, we always delight in hearing him. He will not misunderstand me if I say now that there is

165
one voice from those Benches which in a Foreign Affairs debate many of us will continue for a long time greatly to miss—namely, the wise, kindly and human voice of the late noble Earl, Lord Perth, by whose side I sat for so many years on that Bench. As I say, the noble Lord, Lord Layton, has great knowledge of these matters, and from that point of view it is a satisfaction to Her Majesty's Government to have his support in so many of the undertakings which we are carrying on in these various international fields within the European organisation.
My Lords, I have covered a certain amount of what the noble Lord has already asked, but he referred to the proposals which my right honourable friend made at the recent Session of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in Paris, and to his proposal that there should be a remodelling of the Assembly and the Committee so that they could serve as the ministerial and Parliamentary institutions of the Schuman Plan, the European Defence Community and any future supranational organisations of a similar kind. If these plans are accepted—and as the noble Lord knows, they are at present being scrutinised by officials—they would enable countries like the United Kingdom, whose aim is to establish close links with the European communities, to be associated, in an appropriate way, with the Parliamentary and ministerial institutions of those communities. As regards the executive agencies of those communities, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in the case of the Schuman Plan, to appoint a delegation to the seat of the High Authority as soon as the Authority comes into being. The task of the permanent delegation will be to enter into negotiations with the High Authority and to transact business with it. We should be thus able to associate ourselves with the work of the Schuman Community in all its aspects. We are not, of course, pooling either our own coal or steel, but we are anxious to maintain the closest possible contact. The noble Lord will, I am sure, agree with me that until this organisation is in being and actually working in practice, it is very difficult to define with any precision exactly what the day-to-day work of this delegation is going to be, and how it is going to fit into the general scheme of things. At the same time, we are already,
166
of course, full members of the Council of Europe and all its various committees and organisations, and there again we desire to give all the help and assistance that we can, short of committing ourselves to any form of federation.
The noble Lord referred to the question of the Protocol on Human Rights. Her Majesty's Government were actually the first Government to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights. My right honourable friend signed the Protocol to this Convention in Paris on March 20 last, and we are now waiting to receive the certified copy of this Protocol from the Secretariat of the Council of Europe, so as to have it printed and laid before Parliament. As soon as we receive this, the usual consultations between the Departments concerned will be undertaken with a view to ratification.
The right reverend Prelate took a somewhat different line from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Lord, Lord Layton. There again, I think that to some extent, in what I have already said, I have covered part of the ground that he traversed, and I certainly do not want to go over it twice. The right reverend Prelate talked about the dangers of negotiating from strength, and suggested that that is an unwise policy to adopt. I cannot help thinking back over my own life—and indeed over the period of life of a good many of your Lordships—and remembering two occasions upon which we have sought to negotiate from relative weakness. One was in 1914 and the other was in 1939. The results of those negotiations do not seem a very favourable precedent for attempting to negotiate from weakness.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I hope the noble Marquess will forgive me for interrupting, but I did not deprecate negotiation from strength. In fact, I said that negotiation from military strength was compatible with negotiation at a top level. What I said was, that we must decide when to stop our mounting of strength.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, with that statement of precision, which perhaps I had not quite appreciated from the way in which the right reverend Prelate put it before, I would agree. Of course there must be a time

167
when we must stop. I would agree with him, too, in what he said in the course of his speech, that rearmament by itself is not enough, particularly when dealing with an ideology such as Communism. But rearmament is at least something, and is not an asset lightly to be disregarded in that context.
The right reverend Prelate urged consultation. My right honourable friend, speaking only yesterday, I think—almost in anticipation, it would seem, of the right reverend Prelate's speech—indicated his willingness for consultation at the right time and in the right conditions. What he said in summing up was:
"Serious negotiations on any occasion—Yes. Time-wasting contortion on every occasion—No."
That, I think, represents an attitude which will commend itself to your Lordships' House. We are not turning our back on any genuine opportunity of fruitful negotiation. But when it is urged upon us that we should have more understanding, and should not think that there are really so many difficult problems confronting us, while I hope that view is sound I must say that I should feel a little more optimistic about it if sometimes for a few minutes even the smallest corner of the iron curtain were lifted, without the stage set having already been prepared behind it for visitors, and if there were some sign, some time, of a relaxation of the propaganda which the right reverend Prelate thought was one of the matters that might be talked out between countries. I should feel a little more optimistic if the prospect of a relaxation of the propaganda looked a little more hopeful than it does when we see the sort of material that has been turned out lately, on the topic, for instance, of bacteriological warfare—and turned out by order of the Government. And at the same time, be it remembered, every opportunity is being taken to stir up trouble in other countries. I would beg the right reverend Prelate to reassure his mind on this—that we are not being obstinate about any form of negotiation. We merely do not want to be confronted with the sort of thing that has gone on with respect to the Austrian Treaty, or with the sort of thing that went on in that interminable tribulation at the Palais Rose in Paris years ago, when not even an agenda could be prepared. If we
168
could get a sign that really fruitful negotiations can be conducted, I do not imagine that Her Majesty's Government would be reluctant to accept.
If I may be allowed to refrain from doing so, I will not argue with the right reverend Prelate the question for and against German rearmament at this stage. But I ask him to remember that this desire, this readiness on the part of Dr. Adenauer to come into the European Defence Community, is not a personal foible of Dr. Adenauer's. It has received, as I told your Lordships earlier in my speech, the assent of a substantial majority of the Bundestag; and, presumably, those persons are as much in touch with the opinion of their constituents as Members of another place in this country are with theirs. For that reason, the Bundestag having, as I say, approved, one cannot say that the country itself is in any way opposed.
I shall, I am afraid, have to ask for your Lordships' indulgence in order to speak again at a later stage. For the meantime, I will say only one thing more. When we are looking at the whole of this situation, European and otherwise, do not let us forget how recently these great international organisations, which we have been discussing this afternoon have sprung into being. Surely the marvel is not that there are still difficulties to be overcome, that there are frictions to be eliminated, that there are adjustments to be made—the marvel is that in so short a space of time so many countries, differing in history, in culture, in language, in climate and in people, should have advanced in common and voluntary accord so fast and so far.
5.36 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I regard this debate as one of the most important that has taken place in this House in the present Parliament. I need hardly emphasise that our domestic and economic welfare depends entirely upon the way in which our international difficulties are
dealt with by the Government, and therefore this debate, on the eve of the Recess, is a timely one. It has been a remarkable debate. We have had a number of extraordinary speeches. We have had a speech from the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, and I should like to congratulate him on the extreme courage which he showed in making it.

169
After all, in this House noble Lords are entitled to say exactly what they believe, and the noble Duke has not minced matters in any way. He has said a great many things which, can assure him, are in the hearts and minds of a great many inarticulate people in this country.
I will not pretend that I agree with everything he said, but I think the noble Marquess was rather hard on him in the reprimand which he uttered regarding the statements made by the noble Duke about the United States of America. I do not think that the noble Duke intended to be either ungracious about the United States or unappreciative of what the United States has done. Indeed, as I understood him, he paid a tribute to the altruism of the United States and their motives, but gave voice to the thought that they were perhaps setting about the attainment of their motives by methods of which he did not approve. I little thought that I should find myself in agreement with the noble Duke to any great extent, but I feel it right to say that many of us in this House do appreciate the great courage made manifest in the speech which he delivered. And it does require courage to make a speech which one knows in advance is not going to be popular with the audience which will listen to it. I should like to say the same about the speech of the right reverend Prelate. He also said a number of things which were not altogether acceptable in this House but which I believe needed saying.
I am very glad indeed that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, is back in this country, and I understand that he is to make a statement later about bacteriological warfare. It is very timely. The noble Marquess knows that a great deal of propaganda is being made about the alleged use by the United States of bacteriological warfare. No doubt, the noble Marquess has seen written statements which have been issued and which are extremely circumstantial giving, as they do, dates and places, the evidence of people and so on. These statements undoubtedly are likely to make a great impression on any unguarded person, and I think it is necessary that they should be refuted if we can possibly refute them. I am therefore very glad indeed that the noble Marquess is going to speak on the subject.
170
The key to the pacification of the, world, for which we so urgently long, and to an improvement in our economic position is the dissolution of East-West fear and suspicion. Recently the Soviet Union have made peace proposals. Mr. Eden has stated that the Soviet Note is evidence that they are becoming impressed by the growing strength of Western arms and by the success of the Lisbon Conference. He has also stated that because of Western rearmament there is less tension in the world, and that the danger of war has receded. That, of course, is a tribute to the effect of rearmament. But if that is accepted, it does not follow that an accentuated and bitter armaments race will still further improve the situation. On the contrary, in my view an accentuation of the armaments race must accentuate the danger of war. I do not wish to elaborate that argument at the present time, but we all know that in the past, as the armaments race between different nations has developed so the danger of war has increased. So far as I know, there is no record of an arms race ever having led to anything but eventual war. While the position may well be as Mr. Eden has stated, that at the present moment the effect of our rearmament has been that we have received offers from the Soviet Union, nevertheless, let us not assume that by our continuing along this path either the offers will improve or the situation will improve.
Is not the easing of the present tension an indication that we and our friends can now afford to make a gesture towards peace without being misunderstood, and without its being thought that we are making it out of fear? I believe that we could have afforded to treat the Soviet Note with greater respect—to call their bluff, if you like to put it that way—but with an attitude of being prepared to go much further along the road towards meeting them than we have done. The reply to the Soviet Note seemed to me somewhat to discourage, if not entirely to close down on, further discussions. The effect upon the world, such parts of the world as are outside the East-West sphere of influence and the parts inside, is extremely important. Are we not in danger of leaving the initiative about peace proposals to the Soviet Union? I am not arguing whether these proposals are entirely sincere or not. I

171
imagine that Mr. Eden feels there is some sincerity about them, if they have in fact been actuated by the effect of our own and our friends' rearmament. I do not assume that they are necessarily sincere, but these constant peace proposals by the Soviet Union are undoubtedly having a psychological effect upon a great many people, and are creating the impression that it is the Soviet Union who are pressing for peace and making one proposal after another, only to be rebuffed by the Western Powers. I do not suggest that that is the position, but I suggest that that is the impression which has been made. I hope, therefore, that we shall find ourselves able to make a rather more favourable response to the Soviet approaches than we have done up to now.
The Soviet Union has organised an Economic Conference in Moscow to encourage the development of East-West trade. Here again it may well be that this is only propaganda, and I am not arguing about whether it is or not. But the impression created in many parts of the world, as well as on a good many people in this country, is that we have unreasonably cold-shouldered this conference and that some good might come out of it. I have been reading the American Press and there is no doubt that articles by eminent publicists like Walter Lippmann, the Alsopp brothers and others, are taking the view that the Russian proposals ought to be taken more seriously than they have been taken so far, and that it is not sufficient merely to rebuff them on the assumption that they are insincere. I ask noble Lords to take note of the fact that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce has sent a telegram to Lord Boyd-Orr, who is head of the British delegation at the Moscow Conference, indicating that they are ready to do business with the Soviet Union and asking for details regarding the types and qualities of textiles which are desired. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce has 5,300 members, and since the opening of the trade conference in Moscow last Thursday the Chamber has been deluged with inquiries from members. We have to take that kind of thing seriously, and I think we are making a mistake to assume all the time that all this is nothing but propaganda.
172
The British Note in reply to the Soviet proposals stipulates that there shall be free elections throughout Germany, under conditions which safeguard the national and individual liberties of the German people, and a free German Government which can participate in discussions on a Peace Treaty. I cordially agree, and I am in complete agreement with what the noble Marquess said on the subject. But have we thought out what is likely to happen if, as I believe may well be the case, the Soviet Union accept this proposal? They have nothing to lose by accepting it and acting upon it. If they accept it, what then will be the position? Are we to go on, in spite of their acceptance of this proposal, to rearm Western Germany? Almost every noble Lord in this House is somewhat unhappy about the rearmament of Western Germany, with the possible exception of my noble friend Lord Pakenham. I feel that most of us are somewhat apprehensive. I myself do not feel at all convinced that Western Germany, assuming that they agree at all to rearmament, will be rearming because of a deep love of Western democracy. If they agree to rearmament they will have their own reasons for doing so, which may well conflict with ours. I feel that there will always be some danger of aggression on their part to recover their lost territories.
Here I want to say that I appreciate fully what the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has said as to the steps that are being taken to incorporate the German Army into a European Army. I believe that, given the rearmament of Germany, we are doing all that we possibly can to avoid their taking independent action. I realise that it is not intended that there should be a German General Staff. But I am by no means certain that we shall be able to hold this position. I would ask the noble Marquess whether it is not likely to be the case that, in due course, however integrated a German Army may be into a European force, the German Army will, in fact, be the strongest force in the integrated Army, and that there will be no effective means of dealing with a German force which breaks away from the integrated European Army. I would ask, also, whether we are prepared to state categorically that any adventure by such a German Army, breaking away from the integrated European Army for the purpose of, say, an attack on Poland

173
or Czechoslovakia, would be regarded as aggression and dealt with in the same way as we have dealt with the aggression in Northern Korea. If we were prepared to make a statement at a meeting of the Security Council as to what our attitude would be in the event of German aggression against some of their former enemies—realising, of course, that it would have to be within the framework of the United Nations Organisation—it would certainly help in world pacification.
Moreover, as a number of your Lordships have already stated, nobody can contemplate indefinitely a West German Army facing an East German Army, with the possibility of fratricidal combat. Here we have clearly a position of unstable equilibrium. It must come to an end soon. I think we are putting ourselves in the wrong by not encouraging the movement for unity more than we have done, and by leaving the initiative in this movement to the Soviet Union. I believe that the German desire for unity will grow and become stronger than anything else, including loyalty to the Western Powers; and certainly things may change very rapidly once Western Germany has secured her independence. I feel that perhaps there is a danger of our regarding the position as static. The position is really dynamic, and great changes may well take place within a very short time. We should be looking ahead and visualising this extreme likelihood, whether it comes about as a result of negotiations with the Soviet Union, or by action on the part of East and West Germany.
I want now to turn to another aspect which may well become one of the danger points in the next few years—namely, the Polish western territories which are being taken from the Germans. In the reply of the Government to the Soviet Note there is this statement:
"There are several fundamental questions which would also have to be resolved. For example, Her Majesty's Government note that the Soviet Government make the statement that the territory of Germany is determined by frontiers laid down by the decisions of the Potsdam Conference. Her Majesty's Government would recall that, in fact, no definite German frontiers were laid down by the Pots-dam decisions, which clearly provided that the final determination of territorial questions must await the peace settlement."
Here is a grave source of future disagreement, because undoubtedly the Eastern
174
Powers, and Poland in particular, do regard these frontiers as being broadly settled. There is no doubt that in the past they have been strongly encouraged so to regard them. I would refer to the many speeches made by the present Prime Minister in another place in the years 1944 and 1945, when he stated, very clearly indeed, that the three great Powers had agreed to compensate Poland for the loss of the territories which he was obliged to hand over to the Soviet Union west of the Curzon Line. I would remind the House of speeches made by the late President Roosevelt on the same lines. I would further remind your Lordships of a vote in another place, which was a unanimous vote of something like 450 to nil, whereby the principle of compensation to Poland was ratified.
We have it, further, quite definitely in the Potsdam Agreement of August, 1945, where the three great Powers clearly agreed to the sealing of the area at present occupied by Poland which was formerly part of the German Empire. I agree that that was subject to the fact that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the Peace Treaty. But the term "final delimitation" has been interpreted by
the permanent Court of International Justice as meaning, not that the whole of the territory was in the melting pot, but merely that the actual frontiers were subject to adjustment. It is in that sense that certainly the Polish people and the Soviet Union understand the term "final delimitation"; they never understood that the whole question of these territories was subject to review. Moreover, we ourselves have encouraged the Polish Government and the Czechoslovakian Government to act on the assumption that these territories were, broadly, finally ceded to them by the fact that we agreed to proposals for the compulsory evacuation of the German population from those territories.
On November 20, 1945, the Allied Control Commission for Germany agreed at the meeting in Berlin that the entire German population should be moved from Poland—a number of 3,500,000, of which 2.000,000 were to go to Soviet-occupied territory and 1,500,000 to British-occupied territory, and they even agreed as to the numbers that were to be transferred each month. It is difficult

175
for me to understand how, in the light of certain arrangements and the agreement at Potsdam, it can now be said that the whole question is open. Obviously, there may have to be adjustments of frontiers here and there, but it cannot be seriously suggested that, having agreed to the transfer of 3,500,000 Germans to those territories, we nevertheless regard these territories as being in the melting pot. Moreover, in November, 1945, nobody visualised that the Peace Treaty would be deferred for so long a time as it has in fact been. It was always contemplated that there would be a Peace Treaty with Germany in the course of a year or two, and I very much regret that that has not been possible. But if what was thought probable in 1945 had, in fact, taken place, it is inconceivable that in November, 1945, we should have agreed to the transfer of the German population from those territories over a period of some twelve months and yet regarded the whole question as open and subject to agreement at a Peace Treaty.
In the meantime, the Polish Government have acted on the assumption—as I believe they were entitled to do—that this territory has broadly been ceded to them, under the terms of the Potsdam Agreement; and there are to-day some 7,000,000 Poles who have been settled in this territory, in addition to 1,500,000 former Germans of Polish origin who were not transferred. Therefore, to throw the question of these Western territories into the melting pot would mean once more disturbing a population of something like 8,500,000. Vast capital resources have been put
into the territory by the Polish Government. They have spent large sums of money in rebuilding the area, which had been almost totally destroyed by our bombs as well as by the Germans themselves. All this is in the process of being rebuilt. We can hardly ignore all the efforts that have been made to restore that territory, as well as the great numbers of people who are now living there. These are some of the problems.
I think it would be kinder to the Germans in particular if we gave them to understand quite clearly that there is no hope of their regaining these Eastern territories except by friendly negotiations between themselves and the Polish Government. We ourselves must accept the
176
position that by the Potsdam Agreement these territories were transferred to Poland—rightly or wrongly, if you like—and noble Lords will remember the great difficulties we were in at the time in arriving at an agreement between the Soviet Union, Poland and ourselves. The Russians were insisting upon regaining the territories of the Curzon Line. We felt a moral obligation, as did the United States, to compensate the Poles for the loss of those territories, and it was a most difficult and complex piece of negotiation. As I say, it is unthinkable that we should contemplate going back on it, or even leaving the position in uncertainty.
In spite of these difficulties, I believe that to-day is auspicious for a world settlement. I think that the noble Marquess was rather splitting hairs when he spoke about "negotiating from strength." Nobody really wants to negotiate from strength in the sense that we desire to impose our views on other people. We want to be strong enough to be able to negotiate on equal terms, and it may well be that this phrase "negotiating from strength" is a mistaken or a misleading one, just as I think "unconditional surrender" was another. However, if we all understand that what we mean is that we do not desire to impose our views on other people, nor will we permit other people to impose their views on us, and that we want to negotiate on equal terms, then I do not mind the phrase "negotiating from strength." I believe that we have reached that position to-day, and that therefore the time has come when it is possible for us to make a gesture ourselves and not leave all the gestures to be made by the Soviet Union. All nations to-day are suffering from the diversion of so much of their material—human and otherwise—to warlike purposes. This position is going to become worse. There is a yearning throughout the world for men and women to be allowed to attend to their own affairs, to repair the ravages of war and to increase the resources of the world so that all may have an opportunity of enjoying a better life. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do all in their power to give a lead, to enable the people of this country and the world to fulfil their national and legitimate aspirations.
6.7 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I have not inflicted myself upon you for a good eighteen months, but when I saw the Duke of Bedford's Motion down on the Order Paper I thought that I would come down to-day to say a few words upon Anglo-American relations, a subject which gives me a little anxiety, particularly in this delicate year of a Presidential election. Having listened patiently to the noble Duke, I think that the best service I can render to those relations is to show our American friends that we do not take the Motion very seriously. He has simply joined the mischief-makers, and I have consequently to refute both him and them. I do so only because their activities are creating on the other side some consequences which we may later deplore I shall be as impersonal as possible because I am not here to pillory persons but to check a tendency.
The first thing that strikes one about all anti-Americans (and, incidentally, I have a very poor opinion of people who begin by saying "I am not anti-American" and then emit a stream of hostility, as the noble Duke has done to-day) is that they usually know very little about America. Thus one of their most prominent spokesmen has recently said—and the noble Duke has said something very much like it to-day—that the Americans have not the experience, the sagacity or the self-restraint for world leadership. I really do not know where people who talk like that get their credentials for such sweeping assertions. For my part, I had spent the first twenty-five years of my career in diplomacy, including five years as head of the American Department of the Foreign Office, before I would have ventured any generalisation at all on so vast and varied a people. Nor, incidentally, do I think that the word "self-restraint" comes so well from lips so harsh to Allies.
Let us look at the real state of affairs in the United States. MacCarthyism is everywhere discredited among thinking people, though Taft, to his shame, has patted it on the back. A friend of mine, Senator William Benton, has been trying to get him expelled from the Senate altogether. The loyalty oath of the University of California has been rescinded, and of those in public service who have appeared before loyalty boards those who have lost their jobs number
178
.009 of 1 per cent., and I think you will find the percentage is lower than here. There is not a single word of truth in the insinuations which appear in our Americaphobe Press here, to the effect that the fear of the informer has penetrated into private life. That is downright falsehood. American liberties go on unimpaired. I have just seen a pronouncement by a distinguished Hindu Liberal, one time Mayor of Bombay and, if my memory serves, twice imprisoned by us for civil disobedience and, therefore, not likely to condone anything in the nature of Imperialism. He said exactly this:
"Nowhere did I find in the United States any trace of the tension, hysteria, or warmongering of which we hear so much abroad."
But, say the Yank-baiters,
"the Americans are engaged on the most tremendous rearmament programme ever seen,"—
and those are exact words. Well, is that so? Their leader has gone on to say that mankind has never known an arms race of this intensity which has not been followed by war. Mankind has known nothing of the sort. I think people who talk like that—I really hoped that most people had outgrown the puerile superstition that wars are brought on by so-called arms races—have never paused to think what an arms race is. May I tell them in just twelve words. It is the point at which weaker nations take heed of their defences, and both the great world wars started because the weaker nations started too late.
LORD SILKIN: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I said that, too, and therefore all the noble Lord's strictures apply to me. What I meant to say, and what I thought I did say, was that the arms races had never prevented a war.
LORD VANSITTART: That is different. I was not alluding to the noble Lord because I did not hear that passage in his speech. I was referring only to generalisations that I have heard elsewhere. I think we ought to see how far the charge of arms racing lies against the United States. There has in fact been a very great lag in American arms deliveries, and the delay is so great that it has occasioned much disquiet in Western Europe.
The real truth is that Russia for long past has been engaged on a rearmament

179
programme and on the production of war material to which there is no parallel in peace time. It far surpasses the wildest dreams of the Kaiser's imperialists or militarists. It is about threefold of what the Nazis were able to count on at the height of their power in peace time. If we are talking of arms races why should we stop at the Soviet Union? Let us look at their satellites. Take Poland, which has been practically absorbed into the Soviet system. The Polish arms budget shows an increase of 72 per cent. as compared with last year, and an increase of 660 per cent. as compared with 1948. Even that is not the end of the story. The Security Budget, which includes the secret police and the frontier police, shows an increase of 611 per cent. Yet the critics of the United States here will persist in talking of "the myth of Russian military aggrandisement"—those again are exact words.
In a recent kick at the United States it has been said that our main danger is not Communism but the fear of Communism. Well your Lordships can see for yourselves how clever that is—if only we had stuck our heads a little bit further in the sand, and said that we were not afraid of the Nazis, they would never have overrun Europe and 30,000,000 people now dead would be alive. That is what the late Mr. James Agate—not a very pleasant person—used to call "clotted nonsense." The same author goes on to say, after having accused the United States Congress of baying for war—not very tactful either—to insult the American military leaders. He has recently written:
"The more genuine the Russian peace offers are found to be, the more stubbornly will the Pentagon resist a conference to discuss them."
He added this:
"We should of course welcome a conference however inconvenient it is to the American Chiefs of Staff."
LORD STRABOLGI: From whom is the noble Lord quoting? I did not hear the name.
LORD VANSITTART: I said that I would not mention names. If the noble Lord wishes I will give him any reference he likes afterwards. I said that I was not out to pillory anybody. Because very great harm has been done on the other side I feel obliged to mention these things because they are profoundly unjust and because the noble Duke joined in
180
criticising the monumental patience with which the American leaders have carried on these nine pregnant months of negotiation at Panmunjong. I do not think one can be more patient than that. As this sort of thing has been going on for eighteen months I wonder how it is that people come to think they can insult friends without grave consequences. They have given their own answer of course. They say: "Americans like to be told the truth roughly." Now that is sheer insular naivety. There is no one who likes to be told the truth roughly—there are very few who can bear it gently. We are a free country, and so are the United States, and I hope that we shall not fail in that freedom, and also in courtesy, in criticising each other. I do beg most earnestly that the more malevolent forms of misrepresentation like that may be avoided, because they may carry you whither you would not.
My childhood lies far back in the past century when people used to bind their own volumes of Punch. I can remember as a boy coming across a copy a good deal older than I was, in which one man said to another: "It appears the Americans have taken umbrage," and the other replied, "The deuce they have. Whereabouts is that?" The knowledge of some of the critics is just about equal to that of the Victorian questioner. But the Americans have taken umbrage, and we must realise that. Here, for once, I fear that I must make a slight departure from my rule of not mentioning names—I could not make out my case without doing so. There has been a great volume of criticism in the United States of the more persistently American-phobe of our Press here, to which I have alluded before in the House. It has been going on for a long while. One of those organs is
described by a leading and respectable American organ as being
"the most maliciously and obsessively anti-American organ in the world to-day."
The American paper goes on,
"If we go down"—
and I hope your Lordships will notice those words, because it is in those terms that some Americans are thinking: in defence not offence—
"the fault will lie largely with the people who have thus disseminated these libels and slanders about American imperialism and warmongering."

181
I think that should be realised. The article adds further that to tug at the pillars of one's own temple is "the liberalism of suicide"—and I think that phrase is just. As I have been criticising the Press of the Left I should add in fairness that many Americans have also taken considerable offence at the platform given to Mr. Pritt by The Times for disseminating these stupid falsehoods about American germ warfare, more especially as none of these vermilion donkeys seems even to know that cholera is water-borne and not a fly-borne disease. However, let that pass.
Now let us come to a little bit of the truth. The Americans, in the only serious effort at collective security, have provided 90 per cent. of the man-power required. Their expenses for their army alone—I am not talking of every department—in Korea now amount to some 9,000,000,000 dollars. They have also had over 100,000 casualties, and have lamented every one of them. In the First World War there was what is called in show business a "smash hit." It was a song called "I didn't raise my son to be a soldier." There are many people who still feel like that. Of course, there are wild talkers there, but so there are here. No sensible American wants to extend the war unless the Communists insist. For every one who wishes an extension of obligations there are 10,000 who do not—and, indeed, there are many who would like to reduce them, and especially in Europe. I think Senator Taft is one and that is why I dread his success, which might have a vital effect or our destiny. Our clumsy novices play their part in creating isolationists by talk which allows them to misrepresent us by calling us broken reeds and ingrates.
There is one other point I wish to mention. In the event of a Republican victory—it would not matter whether by Taft or Eisenhower—we might find that by the operation of the rule of seniority the Congressional committees might come under the chairmanship of men whose record speaks for itself but not for international co-operation. In particular we might find that there was an isolationist in the chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs. Again I decline to mention any names; it is much more tactful that I should not. But the warning should be borne in mind. The late Government did their best to keep in
182
step, and they were wise and statesmanlike to give that undertaking about the extension of the war if it became unavoidable. But the storm raised here from the ranks of unwisdom almost undid the good effect produced by that statesmanlike course. Secondly, the Americans are right in their attitude about Formosa. It is a key point, and it would be folly to hand it over to the Communists or to let them acquire it.
I might have stopped at this point, but the noble Duke said a good deal about Formosa with which I could not possibly agree, and I am afraid I must go on for a few minutes more. In the first place, it is rather dangerous to talk about these matters unless one knows something about them. A number of slender reports have come out of Formosa in the last year or two, but there is one now which has appeared and there is no excuse for not reading it. It is called Report from Formosa, by Mr. Maclear Bate. It is a valuable book, clear, concise, and factual. It should be obligatory reading for those who wish to hold forth on these subjects. Having said that, I would go a little further back. Time was when Chiang Kai-shek was acclaimed as "Our Brave Ally"—O.B.A. for short. We behaved badly to him in closing the Burma Road and worse still at Yalta. But we promoted O.B.A. to G.C.B., one of our highest distinctions, the citation being "For outstanding services in the Allied cause." He came over with his wife and was acclaimed by both Houses and in the Press; and there were many banquets and receptions. I took no part myself in these events, but I remember them distinctly. It is no use pretending that we did not behave like that, because we did.
Well, my Lords, he lost—and what a crime it is to lose! From that time the situation changed. When he was winning he was O.B.A., but, having lost, he was identified with infamy. One leading anti-American described him as having been "vomited" from China—rather strong language and not very delicate. Even Mr. Attlee, in a recent broadcast, spoke of the "corrupt and reactionary forces of Chiang Kai-shek." That requires a little clarification. I have known in my time a good deal of corruption in many countries with which we have always determinedly and wisely associated

183
ourselves in the defence of the West. Here, again, I will tactfully not particularise. In fact, in many countries there is very little else but corruption. There is Peron's Argentina—which happens to be in occupation of British territory, which is more than Chiang is. There has never been anything but corruption in Persia—but we and the Americans pursue Mossadeq with many offers which I hope we and they will not be tempted hurriedly to renew. There has never been anything like the corruption of the Wafd, and yet we have been going after them with the idea of associating Egypt in the defence of the Middle East. I do not quite understand myself this pharaonic distinction between the chief butler and the chief baker. I cannot follow it at all on any ethical basis.
Now for the word "reactionary." "Reactionary," again, is a curious word. Surely the name of Borodin conveys something to your Lordships' minds. He was the leader of a Communist delegation sent to help to frame and execute the principles of the Kuo-Min-Tang. He was invited by Sun Yat Sen. Another name that must convey something to your Lordships is that of Eugene Chen. He was born in Trinidad and was educated here, and many said he was a progressive person. Again, look at the sequel. The Communists permitted such atrocities that Chiang threw the Russians out, closed the Russian Consulates and executed the more prominent Communist sadists; and everyone said: "What a resolute man." These are things of the past, but they ought to be remembered before people talk about "vomiting" and the rest of it. It may be that the noble Duke, who described Chiang as "corrupt and reactionary," thinks that Marxism is reactionary. In that case he would be at one with Nehru. But what most people mean is that he lost. Noble Lords on the Left also have lost, so they would be reactionaries, anyhow for some years, according to this reasoning.
But they do not go nearly so far as some of the extremists, because they want to disarm the poor man too. If you look at a map, you will find that Formosa lies parallel to the coast of South China for quite a long way. Chiang has only about 500,000 men, of whom about 300,000 are battle-worthy, and about a million Communist troops are immobilised to
184
watch him on the coast. If you disarm him, you are therefore going to liberate something like 1,000,000 men for use in Korea or Indo-China. That is not very intelligent. Moreover, any action of that sort would precipitate a colossal massacre which might not stop short of seven figures. Nobody here would wish any such solution as that but, if anybody did, I should be compelled to say that it was a very sad modern version of an old theme which has brought this country into infinite danger and damage so often. It is a verse composed by a member of your Party. It is this:
"In self-imposed Gethsemanes
To this our creed ascends:
That we should love our enemies
And hate our friends."—
especially ex-O.B.A's. I wonder which ex-O.B.A. occasions the most disquiet to the noble Lord who brought forward this Motion to-day: the victorious Georgian or the defeated Chinese?
I am the last person who wants any further entanglements in the Far East, because I take a much graver view than does anybody else on either side of the House, not only of the possibility but of the probability of a Soviet attack on Western Europe. Therefore, of course, I want every available man in Europe. Suppose, then, that the Communists insist on another diversion. Suppose they were to invade Indo-China. It is in their power to do so; they have enough men in the vicinity, and the roads have been built. Indo-China is the key to Asia. If you lose it you lose also Siam, Burma, Malaya and India. If you lose that, you lose Asia, and if you lose Asia, you lose Europe; and so you have to defend Indo-China. But who is going to do it? The French have not the men to spare; neither have we. Already this Island is most dangerously denuded. The Americans cannot do it. They have nothing to spare, least of all in the year of a Presidential Election. It is quite useless also to think that you would be able to check anything of that kind by the use of air and sea power. You could not. You would have to have more manpower.
It is just as well sometimes to ask ourselves: "Where, in the utmost emergency (which we all hope will be averted) will it come from? Who is to provide it?" It is well sometimes to think of those things and not to be too rude.

185
Above all, do not let us assail each other, without real cause, in a desperate struggle on vital issues. Let us say to ourselves sometimes as that American newspaper said: "If we go down." In the First World War, a friend of mine was on a ship with a large contingent of coolies. The ship was torpedoed. There was plenty of time for everybody to get away. The ship sank slowly, but the coolies would not believe that so big a ship could go down. When it was attempted to remove them, they got out their knives, and the last thing that my friend saw as he pulled away was the ship at an angle of forty-five degrees going down by the bow, and high up on the stern were the coolies knifing each other for the fittings. It might be well to think of that sometimes, too.
6.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, one of the great values of such a debate as your Lordships are having this afternoon is the opportunity that it gives to members of your Lordships' House to speak to us on certain parts of the problem that the whole debate covers, with knowledge that it is particularly their own. That is as true of my noble friend who has just sat down as of anybody. Whether or not we wholly agree with everything that he has said, he has again delighted us with a speech that I suppose nobody but he in your Lordships' House could make. The other great value of such a debate as this is the opportunity that it gives to your Lordships to review what I may call the general diagnosis of the situation that we are all of us constantly attempting to make. In that task we have been assisted this afternoon by an admirable survey by my noble friend, Lord Reading, who speaks for the Foreign Office. We look forward in a moment or two to hearing the noble Marquess who leads the House.
If I intervene for a few moments, it is to make such attempt as I can to contribute in perfectly general terms to that general diagnosis which it is the object of such a debate as this to forward. As I see it, the broad purpose of any foreign policy, whether conducted by noble Lords who sit on this side of the House or by noble Lords who sit on the other side of the House, remains. That purpose is to strengthen the international order through
186
the United Nations and by every other means, and to secure such an adjustment of national interests as may promise general acceptance of stability and therefore of peace and good order.
It is not necessary to emphasise how very much more difficult has become the task of achieving that purpose, which it is so easy to state. Half a century ago, I think it is fairly true to say that all nations shared a common background of principle. They did not always live up to it, but the broad distinction between right and wrong in international behaviour was fairly common ground and generally acknowledged. Moreover, nations talked very much the same language, in that broadly they wanted the same sort of world in which to live; and as part of that world Treaties were generally regarded as important and as things to be observed. We are all painfully aware how far the wheel has moved, making the general acceptance of those primary conditions of international conduct no longer true. So while to-day the United Nations makes praiseworthy attempts to make articulate and effective the collective conscience of those who seek peace, that does not and ought not to conceal from any of us the sharp fashion in which we have moved away from an era of conventional and, on the whole, fairly respectable diplomacy, into finding ourselves plunged into a perfectly naked and unabashed system of power politics.
There is the same sort of difference between the present sluts of affairs and what may have been true fifty years ago as—translated into ordinary, individual life—would exist between a conventional visitor to a private house, who feels himself embarrassed by the frown of his hostess or the frowns of his is fellow guests, and a bully who forces himself into some social occasion and does not care anything for frowns unless they are backed up by physical violence. That is the essential difference, over a period of years, between the two methods of procedure. That is the fundamental reason why those who want peace and who want orderly living have no option but to make their principal argument for peace the driving into the minds of those whose purposes are not so sure, the conviction that war for them would be unprofitable business. And that means rearmament,

187
although everybody, no doubt, would agree with the right reverend Prelate that rearmament by itself can never be enough.
There are several other factors that make the successful pursuit of a reasonable foreign policy to-day more difficult. Never before, I suppose, has the reconciliation of the conflicting elements in the problem been so difficult. How hard it must be for those on whom final responsibility rests to decide exactly where the line ought to be drawn between the claims of rearmament and the limits of economic capacity! The noble Lord, Lord Layton, referred to the national sentiments of old enemies, and how great a part that had to play in all that we are trying to do in Europe. Every one of us knows how powerful must be the instinct of national sovereignties in conflict with the necessities of what ought to be and is desired to be done in Europe. There is the growing conviction of world unity—growing, as everybody perceives, with the shrinkage of the world. But this greater unity of the world itself has to face the fact that, as things are, the world appears to be irreconcilably divided.
In spite of all that, I was very glad to-day, having much less knowledge, to accept from my noble friend Lord Reading his view that, looking back over the last year or two, we can reasonably chalk up on the credit side of the account a considerable measure of achievement. I am not sure whether he mentioned this fact or not, but I am sure it was in his mind: in my belief we seem to have learned one very great thing, perhaps the greatest thing of all—namely, that the front on which this struggle is proceeding, from Korea to Berlin, through Indo-China, Malaya and the Middle East, is one front, and every part of it affects every other part. That is a great gain. Most competent observers, I think, will endorse—I am not sure that my noble friend who spoke last would share this view, but I think others would—the sentiment that the Foreign Secretary expressed a few nights ago, when he said that in his judgment war was less likely now than it was two years or even one year ago. Certainly there have been plenty of opportunities for war, if anybody had wanted it. I can well suppose that those responsible have had many anxious
188
moments in the last few weeks or months. I conclude that very definite progress has been made both with the North Atlantic Treaty side and the European defence side, in harmonising and marrying their mutual relations to one another. Then, there are surely signs that responsible people in the Middle East are learning the danger of unleashing forces that they can only very uncertainly control. In Korea, whatever may be the underlying purpose inspiring Communist thought in all this armistice business, I think there has been substantial achievement in making it plain that the United Nations are not going to pull out of Korea before they have satisfied themselves that the lesson that aggression is unprofitable has been thoroughly learned.
On all that basis of opinion and of fact, we can with reasonable assurance plot our course. I think that everything that has happened, and is happening, goes to show that we have not been at fault so far in reading the signs of the times, and that our course has been well chosen. We shall not look for quick results. I anticipate that infinite patience is likely to be a large element in the wisdom that we have to try to exercise. We must not allow emotion and imagination, which are very good servants but bad masters, to usurp the place of reason. I venture to say that, because, to my simple mind, no other explanation is possible of the kind of contribution that the noble Duke made to us this afternoon, or the contribution that is, from time to time, made by a section of the supporters of noble Lords opposite—a section very articulate but not, I hope, substantially large. The noble Duke spoke of the "American Alliance." It may be a matter of words, but I am not aware that we have an alliance with America. The United States and ourselves, and many other people, are loyal members of the United Nations, serving a common purpose and cause. I venture to think that the noble Duke is echoing statements that found expression a few weeks ago in another place, and also, if he was correctly reported, in remarks made by Mr. Bevan not very long ago, when he informed the world that in his judgment America's economic policies were doing to Europe more harm than Stalin could ever do.
My Lords, I am bound to say that I do not distinguish greatly between the

189
noble Duke and the others in this regard: the gravamen of attacks of that sort is that we are being pushed into new commitments in the Far East by war mania in the United States—attacks which my noble friend who spoke before me so rightly and so conclusively analysed and condemned. All that is being said in the face of the most explicit assurances of the Prime Minister and the President of the United States and of every impartial, informed appraisor of United States opinion that I have ever been able to meet—and I was very impressed with what my noble friend told us of the observation of his Hindoo friend, who surely was not likely to be an unduly indulgent critic. I permit myself only two or three further observations in that field. The first is that if we are ever to see the breakdown of the general solidarity of the foreign policy that has been one of the best legacies of the war in this country, whichever Party has been in office, then the ordinary citizen is entitled to ask that such a breakdown should be on the basis of some genuine and distinct difference of opinion, and not merely the result of some prejudiced and invincible suspicion in ill-informed minds. The next thing I should like to say is this. It is one of the strangest pieces of irony that people who profess to be, above all things, anxious to keep this country out of a major war, should do the very thing—by trying to weaken and divide the forces of the United Nations and to drive a wedge between the solid buttresses of the United Nations—to make that war more likely.
The third thing I want to say is this. I think that those who have made a study over the last years of United States policy in the Far East, and of our own, will be more surprised at the almost complete harmony that prevails to-day between the United States and ourselves than at the fact that minor differences still exist as to the best method of achieving common ends. When the history of these days comes to be written, it will surely record as a very strange spectacle indeed the attempts that have been made over many months, both in the United States and here, to tell those who may in certain circumstances be our potential enemies what we should do and what we should not do in a wide range of perfectly hypothetical circumstances. It is certainly a
190
very novel way of preparing for such trouble, and I think it is something which, if the common sense of our people were able fully to be informed about it, they would most unhesitatingly reject. I conclude, therefore, by saying this. I do not believe that the right way through our troubles is to cast suspicion on, and to impugn the motives of, our leaders, on whatever side of the House they may sit here, or the leaders of friendly nations with whom we are working elsewhere. We are more likely to survive our present dangers, and we shall be more wise, if we follow the general counsels of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who said in a recent speech that his purpose was to proceed with the building up of our strength, and to make it plain that at all points and at all times we were building up that strength for the purposes of peace and of order, and to take care at every point to preserve the closest possible unity between ourselves and other nations who were like-minded.
6.55 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl has held our attention as closely as he always does, and I can render him no more signal compliment than that. His speech will be studied far and wide. He will forgive me if I do not follow him along the line which he has taken this evening, except to say that I understood him to make no criticism of the policy of my own Party, There is nothing, therefore, in his speech which requires any kind of controversial reply. But I personally shall read and re-read the noble Earl's speech, if only because it will afford some very good material for a number of most interesting lectures. If I do discharge those lectures in a famous university without acknowledgement, I hope that the noble Earl will be kind enough to forgive me.
The subject with which I should like to deal—and not at any great length—is that of Germany. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has already expressed (and it seemed to me that he did so with very great effect) the official attitude of the Labour Party. No doubt, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will amplify that with supreme authority when he winds up for the Opposition. I would speak rather in a personal sense, as one who for a number of years has

191
been very closely connected with this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was kind enough to suggest, in a good humoured way, that I was perhaps the only person in the House who was happy about German rearmament. I am not happy about German rearmament. I am not happy about British rearmament. But I am least of all happy about Russian rearmament. I am sure that is the reason why all these other rearmaments are—as, in my view, they are—so necessary.
I take three aspects of the German question today—I will handle them all very briefly; indeed, I will only just mention the first, which is the approach to Western Germany, the right approach of what I still call the Western Allies to Western Germany. That seems to me to present a relatively simple problem. Then there is the achievement of German unity which, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester and other noble Lords, is a difficult problem. Next there is the question of Germany's eastern frontiers, which I agree with Lord Silkin is a very difficult problem indeed. But I will say practically nothing about that last problem this evening. I certainly shall not attempt to make any kind of reply to the arguments deployed with such skill by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on behalf of what might be termed the Polish point of view. I would say only this—and here I think he will agree with me completely, because he said it himself in another way—that no sane person in Britain or Germany, or anywhere else, would wish to risk a war in this connection. If any change is to be effected it must be by peaceful means and friendly discussions. As I say, I agree entirely with Lord Silkin on that point. I am bound to add—I do not think this statement can be disputed, though of course one can cast responsibility back—that the present frontier arrangements have caused, and are still causing, great suffering to millions of people, millions of refugees to whom the right reverend Prelate has rendered such signal service over a long period of years. But I end this part of my remarks by reaffirming what is said in the White Paper, and what was repeatedly said by our own Government when we were in power: that this issue
192
must clearly await the Peace Conference. I do not think I can add anything useful on that.
I come now to the subject of the approach to Western Germany. Clearly the right approach must be the Christian approach. That means a friendly approach. That, I would say, has always been true. It was true even during the period when it was our duty to control Germany, but whatever may have been the situation a few years ago, to-day, surely, this friendly approach can mean only an approach which normalises our relations with Germany. That means an approach which brings about complete equality of status between us and them. After all, there can be no second—class friend; least of all can there be a second-class Ally in a partnership which to-day—though I hope it will not always be so—is still threatened from without. If the Germans are to be treated as real equals that means that they must be allowed to rearm. I will say a word about that point later, but I should like at this point to reply very briefly to the right reverend Prelate by saying that his strongest objection, as I thought, to German rearmament seemed to me to be based in logic on the view that the Germans are not willing to rearm. That seemed to me the core of his argument; at any rate it constituted a large part of his argument. I will say something about that later. If the Germans wish to rearm, and we do not let them rearm when every other nation is armed, we cannot seriously say that we are treating them as equals. It would be complete humbug, if we denied them that essential right of a free nation.
That argument, which I submit is a moral argument, would apply even if the Soviet Union did not exist, or if the Soviet Union were immensely beneficial—and let us hope that one day that will come about. But to-day, in view of the threat from the East, the strategic arguments for German rearmament are overwhelming. In essence those arguments have already prevailed. German rearmament will assuredly come. I do not think anyone really doubts that in his heart, whether he likes it or not. The question is how fast and how far should it be integrated with Western rearmament; and, more important than all, in my view, by what mood in Germany is it to be accompanied? I have paid many

193
visits to Germany and it was always in my mind, as it was in the minds of the administrators, that Germany would become strong and free, whatever we did, whether we wanted to hold her down or lift her up, and that the essential task was to see that when that time did arise there was a purified mind and higher purpose in Germany.
I repeat, therefore, that German re-armament should flow, and must flow, from a policy of friendship with Germany. It should not be regarded as an expedient, as reluctantly making use of the Germans—which I believe to be the policy which offends the right reverend Prelate's moral sense so much. I should like to persuade him that, so far as we on this side have been concerned (and I am sure the same is true of noble Lords opposite), that is not the point of view adopted—namely that Germany is to be used for our own purposes and with complete neglect of her interests. But that does not mean (and this is something which, as an ardent friend of Germany, I think I have a right to say) that we in this country are not entitled to request that Germany should make her contribution to the common defence. That seems a reasonable request between friendly Powers, but it is a request which can be presented only when Germany has achieved equality or is on the high road towards that equality. Otherwise, it is a request which cannot be made with reasonable hope of success or with much moral backing behind it.
The problem of German rearmament may be taken as a symbol of the general approach to Germany. I do not think it would be so simple to-day if it were not for a single historic event which symbolises the whole attitude of a great nation. In view of the understandable suspicions among Germany's neighbours, German freedom of action to-day, including German rearmament, is accepted by most people in the West only on the understanding that Germany is to be part of an integrated action. If that prospect did not open itself up, I believe that there would undoubtedly be a great deal of heart-searching, for here is a difficulty which perhaps we have not always faced with absolute frankness in our discussions in this country. I am not sure that people are all quite clear in their minds about it.
194
When I say that German economy is to take its place within an integrated framework, we are inclined to take that expression as meaning no controls on Germany, except such as are imposed on other countries as well—controls all round. I believe that from the British point of view it would be extremely awkward if it were simply a question of Britain and Germany, because, for reasons well known in this House, I do not think that we in this country are ready to accept a very high measure of control over our activities by foreign countries or by any international grouping. Some would like to go further than our Government went, or this Government are going, but undoubtedly in the country there is a very marked reluctance, particularly in view of the overwhelming claims of the Commonwealth, to place ourselves under an international organisation to the extent to which we are expecting Germany to place herself under such an organisation. It seems to me, however, that this dilemma has been liquidated by the act of Mr. Schuman, representing our great Ally, France. To use the noble Earl's expression, when history comes to be written the offer of reconciliation between France and Germany will prove to have paved the way to a true European reconciliation. I am not saying anything to-day which has not been said by my noble friends or by the late Government. I hope the Government will find it possible to be associated as closely as possible with all that goes on in this connection, because our special position in this country is beginning to be widely appreciated abroad.
I come now to German unity. We all want German unity: I think that is common ground. May I risk delaying the House for a moment to suggest that there are five forms that German unity may take? First, there is German unity under four-Power control. Whatever its merits in the old days, that means subordination of Germany to four countries, and I do not think any of us takes that very seriously as a plan for the freedom of Germany in the future—so that can be regarded as obsolete and out. Then there is the idea of German unity as part of a truly united Europe. Without dragging him into this, as he has nobly abstained, I might say that perhaps this appeals to my noble friend Lord Stansgate. A Germany
within a completely United Europe.

195
not just Western Europe, but Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals—that is no doubt a Europe never to be lost sight of, and which we hope will be realised one day. But very few of us regard that as an immediate possibility. Then we may find a united Germany in association with Soviet Russia—a nightmare for all of us if it came to pass. We may find a united Germany midway between East and West, poised in some kind of independent or neutral position. And, finally, we may find a united Germany in association with the West. Obviously, that is the solution that we in the West prefer—a united Germany in association with ourselves.
Approaching my final point, may I emphasise that it is surely the Germans themselves who have the moral right to choose what form their unity is going to take? They have that moral right, and they will soon have the right in practice, to make that choice. The statement of my noble friend Lord Henderson is so extremely convincing from my own view that I need not amplify or improve on it. As regards the latest Russian offer, I will say only that it is obvious that the idea of the withdrawal of Allied troops from Germany is a bad business from the Western Allies' point of view. That is quite clear. The reply we have made, in agreement with the Germans, is perfectly all right, so far as it goes. It seems to me that we are absolutely right in pressing, as I think all noble Lords have argued, for complete freedom of speech and democratic rights within Eastern Germany. But the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised an interesting question as to what we would do if the Russians accepted. I am speaking for myself, but I think this endorses what my noble friend Lord Henderson said. If the Russians did accept, it would clearly be our duty and our pleasure to try and cooperate in bringing about this complete freedom inside Germany. But, in the last resort, this freedom of Germany could not be a question only of freedom of speech in Eastern Germany, or all Germany; it must mean freedom on the part of the Germans to choose their own foreign policy, whether in the first few months or a little later. So that, to repeat my point in slightly different form, in the last resort the Germans must make this choice: whether to be associated with
196
the West, or whether to run after other gods.
Here I should like to say a few words on the question of German rearmament. Surely, here again, in the last resort the Germans must be allowed to choose. I cannot speak for them. I cannot say whether they are going to choose to be rearmed as part of the European community, although I believe they are. I believe the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in his admirable survey, gave us information—which some noble Lords possessed before, but which others perhaps did not—all of which pointed to the extreme probability that they would, in fact, desire to rearm within a European framework. I appeal to those of very deep liberal sentiments who are not happy about this, and ask them whether, when they are ready to extend freedom of action to other countries all over the world, the Germans are to be the one country to be denied what is always understood to be an essential hallmark of freedom. I do not say that what we have to do is to go running after the Germans, or that every time we have an argument with them they are in the right—that would be absurd and unworthy. I would say only that our policy towards Germany—and, on the whole, it has been a national policy—with all its faults, has been sustained by an idea; by a moral purpose that has sometimes appeared to waver, but which has always persisted. I say that to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, who criticised that policy, and who knows some thoughts I may have had myself at different times.
But that policy will reach its culmination and its true justification only if in the near future we prove to the Germans what they should know already and what I think they are inclined to recognise already: that our ways of life are on a higher plane than those of the Russians; so that they make the choice which we ourselves prefer and which we believe to be best not only in our interests but in theirs, and in the interests of Europe and the world. Perhaps I may add this final reflection. It is only about fifty years ago—certainly not more than fifty-two years ago—since we were closer to Germany than to any other great European country. But if you take the history of Anglo-German relations since 1905 (and the House will forgive me for choosing that date, because I was born

197
towards the end of that year) you will find that for the first nine years we were members of a rival Alliance. Then for four years, from 1914 to 1918, we were fighting them. From 1918 to 1929 we were occupying them. From 1929 to 1933 we were wrangling with them over the liquidation of the last war—reparations and disarmament. And all the time unemployment was mounting and savage unhappiness was carrying Germany into appalling chaos.
Then for twelve years there was Hitler. One need not say much about that, except that for six years we were, very rightly, fighting them again. Since 1945, for seven years we have been occupying them and controlling them in some greater or lesser measure. It does not surprise me that after all that there is little good will between our two countries. What does surprise me is that there is such a great volume of good will—and there is a great volume of good will. I look forward to the time when we pass to a relationship of normality, friendship and peace in the true sense of the word. It will not be an exclusive relationship. It is no use seeking some sort of bilateral relationship; it must be a relationship of good will, equality and Christianity between ourselves and Germany, and a similar relationship between all the countries of the world—as close and intimate as all of us in this House would desire.
7.17 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will forgive me if I do not follow him into the sphere of Germany, though I would say that I do not think there is anyone in the House who has not been impressed and moved by the sincerity with which he has spoken. I intend to intervene for only a few moments this evening, for I know there are many other speakers who still wish to address your Lordships: indeed, I have only come into this debate at this time to speak on two specific questions. I had originally intended, as your Lordships know, to speak earlier in the debate and to range over the whole field. But I now lead a double life, as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Leader of the House, and to-day this debate has coincided with a memorial meeting to that great Empire Statesman, Mr. Senanayake. For that reason I was unable to be here to speak earlier. How-
198
ever, I have no regrets because, as your Lordships know, we are fortunate to have in this House at the present time as representative of the Foreign Office the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who has already won such golden opinions in his office and in the House, and I am quite certain that he has given your Lordships a very full and authoritative account of recent events.
There are three matters with which I propose to deal, But, first of all, I should like to take this opportunity, since it is the first Foreign Affairs debate we have had since his death, to pay a sincere tribute to the noble Earl, the late Lord Perth, who for so many years played a distinguished part in our discussions, We shall sorely miss the noble Earl's contributions to our debates. I do not say that all of us always agreed with him—that is inevitable. But his speeches, as I heard them, always seemed to me to be inspired by a very peculiar spirit of moderation and broad humanity which gave them a character of their own. Also, a course, the noble Earl had a lifelong experience of the subjects of which he spoke, which enhanced greatly the value of what he had to tell us. The noble Earl had the respect and admiration of us all. We shall remember him not only as an eminent servant of the State, but as a very great gentleman, in the widest sense of the word.
Now I should like to come to the first real question on which I wish to speak—it has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in his opening remarks. I refer to the suggestion which has been made both by the Chinese and by the Russian Government, that the military authorities of the United Nations have made use of bacteriological warfare in Korea. My Lords, this suggestion may seem so fantastic and so remote from probability that it is not worth answering; but it is perfectly true (I believe somebody has already said it this afternoon; I rather think it was Lord Silkin) that if a story is told often enough without contradiction there is always a risk that, sooner or later, somebody will believe it, however unlikely it may be. That indeed is a favourite method of Communist propaganda. It is a method with which we are all now extremely familiar, and therefore I feel that Her Majesty's Government should state here and now, without any equivocation at all,

199
that there is not one single word of truth at all in this story.
What is now possible, in a theatre of war like Korea, is that, behind the Communist line, where medical facilities are probably of a fairly elementary kind, epidemic has broken out. Further, it is possible that, in order to explain any untoward development of this kind, the Communist authorities have attempted to unload the blame on their enemies. The authorities on the spot may even believe this, because I am afraid that many of them are ignorant and profoundly suspicious. Then the main Communist propaganda machine in Pekin and Moscow has taken up this point quite cynically as part of its ordinary line of propaganda. The whole machinery of what has been euphemistically named "The World Peace Movement" has been put to work to boost this story. It has been helped by Communist agencies of every kind: the World Federation of Trade Unions, the World Peace Council, the Women's International Democratic Federation, the World Federation of Democratic Youth, the International Union of Students—bodies with blameless, respectable names but, I regret to say, Communist agencies just the same. A rather obscure body called "The International Association of Democratic Lawyers" has been put out to conduct what has been described as a fact-finding inquiry.
What the Chinese and Russian Governments have entirely refused to allow throughout the whole of this episode is the holding of any really impartial investigation of the charges. The International Committee of the Red Cross, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I think said this afternoon, telegraphed to the Chinese and North Korean Foreign Ministers offering to conduct an inquiry into these allegations. An investigation by this great international body, whose reputation for standing above politics has never, so far as I know, been seriously disputed, would soon have put the facts beyond all possible doubt. But the offer was curtly rejected on the, to my mind, utterly absurd ground that the International Committee of the Red Cross was in fact a Swiss national body which had assumed an international name, and therefore could not be expected to act without bias.
200
Then there was an offer by the World Health Organisation, also, as your Lordships know, an institution of the greatest fame and reputation. They suggested that they should give assistance to victims of plague in North Korea, but their offer was similarly turned down. That is, I think, the best proof of the complete falsity of these charges. The Communists simply cannot afford to agree to an unprejudiced inquiry on the spot. The bacteriological propaganda campaign is evidently just one more measure of ordinary Communist propaganda. It is just another effort to divide and weaken the free world. It will, of course, fail, as these other attempts have failed in the past; but I am bound to say it is none the less deplorable and disgraceful.
My Lords, there is one other question about which I should like to speak to you, and that is the one which was raised in the speech made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, who touched on the question of relations between this country and the United States. I am only sorry that the noble Duke is not here, but I had no idea that he would be leaving the debate. I feel that the speech which he delivered to your Lordships to-night cannot go without some comment from the Leader of the House. There have possibly been many times in past history, from the War of American Independence onwards, when pretty bitter attacks have been made in this country (and indeed in this House) on the American Government and the American people—though, looking back, most of us would probably agree that even then those attacks were unjustified. I am afraid that I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in what he said about the noble Duke's speech to-day. Indeed, I felt (and I am sure other noble Lords did, too) strained and sad to hear such things now, when the bitterness of those far-off days should have given way to a spirit of comradeship and good will which, to my mind, presents the greatest hope for the peace of the world.
I must say that I was amazed at the general tempo of the noble Duke's remarks this afternoon. If I may say so, they were so complacent; they were so wrong-headed and, to my mind, so utterly defeatist. There was something which, said by a man of his position and responsibility, I really found shocking. I

201
did not take down his words, and he will correct me if I have mis-stated him, but he said that American diplomacy regarded war as a panacea for all problems. I really do not know where he got that from. He produced no evidence at all of statements of members of the Administration there which would have given the slightest colour to this extraordinary conclusion. Moreover, my Lords, though he made it clear that we ought not to allow our policy to be dictated by the United States—and I think we shall all agree with him in that—he had no hesitation in telling the American Government and the American people exactly what their policy should be. He propounded, to my mind, a very strained view, that it is foolish and even evil to negotiate from strength. I do not know whether the noble Duke would subscribe to a corollary that it is always wise to negotiate from weakness. I really cannot believe that he would support such a view as that.
Of course, I would entirely agree with him, and with what I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also said, that no one likes or approves of armament races for their own sake as an end in themselves. But surely, if the Western Powers are rearming now, it is not as an end in itself it is to put themselves in a position where a true balance of power exists, when it is to no one's interest to go to war. If only we can achieve that position we may hope, and hope with some confidence, that negotiations will fruitfully begin—but not until then. As I understood it, that was the broad line of the argument which the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, delivered to us in his speech this afternoon.
LORD SILKIN: Would not the noble Marquess agree that there is a difference between negotiating from strength and negotiating from equality after each side is strong enough to maintain his position? That, I understand, is really the point at issue. Negotiation from strength by either side implies a certain amount of dictation. What we wanted to achieve, I thought, was that there should be equality of negotiation between the parties.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should not dissent very far from that, for that is what I meant by a true balance of
202
power. But the difficulty is that when we started our rearmament programme two years ago under the late Government, there was not such a balance. The balance had swung down too far the other way, and now we are desperately trying to recreate it. I should entirely agree that if two great Powers are each trying all the time to be stronger than the other, then there is never the basis for negotiation. It is a question of timing. But that, unhappily, does not appear to be the view which the noble Duke put to us this afternoon. He, as I understand it, is against rearmament altogether, and, for that reason among others, he rejects any community of policy with the United States. All this indicates a frame of mind which I, persorally, find entirely beyond my comprehension. Even as far back as 1859, men of vision like Disraeli showed a comprehension of these vital facts which was far beyond that which was exhibited, if I may say so, by the noble Duke this afternoon, The other day I came across some prophetic words which he spoke at Aylesbury in 1859, and I should like to quote them to the House, because they seem to be peculiarly appropriate to our debate. He said this:
"England's geographic position, her laws, her language and religion, connect her as much with the New World as the Old. And although she has occupied not only an eminent, but, I am bold to say, the most eminent, position among European nations, for ages; still, if ever Europe by her shortsightedness falls into an inferior and exhausted state, for England them will remain art illustrious future. We are bound to the Communities of the New World, and those Great States which our own planting and Colonising energies have created, by ties and interests which will sustain our power and enable us to play as great a part in the times yet to come as we do in these days, and as we have done in the past."
I think that a very remarkable expression of view a hundred years ago, and I commend those wise words to the noble Duke. One would have thought that there was no one to-day in any Party who would, not subscribe to them almost in their entirety. One would have thought that anyone and everyone would realise that in the First World War and in the Second. World War, and in the difficult years which have come on us since the Second World War, it was the United States—which was once a British colony and is now the most powerful nation in the world—who had, by her generous helping hand, assisted not only us, but also that

203
exhausted Europe of which Mr. Disraeli spoke a hundred years ago, and had so enabled free institutions to survive in those old countries from which her main population is drawn. Without the help of the United States, free Europe would have been overrun by Hitler. Without it, it would to-day, in my view, be being overrun by Soviet Russia. It is a melancholy commentary on the vagaries of human thought that anyone in this House should have deemed it fit at this moment to put down a Motion the only effect of which can be to impair the close relationship upon which peace and, indeed, our very survival must depend.
We in this House know the noble Duke and we recognise and respect his independence of view, even if we do not share those views. But I would beg him and others who feel inclined to speak in a similar way, to remember that words spoken here go far beyond the confines of this House. I should be the last to say to your Lordships that we should always agree with everything that the United States does. She herself, I am sure, would not expect us to do that. As the Foreign Secretary rightly pointed out in his broadcast on Saturday, even when she was lending us and the other European nations after the war the vast sums which alone enabled us to tackle the terrible problems which war had left, she never sought to impose her policy on us and she never attempted to interfere with our freedom of judgment, either in our internal or in external affairs.
The noble Duke attacked the United States policy in China. I would remind him and the House that when we, rightly or wrongly, recognised the Communist Government of China—a course to which the United States themselves were strongly opposed—they never withdrew or even limited the great sums of money which they were at that time lending us. In such circumstances, how foolish and how wrong it is to turn on so faithful a friend! By all means, let us take a line of our own—that is the right of every free and independent nation. But let us never forget, at this time when freedom is so sorely threatened, the basis on which that freedom stands. First, as I see it, there is the maintenance of the British Commonwealth and Empire. That, for us all, comes before everything else. But, closely interwoven with it, there must
204
be an ever-widening community of interest between that Commonwealth and the United States. That must be the foundation of the policy of both the countries concerned. I deeply regret that the noble Duke has tabled this Motion to-day, and I hope most sincerely that this debate will show beyond any doubt that, though this may represent his own views—which he has a right to express—it does not represent the views of your Lordships in any part of this House.
7.33 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Marquess has rendered a great service, not for the first time, by reminding your Lordships that this House is a sounding board; and whereas we may understand each other's point of view perfectly well, what we say here about foreign Governments with whom Her Majesty is in friendly relations can do immense harm if we are intemperate and reckless in our charges. While I entirely agree with what the noble Marquess was good enough to say about the fallacy and stupidity of attacking the United States in the way in which it has been done to-day, he did not take it upon himself to rebuke the noble Lord. Lord Vansittart—who I am sorry to see has left the House. We are all glad to hear and all appreciate, enjoy and understand the eloquence of Lord Vansittart. But Lord Vansittart should not go out of his way to make an uncalled-for attack on the Argentine, with whom at the present time we are engaged in very delicate negotiations on which our Sunday joints will largely depend and who, apart from that, have long been a great market for British goods and British investment.
We have no real quarrel with the Argentine at all. Yet a noble Lord who has held a great position in the Civil Service of this country goes out of his way to abuse the Argentine and, for good measure, in spite of the improved relations with Egypt, proceeds to admonish the Wafd, the great popular Party in Egypt, for their alleged corruption. Just to make quite sure, in case we might hope to get some future arrangement with Persia, he further abuses Persia. Lord Salisbury makes a practice of attacking certain nations. After all, we are in full diplomatic relations with the Russian Government. We have a Treaty of Alliance with them. There are certain differences which, I

205
believe, will eventually be overcome, and his own colleague, the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Eden, has himself said that matters are looking better. Why, again and again, does the noble Marquess and his followers in this House—I am referring to the Leader of the House, and not the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, whose speech was extremely interesting and moderate—abuse the Governments with whom he happens to have some difference of opinion? I much preferred him when he used to abuse his own Government—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is the noble Lord attacking me for what I said about bacteriological warfare?
LORD STRABOLGI: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have not said much more about the Russian Government than I have said to-day. In any case, anything that I or the last Government have said about the Russian Government has been nothing compared with what has been said about us.
LORD STRABOLGI: Does the noble Marquess mean that we on these Benches have attacked our own Government in such harsh language? I was in the process of saying that I much preferred the noble Marquess when he sat on this side of the House and could not find hard enough things to say about his own Government. It is our privilege to abuse our own Government and I propose to abuse the present Government when they deserve it. I am at present abusing the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, and I think with good foundation. But, for goodness' sake, though we may use the hardest language we can about enemy Governments when we are at war, let us when we are at peace curb our language a little! I should have been glad if the noble Marquess had rebuked the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, for his gratuitous attack on the Argentine. Many of us in the course of our travels have heard the stories of corruption in Latin countries and elsewhere. We have heard about the Chinese mandarin who objected to be insulted by a bribe—who had to be grossly insulted. These public charges ought not to be made in his House against people with whom we have to live and
206
trade and with whom we are on friendly terms.
In this connection I should like particularly to draw attention to what I think is a very stupid and childish action on the part of Her Majesty's Government: I refer to the useless and puerile restrictions that have been put on the movements of certain foreign diplomats in this country. Here we are hoping for better relations and for the beginning of fruitful negotiations to relieve tension—and we put on restrictions such as this. We have unimpeachable sentiments in the speeches of the Foreign Secretary, the Leader of the House and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and yet we put these stupid, irritating restrictions on the movements in this kingdom of the diplomats of Russia and certain countries beyond the Iron Curtain; and I want to make the strongest possible protest against it.
We all know the apologia for this unprecedented action. It is that foreign diplomats in Moscow and. I believe, in Bucharest and in the capitals of one or two other countries beyond the Iron Curtain are restricted in their freedom of movement, in that they have to ask permission to go more than twenty-five miles from the capital. But that applies to all diplomats in those countries. I have made inquiries, and I am informed that in Moscow these restrictions apply to the Chinese Ambassador, the Polish Ambassador, the Czechoslovak Ambassador, and so forth. It applies indiscriminately. I think it is stupid and ill-bred on the part of the Governments of Hungary and Roumania to put those restrictions on diplomats. It is not only stupid but very vulgar and very ill-bred—and those are my chosen words. It is equally contemptible that we do the same; it is lowering ourselves to the same level.
What makes it worse is that we discriminate. We do not tell the American, French and Spanish Ambassadors that they are to travel only within twenty-five miles of London without notifying the Foreign Office. I see that the Spanish Ambassador was at the Grand National the other day. If this rule had applied to him, he could not have travelled there without asking the permission of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, or one of his officials. We put these restrictions on because the countries concerned have put similar restrictions on

207
our diplomats. That is unworthy of Her Majesty's Government and of the traditions of the Foreign Office: and the sooner these silly, useless and unnecessary restrictions are raised, the better in the interest of international amity and the peace of the world. These little things do very great harm. The Russians have been the most ridiculous sinners in this respect. One of the Russians' first blunders was refusing to send a contingent of the Red Army to take part in our Victory Parade in, I think, 1946. I have told Russian diplomats so. If they had sent a contingent, it would have been given a most wonderful and tremendous reception. But, in any case, why should the British Government follow suit and the Foreign Office lend itself to this useless and puerile practice?
I ventured to quote from the Foreign Minister just now. I may say that Mr. Eden carries the confidence of a great many people in this country who are not members of his own Party. What he says on foreign policy carries a good deal of weight. His language is always temperate—and I wish the noble Marquess the Leader of the House would follow his example. Mr. Eden has made some remarks on Germany recently which have been quoted already. But I wish to address myself for a moment to the remarkable and brilliant speech of my noble friend, Lord Pakenham, on this German question, and also to noble Lords who adorn the Government Front Bench. If we look impartially at this problem of Germany and of Russia, I think it becomes obvious that the Russians are desperately anxious to prevent at any rate Western Germany, and still more—as Lord Pakenham pointed out—the whole of Germany, coming into the orbit of the Western system. We have heard from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, about a return to the balance of power. I have always been in favour of the balance of power while the United Nations organisation is developing, and I think our ancestors were quite right in their belief in it. But the balance of power would, from the Russian point of view, be upset if Western Germany were integrated, armed and brigaded with the West: and they will go to very great lengths indeed to prevent that happening.
208
To prevent its happening they are prepared, apparently, to make great sacrifices. One of the sacrifices would be to evacuate Eastern Germany. If they agree—as I believe they will if the matter is handled properly—to free and secret elections in Germany, once those elections have taken place Eastern Germany is lost to Russia, just as Austria will be lost to Russia. The Communist Party in Eastern Germany is not strong enough to hold the country within the Russian orbit. But rather than have Germany allied with the West, the Russians want a neutral, free, independent, sovereign Germany allowed to have its arms, but neutrally aligned as between the East and West Camps. Those who want peace also want this: a neutralised Germany, armed only for home defence but not aligned with either the Eastern or the Western Camp. If she becomes a member of the United Nations—which, again, is her sovereign option—then she undertakes the mutual obligations of the United Nations.
LORD PAKENHAM: Even assuming that all the noble Lord says should come to pass—if all goes that way—how could you, either morally or in fact, prevent Germany two or three years hence from deciding to join the West or the East, whichever suits her?
LORD STRABOLGI: I am coming to that point. I agree with my noble friend. I think it is a sovereign right, and it is only a matter of time before Germany acquires these rights by herself. We all know that. We all know that we can obstruct the process and create a great deal of difficulty and danger while doing so. But eventually the right of Germany to decide on her own foreign policy—that is what it comes to—must be granted. My noble friend argued most brilliantly and far more cogently than I can along those very lines. He said that we cannot have second-class allies and second-class friends. If we admit Germany again into the concert of Europe, we must allow them the same rights as we should to other members. As my noble friend clearly pointed out, there would be certain options open to them: to join the East, to join the West, to remain neutral or to remain divided. To take the longest view, in the general interests of world peace it is far better to have a united Germany with the sovereign attributes,

209
upon which both my noble friend and I are agreed, allied to neither group or camp. I do not warn Germany admitted on the condition that she joins us. This is sometimes used as an argument both here and on the other side of the Atlantic. It should not be a condition of her unity and her sovereignty that she automatically sides with the West. The balance of power is upset, and the balance of power—I believe that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who admires it used the term twice this afternoon—is what we have to achieve in this difficult period through which Europe is going and until the United Nations are fully functioning.
LORD PAKENHAM: This really will be the last interruption. Does the noble Lord leave it to the Germans to decide whether they remain neutral or join the East or West?
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes. It cannot be otherwise. We do not want an unwilling ally. There is already a great deal of opposition in Germany to rearmament. The noble Lord talks about the
Christian approach to Germany. I wish we could make a Christian approach to all our problems; but Pastor Niemoller, who certainly makes the Christian approach, is not, I think, in agreement with rearmament. We have to leave this to the German people themselves. An unwilling ally is no good to any one. If there is a facade of great military forces in Germany integrated into a European Army—call it what you like—a united Germany, with this military facade, willing or unwilling, will upset the balance of power again in Europe and will give rein to the hotheads and the warmongers who exist in far too great numbers in all countries, even in this country. Certainly as regards the United States of America there are hotheads there. I guard myself here by saying: "Thank goodness the hotheads in America are not in power!" But they are very noisy in the U.S.A. and carry a great deal of weight. You will give these people fresh means and temptation for an attempt at a dictated settlement which will only bring on a Third World War, to the ruin and damnation of us all.
I regret that I was called out of the House for part of the time, but no reference was made while I was present to a remarkable statement of the retiring
210
Indian Ambassador in Moscow. I quote from The Times of April 7, under date April 6, from Reuter. Mr. Radhakrishnan, the retiring Indian
Ambassador, was received by Mr. Stalin. He is apparently the first foreign Ambassador who has been received by the Prime Minister of Russia for more than two years. He was also received by Mr. Stalin in January, 1950, shortly after he arrived in Moscow. Therefore, he apparently holds the unique record of having seen more of Mr. Stalin than any other Ambassador has. This Indian Ambassador, I am certain, representing as he does the Congress Party in India, is not a Communist—I hope no charge of that sort will be made against him. He is a man of 72 years of age and, so far as I know, a very distinguished Indian statesman who is retiring in order to become the Vice-President of the Indian Congress. That is why he is retiring from the post of Indian Ambassador in Moscow. This is what he said after his interview:
"There is no outstanding problem now dividing the world that cannot he settled by discussion and negotiation. It would be unwise to bang the door against every approach and give up the task as impossible. No effort should be wasted, and every effort should be made to get the top people together."
I ventured to speak, with the approval, I know, of some of my noble friends, of the regard and confidence extended to the present Foreign Secretary, but I must say that I find a great disappointment in the attitude of the Prime Minister in the field of foreign affairs. In the last two General Elections Mr. Churchill has come out into the open and made a tremendous parade of his ideas that there should be a meeting of what we call the "Big Three," the heads of the three great Powers, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union. In 1950, out he came with this great proposal, that if he were returned to power he would at once take steps to bring about this meeting, and he felt that if they had talks at the top level there was no problem that could not be solved. He agrees with the retiring Indian Ambassador in Moscow. He did not win that Election.
Then, in 1951, at the last Election, we had the same thing. Out he came again with a proposal for a. meeting of the "Big Three"—and now what has he done about it? He has been in office for six months, with a fairly comfortable little majority in another place. I am

211
sure he is supported by a wonderful team of good men in his Ministry who will do anything he wants them to. Why has he not implemented the policy that he adumbrated at those two Elections? We have heard talk about Election pledges, but, believe me, this is a matter on which millions of people in this country not only feel very deeply but are most disturbed. They do not like this apparently irresistible drift towards the awful catastrophe of war. They are worried about it. Quite apart from Party questions, quite apart from political alignments, there are millions of people in this country who feel that not enough is being done to bring about a settlement of such great questions in the world as divide the great Powers. I only hope that the statement made in the very important speech by the Foreign Minister in Glasgow over the week-end, and reechoed by the noble Marquess who spoke for the Foreign Office earlier in the debate, shows the beginnings of a new trend of policy in this direction.
7.58 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. Then you will be able to hear a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Winster, whom the House always awaits with keen interest on Foreign Affairs. I have only three points to make. The first concerns the United Nations Organisation and the second the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and, thirdly, I have one or two observations to make on the words that fell from the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford.
I spent three months as an alternate delegate at the United Nations in Paris at their most recent Assembly, and on returning to this country I found that most of my fellow citizens, if not my fellow members of this House, were extremely vague about the present, let alone the future, of that great body. Just to give it some dimension, let me say that probably the oldest and the saddest delusion of all democracies is that if the nations of the world got round a table, they would automatically and instantaneously agree. It is very sad to reflect upon that old delusion. But the fact that they do not agree does not detract from the work of the organisation concerned, although many in reading their newspapers may be
212
tempted to throw away the page where they read of strong attacks on us by other Powers—perhaps not immediately represented in Korea, or not perhaps contributing a great deal to the funds of the Organisation—and abusive exchanges.
Let me put this simile, although it may be a somewhat recondite one. Every time a great new medical discovery is made—as when penicillin was discovered—it is immediately heralded as a new drug which is going to cure all the ills of mankind. There follows a period of stunning disillusionment when it is discovered that it makes some people better, does not affect a larger number, and makes a certain number of others definitely worse. Thus it is with the United Nations. We are just coming out of the period of disillusionment, and we are beginning to realise that while the United Nations can effect things for the good of the world that no previous organisation could do, yet it cannot effect a range of certain other things, while in a more limited range, as I have said in my simile, it may do a little more harm than good.
A short history of collective human disapproval would
make very depressing reading. Looking back over this century we have nearly always seen that the person who was disapproved of was strengthened in his regime. But the United Nations, with the moral power
of sixty constituent nations, in its collective disapproval shows that there is at least a stirring, if not more, of what may be called a world conscience. Its history has not been a long one. Its achievements may not have been very spectacular. But it has jumped many fences that might well have brought down an untried horse. If you test those apparently small achievements—small only beside the vast cosmic problems such as one finds in Korea—they add up to quite a lot. There is the Palestinian refugee problem, the setting up of the United Kingdom of Libya, and the settlement of Italian property in Eritrea. The more that body can get into the habit of agreement, even though on the smaller rather than the larger problems, the better chance there is of that habit becoming settled and the greater hope of getting, a chain reaction and then agreement upon agreement, until eventually we reach agreement on some of the things which

213
affect the world as a whole. If anybody is tempted, in spite of that, to complain of the pressure groups and the like, it is not the United Nations that he is criticising but the world as it is and the nations as they are.
My second point is a very brief one. Because the United Nations at this moment cannot hope to be entirely effective for the purpose of keeping world peace, we have recourse to what the United Nations Charter allows for—regional agreements. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, I believe, can be made one of the great democratic achievements of the twentieth century, as General Eisenhower has said he hopes it may be. It will be too brittle a thing if it remains a purely military Alliance, and I shall welcome its spreading its purview over more and more spheres. There is something which I think it is very important for us in Britain always to recollect. We have never been a great land Power, but we have always been a genius in alliance, and I believe that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation can show that our genius for alliance and leadership of ideas is still very great.
But in that Alliance we must have the right balance. I was one of those who took exception to the appointment of the American Admiral, as did many of my noble friends, not wishing the distinguished sailor the slightest disrespect, but because I thought we could not have a proper Alliance unless we got the right balance. We in the free countries of the world are faced with the Powers on the other side of the iron curtain. In a democracy, men rule by the consent of those they rule. We must always take the man in the street with us. In the case of N.A.T.O. and the United Nations, the man in the street from many countries has to come with us. But the Russians and their satellites—who are, of course, not a people but a regime—do not have to convince anybody; they can make their own decisions. Therefore, it is of the very first importance that, if N.A.T.O. is to become a powerful democratic community, the man in the street must be behind it. He cannot possibly be behind it if he cannot comprehend its exact nature. For many centuries successive Governments have endeavoured to teach the people of this country something of the realities in
214
regard to something with which we are much more closely connected—namely, the British Empire and Commonwealth. It has been a very slow process, and we cannot say that any Government have been very successful. But if we are slow in teaching our fellow citizens the great importance of this Alliance, we can, I think, all agree that those who try to disrupt the Alliance are doing the greatest disservice to this country.
My Lords, in a few moments I shall bring my remarks to an end, as I know there are many other noble Lords who wish to speak. But I should like to say this in winding up. We can, I am perfectly convinced, have in the latter part of the twentieth century that "Peace in our time" which was denied to us in the first part. But it is not a supine state; it is something that has to be maintained by continuous labour and by the hearing of heavy burdens; and the further you carry burden; the greater the temptation is to lay them down. All democracies, by their nature, are tempted as time goes on to do what we all do in our heart of hearts—lean towards comfort rather than security. Anyone who preaches the comforting doctrine that we are not really bound to hear these burdens, and that we are not really in any danger, is doing this country a monstrous disservice. I quote from the Economist of March 22. Speaking of Mr. Bevan's announcement in the foreign affairs debate in another place, the paper says that he has
"constantly resorted to a line of argument which is as seductive to uncritical minds as it is dangerous to the safety of the free world. It is the thesis that rearmament is not really necessary for resistance to Communism, because Communism is simply a product of poverty; therefore the only way to resist it is by promoting a higher standard of living everywhere."
To use that argument is as grossly material as anything that Marx ever wrote, Lenin ever preached, or Stalin ever practised.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, has to-day, I think, run the full gamut of all those who think they can: persuade themselves that danger does not exist. He said that there was no proof positive that Russia wanted war. Russia does not want war; Russia wants the world, and only war if she has to resort to it. How much more com-

215
forting were these people in the thirties who said that Hitler was not a menace! The noble Duke produced an argument which I was most surprised to hear in this House. He said that the British were virtually indefensible in an atomic war, and that some kind of neutrality was therefore the only means of salvation. The old idea that evidence of peaceful intention begets peaceful intention in others, was dusty, dishevelled and discredited when the Pyramids were new. If there were anything in the argument that poverty is the sole cause of Communism how would one account for the few happenings that have taken place in recent years? Did the flare-up in Korea happen because the South Koreans were so ground down by poverty? Oh no. No doubt they did live under difficult circumstances, but they were attacked by their northern neighbours, using Russian tanks. If we had lost the Berlin air lift, a large part, if not all, of Germany might well have come under Communist influence. The living standards of those Germans would not have had anything to do with it.
They had a very substantial Communist Party in Australia, a country, I would remind your Lordships, which has one of the highest standards of living of any country on earth. No, you cannot combat what is a faith—which Communism is— by purely material means. Hunger, poverty and disease are good growing weather for Communism. They are not the sole or even the major cause. You can defeat something which is a faith only by opposing it with a stronger faith. In the last war, I think the thing of which I am prouder than of any other was that, in the depth of our extremity in the fighting in the desert, we went to the help of Greece, at enormous cost to ourselves in men and materials. By so doing, we showed that when free men had put up a fight against Hitler we would go to any length to help them. Had the United Nations not taken up the challenge in Korea, its entire authority would have disappeared. But, happily, it did. We must show not only that we hold that faith but that we are prepared to maintain it, whatever burdens we have to carry.
8.12 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, even if I had proposed to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken on the subject of his remarks, I should certainly not now do so, because I should despair of endeavouring successfully to rival ideas which he has put forward with such insight and with passages of such real eloquence. I propose, however, to deal with rather different matters. If we look back upon the years which have elapsed since the war, I think we must agree, without any distinction of Party, that the period has not been one of the halcyon periods in foreign politics. When I think of those years, there sometimes comes into my mind the story of the personage who was asked what he had done during the French Reign of Terror. He replied: "J'ai vécu." I think that is about all we can say of the recent years. The Foreign Office is still standing intact and we are still here. To-night it is not my purpose in any way to offer criticism of what has happened during those years, because they have been singularly difficult times foil those in charge of foreign affairs. But we are bound to admit that the successes are few and far between, if, indeed, they exist at all. I say "successes"; I do not say "triumphs," because I think that in diplomacy there can be nothing worse than a triumph for one side. Good diplomacy is when both sides come away reasonably happy.
But in the disputes with which we have been concerned I am sure that neither side is very happy: there is no Peace Treaty with Austria or Germany; a settlement with Persia is no nearer, while as to Egypt there are signs which give grounds for faint hopes but there is still a long way to go. In the Middle East there is no prospect of reconciliation between the Arab States and Israel. In the Far East, I am afraid I cannot discern any policy at all. All I know is that our bold step of recognising Communist China has merely exposed us to contempt if not, indeed, to outright insult. They certainly will not recognise us in any tangible way at all. But in this scene of disappointments and difficulties, I feel that there is one bright spot. One thing upon which we can build is—I understand I must not call it an alliance—our firmer understanding and co-operation with the United States of America, which one section of

217
opinion in this country unhappily deplores and would seem almost to be determined to do what it can to upset. We have had an echo of that to-day in the speech of the noble Duke which has been constantly referred to in the debate. Lord Silkin said it was a courageous speech. It seemed to me the speech of a man with the courage of his convictions, but also the speech of a man whose mind is firmly closed not only to the convictions but to the ideas of other people.
I particularly noticed—I will not say I deplored—one passage in that speech when the noble Duke spoke of the "lack of imagination" of those who direct American policy. My Lords, America is the country which found a way to give us fifty destroyers, found a way to carry Lend-Lease, gave us the Marshall Plan, sent General Eisenhower here to give us this lift in Europe, with his ideas and his foresight. She is the country which has helped Turkey
and Greece and every country in need and in trouble, in particular those countries prepared to help themselves. It may be possible to criticise America for a good many things, but I think that to criticise America for lack of imagination in face of that record is to level the last charge which could or should be brought against her. But the noble Duke's speech is but one instance of many speeches and writings to the same effect—I will not give very many quotations, for a number have already been mentioned to your Lord- ships to-day. Only to-day I read in a fortnightly publication that our reply to the Soviet Note is "muddled and almost incoherent," dictated by compliance with American wishes and killing the possibility of negotiation with Russia.
At every turn we are represented by this section of opinion as following weakly in the wake of a misguided America along dangerous paths to disaster. We must not imagine that these trends of opinion are not followed in America. We have to remember that in America a member of either House of Parliament is regarded by the Press as a person of considerable importance, and these things do not go un-noticed over there. But I have remarked another thing in recent times. While the American Press has, up to a point, ignored or put into their right proportion such statements as those to which I have referred, a
218
different note is now creeping in. I recently noticed in an editorial in a most responsible American paper a statement that whilst such views have in the past been regarded as those of "a troublesome but not too important minority," yet warning must be given that such ideas may come to prevail more generally, "particularly in foreign policy—namely, that the United States, not Russia, is the chief menace to the free world," and that Britain ought to shake herself free of Western rearmament. If it has reached that pitch already in responsible American newspapers, then indeed it is a good thing that such warnings as that tittered to-day by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House have been given. They are indeed timely.
I should like next to look at some features of the Russian Note of March 10. May I preface my remarks by saying that in view of her record I entirely understand the views of those who see great dangers in rearming Germany? But I also think that if in foreign policy you are confronted by two great dangers, you must decide which of them you think is the greater and deal with that, and deal with the second greatest when you come to it. If we have to deal with the greatest danger which confronts us, then we cannot be too choosey about the allies that we call in to help us combat that danger. The Russian proposals are remarkable. They represent a variation from the Potsdam Agreement, which hitherto Russia has been using to keep Germany divided and to communise Eastern Germany. The Note also reverses their previous furious objections to German rearmament. At face value it offers German unity; an end of occupation; no restriction on the development of a peace economy: no restriction on trade with other countries; defence forces; the right to produce war materials; civil rights for former officer; and other ranks, and an amnesty for Nazis except those who are actually in prison. In fact, it offers everything except a revision of frontiers—and who knows whether or not; that card may also be played? I noticed what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said on that subject, but I feel we must confine ourselves to the fact that frontiers were not defined in the Potsdam Agreement. Although from one point of view I feel we should echo Lord Silkin's view, that a revision of

219
frontiers should be accomplished by peaceful negotiations between Germany and Poland, I cannot help feeling that on the Polish side negotiations would really be conducted by Russia and in those circumstances I am not sure whether they would be so peaceful, friendly and reasonable. These Soviet offers are surprising and are also well calculated to scare the French. While, on the one hand, they appeal to the Germans, who prefer a simple programme of neutrality and independence to what they regard as complicated schemes like the Schuman Plan and the European Defence Community, on the other hand, they appeal to those with militaristic instincts and ambitions.
I have quoted these proposals at their face value, but what is their real object? Are we seeing Russia's third attempt to bring off a deal with Germany? It was tried with the German Republic at Rapallo, and again with Hitler. I feel that Russia, seeing a Western Germany and her industry coming into line with the Western Powers, and seeing the Ruhr being internationalised, is trying once again to bring off a deal, and she dangles proposals before Germany which are certainly calculated to upset such European equilibrium as has been achieved so far. I feel sure that what Russia really wants is to keep Germany out of the European Defence Community, to break up N.A.T.O., and to prevent the formation of a European Army. These are the three guiding principles which dictate her foreign policy.
The one thing Russia wants to prevent is the one thing that General Eisenhower wants to see, and that is that proposals for a European Army should be initialled by May 1. I can only say that if we are to negotiate with Russia on these proposals, the West will be on much firmer ground for negotiation after the proposals for a European Army have been initialled, as General Eisenhower wishes. The Soviet proposals are calculated to upset the European balance of power and to prevent what I would call a European solution to the German problem, by re-establishing the old traditional Germany, with the possibility of alliance with Russia in the background. Nor should we forget M. Schuman's warning that what Russia wants is to make Germany a Russian arsenal, receiving raw
220
materials from the West and shipping armaments to the East. I think there is also great force in his advice that in dealing with Germany we should never leave Germany to herself—in other words, we should make the solution a European one and not a bilateral one.
Surely Russia must regard it as vital that Germany does not join in with the West. To that Russia would prefer even an armed and independent Germany, which she knows will never go Communist, but a Germany outside the Western community, susceptible to the pull of the European community but also susceptible to the pull of Russian economic and military influences. Russia is certainly taking a gamble when she puts forward these proposals but she prefers the risk of a gamble to seeing Western Germany become part of N.A.T.O. If she could bring off her gamble I believe the damage done to the Atlantic Powers would be almost irreparable—and not only to the Atlantic Powers but also to the free world.
What are the German reactions to these proposals? They may be very dangerous, as no doubt Russia has calculated. There are many Germans who do not want rearmament and who believe that Russia does not want war. They would like to stay out of the European Defence Community, as an armed neutral between the Eastern and the Western blocs. They believe that going in with the West will prevent unification and will not give security. There are German industrialists who prefer German unity to joining in Western defence. They see also that Russia controls vast markets between mid-Europe and the China Sea. These same industrialists have to deal with the Schuman Plan, which takes the Ruhr out of exclusive German control and puts it on an internationalised basis on behalf of the European Defence Community. After the industrialists, there are those who think that complete independence must inevitably follow the unification of a nation of 70,000,000 people and that this would make Germany able to ignore any alliance, either with the East or with the West. Such a Germany, they think, would be strong enough to get along without alliances and hold the balance of power in Europe. Again the French must quail at such ideas as these. Then there are the German Socialists, who favour negotiations with Russia, and other

221
Germans who would prefer a united Germany to one interminably divided between East and West. These are some of the reactions which must be taking place in Germany. In mentioning them, I should like to emphasise what must be Dr. Adenauer's difficulties when he has such complicated cross-currents to deal with and how much we must admire him for the good faith with which he is facing this particularly difficult situation.
What are the three Powers to reply to these proposals, which are adroit, embarrassing and perhaps even dangerous? They are adroit because they say to the Western Powers: "We are prepared to give up old claims and negotiate on terms which we have always hitherto rejected. What are you prepared to give up?" That is why I find them adroit. But we are entitled to ask what are the tests of her sincerity. There is Austria, where Russia blocks the way to a Peace Treaty; there is the refusal to admit the United Nations Committee to the Eastern Zone; there are the Korean negotiations, dragged on at the instigation of Russia; and Mr. Malik is pushing the idea of bacteriological warfare for all he is worth in America. I do not want to look these proposals in the mouth too much. How glad I should be if I could say that I believed these proposals were sincere and honest, and put forward in good faith! How glad we should all be if that were the case! But, to take one point only, how can we believe in the sincerity of Russia when she puts forward these proposals and at the same time makes these preposterous charges about bacteriological warfare through the mouth of her representative, Mr. Malik?
Of course, we are not entirely our own masters in drafting a three-Power Note. I should halve liked to see a very simple reply, merely laying down that the Russian proposals can be considered only after free secret elections have taken place, not under international supervision but under the supervision of the United Nations. There may be a snag, in that such elections might be the end of Dr. Adenauer's Government, and might produce a Government not quite so easy to deal with. Nevertheless, I feel that that is a risk we must take, and that our real answer is to say, first of all, that there must be these free elections. Certainly it is a difficult thing to reply about, because
222
we have rather to drive three horses at the same time. We have got to press on with the contractual agreement; we have got to press on with the European Defence Committee; and at the same time we must carry on these negotiations with Russia.
The three purposes present some contradictory elements. My personal opinion is that the reply sent by the three Powers does not rebuff the Soviet Note, as has been suggested by one noble Lord this afternoon. I find no rebuff in it. Far from that, I find that it is too long and I think it raises too many points over Which the Russians might, with that skill of which they are masters in such matters, drag out the affair interminably. What we want is simply this. Russia has forced upon us, in self-defence, the creation of an Atlantic community, and we must see that idea put through. We cannot accept the Russian idea of a rearmed Germany, completely foot-loose and outside the Atlantic Pact, bound by no European Treaty or obligation, and at complete liberty, if they wish, to place all their military and economic resources at Russia's disposal. I should like to see a reply which bluntly stated those facts, and did not argue over this and that point. I believe that it would be folly to give up a policy which has forced Russia to take this new line. And in taking the line I have indicated, there would be firm ground, for all Europe fears an uncontrolled revival of German militarism.
The final fact which confronts us is that the German problem, which has been in the melting pot since 1945, is now coming to the boil; and definite decisions must now be taken. There is a real prize to be won here either by the forces making for peace or the forces making for war. But the lesson of the proposals, I feel sure, is this: that where Russia is concerned, in spite of the doubts which have been thrown upon the wisdom of negotiating from strength, nothing succeeds like rearmament; and that peace will be best ensured by strengthening the Atlantic Alliance and furthering the cause of European unity. If Russia has, indeed, realised that her old methods have not been working, I am sire that it is not because of any change of heart on the part of those who direct her policy but because they have seen that the West has

223
been integrating at increasing speed; and although it is true that Western Defence has still many obstacles to overcome, yet defensive force is being accumulated at an accelerating pace. It is those considerations, I believe, which have produced the Soviet Note of March 10.
8.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winster, will forgive me if I do not follow him in the details of his interesting speech. I propose to detain your Lordships for only a few moments. I was interested in something that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. He said, rightly, that international relationships change over a period of years. He said that at the beginning of this century we were probably on better terms with Germany than with any other country in Europe. That is substantially true, of course. On the other hand, we must not forget that in the year 1898 Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary in Lord Salisbury's Government, offered the hand of friendship to Germany, and that hand was rejected; and that in the year 1900 Germany started on her new naval law. It was as a result of that rejection of the hand of friendship by Germany that Lord Lansdowne, the Foreign Secretary in Lord Salisbury's Government, concluded the entente cordiale with France (which was taken over by Sir Edward Grey when he came in in 1905), and in the year 1904 concluded the Treaty of Alliance with Japan. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that international relationships change very quickly.
LORD PAKENHAM: I will not detain the House, but perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord on that point. It would not be a complete statement to say that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain held out the hand of friendship to Germany. What he had in mind was an Alliance, and the terms of that Alliance were not, in all ways, attractive to the Germans.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I will not argue the matter. He put it in the form of an Alliance but, as the noble Lord will remember, the Germans were not prepared to talk at all. However, it is a small point, because by 1900 they had already decided on the new German naval law. I can see myself, on the general proposition
224
put by the noble Lord, in the year 1902 walking down a pavement in Pekin in the uniform of a British officer and being swept out into the street by French and German "Tommies" coming hand in hand down the pavement towards me. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that international relationships change, and sometimes very rapidly. We cannot say what the next twenty or thirty years will bring about.
I come now straight to China and the Far East. If I may have the attention of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, he will remember that I put a Question to him on February 20, in which I asked whether, in certain circumstances, Her Majesty's Government would intervene in the Chinese civil war by giving military, naval, or air assistance to the Chinese Nationalists in the Island of Formosa. The noble Marquess, in his reply, referred me to a Statement of the Prime Minister—a Statement which was received with gratification in most quarters of the House—namely, that
"Her Majesty's Government have no intention whatever of intervening in the Chinese civil war, and have assumed no commitment of any sort in that direction."
As I said at the time, in commenting on that answer, I received that assurance with gratification, but I also said that the remainder of the answer to the Question required further study. When I did have time to study it I found that the Prime Minister had said that he repeated that Chiang Kai-shek, and those who fought with him against the Communists and had taken refuge upon the Island of Formosa
"should not be invaded and massacred there while the United Nations forces possessed such overwhelming naval superiority."
It was because of that statement that I put my Question, because I assumed that, if any attack on Formosa came from the mainland, the Prime Minister had by this statement committed British naval forces in China waters to operate with American forces to repel the attack. I understand (and the noble Marquess, if he wishes, can confirm it again) that in those circumstances no British naval forces would be used, because if they were used it would constitute an intervention in the civil war now going on in China.
There is only one further point that I wish to make, and that is this. I had it

225
in mind to say a good deal, but there is now only one further point. It falls to the noble Marquess, from time to time, in the course of the very interesting and informative speeches that he makes in your Lordships' House, to make important statements, such as that on the question of intervention in the civil war in China, to which I have just referred. He has made a very important statement to-day. We all hope, as I have said before in your Lordships' House, that arising out of the conversations which are now proceeding in Korea a truce will shortly be concluded; and it is necessary, whilst we are awaiting that truce, which we hope will come about, to consider the steps that are to be taken when the truce is concluded. In the last debate which took place in tins House I said that I hoped that when the truce was concluded, and discussions were entered upon with a view to settling the various tremendous problems that arise in the Far East, so far as British policy was concerned it would not be settled by a United Nations Commission upon which Britain played a minor part. I still hope that will not be the case.
I noticed that the Foreign Secretary, in a review in another place, which was re-ported in the Press on February 6, used these words, which rather perturbed me. He said:
"If an Armistice is secured there should be a session of the General Assembly of the United Nations to consider the practical issues which will have to be dealt with."
I do not know whore that is going to lead us. Perhaps the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, when he replies, will say exactly what is meant by that. In any event, to-day, he has given expression to what I consider to be a very important statement. He said (I took his words down as accurately as I could): "If a truce is concluded, a conference will then take place upon the future of Korea by all the interested parties." That is a very important statement. That is the first time we have heard that a conference is to take place and that in that conference all the interested parties will take part.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I did not say it would take place. I said we hoped it would take place.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Very well. I naturally accept the correction. At any rate, the noble Marquess said he hoped
226
it would take place and that at the Conference would be represented all the interested parties. I wonder, when the, noble Marquess used those words, "all the interested parties," whether he had in mind the countries which were to be represented, apart from the United Nations itself. Of course, it is interesting, seeing that Korea is not merely a peninsula jutting out into the China Sea. Korea is a strategic point in the North Pacific, the importance of which has been recognised by China, Japan and Russia for several centuries. I wonder whether in his reply, the noble Marquess could elucidate a little more the sentence in which he refers to the interested parties that he hopes will take part in this conference.
I will not detain the House any longer. All I hope is that steps are being taken now to co-ordinate, so far as is possible, the differing policies on matters affecting solutions of these burning questions in the Far East, and that all steps are being taken to co-ordinate the views of ourselves, and the Commonwealth, and the United States. I hope that we may be able to walk together in this matter and that Britain will have a clear-cut policy and be prepared to stand by it. I also hope there will be taken into consideration, when these vital problems are discussed, the facts of geography and of history that surround them, for if indeed we are going to swim about in an ocean of "isms," and plunge hither and thither "with the wraps off," then inevitably disaster lies ahead.
8.49 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I have no intention of inflicting upon your Lordships the speech I had hoped to make. I will confine myself, if your Lordships will allow me, to a very few remarks about the Far East. The noble Viscount will forgive me if I do not follow him entirely in what he has just said. I wish to say that I regret very much the attacks that have been made at various times in different quarters in the Press and Parliament on a great man, General Chiang Kai-shek. I am not concerned to defend over-zealously the Kuomintang regime, in so far as its operations were concerned over the last year or two of its existence. There seems little doubt that corruption became rife, and so corroded the administration that disintegration resulted. If fear that that is
unhappily true. Corrup-

227
tion is not an unheard of ingredient in Governments in Asia or, for that matter, in Governments elsewhere. Corruption —of course there was corruption. And it may not have escaped the notice of certain noble Lords who generally occupy the Benches opposite, but who are not now there, that the Chinese Communist official Press is reported to have said just lately that corruption has increased since the Communist liberation." Be that as it may, it is manifestly unfair to lay the whole blame on the shoulders of Chiang Kai-shek for whatever corruption there existed in the Kuomintang. For the last year or two lie was completely preoccupied with the problem of military survival, and the campaign of denigration of this great man is not only unjust and unworthy, but serves only one cause—that of his Communist enemies. It is not the first time I have had to speak in your Lordships' House in defence of a man I consider to be an outstanding figure in the world and a great patriot.
With regard to the present situation in China, nothing has happened since our recognition of Mao Tse-tung's Government twenty-seven months ago to make me modify the opinion which I have given on various occasions that we rushed precipitately into de jure recognition of that Government. I understand that the position of our luckless compatriots out there has steadily deteriorated, and that to-day trade has been brought to an almost complete standstill. Many of your Lordships will be aware of what can only be described as the reign of terror which is going on at present in China. The campaign, which started as a witch-hunt and persecution in the matters of such things as anti-bribery, tax evasion, stealing State property, fraud and theft of State economic secrets—called five cardinal sins—has apparently reached such a pitch of terror as to cause a spate of suicides among Chinese business men, many of them men of substance and distinction. These unfortunate men, rather than face the disciplinary action and dire penalties which are threatened unless they "confess"—to use Communist parlance—prefer to throw themselves off high buildings, with the macabre result that pedestrians are shy about walking on pavements for fear of what may crash on top of them. The atmosphere in Shanghai and Tientsin is described as
228
having again become thick with fear after the lull which followed last year's nationwide purge of "counter revolutionaries." There are anonymous denunciations of "law-breaking capitalists," loaded police vans rumbling through the streets with sirens screaming, investigation teams poring over the books of private enterprises, probing for fraud and so on—all the sombre, sordid, sinister horrors of the Communist régime and a police State.
It is not difficult to imagine how much all this adds to the tension under which those foreigners who still remain in China are living. These things are happening under a Government which received a certain amount of welcoming acclamation from certain sections in this country and again from certain noble Lords who are accustomed to sit on the Benches opposite. I remember a very interesting speech by the late Lord Lindsay of Birker —one of those thoughtful speeches we all used to enjoy so much—in which he said that in his opinion Mao Tse-tung and his followers were people with whom you could, as he described it, "play ball." There have been similar expressions of opinion from time to time from certain noble Lords opposite. Well, we know now that Mao Tse-tung will not play ball, and Heaven knows! we have given him ample opportunity. So far as I know—and perhaps the noble Marquess who is to reply will be kind enough to confirm this—Her Majesty's chargé d'affaires in Pekin is still not allowed personal access to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I believe he is permitted to make representations to the Chinese Government only in such minor matters as negotiating exchanges of diplomatic representatives and things of that sort.
What have we gained by recognising the Central People's Government of China? Insult and humiliation, together with intolerable restrictions and difficulties imposed on our nationals. I went into all this at some length in the Foreign Affairs debate in your Lordships' House last July, and I do not wish to recapitulate any of these things. It seems to me that the only solid advantage of having a representative in Pekin to-day—cypher though he may be; and I am not, of course, referring to him personally in any way, because he is an excellent diplomatic representative—is the moral support that his physical presence in

229
Pekin must bring to our hard-pressed and gallant countrymen still out there, to whom your Lordships, I am sure, would wish to send a word of sympathy, admiration and encouragement in their heartbreaking existence.
For the rest, it is difficult to pick out a single bright spot in the area of the Far East. Tibet, Malaya, Korea, Indo-China, everywhere is the menacing hand of Communist China. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is not here, but would he still hold, I wonder, that the term "aggressor" is an unjust one to use as regards Mao Tse-tung's China'? Does the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, still hold that the Malayan war is exclusively an indigenous affair'?
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, most certainly. There is no evidence at all of direct help from China in the Malayan war. It is bad enough, but the Chinese are not intervening.
LORD AILWYN: I can only say that I think there are very strong indications of Chinese coming over the Siamese border into Malaya.
LORD STRABOLGI: This is very important, and I hope the noble Lord will excuse me. I thought he was referring to official Chinese intervention, as I was. There may be volunteers.
LORD AILWYN: I will not pursue the matter with the noble Lord. That was not my intention or my understanding of what the noble Lord had said. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite still consider that Mao Tse-tung is going to play ball. My Lords, with great respect, wishful thinking is not going to get us anywhere at all. It seems to me it matters little whether Communist China is under the thumb and direction of Moscow or not. The stark fact is that Mao and his réegime are infected with the deadly virus of hate, hostility, ruthless ambition and determination to achieve their aim at whatever cost, and anybody who tries to read anything else into what some are pleased to call the Chinese brand of Communism is just failing, in my humble opinion, to face up to realities. The threat is clear and unmistakable and, in my opinion, it would be unwise to ignore it.
9.0 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should like at the outset of the very few remarks I am going to make to identify myself completely with what the noble Marquess the Leader Of the House said in regard to the loss we have sustained by the death of Lord. Perth. For six and a half years I was responsible in this House for conducting on behalf of the then Government matters concerning the Foreign Office. They were nearly always conducted in that small Chamber which we have loved long since and lost, I am afraid, for ever, There, for merely geographical reasons, I had to sit within a few feet of Lord Perth, and I got to know him exceedingly well. I profited from his wisdom and his experience. I knew him to be not only a very knowledgeable person, but one of the most delightful men I want ever to meet. We certainly all agree there.
I was responsible in some sense for initiating this debate, though finally I got my noble friend, Lord Henderson, to make the opening speech—and I am very glad I did, because it was an opening speech of exceptional thought and care. But I confess that one of the reasons why I wanted to have the debate was that I might get an absolutely explicit statement—which I have received—from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House in regard to this question of germ warfare. I therefore gave him notice of at least a fortnight, so that he might make the fullest inquiries and get the most authentic information. I think that the perfectly emphatic and unambiguous statement he made about this matter must. in the mind of any reasonable person, lay this rumour to rest—I hope finally. If only for that reason, I think it was worth having this debate.
Our foreign affairs debates during the years when I was responsible for conducting them in this House were fortunately nearly always non-Party. I feel strongly that in an exceedingly difficult time like this it is very desirable, if possible, that we should have what I may call a bipartisan foreign policy. I believe this country will speak with tar greater weight in the counsels of the world if we can speak in that way. Speaking for myself I feel that, as one of my noble friends has said, the present Foreign Secretary commands a very large measure of support, not only on his own side, but on the

231
opposite side of the House, too. From a somewhat long experience in this matter, I would venture just to say this. The relationship between the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister must, of course, always be a very close one. I believe that as a general rule it is better that the Foreign Secretary, having carried the Prime Minister with him, should tell the Cabinet what he has done, rather than go to the Cabinet and ask what he should do. There are, of course, exceptions; but, broadly speaking, I think that that is a sound rule. I think it is essential, therefore, that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary should work closely together.
I also think that it is essential that the Prime Minister should not overstep his proper sphere and intrude upon the sphere of the Foreign Secretary. There have been two occasions in my political life when I have suspected that that was being done; and on neither of those occasions was it to the advantage of the community as a whole. I hope that Mr. Eden will have a free and unimpeded run in his task, because the task which he has to do is one of immense difficulty. It is, as someone once truly said, not a question of avoiding risks—risks surround you whether you look to the right or to the left, behind or in front of you. The problem before the Foreign Secretary is to know which risks he has got to take.
I am going to detain your Lordships for only a few minutes, but I think it is right that someone with such authority as I have on behalf of this body should say something about the relationship between this country and the United States of America. I welcome, of course, frank expression of opinion from any quarter, even though I profoundly disagree with it. In a democracy we do not seek to muzzle people, and it is much better that we should not. All I ask is that those who make speeches should consider carefully the consequences of what they are saying. And I would ask this: What would be the result if the United States of America did decide no longer to interest herself in Europe? There are difficulties to-day; we sometimes find the Americans very difficult; they, I feel quite certain, must often find us almost unbearable—and it is as well that we should tell one another so from time to
232
time, because, after all, that is the hallmark of friendship.
But compare those little pinpricks with the consequences of America's coming to this decision: "We are going to get out of this tangled business; we will have no more of it." I ask any noble Lord in any quarter of the House to consider what the consequences would be. What would the consequences be to Europe? What would they be to France—one of the greatest homes of civilisation to-day? I must say that I have been deeply oppressed by the difficulties which France is facing with regard to her war in Indo-China. What would be the consequences for all the European races—the parent stock of the many races inhabiting America? My Lords, we all know: as things are to-day, the whole of Europe would inevitably fall under Communist control. Therefore, I say it is well that the people of America should know that these few odd voices who are heard in our debates and elsewhere are not the authentic voices of either of the great Parties in this country.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
EARL JOWITT: That is really what I wanted to say, and I think it is useful that it should be said. But I want to say something as a corollary to that, about China. Of course, we are not satellites of the United States. We have a right to our own point of view and to express it. I think it is only fair to say—and I know the Americans pretty well—that they have always recognised that; and the fact that we have divergences of opinion about this, that or the other matter, has never interfered with their friendship for us. If it is the fact that there is a party in America—not the Administration—that contemplates extending what is a war of defence in Korea into a kind of adventure, with the idea of reconquering the whole of China, of gaining over Communist China, that is an adventure in which, speaking for myself, I would have neither lot nor part. I think that that should be clearly said. I believe that in saying that I speak not only for this body but for the overwhelming mass of people in this country. But there is no ground to suppose that any such scheme is in contemplation, and certainly no ground for supposing that any responsible member of the Administration is lending himself to such a scheme.

233
Talking about China, I may say that I came across rather an interesting fact the other day. The late
Field-Marshal Lord Wolseley, in The Story of a Soldier's Life, dealt with the war of 1860 in China. I think it worth while to call your Lordships' attention to his views. I quote from pages 1 and 2 of Volume 2. He there wrote:
"There is no nation numerically as great as China, whose customs and modes of life are so generally common to all parts of that vast Empire. To me they are the most remarkable race on earth, and I have always thought and still believe them to be the great coming rulers of the world. They only want a Chinese Peter the Great or Napoleon to make them so. They have every quality required for the good soldier and the good sailor and, in my idle speculation upon this world's future, I have long selected them as the combatants on the one side of the great Battle of Armageddon, the people of the United States of America being their opponents. The latter nation is fast becoming the greatest power of the world."
I am bound to say that that is not a bad prophecy for a mere soldier in the year 1860, or thereabout, and I thought it was so interesting that I have brought it to your Lordships' notice.
In the main, this debate, like other debates, has been non-controversial. In the old days we used to have one perennial subject of controversy: whether we should or should not have recognised Communist China. Of course, it is open to the Government, if they think we are wrong, to withdraw that recognition, but I must warn them that, if they do withdraw that recognition, their chance of a bi-partisan foreign policy in this country is finished. I rejoice that no suggestion whatever has been made that that recognition should be withdrawn.
The other subject matter of controversy to which I must refer used to be Persia. I used to come in for a good deal of criticism about Persia. Even now we hear a lot about Persia. The Minister of Works, in a Party political broadcast a week or so ago, referred to our "scuttling out of Persia." The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in one of the passages of a notable speech the other day, said that "Persia" or "Abadan"—I have forgotten which; perhaps it was both—would be found written on Mr. Morrison's heart. I always wonder why it is that the Tory Party criticise us for having, as they say, "scuttled" out of Persia, but they have never committed themselves to saying what they would have done. When
234
the time came, when our men were being manhandled and put out of Persia, would they have occupied the country or not? There was plenty of provocation for it, I quite agree. I presume they would have consulted our American friends, because what is the good of being friends with people unless in a time of difficulty you can take their opinion? I presume they know what answer they would have got—and we did get. It would be very interesting to me at some time or other if, instead of saying, "You scuttled out of Persia," they would be good enough to tell us whether they would have occupied Persia. If they do not want to commit themselves now, then they had better not talk about "scuttling," because the one, to my mind, is; the corollary to the other.
But I do not want to go into these controversial matters now. I am quite content to say this. If you are going on as you have done recently, abusing us by saying that we scuttled out of Persia and that "Persia" ought to be written on Mr. Morrison's heart; if you are going to say things of that sort, then, in order that your criticism may be at least coherent, you ought to say what you would have done. Otherwise, I suggest that you had better leave it all alone. For the rest, in Persia, as in other countries, in the main we are glad to see that you are doing what we were doing. You are carrying on our policy, and I am happy to assure noble Lords on the opposite side that, so long as they carry on our policy, we shall have nothing to object to in theirs.
9.17 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords. I can address your Lordships again only with the leave of the House but, in asking for that leave, I can assure your Lordships that it will not be for long, because we have: all indulged in a fairly exhaustive, and possibly equally exhausting, discussion during the many hours we have been sitting. I do not propose to go back beyond the point at which I last spoke, and to take up the earlier speeches. I am not going to deal with all the speeches, but I must say something about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who followed me. He seemed to think that we had been very cavalier in our treatment of the last Russian approach. I should have thought that anybody reading the White Paper

235
would think that we had approached the situation in a very reasonable way. We had made certain inquiries for elucidation which, in our view, were necessary in order that we might know exactly where we stood. I am afraid that I cannot understand the noble Lord's theory that the Soviet Government are always vigorously rebuffed by the West whenever they make an offer, whereas when the West make an offer it is always received by the Soviet Government with open arms. The experience that we have undergone in the past year has not been like that.
The noble Lord went on to talk about our failure to give sufficient encouragement to the present economic conference which is going on in Moscow, and about which we have heard in the Press. The only thing I wonder about is that there is in London, and has been for some time, a large Russian trade agency, and, if all the facilities for trade with Russia exist and can be picked up so easily in Moscow, one wonders a little why they have not been picked up with equal facility, or even with more facility, in London. Why is it necessary to resort to Moscow before you can arrive at any satisfactory discussion on these trade matters? As to the Polish frontier, I propose to say no more than is said in the White Paper in our Note to Russia. We have always taken the view, and we take it and express it quite unmistakably in this Note, that Potsdam settled nothing definite about frontiers; it made a provisional arrangement, subject to such final and definitive arrangements as might be made when a Peace Treaty was concluded. And that is the position that we still maintain. Certainly, I do not propose to move from that in any way or to expatiate upon it any further.
My Lords, it is not for me to comment, except with admiration, upon speeches from two such authorities upon foreign affairs as the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, and the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, who, particularly in any aspect which deals with America, carries, I suppose, a weight which scarcely anybody else in this country could possibly hope to carry, both with opinion here and with opinion in the United States. If I say nothing about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, it is not from
236
any lack of enthusiasm for it, but simply because of an experience which has not always come my way—namely, that I think I agreed almost in entirety with everything he said to-day. So perhaps we had better leave the atmosphere uncharged with further discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, took exception to the restrictions which have been imposed upon diplomats from the iron curtain countries. He also took to task my noble friend the Leader of the House for being rude to Russians and to other persons. He then proceeded to say that what was being done by the Russians and the satellite countries to our own diplomats was "vulgar," "ill-bred" and a few other things—which in its own little way is, I should have thought, possibly being slightly rude to the Russians as well. But I will not go into that. His point was that this action was unworthy of this country, and that it was a very cheap form of reprisal, if I may put it in that way.
My Lords, we have got a little tired of our diplomats being treated in this unattractive way in these countries, and it seemed to us that the moment had come when we might introduce some measures which brought home to the representatives of those countries some of the disabilities which resulted from being treated in that way. We are not prohibiting them from visiting the country. All we say is, "if you want to go beyond a certain distance you will have to get permission to go." We are not doing this alone; it is not an example of the isolated petulance of this country. We were one of nine countries which brought these new measures into operation either on the same day or within a very short space one from the other. We did not do it without reflection, and we do not regard it as unworthy that we should take any steps which are open to us to show that those who represent us in other countries cannot be treated in quite so high-handed a way without the equivalent persons in this country being subjected to some inconveniences, though not so extensive as those which are handed out in the countries behind the iron curtain.
If I may say so, my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir gave us some very interesting and illuminating comments, both on his own experiences at the United Nations Assembly and elsewhere. Again, if I

237
may presume to say so, I listened to Lord Winster's speech with even more pleasure than usual, as I always find him a most stimulating speaker to listen to. My only surprise in the matter is that occasionally the voice seems to be coming from a quarter of the House whence I do not expect it to come. None the less, it is always welcome, interesting and informative. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, asked me various questions on the subject of the Far East. So far as I can I answered his original Question specifically. If I go beyond that I shall be getting into a hypothetical field, and one into which I do not propose to be driven. The same applies to his question as to who would be present at any conference that took place. The question of who would be the interested parties, would be a subject for discussion amongst those responsible for bringing the conference together. But we should hope that those who could prove a direct interest in the proceedings would have an opportunity of expressing their view.
The noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, I think, asked me only one question, and that was as to the position of our representative in Pekin. I believe that he was accepted in the capacity of a chargé d'affaires, but I gather that he is normally referred to as the British negotiating representative. It appears to be the case that, as yet, he has never had actual access to Chou En. Lai, the Foreign Secretary, though I do not think it is accurate to say (here I speak at large, without checking the point), as the noble Lord said, that he can make representations only on very minor matters. What the result of the representations may be is a different matter, but I do not think there is any particular restriction on the type of matter that he is entitled to raise.
The final speech came from the noble and learned Earl on the Opposition Benches, Lord Jowitt. We shall all agree, I think, with his view, that so long as no real point of fundamental principle arises to divide us (and we hope that it will not), it is to the advantage of all Parties in this country that we should, as nearly as possible, be at one in our foreign policy. We shall certainly welcome all the assistance and support that we may get from noble Lords opposite. At this stage of the night I do not propose to follow him into the somewhat
238
arid wastes of Abadan. At the same time, there are things which might be said from this side which would not advance the bi-partisan policy. Therefore, although we have discussed this matter in the past, both here and on public platforms (I have read some of the speeches made), I think that at this time, and at the conclusion of this long debate, we should perhaps do ourselves and the House no great service by entering into a long discussion as to what was meant by "scuttling"—whether somebody scuttled, and where and what.
My Lords, we have had perhaps an unusually long debate for this House, but Her Majesty's Government are very much obliged to the noble Lords who in conjunction put down this Motion. I think that it has provided an opportunity for a very far-ranging and, I hope, useful debate.
9.29 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, in view of the comments made by the noble Marquess who has just sat down, I do not think there is any need for me to detain your Lordships after what he termed an "exhaustive and exhausting debate." There is one thing I should like to do—namely, to repeat the apology which I made at the beginning of my speech for not having been on parade at the regulation hour. I think it is perhaps unnecessary for me to assure the House that my belated appearance was quite unintentional, and I am very grateful to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, and to my noble friend Lord Pakenham, for the bright exchanges in which they indulged to fill in the gap. My Lords, having thrown myself thus on the mercy of the court, I hope that I am now going to be let off with a caution. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Layton, suggested that it was unreasonable to expect that Germany would remain in a permanently unarmed condition. I could not help feeling that he was about fifty years out of date in his thinking, and still picturing the state of affairs in which it is possible for a nation to protect itself from devastation by armies inside its frontiers. Your Lordships have sought

239
to fight to the bitter end, in two wars, to make the German people sick of war, yet you seem unable to realise the measure of your success. A very large number of the German people are now exceedingly sick of war.
Moreover, I regretted to notice throughout the debate no serious comment on my suggestion that an unarmed Germany should be made a demilitarised area under the protection of the United Nations, including Russia and China. Your Lordships rather gave me the impression that you had never thought of the idea, and did not want to think of it, yet had no good reason against it. I felt rather the same thing with regard to my suggestion about Korea, Japan and Formosa. The right reverend Prelate said that partnership with America was most desirable. I could not agree with him more, but it needs to be the right kind of partnership with the right Americans. He also said—and up to a point I heartily agree with him—that any problem is capable of being threshed out. Again, it all depends on who does the threshing. You need people with a good knowledge of human psychology, people who can handle patiently and effectively the most difficult persons—people who really think they can get somewhere by their threshing, and are confident that it is worth trying. If you have not got people with those qualities, you can thresh until the cows come home, or until the dogs of war get loose, and you get nowhere. That, I am afraid, is rather what has been happening.
I have been a little surprised at the concern and indignation some of your Lordships have felt about Communist rumours that the Americans were using bacteriological warfare. I am delighted to hear that they are not, because it is a devilish method of warfare. But atom bombs and napalm bombs, to which we have given our blessing, are just as bad. I understand that our own Government are engaging in research into this matter, and that they do not consider it in the public interest to disclose how much money they are spending on it. I really wonder what all the fuss is about. I have been reminded of American generosity as exemplified in the Marshall Plan. I should like to say most cordially that generosity is one of the leading and most lovable characteristics of the whole
240
American nation. A good deal of the relief was, I am sure, the outcome of unselfish, spontaneous generosity. A good bit more was the result of enlightened self-interest, and none the worse for that. It obviously paid Americans not to have other parts of the world in poverty, open to objectionable political doctrines and never likely to be a good American market.
But there is another point of which I would remind your Lordships. Owing to the curious economy which the United States and other nations have, it is literally one of the main props of their economic system that they have to give away some of their goods abroad. I will not worry your Lordships with the technical details; they are easily ascertained by careful study. I rather think it was the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who suggested that in 1914 and 1939 we negotiated from weakness. I think that if he will consult some contemporary-records, or some of the documents of that time, he will discover that some of our chief political leaders and chief military leaders on both occasions assured us that this country was very well prepared for war. And, indeed, had it been otherwise, seeing that we were not attacked, they would have deserved to be impeached for landing us in a war for which we were not ready. Of course, no country, obviously, is as ready for war in peace as when war has started.
We were reminded that this country has a genius for making foreign alliances. I am afraid that I myself would say rather that we have a genius for meddling in affairs which are no business of ours—but that is a matter of opinion. In addition to always being exceedingly powerful in at least one arm of the Services, we also had alliances, and in consequence we were never weak. I never suggested that we should negotiate from a position of weakness. But if you take the fully Christian position, you do not negotiate from strength, you negotiate from righteousness, which may involve martyrdom, and I fully realise that most people in this country are not prepared to tread that pathway.
LORD WALERAN: May I interrupt the noble Duke for a moment? I do hope that he will not confuse righteousness with hypocrisy.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: By righteousness I mean the genuine righteousness of Christ.
LORD WALERAN: I am glad to hear that.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: What I suggested was that we should negotiate from a position of approximate equality, and not a position of that dominance which approaches the resented position of the bully. Anything approaching accurate equality is quite impossible in these days of atomic weapons. It has been suggested on more than one occasion—I think Lord Silkin was one of those who suggested it—that our rearmament has made Russia much more reasonable. Now there are certain times when the gravest issues are at stake in the world, when it is highly inexpedient to say too much in public even of things which may appear to be true. What I mean is this Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is true that the Russians have been intimidated by our rearmament into being more reasonable, from the point of view of ordinary sensible human psychology, what is more calculated to make them utterly unreasonable in the future than for prominent public men in this country to say so?
I suggested that in certain matters, especially with regard to war, American statesmen are not good world leaders. I was judging by the results of their foreign policy and the probable results of their policy, and in doing that I was working on a lifetime of experience in dealing with human psychology, social problems and, sometimes, very pronounced types of criminals. Their methods do not seem to me to be calculated to produce the best results. With regard to their methods in giving world aid, I have already expressed my opinion of their generosity. But American correspondents of mine, who are certainly not Communists, frequently report that there is great fear among liberal-minded and non-Communist people about expressing their opinion lest they should be victimised and charged with un-American activities. I have already suggested that Formosa should be made a demilitarised area. Naturally, if that were done, adequate provision should be made for the protection from massacre of Chiang Kai-shek and his followers. It is further
242
suggested that we want to make it generally known that war is an unprofitable business. I think that every intelligent Government now realises that, with the world in its present state, war is an unprofitable business. They do not need to be told that. We want to go on a step farther from that recognition and do away with war by disarmament, with adequate safeguards.
Then the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was indignant with me for suggesting that the Americans treat war as a panacea. I would say that many nations and many individuals have that tendency. The war in Korea was started on what I called a weak and confused issue, and without adequate preparation. If those who believed in war had wanted to prepare the ground properly, long before things got too bad the Americans should have asserted that they felt the integrity of Southern Korea to be a matter of great importance; then they should have ordered Syngman Rhee to stop imprisoning the delegates of Northern Korea, as he is said on one occasion to have done, to stop making provocative speeches and to redress carefully every grievance of the other side. If they had done that, in my opinion there would have been no war. It was suggested that the United States had come in on two great wars and had thereby been our deliverers. I suggest, however, that they would have served the world more truly if they had come in as mediators to bring those wars to an earlier end. If they had done that, then, whatever the difficulties of the present day, I think they would have been less serious than they are now and many more good men would have been left alive.
The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, criticised me for suggesting that Communism could be defeated by
raising the standard of living, and said that that was a very low material viewpoint. The standard of living can include not only bread and butter but also cultural and even spiritual issues. Certainly there are other non-violent ways of dealing with Communism. What I said was that killing Communists was not the remedy. One noble Lord spoke of the Chinese persecution, which naturally is of great concern. In all cases where there is persecution, it is well to remember that

243
it is greatly intensified by war. Therefore, the sooner the war in Korea is brought to an end by wise measures, the greater is the possibility that the persecution, both of Europeans and of non-Communist Chinese, will cease. The noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, asked the question: What if the United States decides not to interest herself in Europe? That was a good rhetorical question, but it is not quite so good if we look carefully into it. The noble Lord's suggestion was that if the United States did not concern herself with Europe by rearming it, Soviet Russia would inevitably occupy the whole of the Continent, whereas by taking an interest in Europe the United States would be able to protect it from Communist aggression. All courses of action in these days are highly dangerous and uncertain, but I do not think it is quite certain that Russia would occupy the whole of Western Europe if we were not so closely allied to the United States. It is even less certain that if we had America on our side she could prevent
244
Western Europe from being utterly devastated, as Korea has been devastated, by being turned into a battleground.
There is a third alternative again, which the United States might more profitably follow—namely, that larger areas of Western Europe should be demilitarised in the way I have suggested. That would expose them to less risk of war, while still giving them all the protection that is possible in existing circumstances. I think those are all the points I desire to make and I do not wish to detain your Lordships any further. Therefore, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
9.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, the noble Duke puts me in a difficulty, because he did not move his Motion, and therefore he cannot withdraw it. With your Lordships' permission, I shall treat the Motion as not moved.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before ten o'clock.