Sitting of 17 February 1953

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (by Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (by Order)
    WEST BRIDGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (by Order)
    Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

    New Schools
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the seven proposed schools in Clydebank will be commenced in 1953.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): At the request of the education authority, 1st July, 1953, has been allotted as a starting date for a primary school for Protestant children at Faifley. Details of the accommodation to be provided in a junior secondary school at Drumry Road are being discussed with the authority and it is hoped to settle these at an early date, but it is unlikely that the authority will be ready to start this school in 1953. My right hon. Friend has approved in principle the erection of five other schools and is awaiting detailed proposals for them from the authority.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of the outstanding success of the Labour local authority in building houses, it is imperative that the construction of schools and the allocation of permits for building schools be speeded up, and that one school will be quite
    1036
    inadequate, because in less than two years many of the children of Clydebank will be without educational facilities?
    Mr. Stewart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are helping in every way we can. Nothing we are doing is holding up the building of any of these schools. I should be very glad to discuss this matter with the hon. Gentleman if he so desires.
    Mr. Wheatleyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why only two of the nine schools on which building was planned to be started in Edinburgh during 1952 have, in fact, been started; when it is proposed to start building on the remaining seven; and when these schools will be ready for occupancy.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The main difficulties of the education authority have been over the acquisition of sites and the preparation of plans. In two cases plans have had to be modified because the estimated costs were too high. The authority hope to start five of the schools in 1953, and the remaining two in 1954. I cannot at this stage say when they will be ready for occupancy.
    Mr. Wheatley: Is the Minister aware that the present rate of progress is quite inadequate for current needs and is more than inadequate to meet future needs? To what extent is the delay occasioned by the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to capital investment and to their educational policy, and to what extent is it due to the failure, if any, of the local authorities?
    Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the urgency of the situation in Edinburgh. Indeed, I spoke about it not very long ago. I do not think it is true to say that the capital investment programme has anything to do with these schools which are under consideration. There are local difficulties, as I explained in my answer. I can only say that we are most ready to help, and that I am quite sure we are doing nothing to hinder the matter.
    Mr. Wheatleyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the eight schools in the course of erection in Edinburgh at the beginning of 1952 have now been completed and occupied, how many partially completed and occupied, and how many are still uncompleted; and if he will state the reason for the delay

    1037
    in the completion of these schools, and when the uncompleted schools will be completed and ready for occupancy.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Two of the schools have been completed and occupied. Two of the remainder have been partially occupied. The authority expect that the other four will be partially occupied in March. and that all six schools on which work is still continuing will be completed and fully occupied before the end of the year. I understand from the authority that they have experienced no exceptional difficulties in making progress with these schools.
    Mr. Wheatley: Will the Minister explain why there should be this long delay in the completion of these essential schools in the C'ity of Edinburgh? Wherein lies the difficulty? Is he aware that the Convener stated recently in his progress report that he expected these schools to be completed this year? What is the explanation for the delay?
    Mr. Stewart: I am not sure that I should say this, but it may be that the Convener was a little optimistic about these completion dates. I can only suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should consult with the local authority. I am sure it is not the fault of the Scottish Department.
    Mr. Wheatleyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that 34 new schools will require to be built in Edinburgh during the next five years to meet educational needs; and if he will state the number of new schools at present under construction in Edinburgh and the number of new schools which he proposes to authorise to be started during 1953.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: In January, 1951, my right hon. Friend's predecessor approved in principle the building of 34 schools in Edinburgh. One additional school has since been approved. The authority have recently proposed the addition of 13 schools to the list, making 48 schools in all. Two schools have been completed, three have been partially completed and opened, and five are under erection, but are not yet ready to open. The preparatory and planning work on 10 schools is proceeding; officials of my right hon. Friend's Departments are giving the authority all the 'help they can. and there should be no difficulty in
    1038
    authorising the start of any schools which are ready to start this year, though the authority cannot yet forecast how many will reach this stage.
    Mr. Wheatley: Do not the figures indicate quite clearly that the number of schools required and the number of schools being built are entirely out of proportion? Is it not perfectly clear that this situation must be associated with the Government's present policy which is putting education in pawn for a decade?
    Mr. Stewart: With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that is true. I have looked very carefully into the matter of the Edinburgh schools. I think the answer is that, with the resources available in Edinburgh, it would probably not be possible to build more schools any quicker.
    Mr. Wheatley: What is going to happen to the educational needs of the children of Edinburgh, many of whom are at present being accommodated in private houses and halls while others have to travel long distances in order to get accommodation in other schools? What is going to be the future of the educational needs of the children of Edinburgh?
    Mr. Stewart: I confess that I am most anxious about the situation in Edinburgh, and I repeat that we are doing everything we can to help. The education authorities are coping with the matter, and I do not think any children are going to be left in the position to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. However, I do not disguise our anxiety, and we shall be glad of help from whatever quarter it may come.
    Mr. Wheatley: How can the hon. Gentleman say that none of these children will be left in that position in view of the figures he has given which prove conclusively that the number of schools being built or in contemplation is out of all proportion to the needs of the community?
    Mr. Stewart: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the education authorities have programmes which they seek to achieve. They may not be able to achieve them all, and, therefore, they must take steps to improvise. In the present circumstances we, like our predecessors, have got to improvise, though I am sorry that has to be so.

  University Students (Grants)
  Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent he obtains uniformity in the method of assessing the needs of, and the scales of payment to, whole-time students at universities, central institutions, training and theological colleges qualifying for bursaries under the Education Authority Bursaries (Scotland) Regulations, 1949 and 1952, in respect of books, instruments, tools and materials, of meals, of special clothing, and of expenses arising out of the membership of clubs or societies.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: The regulations do not impose uniformity upon education authorities in the assessment of students' need in this field. Each authority is required to take into acount the sums which, in its opinion, are reasonably required by students for these purposes.
  Mr. Macpherson: While the regulations may not require it, is it not obvious that the students' needs are very much the same for the same categories of students; and would not my hon. Friend encourage local authorities to consult with the university authorities so as to get a clear idea what the various categories of expenditure for different categories of students may be and persuade them to act upon the advice?
  Mr. Stewart: I think they do make contact in that way, but my hon. Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind.

  School Meals (Charges)
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many, and which, local education authorities in Scotland have up to date made charges for school meals either in whole or in part; how many have increased the charges for such meals; how many children are affected by these increased charges; and what are the economies thereby effected by each such local education authority.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: All education authorities make charges for school meals and all increased their charges in 1950 and again in 1951. In October, 1952, 255,000 children were paying the increased charges. Estimates of the additional annual revenue raised in each
  1040
  education area by the increases made in 1950 and 1951 are given in a table of figures which, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this is a contemptibly mean way of penalising whole families which has not even the merit of making the penalty pay for the parsimony? Will not the Minister revert to free meals for children?
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. and learned Gentleman is asking me about previous increases. I gave the figures of those previous increases.
  Following is the table:

  Education Area

  Approximate Additional Annual Revenue

  Counties:

  £

  Aberdeen

  …

  …

  13,200

  Angus

  …

  …

  6,700

  Argyll

  …

  …

  4,300

  Ayr

  …

  …

  21,900

  Banff

  …

  …

  7,800

  Berwick

  …

  …

  5,600

  Bute

  …

  …

  400

  Caithness

  …

  …

  1,000

  Clackmannan

  …

  …

  2,000

  Dumfries

  …

  …

  7,500

  Dunbarton

  …

  …

  8,500

  East Lothian

  …

  …

  1,200

  Fife

  …

  …

  8,000

  Inverness

  …

  …

  8,300

  Kincardine

  …

  …

  3,500

  Kirkcudbbright

  …

  …

  3,500

  Lanark

  …

  …

  11,300

  Midlothian

  …

  …

  5,400

  Moray & Nairn

  …

  …

  1,200

  Orkney

  …

  …

  2,600

  Peebles

  …

  …

  1,100

  Perth & Kinross

  …

  …

  10,900

  Renfrew

  …

  …

  18,100

  Ross & Cromarty

  …

  …

  14,900

  Roxburg

  …

  …

  3,300

  Selkirk

  …

  …

  1,000

  Stirling

  …

  …

  9,900

  Sutherland

  …

  …

  2,600

  West Lothian

  …

  …

  2,500

  Wigtown

  …

  …

  300

  Zetland

  …

  …

  2 000

  Cities:

  Aberdeen

  …

  …

  4,000

  Dundee

  …

  …

  8,300

  Edinburgh

  …

  …

  19,000

  Glasgow

  …

  …

  63,200

  Total

  …

  £285,000

  Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average cost per school meal in Scotland in 1948, 1950 and 1952.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: The average costs in 1948–49 and 1950–51 were 11.87d. and 14.11d., respectively. The estimated average for 1952–53 is 18.00d.
  Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from local authorities regarding his proposal to increase the cost of school meals.
  Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which Scottish local authorities, apart from Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh, have protested to him against the recently-announced increased charges for school meals.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Written representations have been received from the Association of County Councils, the Education Authorities of Edinburgh, Banffshire and Ross and Cromarty and Port Glasgow Town Council. My noble Friend the Minister of State has met deputations from the Association of Councils of Counties of Cities and the Association of County Councils who urged that no increase should be made. They also represented that, if an increase was essential, the price should be raised by two stages of ld. and any increase should be postponed to a date later than 1st March.
  Mr. Ross: In view of the widespread irritation and disgust that is aroused, will not the Government, even at this late date, withdraw this typical miserable example of Tory economy?
  Mr. Stewart: I am afraid that we shall not be unable to repeat the action of the former Government in this matter, sorry as I am about it.
  Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to extend the date beyond 1st March, because the Fife Education Authority and others—the Fife Education Authority is protesting about it—are having very great difficulty in formulating their schemes for approval by the Secretary of State by 1st March?
  Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the difficulty. The point was put to my noble Friend the Minister of State for Scotland and it is being considered.
  Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the actions of the two Governments in this respect are not comparable because the food subsidies are no longer in existence?

  Adult Education
  Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the extension of adult education in Scotland in 1953–54.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: The provision of facilities for adult education, generally made in co-operation with the universities or the Workers' Educational Association, is primarily the responsibility of the education authorities. In view of the present need for economy, there is unlikely to be any substantial extension of adult education in the immediate future, but my right hon. Friend has made it clear to the authoritles that savings should be sought by increasing income rather than by any drastic curtailment of facilitles.
  Mr. Hamilton: When the Joint UnderSecretary talks about the unlikelihood of any substantial improvement or extension of adult education facilities in Scotland, what exactly does he mean? Can we take it that it is the general policy of the Scottish Office, as distinct from the Ministry of Education in England, to give every possible encouragement to adult education in Scotland and the extension of that very important amenity?
  Mr. Stewart: The answer is, Yes, so far as national resources will allow. I do not myself anticipate that there will be any considerable change, but in the case of purely recreational classes, about which the House is aware, I do not think it unreasonable to ask for higher fees.
  Mr. Hamilton: Can we take it then that the Scottish Office is not going to circulate local authorities to the effect of making a 10 per cent. decrease in adult education facilities?
  Mr. Stewart: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. We are not at present giving grants to bodies like the Workers' Educational Association as they do in England. Our system is entirely different. We have not issued any such order; nor have we any intention of doing so.

  Teachers (Recruitment Scheme)
  Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students have been enrolled to date under the Teachers' Special Recruitment Scheme: how many are already graduates, honours and ordinary; how many are studying for a degree; and how many are taking the non-graduate course at a training college.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: By 14th February, 1953, the number of persons selected for admission to the Special Recruitment Scheme was 773; of these 111 were already graduates, honours or ordinary; 218 have been accepted for a degree course and 190 for the non-graduate course at a training college. I congratulate the hon. Lady on the success of the Scheme for which she was so largely responsible.
  Miss Herbison: I should like to ask the Minister, since all the reports coming in about the students are very good, if he would take further steps to publicise this scheme. Would he perhaps use the radio, and would he try to let all those civil servants who are now becoming redundant know that such a scheme exists in Scotland?
  Mr. Stewart: I am very much obliged to the hon. Lady for these suggestions, which. I think, are exceedingly interesting.
  Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, notwithstanding any grumbles about salaries, the success of this scheme proves that the honour of teaching in Scotland is still attracting a great number of valuable people?

  SCOTLAND

    War Damage, Clydebank
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total authorisation for capital reconstruction which has been made under the war damage allocation to the Burgh of Clydebank for the period 1953.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): None, Sir.
    Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the people of Clydebank feel a grave sense of injustice
    1044
    at the fact that the blitzed towns of England and Wales have been allocated sums of money varying from £50,000 to £400,000, when Clydebank suffered more damage, proportionately, than many of them? Clydebank has had many of its halls battered down and permission to construct new ones has been refused. Why cannot we get these things done when large sums have been allocated to other blitzed cities? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman use his influence with the Treasury to get an early allocation of money for the people of Clydebank?
    Commander Galbraith: I am aware of the situation, but the position of Clydebank is quite different from that of cities which have received additional allocations for the purpose of rebuilding— in that Clydebank had a large number of houses destroyed whereas the other cities, for which provision is being made, suffered from the loss of large shopping centres and similar amenities. The housing position is covered by the normal housing allocation.
    Mr. Bence: Clydebank also suffered losses in regard to public buildings. The Clydebank Burgh Band—one of the finest bands in Scotland—lost their hall, which would cost only £7,000 to rebuild, and they cannot get it replaced. The workmen's hostel was destroyed, as were the Co-operative shopping premises. Many halls have been destroyed in Clydebank, and with our success in rehousing it is essential for an increased allocation to be made to enable the authorities to rebuild these other amenities.
    Commander Galbraith: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these matters are all under consideration. I am sure he would not place the hall of the Clydebank Burgh Band in the same category as essential shopping facilities in other towns.

    Eyemouth Harbour
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made during the last month with plans for improving Eyemouth harbour.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, I met representatives of the Harbour Trustees on 16th January and discussed the position

    1045
    with them. As a result, I understand that the Trustees are considering revised proposals, and my right hon. Friend will be glad to examine them as soon as they are submitted to him.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that the gale has worsened the position at Eyemouth? Will he authorise whatever temporary expenditure may be necessary to keep this channel open?
    Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the unfortunate results of the storm. The sand bank at the entrance to the harbour has caused some further trouble. I know the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees are employing a bull-dozer to clear the channel. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that anything we can do to help will be done.

    Water Schemes, Roxburgh and Selkirk
    Commander Donaldsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what water schemes are contemplated for the counties of Roxburgh and Selkirk; what areas will benefit; and when work will commence.
    Commander Galbraith: For Roxburghshire, two local schemes to benefit the Denholm and the Newton St. Boswells and Eildon areas and a regional scheme to serve most of the landward area of the county, and possibly also the burghs, are contemplated. Work on the local schemes should start at an early date, but the county council have not yet submitted final proposals for the regional scheme. For Selkirkshire, the county council have proposed an augmentation of the Ashkirk water supply, but my right hon. Friend is not yet satisfied as to need and urgency.

    Sewerage Scheme, Kirkintilloch
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what grant it is proposed to make towards the proposed sewerage and sewage disposal scheme for the burgh of Kirkintilloch.
    Commander Galbraith: The local authority's application is under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, but in the present financial situation grants under that Act for the improvement of basic services are not being awarded.
    Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this scheme was accepted, that the Burgh of Kirkintilloch were permitted to go ahead with it and have done a lot of preparatory work, and that they were held up by the previous Government in the period before the grants were being refused? In view of the fact that the seheme was accepted before the withdrawal of the grants, will the Minister consider making a grant?
    Commander Galbraith: No, Sir, I cannot do that because the Kirkintilloch Town Council were not committed to expend the money which would justify the grant being given.
    Mr. McInnes: Can the Minister say why the grants are not being made and whether this practice is general throughout Great Britain as a whole, or is just another illustration of confining it solely to Scotland?
    Commander Galbraith: Certainly not. It applies throughout the country, and in that connection I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Budget speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 11th March last.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister saying that this is not a necessary sewerage scheme, and are we to understand that essential schemes of this nature are likely to be held up because of some false economy in refusing to make grants?
    Commander Galbraith: No, Sir. The burgh can go ahead with that portion of the scheme which in the meantime would be sufficient for their needs, instead of going ahead with the whole scheme.

    Building Costs Committee (Report)
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to reconsider his decision not to publish the second Report of the Scottish Building Costs Committee. in view of the fact that a draft report has been prepared and that the comparable committee for England and Wales has already issued three reports.
    Commander Galbraith: For the reasons given to the hon. Gentleman on 19th December last, the Committee did not submit a report, and my right hon. Friend does not propose to ask them to continue their investigation.
    Mr. McInnes: I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that the Committee has prepared a report, because I have it in my hand just now. The reason why it is not being published is that the Government desire to effect an economy of £400. This is the third Government Commission report that the Scottish Office has refused to publish, and I should like to know what is the mysterious policy behind all this that denies the people of Scotland the right to this invaluable information.
    Commander Galbraith: I really do not see much point in publishing material such as the Committee has handed over which in some respects requires revision and in others is already out of date.

    Local Authority Members (Allowances)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the present re-imbursements made to persons who serve as members of tribunals under the jurisdiction of his Department; to what extent these conditions and rates have been increased or otherwise altered during the last five years; and in what manner.
    Commander Galbraith: The maximum rate of compensation for loss of remunerative time payable in the case of bodies closely associated with local authorities, as, for example, committees appointed under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, is 20s. a day. In the case of other bodies the maximum rate is 25s. a day. The first rate has not been changed in the last five years; the second was increased from 21s. in September, 1948.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the present rate is not at all comparable to the rise in the cost of living? Does he not think it would be fair to raise the remuneration to a sum which would be comparable to the cost of living, having regard to the fact that the people serving on these tribunals not only give their services but also have to incur certain expenditure?
    Commander Galbraith: I think that that is another question that should be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not to me.
    Mr. Wheatley: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how these rates compare with the rates for similar tribunals in England and Wales?
    Commander Galbraith: I understand that they are the same.

    Hospital Facilities, Midlothian
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the urgent demand for hospital service in the developing mining area of Midlothian; and if he will make a statement.
    Commander Galbraith: This area is served by Edinburgh hospitals, and I am afraid I cannot hold out any prospect of a new hospital in the area in the near future.
    Mr. Pryde: In view of the fact that 710 square miles of rapidly developing territory is served only by the City of Edinburgh, does it not seem strange to the Joint Under-Secretary that where we are building a new town, without the assistance of the New Towns Act, the same sort of incentive should not be applied to the county?
    Commander Galbraith: Yes, but the facilities in Edinburgh are very readily available for the particular areas to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and developments are taking place or will take place there.

    Ambulance Attendants
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that, in towns and cities in South-East Scotland, two persons are deemed necessary to staff an ambulance wagon, whilst in landward areas, the driver has to solicit casual assistance for the collection of stretcher cases; and whether he will make regulations to standardise the practice of carrying two persons throughout Scotland.
    Commander Galbraith: As I have explained in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, I do not think it would be justifiable to incur the expense of providing an attendant in addition to a driver on ambulances in areas where loading operations occupy a comparatively small part of the time the ambulance is in use
    Mr. Pryde: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not consider it strange that cities should be offered two persons a waggon while in the counties—in one area alone, the Dalkeith and Newton-grange area, where they have now over 40,000 people who suffer from the same diseases and ailments as city people— the ambulance driver has to cadge assistance in order to collect stretcher cases?
    Commander Galbraith: Yes, but the circumstances are different in the Newton-grange area. There are not so many tenements as in the Edinburgh area.

    Highland Development
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the continuing depopulation from the Highland counties, what action he is taking to create greater opportunities for employment in the area, not only to arrest depopulation, but to achieve repopulation, and to reach a degree of Highland prosperity and development which could be an increasing asset to the whole of Britain.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The purpose of the programme of Highland development which is being carried out as quickly as the resources of the country allow is to encourage more people to live in the Highlands by making it possible for them to find there suitable and productive employment and to enjoy modern amenities
    Mr. John MacLeod: Is it the Government's intention to encourage industrialists to come into this area although there may not be the raw materials in the area for such an industry? Many industries which come into the Highlands do not need raw materials within the area.
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, of course. We want to encourage everybody who wishes and can be persuaded to come into the Highlands.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is it not clear from the population figures for the Highlands that depopulation is still going on; is my hon. Friend aware that until we reverse this trend we cannot begin the development of which the Highlands are capable; and would it not be very much in the interests of the whole United Kingdom that we should begin this?
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the growth of unemployment in parts of the Highlands, he will consider accelerating the programme of Highland development and making full use of the now available manpower.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Unemployment is, unfortunately, usually higher at this time of year, but we are pressing forward the programme of Highland development to the fullest extent consistent with the country's economic position.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that economy is the use of the labour available to the maximum extent; would he not agree that it is not economy to pay people for being unemployed when the same people are willing to do work for that money; is he also aware that unemployment in one district has reached over 30 per cent., and that it cannot be said to be seasonal employment but is probably due to more permanent causes; and are the Government prepared to see that their Highland development plan is put into effect as fast as labour becomes available in the Highlands in order not to have any wastage of labour, money or materials?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir, that indeed is our desire and intention.
    Mr. Ross: On a point of order. In view of the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has seen fit to answer Question No. 28 on employment and unemployment, could you tell me, Mr. Speaker, why it was that he saw fit to transfer to the Minister of Labour what is now Question No. 91, standing in my name, dealing with Scottish unemployment; and why the Scottish Office is not only reluctant but quite incompetent to tell me why that Question has been transferred?
    Mr. Speaker: I think the answer must be that Question No. 28 relates to the programme of Highland development.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not the fact that there is really no development at all in the Highlands; and is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that in my own constituency 90 men, road workers, were paid off a week or two ago while a mass of roads remain in an unrepaired and dangerous state?
    Mr. Stewart: There is indeed a good deal of development going on.
    Sir D. Robertson: Where?
    Mr. Stewart: In my hon. Friend's constituency. He is doing a good deal of it himself. I was not aware of the case of the road men to which my hon. Friend referred, and I will look into that immediately. It may well be that the had weather has made it impossible to do road work.

    North Hydro-Electric Board
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average load factor of all water-driven hydro-electric works owned by the North of Scotland HydroElectric Board during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1952.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am informed by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board that the average load factor during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1952, in all hydro-electric works owned by the Board was 27.7 per cent. including Sloy, which was designed as a peak-load station, or 36.4 per cent. excluding Sloy.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total financial sum vested as capital in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board at 31st December, 1952; how much has been furnished, respectively, by the National Debt Commissioners or other public authority or agency; and how much from private or other than public sources.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The total issued capital of the Board at 31st December, 1952, was £62 million, of which £57 million of stock was issued to the National Debt Commissioners and £5 million of stock was a public issue.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the cumulative sum vested in capital works for generation and distribution of electricity by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, including all works of an ancillary character, corrected to the nearest £1 million and to 31st December, 1952, or the latest convenient date; and the aggregate installed capacity expressed in megawatts at that date.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am informed by the Board that their total expenditure at 31st December, 1952, on generation works, including hydro, steam and diesel generating stations, main transmission, works acquired at vesting date and works under construction, was £62 million, and the aggregate installed capacity at that date was 560 megawatts. In addition, expenditure on distribution works amounted to £19 million.

    River Purification Board, Ayr
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has been taken by his Department to implement the provisions of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951, in the county of Ayr.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has sent draft proposals to the five local authorities concerned in the establishment of a river purification board for the rivers in the county of Ayr and neighbouring areas, and he is now awaiting their comments.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many members of angling clubs throughout Ayrshire are most anxious for this matter to be proceeded with as quickly as possible, particularly as we in Ayrshire think that other areas are being treated more quickly than the county of Ayr; and is he further aware that many farmers desire to have a clean water supply for their livestock, and to have equality with the rest of Scotland in the carrying out of prevention of pollution schemes?
    Commander Galbraith: Yes. Sir. I share the angling associations' anxiety, but the matter has been before the local authority since 2nd May, 1952, and we are hoping that an understanding and agreement is now almost in sight.
    Mr. Patrick Maitland: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether any progress has been made as regards the Clyde?
    Mr. Manuel: That is not in Ayrshire.
    Commander Galbraith: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down that question. It is somewhat different from the one on the Paper.

    Hospital Boards (Building Projects)
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many building projects have been submitted to his Department by regional hospital boards; how many of these projects he has authorised; and how many will be actively commenced this year.
    Commander Galbraith: The provisional building programmes submitted by regional hospital boards for 1953 include 98 projects costing more than £10,000 each. All these projects have been approved in principle, and work had already started on 57 of them by the end of 1952. Having regard to the heavy programme of work on projects already begun and to the fact that final programmes have not yet been received from all the regional boards, I cannot yet estimate how many of the remaining 41 projects will be actively commenced in 1953.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the information he has given to the House will be most depressing to the members of regional hospital boards; that it is clear from his statement that none of the latter projects which he mentioned will be actively commenced this year; that the lack of nurses' homes, for instance, near or adjacent to our hospitals is having a very bad effect on the recruitment of nurses up to the number we want; and would he give that aspect his particular attention, and possibly allow some schemes of this nature to go forward this year?
    Commander Galbraith: I do not think it can be considered depressing that 57 out of 98 projects are already under way, and that another 41 are being actively considered at the moment.
    Mr. Wheatley: How many of the 57 which have been started are major projects and how many minor projects; and of the 41 which have not been started how many are major projects and how many are minor projects?
    Commander Galbraith: All those started are considered major projects, exceeding over £10,000 each.
    Mr. Wheatley: Oh, no.
    Commander Galbraith: Those are considered to be major projects. The others, of course, do not come to the Department.
    Mr. Pryde: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why Ayrshire is being given preference over Midlothian when Midlothian is a reception area receiving the transfer of redundant miners from Lanarkshire?
    Commander Galbraith: I was not aware that it was.

    Exchequer Equalisation Grants
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what Scottish local authorities received no Exchequer equalisation grants during the first year of working of the scheme; and what local authorities are receiving no grants for the year ending 31st March. 1953.
    Commander Galbraith: During the first year of the scheme—that is the year 1948–49—the counties of Bute, Peebles and Renfrew and the burghs of Aberdeen, Ayr, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Perth did not qualify for grant. In the current year, on the first provisional calculation the same areas, together with the county of Dunbarton and the burghs of Dumfries, Dundee, Inverness and Stirling do not qualify.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this information shows that the aim of the Exchequer equalisation fund to distribute money in relation to local needs is completely breaking down in Scotland, and can he assure us that he is hastening the Report of the Working Committee which is at present discussing this matter?
    Commander Galbraith: Yes, by every possible means.
    Mr. McInnes: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman assure the House that the Report of the Working Committee on this occasion, and despite past practice in the Scottish Office, will be made available to Members of this House?
    Commander Galbraith: It will be laid before Parliament.
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what sum

    1055
    Dundee received in Exchequer equalisation grant during the year ended 31st March, 1952.
    Commander Galbraith: Dundee did not receive any Exchequer equalisation grant during the year ended 15th May, 1952.

    Storm Damage (Fallen Timber)
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any further statement to make regarding the measures to be taken to clear the fallen timber in Scottish forests, due to the storm of 31st January.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): My right hon. Friend is of the opinion that he cannot usefully make any further statement at present but he intends to do so shortly.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I should like to ask two questions. First, when does the Minister expect the statement to be made, and, secondly, is he aware that leading members of the Forestry Commission have expressed the view that it will take at least two years with the present resources to clear this timber; and will he impress on his right hon. Friend the need for any action which the Government can take to see that this timber is cleared within a year, if it is not to deteriorate, because these are important national stocks of timber?
    Mr. Snadden: I cannot say exactly on what day my right hon. Friend will make a statement. I can only say that it will be very shortly. With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, my right hon. Friend is fully aware of all these considerations, and I think that it would be better if we were to await the full statement which he will make to the House.
    Mr. Manuel: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the Forestry Commission have mobilised their manpower and mechanisation in order that this work may be quickly proceeded with?
    Mr. Snadden: Our most recent information is that the Forestry Commission are very quickly getting down to this job in every possible way.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Can my hon. Friend give the House any view as to the proportion of the fallen timber which
    1056
    comprises Scottish firs and other softwood, which is likely to deteriorate within nine to 12 months unless it is peeled and stacked.
    Mr. Snadden: I cannot give that information without notice. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put the question down.
    Mr. Steele: Is the reason for his right hon. Friend having some difficulty about making a statement because of the delay in visiting these areas?
    Mr. Snadden: No, Sir.
    Captain Duncan: Will my hon. Friend inform his right hon. Friend of the importance of planning now for this timber to be cleared from the woods within a year, whereas the subsequent handling of the timber and its conversion into sawn timber can wait for the second year?
    Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend is intensely interested in this tremendous problem, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that all these matters are very much in his mind at the present time.

    Doctors' Prescriptions
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of patients who have transferred from doctors who refused to prescribe advertised proprietory drugs to other who will do so; and if he will take steps to protect doctors from this form of pressure.
    Commander Galbraith: No statistics are available. Various forms of publicity have emphasised that it is for the doctor, not the patient, to decide what is to be prescribed, and I look to the doctors to support one another in this matter.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount was spent in prescriptions in 1950, 1951 and 1952, on slimming tablets; and what researches his Department has made to satisfy itself as to the value of these tablets in reducing obesity.
    Commander Galbraith: Detailed information is not available. I have no reason to think that doctors are prescribing drugs which are not of value, when taken under medical supervision, in cases where weight reduction is necessary on medical grounds.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and
    gallant Gentleman aware of a report last week that £400,000 had been spent on slimming tablets? Will he confirm—it is a very important matter—whether the tablets really slim or whether they merely curb the appetite?
    Commander Galbraith: I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Lady refers. I would inform her that the drug, dexedrine, to which she has referred, is quite an effective drug for slimming when used under medical supervision, and slimming is not the only purpose for which it is prescribed.
    Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that many more people die from being too thin than from being too fat?
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the drug cannot be used except under medical supervision, so that his statement is rather superfluous? Is he aware that medical opinion is that the drug does not reduce obesity but merely curbs the appetite? Is not £400.000 an extravagant sum to spend for that purpose?
    Commander Galbraith: I have to rely on the medical advice given me, and that is that the drug is effective for slimming.

    Overfishing Convention (London Conference)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the proposals which the Government will lay before the forthcoming conference which will be held in London to consider measures for conservation of fish stocks in the North Sea.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I hardly think it possible in reply to a Parliamentary Question to provide the hon. Member with the full statement for which he asks. He may, however, be interested to learn that, as it will be impracticable in most countries for the new minimum mesh of nets to be introduced when the Overfishing Convention comes into force on 5th April, the conference due to meet in London on 4th March will be invited to consider the application of the fishing net provisions of the Convention with a view to allowing a reasonable period for using up stocks of existing nets. They will also be asked to discuss arrangements
    1058
    for setting up as soon as possible the Permanent Commission for which the Convention provides.
    Mr. Grimond: Is it the intention of the Government to make a statement at any time and give the House a chance to consider it? Besides the question of a map, will the conference consider restrictions on inshore waters? In other words, will the matter of the Moray Firth and the Clyde being closed to foreign trawlers be considered at the conference?
    Mr. Stewart: I am not sure whether that is so. I will find out and let the hon. Gentleman know. With regard to a full statement, it is not for me to say what should be done but I am sure that we shall take every opportunity possible to explain what is to happen.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Will the action of the Icelandic Government be referred to the conference?
    Mr. Stewart: I have no doubt that it will come up for discussion.

  AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND

    Land Drainage Schemes
    Commander Donaldsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what major land drainage schemes for Scotland are under consideration; and in what areas it is proposed to implement them.
    Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend is aware of a number of major land drainage projects which it would be desirable to undertake, but he is not at present in a position to carry them out. As he informed the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) on 10th February, my right hon. Friend is discussing with the interests concerned the lines of possible amending legislation to enable such problems to be dealt with.
    Commander Donaldson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether his right hon. Friend is also in close consultation with the Treasury on these matters?
    Mr. Snadden: At the moment we are discussing with the interests concerned the legislation that may be necessary. I would not commit myself to saying that we have yet reached the stage of approaching the Treasury.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware that we have had this promise for a very long time and that there is great agricultural loss through ground being continually flooded? Can he give some promise as to when the necessary legislation will be brought forward?
    Mr. Snadden: I am aware of the potential reclaiming of many thousands of acres which we hope to get under a major scheme. But this is an extremely complicated piece of legislation involving long discussions and very technical questions. I can assure the hon. Member that we are getting on with it as fast as we can.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: If it is a matter of finance, will the Minister consider, if necessary, changing over finance made available to certain schemes not of the same priority in favour of these very important drainage schemes?
    Mr. Snadden:That is a matter which would have to be considered with the Treasury.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the 400,000 acres of agricultural land which could be reclaimed in Scotland by a comprehensive drainage scheme has been reclaimed during the last 12 months.
    Mr. Snadden: According to the Report of the Duncan Committee, it is estimated that some 200,000 acres of agricultural land in Scotland could be improved by arterial drainage works. I regret that information as to the number of acres actually improved during 1952 is not readily available, but 156 voluntary schemes proposed by owners and occupiers of agricultural land, and affecting a total area of 9,000 acres, were approved during the year.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland told me about a year ago that there were 400,000 acres which could be reclaimed in Scotland by comprehensive drainage schemes? Is he aware further that by mechanical drainage it is possible to reclaim from 50 acres to 70 acres a day? Is he further aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would do his best to
    1060
    listen to the Secretary of State for Scotland in so far as Scottish developments were concerned, and would he approach my right hon. Friend to ask him to do his best in this respect?
    Mr. Snadden: The figure I quoted of 200,000 acres is the most recent official figure given to us by a committee set up to examine this question—the Duncan Committee. With regard to the second part of my noble Friend's supplementary question, we are very much aware of what can be done by major drainage schemes, and we are hoping to get legislation in due course to give us power to carry them out.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Could my hon. Friend say what co-operation there is from local authorities?
    Mr. Snadden: We have been consulting with the local authorities in regard to this question, and they have been very good in coming forward to give us their views.
    Mr. Boothby: Is it not a bit late for views now? Does my hon. Friend not agree that this is about the most important capital expenditure we can undertake? Is not 9,000 acres a miserable total in relation to the amount which he himself says could be reclaimed?
    Mr. Snadden: Of course, the 9,000 acres to which I referred really cover minor schemes. We require legislation to carry out major arterial drainage.

    Trading Services
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce the losses on the agricultural trading services of his Department.
    Mr. Snadden: The trading services of the Department of Agriculture relate to labour, machinery and the farming and management of agricultural land. My hon. and gallant Friend has put down separate Questions on each of these services, and I shall endeavour to answer each of them fully.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce the losses on the agricultural machinery services of his Department.
    Mr. Snadden: The demand from farmers for these services has fallen in recent years. The services have been withdrawn from certain areas, and elsewhere operating staffs and machinery have been reduced to the minimum capable of dealing with the amount of work offered. Charges to farmers have been increased to meet the rising costs of wages and materials, The scope and strength of the services are under constant review. The net deficit fell from £161,636 for 1950 to 1951 to £106,825 for 1951 to 1952.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce the losses on the agricultural labour services of his Department.
    Mr. Snadden: The pool labour force employed by the Department of Agriculture for hiring to farmers was disbanded at 31st December, 1952. This will effect a substantial saving.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that these Questions are an indication of the poor thanks the farming community give to the State for the subsidies which are being given them in the way of labour and machinery to help them to do their job?
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that these Questions were put down in the interests of the national economy, which is of no interest whatever to the Socialist Party.

    Gin Traps
    Commander Donaldsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the public concern regarding the use of gin traps which cause unnecessary suffering both to rabbits and domestic animals; and what steps be is taking to introduce a more humane type of trap for use in Scotland.
    Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend is aware of the public concern, but he cannot, in the interests of food production, prohibit the use of the gin trap until an effective, humane substitute is readily available. Eight inventors have submitted 17 models for consideration as alternatives to the gin. Of that number, one —the "Imbra"—has given encouraging results on field trial, and one—the Miller "Killmore"—has shown possibilities
    1062
    which may be developed in later models. My right hon. Friend is arranging for further trials of the "Imbra" and of any other available types in the spring.
    Commander Donaldson: Can my hon. Friend say whether, when his right hon. Friend has had sufficient time to test these new traps, he has the authority to enforce their use once they have been approved?
    Mr. Snadden: Statutory powers exist under the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, enabling the Secretary of State for Scotland to do what the hon. and gallant Member is asking.

    Improvement Schemes, Orkney and Shetland
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many proposals for schemes under the Livestock Rearing Act have been received from Orkney and Shetland; and how many have been rejected.
    Mr. Snadden: Since the passing of the Livestock Rearing Act, 1951, 95 proposals for improvement schemes have been received from Orkney and Shetland. During this period 23 schemes have been rejected in these counties.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister agree that it is most important to get on with this business of developing land in the far North? Is he aware that some of these schemes have been rejected on the ground that a quantity of eggs was being produced on the farms? Will he look into that matter, and, if that proves to be the case, will he give instructions that such schemes are not to be turned down on that ground?
    Mr. Snadden: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me a note of these cases. A large number of cases are at present under consideration, and the reason is that the Livestock Rearing Act has not been in operation very long. We have had a spate of applications which we are trying to deal with as quickly as possible.

    Eggs (Marketing)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with egg producers and packing stations in Scotland over the future marketing of eggs.
    Mr. Snadden: The Government have been in consultation with the National Farmers' Unions and representatives of the packing stations and other trade interests on this subject. Scottish producers and packers have taken part in these discussions, but there have been no separate Scottish consultations.
    Mr. Grimond: Does not the Minister think that it is most desirable there should be such consultations with the Scottish Office in view of the great importance of this industry in Scotland, and will he make sure that the Scottish interests are properly safeguarded?
    Mr. Snadden: The Scottish Office have been concerned in these consultations. I understood that the hon. Member was asking about other Scottish interests. As we are discussing a broad general question affecting the whole country, representation of all the National Farmers' Unions, including the Scottish, is considered to be appropriate.
    Mr. Boothby: Why has the Minister never discussed this matter with the Poultry Association of Great Britain, of which I am honorary President?

  DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN'S PENSIONS
  Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Pensions if he will now revise his method of recognition of disabilities for payment of pension to that of the principle of fit for service, fit for pension.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Brigadier J. G. Smyth): As the hon. Member is aware, the claim for the adoption of such a principle has been considered by successive Governments who have been unable to accept it. My hon. Friend considers that the present requirement that there must be a causal connection between disablement and service is sound and he does not feel that any revision is warranted.
  Mr. Lewis: While I appreciate the length of that reply, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House, most of the people in the country, most of the Press and almost all ex-Service men agree that this is the only fair and proper way to deal with the question of
  1064
  disabled ex-Service men? Will the Minister look at this again to see if something further can be done?
  Brigadier Smyth: I do not quite accept what the hon. Gentleman says on that point. It is fair to say that for some time the responsible ex-Service associations have not been pressing this point because it is generally accepted, and has been accepted since the change in the entitlement conditions in July, 1943, which put the onus of proof on the Minister and not on the claimant.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Personal Case
    Mr. Wadeasked the Secretary of State for War how long Private Brian M. Jupp, whose plea of conscience was upheld by the advisory tribunal on 15th December, 1952, was imprisoned under sentence by court-martial by reason of his conscientiously objecting to performing military service; and in what prison or prisons he was detained.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): Private Jupp was imprisoned, following conviction by court-martial of an offence claimed to have been committed on the grounds of conscience, for a period of 47 days. The prisons in which he was detained were Canterbury, Eastchurch and Wormwood Scrubs.
    Mr. Wade: Is it not anomalous that one who is found to be a genuine conscientious objector should be compelled to serve a sentence of imprisonment before his case is heard?
    Mr. Hutchison: Where a soldier who had a chance of claiming conscientious objection before his service started develops a conscientious objection during his service, we want to be satisfied that the objection is bona fide. Therefore, he has to provide some form of evidence that he really does believe what he says has developed, and as soon as that has been done, he is released, as in the case of this man.
    Mr. J. Hudson: Does that mean that the Government will insist on putting men through incarceration of one sort or another in order to find out whether they have a conscience at all?
    Mr. Hutchison: Where conscientious objection did not exist originally, what the hon. Gentleman suggests is the system.

    Chelsea Pensioners (Brookwood Cemetery)
    Mr. Shortasked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to see that crosses properly inscribed are provided for all Chelsea Pensioners buried in Brookwood Cemetery.
    Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: No, Sir. The Pensioners and staff of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, are buried in a special plot and are commemorated by a central memorial.
    Mr. Short: Is it not a shocking disgrace that these fine old Pensioners should have their graves marked only by a peg in the ground with a number attached to it, especially as there are a short distance away neat, well-kept graves of Poles and Czechs tended by the Imperial War Graves Commission? Will the hon. Gentleman have the graves transferred to the Imperial War Graves Commission?
    Mr. Hutchison: I would point out that there is a fine central memorial to all the Chelsea Pensioners. There are opportunities for Pensioners to make comments upon this, but they have never done so, nor have their relations. If relations wish to provide for a burial outside the cemetery, it is open to them to do so, and they get financial aid. Furthermore, if a relative wanted to erect a cross of this kind, he would be allowed to do so in consultation with the authorities.
    Mr. Short: Does not the Minister realise that these old Chelsea Pensioners are buried in a rough, uneven bit of ground in Brookwood Cemetery and that each grave is marked only by a peg with a number on it? Does he not regard that as shocking?
    Mr. F. Maclean: What expenditure would be involved in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion?
    Mr. Hutchison: About £l0 to £12 each. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The funds of Chelsea Hospital are not excessive, and we believe it is better to expend them on the living.
    Mr. Wigg: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Government are making money out of the Chelsea Pensioners? Before a man becomes an inmate of the Royal Hospital he has to surrender his pension. Would it not be only decent to give back some of that money in order to erect at least a headstone?
    Mr. Hutchison: I shall have to look into that aspect of the matter.
    Mr. Short: It may be a small thing, but I regard it as a minor national disgrace. I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I should like to raise a point of order affecting the whole House. Questions Nos. 54 and 55 stand in the names of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick). I am not discussing the merits of the Questions, but I should like to know whether it is permissible for two Questions to be put on the Order Paper after the hon. Members at an earlier date stated they intended to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: In deciding whether to accept or reject a Question because of previous notice of an Adjournment Motion, it is proper for Mr. Speaker to take into consideration not only the fact of there being such a Motion, but the probability of it being reached in reasonable time. In this case, the general notice was considered to be so far distant from fulfilment that the Question was allowed.

SUDAN (ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT)
Captain Waterhouse(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes to take in view of the statement by General Neguib contradicting the assurance given to this House that on attaining independence the Sudan would be free to seek an association with the British Commonwealth if she so desired.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): My statement in reply to my right hon. and gallant Friend on 12th February stands. Her Majesty's Government hold that "complete independence" includes the right of the Sudanese to choose any form of association with any other State on their achieving self-determination. Complete independence clearly could not prevent the Sudan from seeking any association with the CommonweaIth or any other arrangements it wished which are in accord with such independence.
Mr. Paget: Since it would appear that the Egyptians understand one thing by this Treaty, and the right hon. Gentleman another, is it not desirable that this difference should be cleared up before the Treaty is ratified?
Mr. Eden: On 9th January Her Majesty's Ambassador was instructed to explain to the Egyptian Government that we understood "complete independence" to include the right of the Sudanese to choose any form of association with any other State on their achieving independence. So our position was made plain as long ago as 9th January.
Captain Waterhouse: Does not General Neguib's statement since signing this Agreement make it abundantly clear that the object is not to allow the Sudanese to have self-determination and independence but to place them under the heel of Egypt? May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman if these repeated statements do not make it quite impossible to accept the word or the signature of the Egyptians, and if this continues would it not be to the advantage of the Sudanese to send the Egyptians out of the Sudan by accepting their denunciation of Condominium?
Mr. Eden: General Neguib's first statement after the Agreement was signed was that he hoped that this would be the beginning of a new era both between Egypt and the Sudan and Egypt and Her Majesty's Government. I certainly most warmly reciprocate that sentiment, but if it is to be carried out there will certainly have to be an increasing measure of restraint on all sides.
Mr. H. Morrison: I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the words "complete independence" are not inconsistent in themselves with association with the British Commonwealth. After all, the British Commonwealth countries are independent although members of the Commonwealth. But it would be a pity if there were any misunderstanding between us and the Egyptians on this matter. Could the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the interpretation of the words in the sense that he has indicated are consistent with the way in which they are understood by the Government of Egypt, namely, that they recognise that the Sudanese are free to be associated with Egypt, free to be independent outside the British Commonwealth. or free to be independent inside the British Commonwealth?
Mr. Eden: What I said was that on 9th January we gave our interpretation of these words "complete independence" and we stated we understood them to include the right of the Sudanese to choose any form of association with any other State on achieving their independence. That was as long ago as 9th January. As regards the Commonwealth, what has been said about it is, I think, in large measure due to the fact that many countries do not seem to understand that the Commonwealth is, in fact, a partnership of completely independent nations and that nobody can join it except as a result of consultation with, and acceptance by, those who are in it already.
Mr. McNeil: I am sure everyone sympathises with the right hon. Gentleman and everyone knows what Her Majesty's Government said on 9th January. The first point I want to put is to ask the right hon. Gentleman, not what was said by Her Majesty's Government, but does General Neguib and his Administration now accept that interpretation?

1069
Secondly, if they do not accept that interpretation will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House that no further negotiations will take place until that interpretation is accepted?
Mr. Eden: It is perfectly clear that we have made plain our position, and I have made it plain once again to the House this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) shakes his head. I have made plain my position this afternoon so far as the English language can mean anything at all. I also made it plain on 9th January. By that position we stand, and that position I am not prepared to vary. I cannot say what the comments of any other Government will be on what I have said this afternoon until they have been made, but I can say that what we have said in the negotiations, what I have said to my right hon. Friend and what I have said now, are precisely and exactly the same.
Mr. J. Amery: In view of the fact that General Neguib's statement was broadcast to the Sudanese, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that what he said on Thursday last and again today will also be broadcast so that no misapprehension will be left in the minds of the Sudanese people?
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I will see that that is done.
Mr. Nally: Would the Foreign Secretary emphasise the point that has already been made, that the decision whether or not to join the Commonwealth is entirely a decision for an independent Sudanese Government to take at some time approximately three years from now, and will he further make it plain that neither he nor the Egyptian Government are capable of entering into an agreement that binds an independent Sudanese Government, subject to Sudanese opinion and acting under its own authority to make whatever decision it likes at a time approximately within the three years limit?
Mr. Eden: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has very clearly stated the position. This is a decision not only to associate itself with anyone in any way; but it might be that the Sudan three years from now might want to make a
1070
treaty or take any other action. Once self-determination has taken place, it is entirely a matter for the Sudanese Government
Mr. McNeil: I am sure that no one wants to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman or impede the movement which has been started in the Sudan; but does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is little likelihood of regular progression unless the two Governments concerned understand each other precisely? Will he therefore tell us whether, when he made his interpretation on 9th January, it was accepted by the other Condominium Power?
Mr. Eden: I know that the explanation was given by Her Majesty's Ambassador, and I know also that as a result of it there was a change made in the text itself. The text of this particular clause originally ran that the alternative included a Sudan
"completely independent of the United Kingdom, Egypt or any other country."
That interpretation will be found in the White Paper which I am laying now.
We did not like those words, because we thought that "completely independent of the United Kingdom" might be understood to mean that some later arrangement could not be made with the Commonwealth, so most of those words were taken out. The words finally stand:
"completely independent,"
without any mention of any country. I think that shows clearly that we made our point completely frankly.
Captain Waterhouse: Mention has been made of "three years," as if three years were a safe period. Is it not a fact that under this agreement the Sudanese could technically, as soon as the elections were finished, give three months' notice to proceed to a Statute of Independence? Might not the whole thing be telescoped into one year, or even less?
Mr. Eden: That would be subject to the process of Sudanisation. Nothing is less likely, if the Sudan wants to keep, as I am sure it does, its national unity in this matter. All parties in the Sudan realise that such a time-table is not realisable.

MIDDLE EAST STATES (SUPPLY OF JET AIRCRAFT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]
3.43 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Dalton: I rise to call attention to the supply of jet aircraft by Her Majesty's Government to certain countries in the Middle East and to urge that this should stop. The reasons for this argument I will develop briefly.
We hear talk of the need to provide for the collective defence of the Middle East. I presume that the Government will argue that the supply of jet aircraft to these Powers is promoting that end. But I submit that such a phrase as "collective defence of the Middle East" can have no real meaning so long as the present state of tension continues between Israel on the one hand and the Arab States on the other. Indeed, it is only too dangerously likely that aircraft supplied to any of these States at this time will be thought of—whatever may be said—primarily in terms of those neighbours of theirs with whom their relations are not good. Therefore, I submit that the supply of these weapons at this time is likely to increase rather than to diminish the tension.
It appears to me that our first duty in this field is to do all we can to reduce tension between Israel and the Arab States, and to seek to help in the solution of such problems as the resettlement of Arab refugees about which there was such a very interesting and well-informed article in "The Times" yesterday and to encourage, not the competitive armament of those States but rather their economic development and, through their own efforts and with our assistance, to raise the living standards which are now miserably low throughout all that area.
It is now more than four years since the present frontiers between Israel and her neighbours were provisionally fixed, at the end of a war. Her Majesty's Government are committed by the ThreePower declaration of May, 1950, along with the United States and France, to protect those frontiers against violations
1072
or aggressions from either side. The actual terms of the declaration by the United States, the French and ourselves are as follows:
"The three Governments take this opportunity of declaring their deep interest in, and their desire to promote the establishment and maintenance of, peace and stability in the area, and their unalterable opposition to the use of force between any of the States in that area. The three Governments, should they find that any of these States was preparing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would, consistently with their obligations as members of the United Nations, immediately take action, both within and outside the United Nations, to prevent such violation."
That is very fair, very emphatic and very right, and it means that we have a very particular interest, so long as the present tension continues, in maintaining a low level of armament in all these States. The fewer weapons of war they have for the present the better, and it might, in some conditions, be the better for us.
Frontier incidents have been causing great concern to all who are interested in the area, and they have lately been growing. Tension has not been diminishing, but has been rising. We all deplore these frontier incidents. They are partly due to the drawing of a frontier which is no more than an armistice line when fighting ceased. Could we only get reasonable relations between these two nations, a number of comparatively small changes in both directions could be made in the existing lines which would diminish tension and the risk of incidents. That cannot be done so long as there is no effective relationship between Israel on the one hand and the Arab States on the other, which still refuse to recognise diplomatically the existence of the State of Israel at all.
The incidents have come from both sides. They have included the blowing up by Arabs of an Israeli railway line and a goods train, the bombardment by Israelis of two Arab villages, the infiltration, as the word is, by a number of Arabs both from the Gaza strip and from Jordan who have pillaged Israeli settlements, carried off pipes intended to irrigate the Negev and, in other ways, have done damage in Israeli territory. It is easy to multiply and extend the long list of these incidents, which Her Majesty's Government should be using all their influence to seek means to diminish. In

1073
particular, we should be trying to get better liaison on the Israel-Jordan frontier, through representatives police or military as the case may be—of the two Governments.
I shall not say any more about Egypt. We have had a few words about her just now. But Egypt is still regarded as the leading Power in the Arab League Therefore, upon Egypt, in that capacity of leadership, there falls an especially heavy responsibility for the continuance of this state of war, as the Egyptians still declare it is. We have considerable grievances ourselves in this matter, because for years the Egyptians have continued to interfere with shipping, including our shipping, passing through the Suez Canal.
I wish this afternoon to discuss this problem in terms of actualities of this moment and not unduly to pursue either long-range prophecies or backward looks into history, but the right hon. Gentleman did protest very strongly—and rightly I thought—against Egyptian action in regard to shipping passing through the Canal and the present Prime Minister spoke even more strongly on the subject. Anyone who cares to turn up the debate of 30th July, 1951, will find that the present Prime Minister spoke in terms of great warmth and indignation against Egyptian action:
"In breach of this armistice the Egyptians have closed the Suez Canal... In breach of the armistice the Suez Canal was closed to all passage of tankers to the Haifa refinery." — [OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th July. 1951: Vol. 491. c. 985.]
The right hon. Gentleman went on to develop that. That blockade is still going on and I must say that in these conditions I do not think Egypt is a suitable recipient for further weapons of war from this country at this time, particularly as there still remain evident ambiguities in the arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman has been making with them in regard to the Sudan.
I now turn to speak of the Arab refugees. Here is an intensely human and very large problem affecting at least three quarters of a million people and perhaps nearly a million, living in most deplorable conditions, breeding in the midst of misery and without hope. Their number is steadily increasing by the excess of births over deaths. the deaths
1074
being diminished by United Nations medical agencies performing miracles in this environment. The United Nations have done a very fine job for which we should all be very grateful, but surely this cannot be continued without a serious effort being made to give these people new hope and a new life. Evidently, what is required is that there should be large-scale and persistent efforts at the resettlement of these unhappy people in some place they may call their own.
Spokesmen of certain of the Arab States still speak of repatriation as the solution of the refugee problem, but this is a cruel deception as applied to the great mass of refugees. It could only come about if the State of Israel were to be destroyed—if the Israelis were to be massacred, or driven into the sea. I assume that no hon. Member in any part of the House wishes to see that sort of solution. Therefore, we must exclude totally the solution of repatriation
except perhaps for a small minority for the great mass of these refugees.
I will come in a moment to positive proposals, but there is too much dangerous talk in the Arab States by leading statesmen of what they call a "second round" with Israel, in which they hope to reverse the military results of the war of 1948–49. Here I merely repeat that the United States, France and ourselves are pledged to prevent any such second round. We are committed by the Declaration I have read to resist egression from either side. Ibis is not a time to supply jet planes to this area. They might indeed be used not only by Arab States against Israel, but also against troops, or air or other forces, of our own and of the United States or France entering into that area in order to prevent aggression under the Declaration of 1950.
I now turn to the more positive side of what should be sought to be done for these refugees.
Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about the supply of aircraft, will he explain why two years ago, when the situation was far worse, his Government were supplying spares to keep such aircraft in the air?
Mr. Dalton: I was deliberately not wanting to hide under the skirts of history as so many people do when embarrassed on one side or the other in modern political discussion. I said I wished to consider this matter in terms of the actual situation existing today. I was not trying to score debating points from the past, although I have mentioned what the present Prime Minister once said. I do not wish to be side-tracked from a serious discussion by a lot of polemical reminiscences, the net result of which is usually unsatisfactory to all who participate in them. Let us talk about the resettlement of refugees.
I should like to quote with approval a statement made by a noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who was once in this House. Speaking for the United Kingdom delegation at the United Nations on 4th December last, in the Political Committee, he said:
"the United Kingdom representative has already said that in his opinion a majority of the refugees would find a happier and more stable home amongst their Arab brethren. But so long as there had been no definitive settlement of the Palestine question those refugees would continue to live in a state of uncertainty. Would their future not be brighter if they were helped to settle in a country whose inhabitants were of the same race, the same culture and the same religions as they? Of course. they were entitled to fair and full compensation for the property they had left in Palestine."
So spoke Lord Llewellin, and I wholly agree with him. It is on that plane, in my judgment, that this problem should be discussed. I very much regret that so far the rulers of the Arab States have not been willing thus to discuss it.
I much regret—and here I come to the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey)—that, as recently as last December, the Arab States refused and resisted the proposal made by Her Majesty's Government and other Governments in the United Nations to enter into direct negotiations with Israel without commitments or conditions on either side. This proposal was supported by Her Majesty's Government here, by Her Majesty's Governments in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, by the United States, by France, by the Scandinavians and a number of other countries. This proposal had a majority but, unfortunately, not a twothirds majority, in the General Assembly.
1076
The reason for this was that massed against it were the Arab States, the Soviet bloc and certain Asian and South American countries. This failure to get direct negotiations started, and the state of mind it exposes among the rulers of the Arab States, is yet one more most topical argument—washing out much past history —against the supply of jet aircraft at this moment to the Arab States.
The continued tension between Israel and the Arab States is, of course, agreeable to the Soviet Union. Recently, in the breaking off of relations between the Soviet Union and Israel, the pretext was a bomb outrage at the Soviet Legation at Tel Aviv, which we must all deplore very much. But in my judgment that was only a pretext following a series of antiSemitic utterances and actions in Soviet Russia, and Czechoslovakia. Following the breaking off of relations in this way, the Soviet Union has come into line with the Arab States in refusing to recognise diplomatically the existence of the State of Israel. That, and any implications it may have, should be noted in passing.
Let me add that the Arab refugees, in their present condition, are the most fertile breeding ground for Communism that could well be imagined. Indeed, speaking broadly, it is the poverty of the massses in the Arab States which is one of the great encouragements to Communism in the Middle East, whereas, on the other hand, Communism in Israel, particularly lately, has become completely negligible, for obvious reasons.
Mr. W. Nally: If my right hon. Friend will forgive me for interrupting, will he bear in mind that the first great State to recognise the Government of Israel was the Soviet Union, and that the very Government that is now deploying the reverse argument deployed it the other way when the Soviet Union recognised the State of Israel? Will he also make it plain that it is hardly fair to blame the Arab States for the fact that three-quarters of a million refugees in Jordan are being denied access to their homes?
Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend asked me to give way and I did so primarily because he challenged my statement that Communism in Israel is now negligible. That I reassert. I said that it would be surprising if it were otherwise. I am

1077
talking of the actual situation. With regard to the other point, my hon. Friend has no doubt been following attentively the course of my argument and will observe that I have taken account of the point he put to me. For the moment I am wishing to draw a few conclusions in the diplomatic field from the disruption of relations between Israel and the Soviet Union.
One word more about the May, 1950, Declaration. In that the three Powers said that they were strongly opposed to an arms race in the Middle East between Israel and the Arab States, but that is just what this policy of offering to sell planes to all of them will promote. As I understand, the offer that has been made to Israel and to each of the Arab States is that an equal number of jet planes may be supplied to each of them. If that is the proposal, it is bound not only to promote an arms race, but also to shift the balance of potential armed power heavily in favour of the Arab States as against Israel, because to each of the five Arab States will be offered the same number of jet planes as is being offered to Israel. That is how the matter has beer presented in the public Press, but no doubt the Minister of State will give precision to this point?
I submit that, far from encouraging this arms race at the present time, neither the Arab States nor Israel should be encouraged to spend their slender resources on this kind of weapon. I do not know what is the cost of a jet plane and I do not press for that to be told to us. If it could be thrown in as a piece of additional information it would be interesting, but it is at any rate a substantial sum, particularly for a poverty-stricken State. I submit that at this time we should be encouraging the Arab States and Israel to be spending their resources on raising the standards of living of their own people and resettling those who come into these countries, either because of persecution abroad or because they are refugees following on the events of the 1948–49 war.
I hope, therefore, that on further consideration the Government will not persist in their announced intention of supplying further jet planes to any of the States in this area. I repeat that I am speaking only of the present situation. It may well be that, if we should succeed in improving the relationship between Israel and the
1078
Arab States, a different attitude might be adopted and many of the present objections to this policy—not all, but a number of them—would fall away. As things are. I earnestly press upon the Government that at this time they should not supply jet aircraft to any of the Arab States or to the State of Israel, and I trust that the Government will be able to accede to this request.
4.5 p.m.
The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) said at one stage of his speech that he did not intend to indulge in polemical reminiscences. I will try to meet him in the same spirit and to discuss this matter in the way in which he has discussed it.
It seems to me that there are a number of different factors to be considered when we are looking at the problem of selling arms to a certain part of the world. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned some of them, but he did not mention all of them by any means. The questions we should ask ourselves in looking at this matter are as follow: First, is this equipment required at home? Secondly, is the export worth while financially? Thirdly, will it strengthen the productive capacity at home? Fourthly, to what use will the purchasers put these arms? Fifthly, what will the consequences be if we do not supply them and, finally, will the transaction constitute a general increase in tension and the risk of war? Those are the questions which I shall seek to answer—
Mr. Ernest Davies: In that order of priority?
Mr. Lloyd: In putting forward the views of Her Majesty's Government on these matters—
Mr. R. T. Paget: A question which interests me is this: if we do not supply them, can they get them from somebody else?
Mr. Lloyd: That was the fifth question I put forward: what would be the consequences if this country did not supply them?
Before I try to answer those questions —and I am not suggesting that any particular importance should be placed upon

1079
the order in which I try to answer them— there are two matters which I should make clear because they are matters of fact. What I am about to say will not be said in any spirit of reproach.
The numbers involved are extremely small. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwel1), former Minister of Defence, made perfectly clear, it is not the practice to reveal actual numbers with regard to these matters in this House. However, since this Government decided that we had some jets available for sale, we have sent to all the Middle East countries less than half the number sent by the previous Government to Egypt in 1950. That is a question of fact. There is this further consideration, that when the deliveries now contemplated are added to those already sent, the number sent to all the Arab States added together will still be less than the number supplied to Egypt in 1950.
The second consideration to which some hon. Members on the other side of the House will pay a certain amount of regard is that this is not a question of exports to the Arab States alone. Israel has also concluded a contract to purchase some of these aircraft. The right hon. Gentleman has asked me for an undertaking that no more shall be sent. I ask him, or at all events some of his friends, to have some regard to the consequences that would have upon the contract entered into with Israel.
Mr. Barnett Janner: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman permit me to ask one question?
Mr. Lloyd: May I finish this point? It would mean that the Government of Israel would have no jet aircraft at all if we were to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman. Another effect of his request to the Government would mean a repudiation of our treaty obligation both to Iraq and Jordan.
Mr. Janner: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer a question which my right hon. Friend asked him? Would he tell us the proportion of aircraft which would be supplied to the whole of the Arab States as against Israel?
Mr. Lloyd: I will attempt to deal later with the question of parity. There are many considerations other than those of actual numbers. There are, for example, considerations of serviceability, technical skill, the capacity to keep the aircraft in the air, geography, and so on. It is not just a question of a mathematical formula.
I was pointing out the consequences if we were to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request. First, there is the effect upon Israel. Secondly, a number of jets have gone to the Arab States and it would mean that the Israeli Air Force would not be able to make any acquaintance with this arm. It would also involve repudiating treaty obligations to at least two of the Arab States. It is impossible to generalise on our responsibilities to the Arab States, because we have very different relations with the various Arab States concerned.
Having made those few preliminary remarks—first of all as to numbers, which, as I say, I cannot reveal but I have given an indication of the problem; and secondly, the consequences upon Israel— I will now endeavour to answer the questions which I posed earlier. My first question was whether these aircraft were wanted at home. The answer is no; nor are they wanted for sale to any N.A.T.O. country. The House will recollect what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 4th December last year, when dealing with the consequences upon the defence programme of certain alterations:
"Some curtailment "—
he was dealing with defence production—
"must therefore now be made. This will to some extent involve the cancellation or modification of contracts already placed. [Hon. Members: ' More unemployed.'] The firms concerned will be fully informed of these changes by the production Departments."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1952; Vol. 508. c. 1776.]
The first matter is disposed of, in my submission. These aircraft are not required at home, nor are they required for other N.A.T.O. countries.
The second question is: are they a worthwhile export from our point of view? As the right hon. Gentleman has said, a modern jet fighter costs a great deal of money. It is not possible for me to give the exact figure, but I can tell him that it is a large sum of money. What

1081
is more, its conversion value is very high. The labour element in cost is very high indeed, and it is extremely important that we should get into these markets if we are to earn our living in the world. From the point of view of a worth-while export, it is very much to the economic advantage of this country to succeed in getting into these markets.
Thirdly, these sales will help to maintain our productive capacity at home. We all know that the real menace to the security of this country at present is the risk of Soviet aggression. That risk only recedes as we build up our strength to face it. That will not be a short business, and it does not need much imagination to realise that our potential enemies hope that we will tire of this process of building up our defences. To put them on an effective basis a very great demand has to be made upon our economy.
The only way to make that burden tolerable and, at the same time, to maintain productive capacity and a skilled labour force which will be adequate for an emergency if it comes is to sell part of our arms production abroad. That position has been made perfectly clear in defence debates in this House. A recent example of the consequences to which I am referring was given in the statement made to the Press by Sir Frank Spriggs on the sale of 70 aircraft to Brazil. He said that that would prevent 2,000 men being stood off for a period of six months. To keep our skilled labour force together for aircraft production is a very important factor indeed, and we cannot do that unless we sell a proportion of our arms production overseas.
On the three points which I have put so far, I submit that the case for continuing with these sales is overwhelming upon economic grounds, but I agree that there are political considerations and I want now to look at those considerations. The first question under this head—my fourth question in order—related to the use to which purchasers will put these weapons. Of course, it is possible that an attempt might be made to use these weapons against our own troops. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the contingency of us seeking to interfere and enforce a frontier peace between Israel and the Arab States. We do not believe that that is likely to happen, but the numbers involved are so small that the
1082
effect upon the security of our Forces would be negligible and I am advised that there is no real threat at all.
Those with knowledge of the balance of air power in the Middle East and of other relevant factors, which it would not be altogether wise of me to mention—I expect some hon. Members can guess what I am referring to—will know that the estimate to which I have given expression is a real one. I submit that that sort of consideration is quite different from the sale of something like a machine gun which can be conveniently used behind a hedge or from a window in a house. In my submission this weapon does not involve any real threat to our Forces.
Then I come to the next matter: will the weapons be used by the recipients for aggressive purposes against one another? Again, we do not believe that that will be the case. The right hon. Gentleman has already referred to the Tripartite Declaration of 25th May, 1950, and it is an extremely important document in this context. The right hon. Gentleman referred to paragraph 3. I will not re-read that paragraph because it makes quite clear the position of the Governments of the United States, France and this country. It also says that those three Governments recognise the need for these Middle East States to maintain a certain level of armed forces for the purpose of ensuring their own security, their legitimate self-defence and to permit them to play their part in the defence of the area as a whole.
The three Governments put on record their determination to oppose the development of an arms race between the Arab States and Israel. Paragraph 2 deals with certain assurances which had been received, and I do not suggest that we should act on a basis that those assurances were not honestly given and will not be honestly kept. We have had assurances that none of these States intend to use these weapons for aggressive purposes against the other. But, again, the numbers involved in these transactions are such as really deprive that criticism of reality.
The truth of the matter is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that we have pledged ourselves under Article 3 that there is any attempt to violate the frontiers or armistice lines, we will take

1083
vigorous steps to stop that happening. We have taken vigorous steps during the course of the past few days with regard to the incidents to which he referred. Her Majesty's Government have made strong representations to one side with regard to two incidents and we have done our very best to counsel moderation on the other side. We are doing our best to arrange a better liaison between the two parties. It is completely consistent with the declaration in the tripartite statement that we should seek to do that.
Then we come to the next question, relating to the consequences of our failure to supply these aircraft. What would happen if we did not supply them? I can assure the House that someone else certainly would, and it might be someone without our knowledge of the strains and stresses in the Middle East and less able to balance the factors. I am not making that a criticism of any particular country which might supply them. All I am saying is that it might be a country which knows a little less about the Middle East than we do and is less able to judge of these matters.
Furthermore, we are under treaty obligations with certain Middle East States. With Iraq, for instance, we have an old and firm friendship. We have a mission out there helping to train their Air Force, and a natural development which that Air Force is likely to expect is that ultimately they will change over to jet aircraft. We should have broken an explicit undertaking if, when they asked, we did not provide that Air Force with up-to-date equipment.
It is the same thing with Jordan. We have a long-standing friendship with that country. We have a Treaty of Alliance with them, negotiated by the former Government. We value our association with that country, and we propose to be loyal to our obligations. Quite apart from those treaty obligations, we have contractual obligations. We have made contracts and money has been paid on account. A breach of treaty obligations and a failure to fulfil contracts would, we believe, make it even more difficult to improve our relations with the countries of the Middle East, and—I emphasise this point—would make it even more difficult to solve the refugee
1084
problem. There can be no doubt that the solution of that problem involves a large measure of good will on the part of the Arab States, and to repudiate our treaty obligations or contractual obligations is not a good way to promote that good will.
There is another matter which is not unimportant. It is the future consideration of the defence of the Middle East. The real threat which menaces the Middle East is the threat of Communist aggression. We hope, and it was the principal purpose of the late Government, to get regional organisations in the Middle East capable of ensuring the collective defence of that area. I cannot believe that there is any better way to diminish enthusiasm for such a project than to refuse to supply up-to-date weapons and skill, and to give those air forces the opportunity of training with them. If we do not give these small quantities we shall hinder the achievement of what is our basic purpose in the Middle East.
Then we come to the final question: will this action add to the general tension in the Middle East between the Arab States and Israel? I think it is an extremely dangerous thing to suggest that tension between Israel and the Arab States is worse than in 1950. I do not believe that is true. It is dangerous to refer to it. The more people talk about tension mounting, the more they seek to simplify the matter and to dramatise it, the more chance there is of tension beginning to mount.
If the House will pardon a personal reference, I have a slight knowledge of this matter, because we spent many weeks during the Sixth Session of the United Nations, in Paris, and during the Seventh Session, in New York, trying to reconcile it. I think we were not unsuccessful in Paris, and not quite as unsuccessful as sometimes people may think with regard to the Seventh Session. The right hon. Gentleman did refer with approval to a certain passage in a speech of one of my colleagues. But if we try to over-simplify or over-dramatise this question of tension between Israel and the Arab States we are doing a great ill-service to that cause.
I welcome very much that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he deaIt with the problem of the

1085
Arab refugees. That is a problem which is casting a shadow over the whole of the Middle East at the present time. We are doing what we can about it and it is not an insignificant amount. Our contribution this year is the equivalent of 15 million dollars. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the article in yesterday's issue of "The Times" which described the varying methods of approach and the response, which the writer described as mixed, but not discouraging. He made a reference in the article to some tangible evidence of progress.
We are actively interested in that matter, and we are continually trying to help. But it is not something which may be solved by a stroke of the pen, or is capable of any easy solution. It is a question of long, steady, patient work, of doing a little here and a little there, and of dealing with something which is much more than a political question. It is not only our desire to promote friendship with the countries of the Middle East, and to resolve a problem which is full of danger, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is also a very human problem of between 800,000 and 900,000 human beings overtaken by the dreadful catastrophe of losing their homes and all their worldly goods through no fault of their own.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government will continue in the manner in which they have been proceeding to try to deal with this problem. We are contributing what we can, and other countries also are contributing. The United States have contributed a very large sum of money indeed. But relief by itself is not enough. We have to endeavour patiently to forward schemes of resettlement.
I submit that if one looks dispassionately at the six questions which I put at the beginning of my speech the case for continuing this line of action is made out. Economically, I consider it is extremely beneficial to ourselves. If we do not do it someone else will. I do not believe that we can repudiate our treaty obligations or disregard our contractual obligations. The number of aircraft involved is small, and I do not believe they will affect the balance of air power there at all. The only thing which might do that would be to yield to the request of the right hon. Gentleman and have an immediate ban.
1086
So far as the question of parity is concerned, that is not a matter of a mathematical formula, but the relative strength of the air forces is certainly one of the features to be taken into consideration. I cannot give any assurance such as the right hon. Gentleman has asked for, but I promise that we will be extremely vigilant in the matter and continue our consideration of all these various factors. We will continue to seek to diminish the tension in the Middle East, but I would add that we are convinced that the action we have already taken, so far from being condemned, should be approved and supported.
4.27 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: The Minister of State has given a series of reasons which he says amount to an incontrovertible case for continuing with the policy which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) opened this debate in order to condemn. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has satisfied many hon. Members that any of his reasons are more than completely trivial. In advancing those reasons, I am sure he was not ignoring the real nature of the problem. I am sure he would not ask the House to believe that the supply of these jets to the Middle East, described as very few in number, is really making any important contribution to the improvement of our own economic position. It would be nonsense to advance any such claim, and I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended seriously to advance it.
If there were nothing involved in this matter but the relief of our own economic situation, this policy would never have been embarked upon, or, if it had, it would have been abandoned tomorrow. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about our contractual and treaty obligations, he knows perfectly well that the Government of which he is a distinguished member, like the previous Government of which my right hon. Friend was a distinguished member, have never regarded themselves as bound by contractual obligations, even when they had already received the money, if it seemed to them that to fulfil those obligations would result in added danger to world peace.

1087
One has, I think, to bear in mind two facts which completely establish that proposition. One is the refusal to deliver two oil tankers to Poland for which they had already paid and with which we had bound ourselves by our contract not to interfere. The other is the contract to supply machine tools to Czechoslovakia which we held up—even though we deprived ourselves of corresponding machine tools ordered from them— because it seemed to the Government of the day, whatever the claims of contractual or treaty obligations might be, that there were superior obligations where world peace was involved. There is no reason why, if the facts are made out, the same considerations should not apply to our treaties and contracts to supply arms to certain Arab States.
Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman said something about not exaggerating tension, because every reference to it, every dwelling upon it and every emphasis of it tended to increase it and that was not a good thing. With that I entirely agree. I would only say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that what is true of tension in the Middle East is true of tension in the Far East and of tension nearer home. I am glad to see that the Government recognise that we do not remove tension by always drawing attention to it and exaggerating it.
But it is a new proposition that one way of reducing tension between two people who are in conflict is to supply each of them with the most dangerous arms we can find. That is an entirely new proposition which I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he intended us to accept it, ought to have developed rather more than he did. Nor indeed is it easy to see how by supplying arms—the most powerful arms we have—to nations which are geographically in a particular region but which are in conflict with another, in a state of war with one another, we make it easier to produce the collective defence of that region by these countries.
It must be plain that the first step is to bring about a state of peace in this region as between the various countries which make it up. Only after we have done that can we hope to begin to make progress with problems of collective defence or with problems of the resettle-
1088
ment of refugees. All these are bound up with the overriding question of the pacification of this area. To supply each side with this type of arms in these circumstances is not to make a contribution to lowering tension, but to make a contribution to increasing mutual tension and insecurity on the part of every country involved.
We shall not make the Arabs feel any more secure or any more friendly to Israel by supplying jet planes to Israel. And we shall not make Israel feel any more secure, or any more inclined to make concessions in those matters in which we all think that they might make concessions, by supplying jet planes to countries which still regard themselves and declare themselves to be in a state of war with Israel, which means that, whatever the right hon. and learned Gentleman's confidence may be, the weapons could be used at any time.
I want to make two other comments, and no more. They are comments which may transcend the immediate necessities of the case and perhaps not be irrelevant even though they do. I think that this is the first occasion on which the House of Commons has been invited to consider specifically an Israeli problem since the establishment of the State some four years ago. There were days before then when I made speeches in the House in support of the State of Israel which did not then exist. I do not want to waste time, or cause temper or discussion, by talking about matters of history—at any rate, not of recent history—but there were not many people in those days on either side of the House who regarded the State of Israel in the light they now regard it.
It came into existence. It has been in existence for four years—four years at the end of 2,000 years of anonymity. It did not come into existence with the good will of this country; it came into existence in spite of all this country's efforts. It is not well established yet. It is perhaps one of the ironies of history that the State should come into existence after some 20 centuries not into a world of peace, harmony and constructive and co-operative civilisation but into a world divided almost equally into two mighty Power blocs each maddened with fear and suspicion, if not hate, of the other. Coming into existence in a world of that kind, it comes into existence also in an area which

1089
each of those two Power blocs regard as of the most fundamental strategic importance.
It is inevitable that it should become to some extent the object first of support and then opposition, and then support again, first by this bloc and then by that bloc, each anxious not for its existence on its own merits but for the value that it might be in any eventual conflict between the two. No one complains of this. This arises inevitably out of history, geography and economics, and nothing that anyone can say about it will change it.
But in those circumstances this State has managed in four years to double its population and to clear the refugee camps of Europe of all the flotsam and jetsam left by the last world war and by an attack upon the Jewish people unparalleled in history. There was nowhere else for them to go. They were taken home there in spite of the fact that the Government of this country regarded the admission of a mere 100,000 refugees as something so economically unthinkable that they wrecked a very good chance of early settlement of the Palestine problem rather than agree to the admission of those refugees.
Neither economically nor strategically is this little State secure. Its life economically hangs on a thread. It is nowhere near self-supporting. It could not be in the circumstances. How can it afford jet planes? And, if the Government supply them to the Arab States, how can it not afford jet planes? What do the Government expect the State of Israel to pay them in return for their jet planes? Out of what economic resources, out of what raw materials, out of what finished products or out of what dollars? It is an impossible burden to put upon them at this moment to equip them with planes of this kind. They cannot pay for them, and, if we supply them to the Arab States, they must pay for them. They must find the money.
What are the Arab States to give us for them? What are we to get in return? What is this magnificent contribution to our economic difficulties that we are to get out of selling a handful of jet planes to one side or the other side of peoples who are almost at one another's throats'? There is nothing in this argument. This country will gain more economically out
1090
of the pacification of the Middle East than it can ever get out of arming one side or the other, and our efforts ought to be directed to that end.
Does anyone really believe that, if this country unitedly, with the support of both sides of this House, can agree on foreign affairs, there is any difficulty in agreeing about this one, and that, in using our moral influence, such as it is—there is not very much left—in not setting these countries again into a turmoil by arming both sides, but by bringing them together in some kind of understanding until a via media is found between them, we shall not add to our moral structure much more than by anything we could do in an idiotic attempt to arm both sides in a struggle that nobody wants?
It is true that this State is in a precarious condition. It is surrounded by declared enemies, and it is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to stand at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons in London and tell the people in Tel Aviv that they need not worry about the fact that all the States round them are their declared enemies, because they do not mean it. They will think that they do mean it until they say that they do not. Surrounded in that way, by declared enemies, they have now lost the diplomatic support of, or diplomatic relations with, the countries which, for their own purposes, no doubt, supported them in the difficult years before the establishment of the State, and when we, no doubt for our contrary purposes, were opposing them, and so they will regard themselves as completely isolated, with a ring of enemies around them, with the Western bloc, represented by this country, supplying that ring of enemies with the most powerful weapons at their command, and with no other friends anywhere in the world.
This is not politics; this is not statesmanship; this is not being alive to the important events of our time, and making sure that something constructive survives and grows out of the difficulties of the times. This is to do just what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says was the wrong thing to do—to heighten the fear of insecurity, to heighten suspicions and fears, to make more precarious what is precarious already, and to increase tension. Nothing will be lost by abandoning this policy, at any rate until the time

1091
comes when a series of treaties in the Middle East could be made.
I would say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: let the Government beware how far they think that this is aiding the purpose and objective of peace in the world, or the interests of this country, merely by inflaming and exaggerating and finding new causes for fear and insecurity in this part of the world. Let them stop it, and, instead, devote all their efforts to the pacification of this area as a beginning to the pacification of the rest of the world.
4.44 p.m.
Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: I am sure that the whole House listened to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) with great interest. Undoubtedly, he made what I would call a very sincere speech, but I find it difficult to follow some of his arguments.
Ever since Israel came into being, that country has had an air force. Is the hon. Gentleman now suggesting that Israel should disband its air force completely? I do not think he is. It was not very long ago that Israel was supplied with 30 or 40 Spitfires from Czechoslovakia which shot down British aircraft and pilots. I do not want to go into the details, because it is only bringing back old history, but, if Israel can defend itself and become part of collective defence, then its air force must be kept modern and up to date.
Mr. S. Silverman: I am not suggesting that Israel should disband its air force, and, if it had not been for those Spitfires, there never would have been an air force at all. I am suggesting that it is nonsense to talk of collective security in that area until the different parts of that area are at peace with one another.
Air Commodore Harvey: We have been assured by the Minister of State that the position is not as bad as some people make it out to be, and I quite agree that, if we can lessen the tension, it may well improve, but with the world situation as it is today, particularly in the Middle East, this country and all the Western Powers are bound to do everything they can to see that those countries play their proper part in maintaining peace, and the only way to maintain peace, in my belief, is to be well armed.
1092
I came to this House today very unhappy about this debate, but I feel more reassured now by what my right hon. and learned Friend could not tell us how many aircraft were involved in this deal. It will only be a matter of a few weeks and we shall see photographs of these jet aircraft in the technical papers, and in Egyptian and other papers, so why cannot we be told how many there are? I remember that, in a debate on a similar matter regarding Centurion tanks in November, 1950, the figure was given quite freely as 16. I recall that there was no secret about it, and I would say to my right hon. and learned Friend that, if he cares to get into his motor car and drive past the airfield where the aircraft are assembled, he could see some of them with Egyptian markings and would be able to count them. I think the House is entitled to know, if not the actual price, how many aircraft are involved.
I want to say that, looking back over 20 or 30 years, Britain taught Egypt to fly, not only military but civil aircraft, and helped in establishing routes which have considerably assisted the economy not only of Egypt but of practically all countries in the Middle East, in the speeding up and improvement of public communications. We had an official mission there for many years under Air Vice-Marshal—now Sir Victor—Tait.
Do not let us sell the very latest equipment, because, if some of this equipment is later than the type of equipment in our squadrons today, I should not feel very happy about it, because even our auxiliary squadrons which are front line units should have the very latest equipment which is available to them. If any Middle East country is to be given later equipment than that of our own forces, I think that would be wrong. If it is a question merely of training the Israeli air force, surely that could be done with older aircraft, and not the latest types, which could follow on later.
I am quite certain that if we do not sell aircraft to Egypt or Israel, other countries will. For instance, let us consider the United States in regard to the question of Spain. I do not want to get involved in this matter, because I know there are very strong feelings on both sides of the House, but, however much we may criticise General Franco, there are 30 million proud people in Spain, and we

1093
have supplied them with very few arms. The United States has had a mission over 100 strong there for 12 or 18 months, in Madrid.. and they are about to sell equipment with which we could have supplied them. We really had an opportunity there, without condoning the actions of Franco in any way, but it may be lost forever; I do not know. When we think of our need to export in order to survive, we must bear in mind that those markets count in the struggle.
I should like to be told by my hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate how Egypt will pay for these aircraft. Will it be done out of sterling balances built up during the war, when we saved Egypt from destruction, or are we to be given cash or cotton? I think the House would like an assurance about the method of payment.
Sooner or later, I feel, with the improvements in relations with Egypt which are being made today——whether we agree with the method of the treaty of independence for the Sudan or not— there will be law and order in the Middle East, provided there is not world aggression from the Soviet Union. I believe that we are right to be patient and to help them economically. If they feel it right to build up their military forces, we should help them to do so. Allowing Britain, after all these decades, to fall out and other countries to take up the task would be a grave error.
The hon. Member for Enfield. East (Mr. Ernest Davies), then UnderSecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said in the House on 22nd November, 1950,
" … nor do we look upon Egypt as a potential aggressor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 457.]
It was only a few months later that Egyptian troops and British troops were fighting in the Suez area. I do not want to go into that, but the position since then has changed considerably. The King of Egypt has gone. General Neguib. whether we agree with him in some respects or not, is an improvement. We have seen some law and order brought into the affairs of the Middle East.
I think the House must be broadminded on all these matters because, although these are matters of principle which are important, we must neverthe-
1094
less look at the broad picture. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will, as he said this afternoon, supply equipment to the countries concerned. provided that he is satisfied that the relations between Israel and Egypt are improving, provided that we shall be paid for the equipment in the proper way and not out of a debt built up during the war, when we saved Egypt.
I hope we shall be paid in cash or by means of barter and that we shall be allowed to send instructors and missions out there. It is far better to be in and to help than to be outside and not know what is going on. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will see this deal through, but will also satisfy himself that the type of equipment is not required by the Royal Air Force.
4.53 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: If I may say so, the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has raised some interesting points and, in particular, I hope he gets an answer to his question about how Egypt will pay for these planes.
I do not think anyone will disagree with him when he urges that we should approach the matter in a broad-minded spirit. For my part, I want to turn to the six rather quick questions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said were particularly relevant. Like the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I cannot but feel that the economic points which he raised are trivial. Like the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), I looked up the very powerful speech which the Prime Minister made in July, 1951, in which he deployed most forceful arguments against supplying arms to Egypt. I found no sign in that speech that he was concerned about what would happen to British industry it we did not send a cruiser and various other arms.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman put three other questions which seemed to me to be of far greater importance. One was the point that if we did not supply these aircraft somebody else would do so. I appreciate that that is important, but I am by no means convinced that, if it is the wrong thing to do, we

1095
should nevertheless do it because otherwise somebody else would do it instead. Furthermore, I find the argument inconsistent with the other point which he made when he said that this is a small matter involving only one or two planes. If it is a very small matter and if only one or two planes are to be sent to Egypt, then presumably the Egyptians will not be satisfied with only one or two planes but, having learned to fly jet aircraft, will turn to other sources to get more.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the type of planes sent was not an offensive type. Nowadays it is almost impossible to make a distinction between offensive and defensive weapons. Indeed, I believe that certain of the attacks made by Israel were made with fighter planes. The vital questions are; what use will be made of the planes? And will their delivery increase the tension; in fact, what will be the effect of this sale on opinion in the Near East, the Middle East, and, indeed, all over the world? We know that there is still war between Egypt and Israel, and surely any country which supplies arms in time of war to countries which consider themselves to be combatants runs a very serious risk. In the old days, objection was rightly taken to the unfettered private supply of arms, but I think that the position is even worse in some ways when arms are supplied with the express permission of Governments; that is even more dangerous because it involves an act of policy by the country which supplies them.
In a situation such as that which exists in the Middle East, the question is bound to be asked; against whom are these arms to be used? The right hon. and learned Gentleman appealed to us not to raise the tension by asking these awkward questions, but they are being asked already, and are bound to be asked, not least by Israel. We know that the United Nations have deplored the possibility of an arms race, and I should have thought that a very heavy responsibility would rest on this country, as a member of the United Nations, if we in any way even seemed to encourage it. The fact that we supplied arms to Israel as well as to the Arabs is certainly no argument on that point; it merely increases the tension on both sides.
1096
Like the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, I cannot see why the number of aircraft is so secret. I believe the number is fairly well known and I do not think it is denied that, if we take the Arab League as a whole, they are receiving far more aircraft than are Israel. I must say that I, too, feel that the Government could have made one more really serious effort at least to relieve the tension in the Middle East if not to achieve a peace treaty. They should also have done something more to help over the problem of the Arab refugees which, quite apart from the human aspect, is serious enough as a continual potential source of explosion. Until such steps are taken, the present policy seems contrary to the declaration of May, 1950.
If we look beyond the question of Israel-Arab relations, the fact remains that when we sell arms abroad we are entitled to know how our own interests are affected. To my mind, our prime interests are quite clear. I do not think this sale of aircraft has any industrial importance to this country at all. We stand for peace. We have no unfulfilled ambitions in the Middle East or anywhere else. But we also stand for the defence of the free world. How does this transaction help in maintaining peace or in the defence of the free world?
Until quite recently I do not think anyone, particularly on the other side of the House, would have pretended that the Egyptians have been particularly friendly towards this country. Dr. Johnson, I think, once said that it was very rude to quote a man's words against him, and, therefore, I will not do so, but, of course, there are many statements not only in the previous debate by the present Prime Minister but in another debate, started, I think, by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and in other places, in which the Conservative Party, rightly in my view, protested again and again against the sale of arms to Egypt, particularly at a time when Egypt had piled up these immense sterling balances against us. The Conservatives pleaded eloquently against allowing them to have unrequited exports from this country to which they had become entitled as a result of our efforts to save them in the war.

1097
I welcome the better relations which now appear to be growing between this country and General Neguib. Certainly, the Sudan Agreement is a success for Her Majesty's Foreign Minister. But it cannot be denied that the Egyptians share in the honours of the agreement and that they have not come out of it entirely empty handed. Are we on the verge of a wider agreement that, to my mind, alone would justify this sale? If Her Majesty's Government can really assure the House that we are going to have a release of tension throughout the Middle East and are to have a lasting agreement over the Canal—possibly on a Four-Power basis—then a strong argument could be made for not throwing sand into the wheels of negotiation by holding up this sale.
We have to remember that not only we in this country attach very great importance to the area and to the Canal Zone. People at the far end of the Canal have, in some ways, a greater interest in it than we have. I find that very great interest in the future of this whole area is expressed in Australia and New Zealand. They are vitally interested, not only because their main transport routes pass through the area, but for psychological reasons. They would indeed feel cut off if they thought that we were settling the fate of that region, and possibly abandoning it, without consultation with them.
Are the Government in touch with and in consultation with the rest of the Commonwealth over the Middle East? Are they in touch not only with Australia and New Zealand. but with India? I appreciate that this matter now before the House concerns comparatively few aircraft, but I cannot help thinking that it may be an indication of the way in which the mind of the Government is moving for it ranks as an act of policy. In that sense it may be of great importance not only to this country but for a great area the whole way from Cyprus to Korea and out to the Pacific.
If we are on the verge of a general settlement, I think that no one would dispute that it would be worth letting the Egyptians have these aircraft, but if we are not we may dismay Israel who is a most useful ally and a possible supplier of alternative bases if the need for such should be forced upon us. We may also
1098
raise doubts in Australia and New Zealand and jeopardise our position throughout the Far East.
As I say, this may be a small matter when reckoned in aircraft, but it may also be a straw in the wind, and such straws were not entirely unnoticed before the war when we were faced with a threat to peace similar to that which faces us today. It may possibly have a disturbing effect upon the confidence which our allies and the countries of the Middle East have in us and which it is in our interest to encourage and not upset.
5.3 p.m.
Mr. Eric Johnson: I feel a great deal of uneasiness about the Government's decision to continue this sale of jet aircraft to the nations of the Middle East. I feel that it is most unwise to put these dangerous weapons in the hands of nations in a very troubled part of the world, and I cannot help thinking that it is not the best way to preserve peace in that area. I also feel, with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), that the repeated statements by successive Egyptian Governments that they intend to force us out of the Canal Zone makes the possession of jet aircraft by Egypt even more undesirable.
However much we may dislike the methods by which the State of Israel was created and, set up, that State in fact exists and we recognise it. Furthermore, Egypt claims to be at war with the State of Israel. I feel that to supply aircraft to belligerents on either side will intensify the dangers of that situation and certainly will not make things any better. I would not set myself up as a judge of the merits of Israel and the Arab States, but I feel that it may well be that in the course of time a strong and stable Israel will he the greatest force for peace in the Middle East.
The Minister of State made a number of extremely interesting and powerful points. The first three questions which he posed related almost entirely to economic arguments. I cannot recognise their validity when we are deciding what seems to me a question of right or wrong; and I do not believe that the sale of these aircraft will make all that difference to our aircraft industry.

1099
My right hon. and learned Friend posed the question whether these aircraft would be used for aggressive purposes. I do not profess to know, but the fact remains that if nobody had these aircraft they could not be used for aggressive purposes. My right hon. and learned Friend also asked whether someone else would supply these aircraft if we did not. Here I am bound to agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that for us to do something wrong first for fear of somebody else doing it afterwards is not a very right attitude.
Then we are asked whether these aircraft would increase the tension in the Middle East. They cannot possibly decrease that tension, and I cannot accept the argument that they are needed for internal security. How jet aircraft arc used for internal security, I do not profess to know. It has been said that Israel would not receive any at all if this sale were stopped. That is true, but would not Israel feel more secure if nobody had these aircraft than if she received them and other nations, potential or actual enemies, each had them in equal number?
I am not swayed by the economic arguments. On the other hand, I must admit that I am very greatly influenced by the argument used that if we stop this sale we would be breaking our treaty and contractual agreements. That we must not do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not profess to know the terms of the contract, but what disturbs me is that I doubt whether we can be paid for these aircraft by Israel or any other country in the Middle East which is acquiring them. I am sure that Israel cannot afford to buy them and I do not believe that the Arab States can afford to do so either. The money which they propose to spend in this way could be better spent on more peaceful and constructive programmes. Nevertheless, I suppose that the contract, having been made, must be fulfilled.
If we have to go through with this sale of jet aircraft, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to be rather more lenient towards the new State in the matter of loans for constructive purposes. If the contract has to be fulfilled, so much the worse. I would not advocate the repudiation of contracts for one moment, but I hope that if this
1100
contract is carried out it will never be renewed.
5.9 p.m.
Mr. George Wigg: I am sorry to take away from the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) the one cheer which he gathered when he said that we were under an obligation to observe our contractual agreement. I do not believe for a single moment that if it had suited the policy of the Government that these aircraft should not go to Egypt they would have gone there. In July, 1951, when the present Prime Minister protested in the House about the supply of the Hunt class destroyer "Cottesmore" there was no discussion about a contractual agreement.
I do not think that the contractual agreement is the reason. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) was not very near the target when he talked about the jets being supplied in order to build up the military security of the Middle East. Our interest there is in terms of a base. That is what we keep saying, and we do not strengthen our case if we allow it to be thought that we are interested in the Suez area as a base on one day and in the military strength of the Middle East Powers the next day.
The fact is that we are interested in the base. The Minister of State would have done far better to have told the House that the reason we have supplied these jet aircraft to Egypt, Israel and Syria is that we have a very weak Foreign Secretary who is in a very weak position not only in the Middle East but in his own party. He is under attack from all angles. The fact is that the Foreign Office had to give way to the blandishments and arguments put forward by the Minister of Supply last December.
Last autumn the Government decided to cut back the armaments programme. The result was that a number of our aircraft firms were in very great difficulties. and, as the production of the new types of aircraft was two years ahead, some way had to be found to take up the slack. The Gloster Aircraft Company which manufactured the Meteor had to stand off about 1,200 men. The Ministry of Supply then came along and said there was a long-term contract for Meteors. If

1101
the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not tell the House what is the figure, I will do it for him. I understand that an arrangement has been entered into with Israel whereby they are to get 14 Meteors —and the Syrians and Egyptians will also get 14 each. So the Gloster Company have been able to keep their production going until such time as they get their new production started.
The shocking thing is that any idea that there is any moral basis behind our action has been thrown out of the window. While it may be that the supply of 14 Meteors to three States in the Middle East does not upset the balance of military power, it means that the State of 1srael have to find about £1 million. That is my estimate. I arrive at it by assuming that a Meteor costs about £50,000 and that another £30,000 will be needed for spares. That makes a figure of over £1 million for 14 Meteors.
Israel cannot find £1 million unless they scrape the barrel. They will be spending £1 million for obsolescent aircraft which they pray to God they will never have to use. That money should be spent upon tractors. This sort of thing does not add to our strength in the Middle East or to the respect with which we are regarded by Egypt, Syria or Israel. Indeed, it adds to the loathing and contempt with which this country is regarded throughout that area. That is the basic fact which we have to recognise.
Hon. Members opposite first started to say these things. If they dispute what I say, let them read what the Prime Minister said about the submissiveness of the Labour Government when they supplied a Hunt class destroyer to Egypt. He talked about it then just as strongly as I am doing now. The fact that must be faced is that sooner or later Israel and the Arab countries have to come to some understanding. In the long run they are either going to beggar themselves or come to an agreement.
I should like to see this country take a lead in bringing them together. We might be able to do so if we would say to these people, "The last things on earth you want are Meteors, Centurion tanks or guns of any kind. You need food. penicillin, drugs, tractors, sanitation and education. Above all, you need to learn the ways of peace in order to form the
1102
foundation upon which a stable order in the Middle East can be built."
The supply of jet aircraft for the reasons which have prompted the Government to supply them has done nothing to add to the prestige of this country. In the past we have often heard the jibes of the party opposite, about wanting to scuttle and seeking to appease; but there is one thing that hon. Members on this side of the House can say, even if hon. Members opposite hold that we are wrong. We believed in what we were doing. But as far as the Government's Middle East policy is concerned, the truth is that the bulk of the party opposite— although they have not the guts to say so—do not believe in that policy—and the Egyptians know that they do not believe in it.
That is why General Neguib made his broadcast yesterday. He was seeking to exploit the weakness of the Government. The Government should either throw the Foreign Secretary out or back him up. They should not let it go abroad that he is speaking for the party opposite if he is not speaking for more than 30 per cent. of them. That plays right into the hands of our opponents not only in the Middle East but all over the world, because they know they have only to make a speech or a broadcast which the party opposite do not like for their point of view to be met following a Tory Party secret conclave. We also have our differences, but we would sooner have them composed in the light of day than behind closed doors.
The spectacle we have had today, of the Minister of State, speaking like his master's voice and not believing a word of it and not telling the House the elementary facts of the situation—is touching bottom as far as the foreign policy of this country is concerned, not only in the Middle East but throughout the world.
5.17 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: If there is one man who can be trusted to lower the tone of a debate and to cast party aspersions in every direction, it is the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). If there is one man who does not understand the rudiments of any subject he touches, it is the hon. Member for Dudley and if there is one

1103
man who, with unctuous hyprocrisy, lectures the House on the sins which he thinks the House are committing when all the time he is committing those sins himself, it is the hon. Member for Dudley.
He has attacked the Foreign Secretary in unmeasured terms. We repudiate altogether those attacks. He has said that the policy which has been brought forward had been instigated by the Minister of Supply and was not in any way supported by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. We repudiate that, and so does the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Supply. The spokesman of the Foreign Secretary has addressed the House and has commended the course of action which Her Majesty's Government are taking.
By what right does the hon. Member for Dudley venture to suggest that all this is said by somebody who does not believe it, and is in fact a betrayal of the Foreign Secretary himself? This is the sort of thing that brings debates in this House into justifiable ridicule from the country as a whole. Indeed, if anything could bring about the loathing and contempt for this country which the hon. Member has just suggested, it is the kind of speech he has just delivered, if it is taken seriously by a single person either inside or outside this House.
I speak as one who has always supported the case of Israel, even when it was not as popular as it is now. I speak as one who, at the time of Israel's troubles, actually visited that country. I was there before recognition de jure took place, and just after the remarkable series of battles by which Israel won their very existence—the series of battles in which they conquered much stronger forces on all sides and, more particularly, after the unfortunate series of aerial engagements in which Israeli airmen— as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will remember—had actually been in conflict with the R.A.F. and had shot down some of our planes.
There was certainly no exultation about that. There was sorrow, depression and gloom in Israel over that successful engagement, because they felt that they were somehow or other in conflict with
1104
those whom they greatly admired and, in many cases, personally loved. In spite of that, I say that what we are now discussing is the relatively minor problem of the delivery of a small number of aircraft under conditions in which that delivery is guaranteed both by contract and treaty. The question is whether we should break that contract and treaty.
Has a case been made for breaking them? I do not think so. It may well be that we shall find ourselves in a much more active opposition to certain Powers in the Middle East than we are today. If so, let it be on a great issue and an important point that we find ourselves at loggerheads.
Mr. S. Silverman: But let us arm them first.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman has listened to all the speeches and is well acquainted with the situation. I do not like to throw in his teeth the suggestion that it was his Government which armed them first, though I should be entitled to do so.
Mr. Silverman: That would not matter to me.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I know it would not matter to the hon. Gentleman, who adopts a mood of Olympian detachment in all these things. But there are only two Division Lobbies in this House the Ayes and the Noes—and the hon. Gentleman supported his Government while they were carrying out that action.
Mr. Silverman: I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that, though lie says I am actuated by Olympian detachment, it is the duty of all hon. Members, if they conscientiously believe a thing to be wrong, to vote against it even if their own Government are doing it. I opposed this sort of thing when my own Government did it at least as strongly as I oppose it this afternoon.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I paid testimony to the hon. Member in the matter. I grant he did so; I only said that he extended his powerful general support to that Government.
He knows as well as I do that what a Government marks is not whether a Member kicks over the traces now and again, but whether he persistently pulls

1105
against the weight of the party all the time. The hon. Member is well known not only as a loyal member of his party, but as a powerful supporter of his administration. I do not wish to be led away by these side issues. This is not the first Government that armed the Power in question, and the present Government have every right to say that when they are accused, as they have just been accused by the hon. Member, of doing so.
The question raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) concerning the supply of arms by our nation to other countries is a very important question. I have always been very dubious about the argument brought forward by many right hon. and hon. Members against anything but nationalised arms industries because of this very problem. Eventually, if all arms were nationalised, every sale of any weapon to any country would he a national act, and we are now beginning to come to that difficult position. It will raise a large set of new problems of which we have not yet begun to see the end. But this is not the time or place to discuss that very important question.
We are discussing whether a running contract should be broken. Surely, there are enough difficulties in the world just now without bringing in this extra one of the immediate breaking of contracts. There are huge questions coming up for decision, questions which will be made none the easier by the questions and answers we have heard today. Many of the speeches seemed to me to leave out altogether the complication which has been brought to the situation by the questions and answers we have heard today.
Let us consider the only matters which it is worth-while definitely discussing in connection with such decisive steps as the breaking of existing contracts. These are steps which are well known in international diplomacy. They are steps of very great importance. Only the intention to proceed to further steps will justify the breaking off of a supply of weapons to a country. In some ways, they are just as important as, and in others more important than, the breaking off of diplomatic relations themselves. Let us hesitate once, twice and three times before we take such great steps on so small an issue.
1106
The House of Commons will have many problems to review in connection with this area, and that review may have to take place in the days immediately ahead. This is not a question to exalt into that enormously important position. No case has been made for breaking the contracts already made. Nobody has suggested that it will alter the balance of power in that area. Neither has anyone suggested that it could be taken as anything except as a symbolic act. Symbolic of what?
Mr. Barnett Janner: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is being very unrealistic in this matter. I know him to be an old supporter of the Zionist and the Israel cause, and I am sure he would not wish to mislead the House. But is not he aware of the fact that in Article 103 of the Charter there is the following passage:
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail."
In view of the fact that Egypt and other Arab countries say that they are at war with one member of the United Nations, does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think that his argument is not quite right?
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: With respect to the hon. Gentleman—and we have often been on the same side of the argument before does not he see that that argument might have held before this policy had been entered into but only then? Does he suggest that the state of war has only arisen within the last few weeks or months? I was there when the state of war was actually in full blast, and it was still in active operation when these supplies were undertaken and when these contracts were entered into.
I do not think the hon. Gentleman can get out of it like that. No new factor has arisen to justify the invoking of the clause to which he referred. This would mean a new unilateral act undertaken for some specific purpose. At least, that is my reading of it. I say that such a unilateral act would carry with it implications far beyond any which this House would desire to attach to it at this time. Therefore I support the Government.
5.29 p.m.
Mr. Barnett Janner: I am sorry that for the first time in many years, going back, I believe, as far as 1931, I find myself on this particular subject at variance with the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who has done much towards helping the small State of Israel first to create itself and then to preserve itself in its present form. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has really made a very big mistake in this matter of the contracts, and I should like to answer him and also the Minister of State on that point.
To begin with, the contracts to which reference is being made have not yet been specifically quoted in this House. The Minister is fully aware that we as loyal Members of the United Nations have no right to continue to supply arms under the present contracts. He knows very well that the question of the supply of arms has been under consideration before this and that such arms have not been supplied at times for the very reasons that have been given today.
This is an extremely important debate —perhaps one of the most important that we shall have in this Parliament. It does not merely rest upon the question of the supply of arms. This is a question of fundamental importance to the honour of this country and for the future of the Middle East, and, perhaps, of the world. It is not just a question of selling a few jet weapons. It is a question of whether, when a State has been created which depends entirely upon its merits, not in arms, but in having brought within its borders men and women who are prepared to use their sweat and toil in order to produce something out of the eroded soil, it is one we support and whether those people are people whom we should support or whether the supply of arms to destroy those people—because that is what it virtually amounts to—is something which should be encouraged.
What is the suggestion here? Cannot the House see? I asked a question of the Minister of State on what is really the material point. He is supplying to a number of Arab States—whether rightly or wrongly, so far as their views are concerned—sufficient planes to destroy in half an hour the whole of Israel.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not wish unduly to interrupt, but surely of all the forces which are useless in any kind of bombing attack, jet aircraft are the most useless?
Mr. Norman Smith rose
Mr. Janner: I cannot give way to my hon. Friend for a moment. I cannot answer two people at once. Let me answer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman first. Israel itself has enough to do at the present moment to try to stop aggression from without. It has to spend a very considerable amount—it is common knowledge—of its very slender resources to provide forces which will prevent the marauders from coming in—marauders who come in quite frequently over the border, who kill, who thieve—[Interruption.]—oh, yes— from Jordan. I can give the figures for the last 12 months which will satisfy the House on that account. It has to spend a large sum of money for that purpose that ought to be spent on economic development.
It is vulnerable from the air. It is certainly vulnerable to jet planes. Jet planes are not merely going to fly over the country for the pleasure of seeing the country. I say that the provision of planes of this description, of the latest design—or almost the latest design—is an outrage. It is an outrage to allow those who openly declare themselves at war with another State to have an advantage which will place them in a position quite different from that in which they were before that supply. This small number of determined people in Israel, with much less arms, had to face enemies thought to be in a position to destroy that small State. That is precisely what we are talking about now.
The Minister of State talked about the economics of the position. I really think that was a bit steep. "After all," said the Minister, "it only concerns a few planes. What are we talking about? Just a few jet planes. They cannot do any damage, but they can produce such stability to our economic position that it is important that we should send those planes out." He cannot have it both ways. He has got to make up his mind. Are those planes of some importance financially? If so, are we not committing

1109
a criminal offence—yes, I say "criminal offence" deliberately—if we allow that consideration to be used against the moral question of supplying planes of this nature to injure a State which is a friendly State and not a belligerent one?
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I think it is right that he should appreciate as a matter of historical fact that the Israeli Government had already approached Her Majesty's Government with a view to buying jets before any decision was reached to release them to any of these Arab States.
Mr. Janner: I have no objection to that statement. None at all. The Minister knows why, because he knows very well that Israel is not in the position and has not the desire to start any aggressive action—nor could it possibly do so with the few jets the right hon. and learned Gentleman would supply to it. But that point is not at issue here. The point at issue here is that he is going to supply to each individual opponent of Israel which declares itself to be in a state of war with Israel an equal number
each of those States to that which he is supplying to Israel, and I say that that is a matter which has got to be taken into account.
Mr. Norman Smith: Will my hon. Friend allow me now?
Mr. Janner: Certainly.
Mr, Norman Smith: Will my hon. Friend please explain to the House whether he comes here in order to speak for the working men and women of Leicester who put him in, or for the Israeli State?
Mr. Janner: I speak for the working men and women of Leicester who put me here, because I am quite satisfied that Leicester, which knows the facts, would endorse what I have to say on this matter. It is important as much to Leicester as it is to any other constituency in this country, because it is a moral issue, and it is an issue important in so far as the continuance of our own status in the world is concerned, and I am just as much concerned with that as is my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith).
I think that one may perhaps be permitted to refer once again to the
1110
clauses of the Agreement, which have been referred to already by the Minister and by other Members. Clause 2 of that Agreement says:
"The three Governments declare that assurances have been received from all the States in question that the purchasing State does not infend to undertake any aggression against any other State. Similar assurances will be expected from any State in the area to which they permit arms to be supplied in the future."
The Minister knows very well—yes, as well as I do—that no assurance which is given by those to whom he is going to supply those planes—the Arab States —can be acceptable in the circumstances because they have declared they are still at war with Israel.
With regard to the other clauses of the Tripartite Agreement, the right hon. and learned Gentleman also knows that they do not help him because he will remember that the Egyptian representative, Mr. Fawzi, for example, at a meeting of the Security Council, at which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was probably present, in September, 1951, said:
"The Egyptian-Israeli Joint Armistice Agreement did not include any provision on the termination of the legal or technical state of war between the two States; nor did any international law in its principles or in its practice deny a country its belligerent rights, before any peace settlement is concluded."
In Egypt's recent note to the West German Government, in November, 1952, there was a statement that the Federal Republic was rendering to a State with which Egypt was at war certain assistance.
The reply from the Government in this matter is not a satisfactory one—not from the point of view of Britain's interests and not from the point of view of our place in the United Nations. I beg the Minister to reconsider the position. He has been appealed to already. It is not a matter of material importance to us in this country, financially or economically, whether these planes are supplied. That, as he knows very well, is too small to count at all.
What is important is that he should use his utmost endeavours as, indeed, he commenced to do at the recent meeting of the Assembly—to see that peace shall be established between the Arab States and Israel. He knows that that is essential. When that has been done he can

1111
consider the question of supplying arms to those States, because at least he will know that they will not be used for warfare against each other. He should also remember that these arms are certainly not needed for internal defence by any of these countries. Nor are they needed for the purpoes of general Middle East defence, because, as he knows very well, every appeal made in that regard has been ignored.
5.41 p.m.
Mr. Dudley Williams: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) in great detail. I will only say that to suggest to the House that the supply of a dozen fighter aircraft to Egypt will lead to the complete destruction of Israel is, to my mind, quite fantastic.
I am impressed by the argument advanced this afternoon that if we do not supply jet aircraft to Egypt, somebody else will. After what has happened in the last few days in Israel, Egypt may be faced with the problem of getting an adequate supply of jet aircraft; and she would, of course, get them from that country to the east of Europe which is causing so much difficulty at the moment. We all know that she would be able to get them from that country, because at a critical moment in the development of jet aircraft in the world all our jet aircraft secrets were exposed to Russia so that she could get on with setting up her own industry for this purpose.
Discussing the supply of arms to another country is always difficult, but it is new to me that we should never supply arms to one country unless we are prepared to supply an equal number of the same arms to another country. We have certainly never done that in the past. When the Argentine Government was getting difficult in South America, we supplied her with aircraft, but we did not supply her opponents.
On every occasion upon which we are exporting arms, two considerations must he borne in mind. The first is: Are we certain that we have a better weapon in the hands of the men in our Forces than that of which we are disposing? There is no doubt whatever about that in the supplying of these jet aircraft. I understand that the Meteor aircraft which
1112
are being disposed of to Egypt have Derwent engines, which are completely out of date. That is a quite different situation from that obtaining when we disposed of certain engines to Russia during the 1945–50 Parliament. The engines we disposed of to Russia were Nene engines, which were in short supply to the Royal Air Force, and which even today are being used in that Service. The present situation bears no comparison with that state of affairs because we are disposing of aircraft engined by out-ofdate, obsolescent, if not obsolete, engines.
The second important consideration which I venture to suggest the House should always bear in mind when entering into transactions of this nature is this: Are we increasing their military potential, from a manufacturing point of view, in disposing of the particular weapon to another country? That is not so in the case of Egypt. There is no possibility whatever of Egypt setting up an industry to manufacture jet engines of the Derwent or Nene type. That, again, is quite a different situation from that when we disposed of Derwent and Nene engines to Russia four or five years ago. Then we were sellmg engines to a highly industrialised country capable of mass producing those engines. Indeed, all the evidence appears to point to the fact that those engines are now in mass production, and in use in the Korean theatre.
Those are the two points I wish to leave in the minds of hon. Members. I do not believe that we have done anything to help build up an industry in Egypt—that is quite out of the question— whereas, in the case of Russia, we certainly helped her. Indeed, I believe that we disclosed our manufacturing processes to her. Secondly, we are not disposing of aircraft with an engine as good as those used in the Royal Air Force today. With those two considerations in mind, I venture to suggest that the interests of this country have not been injured in any way by the sale of these aircraft to Egypt.
5.46 p.m.
Mr. Norman Smith: I shall be very brief. I desire to say only this. I hope there will not be a Division after this debate. I think that the spectacle of the House of Commons dividing on this subject would be nauseating. If there is a Division, I am

1113
not taking part. Neither party has clean hands in this matter. When the Labour Government were in power, selling arms to that part of the world, I used to think there was an element of humbug about the Conservative criticism of that Government. I cannot escape the conclusion that today there is an element of hypocrisy about some of the speeches that have been made from this side of the House. That is all I want to say. I am saying no more.
5.47 p.m.
Major H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) for having given me a nice preface from which to start. I agree with a good deal of what he has said. I certainly think that today there has been a strange mixture of ideas in the minds of hon. Members about whether or not these are moral or materialistic issues. I should have said that trading in arms must be a materialistic issue.
The hon. Member for Leicester, NorthWest (Mr. Janner) tried to refer to the issue as a high moral one. We may all vary in our opinion about that, because there are varying opinions about whether or not the State of Israel was set up morally or immorally. My own view is that it was an immoral act to dispossess so many Arabs of their homes. Others think that the needs of the Jews outweighed that interest. I do not propose to argue the rights and wrongs of that today.
What I do say is that it is no use anyone here this afternoon supposing that this issue is a high moral one. I am afraid that this is a pretty filthy business. What has happened in the Middle East over the last few years is, I think, generally agreed to have been a most deplorable series of events, and I do not suppose that anything we say now will make them any less deplorable.
I am convinced that it is not possible on this issue to decide whether the Arab States are wholly in the right or whether Israel is wholly in the right. It is a question of a compromise, and a pretty uneasy one at that. Our experience of what has happened ever since we accepted the mandate for Palestine under the League of Nations has been that this is a question of an uneasy compromise. Even
1114
now there is an uneasy compromise about whether the, setting up of the State of Israel was a correct action or a wrong one. We may all have our opinions on that, but I suggest they have no real relevance to this debate today.
This debate is to decide whether a certain agreed number of aircraft should continue to be supplied to various Middle Eastern countries. All those hon. Members opposite who have argued against this process being continued seem to me to have overlooked what I thought was the most powerful point made by the Minister of State in his opening remarks, namely, no matter whether we think it right or wrong, the fact remains that the present Government have been supplying considerably fewer aircraft than the previous Administration arranged for. In fact, the process to my mind is the correct one—that the supply should be cut down.
I think that a great deal of the merits of supply depends on the answer to this question; Do we consider that at the present time the biggest issue is the solution of the refugee problem, as mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), or do we consider that it is the finding of a peaceful solution between Israel and the Arab States?
I believe myself that we in this country have tended to argue that if only we can solve the refugee problem everything else will flow from that. So far as the Arab countries are concerned, they say that the Arab refugee problem and the rehabilitation of those people cannot be decided until we have finally decided whether the State of Israel is to be permanently at war with them or not.
I should have thought that the real issue is whether the State of Israel is to be permanently at war—on perhaps a cold basis —with the Arab States or not. That is the predominant thing in the minds of the Arab States. Until that problem has been solved, the Arab refugee problem will never be solved so far as the rehabilitation of those people is concerned.
I think that the House knows very well that at the time when we were considering the setting up of the State of Israel, I was one of those of whom it might be possible to say I was entitled now to play the strange role of Pontius

1115
Pilate. I do not intend to do so, because as long as we remain Members of this House we all have an obligation to accept the decision of the majority. I have, however, always said that when the State of Israel was set up there would be an unpeaceful atmosphere in the Middle East, always with the possibility of it leading to war. I also showed that at the time of the setting up of that State Russia was taking a great interest in the future of Israel.
Hon. Members may wonder why it is, in view of the great interest that Russia showed in the State of Israel earlier, she now appears to be taking precisely the opposite view. I ask hon. Members to turn over this possibility in their minds, as to the reason why Russia is pursuing her present policy towards Israel. I believe that she supported Israel in the setting up of that State for one reason and one reason only. She wanted an alternative country with which to bargain with this country in the Middle East, and she deliberately helped to create the State of Israel in order to get that country there. Having got it, what does she do? She then turns the whole sympathy of the world on to that country by persecuting the Jews and comes to the Arab countries as a friend of the Arabs. I believe that lies at the kernel of the whole of this problem which we are discussing today.
What is the point of supplying arms to these countries? I do not believe that anyone can say that my right hon. Friend, or any on this side of the House, want to supply arms to countries in order that they should fight each other in the way visualised by some. What I believe we want—and what I certainly want— is to see the cause which I believe to be right protected as well as may be in the Middle East. Do we or do we not in this House consider that Russia is likely to be a menace in the Middle East? If we do consider that Russia may be a menace in the Middle East at any time, surely one way, judging by history, of making certain that Russia will eventually take advantage of the position is for us to denude all those countries of any arms at all. That really is the issue before us today.
Many believe that Russia is anxious to exert pressure on the Middle East
1116
either by a cold war method or by a hot war method. As long as we cannot answer "No." for certain to the possibility of Russia going on to hot war methods in the Middle East, then so long will it be necessary for us to arm these States, however unfit some of us may think they are to be armed. We must have strength in the Middle East. That is why I say, although I have some misgivings on a moral plane, that on the material plane we cannot avoid facing up to this issue.
Do we want a power vacuum in the Middle East or do we want more strength to stand up against aggression? All that I have said this afternoon, I say knowing full well just how much this has caused me to think on the moral issue, as it has obviously caused other hon. Members to think. I ask them to believe that it is not because I am trying to dodge the moral issue that I have said what I have said today. It is because I believe this to be a material problem which has to be faced up to that I have tried to show what some of these material factors are today.
I believe that the Government themselves have considerable misgiving about this, and I should like to say one word to the Government. I think that there is no surer way to unsettle the peace and security of the Middle East than by our evacuating the Suez Canal Zone. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) touched on this earlier in the debate, and I agree with much that he said. So far as the Suez Canal Zone is concerned, I believe that if we evacuate that area we are increasing the likelihood of the Arab States going into Israel again very markedly.
Of all the stupid ideas I have ever heard is the one which suggests that we should move the whole of our forces in the Suez Canal Zone into Cyprus. Cyprus has not only all the disadvantages which go with an island, but she is within fighter range of the mainland, and we do not yet know whether the mainland will be on our side or the other. I hope that the Government will at least face up to the realities and not play the tragic role which they played over the Sudan, and will face up to the issue of where our interests lie. That is what matters most to me and, I believe, matters most to British people wherever they live. I

1117
believe that we have tried to take everyone's point of view and as a result we have taken none. We have to face up to what we believe to be British interests, because if we believe this country is worth living in then, presumably, we believe it because we believe that the British way of life is worthy of emulation throughout the world.
It is for that reason that I say that in the British interest we should stay in the Canal Zone and that we should make sure that no power vacuum is allowed to arise in the Middle East, because someone else will fill it if we do not.
5.58 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was making a speech which he had prepared as a contribution to this debate or whether he was attempting to make the speech which he was denied the right to make at a recent private meeting of the Conservative Party, when the Sudan Agreement was revealed to other hon. Members of the House before it was revealed to the rest of the House of Commons. Certainly his speech today would have been more apposite on that occasion.
As to the main part of his remarks in relation to what we are discussing today, it seemed to me that they were answered in advance by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). If it is true that the main consideration about this matter that we must bear in mind is the effect that it will have on policies being pursued by the Soviet Government, or policies which they would like to pursue, surely there is nothing that the Soviet Government would like to see more than an increase of tension in the Middle East.
The whole of the case put by many hon. Members on this side of the House and by many hon. Members on the other side during the debate is precisely that this action will increase tension in the Middle East. The action recently taken by the Soviet Government is a further reason why we should restrain the Government from continuing along this course. In the rest of his speech the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to agree with the commendably brief speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith). I see
1118
the hon. and gallant Gentleman nodding his head.
We all know the views that both hon. Members have expressed in this House on Middle Eastern issues, and I am sure that they hold their views sincerely, but both the hon. and gallant Gentleman and my hon. Friend, throughout all our discussions on the Middle East, have been violently opposed to the State of Israel, violently opposed to the whole idea of a Jewish National Home and passionately in support of what they consider to be the Arab cause. It is interesting that, apart from the speech of the Minister of State, the only two speeches we have had openly in favour of the policy which is being pursued by the Government have been delivered by hon. Members who, throughout their careers in this House, have been passionately opposed to the State of Israel. That is a significant fact.
The Government cannot be very well pleased about the other speeches which have been delivered in their defence. Every speech from the Opposition has opposed the Government and there have also been three or four speeches from the Government side of the House opposing the Government's action. The only extensive defence of the Government was attempted by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). The right hon. and gallant Gentleman sometimes speaks in terms of paradoxes and the more paradoxical his speech becomes the more certain one is paradoxes, and the more paradoxical his that he has a bad case to defend.
If there is anything in what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, if the whole of his case is based on the belief that it is absolutely wrong to break contracts of this nature once they have been entered into and if he is so brave a Parliamentarian as he led us to believe in his speech, why did he not deliver that speech on a previous occasion when a Labour Government was sending arms to the Middle East? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not then say how monstrous it would be to break the contract. I do not think we need pay very much attention to his intervention. He was trying to do what he has probably been practising in some of the private meetings of the Conservative Party, to come to the rescue of the Foreign Secretary, and none of us will deny that the Foreign Secretary is in need of that.

1119
I turn now to what the Minister of State said in defence of this action. We are entitled to take his defence of what has been done rather than that given by other hon. Members. A number of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), have already drawn attention to a strange remark made by the Minister of State, that if we did not supply these arms to the Middle East States, other countries would do so. The Minister of State made a most surprising additional comment. He suggested that if other countries would have come in and supplied the Middle Eastern States with these arms, instead of the matter being directed by Britain, it might be directed by countries who have not the same subtle, brilliant knowledge of the Middle East always shown by the Foreign Office. He commented that an appalling catastrophe would befall the Middle East if the matter were to be dealt with by some other country which had not our long tradition of matchless, triumphant diplomatic success.
I take a different view about the tradition of the Foreign Office in these matters. The Foreign Office ought to be modest about the Middle East. In the past six or seven years everything the Foreign Office has proposed about the Middle East has come unstuck. What has happened in the Middle East is entirely different from what successive Permanent Secretaries have, presumably, advised Foreign Ministers was likely to take place. This is a tall claim to make, but I should say that there is no subject on which the Foreign Office has been more consistently wrong than the affairs of the Middle East. They gave the wrong advice to the previous Government, and I am sorry to say that the previous Government took it. They are now giving the wrong advice to the present Government, and what some of us are trying to do is to bring this procedure to an end. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said that he himself, or others—I was not quite sure of the distinction—were not going to embark upon polemical reminiscence.
Mr. Dalton: I said that I would not do so.
Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend employed a masterly restraint. He showed
1120
his usual wisdom. However, particularly when charges of hypocrisy are made from both sides of the House. some of us are entitled to say that we were opposed to the sending of arms to the Middle East when it was done by a previous Government.
It is not impressive to us for the Minister of State to say that we are now selling fewer arms to the Middle East than we did in 1950 when the Labour Government were in office. Some of us believed that the whole procedure of sending arms to the Middle East was wrong and in 1950 we brought it to a halt for a while. That is a further answer to the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove. This is restarting a process which was stopped. This action has not been going on all the time. This is restarting the procedure of selling arms to the Middle Eastern countries while many of them are still formally in a state of war and actually in a state of great tension. This is restarting the process in circumstances of great difficulty and confusion. Therefore, some of us are trying to do what many did when the Labour Government were sending arms to those countries; we are trying to bring it to a stop
I do not know whether all the representatives of the Foreign Office have now left the Chamber. At all events, I cannot see one there. Perhaps they have gone to look up what the policy of the Foreign Office was in these matters. Until they return, I will fill in the time by telling the House what it was, though we ought to have at least one representative of the Foreign Office here, especially as I referred earlier to matters relating particularly to the Foreign Office. If the Foreign Office representatives packed up altogether we should be very pleased. If we could only have a similar clearance of some of the Middle Eastern advisers to the Foreign Office we should be even more pleased. The Minister of State who made the speech is absent, the Foreign Secretary, who listened to it, has now cleared off, and the Joint UnderSecretary has now cleared off. Perhaps they are scuttling. I think that is the right word.
The arguments put forward by the Mimster of State were appallingly contradictory, and if they were not contradictory they were highly menacing. I believe they were both highly menacing

1121
and appallingly contradictory. It was first said that very few planes were being supplied. Next we were given the economic argument that the sale of planes could play an important part in solving our balance of payments problem. The statement was made that if we were to earn our living in the world we must sell arms abroad, and we were told that we were looking for markets in that area, and it was emphasised how difficult and dangerous it would be if we forfeited those markets. That was drawing a picture not of a small trickle of arms which was to be kept to a trickle, but of how we were going ahead to build up the markets and make a further contribution towards the solution of our balance of payments problem.
I am glad to see that the Joint UnderSecretary has returned to the Chamber. I am sure he would not want me to repeat everything I have said. He will be able to find out tomorrow what I have said.
The argument of the Minister of State was contradictory. All hon. Members who heard it will agree that no one could set any store by the economic arguments which were presented. The stronger one allowed the economic arguments to be, the weaker became the latter part of the Minister's case when he said that the number of planes was so small that they could not be used for any effective action against British troops or the Israelites or anyone else in the Middle East. At the beginning of his speech he spoke of very few planes, a trickle; in the middle of his speech it became a mighty flood to solve our balance of payments problem; and by the end of his speech it was a trickle again. This is the picture left by the six reasons which were given by the Minister of State. I am coming to the seventh which he did not mention at all.
He did not deal with the relevant point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), although he said that he would deal with it. The Minister of State did not deal with the question of parity, nor did he touch upon the gross advantage allowed under these arrangements to the Arab States. Having failed to do that, it is quite useless for the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove to come
1122
along later and say it was just a symbolic act. It is something more than that.
While the Minister of State gave us quite inadequate reasons for what was done, he did not give us the real reason. My suggestion as to the real reason why this action was taken, particularly when we take into account the time when it was restarted, was that it was a decision by Her Majesty's Government or the Foreign Office—always the possessor of mysterious knowledge about the Arab States—to discover ways in which we could ease the agreement that we wanted to make with Egypt and other Arab States. In other words, it was an act of appeasement towards the Arab States in general, and towards Egypt in particular.
I am not saying that that might necessarily be a reason for a criticism of it. One of the disservices which Conservative Government policy before the war did not merely to this country but to the English language was to degrade the word "appeasement." Some acts of appeasement are right and justified, some are incorrect and immoral. Here the course adopted by the Foreign Office— it always thinks in terms of appeasements —was to argue in this fashion: "If we can sell these arms it may have some effect somehow—we are not quite sure how it will work out in easing the kind of agreement we want to make with Egypt later."
I believe —and I have as much right to talk of this as the Foreign Office; sometimes I have been right, whereas they have always been wrong—that the psychology of the Arab States works differently. I am entirely in favour of the Agreement made by the Foreign Secretary about the Sudan. I hope that he will stick to it, and I hope that he will go on to make a larger agreement with Egypt on the other outstanding issues. I wish him every success. I think that the attempt being made by Conservative back benchers in this House to destroy or undermine this Agreement is a dangerous thing.
I am in favour of making an agreement with Egypt, but I do not think we are helping things by selling them arms in this fashion, particularly when they are not entitled to them in view of their failure to try to make an effective and genuine peace with Israel. What we should give to the Egyptians is what they

1123
are entitled to. What we should not give them is what they are not entitled to have. What the Egyptians are entitled to have is control over their own country, and the removal of the armed forces of another Power from that country. I do not think that they are entitled to have arms which they might use against a country with whom they themselves still declare they are at war. The Egyptians would respect us very much more if we had said on this issue of supplying arms to Middle Eastern States, "We are not prepared to reopen discussions on the supply of arms in this fashion until you have reached a reasonable settlement with Israel and with other States."
The issue with which the Minister of State did not deal at all in his speech was how these countries are to pay for these arms. What an example we are giving to the world at this time. The whole of the Middle East, on the Government's own confession, is in the state of tension and flux, and we are seeking to get an agreement between the countries concerned to pacify them. Just at this point the Minister of State gets up in the House of Commons and says, "We have to sell arms abroad to maintain our balance of payments and assist our economic position. This is a most important aspect of our economic policy and we are not worrying very much "—I do not say this is actually what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, but it is the inference—" whether they are really able to pay for them."
In the matter of the economic position of the Middle East we have to remember that by our action in selling these aircraft to Egypt we are imposing on the State of Israel a further burden on top of all the other burdens which she has to carry, namely, the buying of similar aircraft. But not only has she to pay for arms, but we also have the ludicrous situation that pilots from Egypt and from Israel are being sent to this country to be trained. Each of them, I gather, costs the country concerned about £4,000 to train. That is a monstrous situation, and is due to a new departure in policy by the British Government, because they reopened an issue which we hoped had been closed.
In deciding her economic priorities, Israel has to divide her income into allocations for more rebuilding of her war
1124
stricken land; how much should be given to help refugees; how much should be given to starting new factories; and how much should be allocated to erecting new schools. Now, on top of all that, the British Government tells Israel, in effect, that she has to buy arms to defend herself, and in the House of Commons the Minister of State tells us that the reason for it is, "We want to sell arms to help settle our balance of payments problem."
Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has told us that Israel is sending pilots here to be trained to fly jet aircraft. The Government of which he was a supporter sent a supply of Vampire aircraft to Israel and pilots there are capable of flying them without being sent to this country to train.
Mr. Foot: If I am wrong I shall be very glad to be corrected. [Interruption.] I will not be corrected by the other hon. Gentleman who has just intervened, because he does not know what he is talking about. I believe it is true that pilots from some of these Arab States and I think from Egypt have been sent to this country to train and even if it is not so and they are not actually being sent to this country, some Israeli pilots have been sent. Therefore, the whole of my argument stands because they are being trained in other countries and this imposes an economic burden on them.
This is a monstrous thing not only for Israel, but for all the other countries. They should be deciding how much more they can devote to building up the economic life of their land. Instead, this extra burden has been imposed upon them with the added risks of contributing to the tension and further distress of the Middle East. I implore Her Majesty's Government to have the courage to carry out what they said they would when they were on this side of the House.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham): I want to get the argument of the hon. Member clear. Is he implying that we are forcing Israel to buy these planes?
Mr. Foot: I am saying exactly that. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the State of Israel had to be fought for against all the other Arab States around it. If these Arab States are being supplied with jet aircraft then, of course, any Israel Government has to have jet

1125
aeroplanes and arms as well. The State of Israel will sacrifice anything to defend itself against its enemies, and I say that it is a monstrous thing to require it to make this additional sacrifice.
6.19 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: This has been a useful debate, perhaps all the more useful by reason of the fact that it has to some extent cut across party lines. It might have been even more valuable if some hon. Members on both sides of the House had imported rather less prejudice into their speeches. I know that it is difficult not to do so. I confess frankly at the beginning of these remarks that I have a very strong emotional link with Israel and with the Jewish people. It is something that I share with hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House, and I know that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches feel just as strongly on this issue as I do myself.
I confess that I was disappointed with the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), and I hope that the Prime Minister has a more consistent regard for the interests of the Middle East and of the State of Israel than has the right hon. and gallant Member. It was the Prime Minister who, in his speech to Congress a year ago, referred to the Israelis as the people who were transforming deserts into gardens. It was the Prime Minister in a debate in this House in 1951 who referred to the fighting superiority of the Israelis over the Egyptians. I have sometimes wondered whether he had in mind the passage in the second Book of Kings which the Government might ponder tonight:
"Behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, even upon Egypt, upon which if a man lean. it will go into his hand, and pierce it"
That is one of the dangers to which the Government are laying themselves open. I still stand by the views of President Eisenhower who, in the course of his election campaign, described Israel as "Democracy's outpost in the Middle East."
An hon. Gentleman opposite said he was not sure whether the position of Israel was relevant to the debate. I think he was wrong. If we are facing the likelihood of Israel getting arms herself but
1126
being surrounded by five Arab States all of whom are getting the same kind of arms, it almost inevitably follows that the future of that country is to some extent in jeopardy. I believe two things about Israel. I believe, in the first instance, that the self-respect of the whole civilised world depends upon maintaining the independence and the integrity of that country. I believe, too, that the future and the prosperity of the Middle East largely depend upon the existence and the enterprise which Israel shows. That prosperity can be achieved in full measure only if we can guarantee the security of Israel and so conduce to the wellbeing not only of Israel itself but of the Middle East as a whole.
A very fair reference has been made to the record of my right hon. Friends in this matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) and a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite asked why it was all right for the Labour Government to do this, and why it is wrong for the Conservative Government at the present time. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has disposed to a large extent of that somewhat specious point of view, but it is interesting to consider the psychology which that question reveals. It denotes a certain inferiority complex on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
It implies an assumption that if the Labour Government did something it is perfectly all right for the party opposite to do exactly the same. There is another point, too. At the time that this mistake was committed hon. Gentlemen opposite pointed out to us the error of judgment. If it was a mistake to do it then, it is doubly culpable to do it in the circumstances of today when hon. Gentlemen on the Government side are only too well aware of the mistake that was made at that time.
What happened in 1950, and up to that time? There had been various types of aircraft supplied to the Middle East. A Hunt class destroyer, the "Cottesmore," had been re-equipped and delivered to the Egyptian Government. Centurion tanks were on their way. There was a debate in the House of Commons which I thought one of the most stimulating and exciting that I had been privileged to

1127
listen to in this House. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides protested then, as they have protested tonight, at what they regarded as the betrayal of the real interests of this country and at something which was not in the real interests of the Middle East as a whole.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite officially, on behalf of the then Opposition, put a Motion on the Order Paper. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), with some enterprise I thought, was successful in obtaining the Adjournment that very day to raise the issue which was causing such dismay throughout the House. At the end of the debate when hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as hon. Members of the Labour Party had protested against this action, my right hon. Friend from the Government Front Bench said that the Government would change their policy and would do what the House of Commons so clearly wished. That is exactly what we are asking the Government to do today.
Air Commodore Harvey: Surely the hon. Member will try to be fair and will admit that the orders were accepted and deliveries were about to take place, as opposed to the position today, and that the position has changed out of all knowledge. In spite of the Adjournment debate of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, the then Government did continue to supply the Egyptians with spares for the jet aircraft to keep the aircraft flying.
Mr. Greenwood: It is true that the Government continued to supply spares for the aircraft which had already been delivered. On the first point put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, which is perfectly fair, a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have talked of fulfilling contracts which have been made. It is one of the most important things in the national life of this country that contractual obligations should be honoured, not only in the spirit but in the letter. If a country or a commercial undertaking accepts contractual obligations it is then incumbent upon them to see that those obligations are honourably discharged. There have been occasions, of course, when contractual obligations have not been treated in that way.
1128
Let us apply that principle to the question that this House was facing in November, 1950, when there was a general upsurge of hon. Members in this House which brought about a change of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government. I referred a moment ago to the Motion which the Opposition tabled officially on that occasion. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield should listen to the terms of that Motion, because they are relevant to the interjection that he made. It was a very simple Motion. and it reads:
"That this House regrets that His Majesty's Government are unwilling to suspend the export of arms, including Centurion tanks, to Egypt, whether as a result of previous contracts or otherwise, while the Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936 is being challenged by the Egyptian Government."
If ever there was a clear indication of the way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite regard contractual obligations, it is contained in that Motion.
It is a fairly nauseating spectacle—I am trying to keep heat out of this debate —to see hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches coming to this House in white sheets and pleading for the sanctity of contracts when the present Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and others put their names to that Motion in 1950. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield suggested that the situation had changed. Indeed when the Minister of State answered a Question put by my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) and Devonport, and myself the other day, he made a special point in his reply of the change in the international situation since the 1950 decision to suspend the export of arms to Egypt and the Middle East.
What change has there been in the attitude of the Arab States to our own country since 1950? We debated this matter in the House in November, 1950, and again in July, 1951. The present Foreign Secretary and the present Prime Minister made out much more clearly than I could the charge which they felt lay against the Egyptian Government. They said that Egypt had challenged the Treaty of 1936, had not adhered to the United Nations Resolution in respect of Korea, and had illegally stopped the Suez Canal. The present Prime Minister, with his typical picturesqueness of phrase. said

1129
that Egypt was insulting us more bitterly every day.
How have things changed since then? They still have not adhered to the United Nations resolution on Korea. They are still challenging the treaty of 1926. The Suez Canal is still blocked to British tankers, whatever the Egyptians allow the Italians to do. Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite are not suggesting that the language of the Egyptians about this country has moderated to any extent compared with the language they were using in 1950?
Since then we have had a deterioration of the position. We have had the attack on our own troops in the Canal Zone. We have had riots in Cairo and in other towns. We have had a determination on the part of the Arab countries to resist the attempts of the United Nations to bring peace to a warring Middle East. We have had General Neguib referring to us, who perhaps have done more for Egypt than any other country in the world, as "the enemy in their midst." And then there is this sorry, this contemptible story of the passage of the
Miriella "through the Suez Canal the other day. There was an Italian tanker taking oil which had been stolen from Persia a country in respect of which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were clamouring for firm action when they wanted to win an election—and to which they have not ceased to truckle ever since; an Italian tanker coming from one of our former enemies, with oil which had been stolen from us, going through a Suez Canal which was blocked to our own tankers and, indignity of indignities, escorted by an Egyptian warship through the canal, carrying oil for the enrichment of the family of Marshal Badoglio.
What a triumph of diplomacy right hon. Gentlemen have achieved when, so high is our prestige in the Middle East that Egypt treats us in this way, and what a wonderful change in the situation. The "Miriella" is now safely in dock in Venice and another tanker, the "Rocco" has left Genoa to sail to the Persian Gulf. All that is happening and the attitude of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that the situation today is so much better than it was at the time we did these things. The other day the Minister of State paid a special tribute to General Neguib and said that when the General became Prime Minister we decided to
1130
alter our policy and to ship arms to the Middle East. There again was a somewhat curious distortion of the facts.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It is quite untrue that I said anything like that.
Mr. Greenwood: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was this:
"After the advent to power of General Neguib last July, we decided in November, in response to Egyptian requests, to release a limited number of jet aircraft from among those still outstanding on the Egyptian order." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1468.]
Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not decide to honour our contract after the return to power of General Neguib because he thought that the General had made the situation worse? Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not going in for a programme and policy of appeasement? Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not realise what a menace General Neguib was to this country and decided to buy him off with a handful of these trifling jet aircraft—which was virtually the way he referred to them a few minutes ago?
Is General Neguib the friend of this country? Is he really the sort of person to whom we ought to supply these arms? I think there is a lot to be said for him. He has cleaned up Egyptian politics and. heaven knows, Egyptian politics needed cleaning up. I think he has the vestiges of an economic and agricultural programme which will probably be in the interests of the Egyptian people. He has probably given the Jews in Egypt the security which they have not had in years. On the debit side, it is no good hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite fooling themselves into believing that General Neguib is anything but the implacable enemy of this country and that he cherishes friendly feelings towards the Israelis.
Then there is this curious series of six questions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked and then himself answered. There was the really surprising point that it is in the financial interest of this country that we should be supplying these arms. It was in the financial interest of this country that the Labour Government should have supplied arms to any country that would have bought them, whether they were countries

1131
behind the Iron Curtain, whether they were countries in the Middle East or not. Yet we never heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman complaining, in those days when the Labour Government decided to stop the shipment of arms to the Middle East, that thereby we were damaging the financial and economic prospects of this country. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman adopts this attitude, surely we have then to sell them to any country in the world which wants to buy them, whether it is made difficult for us by the Battle Act or not—I think it would be wrong to do it but the right hon. and learned Gentleman must follow out the logical consequences of the policy which he has adopted.
It will not be any consolation to the wives of those working class men and women in Leicester. to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) referred, if the jets that we are sending to the Middle East are used for helping to block the Suez Canal and are used in incidents against our Forces in the Canal Zone. And it will not be any alibi for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if any disaster of that kind happens, to say, "There was money in it and we jeopardised the interests of this country because there were economic and financial reasons for doing so." I beg hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to pause tonight and think before they let it go out from this House that this is the serious and considered policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Then again there is this curious attitude of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if we did not do this. other people would do it. That has been the great excuse for crime and for wrongdoing throughout the centuries "If I do not do this-—If I do not steal—If I do not bully—If I do not attack somebody, somebody else will do it." Hon. Gentlemen opposite were perfectly right to say that this is a wrong moral attitude to adopt. I was particularly glad when the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), whose speech I thought was a resolute and sincere contribution to this debate, was able to teach a lesson of that kind to his hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
1132
Why is it, as one hon. Member asked, that we are not allowed to know how many of these aircraft are involved'? We know from the Press how many Meteors have been sent to Brazil under the barter agreement which has been reached between this country and Brazil. Yet for some reason we cannot know how many are going to the countries of the Middle East in spite of the fact that newspaper after newspaper has speculated—and I believe speculated rightly about the numbers involved.
Now I pass to the curious point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman about what is to be done with the arms we send. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not suggesting that these weapons are necessary for internal security; that, if there is trouble in the Mousski in Cairo, General Neguib will bring out his jet aircraft? The right hon. and learned Gentleman was getting a little more plausible when he talked about the real menace being the menace of Communist aggression, but does he really think that these obsolescent jet aircraft will be a very effective barrier against any advance of the Russian steam roller across the Middle East? I thought that the "Daily Telegraph" put that argument in its proper perspective when it said that the Russians would shoot down the Egyptian jets as though they were partridges. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that the arms we are supplying to the Middle East, although they could be most effective against other Middle East countries or against our troops in the Canal Zone. would be quite ineffective in stopping any advance of Russian armies across the Middle East.
It really brings us back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) in a speech at Halifax the other day when he said that we cannot resist the conclusion that the Arab countries, and particularly Egypt, want these aircraft in order that they can use them for a second round against Israel. General Neguib was reported in the New York Times "the other day as telling a delegation of majors at Gaza:
"As soon as we rid ourselves of the enemy in our midst "—

1133
that is all of us in this House tonight—
"we shall work for the liberation of Palestine and hand it back to its inhabitants."
It is true that a spokesman of the Egyptian Government later rather watered that down and said that they did not want a war with Israel, but it is a little unfortunate that the Egyptian Prime Minister should make a statement of that kind just at the time when hon. Members opposite are supplying the Egyptian Government with arms in order that they may make for the stability and security of the Middle East.
Colonel Shishekly, the dictator of Syria, or the Governor of Syria, told us the other day that Damascus was still "the watch tower of Saladin, the liberator of Palestine from usurping conquerors." The same gentleman also told us that "the Middle East is not large enough for both Arabs and Jews." "Al Misri," one of the most influential papers in Egypt, tells us that:
"The Arabs are determined not only to smash Israel but to exterminate Imperialism."
They have started, with the able support of lion. Members opposite, to smash Imperialism. I would rather that hon. Members opposite paused a moment to consider whether it is in the interests of this country or of the Middle East that the Arab countries should be allowed to continue with their campaign for smashing Israel as well.
Supposing it is right, morally, to supply these arms to the Middle East. Can the Government really seriously contend that it is right to supply them to the Middle East at this particular juncture? It is a moment when the Arabs have acted with complete intransigeance in the United Nations. What an encouragement it is to the extremists in those countries if they can say, "It is no use talking to the British. Be rude, kick them around and they will give you jet aircraft." What an encouragement to them to behave even worse and perhaps get bombers or other more effective aircraft. Is that the way Her Majesty's Government are to conduct diplomacy for this country? That is carrying on the mistakes of generation after generation in the last 50 years when what we have refused to men of moderate ideas we have in the long run conceded to extremists at the point of the pistol or of the sword.
Is it really right for hon. Members opposite to be handing over these arms
1134
at a time when we have been involved in negotiations about the Sudan and when we are on the point of commencing negotiations over Suez? Is it right to do this at a time when there is an intensification of the tremendous barrage of Soviet propaganda against Israel? Is it right to impose a burden like this upon Israel at a time when Israel's financial difficulties, heaven knows, are almost incapable of solution?
In conclusion, I say this to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Government will be pressed fairly hard from the benches behind them during the next few weeks. It is reported, I notice—and I heard his intervention the other day— that the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) feels strongly on some of these Middle East problems. Knowing him, I feel sure that he will press the Government strongly from the very considerable position he holds on the back benches. But the Government will have pressure from sources not quite so responsible as the right hon. Gentleman. There was, for example, an article by Lord Killearn in the "Sunday Express," which I thought was not a very responsible or sensible article.
We on these benches are prepared to give the Government the support they are entitled to have provided they conduct diplomatic negotiations in the sensible way which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) suggested this afternoon. It is no good behaving in the way in which the Government are behaving at the moment. We would say to them. "Do not yield to the clamour which will develop on the benches behind you but go ahead with clear aims, and without increasing the stresses and antagonisms of the Middle East. Do whatever you can to bring peace to those countries, to settle the Arab refugees and to make a real contribution to the progress and prosperity of the area."
If the Government are prepared to do that they will have the unqualified support of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House. But if in the winding up speech tonight they can offer nothing more helpful and constructive than the Minister of State offered us earlier, we on these benches shall have no hesitation in dividing the House against the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government.
6.45 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): Perhaps I might do my best in the remaining quarter of an hour to answer some of the points which have been made and some of the questions which have been put in this debate. Before I do so. may I begin by endorsing the wish of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) that at the end of this debate there shall be no Division, the more so because, as my right hon. and learned Friend showed in his speech, Her Majesty's present Government have done so very much less in this respect than did the late Government.
The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) spoke with deep sincerity and moderation on a topic very close to his heart the position of Israel. I am happy, of course, to be able to remind him that Her Majesty's Government are pledged under Article 3 of the Tripartite Declaration of May, 1950, to uphold inviolate the frontiers of Israel.
I think that everyone in the House has felt that this debate had a rather familiar ring about it. Without in any way wishing to indulge in polemical reminiscences —we had some sound advice from the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton)—I should like to cast a brief glance at history in order to set the matter in its proper perspective.
It is common knowledge in this House that jet aircraft were available to the States of the Middle East as early as 1949. Deliveries had started and were only stopped on the outbreak of the Korean war in the summer of 1950. Then, owing to the acceleration of the rearmament programme to meet the threatening international situation, it was impossible to supply aircraft to the Middle East or any other friendly nation other than our partners in the Commonwealth and in the North Atlantic Treaty. That state of affairs lasted two years and it was last year, as the Minister of State reminded the House, that the Prime Minister announced, on 30th July, that Her Majesty's Government intended to increase the export of armaments, including aeroplanes.
At the same time, owing to the increased production of our aircraft industry and to the development of newer types of jet fighters, aircraft became
1136
available for sale abroad to friendly countries outside the Commonwealth and N.A.T.O. for the first time for two years. Some of the speeches made in this debate have suggested that we were pouring in vast quantities of the most dangerous of modern weapons to countries in the Middle East. I do ask the House to realise that this is not so. The total number of jet aircraft delivered in the past few months—I pass over those delivered by the previous Government, of course— is less than a score.
I cannot give any further details. l have been pressed on all sides of the House to give further details of our sales and the number of aircraft which have gone and which are going, but I cannot do so. I rely for that refusal upon the doctrine laid down by the former Minister of Defence, the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who said on 18th April, 1951:
"It would be contrary to practice to disclose figures of cost or other details of contracts with foreign governments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April. 1951; Vol. 486. c. 1818.]
Therefore, I cannot say more than I have said about the numbers that have gone, but I think, none the less, that I have said enough to show that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) is quite wrong in stating, as he did, that we were sending enough aircraft to Arab States for them to destroy the State of Israel within a matter of a few hours.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said that the Opposition had in no way made out a case in this debate for stopping deliveries. I would go further than that and say that I consider that my right hon. and learned Friend made out an overwhelming case for continuing to send the existing supplies. I should like to make it quite plain that it is not just a question of sending jet aircraft to Egypt. It is a question of sending them to the Middle East, and I think that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, who initiated the debate, will agree that the topic of the debate is the question of jets for the Middle East.
Mr. Dalton indicated assent.
Mr. Nutting: Some States have had deliveries and have placed orders. Besides all that, there are two countries

1137
with whom we have treaty obligations, namely, Iraq and Jordan, who are entitled to modern military equipment if they ask for it.
Several hon. Members, notably the hon. Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), suggested that my right hon. and learned Friend's argument on economic grounds was a trivial argument. First, may I make it plain that this was not his main point. May I remind the House of what he said about the contract for aircraft that we have signed with Brazil. That contract, so I am advised, has enabled 2,000 men to remain in employment for six months when they would otherwise have been stood off for that period. I consider that to be a considerable economic advantage.
Quite apart from that, the markets in the Middle East are important to this country. I want the House to appreciate that they are important to this country and that if we do not sell in these countries it is not only a question of other countries who may not have the same concern for or the same understanding of these problems, but it is a question of our competitors selling in those markets, too.
Mr. S.Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman really say that the Government are inviting the British House of Commons to sanction the supply of arms to two contending parties because we can sit in the background and make a profit out of it? If that is his argument, will he take it a step further and tell us how long the Government propose to keep this tension going so that we can continue to derive these economic benefits?
Mr. Nutting: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not my argument, and it was not the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Silverman: What is the argument?
Mr. Nutting: I will come to the question of the contending parties and tension in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will have patience.
I have been asked about payment for these aircraft. Payment will be on a normal cash basis, but it is open to purchasers to ask for credit terms and for the exporters to arrange for an export
1138
credit guarantee through the facilities of the Board of Trade. The sterling balances do not enter into these transactions at all. They will not be used in payment at all. Therefore, I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) may feel reassured upon that point.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked how this transaction can possibly help to defend the peace. I should have thought that it had surely been accepted by this time in this House that armed strength is a help to peace and that weakness is a temptation to aggressors. That certainly is the view of Her Majesty's Government and it is the consideration which we have had to take into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) suggested that Israel would be happier if no one in the Middle East had any jets at all. That may be so. That may be my hon. Friend's opinion, but the fact remains— and nobody can escape from this—that other nations, including the Arab nations, have got jet aircraft as a result of previous deliveries arranged by the previous Government. Therefore, if we were to take the advice of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, and put a stop to these deliveries now, it would mean that we were stopping Israel from getting any deliveries at all.
The hon. Members for Nelson and Caine and for Devonport (Mr. Foot) made great play with the argument that Israel was forced to buy these aircraft because the Arab States were already receiving jet aircraft from this country. The historical facts do not at all bear out these allegations that the Israelis were forced by our sales to the Arab States to buy jets themselves. In point of historical fact, the Israel Government had already approached Her Majesty's Government with a request to buy jets before Her Majesty's Government took the decision last August to release jets to the Middle East.
Mr. Foot: They already had some.
Mr. Nutting: But that is not the fault of Her Majesty's present Government.
Mr. Foot: It affects the argument.
Mr. Nutting: To suggest, as the two hon. Members said, that by allowing

1139
more jets to go to the Middle East we were imposing a burden upon Israel is a completely false point. The historical facts which I have quoted prove the falsity of that point.
Mr. Foot: Instead of the hon. Gentleman saying that I have made a false point, would he tell the House what the Israel representative in this country said to the Foreign Office on this matter?
Mr. Nutting: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to disclose confidential discussions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] How can I disclose to the House of Commons confidential discussions between my right hon. Friend and members of the Foreign Office and foreign representatives? This really is a very strange doctrine.
There has been a lot of talk during the course of the debate about the danger of raising the temperature and the danger that these sales will start hostilities between the Arabs and Israel again. It has been pointed out that no peace treaty as such exists between Israel and her neighbour. Let me also point out that the state of war, which, I admit, exists and continues to exist, between Israel and her former Arab enemy, is a purely technical state of war. What is more, the countries to whom we have authorised the sale of jets have given us the assurances that were required of them by the Tripartite Declaration.
May I make another point on this Tripartite Declaration. The hon. Member for Devonport accused the Government of selling jets to appease the Arab States. Let me remind him of paragraph 1 of the Tripartite Declaration, which reads:
"The three Governments recognise that the Arab States and Israel all need to maintain a certain level of armed forces for the purposes of assuring their internal security and their legitimate self-defence and to permit them to play their part in the defence of the area as a whole. All applications for arms or war material for these countries will be considered in the light of these principles."
That is precisely what we are doing; we are considering these applications from Arab States and Israel in the light of these principles—principles which were enunciated by the late Government. Therefore, I say to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and his hon. Friends that if they divide against the Government on this issue tonight they are, in fact, repudiating the terms of that Declaration.
This was not a lighthearted decision by Her Majesty's Government. It has been suggested that we have entered into these contracts and released these sales for one reason or another, none of which has borne any relation to the realities of the situation in the Middle East. I can assure the House that the Government have weighed the arguments very carefully, both for and against. My right hon. Friend said at Question time in the House the other day that there are arguments against, and we have heard arguments against from both sides of the House during the debate. But on the whole the Government have considered that the decision to release these sales is a correct and a right decision—
We do not think that these sales will increase tension in the Middle East. We think they will assist us economically and help to maintain both our exports and our armament production. We think they will be a contribution to the defence of the Middle Eastern countries and as such, a contribution to peace and stability in that vital strategic area.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. BuchanHepburn): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Hon. Members: No.
Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes. 267.

Division No. 95.]

AYES

[7.0 p.m

Acland, Sir Richard

Balfour, A.

Boardman, H

Adams, Richard

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A G

Allen Scholefield (Crewe)

Bartley, P.

Bowden, H. W.

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Bence, C. R.

Bowen, E R.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

Bowles, F. G.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Benson, G.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Awbery, S. S.

Beswick, F.

Brockway, A. F.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Blenkinsop, A.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Baird, J.

Blyton, W. R.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Janner, B.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Callaghan, L. J.

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

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Carmichael, J.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Ross, William

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Champion, A. J.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

Chapman, W. D.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Short, E. W.

Coldrick, W.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Collick, P. H.

Keenan, W.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Kenyon, C.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Cove, W. G.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

King, Dr. H. M.

Slater, J.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Kinley, J.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Snow, J. W.

Daines, P.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Sorensen, R. W.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Lewis, Arthur

Sparks, J. A.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Lindgren, G. S.

Steele, T.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

MacColl, J. E.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Deer, G.

McGhee, H. G.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Delargy, H. J.

McGovern, J.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Dodds, N. N.

McInnes, J.

Swingler, S. T.

Donnelly, D. L.

McLeavy, F.

Sylvester, G. O.

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

McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Edelman, M.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

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

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mann. Mrs. Jean

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Manuel, A. C.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Mayhew, C. P.

Thornton, E.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Mellish, R. J.

Tomney, F,

Fernyhough, E.

Messer, F.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Fienburgh, W.

Mikardo, Ian

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Finch, H. J.

Mitchison, G. R.

Usborne, H. C.

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Monslow, W.

Viant, S. P.

Follick, M.

Moody, A. S.

Wade, D. W.

Foot, M. M.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Watkins, T. E.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Morley, R.

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

Freeman, John (Watford)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Weitzman, D.

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

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

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Gibson, C. W.

Mort, D. L.

Wells, William (Walsall)

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

Moyle, A.

West, D. G.

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Mulley, F. W.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Murray, J. D.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Nally, W.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

O'Brien, T.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Grimond, J.

Oliver, G. H.

Wigg, George

Hale, Leslie

Oswald, T.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Padley, W. E.

Wilkins, W. A.

Hamilton, W. W.

Paget, R. T.

Willey, F. T.

Hannan, W.

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

Williams, David (Neath)

Hardy, E. A.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillerv)

Hargreaves, A.

Paton, J.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Pearson, A.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Hastings, S.

Peart, T. F.

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

Hayman, F. H.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

Popplewell, E.

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Hobson, C. R.

Porter, G.

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Holman, P.

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Houghton, Douglas

Proctor, W. T.

Wyatt, W. L.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Pryde, D. J.

Yates, V. F.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Rankin, John

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Reeves, J.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Reid, William (Camlachie)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Richards, R.

Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wallace.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

NOES

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

Baldwin, A. E.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Alport, C. J. M.

Banks, Col. C.

Birch, Nigel

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Barber, Anthony

Bishop, F. P.

Amory, Heathceat (Tiverton)

Barlow, Sir John

Black, C. W.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Boothby, R. J. G.

Arbuthnot, John

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Bossom, A. C.

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

Bennett, F M. (Reading, N.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

Braine, B. R.

Baldock, Ll.-Cmdr. J. M

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

1142

1143

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

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Perkins, W. R. D.

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

Hollis, M C.

Peto, Brig C. H. M

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A

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

Horobin, I. M

Pitman, I J

Bullard, D. G.

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Powell, J. Enoch

Bullock, Capt. M

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

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

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

Burden, F. F. A.

Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

Profumo, J. D.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

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

Raikes, Sir Victor

Campbell, Sir David

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Rayner, Brig R

Carr, Robert

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Redmayne, M

Cary, Sir Robert

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Channon, H.

Jennings, R.

Renton, D. L. M.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Robertson, Sir David

Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

Jones, A (Hall Green)

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool S)

Colegate, W. A.

Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Robson-Brown, W

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Kaberry, D.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Kerr, H. W.

Roper, Sir Harold

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Cranborne, Viscount

Lambton, Viscount

Russell, R. S

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

Lancaster, Col C. G.

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Salter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur

Crouch, R. F.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Sandys, Rt. Hon D

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

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

Savory, Prof Sir Douglas

Crowder, Petro (Ruislip—Northwood)

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Schofield, Lt.-Col W (Rochdale)

Davidson, Viscountess

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T

Scott, R Donald

Deedes, W. F.

Linstead, H. N.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr R.

Digby, S. Wingfield

Llewellyn, D. T.

Simon, J E S (Middlesbrough, W.)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

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

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Donner, P. W.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Smyth, Brig. J G. (Norwood)

Doughty, C. J. A

Longden, Gilbert

Snadden, W McN

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

Low, A. R. W.

Soames, Cant C

Drayson, G. B.

Lucas, Sir Joce yn (Portsmouth, S.)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Drewe, C.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Speir, R. M.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Duthie, W. S.

Lyttelton, Rt.Hon. O

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

McAdden, S. J.

Stevens, G. P.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Storey, S.

Erroll, F. J.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Fell, A.

McKibbin, A J.

Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray)

Finlay, Graeme

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Studholme, H. G.

Fisher, Nigel

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Maclean, Fitzroy

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

Fort, R.

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Foster, John

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Teeling, W.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

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

Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

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

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

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

Gammans, L. D.

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Markham, Major S. F.

Tilney, John

George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Touche, Sir Gordon

Glyn, Sir Ralph

Harpies, A. E.

Turner, H. F. L.

Godber, J. B.

Maude, Angus

Turton, R. H.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Maudling, R.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Gough, C. F. H.

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

Vane, W. M. F.

Gower, H. B.

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Mellor, Sir John

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Nicholls, Harmar

Watkinson, H A.

Harden, J. R. E.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Wellwood, W.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Nutting, Anthony

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Oakshott, H. D.

Williams, R Dudley (Exeter)

Hay, John

O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Wills, G.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Higgs, J. M. C.

Orr, Capt. L. P S

Wood, Hon. R.

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

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

York, C.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Osborne, C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hirst, Geoffrey

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Mr. Heath and Mr. Vosper.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  IRON AND STEEL BILL
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 12th February.]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Clause 7.—(DUTY OF PRODUCERS TO COMPLY WITH BOARD'S DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM PRICES.)
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I beg to move, in page 7, line 30, to leave out "a substantial," and to insert "any."
  This Clause is the one in which power is given to fix maximum prices for the sale of iron and steel products. Subsection (5) is the one in which the Government set out to try to prevent evasions of the maximum price orders. They do it by saying that if any iron and steel producer passes a substantial part of his production to a selling agent then the production so passed will be treated in exactly the same manner, so far as maximum price orders go, as if it had not been passed to a selling agent. In other words, that part will be subject to the maximum price order.
  But the Committee will observe that to come within the mischief of this subsection a substantial part of an iron and steel producer's production must have been passed to the selling agent. The short point which we wish to bring home to the Government, and which we hope will be accepted, is that it would be much better if the two words, "a substantial "were omitted. That would make the Clause read that if any part of a producer's production were passed to a selling agency or agent for the purpose of resale then the maximum price order would apply to that part, however small it was, in exactly the same way as if it had been sold direct by the iron and steel producer.
  We are trying to strengthen the very good intention of the Government. We hope that this Amendment will be accepted to make firm their intention and to put it to much better effect than it would otherwise be put if the words are left in the Bill. We want to stop up a loophole whereby perhaps a rather more than usually enterprising, though rather
  1146
  less than usually scrupulous representative of private enterprise could try to make a profit for himself at the expense of his fellow producers and at the expense of the consumers by undermining the price structure as far as he dares without actually bringing himself into contact with the provisions of the law on the subject.
  The word "substantial" is one which is constantly before the courts. It is capable of definition. The trouble is that it is capable of just as many definitions in a court of law as there are contexts in which it may be used. For every context in which this word is used there could he a different definition. It is throwing wide open the gate to evasion if a word which is so unsatisfactory is imported into the Statute Book. It is bound to lead to a great deal of dispute and, it may be. to expensive litigation. It would be much better to leave out this word.
  I ask the Government whether they can mention one instance in which any detriment would be suffered by any lawabiding person if these words were deleted. I submit that there could be none. On the contrary, it would help all who wish to play fair. It is true that a substantial portion of a man's production has to be handed over in this manner to a selling agent before the Clause as it is now worded can come into operation. But suppose that many people practise this form of activity to an extent which is held subsequently, after long litigation, to be just less than a substantial amount of the production of each one of them. The cumulative effect of all that might be considerable.
  On more than one occasion the Minister has said that his approach to these people, who will be looking after the steel industry when it is taken over by private enterprise—if ever it is taken over, or to the extent to which it is taken over—will not be one of accusing them of being criminal before they have been shown to be criminal. That is an attitude which we entirely understand and thoroughly approve. It is one which should be appreciated.
  Nobody wishes to queer the pitch of the country by branding as criminal people who may not be criminal, and the vast majority are not. Although we appreciate that to the full, we feel that if these words were deleted the Minister

  1147
  would be able to say to these people, "We do not want to do anything which would even appear to be against you now; we want to help you—all those of you who wish to play the game and act by the law as it is."
  This Amendment merely seeks to make the provisions of this particular subsection more watertight, fairer to those who want to do right, and also make it clearer, so that there will not be any dispute as to what constitutes a substantial part of a man's production. It will be clearer so that it will, possibly, even deter those who are not scrupulous and who wish to make some kind of evasion in this way. If this Amendment were accepted, possibly such people might be deterred, and the time, trouble and energy of the authorities who might have to pursue them will be saved. It is therefore with some confidence as to what the Minister will do that I submit it for the consideration of the Committee.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I think that the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) has slightly misunderstood the point of this subsection. As he has told the Committee, his Amendment would allow the Board to extend their control over maximum prices as far as merchants and stockists, whereas the subsection, as now drafted, seeks to bring within the Board's control only any producer's selling agent who, in practice, sells the whole or any substantial part of that producer's output of any products. A number of producer companies have from time to time created and employed selling agents, and it was in recognition of this existing and legitimate arrangement that this subsection was included in the Bill, rather than with the purpose, which I think the hon. and learned Gentleman thought we had in mind, of trying to prevent evasion of the maximum prices through merchants or stockists.
  The Bill is not designed to cope with shortage conditions when there may be a possibility of a black market or profiteering. The Board's price powers bite on the producers only. In times of no shortage, as, I think, the Committee will agree, if a merchant charges excessive prices, the consumer can go to another
  1148
  merchant or direct to a producer and buy at or below the Board's maximum prices. The Bill gives the Board powers of determining maximum prices in normal conditions, and my right hon. Friend, in the debate on the White Paper on 23rd October, 1952, when speaking of the second major responsibility of the Board, which will be in regard to prices, said this:
  "Supervision may be necessary for two reasons. It may be necessary to prevent makers of iron and steel from charging excessive prices. On the other hand, it may be necessary to prevent speculators outside the industry in time of shortage buying steel and re-selling it on the black market. Those are quite separate and distinct problems. The task of curbing black market operations outside the industry has nothing to do with the iron and steel industry itself. It calls for Government action backed by the sanctions of the criminal law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1287.]
  That view of my right hon. Friend was also put to the House on Second Reading.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Not just an injunction?
  Mr. Low: Not just an injunction, because, as I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will have realised from the quotation from my right hon. Friend's speech which I have just given, the sort of thing he was thinking of there was a breach of maximum prices fixed by the Government and affecting not only the iron and steel industry, but everybody who might sell or buy.
  This question of how wide the Board's price powers should extend is a question which has a comparison in the Bill presented to the House by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss). The right hon. Gentleman may remember that, during the Committee stage of his Bill, on 22nd February, 1949, he used the following argument in proposing that he should not be given power in that Bill to fix the prices charged by producers outside the Iron and Steel Corporation's net. The point was whether, by means of the licensing procedure, the Minister should be given power to fix their prices, as well as to have some influence on the prices of the Corporation, and he used these words, which, I think, are very relevant:
  "The purpose which I had in mind was. to ensure that there was no profiteering by such outside firms which, in times of shortage, might want to sell their products at very

  1149
  high black market prices, or at prices substantially higher than those offered by the Corporation. Therefore, there seemed to me to be a good reason for power to effect maximum price control in this way."
  The point which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind is very much the same sort of point as his hon. and learned Friend put to the Committee a little while ago. Then, he went on:
  "However, I have given this matter much thought, and it has struck me that it will probably be more appropriate that that maximum price control to prevent—I will not say black marketeering,' but profiteering of this description—should be effected by some general order affecting prices of materials— steel and, maybe, other materials—rather than by provision in this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C. 22nd February, 1949, c. 1145–46.]
  We took exactly the same view on the point put by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg, and we thought that this was not the place to tackle the question of price control affecting merchants or stockists. Clause 7 refers to iron and steel producers, and we have extended it by subsection (7) to their particular specified selling agents, through whom they sell the whole or a substantial part of their products. and we do not think it right. and we recommend this view to the Committee, to extend it any further to merchants or stockists. For those reasons. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us of a single way in which anyone who wished to abide by the law would suffer a detriment if these words were removed?
  Mr. Low: It is a question whether we think it right to extend the Board's maximum powers outside the circle of the industry. That was the question, and I have recommended the Committee to agree with us that it is not right.
  Mr. I. Mikardo: May I put briefly a point which is different from any put by my hon. and learned Friend? I can well understand the point which he makes about seeking, in this way and in this Clause, to take powers for the Board over merchants and stockists, but I put it to him that there are some conditions in which we may have an authorised selling agent, an appointed agent, under a closely-drawn
  1150
  agreement, who, nevertheless, sells a fraction of the producer's output which would be considered to be substantial.
  I know of two conditions under which that might happen. The first is where we have a producer of a considerable number of products who gives the selling rights of one of these products—his whole output of that one product, which is only one of many products—to a particular agent. He may choose to sell all the rest himself or he may choose to have them sold by a different selling agent or a number of different selling agents. In that case we have the whole of this firm's output of one product—perhaps a key product—in the hands of a selling agent but with the price outside the control of the Board because of the use of this word "substantial."
  7.30 p.m.
  The second possibility—and I have known this to happen is that a producing company hands to a selling agent the right to sell to a given class of consumer, to a given consuming industry or to a given internal market. Again, that consuming industry or consuming market may be only a fraction, a comparatively small fraction, of the total output of the company, but this agreement to sell this comparatively small fraction may nevertheless be a proper selling agreement formally entered into. I do not attempt to deceive the Committee by contending that either contingency is widespread, but of course there is no reason why any steel-producing company should not choose to do its selling in either or both of those ways, and indeed, it would be quite proper for any company to do so, and in some cases which I know it would be highly advantageous for them to do so. I think the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that it would be a pity if, because of a form of words, that point were omitted.
  Mr. Robson Brown: The argument is quite valid, but it is covered in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman's argument concerns a company making a particular product which is not a substantial part of its major product. But the Bill refers to any product of any company. It is clear and precise.
  Mr. Mikardo: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has not understood the purport of the Amendment. I will take

  1151
  a hypothetical figure. Suppose a company makes 10 products—and I am oversimplifying this, of course—all in equal quantities, and suppose that in the case of product number one it appoints Messrs. Smith, Jones, Brown and Robinson, Ltd., as its sole selling agency with a proper selling agency agreement. That is the sort of selling agency which the Minister seeks to cover in the Bill, but Messrs. Smith, Jones, Brown and Robinson are selling only 10 per cent. of the producer's output of iron and steel products to which a determination of the Board shall apply and—
  Mr. Low: I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the word "any" from the quotation, and that is rather important. Line 30 says:
  "…a substantial part of the producer's output of any iron and steel products to which a determination of the Board under this section relates."
  Mr. Mikardo: If that was the point of the hon. Member for Ether (Mr. Robson Brown), I apologise to him for having misunderstood him. I am not well up in legal phraseology and I may be wrong here, but I had read line 30 quite closely and had not thought it would cover the contingencles which I have described. For example, I thought that if all 10 products of this hypothetical producer were all subject to a determination, then the fact that this one which was subject to the selling agreement was only 10 per cent. of them all would make it fall outside the Clause. I may be wrong, and is so I shall be glad to be corrected. Would the Parliamentary Secretary take advice as to whether his interpretation and that of the hon. Member for Esher is right and mine is wrong?
  In any event, I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that the whole of this subsection is only permissive and not mandatory. Ministers always say about statutory bodies that they are not morons and therefore, as responsible bodies, will not do silly things. If the Amendment were accepted, we could rely upon the Board not to use its permissive powers to go digging down into some fiddling little business of some small stockist. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would take steps to confirm his view, if only for my edification, so as to see whether his interpretation of the position is correct and mine is wrong.
  Mr. Low: I will certainly give that assurance, but from reading the Clause and from such advice as I have been given I am fairly certain that the interpretation of line 30 is as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) indicated and as I indicated in my intervention.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: We are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary and we shall be obliged if he will look into this a little further and consult his legal advisers so that we may be quite clear about what we are doing. At the moment we are not certain. We may be right, we may be wrong, but we think there is some point in our arguments, and in particular we should like some advice on some future occasion upon the meaning of the word "substantial." We do not know what it means. Supposing a man sells 10 per cent. of his output through an agent. Can the maximum price be exceeded for that 10 per cent.? Supposing it is 30 per cent. or 50 per cent. or 60 per cent.? Is that a substantial part of the output? It may be that a manufacturer will have an arrangement for selling x per cent. of his product through an agent. What sort of percentage is involved here?
  This is a matter for legal definition. I understand that the courts always consider, on the merits of the case, what is meant by "substantial," but I do not know what guidance they would have in a matter of this sort. I will not press the Parliamentary Secretary for an answer now, but we think this is of some importance, and if he will undertake to look into it and to tell us on a future occasion what is the legal advice and what is the situation, I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) will be willing to withdraw the Amendment. If we are not satisfied, we can take it up later.
  Mr. Frederick Wiley: Before my hon. and learned Friend withdraws the Amendment, I should like to draw attention to the fact that no Law Officer is present. I accept the construction given by the Parliamentary Secretary, who is well versed in these things, but I think it is discourteous to the Committee continually to have to refer things back. I hope that one of

  1153
  the Treasury Ministers will be able to find a Law Officer so that we can attend to these matters more expeditiously.
  Mr. Low: I am sure the Committee do not want to make too much of this. This is a difference of opinion between laymen, and such a difference of opinion can take place whether a Law Officer is present or not, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I have given the assurance and I will certainly look at the matter again, but, of course, in drafting the Bill and introducing it, my right hon. Friend and I took full legal advice and we formed our own opinion about what the words meant.
  If the right hon. Gentleman reads the Clause he will see that this is not a matter which is likely to come before the courts—and I think the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) would agree to this—because the subsection begins:
  "Where it appears to the Board that
  Therefore, what is likely to happen on this occasion is not an appeal to the courts. I gather from the mirth of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) that he is indicating that it is all the more necessary that we should be clear what "substantial" means. I am bound to say that I am fairly clear what "substantial" is, just as I am fairly clear what an elephant is when I meet one, but I find it more difficult to define the word. I will take advice and if hon. Members opposite want to press this matter further I am sure that there will be an opportunity for it.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: What we propose to do is to leave it to the Board whether they do or do not exercise these powers when a part of the production is sold in this way. I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that at present it is for the Board and entirely the Board to decide what is "substantial." The result comes to this—that anyhow it rests with the Board. "Substantial" is much less easy to recognise than an elephant. Why on earth should it not be left to the Board instead of to the meaning of this rather vague and unfortunate word? I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that when the Solicitor-General arrives he should consult him on the question of how he will
  1154
  obtain an interim injunction, the favourite remedy for peccant steel owners in the mind of the Solicitor-General, if that decision depends upon the Board's opinion of what "substantial" means? It might place a judge in a considerable difficulty.
  Mr. Low: Surely the hon. and learned Member is misleading the Committee on that point. What the court would have to know is whether the Board had by notice in writing to the selling agent in formed him that this section of the Act. as it will then be, applied to sales by him. That is a clear matter which the court could find out quite easily.
  Mr. Mitchison: That is not so. The question is whether the Board are entitled to send the notice at all. A gentleman who has been brought up for the purpose of an interim injunction—instead of being put in "quod" or fined—might get away with it because it was said that 5 per cent. was "substantial."
  Mr. Jack Jones: May I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that this is not altogether a matter of one-way traffic? Whilst the Parliamentary Secretary may be quite certain that he knows what an elephant is, we want to know whether, under this Bill, the elephant knows what a Parliamentary Secretary is.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 8, line 3, to leave out "forgings and."
  The object of this Amendment is to make the Board's power to determine the maximum price of a forging extend to forgings which have been machined incidentally to the forging process. This applies, of course, only when the Board have the power to determine the maximum prices of forgings. I say that because I have in mind the new Clause relating to the application of price provisions to forgings, which defines the conditions under which the power may be exercised. The Committee are probably aware that most of the steel industry's forgings are normally sold after rough machining. It is generally accepted that this practice of the forgemasters of doing some machining is an economical practice and we are anxious to recognise that. That is what the Amendment does

  1155
  Following the Amendment to the Third Schedule which we discussed earlier, engineering forging is now outside the Bill altogether and there is no fear that the expression "incidental process or operation" might cover purely engineering processes. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mt. Low: I beg to move, in page 8, line 21, at the end, to add:
  (8) Where a determination is in force under the preceding provisions of this section with respect to any products, and it appears to the Board that, in the case of any sales of those products in the United Kingdom by a particular iron and steel producer (or the selling agent of that producer) to a particular purchaser, the maximum price ought, owing to unusual requirements by the purchaser or unusual methods of manufacture or other special circumstances, to be in excess of the maximum price under the said determination, the Board may, by notice in writing to that producer and that purchaser, determine a maximum price for those sales in excess of the maximum price aforesaid, and thereupon the duty of the producer under this section shall, as respects those sales, be a duty not to charge prices greater than the maximum price determined under this subsection:
  Provided that the power conferred by this subsection shall not be exercised in relation to any determination made or varied in pursuance of an order made by the Minister under the next following section, unless that order or any order varying that order authorises the power to be exercised in relation to that determination and any requirements imposed by the order, which may include the obtaining of the Minister's consent, are complied with.
  A determination under this subsection may be varied or replaced by a subsequent determination thereunder, or may be revoked by the Board by notice in writing to the said producer and purchaser, and the preceding provisions of this section, except subsections (1), (3) and (4) thereof, shall apply to a determination under this subsection.
  This Amendment which seeks to add a new subsection (8) is designed to enable the Board to vary their price determinations for particular out-of-course transactions, in the same way as the Minister of Supply can under the current Iron and Steel Prices Order and could do under all previous Orders. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) will remember those orders.
  We had understood that Clause 7 (2) gave the necessary flexibility, but the best legal opinion now is that that subsection
  1156
  and subsection (4) cannot be used to allow special variations for particular transactions. Flexibility is, of course, necessary in this complex industry which provides a variety of products for customers requiring a wide variety of specifications; otherwise a customer who has a particularly tight specification or some special requirement may suffer and may not obtain what he wants at all because his needs could only be met by the producer making a loss on the transaction, which naturally he would be unwilling to do, or by the producer selling above the maximum price, which would be illegal and which he would not do.
  If an individual consumer, because he has a special requirement costing somewhat more to produce, is prepared to pay a reasonable price in excess of the maximum, it is only right that he should not be debarred from doing so because of an over-rigid rule. Individual exceptions will not destroy the main safeguard.
  There are two points, of importance in this rather long Amendment. The first paragraph of the Amendment makes it clear that in cases of a sale or series of sales between a particular producer and a particular purchaser, where the requirements or "the methods of manufacture" are unusual or there are other special circumstances, the Board will be able to vary the price determination for these sales. Such variations will be entirely at the discretion of the Board. The Board's determination to vary their general determination will be conveyed by notice in writing to both producer and purchaser. There will be a minimum of formality in arranging these special transactions. When the Board have made a special determination, the producer has a duty not to charge more than the maximum price determined.
  The proviso in the second paragraph makes it clear that the Board will not have a general power to vary, in special cases, determinations made following a Minister's order if he has used his reserve powers under Clause 8. It would clearly be wrong to provide such a general power which in theory could be used to frustrate the Minister's intentions, even though in practice the Board would not be likely to adopt such a course. Since, however, it will be just as necessary to provide for flexibility where the Minister directs the Board to determine a price,

  1157
  the proviso makes it clear that the Minister's order—which will be debatable in Parliament—may lay down the circumstances in which the Board will be able to vary a determination made following the Minister's order.
  Mr. Jack Jones: I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for giving this detailed and technical exposition of what this new subsection means. We would boil it down to a very few words. It safeguards the interests of the person or persons called upon to supply a very useful one-off article—if I can put it in technical terms—the person providing something in special material or something of rather unorthodox manufacture which requires flexibility. This Amendment gives flexibility. We are grateful to know that the main proceedings are safeguarded, and we have no objection to this Amendment.
  Mr. Peter Roberts: There are two short questions I should like to ask. First of all, is it quite clear that the producer as well as the purchaser can approach the Board? I am not quite certain how this procedure is going to work. The Amendment says, "and it appears to the Board." Can we assume, therefore, that the producer as well as the purchaser can make the representations to the Board in the first place?
  The second point is this. Is my hon. Friend not frightened that there may be some delay while the Board considers these various points? It may be that it may have a number of special cases. Quite a number of contracts may have to be put to the Board. There is no question of a time limit in the Clause, and there is a certain amount of worry that the Board may sit considering such matters for two or three weeks or even longer when a special case has to he put through quickly. I would ask, therefore, whether my hon. Friend is satisfied that the producer and purchaser can go to the Board, and second, whether he thinks there ought to be some special Amendment dealing with delay.
  Mr. Mikardo: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I put one of my own? He told us that he turned his back on the advice given to him by the Solicitor-General on a point covered by subsection (2) and went and got the best legal advice which must be outside
  1158
  the ranks of the Government—which induced him to change his mind. May we ask him to tell the Committee where he got that advice, and if, in fact, he meant what he said, and has been consulting my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), is that not the dangerous beginning of a coalition?
  Mr. Low: I think the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) knows the answer to his question. My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) asked me first whether the producer and the purchaser could go to the Board to make representations to get special advice. The answer is, of course, that the producer is the only person covered by the Board's powers. I think that really answers the question. If the purchaser wants to get something very badly and the producer wants to sell it to him there is no need for them both to go to the Board. It is quite obvious that the producer would go automatically to the Board.
  My hon. Friend's second question expressed his fear that there may be some delay in this matter. I think he will remember my telling the Committee that some kind of provision has been embodied in iron and steel price control orders for many years, and our experience is that we get about 30 applications a year for this sort of thing, and I do not think that there have been any complaints—certainly, I have no knowledge of any complaints—of any undue or unreasonable delay in the matter, and I am sure that the Board will be just as alive as the Government are at present to the importance of avoiding delay in all these sorts of things.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, in page 8, line 21, at the end, to add:
  () For the purposes of this section, the sale of any iron and steel products for export to a place outside the United Kingdom shall not be treated as a sale in the United Kingdom, but save as aforesaid the sale of any iron and steel products which, at the time when the property therein passes to the buyer, are situated in the United Kingdom shall be deemed to be a sale in the United Kingdom.
  I hope I shall carry the Committee with me when I say that without any doubt this should be regarded as a substantial

  1159
  Amendment. It is not "one off." The Amendment in fact covers two points. The first point is a quite simple one. It was never intended that the powers of the Board should extend so far as to apply to sales of iron and steel products for export; it was never intended that the Board should be able to fix maximum prices of those products for export; and on further consideration it was thought right to express that perfectly clearly in the Bill, so that in any proceedings brought for an injunction it would be a clear defence for the person against whom, or company against whom, such proceedings were brought, to establish that the sales in respect of which those proceedings were launched were in fact sales for export.
  The second part of the Amendment is designed to stop a possible loophole, and to make it clear that the Board's maximum prices cannot be evaded just by making contracts for sale outside the United Kingdom of products within the United Kingdom. Without those words at the end of this Amendment it might have been thought possible for someone to have evaded the operation of the Board's maximum prices, when they come to be laid down, by making the contract of sale of products within the United Kingdom outside the United Kingdom. That part of this Amendment makes it clear that that cannot be done. With those short observations in support of this substantial Amendment, I beg to commend it to the Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  IRON AND STEEL BILL

    Clause 8.—(POWERS OF MINISTER AS TO PRICES.)
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 8, line 23, after "under," to insert "subsection (1) of."
    I think it would be convement for the Committee if my remarks could be taken as referring to the next two Amendments as well as to this one. They are all consequent upon the Amendment to Clause 7 to introduce a new subsection (8), with which I was dealing a short time ago.
    It is not intended that the Minister should come in on these special cases except where his consent is required to
    1160
    variation of a determination made following his order. This Amendment accordingly provides that the Minister's power to make an order directing the Board to make a prices determination for certain products, or to vary it, shall apply only to the Board's general determinations made under subsection (1) of Clause 7 and not to special determinations under the new subsection (8) of Clause 7.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 8, line 26, leave out "thereunder" and insert "under that subsection,".
    In line 31, after "under," insert "subsection (1) of."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. P. Roberts: I wish only to say. before we leave the question of the fixing of prices, that, of course, there are further Amendments and new Clauses on the exclusion of certain products and processes from this procedure, and I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we dealt with other exclusions of other steel prices at a later stage, rather than deal with them now on this Clause. If I may reserve the position to raise the question at a later stage, I think that would be for the convenience of the Committee.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 9.—(IMPORTATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF RAW MATERIALS AND FINISHED PRODUCTS.)
    8.0 p.m.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): Before I call the next Amendment—in page 9, line 5, to leave out the second "and" and to insert "or "—I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take at the same tmie the Amendments, which also seek to leave out "and" and to insert "or ", in line 10, line 14 and line 22.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: I think that would be to the general convenience of the Committee, because all the Amendments cover the same point.
    Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: I beg to move, in page 9, line 5, to leave out the second "and" and to insert "or."
    The textual significance of this and similar Amendments may be clouded by the fact that they are monosyllabic, but they still make quite a considerable difference to the content of the Clause as drafted. The provision of plant and equipment in the steel industry is only half the story. The other half of the story concerns the provision of the raw materials for that plant and equipment, and it is that with which we are exercised in our attitude to the Clause as at present drafted.
    The iron and steel industry has always been abnormally sensitive to the fluctuations of the supply of its raw materials. Its policy has always been to attempt to secure long-term arrangements for the supply of its raw materials at stable and guaranteed prices. In this context it is perhaps interesting to note in parenthesis that, whereas the Conservative Party created such an un-understandable hullabaloo about bulk purchase when it was operated by the Labour Government, it has been a consistent part of the policy of the iron and steel industry ever since the industry has had any semblance of organisation.
    Mr. Jack Jones: It is a right policy, too.
    Mr. Fienburgh: As my hon. Friend says, it is the right policy, and the inevitable policy, as the iron and steel industry learned during the '20s when the whole industry was grossly over-capitalised in individual attempts by individual firms to secure a firm base for their raw material supplies by buying up lime quarries, ore mines, and so on. It is because of the important aspect of raw materials to this industry that we attach importance to this Amendment.
    The Clause as drafted embodies two conditions governing intervention by the Board. The Board can intervene directly by setting up an agency, or by itself operating the importation and distribution of raw materials, first, if it is satisfied that this service would be better organised as a common service for the whole industry, and secondly if it is satisfied that reasonable arrangements do not already exist in
    1162
    the industry for the importation and distribution of raw materials. We have no quarrel with the imposition of these two major conditions. Obviously it is right and proper that the Board should put up a case for the creation of a common service for importation and distribution. It would be wrong to embark on an expensive scheme if the existing services were satisfactory.
    Within each of these conditional subsections there is a further sub-condition, because on each of these points the Board must prove its case, in respect of both importation and distribution. It must prove that the importation of raw materials is unsatisfactory and that it would be better organised as a common service, and that both the importation and the distribution are not operating to the general good of the industry. As we have said time and time again, in this Bill many restrictions are imposed on the powers of the Board—many of them, we are convinced, are deliberate.
    Much of this Bill is a matter of making honourable professions and then refusing to provide the powers whereunder these professions could be put into effect. We are reasonably confident, however, that this inhibition on the powers of the Board is involuntarily an oversight of drafting; in effect it makes it extremely difficult for the Board actively to intervene at all in this very important field of importation and distribution, because four conditions must be satisfied—or various permutations of various conditions must be satisfied—before the Board can intervene under the Clause as at present drafted.
    There are many circumstances in which we can imagine two or three out of the four conditions being entirely unsatisfied, yet because the Board cannot have a full house on the whole stack of cards it is prevented from taking action. For example, the importation of raw materials may be quite good but the distribution of what is imported may be bad. In those circumstances the Board has no power to act or to intervene actively. The distribution may be good, but on the other hand the importation may be insufficient, or badly organised, or not properly related to opening up new sources of supply. In this case the Board cannot act, even though something is seriously wrong. The case may be made that a common service

    1163
    for importation would be desirable, but unless the Board can at the same time make the case that it is desirable to have a common service for distribution as well, then again under the Clause as drafted the Board has no power to act.
    Obviously the converse of that applies. The case may be well made for setting up a common service for distribution, but unless a case can also be made on importation the Board has no power to act. When it does act, provided it manages to satisfy all these permeations of conditions and sub-conditions it can only set up machinery which covers both importation and distribution, whereas it may well be the case that the importation machinery, such as it is, and the arrangements, such as they are, are adequate, and it is just the distribution that has gone wrong. It may well be that all is wrong, in which case, as far as this Clause is concerned, action can be taken. It may well be that only part is wrong, in which case the Board cannot act. We therefore seek to amend the Clause by substituting our "ors" for the various "ands" which are speckled throughout its lines so that the Board can act if either importation or distribution is not adequately operated.
    One of the first points we should like to draw attention to is that the Clause as drafted makes it impossible for the Board to set up any kind of agency if there is any breakdown in the distribution of home-produced raw materials for the industry—which, as everybody knows is a quite substantial part, and in future will be an even more substantial part, of the raw materials supplies of the industry. There can be a complete breakdown in the distribution of home-produced raw materials, but because of the very fact that it is home-produced and has not been imported the Board cannot set up an agency to reorganise the distribution in the national interest, or even in the pecuniary interest of members of the industry itself.
    Let us look at some of the raw materials in question. Of our coke supplies, all of which come from home sources, 70 per cent. comes from ovens operated by the industry itself, 25 per cent. from ovens operated by the National Board and 5 per cent. from independent coke
    1164
    producers. In 1951, as we remember all too well, there were various minor shortages and minor disturbances in the supply of coke to steel making plants, and dissatisfaction was expressed at the distributive arrangements. Since then new ovens have come into operation and the situation has been considerably eased. But new difficulties can arise.
    For example, firms which are normally reasonably self-sufficient may, because of the nature of their product and the need there is for that product in the national interest, be able to put up a very good case for obtaining more coke from National Coal Board ovens. Plants normally dependent on the National Coal Board may, on occasion, be able to put up a case for obtaining more coke from ovens under public ownership. It is very easy to make these adjustments; it is a question of the physical transposition of the coke, moving it from A to B, to where it is most useful.
    Mr. Robson Brown: What has this to do with it?
    Mr. Fienburgh: I am trying to point out—and I am sure Mr. Thomas, who is very adept at chairmanship of this Committee, would have called me to order if my remarks had been out of order— that the Clause as at present drafted makes it impossible for the Board to intervene actively if there is a breakdown in the distribution of home based and home produced raw materials. I am trying to indicate that there would be no point in making the suggestion if there was no possibility of breakdown, and to indicate some of the lines on which it may be necessary for some reorganisation to take place, and therefore make necessary some intervention on the part of the Board, which until Mr. Thomas raises objection, I shall continue to do.
    The same case comes in in relationship to home ore, which is an increasing element in the production of steel, and an inevitable and desirable increase in the use of home ore will take place during the years to come. Much of this is tied production coming from tied plant, but as we go on it may be necessary to divert some of the home ore to plants normally more dependent on imported ore.
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I should like to put the point, Mr. Thomas, that I shall be unable to follow the hon. Gentleman in replying, because neither the Amendment nor the Clause deals with anything but imported raw materials from overseas.
    The Temporary Chairman: I am grateful to the Minister, but the Clause also deals with distribution, as I read it, and so far as I am concerned the hon. Member is quite in order.
    Mr. Sandys: It deals with the distribution of imported raw materials but not with the distribution of raw materials obtained from sources at home.
    Mr. Fienburgh: The heading is "Importation and distribution of raw materials." If our Amendment were accepted we could, of course, cover the distribution of home-based raw materials. If I am out of order, I will not pursue that point any longer, and I will concentrate on the difficulties which may arise concerning the importation and distribution of home-based ore and scrap. There again, much the same position may arise. The distribution arrangements may be adequate but the importation arrangements may be bad and vice versa. I think that it is important in this context—
    Mr. Robson Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman mean imported ore and scrap or home ore and scrap, because he only said home ore and scrap?
    Mr. Fienburgh: I was leaving the point of home-based ore materials, and I am now turning to the importation and distribution of ore and scrap. The importation of ore and scrap at this moment—and this is an important political point and not only a technical point is controlled by the Iron and Steel Corporation Ore Limited, the shares of which are held on trust by the Iron and Steel Corporation for the British Iron and Steel Federation, which up to now has controlled importation and distribution policy.
    There have been complaints about the importation policy and complaints about the policy of securing and developing overseas resources. Now many of these complaints are no longer valid because, mainly under pressure and threat from the Nationalised Iron and Steel Corporation, the position has been very greatly
    1166
    rectified, but still the major point of our Amendment stands. It is quite possible that things can go wrong in connection with importation.
    It may be said that there is no need for the Board to intervene and that these things can be well-adjusted within the industry itself; that the importation and distribution agency is the creature of the Federation, which is the master hand in the industry, and if there is any argument or dispute or breakdown the well-oiled machinery of the Federation itself can be guaranteed to make the necessary adjustments. But I have pointed out that the import and distribution agency is the creature of the Federation and tied to the Federation.
    The Federation is actively, and always has been, opposed to the conception of iron and steel being produced under public ownership. We are going to sell part of this industry. It is doubtful if we will sell much and we certainly shall not sell all. There will be a residuary part of the industry in public hands, but the whole distribution of raw materials resources for the whole of the industry can rest in the hands of a political Federation inimical to the whole conception of public ownership.
    Traditionally, the control of raw materials to the industry has been the means of bringing pressure on the constituent parts of the industry. Part of the defeat of Jarrow and some of the arguments over Ebbw Vale were solved in the end because of pressure on the individual firms concerned by those who controlled the raw materials.
    8.15 p.m.
    We fear that the Federation, through its influence, may show undue preference to the privately-owned sector of the industry and—that part which is transferred into private hands. We fear that they may turn round, and having guaranteed to that part of the industry the material which it requires say, "Look how appallingly badly the public-owned sector is performing under these conditions. Look how superior private ownership is and how inferior the activities of public ownership." It may be no more than a dangerous suspicion in our minds, and maybe we are over fond of dangerous suspicion but there is the suspicion and it would be well if the Minister could ease our minds upon it.

    1167
    The position under the Clause as drafted is that, provided arrangements for importation are reasonably satisfactory, the Board has no power actively to intervene in distribution at all. The Minister must have envisaged some difficulties in this field of importation and distribution in private hands. If he had not envisaged some possibility of breakdown he would not be throwing over the good old Conservative tenet that these things are best left in private hands, and would not have introduced into this Bill the modicum of provision for intervention which there is at the moment.
    If he accepts the case that there may be something quite wrong for some reason with importation and distribution, I cannot see why he cannot break that down, from the point of view of good administrative practice, into two separate halves, so that intervention can be exercised on one side or the other. If the Minister is not prepared to do this, then what he has done is what he has done in so many Clauses in this Bill so far. He has given the power and then set about carefully and artistically and with the help of the best legal advice from the Government so to hedge round this power with possible conditions, sub-conditions and restrictions that it can never be effectively put into operation.
    Therefore, this leads us to assume that unless the Minister is prepared to accept this series of Amendments, this is one of the sham Clauses among the other sham Clauses in the Bill.
    The Temporary Chairman: Before I call on the right hon. Member to reply, may I say that upon reflection I think that the Minister was right and that I was wrong, and I take this opportunity to apologise?
    Mr. Sandys: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Thomas, for relieving me of the anxiety to follow the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) over the very wide field which he traversed in the course of proposing this comparatively narrow Amendment. Under the scope of the words "and/or" it seems that he is able to deal with many of the broadest issues of the industry, present, past and future, and I congratulate him on his dexterity in handling this matter.
    1168
    Each of the four Amendments, curiously enough, is sponsored by a different group of hon. Members pposite.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: They are all of the one mind.
    Mr. Fienburgh: There are no splits on this side of the Committee.
    Mr. Sandys: If they all duplicated one another I could understand it. Anybody reading the Order Paper would come to the conclusion at first sight that the Amendments were quite unconnected with each other. I can only assume that it was an ingenious cover plan to conceal from the enemy that the four moves were part of a fully integrated combined operation
    Mr. Jack Jones: In the public interest.
    Mr. Mikardo: The Minister has guessed right.
    Mr. Sandys: The Amendment proposes that wherever in the Clause the words "importation or distribution" occur there shall be substituted "importation and distribution."
    Mr. Fienburgh: It is the other way round.
    Mr. Sandys: We shall get very confused over these "and" and "ors." The proposal is that wherever "Importation and distribution" occurs there shall be substituted "importation or distribution."
    The purpose of the group of Amendments is to empower the Board to intervene in the arrangements either for importation or for distribution but not necessarily both, are unsatisfactory. It is urged that the Board should have the right to make alternative arrangements for either of those two functions but not necessarily for both.
    It is exceedingly difficult to separate the functions of importation and distribution, particularly in regard to the Amendment to line 22, which deals with the importation of finished steel for the engineering industry. It is right that the Board should concern itself with the distribution—I prefer "allocation"—of imported raw materials among the various iron and steel producing companies, but in our view it is quite inappropriate for the Board to attempt to allocate finished steel among the consuming industries. If

    1169
    an allocation scheme is necessary in a period of shortage such as the present, we consider that the Government alone is qualified to judge the relative importance of the competing claims of the various metal-using industries.
    It will be seen from the second paragraph of subsection (2) that, in deciding whether finished steel should be imported, as distinct from the importation of raw materials, which arises under subsection (1), the Board is asked to apply one criterion only, namely, whether the available supplies are inadequate. There is deliberately no mention in subsection (2) as to whether the allocation of the available supplies of finished steel is satisfactory. For the reasons which I have given, we consider that it is not for the Board to allocate steel among the various firms of the engineering, shipbuilding and other metal-using industries.
    I am afraid that some confusion may have arisen in the minds of hon. Members owing to the use of the word "distribution" in two senses in subsections (1) and (2). In subsection (1) "distribution" means the sale of imported materials and. in addition, the decision as to which producers and in what quantities the imported material should be offered; the word covers not only the sale but also the allocation of the imported raw materials. On the other hand, in subsection (2) "distribution" means nothing more than the actual sale of the imported finished steel; the Board's functions there consist solely of importing finished steel and adding it to the general pool which is available for industry as a whole; thus, under subsection (2) the Board is not concerned with the problem of allocation.
    To remove any doubts on this point I propose—I hope the Committee will agree that it is right—to introduce an Amendment on the Report stage to substitute "sale" for "distribution" in subsection (2). When that is done, it will be seen that, since the Board is not to be concerned with the allocation of finished steel, there is no object in giving it the power to sell finished steel which it has not imported. When the meaning of "distribution" in subsection (2) is clarified in that way, I hope hon. Members will agree that no purpose will remain in the Amendment proposed to line 22.
    1170
    8.30 p.m.
    The other three Amendments which remain are in line 5, to leave out second "and," and to insert "or"; in line 10, to leave out "and," and to insert "or"; and in line 14, to leave out "and," and to insert "or" These relate to the importation of raw materials for the steel industry itself. The Amendment in line 22 also to leave out "and," and insert" or, was concerned with imported finished steel, while the other Amendments are concerned with the importation of raw materials for use inside the steel industry itself.
    Here again, it is, in my view, difficult to separate importation from distribution. The Board cannot distribute raw materials it does not own. It is most unlikely that the Board will be able to buy raw materials which have been imported by somebody else. In practice, if the Board wishes to distribute imported raw materials in this country, it will have to import them itself.
    On the other hand, there is—and I am quite prepared to recognise it—the remote possibility that the Board might import raw materials, and then sell them to merchants or to a central distributing organisation working on behalf of the industry as a whole. Either the merchants or the central organisation would then distribute them to the various iron and steel companies. In that case, the Board would not be concerned with distribution in the sense of allocation.
    My own belief is that if the Board is to take the trouble to import raw materials into this country it will in all probability wish to allocate them itself in order to ensure that there is an equitable and sensible distribution. Nevertheless, if hon. Members opposite attach importance to this point I am quite prepared to accept the Amendments in lines 5 and 14. I have disposed of those Amendments to the best of my ability and, I hope, to the satisfaction of the Committee.
    The Amendment in line 10 which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is left. I hope, with the cooperation of hon. Members opposite, to be able to dispose of this last Amendment. I say "co-operation" because I cannot accept this Amendment, but I hope to convince hon. Members opposite

    1171
    that it is undesirable. The hon. Member for Islington, North, who moved it, accused us of faulty drafting. This Amendment is based upon a grammatical confusion, and I am surprised that it should have been tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering because he has rightly earned a reputation in the House for lucid exposition, if not always for conciseness.
    I would ask hon. Members to give me their close attention while I try to convince them that this Amendment is not desirable. The intention, as I understand it, is that if the Board considers that existing arrangements for importation or distribution are unsatisfactory, it should then have the right to intervene. I would ask hon. Members to take the Bill and read it with me. Let us turn to Clause 9, on page 9. If we leave out the words which are not relevant to this issue, this subsection reads:
    "If the Board are satisfied…that satisfactory arrangements do not exist…for securing such importation and distribution…the Board may make arrangements…"
    That means that if arrangements for importation and distribution are not both satisfactory, the Board are empowered to step in. If, on the other hand, we substitute "or" for "and," the Clause will read:
    "If the Board are satisfied…that satisfactory arrangements do not exist…for securing such importation or distribution…the Board may make arrangements,"
    If the Amendment were adopted, the Board could intervene only if arrangements for importation and distribution were both unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Mikardo: O.K. You have got it.
    Mr. Sandys: It is the negative which causes the confusion. After that explanation, I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite do not press the Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. Mitchison: I have every sympathy for the Minister. I thought there was a point of law coming when the Solicitor-General left the Chamber a short time ago. I do not think the Minister is any more right than the Solicitor-General, but he is often a great deal more lucid. He only made his point by leaving out words of substance. I shall not take up the time of the Committee except to ask
    1172
    what would happen if we put in the words "importation or distribution as the case may be"? That would make it a little bit clearer. It is really a point of grammar and construction, and it would be a sheer waste of time to press the Amendment. I would ask the Minister to get well away from the Solicitor-General and to take some sound advice whether what is suggested does not convey the obvious meaning better than the present language of the Clause.
    Mr. Robson Brown: I followed the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) in the part of his speech which was completely out of order, about the distribution of home-produced raw material supplies. I fear that I shall be equally out of order by saying that I entirely support and sympathise with the point of view he expressed on that aspect of the matter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. D. L. Mort: I beg to move, in page 9, line 11, at the end. to insert:
    "without discrimination between iron and steel producers."
    The Minister said that the speech made by my hon. Friend had curtailed his reply. I am in a worse difficulty, because the speech of the hon. Gentleman has curtailed my speech almost to nothing. However, I am quite prepared to deal with this Amendment from a specific standpoint, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to apply himself to what I say, because I am not speaking on behalf of myself or even of my hon. Friends. I have moved this Amendment on a direct instruction and as an expression of the keen sentiments of the largest trade union operating in the steel trade. They are very much concerned about the powers, opportunities and privileges which will be enjoyed in the trade by what I call the big section.
    This fear has arisen not because of any theoretical dissertation upon an economic question but because of the past experience of those who work in the steel trade. The distribution of materials is the most effective weapon in the hands of the big section. Reference was made to the division there will be in the industry because the cream will be taken. If one goes into a market it is quite natural to buy the best, but in this

    1173
    case a section of the industry will be left outside. There is a saying in the trade, "Always feed the fat pigs." What does that mean? In steel trade language it means that the furnace which is working well will get the best scrap. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) has had that experience many times.
    The workers in the industry say, "Yes, we see all this, but these great powerful units will, naturally, feed the fat pig." I want the Committee to realise that the steel trade is composed not only of big sections, but of hundreds of small people. It may sound incongruous to hon. Gentlemen opposite that we on this side are supporting the small man, but we have always done that as long as he is efficient.
    This Amendment seeks to ensure that there shall be no discrimination and that the small man shall not be crushed out of existence by the holding back of raw materials. Those small sections, such as the fittings and socket makers in the Midlands, do not make large demands on raw materials, but they are essential. I know of a tin works in my town, a small family affair, not belonging to any of the big combines. I wonder how it will fare by comparison with these big sections of the industry. We are asking for a square deal and the people in the industry would like an assurance of it.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) mentioned Trostre. It is not only a question of Trostre, but of the whole of South Wales. I know there is a committee going into this question and making recommendations, but it is no use doing so if the machine is not to operate in that direction. There will be calls made for raw materials, calls more from the sociological than the economic and industrial side.
    8.45 p.m.
    We are not suggesting that the makers of steel are evil men. They are not, but their job is that of making steel. They have given plenty of evidence that they can see the other side of the problem in the redundancy schemes now in operation in South Wales. Their job is to make steel and our job here is to see that people who have worked in this trade for a lifetime shall be insulated from some of the worst storms we can see gathering.
    1174
    I know that it is not possible for the Minister to say that a definite allocation can be made, but we want him to accept the Amendment so that if there should be a hook on which someone can hang his hat, he can do so. That is another saying in the industry. If in the future there is a desire on the part of some person or of the Corporation to assist a steel works or tin works in order to insulate them from bad economic effects, the Minister should give the opportunity to that person or the Corporation.
    Mr. Jack Jones: I support the plea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort). This Amendment ought to appeal first and foremost to the Government. We have been telling the Government, rightly—and we still tell them—that they will have great difficulty in selling the whole of this industry. We have agreed that it might be possible to sell a part, but the Government, in their own interests, ought to be quite certain that there shall be no discrimination between those who will have advantages beyond the fair shares they now have and those who will be denied advantages because of the raw materials supply question, which will be difficult for some time to come.
    We make no bones about it; we ate mindful of the fact that those who proceed to buy the industry will do so having first asked for and obtained certain guarantees. No one will buy even the modern part of the industry unless he is assured that something more than is provided in the way of interest is to be gained. Their one intention will be that of obtaining something by which they will make a profit. Profits can only be made by having technically efficient capacity used 100 per cent. having regard to the supply of a full percentage of raw materials.
    We are concerned that the Agency should be left with organisations under their control which shall not suffer by virtue of the demand of the privately-owned section for increases in raw materials. The Government should make certain, if they want to prove that they can sell the lot, that they take great care of the part which we believe will be difficult to sell. That is a simple and reasonable request. We know something of what has been referred to as the fatted pig and which I prefer to call petted conditions.

    1175
    The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) and, in a more remote and theoretical way, the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) know to what I am referring. They know that there are charts to show the effect locally. Although I have not been inside it, I understand that Steel House has a lot of charts showing production levels. Under nationalisation, production has always gone up. But that is beside the point and I shall be out of order if I continue to discuss that subject.
    We want the Minister to bear this in mind, because if he wishes the Agency to get out of this miserable business of having to sell something which is difficult to sell, then, sooner rather than later, he himself, via the Board, must see that that they get a fair share in the allocation of raw materials.
    We know that people think that the raw materials of this country are something we dig from our own ore beds. But we do not make steel altogether from the ore produced in Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire. Good quality steel can only be produced by using foreign ore. I have used a great many types of ore in my time and the best ore I ever used was Quillivar, the Spanish ore, which will be very largely used in their own steel works which are being erected. But if the Minister wishes to keep the good will of this country, we ask him that those who will least best be served may have a fair allocation.
    Mr. R. Brooman-White: I sympathise with the misgivings and motives which inspired the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort). I may not be correct in my interpretation of the exact implication of these words, but even the hon. Member for Reading with all his experience was recently in error on a similar point. As I read it, this Amendment would tie up the Board very tightly in the consideration of the conditions under which allocations of raw materials may be made. In the Scottish industry, we recently had a situation where, for technical reasons, the difficulties facing that industry owing to shortages of scrap were very much greater proportionately than those affecting steel producing firms in other areas.
    If this Amendment were carried, it might make it difficult for the Board in
    1176
    future to meet regional difficulties of this kind, or in times of acute shortage to face other difficulties arising out of varying economic considerations or those of the wider aspects of Government policy. In times of shortage, in the interests of the industry as a whole, it might, for example, be necessary, though it may be harsh, for there to be some discrimination in favour of those new plants in which enormous capital investment has been sunk.
    I disagree with hon. Gentlemen opposite and maintain that such plans are most likely to be left until the last in the hands of the Agency, rather than be the first to be sold. For instance, I understand that the capitalisation of the Steel Company of Wales is something like £85 per ton, compared with about £3 per ton in the case of Colvilles.
    Reference is made in the Amendment to the iron as against the steel section of the industry. There may be conditions, where either from the internal situation of the industry or for some other reason it is necessary to stimulate a certain line of production, for example, that of shipbuilding plates, or, for strategic reasons, of steel for shells, or on the iron foundry side may be necessary, at a time of raw material shortages, to stimulate production of certain lines. For instance, at Question time today we had a discussion about extensive agricultural drainage schemes, so it might, to give another instance. be necessary for a short period to stimulate the output of iron pipes.
    I am simply illustrating my point by hypothetical instances, to support my contention, that there is a great deal to be said for flexibility in this Clause, governed against any unfairness or excess by the phrase, "satisfactory arrangements," and for not tying the Board down to rigid arrangements, such as would be introduced by the acceptance of this Amendment.
    Mr. Charles WilliamsI am not particularly enamoured with the words of this Amendment. I am not sure that it is practical to insert them here. But in Committee on a Bill of this sort perhaps I may be allowed to say a word, speaking as one who is not deeply involved in the steel industry, but who has seen a good deal of legislation passed and who realises that when great powers are

    1177
    conferred on a Board care should be taken.
    This Amendment gives one an opportunity to say that the Minister or the Board should not allow people with great power to rule out the smaller people. A certain firm or a certain section of the industry may not be able to develop without help of some kind. It may be necessary to give help in the distressed areas. Where we have licences and great power such as is conferred by this Bill, we ought to have an assurance that the power will not be used unfairly and that the greatest possible regard will be shown to the smaller businesses.
    I do not know whether the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort) will succeed in persuading the Minister, but I should like to say that he moved his Amendment with great skill and showed much more ability for oratory than is usually shown by the right hon. Gentlemen on his own Front Bench. As an ordinary back bencher, I express the view that the Minister might give an assurance that these powers will not be used in such a way that the small man is ruled out or that there are abuses of the system which sometimes arise when Government Departments are given special power to deal with licences.
    Mr. Robson Brown: I rise to support the general line of argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and also to endorse the remarks he made about the thoughtful and constructive speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort). We pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea, East as one of the men in the House of Commons who speaks from an experience of the steel industry for which we greatly respect him.
    The arguments he used were quite clear. He spoke not only from the heart but also from his knowledge in South Wales, and on that matter I should like to suppor: what he said. In this connection, raw materials are not always iron ore or scrap or metals of that kind. Raw materials for one factory may be the semi-finished material of another. It may be that in certain parts of the country there are small organisations under personal control which have built up over a long period a specialised trade outside the general run of steel production which could continue for many years to come
    1178
    to make a decent profit, to show a decent return and to justify their existence so long as they were assured of a supply of the raw materials for their purpose.
    If that were so, I think that the Board should assist. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will show sympathy for this suggestion. It has often been said that we have to consider the sociological consequences of any act of any Board. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torquay put that point well. Sometimes a Board, in considering the great issues of the day, will forget the impact of their actions upon a small community. It is within the knowledge of many of us, not least the hon. Member for Swansea, East, that there are small works which support small communities which are no less desirable because they are small. As I see it, there may well be sympathetic consideration by the Board, resulting in a much more permanent and enduring life for many of these works than would otherwise he the case.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Low: The Committee has already made quite clear their approval of the manner in which the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort) opened this short debate, and I should like to join with the rest of the Committee in thanking him for and congratulating him upon the speech he made. We are very glad that he raised this point.
    As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) guessed in his short speech, the concern for the small people in the steel trade is a point which very much appeals to us on this side of the Committee, and we quite understand, as will all other hon. Members, the fear which the hon. Member for Swansea, East expressed about the big concerns. We can well understand those fears, but our feeling about this Amendment is that it is unnecessary, and I will explain to the Committee why that is so.
    The Amendment seeks to insert the words "without discrimination between iron and steel producers." My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) made the point that it is possible to have some discrimination in certain circumstances which may be quite justifiable, but I think that what the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment meant by discrimination was

    1179
    unfair discrimination. Surely, if the discrimination is unfair, it would be covered by the words in line 9 as the Clause is at present drafted, which state that satisfactory arrangements do not exist and operate for securing importation and distribution.
    Surely nobody would argue that arrangements for distribution which included unfair discrimination could possibly be satisfactory? It might be argued that, even though I was right on that point, we should agree to accept the Amendment because we are of one mind in the Committee about the feeling behind it, but we would advise the Committee that that would be wrong, because we would be selecting only one possible matter in which the arrangements might be unsatisfactory and it would be a mistake to single out only one matter.
    Obviously, there are other possible ways in which these arrangements may be unsatisfactory. For example, the arrangements for importation may not lead to sufficient iron ore being imported into the country, and the arrangements for distribution might not be efficient. There might be all sorts of other ways in which the arrangements might not be satisfactory, and our advice to the Committee is that it is much better to leave the words "satisfactory arrangements," wide as they are. We are satisfied, as I hope the Committee will be, that these words would preclude that unfair discrimination which it is the object of all hon. Members to avoid.
    Mr. Mikardo: I think there is some substance in what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said, and I would be much more inclined to agree entirely with what he said if I had not sat through the Committee stage of the 1949 Act and heard Conservative Members of that Committee put forward an argument which was, in a sense, almost directly contrary to the one which the hon. Gentleman has just put forward. If the Parliamentary Secretary, who was not a member of that Committee, if my memory serves me, will refresh himself by reference to it, he will find that Section 3 of the Iron and Steel Act lays a general duty upon the Corporation
    "to promote the efficient and economical supply of the products,"
    1180
    and so on. It could be argued as easily as the Parliamentary Secretary argued his case that Section 3 (1, a) of that Act would not be met if any discrimination against one class of person or firm were exercised.
    Nevertheless, during the proceedings, the then Opposition said over and over again that we ought to make it crystal clear that there must be no discrimination and, indeed, hon. Members opposite moved an Amendment to that effect and my right hon. Friend, then the Minister in charge of the Bill, who was eager to make it crystal clear that in no Bill promoted by a Labour Government was there any desire to see any unfair discrimination against anybody, accepted the Amendment, even though he said he thought it was superfluous. He accepted it in order that the position should be beyond argument and so that nobody could feel that he was being discriminated against.
    May I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he might well follow that example? He may well be right in saying that in the interpretation of the word "satisfactory" which the Iron and Steel Board will make they will consider a thing unsatisfactory if it is discriminatory but, after all, no one can forecast precisely what interpretation will be placed by a Board not yet set up upon a word so round as the word "satisfactory."
    Since he paid tribute to the sense behind the Amendment and to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort)—which terrified my hon. Friend, because he was in fear that a knighthood might be following—I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to follow the example of my right hon. Friend and to make assurance doubly sure. It may well be that he would wish to change the wording of the Amendment and perhaps to introduce the word "unfair before the word "discrimination." He may wish to narrow the Amendment in that way, but if he does, or even if he wishes to narrow it further, I would refer him to Section 3 (1, b) of the 1949 Act, the wording of which was almost entirely inspired by his hon. Friends.
    I suggest to him that if he thinks the wording on the paper is a little too wide, then he should consider narrowing it, but that, even though there is a possibility

    1181
    that it is a work of supererogation, he should nevertheless insert some words which make it quite clear that there will be no discrimination.
    Mr. Low: We listen with care to the points made by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), and study them afterwards as we do with the speeches of all hon. Members in the Committee, but I think that what I said earlier, with the general tenor of which the hon. Member seemed to agree, will have satisfied the Committee that the words "satisfactory arrangements" already cover the point.
    The hon. Member referred to the 1949 Act but, of course, there are two very important differences between the Corporation and the wording of Section 3 (1, a) of that Act, on one hand, and the Board and the wording of Clause 9 (1, b) of this Bill, on the other hand. The differences are these. First, the Board have no interest in any particular part of the industry. The Corporation, on the other hand, had a very close interest in looking after the interests of the companies under the Corporation. The Board are responsible for the whole of the industry. That is the difference.
    The second difference is that the wording in Section 3 (1, a) of the Iron and Steel Act, 1949, is
    "to promote the efficient and economical supply…"
    Nowhere do I find the word "satisfactory" It is that word that I have been interpreting and which the Committee were asked to interpret on this Amendment. For those two reasons the fears which the hon. Member has in mind are unjustified. But I do not think that we want to go on this point very much longer and I certainly assure him that we shall have a look at the point he has made and see whether we are right, as I hope we are.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: I beg to move, in page 9, line 11, at the end, to insert:
    "and that such arrangements cannot be secured by means of such consultation as aforesaid."
    This is a very small Amendment which first of all seeks to bring the procedure under this Clause into line with that in Clause 4 (2). Furthermore, it is an
    1182
    Amendment which I think is in keeping with the principles of this Bill and with the general attitude of the Government to the industry and to the Board. The object of the Clause and of this Amendment is to ensure that the power of the Board shall be ultimate power and that consultation with the industry shall take place so that every effort may be made to secure the arrangements which are required. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will see fit to accept this Amendment, which lines up with the principle already involved in the Clause.
    Mr. Sandys: This Amendment deals with the question of consultation in connection with the decision of the Board to import raw materials. If the Board consider that the arrangements for the importation or distribution—as we have now amended the Bill—are not satisfactory, the Board can then step in and set up alternative arrangements themselves.
    I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) is asking that this Clause should be brought into conformity with the procedure under Clause 4 and that the Board, having come to the conclusion that the arrangements are not satisfactory, should have a duty, before deciding to step in themselves, to try to persuade the industry itself to put matters right before the Board intervene. It seems to me that that is what a sensible Board would do in any case, but I am quite happy to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Mikardo: I am surprised that the Minister accepts this Amendment, because it seems to be one of very great moment indeed. I understand the purpose in moving and accepting the Amendment, of course. If there are consultations with some interested party about a situation being unsatisfactory, it is extremely sensible that they should be given a chance to make it satisfactory before the Board come down and use compulsory powers. But what does the Minister mean by a chance? How wide and how long a chance? Is there any time limit, or is the Board allowed to go on playing about for ever?
    9.15 p.m.
    Let me put this to the right hon. Gentleman. If he accepts the Amendment and it is carried, what will happen

    1183
    will be that the Board will not be able to take the action envisaged here unless it is satisfied that such arrangements cannot be secured by means of such consultation. Whatever it is that has gone wrong, I feel perfectly sure that it would be put right by the industry in five years or in 10 years or in 20 years or in 40 years, but the matter may be urgent; so that in fact if the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment—I am putting this very seriously to the Minister—he will vitiate the whole of Clause 9 altogether and make it really a window-dressing Clause.
    If the Minister accepts the Amendment, there will be no conditions under which the Board will be able to take action under Clause 9, because whatever goes wrong, whatever failure there is to make satisfactory arrangements for securing importation or distribution, whatever has gone wrong with importation or distribution, the Board will come along to the industry and say, "Cannot you manage to put this thing right?" and it may well say, "Yes, give us 10 years "—or 15 years or 20 years.
    The right hon. Gentleman may say that nobody would be so foolish as to take as long as that, but when we are considering an Act of Parliament we have to be concerned with the wording of the Act of Parliament, and if this Amendment were made it would literally mean that, unless it were possible for the industry to correct a defect, even given a half century to do it, the Board would not be able to take action at all. I want to put it to the Minister that he is running the danger of its being said that this Clause is purely a window-dressing Clause and that it is not intended that the Board shall take action at any time.
    I do hope that the Minister will look at this again. I do not attribute to it base motives, and I do not think that the motive of the right hon. Gentleman is to vitiate the Clause at all, because if he wanted to do that he would have done it himself and not left it to one of his hon. Friends to do it for him. I think that the Minister, not seeing the import of the Amendment, in the kindness of his heart thought he would do a good turn to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) and thought he would accept the
    1184
    Amendment, but I beg him to look at it again, and to reconsider it quickly indeed, to see if it is not as I suggest, that the Board would be prevented, by this apparently simple, innocuous little Amendment, from taking action at any time whatsoever under Clause 9. If that be so, he may wish to change the views he has expressed to the Committee.
    Mr. J. E. S. Simon: In case my right hon. Friend should go away with the words of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) ringing in his ears, I should like to suggest that there is a very, very short answer to his point, and that is that "satisfactory arrangements" means satisfactory arrangements. "Such arrangements" means satisfactory arrangements, and, surely it is quite idle to suggest that arrangements which might be made after five or 10 years of consultation could possibly be satisfactory arrangements.
    Mr. Mikardo: Of course they could.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: I merely want to add that surely the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) exaggerated the position when he said that these words might be construed as impossible of performance in less than 15 years or 20 years. Surely, as in matters of law when no time is specified, the commonsense application of a really reasonable time would be what, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) has said, would be satisfactory, and that would be the obvious answer to this, and certainly a time of 20 years would be totally unreasonable, and, as he has said, totally unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Mikardo: I suggest that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) are wrong about this. The words "satisfactory arrangement" do not apply to the process of making or concluding the arrangement, but apply to the nature of the arrangement that has been concluded. It is perfectly feasible to have an arrangement which is perfectly satisfactory in nature when it has been concluded, but the process of making which is totally unsatisfactory. That is the point I was making.
    Mr, G. R. Strauss: I, too, regret that the Minister has accepted this Amendment. He rejected the last Amendment we moved, although everyone agreed there was great point in it, because he thought it was redundant and unnecessary and its purpose was already covered. Surely what the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) has in mind here is already completely covered, and the addition of these words is wholly unnecessary. If the Minister is unwilling to accept our suggested additional words, which we all agree were important, on the ground that they were redundant, I am sorry that he should accept these words, because I should have thought they were utterly redundant.
    The Board have got to be satisfied
    "after consultation with such representative organisations as they consider appropriate … that satisfactory arrangements do not exist."
    That surely means that the Board calls the people together and says, "Look here, the situation is not very good. What about it? What can be done about it?" That surely means that if the people consulted say, "We are working in this direction and everything is going to be all right; you do not need to worry," then the Board does not take any action in the matter. That is surely the common sense of it.
    If the words in the Amendment are added and the point is rubbed in, I should have thought it would make the position of the Board very difficult, because they might well say, "According to the letter of the law it may be that, as a result of these consultations, in future, at some time or other, satisfactory arrangements can be made." I should have thought that, if representative organisations are putting up long-term plans, or vague plans, or plans which the Board think may not ever be carried out satisfactorily, the Board would have to hesitate before taking the necessary action, and this might, indeed, endanger our imports of raw materials.
    The position was fully covered by the Clause as it stood, but it is weakened and endangered by the inclusion of these words. Whatever the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the words are unnecessary. We shall not vote against the Amendment, there are other and more important
    1186
    things ahead; but we think it regrettable that the Minister should accept this Amendment, particularly as he did not accept our Amendment previously on the grounds that the words of our Amendment were redundant.
    Mr. George Chetwynd: I should like to make a further plea to the Minister to think again about this. He has been a little hasty at jumping in and accepting this Amendment, because the inclusion of these words means that in this respect initiative is taken from the Board and given to representative organisations. The only circumstances in which satisfactory arrangements cannot be made will be when the representative organisations cannot agree about a certain thing, and if they want to keep up that state of uncertainty we ought not to give them the initiative to wreck any proposals the Board could bring forward to make them satisfactory. That seems to me the whole purpose of the Amendment, whether it is what was intended or not. I think the Minister would be wise if he agreed to look at this again, because if it is really necessary he could put down an Amendment at a later stage.
    Mr. Sandys: The last thing in the world I want is a disagreement about words of this kind which I believe, as the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) very fairly said, were put forward by my hon. Friend, and accepted by me with every good intention. I still think it is desirable to amend this Clause to bring it into conformity with Clause 4. Although I have no doubt the Board would do so in any case, I think we should make it clear that we wish the industry to be given the chance to put their own house in order if the Board is not satisfied with existing arrangements. Naturally we do not want the Board to intervene when things could be quickly put right by the industry if its shortcomings were pointed out. I am sure that is the wish of the Committee.
    I recognise the validity of the point made by several hon. Members, and the last thing either I or, I am sure, my hon. Friend want is that there should be a loop-hole here which would impede the action of the Board where they thought it necessary. If the Committee will agree, will accept the Amendment as it stands, and between now and the Report stage

    1187
    look at it to see if it is desirable to include some such words as "expeditiously" or "in reasonable time," that is, of course, in the opinion of the Board. I hope that will satisfy hon. Members.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. George Darling: I beg to move, in page 9, line 12, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall undertake or."
    In moving this Amendment, I am afraid that I must upset the rather friendly atmosphere which has been so far enjoyed today. This is a very important Amendment and one which raises a matter of principle. The purpose of the Amendment is quite clear. We want to give the Board authority—real authority and not sham authority—to ensure that the steel industry shall get all the raw materials that it needs. Good supplies of raw material are, of course, essential to the proper development of the industry and to its production programme.
    It has been obvious in all that we have said about the need for a continuing expansion of the industry that the raw materials situation has to be looked at. It is equally clear that in this part of the Bill, at any rate, the Government realise that full and adequate supplies of raw materials, largely iron ore and scrap, cannot be left to chance, and that someone has to ensure that the supplies of raw materials come along in adequate quantities at the right time.
    It is quite clear that on behalf of the industry the Board must make sure that proper arrangements—effective and efficient arrangements—have been made to give the iron and steel industry all the raw materials that it needs. Emphasis in this part of the Bill is on imports of iron ore. In the nature of things the industry will have to rely less and less on imported scrap. In fact, the blast furnace development of the industry that is going on is in a large measure designed to make the industry less dependent upon imported scrap. There will always he some scrap coming from home sources. from ship-breaking and so on, but the industry will have to increase its imports of iron ore considerably if steel production is to go on increasing.
    I gather that the measure of increase that is contemplated is in the region of
    1188
    50 per cent. above the present import arrangements, and it may be even higher. All this is admitted by the industry itself and by the Government in this Bill. But the position is extremely serious, and we have to make sure that iron ore supplies will be coming in adequately. We must bear in mind the big and growing demands of the steel producers in the United States and of the European steel producers for whatever iron ore is available in the world.
    Indeed, in the White Paper the imperative need to make sure that iron ore imports are kept at a high level is very strongly stressed. It is worth while, I think, to draw the attention of the Committee to the words of the White Paper dealing with the supply of raw materials. In paragraphs 19 and 20 it is stated:
    "The Board will keep under review the distribution of raw materials, including scrap,"
    and it goes on to say:
    "In times of shortage … it is the Government's intention that the Board should control the distribution of scarce raw materials."
    9.30 p.m.
    The words "should control" are worth noting. In paragraph 20 the White Paper says:
    "The Board will be empowered themselves to take steps to secure the imports required, should they consider the industry's arrangements inadequate."
    Those are strong words.
    When we come to the Bill all those brave words have disappeared. The word "control" does not appear anywhere in the Bill. Instead, we have a very much watered-down version of the White Paper. The Bill now says that if the private arrangements for importing and distributing iron ore are unsatisfactory the Board may consider making other arrangements, that it may appoint agents, or it may set up companies to do the job. But the Bill places no compulsion on the Board to make sure that the importation of iron ore is efficiently and adequately organised.
    We believe that the Government's first thoughts as expressed in the White Paper are correct. This matter is crucial to the whole industry and also to the economic well-being of the nation. Because we recognise the crucial importance of adequate supplies of iron ore being made available to the industry, we want the Government to put the strong words of

    1189
    the White Paper into the Bill. We should like to know why the Government have run away from the White Paper's phrases. I believe the Government have changed their views, wording and emphasis because of the pressure put upon them by the Iron and Steel Federation, either directly or indirectly.
    We must remember that the Iron and Steel Federation, which is a private cartel, has its own iron ore importing company. Under the Bill the private company run by this private cartel, over which the Board will have no control, will be completely in charge of the iron ore imports of the country. Hon. Members opposite will argue that B.I.S.C. (Ore) is a public-sprited concern, that it will not do anything contrary to the public interest and that it will do everything the Iron and Steel Board will want the importing company to do. That may be true, but we should give the industry some guarantee that that is not merely wishful thinking.
    We know of the experience of the Iron and Steel Corporation. The Corporation wanted to intervene in the activities of the B.I.S.C. (Ore), but the Iron and Steel Federation soon told the Corporation that its intervention would not be permitted. If a body like the Corporation, which had a legal authority over the iron and steel industry, could not ensure proper supervision of imports by its intervention in the activities of B.I.S.C. (Ore), there will be little chance that the weak and ineffective supervisory Board establised by the Bill will be able to intervene if intervention should become necessary.
    The Bill says that the Board may intervene if the ore import arrangements prove unsatisfactory. What does that mean in practice? If the import arrangements are unsatisfactory, as they may well be, the Board will first have to consult 'the appropriate sections of the industry, which means that it will start consultations with Steel House. That means that its discussions will be with a body which it is suggesting has not made satisfactory arrangements. The experiences of the Iron and Steel Corporation have shown that Steel House will not tolerate any interference with its importing company.
    Therefore, there is the inevitable prospect that if things go wrong with the industry—and it may be that some sections may want to go back to the kind
    1190
    of restrictionist policy which went on in the inter-war years—there will be a conflict between the Iron and Steel Board and Steel House, and we should try to guarantee against that. In such a conflict Steel House is bound to win because it has got all the cards in its hand. The Board has got to go to Steel House for information because it will not have any technical or information services of its own. It will have to depend on the Federation for most of its technical services, and, therefore, in such a conflict the cards will all be in the hands of Steel House.
    Under the provisions of this Bill in such a conflict there is no provision at all for the Minister or anyone else to intervene to make sure that the industry is going to come out of such a conflict in a way that the national interests will not be upset. We think that the solution to all this is that we should give the industry a guarantee that its raw materials and particularly its iron ore supplies will be satisfactorily and sufficiently arranged. If the Board would take over B.I.S.C.(Ore) right away that would meet the case. I know that is a solution that will not be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, and if we cannot have such forthright action, which I think is necessary for the well being of the industry written into the Bill, and get the Board to take over the B.I.S.C. (Ore) from the beginning, we have got to make it possible for the Board to set up its own importing agency.
    If the Board has that authority—not a permissive but a mandatory authority— if it is dissatisfied with the work of Steel House, it can make other arrangements that will guarantee the industry will get its supplies of raw materials. We should make it possible for one or other of these things to happen or, at any rate, to take the control of ore imports out of the hands of a private cartel. For that reason we suggest that the Committee would be acting in a responsible manner if they accepted this Amendment and inserted these words in the Bill.
    Mr. Spencer Summers: I cannot help thinking that if it were desired to move this Amendment in terms deliberately designed to make it difficult for the Minister to accept it, then something like the speech to which we have just listened would, in fact, have that

    1191
    effect. I am sorry that it was moved in the terms that it was because I, personally, take the view there is some substance in the point that lies behind the words on the Order Paper.
    The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) may have overlooked the fact that considerable support came from this side of the Committee for that Amendment to Clause 4 which placed upon the Board the added task of taking an interest in the source of raw materials, and, if necessary, given power to provide capital so that reinforcement of supplies might be obtained from other sources. Already there has been quite a clear indication of the importance that we on this side of the Committee attach to the securing of adequate supplies of raw materials.
    It is worth mentioning that the acceptance of my hon. Friend's previous Amendment should make it easier for the Minister to accept this Amendment, because before the Board can intervene and act directly to carry out instructions, as opposed to the option which this Amendment confers upon them, the preceding Amendment makes it necessary for the Board to make sure that what is required to be done could not be done by the industry. Only then will it be relevant for the Board to step in. The addition of the words in the previous Amendment has made it easier for the Minister to accept the present Amendment.
    If, after it has been demonstrated through investigation that the sources of supply and the methods of distribution are thought to be unsatisfactory, after steps have been taken to provide a remedy, and after consultation with the industry, it is Still thought that the position is not satisfactory, I hardly think that we should be right to leave an option to the Board to do nothing about it. The Committee ought to take the view that after those steps have failed to produce the right result, it will be reasonable to place upon the Board an obligation to do something about it.
    Mr. John Freeman: I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the arguments addressed to him both from this side of the Committee and his own side. I am not associating myself with the opening remarks of the hon. Member
    1192
    for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers), but I thought that my hon. Friend's argument was very much to the point.
    I was glad to hear the latter part of the remarks of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, because he seemed to put with considerable cogency the point that we are trying to put across. This point does not arise when the Board are satisfied about certain things, and, secondly, when they find that satisfaction after consultation. Thirdly, when they are not satisfied, they should have authority to see that something is done which cannot reasonably be accomplished in any other way. That conclusion is arrived at after full consultation with the industry.
    Every conceivable hypothesis has been covered in what is a kind of preamble. The point that we are debating now is whether, at the end of all that, an optional, non-mandatory power is still to be left to the Board. It is scarcely credible that the Minister has not been advised to use his power or that he does not intend to use it. I hope it is not true, and I do not make that suggestion; but the Minister has to advance some remarkably cogent arguments, in the light of what my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, if he is to reject the Amendment. I hope he will realise, and I re-emphasise it, that the point can only arise after all hypotheses have been taken care of. If, when they get to that point, the Board are not to have mandatory power to make these changes, the Board's power will be entirely nugatory.
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling), in moving the Amendment, suggested that there was a serious inconsistency between the wording of the Bill and the wording of the White Paper, and that the weakening of the Bill, as he saw it, was the result of pressure from the wicked men in Steel House. Almost every sentence he uttered contained a remark about Steel House.
    Mr. Mikardo: Has it been compared with what Lord Nuffield said about it?
    Mr. Sandys: I assure the hon. Member that there has been no pressure of the kind he has suggested, and secondly, I hope that he will allow me to devote a moment or two to comparing the provisions of the White Paper on this point

    1193
    with those of the Bill. He will then see that there is neither inconsistency nor weakening between the two.
    9.45 p.m.
    Paragraphs 19 to 20 of the White Paper which the hon. Member read out state:
    "The Board will keep under review the distribution of raw materials, including scrap."
    That is covered by Clause 3 of the Bill. The paragraph continues, and I want to emphasise this:
    "In times of shortage, such as the present, when emergency powers are in operation, it is the Government's intention that the Board should control "—
    We do not run away from the word "control" as the hon. Member suggested—
    "the distribution of scarce raw materials within the iron and steel industry under the authority of the Minister of Supply."
    We explained what we have in mind during the debates on the White Paper and on the Second Reading of the Bill. The Bill provides that, when emergency powers are in operation we intend as far as possible to delegate the exercise of some of them to the Board. We have in mind particularly that the Board could deal with the distribution of scarce raw materials, such as pig iron and its allocation between steel makers and the foundries.
    The next paragraph, to which the hon. Member also referred, states:
    "In view of the dependence of the United Kingdom upon supplies of high grade iron ore and other raw materials from abroad, the Board will have to assure themselves that the arrangements made by the industry for importation of the raw materials it requires and their distribution are satisfactory."
    That refers to its general supervisory function. It continues:
    "The Board will be empowered themselves to take steps to secure the imports required, should they consider the industry's arrangements inadequate."
    That is precisely what this Clause does; it gives the Board power, if they come to the conclusion that the existing arrangements are inadequate, to make alternative arrangements to secure the importation of raw materials.
    There is a misunderstanding because the Bill fully covers what was stated in the White Paper and, with one exception to which I shall come, fully meets the wishes of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. We said in the White
    1194
    Paper that the Board will be empowered to take steps to secure raw materials; we did not say that the members of the Board would go out to buy theirs. They are "to take steps to secure" and that is precisely what this Clause empowers them to do.
    The only difference between the Bill as it now stands and as it would be if the Amendment were adopted is, first, that the Board would be empowered to buy abroad and to import the raw materials themselves instead of employing agents to do so. I do not think there is a big point there; in fact the hon. Member himself summed up what he wanted by saying that the Board must be able to set up their own importing agency. The Bill enables them to do this. Employing agents to import raw materials is setting up their own agency. What we do not want is that the Board shall themselves get involved too directly in the business of buying and shipping raw materials. It is a specialised business and requires considerable specialised knowledge and experience which it is most unlikely that the members of the Board will possess.
    We are not anxious to put into the Bill words which will encourage the Board to undertake executive and managerial duties in connection with the importation of materials. I do not believe that the Board would wish to do so. The normal thing, if they decided they wanted to secure raw materials, would be for them to employ a suitable agency, very much as the hon. Member suggested. However, this does not mean that we at all intend that their freedom to make arrangements for the importation of raw materials should in any way be limited.
    I come to the other point, which I believe is more pertinent and important, namely, whether the Board's duty should be permissive or mandatory. As the Bill stands, it is left to the Board, having come to the conclusion that existing arrangements are not satisfactory, to decide whether they should intervene. After reading the Amendment I felt inclined to agree that, if the Board came to the conclusion that the arrangements for the importation and distribution of raw materials—which is vital to the industry were not satisfactory, it should not only be permitted but should have a positive

    1195
    duty to take steps to put matters right. Therefore, if the hon. Member would be willing to withdraw the words "undertake or," which deal with the first part of the Amendment, I shall be happy to accept the second part, which I believe to be the more important, namely, the substitution of the word "shall" for "may."
    Mr. Darling: I most certainly accept the offer of the Minister and I think we can be sure that the Board will act in the way we want it to act in the form of words which the Minister has accepted. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 9, line 12, leave out "may," and insert "shall."— [Mr. G. Darling.]
    Amendment proposed: In page 9, line 22, leave out "and," and insert "or."—[Mr. G. Darling.]
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, after "Minister," to insert:
    "after consultation with such representative organisations as the Board or the Minister consider or considers appropriate."
    This Amendment is really dotting the i's and crossing the t's of the proviso to Clause 9, subsection (2), which lays down that there shall be consultation with those representative bodies referred to in my Amendment. In the proviso this procedure is not referred to specifically. I feel certain that it is intended that that procedure should be followed, in the same way as in the main Clause. In view of some of the observations made earlier, I have every confidence of the integrity and desire of the industry to complete their arrangements satisfactorily, and that is why I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Sandys: It is my intention to accept this Amendment and I hope I shall not encounter any difficulty from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Unlike my hon. Friend's previous Amendment which was concerned with raw materials, this deals with the importation of finished steel. Under subsection (2) of this Clause finished steel may be imported by the Board either on their own authority or on a direction from the Minister.
    1196
    Before deciding to import finished steel on their own initiative the Board are required by the Bill to consult the industries concerned, but no similar obligation is placed upon the Minister.
    I think it would be very unwise for a Minister to omit this obvious precaution, but I see no harm in including this Amendment in the Bill and with, I hope, the agreement of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I propose to accept it.
    Mr. Mitchison: I agree entirely with what the Minister has said, but I suggest he looks at the wording of the Amendment again. He accepted it on the footing of applying it to the Minister. If be takes the Amendment as it is he will find that there has to be, as it were, two consultations by the Board and I cannot make clear the distinction between the two. It is not a matter we need to go into now, but I suggest that the language be looked at again.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Mikardo: I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, after "is," to insert, "or may become."
    I do not propose to make very heavy weather of this Amendment, as I feel sure that the Minister will accept it, and I want, as I know he would want, it to appear he is accepting it of his own free will rather than as a result of the bludgeoning of an unaccustomed and uncharacteristic torrent of verbosity from myself. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the Board or the Minister, as the case may be, can lock the door before the horse is stolen and not afterwards.
    As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out in a very lucid explanation of the whole Clause, subsection (2), unlike subsection (1), concerns arrangements for the importation, not of raw materials but of steel products. If one takes the two together, what they mean, in non-legal language, is that if the Minister or the Board find there is inadequate supplies of an important form of iron and steel they can make arrangements for it to be imported.
    The position may be better in the future, but we all know that in these days it sometimes takes a long time to obtain deliveries. One provincial Government

    1197
    in Canada is in some difficulty at the moment as they cannot get pipes to carry a gas supply to the capital before the end of this year. It finds that the earliest delivery date it can get anywhere in the world is two and a half years.
    10.0 p.m.
    It would be silly if the Minister or the Board had to wait until there was an actual shortage before they could go off to place import orders. A good deal of thought is given in these days to the forecasting of demand requirements. Some of that thought is given by the much maligned sometimes unfairly—gentlemen of Steel House. It would be silly if we prevented ourselves from taking advantage of those forecasts. If, for example, we knew that certain types of tube would be in short supply six months hence although they were in adequate supply now, it would be wrong if we did not put in orders now. This case is so clear that I am sure that I need not urge it further.
    Mr. Summers: Before the Minister replies, I should like to point out one aspect of this matter. The hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) took exception to an earlier Amendment about consultation on the ground that it might hold things up for five, 10 or 20 years. I hope that the Minister, in considering the wording of this Amendment, will bear in mind that the same argument which was adduced by the hon. Member for Reading, South on the preceding Amendment is equally relevant here.
    If it was proper to add some words to bring consideration on the earlier point to the reasonably near future, it seems equally proper that similar words should be introduced here to make certain that the distant future is not something implied by the words on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Mikardo: The two cases are not on all-fours, as I think the hon. Gentleman will see if he refers to the wording of the proviso Suppose we took his point and it appeared to the Board that the supply of products for use in Great Britain might become inadequate in 20 years' time, all that would happen in these circumstances would not be that the Board would be compelled to exercise their powers but that they could if they wanted to, taking all the circumstances into account. In other words, we
    1198
    have here a double negative. All that the proviso does is to lay down the circumstances under which the Board must not, and the circumstances in which they must. That is the difference between this Amendment and the one moved earlier by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey).
    Mr. Summers: I am prepared to leave the argument on the detailed wording to be dealt with by the Minister.
    Mr. Low: Having once decided that there should be available this power to import finished steel when there was a shortage, we do not pretend that the power should be available only after a shortage has arisen and damage has been caused to the British economy. The question is what is meant by the word "supply."
    I assure the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) that if there is doubt we will consider the matter further, but our view is that the words:
    "…the supply of those products for use in Great Britain is inadequate…"
    mean not only that there are at that moment insufficient products available in Great Britain but also that supplies, including such imports as private buyers may reasonably be expected to make, are inadequate to meet the demand in the near future. That was our view about the meaning of the words, but we will certainly consider whether we are right in view of what the hon. Gentleman said. We had already given the matter a good deal of consideration since the Amendment appeared on the Order Paper.
    I now come to the actual words which the hon. Member suggests should be inserted to make the matter clear. In our view to accept the words, "or may become" would be to give the Board and the Minister too wide a power to import in anticipation of a possible shortage which may never arise. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) made the point, and, to emphasise it, went well into the future.
    The point I am making is that, whatever one's views about how far it goes into the future, I think the Committee must agree that these words would give the Board power to import in anticipation of a possible shortage, which may never arise. We do not want to go as far as that, but we will consider again

    1199
    what the words now in the Clause mean, and whether they are open to the criticism which the hon. Gentleman has made of them. If we decide that they are open to criticism or doubt, then we will come back at a later stage with words possibly to this effect—"is or is shortly about to become." That is the sort of point which we have in mind at the moment, and I hope the Committee will be prepared to accept the withdrawal of this Amendment on the assurance of further consideration which I have given.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: I want to be quite clear about this, and I think so does my hon. Friend. Obviously, the Board cannot be certain about a shortage in the future, and what we want to be sure about is that, if it appears to the Board that there is likely to be a shortage in the future—not that there is to be any certainty about it, for it may never develop —but if it appears to the Board, after all the consultations which it has to make, that there is likely to be, or there is the presumption of, a shortage in the future, it can go in, and, through its agents, buy iron and steel and those things which it is empowered to do under Clause 2.
    If the Parliamentary Secretary says that he proposes to meet us on that point by some words which are more appropriate than those in the Amendment, I feel sure that my hon. Friend would be willing to withdraw his Amendment, but we do not want him to come forward with words which will only enable the Board to act if they are certain that there will be a shortage in the future. We want them to act if there is an anticipated shortage in the future. and there is a great difference.
    Mr. Low: I think the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) will have noticed that the words
    "…unless it appears to the Board or, as the case may be, to the Minister"
    already appear in the Clause. We have no intention of taking out those words or of detracting from their meaning, and nothing that I have said should lead the right hon. Gentleman to that opinion. I have no quarrel with what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Mikardo: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and his
    1200
    undertaking to give careful consideration to the point, may I express my thanks to him for the way in which he has met us, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment?
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 10.—(RESEARCH AND TRAINING.)
    Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 9, line 39, after "them" to insert:
    "after consultation with such representative organisations as they consider appropriate."
    This Amendment requires the Board to consult with representative organisations about research, training and education, and it should be read in conjunction with the Amendment standing in my name to Clause 31, page 26, line 6. which enlarges the definition of "representative organisations" to include not only trade associations, but trade unions as well. I tabled this Amendment largely to meet the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to line 41.
    There are two differences between my Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman's. The first relates to the qualification which introduces the whole of the present Clause. These words appear at the beginning of Clause 10:
    "If and so far as existing arrangements appear to the Board to be inadequate"
    In his Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman omits that qualification. I do not know whether it was intentional; no doubt there was some good reason for it. In our opinion, it would be wasteful and confusing to give the Board power to intervene and to duplicate arrangements for research, training and education if the existing ones are working satisfactorily.
    The second difference consists in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment specifies that there should be consultation only in respect of training and education, whereas my Amendment asks for consultation in respect of research, too. There is little doubt that, whether we put these words into the Bill or not, the Board will in fact ensure proper consultation on all three matters— research, training, and education. But if we are to dot the i's and cross the i's, then the requirement of consultation should apply to the whole Clause, or the impression will be given that we have specially excluded research.

    1201
    I hope that, with that short explanation, the Committee will be willing to accept the Amendment and that the right hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment to line 41.
    Mr. C. R. Strauss: We agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is not very much difference between his Amendment arid ours. There is certainly not sufficient difference to lead us to make a fuss about it or to argue about, and certainly not to vote about it. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, we do not propose to press our Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Palmer: I beg to move, in page 10, line 4, to leave out from "section," to the end of line 5.
    I think that both sides of the Committee will agree that this is a short but nevertheless important Clause. It deals with research, education and training. obviously something of fundamental importance to a technical industry of the character of iron and steel. The principle of the Clause, as I read it, is that it is the duty of the Board to promote research, education and training and to grant loans for that purpose, but in the Clause as drafted there is the rather curious provision that the supervisory Board will be forbidden by Act of Parliament, if the Bill becomes law, to undertake such activities themselves.
    I want to be brief, as time is pressing, but I want to explain why we on this side think that ban both wrong and unnecessary. Taking the question of research first, I can well see that arguments will be put forward that the iron and steel industry already has well-organised research facilitles, that indeed the industry operates the British Iron and Steel Research Association. I grant to those who will put forward that argument that that Association is very successful and is certainly one of the largest of its kind in the country.
    We are anxious to be fair and I agree that the British Iron and Steel Research Association has done excellent work in both fundamental and applied research. It is quite clear that any supervisory Board of a public character would do nothing to hinder such work and, I presume, as a matter of course would encourage it. But
    1202
    why in the name of common sense should the supervisory Board be forbidden by Act of Parliament from doing research itself if it sees an opportunity to do so?
    I do not see why it should be forbidden by the law of the land to do it. After all, research in this country, which on the whole is still not inferior to that of any country in the world, has always been extraordinarily flexible. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will agree that it has been a partnership between Government laboratories, universities, independent firms, voluntary associations and so on. To tidy minds—and I know that there are such on this side of the Committee—that might be considered as overlapping, but it can be argued by those who have experience of research activity —and I agree with them—that it often means check and counter-check and that it gets results.
    If that rather mixed research system on which we pride ourselves so much in this country has worked so well in the past, why on this occasion should it be stopped by the law of the land, for that is what this Clause sets out to do? Why should this great public body, responsible to Parliament for a highly technical industry, be placed in the unique position of being warned off research? Nobody expects it to do the work of others, but it might well be allowed to do the work which in future it may consider to be specifically its own.
    The same general argument holds good in respect of education and training. The case for this Amendment is just as strong in that field. We know of the excellent work which is done already in industry in apprenticeship schemes, area training schemes and so on. The latest Steel House report gives many details. Those who know something of this work will agree that much of the work is of recent origin; that many gaps in education and training in the iron and steel industry still need to be filled. The new Iron and Steel Board should he allowed to play its part in filling some of those gaps like any other agency.
    Last year, when I was temporarily away from the House of Commons, I had the pleasure of going to the United States as a member of the British team which went to study American supervisory training and I played some part in writing the report of that team. I think that it can

    1203
    be said that in the iron and steel industry, as in British industry generally, there is still a tremendous field for further work in the training of foremen and supervisors. Why should not the Board have the right, if it sees the need, to establish staff colleges and training centres of the appropriate kind to help train these supervisors?
    Mr. Low: The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) finished his speech by asking why the Board should not have power to set up a research agency. Of course, what he is seeking to do by this Amendment is to enable the Board to carry out research and training and education itself
    Mr. Palmer: If it wishes to do so.
    Mr. Low: —if it wishes to do so, and if certain things happen—just as previous Amendments moved from the other side of the Committee sought to give the Board power to carry on works itself, and lines of development within the industry itself, and import materials itself. We were just discussing that a moment or two ago. But the Bill already makes it possible for the Board to make loans to persons undertaking any such research, and really, under the Bill as it is now drafted—I think the Committee will agree with me on this point—the Board can make all the contribution to research, training and education that the hon. Gentleman wants it to do.
    Mr. Palmer: Why should it be prohibited?
    Mr. Low: We prohibit the Board from doing these things because we think the Board's job is to supervise and influence the general policy of the industry, and we do not want it to become directly involved in undertaking any particular part of the industry's business. Moreover, the membership of the Board will not necessarily be such as to qualify it for this. As my right hon. Friend mentioned a moment ago, there will not necessarily be on the Board people skilled in importing raw materials; nor will there necessarily be on the Board people skilled in particular types of research.
    I want just to make one further point about this Amendment, because I was interested to see that the name of the
    1204
    right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. Strauss) did not appear associated with it. I am wondering if there is any significance in that, because the Committee may remember— and this is the first quotation I have made from the right hon. Gentleman—that on 29th January, in discussion of this Bill, he said this to us:
    "We believe that the Board should not be limited to "—
    certain things and to—
    "do one or two other things which are wholly unimportant because they are being done already. For instance, they are already dealing well with research and education."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1217.]
    By "they" he meant firms. I am sure he did not wish to contradict what his hon. Friend and I am saying, that research, training and education are very important matters indeed, but he did seem to me—his words seemed to suggest this—to be agreeing with us that these are not the sort of things that the Board should do itself.
    For the reasons I have explained to the Committee we consider that the Bill already provides for the Board to make all the contribution to research, training and education which is desirable and which is desired by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland, who moved the Amendment, and we think it would be contrary to the spirit of the Bill to give the Board power to do those jobs itself, and, therefore, we hope that the Committee will reject this Amendment.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: I very much regret that the Parliamentary Secretary has not seen fit to accept this Amendment. He has quoted me in support of his argument —I do not think, properly. I was arguing at the time that the Board is being given no powers of any importance, or only some of comparative unimportance, and I said I thought that these powers to deal with research, training and education were comparatively unimportant because at the moment—and I repeat it—these things are being done pretty well by industry.
    That does not mean it will always go on doing them well. It does not mean it may not be desirable in a few years' time—if the Board still exists, which, I think is unlikely, because there will be

    1205
    a change of Government by that time— but if the Board should still exist at that time it may be desirable to branch out in some new line of research and do some training. Now, it is probable that that work would be better done by some agency rather than the Board. I agree it is probable; but it is not certain. Why, therefore, deprive the Board by statute of the right of doing something which may be of some importance?
    We feel rather keenly about this, because it follows the line of the attitude of the Government in all matters affecting the powers of the Board. The Board is given responsibility, but either it is given no power to do anything of importance, or where it has some apparent power steps are taken by
    Amendments to curtail that power. We want the Board to be a body with status, authority, responsibility and power in a number of important directions. This is not an all-important one, but why should the Board be debarred by statute from ever doing its research, training or education? We do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has advanced any good reason why the Board should be deprived of that power, and we therefore propose to divide the Committee in favour of this Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 232.

    Division No. 96.]

    AYES

    [10.26 p.m.

    Atken, W. T.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

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

    Digby, S. Wingfield

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

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

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

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Donner, P. W.

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Jennings, R.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Barber, Anthony

    Erroll, F. J.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Fell, A.

    Kaberry, D.

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Finlay, Graeme

    Kerr, H. W.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lambert, Hon. G

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lambton, Viscount

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

    Fort, R.

    Lancaster, Col C. G.

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Foster, John

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Birch, Nigel

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

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

    Black, C. W.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Gammons, L. D.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Llewellyn, D. T

    Bowen, E. R.

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

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

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Braine, B. R.

    Gower, H. R.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Low, A R. W.

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

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Grimond, J.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

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

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Bullard, D. G.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

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

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Campbell, Sir David

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Macleod, RI. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Carr, Robert

    Hay, John

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Channon, H.

    Heath, Edward

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

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

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Markham, Major S. F.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Marples, A. E.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Maude, Angus

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

    Hollis, M. C

    Maudling, R.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

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

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hope, Lord John

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Mellor, Sir John

    Crowder, Petro (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Horobin, I. M.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Tilney, John

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Russell, R. S.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Turton, R. H.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Oaksholt, H. D.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Vosper, D. F.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

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

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

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

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

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

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Osborne, C.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Wellwood, W.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Speir, R. M.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Stevens, G. P.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Wills, G.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Storey, S.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    York, C.

    Redmayne, M.

    Summers, G. S.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Teeling, W.

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Edelman, M.

    Kenyon, C.

    Adams, Richard

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Albu, A. H.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Canno k)

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Awbery, S. S.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Finch, H. J.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Baird, J.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Balfour, A

    Follick, M.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Foot, M. M.

    McGovern, J.

    Bartley, P.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McInnes, J.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    McLeavy, F.

    Bence, C. R.

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

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Benson, G.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Beswick, F.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Blackburn, F.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Boardman, H.

    Hale, Leslie

    Messer, F.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mitchison, G. R

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hannan, W.

    Monslow, W.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Moody, A. S.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Hargreaves, A.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Morley, R.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hastings, S.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mort, D. L.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Moyle, A.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Carmichael, J.

    Holman, P.

    Murray, J. D

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Nally, W.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Coldrick, W.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Orbach, M.

    Collick, P. H.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Oswald, T.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Padley, W. E

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Paget, R. T.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

    Cullen, Mrs. A

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Janner, B.

    Parker, J.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

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

    Paton, J.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Pearson, A.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Peart, T. F.

    Deer, G.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Delargy, H. J.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Porter, G.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Keenan, W.

    Pro tor, W. T.

    1208

    1209

    Pryde, D. J.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    West, D. G.

    Rankin, John

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon John

    Reeves, J.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wheeldon, W. E

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Swingler, S. T.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Richards, R.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire. N E.)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Wigg, George

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Wilcock, Group Capt C. A. B.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Willey, F. T

    Ross, William

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Thornton, E.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Short, E. W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Tomney, F.

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

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Usborne, H. C.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Slater, J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon A

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Wallace, H. W

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Yates, V. F

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

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

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K

    Sparks, J A

    Weitzman, D

    Steele, T.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Bowden and Mr. Popplewell.

    It being after Half-past Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order, left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Heath.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Four Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

SCOTLAND
  Storm Damage (Wind-blown Timber)
  Storm Damage (Wind-blown Timber)
  Public Works, Western Isles (Government Grants)
  Public Works, Western Isles (Government Grants)
  Crofters, Balmartin (Land)
  Crofters, Balmartin (Land)
  Vacant Factory Premises
  Vacant Factory Premises
  Employment, Shotts
  Employment, Shotts
  Government Employment Policy
  Government Employment Policy
BRITISH ARMY
  Deserters
  Deserters
  National Service Men (T.A. Training)
  National Service Men (T.A. Training)
  Flood Area Work (Hot Meals and Drinks)
  Flood Area Work (Hot Meals and Drinks)
  Motor Spirit (Tenders)
  Motor Spirit (Tenders)
  German Officers (Military Training, Britain)
  German Officers (Military Training, Britain)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  "Operation Smack," Korea
  "Operation Smack," Korea
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Weights and Measures (Legislation)
  Weights and Measures (Legislation)
  Barter Deals (Government View)
  Barter Deals (Government View)
  Factory (Member's Letter)
  Factory (Member's Letter)
  Brazil (Debts to British Traders)
  Brazil (Debts to British Traders)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Flood Victims (Post-War Credits and Tax)
  Flood Victims (Post-War Credits and Tax)
  Egyptian Sterling Balances (Release)
  Egyptian Sterling Balances (Release)
  Bristol Channel Ferry Project (Finance)
  Bristol Channel Ferry Project (Finance)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Travelling Expenses
  Travelling Expenses
  State Pensions
  State Pensions
  Coastal Shipping and Agriculture (Subsidies)
  Coastal Shipping and Agriculture (Subsidies)
HOUSING
  Agricultural Land, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Agricultural Land, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Private Licence Building (Supervision)
  Private Licence Building (Supervision)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Footpath Survey Draft Map, West Riding
  Footpath Survey Draft Map, West Riding
  Local Government Expenditure (Control)
  Local Government Expenditure (Control)
  Green Belt (Housing Site, Theydon Bois)
  Green Belt (Housing Site, Theydon Bois)
  Bombed Cities (Reconstruction)
  Bombed Cities (Reconstruction)
  Foreshore Excavations
  Foreshore Excavations
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  London Builders' and Regional Builders' Conferences
  London Builders' and Regional Builders' Conferences
  Royal Parks (Speed Limit)
  Royal Parks (Speed Limit)
  Clarence House (Expenditure)
  Clarence House (Expenditure)
  Building Controls (Simplification)
  Building Controls (Simplification)
  Building Costs (Increase)
  Building Costs (Increase)
  Old Trafford Cricket Ground (Work Licences)
  Old Trafford Cricket Ground (Work Licences)
CORONATION
  Stands (Seat Allocations)
  Stands (Seat Allocations)
  Standing Accommodation (Schools)
  Standing Accommodation (Schools)
  PNEUMOCONIOSIS (RESEARCH)
  PNEUMOCONIOSIS (RESEARCH)
  ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION
  ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION
EMPLOYMENT
  Married Women, Southampton
  Married Women, Southampton
  Dronfield Exchange (Closure)
  Dronfield Exchange (Closure)
  Disabled Persons, Accrington
  Disabled Persons, Accrington
  Flood Damage, Kent (Labour)
  Flood Damage, Kent (Labour)
  Stockton-on-Tees
  Stockton-on-Tees
  Merseyside Development Area
  Merseyside Development Area
WEST INDIES
  Industrial Development
  Industrial Development
  Timber Mission
  Timber Mission
FUEL AND POWER
  Coal Supplies, Gloucester
  Coal Supplies, Gloucester
  Foundry Coke Returns
  Foundry Coke Returns
  Local Authority Officers
  Local Authority Officers
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Sugar Refineries (Production)
  Sugar Refineries (Production)
  Margarine and Cooking Fats (Wholesale Deliveries)
  Margarine and Cooking Fats (Wholesale Deliveries)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Rural Kiosks, Wales (Allocation)
  Rural Kiosks, Wales (Allocation)
  Automatic Exchange, Lincoln
  Automatic Exchange, Lincoln
  MR. GUY BURGESS
  MR. GUY BURGESS
  SPECIAL OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE
  SPECIAL OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE
  SLAUGHTERHOUSE SITES (COMMITTEE)
  SLAUGHTERHOUSE SITES (COMMITTEE)
  FLOOD DISASTER (ANIMAL CARCASES)
  FLOOD DISASTER (ANIMAL CARCASES)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Earl of Shrewsbury—Took the Oath.
The Earl Russell—Took the Oath.
The Lord Hothfield—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

NAVAL RE-ENTRY AIR PILOTS
2.37 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of pilots entering the air branch of the Royal Navy since the start of the re-entry scheme for pilots in 1951 have been re-entries; and does the Royal Navy expect these re-entry pilots to perform all or any flying duties when in their previous service they were employed exclusively or principally on one type of flying.]
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I am very glad the noble Lord Lord Amulree, has raised this Question. Pilots who have been granted short-service commissions under the re-entry scheme represent about 33 per cent. of the total numbers entered for, or transferred to, pilot duties in the Royal Navy since the re-entry scheme started. In arriving at this figure, those men who train and qualify as pilots in the Royal Navy during their full-time period of National Service have been excluded, except in so far as they have subsequently been granted a short-service commission. It includes, however, those officers who re-engaged immediately following earlier service. Those who came back to the Royal Navy after an appreciable break in their service comprise 26 per cent. of the total.
440
In general, it has been the practice in the Royal Navy to return each re-entered officer to the type of duty for which he had been trained and on which he was employed during his previous service; that is fighter, strike, or anti-submarine. If, however, it is found during the period of refresher training which is given to all re-entered officers, that a pilot has become unsuitable for the duty for which he was originally trained, he is given alternative employment more suitable to his present ability. Inevitably some reentered fighter pilots were found, owing to age, to be unable to stand the physical strain of high speed flight manœuvres, but the majority of these are now giving good service in anti-submarine squadrons. A very limited number have been placed in second line squadrons that is, on non-operational duties.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for the full and informative reply that he has given to my Question.
I now beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of re-entry pilots employed during former service principally on non-fighter duties and during present service in fighter or all-purpose squadrons have undergone Central Air Medical Board examination for psychological defects or have been stood off flying as "not up to standard," and in what way have these two groups been disposed of.]
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's second Question, of those naval re-entry pilots who, during their former service, were not employed on operational fighter duties but have served during their re-entry service in fighter squadrons, one was referred to the Central Air Medical Board on psychological grounds. The case occurred during refresher operational training, to which I have already referred, and the officer's commission was terminated and he left the Service. There was also one case of a pilot in this group being stood off flying; in this instance, defective eyesight and other medical reasons were the cause. This pilot was transferred to ground duties as an air traffic control officer.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl once more for his full reply to my Question.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.

CHINESE NATIONALISTS AND BRITISH SHIPPING
2.40 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any British merchant vessels on their lawful occasions have been interfered with by Chinese Nationalist warships during the last six months, and, if so, how many; whether any other vessels carrying British goods have been molested, and, if so, how many; and what action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, in the last six months there have been eleven occasions on which British merchant vessels on their lawful occasions are known to have been interfered with by Chinese Nationalist armed vessels. On four of those occasions, the British ships were able to evade attempts at interception. On one occasion, the ship was allowed to proceed after establishing its identity. On six occasions, ships were detained for periods of up twelve days—three of them having their cargoes confiscated as well. There was no British interest in these cargoes.
Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to say definitely whether any other vessels carrying British goods have been similarly interfered with, but no report to this effect has been received. Protests have been made to the Provincial authorities in Formosa whenever Chinese Nationalist responsibility was established.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess. May I ask whether the vessels he mentions include the "Incharran," which, according to the Press reports was fired on last Thursday by a tank landing craft?
THE MARQUESS or READING: My Lords, so far as we have any definite information about the "Incharran," she is included in the number of the most recent cases which I gave to the noble Lord.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I further ask whether Her Majesty's Government have considered putting our ships, and friendly ships, into convoy, if the situation gets worse?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, if the situation gets worse, it may have to be reconsidered. So far, as I say, eleven ships have been interfered with in six months.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he can say—perhaps he cannot—whether the attacks took place inside the Formosa channel or to the east or north-east? It is a point of some material importance.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not think I have details of the actual location of these various attacks.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble Marquess one, more question? Have Her Majesty's Government taken it upon themselves to remind both the so-called National Government in Formosa and the United States Government of the "Alabama" case?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, no, they have not.
LORD STRABOLGI: It is very similar—civil war.

TRANSPORT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, it may be convenient if I inform your Lordships that it has been arranged, through the usual channels, that the debate on the Second Reading of the Transport Bill shall take place on Monday next, February 23, and shall continue on the following day.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
2.44 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills agreed to.

SUPPLY OF AIRCRAFT
2.45 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to the plans and arrangements for the manufacture and supply of military and civil aircraft; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I venture to bring before your Lordships the subject on the Order Paper to-day, because I think it is both an important and an urgent one. In recent weeks we have seen in the Press statements which, in grandeur and scope, excite our imagination; but, unfortunately, although the outline is magnificent, the details acre somewhat vague. I hope that to-day the Government, to change the metaphor, will put some clothing upon the skeleton, and also some flesh and blood, if that is possible. So far as I am aware, the Government policy has been as vague as the announcements which have appeared in the Press or which have been made by Ministers in this House and in another place. It seems clear that the Government intend, in the first place, the curtailment of the rearmament programme; in the second place, a slackening in the orders for certain military types, such as the Canberra; thirdly, the establishment of a super-priority list for the new military and civil aircraft—and for the first time there appear upon this list civil aircraft, such as the Britannia, the Viscount, and the Comet. Lastly, there is the recognition by the Government of the contribution which these new aircraftcan make to the export drive. If I am wrong in those assumptions, perhaps the Minister will inform me so but I gather that they are the main lines of the Government's policy.
The super-priority list, I believe, now embraces eleven aircraft, military and civil. As I shall be saying at somewhat greater length later on in my speech, I understand that, on the whole, the introduction of this super-priority list has had considerable effect. But obviously there
444
is a limit to the number of aircraft that can be introduced to any super-priority list: at a certain stage it must follow that there is no merit in a super-priority list if too many aircraft are placed upon it. No doubt the Government would agree to that proposition. What we want to know to-day, in effect, is, what is the precise demand for civil and military aircraft, both in this country and abroad? What are the means that are necessary in materials, factory space, men and finance to meet this demand? Are these means available? If not, will the Government take such steps as are desirable to make them available?
We are told that there are on this super-priority list certain types of military aircraft. I understand that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Air does not propose to go at any great length into these various types to-day, for reasons which I fully understand; and I will only touch upon them. But I am bound to do that, because the Government's policy as regards aircraft, military and civil, is now so bound up that it is almost impossible to discuss civil aircraft without touching also upon the supply of military aircraft. The R.A.F., I believe, are concentrating on a few types. As to bombers, we have been told of the Handley Page, the H.P.80, with four Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbo-jets, and crescent-shaped wings. There are the Vickers Valiant, and the Avro Vulcan, both delta wing aircraft, both jets, with Rolls-Royce Avon engines. These three types have been announced as being able to fly on operational missions at about the speed of sound—possibly more—at heights up to 50,000 ft. They are all long-range bombers, and there is an interesting duel between the crescent wing and the delta wing aircraft. But a question which has arisen in the specialist Press and elsewhere is whether it is necessary for us to have three types of medium or heavy bombers. I appreciate that it is necessary to have development and experiment, but as against that there is the expense. None of these aircraft can cost less than£1 million each, and there is a limit to what the British taxpayer can pay for bomber aircraft or for anything else.
Is there any N.A.T.O. policy of integration? Some of us, through the courtesy of the noble and gallant Earl

445
the Minister of Defence, had the opportunity of visiting N.A.T.O. a short time ago, and they talked to us at great length on, among other things, this question of integration—the desire to have the forces of N.A.T O. integrated in regard to machines, weapons, armaments, and so on. Has there been any consideration of the necessity for the integration of bombers and the making of one or two types for the N.A.T.O. forces as a whole? As to the Canberra bomber, we know that that is a most successful light bomber, and I think the whole House would wish to congratulate the makers and those who fly in it, and the Minister, on the remarkable flight to Australia in just over twenty-two hours' expended time. It was a remarkable achievement. We are sorry to hear that the Canberra is not being made in such numbers as was anticipated, but if that means that the Royal Air Force will get machines sooner than they would otherwise have got them, possibly that is a factor in favour of the policy.
As to the fighters, we know little about our fighter policy. We are hoping that, either now or on a later occasion, the Secretary of State for Air will tell us something about it. But there are certain fighters of which we have had information. There is the Hawker Hunter, the swept wing jet fighter. I have been told that the Mutual Security Agency is ordering 200 of these machines for N.A.T.O. at a cost of about£25 million in dollars. This is obviously doing what I suggested might be done in regard to bombers—that is to say, adopting some integration and some rationalisation of the machines to be used by N.A.T.O. There is the Super marine Swift, a swept wing jet fighter, and we are told that the Mutual Security Agency is also interested in this machine. Then there is the Gloster Javelin delta wing all-weather fighter, and the Gloster Meteor. As to the Meteor, another curious fact has come to light; that is, that the Meteor forms part of a barter arrangement whereby 15,000 tons of Brazilian cotton are to be exchanged for seventy Gloster Meteors, spare parts and maintenance and trading facilities. The sum involved is reputedly£4,241,700. This, I take it, is a case of exchanging the swords for the ploughshares. I think many of us have not quite made up our minis whether it is a good thing to exchange Meteors,
446
or any other 'planes, for cotton or any other materials. We are not quite sure whether it is a good thing necessarily to exchange them with a country like Brazil, when we are told that the N.A.T.O. Powers are so short of aircraft.
If the Minister could give us some information, I should like to know something about guided missiles. I realise that here he will probably, quite properly, hide behind the skirts, always available to Service Ministers, of national security. But it seems to me that, at least so far as the bomber policy is concerned, the guided missile may have considerable effect. Has thought been given by the Government to the effect on bomber production of the guided missile programme? I was going to say something about naval aircraft, but I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Pakenham, who has considerably more knowledge of this subject than I have, is to speak in the debate and he will deal with that particular problem.
Now I come to the civil aircraft. There are certain propositions here upon which I think everyone in the House will be agreed. It is obviously in the interests of the United Kingdom and the N.A.T.O. countries that the United Kingdom should be encouraged to develop its strength in civil aviation. The civil air fleet forms a reserve, in case of need, for the Royal Air Force; it operates in relation to the Royal Air Force just as the Merchant Navy does in relation to the Royal Navy. For Britain to play her part in the world to-day—a very important part, as we all realise—it is necessary for us not only to have bombers and fighters but also a good sound civil aviation industry. I believe some quarters in the United States do not appreciate this point of view; other quarters, however, do. For many years—due to circumstances into which I need not go—the United States had virtually a monopoly of big civil aircraft. They have at their doorstep an enormous market. I think that British European Airways, which is the largest operator in this country—that is, the largest passenger-carrier—comes about seventh in the world. There are six United States air lines which carry more passengers than and, of course, many more which carry fewer. Therefore there is an enormous market at their doorstep. Moreover, during the

447
war we did not make any big civil aircraft, so that they have had the market pretty well to themselves. But we want trade, not aid, in this country, and we must, I think, seek to persuade the United States that it is for the benefit of us all that there should be a valuable and developing civil aviation aircraft industry in the United Kingdom.
The attitude in the United States is important in one respect, among others; that is, over the new airworthiness certificate for the British jet and turbo-prop air liners. Your Lordships know that at least one of these types, the Comet, has been ordered by an American air line operator. That is in itself an enormous achievement for British manufacturers; and there may be more. It is important that the United States Civil Aeronautics Administration should recognise the certificates granted to our 'planes as being airworthy in this country, and I understand that there is hope that they will do so. I ask the Government to give every possible help to the industry to ensure that such certificates are granted by the Civil Aeronautics Administration, Britain's enormous rearmament has to be paid for, and in the view of many of us one of the most likely means of paying for it is by the civil aviation industry. This is no new thesis. Right at the very beginning of the present Government's stay in office, both my noble friend Lord Pakenham and I, and others of your Lordships in various parts of the House, pressed this point of view upon the Government: that it was better in those days to concentrate on selling to the United States, and elsewhere, things that they wanted, rather than try to push on them things they did not particularly want. And since it was clear that in all probability they would want our aircraft—and as opinion developed, they did—it was just as well to make the necessary provisions for supplying them.
Then, as your Lordships know, the development of military aircraft and the development of civil aircraft are complementary: the two really go together in overall efficiency of design and production. It is difficult for manufacturers to ignore one and concentrate on the other. The effort and equipment necessary for research and experiment can more easily be borne if the two sides of the industry are available to the manufacturer.
448
Finally, there is the great benefit of stability of production and employment. If one talks to any of these manufacturers, one finds that there is always in their minds the bogy that the military sources will dry up; that they are not going to get many orders; that there is going to be a switch in policy, as there has been lately, and that they will be left high and dry. Therefore, if they have a good and progressive civil aviation side it helps them tremendously on the military side as well.
Now, turning to particular types, the jet aircraft, such as the Comet, and the turbo-prop, such as the Britannia—the big ones—cost£500,000 to£750,000 each. A turbo-prop such as the Viscount—smaller machines—cost between£250,000 and£300,000. Those are the terms in which we are thinking, and those three machines will undoubtedly be the basis of our civil export trade. The companies concerned have, I understand, been engaged on market research and technical salesmanship, and they have made some estimate of what is a reasonable expectation of sales over the next five to ten years. The production of Comets is going up to six a month and the Viscounts to eight or nine a month quite shortly. The companies, by the way, say they have not lost any sales over delays of delivery dates, and those people who have come here from abroad and have made a great song and dance about not being able to get Comets and other machines, and who say they are going away disappointed, have not really been quite as forthcoming as they might have been. Apparently no firm contracts have been lost because of delays.
The major airline operators calculate the operating life of a machine at ten years; so a machine costing£750,000 to£1 million will probably cost about as much again in spare parts as the whole of this amount. It may be that£1,500,000 to£2 million will have to be amortised—to be written off over ten years. That is a very large amount of money to write off. When I was Minister of Civil Aviation I found, in talking to representatives of foreign and Commonwealth airlines, that the enormous expense of these new machines and their lack of experience in handling them made them very chary about risking purchases. I have no hesitation in saying that these new and exciting

449
machines which really have put Britain on the map in aviation and in other ways, have been made possible to a large extent because the B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., with the backing of the Government, ordered the new types before they were proved commercially or proved from the operator's point of view.
Now, if we assume peak results of 70 Comets and 100 Viscounts a year, with other machines as well, I understand that the industry believe that in about five years and thenceforward they will be supplying about£100 million worth a year of new aircraft, without spares. If we add on another£100 million for spares, it means that in all possibility there will be a trade in about five years' time of about£200 million a year. That would probably include aircraft supplied to this country. That is a very rough estimate, but it gives us here something to go upon when we are considering the scope of this new business.
I should like to turn for a moment to small aircraft, because in the past what I may call the "bush" operators (I hope they will net be upset by my calling them that; I mean the people who are running little aircraft businesses in Africa, Asia and Malaya, and in this country, for that matter) have been able to get their aircraft by purchasing them secondhand from big operators or, perhaps, even privately from some wealthy person who no longer wishes to maintain, or has not the money to maintain, his own aircraft. Here we come to the division of the ways. When it is a matter of dealing with aircraft costing£1 million, or£500,000 or£250,000, it is beyond the capacity of the little aircraft operator to handle these delicate, technical and complicated machines. Your Lordships who have visited Africa will have seen the places where they repair the engines and will know that they cannot send the engines to England for repairs; they have to do them on the spot, keep them going and renovate them and their facilities and finances are limited. I do not know where these people are going for aircraft in the future. This is where the Government should come in. The successors to the Doves and the Rapides and machines of that kind must be produced. I am told there is a good aircraft, I believe only at the drawing stage—the twin Pioneer, 14-seater. If the
450
Ministry of Supply would give a development contract for the production of a prototype, it might help the small operator whom I am sure we all want to keep in the field. He does a very good job, especially in Africa and the East.
Perhaps I may now say a word about the helicopter. As your Lordships know, in the future, broadly speaking, the big jets and possibly the big turbo-props, such as the Britannia, will deal with the long-distance hauls, and the turbo-prop Viscounts and machines like that the middle distance hauls up to about 1,500 miles. In spite of the things that will be said in the discussion on the Transport Bill in this House on Monday, we have a good deal of transport, and fairly rapid transport, for short hauls; and therefore there is not such a demand for aircraft in this field. It is not possible for ordinary winged aircraft to compete with the existing facilities. But, of course, the helicopter is the ideal machine for distances up to 250 miles, in a densely-populated country such as ours. I was therefore pleased to see at Farnborough last year a prototype in the air of the Bristol 173, two-engined helicopter. Up to now the Ministers concerned have not been willing, for obvious reasons, for a helicopter where it had only one engine, to fly either over water or over densely-populated areas. This is a two-engined machine, and the Mark III especially will, I hope, afford useful experience to operators in this country in the development of the helicopter. But we need more prototypes and we need tests for both civil and military purposes. For this reason I would suggest that the B.E.A. unit must be continued, to obtain operating experience. There is a most urgent need for the examination of the design studies that were recently submitted by five aircraft manufacturers for large transport helicopters made to B.E.A. specification. The industry must be asked to tender and development contracts placed as soon as possible.
I am told by those who are interested that military tardiness is responsible for the delay in development. The ideal machine for military as well as civil purposes is, I suppose, the type designed to carry thirty or forty passengers. The military people, I am told, are more fussy about performance. That may or may not be true—I see the Secretary of State looking rather dubious—but it is a fact

451
that civil operators feel that the military are holding up development. To obtain 100 large helicopters will cost about£21 million. That is a large sum, but undoubtedly the outlay would be spread over, say, ten years, and a good deal of it will be recovered from sales.
I have given some details of the new machines which we know are either in prototype or in actual manufacture, save only the naval machines, with which my noble friend Lord Pakenham will be dealing. May I now say a word about the supply position generally? In order to fulfil orders for these new machines—and there may be others of which I have not heard—has the industry the materials, the factory space, the men and the capital needed? We have the lead. For the first time since the war, I think, in a particular department of export we have the lead. The British horse is well in front, but a Yankee challenger is coming up in the distance, going very strongly, a powerful, persistent animal imbued with natural determination and carrying his owner's shirt. Unless we go into this thing in a big way, in two or three years' time we shall lose that lead; and, once lost, it will not be regained.
I should like to give your Lordships some indication of what we are up against to-day. The United States aircraft industry is turning out 1,000 aircraft a month: it is the second largest industrial employer in the United States, with enormous capital involved. It will not sit down under this challenge; it will meet the challenge. If we want to keep the lead which we have gained, through our inventive genius and our sacrifices—in sacrificing the piston engine after the war—through the work of the aircraft manufacturers and their men, and the assistance of the Government, then we must take the necessary steps to get enough of these new aircraft on to the market at the right time. We have a glorious chance, not only a chance of capturing the world's civil aircraft market, and possibly a great deal of the military aircraft market as well, but also of gaining enormous prestige. When we were over at N.A.T.O. recently we also visited S.H.A.P.E.—by "we" I mean noble Lords from this House and Members from another place. Many of the distinguished officers at
452
S.H.A.P.E. told me how much they admired the new aircraft, how much they esteemed the British people for turning out, under conditions of so much difficulty, these wonderful new aircraft which we hope will be available at a not too distant time. Many of the machines are only in prototype, but they have an enormous prestige value to us. No one in the world can say that the British are down and out, or that the British are ceasing to be an important Power, and all the rest of it, when we are scooping the world in aircraft. The two things do not marry, so it is important, from all points of view, that we get these machines on the market.
I understand that the position in regard to materials and machine tools is now easier and that it has been helped by the super-priority list—and also, may I say, by the former Government's foresight in 1950 in ordering 20,000 machine tools from the United States and Western Europe. There is still some difficulty over alloy steels and special items of machine tools, but the present position may be altered if production is greatly stepped up. Then as to factory space. There are no great difficulties at the moment, I understand, but if any do arise perhaps the Government would consider subcontracting. I notice that the Standard Motor Company, and also no doubt others, are making aero-engines in their motor factories. That is the sort of development that can well take place. With regard to manpower, recruitment is now at the rate of 2,500 a month net gain, and we have about 204,000 men in the manufacture and repair of aircraft. That total has been increasing at the rate of about 15 per cent. per annum. What is needed is a stabilised force, but the graph has not reached that point yet, so that we cannot see exactly what numbers the stabilised force will have in it. There is still a shortage of technical and skilled craftsmen, and there is likely to be so for some considerable time.
Finally, with regard to finance. Of course, the aircraft industry, like all others, has to bear heavy taxation and take considerable risks. It has been heavily strained since the war with these developments, but it has been helped by the Ministry of Supply with their accelerated progress payment and by loans of machine tools. It is interesting to note

453
that both Rolls-Royce and Hawker-Siddeley have had to increase their capital to get new money. Rolls-Royce have increased their capital by£2¼ million, and Hawker-Siddeley have increased their borrowing powers from£5 million to£16 million. In the United States the average percentage of profit is estimated at 2.2 per cent. for the aircraft companies, compared with 6.2 per cent. for all manufacturing industries. That in itself, I think, shows the risks undertaken in the aircraft world, the very considerable expenditure to which the industry is put and the lesser proportion of profits gained, in comparison with industry generally. One would expect that. The next generation of trunk route air liners will cost£1 million apiece, and it will be difficult not only for the aircraft operators to find the money to pay for them but also for the aircraft manufacturers to find the money to finance the making of them.
I believe there is some suggestion—I will not say at this moment whether or not I agree with it—that the Government should consider some sort of development contract to the manufacturer with recovery to the Government of an agreed sum for each aircraft sold. That may or may not be a good plan. I am not going to make any pronouncement to-day upon that proposal, but that is the sort of suggestion which is going around in the aircraft industry. There is also, of course, the proposal that there should be assistance under the export credits guarantee. Those are the main points that I wish to bring to your Lordships' notice to-day. They can be summed up once more in a phrase which I would reiterate, since I think it is important and should be the keynote of this debate: here we have the chance of a lifetime. How can the Government and the nation help the aircraft industry to seize it? I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY): My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for giving us the opportunity to-day of discussing the affairs of the aircraft industry. I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord and his colleagues that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this regard is not vague but practical and well thought out. Of course, it cannot be written on half a sheet
454
of paper as a series of points, because the aircraft industry is a complicated organisation, and no very simple direct form of policy would be suited to its organisation or to its task. At any rate, we can all agree that in recent years the aircraft industry has risen to a position of prestige comparable with the finest of our older and established industries, and that aircraft are no longer what they appeared, at least to some of the previous generation, to be—new-fangled machines. The aviation industry is no longer art esoteric plant to be forced in the hothouse of war and allowed to wither and fade in peace. Flying has become a commonplace and not an adventure. Thus it is to-day that the aircraft industry is playing in our economy a part comparable, for instance, to the old-established and very well-known shipbuilding industry.
May I give a specific example of what I mean? The noble Lord has referred to exports, and it is a striking fact that in 1952 the exports of the industry—I am talking about aviation goods in general—totalled£43 million, which just about equalled our exports from the shipping industry.
LORD PAKENHAM: That is aircraft and spares?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: What I might call aviation goods produced in the aviation industry. We hope that in the current year the figure may rise to£60 million. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, talked about£200 million in five years. That may be an optimistic figure, but at any rate, if not in five perhaps in ten, we may seethe industry achieving really remarkable progress; and perhaps£200 million may be achieved. We must not be over-optimistic; on the other hand, we must not set our sights too low. This is a great achievement and we owe our thanks to all the many interests concerned. It is most remarkable that there are still in the industry so many of the early pioneers whose names are household words, whose spirit of adventure, inventiveness and, one might add, pertinacity have been the foundation of its success.
The noble Lord talked about our lead in the design and manufacture of modern aircraft. I agree with him. But whether we have a three, four or five year lead is

455
something on which I am not going to commit myself. I agree that, whatever our lead may be, we have got to make the most of it: it will certainly not be automatically maintained. Lord Ogmore referred to the United States aviation industry. This is certainly a most powerful, skilful and resourceful competitor, and one that is not likely to accept things as they are. Competition is the natural stimulant to American industrial and technical progress. Therefore I think it is true to say that we must expect that the great range of civil aircraft which is now in production—the Comets, the Vickers Viscount, the Bristol Britannia, which are the outstanding examples—will not much longer remain, as they are to-day, unique in their class. The general public are beginning to take a keen and. I think, commendable interest in aviation matters, and it is up to us, in all parts of the House, and to Parliament in general, to see that that interest is an informed interest.
It is only natural, when some really striking new aircraft shows its paces—let us say at Farnborough in the autumn show of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors—that there should be a general expectation, stimulated, I have no doubt, by the Press, for which I may say the Government are not responsible, that these aircraft will be produced in quantity in a very short time. People are accustomed to look upon the Farnborough Show as being rather like the Motor Show at Earl's Court. They rather expect that when a model appears in the advertisements in the Press, or on the stand, it will be in production and in the shop window very shortly. Noble Lords opposite know more about production and development than that, but it is still a fact that, unless the productive process is understood, this kind of expectation leads to disappointment. Therefore I shall not flatter myself that I am informing Lord Ogmore and his colleague, Lord Pakenham, if I go into a little greater detail than perhaps we normally do about some of the problems inherent in the production of new types of aircraft.
I think it is true to say that the industry's record with these latest types of civil aircraft is a good one. For example, it took, I believe, some seven years for the conception of the American Constellation to be translated into production for air line use. In the case of
456
the Comet I the comparable process took five years. The Comet II, which is a development of that original design, will be in production in an even shorter period, due, of course, to the development of the first Comet aircraft. The Comet III, which is virtually a new aircraft, completely redesigned, will take four years from the initiation of the project. It is important to emphasise that the Comet III, despite its family name, is not really a stretched-out Comet II; it is a new aircraft. Naturally, experience gained in the design and flying of jet air liners has proved invaluable to De Havilland's in building and designing these aircraft, but four years is not bad in the aircraft industry.
It is interesting to remember the earlier Comet of the De Havilland Company. In 1934 the aircraft was designed, built and flying in an international air race in nine months. That shows the measure of the technical advance since those days. But if a customer goes to Hatfield tomorrow and orders a Comet II he can, as I have said, have it in about two years' time. For a highly complicated machine like the Comet II, costing, as the noble Lord said, something over£500,000—as much as an ocean-going merchant ship of 5,000 gross tons—this is not bad. In fact, I think two years is a short time. I do not believe that any customer prepared to invest in an aircraft of this type—and it must be an experienced customer, otherwise he would not be dabbling in it—would regard two years as an excessive period. It is not expected that these aircraft, any more than a new ship, can be bought "off the shelf." The capital risks implicit in putting any aircraft "on the shelf" are too great for any firm or any Government to contemplate.
I hope that I am dealing with the points which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made. May I go on to say, that the time between order and delivery is not due to lack of manufacturing capacity? It is important to know that. For instance, Vickers can see their way to increase their production of the Viscount, if necessary—which means if they get a sale for them—up to 100 a year. The noble Lord mentioned, eight or nine a month, and this figure of 100 a year is the highest production ever contemplated for a big civil aircraft, either in America or in Britain. Using all the manufacturing

457
techniques of a great industrial concern like Vickers, the cycle of production will, I am told, still be about twenty-four months; and that is after All the difficulties, foreseen and unforeseen, of the prototype stage have been solved. These are the physical facts which govern the rate of progress in actually building the machines.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord, merely to make sure that I appreciate his meaning? He is not denying, I take it, that if capacity were greatly increased we could produce many more aircraft in two years: he is simply saying that each aircraft will take the same time.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Perhaps I make take the parallel of the building of a ship. There the materials, the labour and the machinery must be made available, and the time which it takes to build the ship would, in the nature of things, depend upon whether one, two or three shifts were worked. But I am informed (and I must rely on those experienced in these matters) that there is a cycle of aircraft production. Obviously, by increasing capacity from, say, eight to twelve a month, we might produce more aircraft; but production must be related to the market.
Coming on to sub-contracting, a point which the noble Lord mentioned, in so far as that will speed up the production of a particular aircraft it is certainly Her Majesty's Government's policy to encourage it—if, indeed, the design firms need any encouragement in a matter which is so much in their own interest. I myself have been able to discover no cases where production is being held up because of the omission to sub-contract. And, of coarse, a company ought not to sub-contract to more than a limited degree beyond what is required to meet its firm otters. I think it would be properly criticised for bad finance if it did.
Again, it is not widely realised—how could it be, in view of the limited number of people who come into really basic contact with the business of the production of aicraft?—how many tests a prototype must be submitted to before it can be cleared for production. In our present state of knowledge, no designer, however gifted and however experienced,
458
can tell his board that he is certain that design and performance will actually match. At modern speeds all sorts of unexpected things are bound to happen, requiring further exhaustive tests. With large expensive aircraft, in the nature of things there is a necessary limit to the number of tests which can be simultaneously conducted. I speak here, with all humility, as a layman, having had no engineering training, but I have had, in my present capacity, some recent opportunities of seeing and learning at first hand the complication of the problems which face design teams. In my contacts with these firms I have seen no signs of dawdling or any lack of the keenest desire to get on with the job in the shortest possible time. Therefore, it is neither lack of capacity nor lack of finance which is the limiting factor in production at the present time.
LORD OGMORE: I appreciate that; and I have said so. But there is a possibility of getting an enormously expanded market. What I was getting at was this: are facilities available if that opportunity should occur, as I think it is quite likely to occur.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I hope very much that the noble Lord will be right in his optimism, which I share, in these matters. But I do not think one can rule out that the situation depends to a tremendous extent on such factors as the aircraft, the market and the finances of the firms themselves. I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Minister of Supply is in constant touch with industry as a whole, and with particular firms who have particular propositions to put forward. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, need fear that we are losing, or shall lose, markets which we should otherwise have, for every encouragement is being given to firms to set up their selling organisations in all parts of the world. It is one thing to make a design, and quite another to sell aircraft of that design at the right price to the people who want them. It is most important to get hold, of the customer. But firms are not being prevented by either of those causes from accepting orders or offering the shortest possible delivery dates.
The noble Lord referred to super-priority, and he stated quite accurately a

459
number of types which have received super-priority. Here again, we want to get the matter in proportion. The main emphasis in the Government's policy has been that of easing the industry's tasks in respect of labour and materials. Because without such action, there would undoubtedly have been needless delays. And I am glad to be able to report progress in both those fields. Demands for labour from firms on super-priority work have been given special attention by the Minister of Labour. Nearly every firm in the industry in this country has increased its labour force during the past year, and, all told, the total number employed in the industry rose during 1952 by 30,000—that is, by 17 per cent., which is quite a big rise. Then there is the specially important problem of housing. Local authorities have been most helpful, and with their co-operation some 4,000 houses have been provided for the aircraft workers. Some 3,000 of these houses are for firms engaged either partially or wholly on super-priority work. Behind these schemes there has been the general policy of trying to attract labour to the firms, and especially of dealing with the very difficult problem of getting skilled labour. Skilled labour, I am afraid, will always be less in an expanding industry than the amount needed. It is, in fact, almost a function of an expanding industry that it should be short of that particular type of labour.
As regards materials and machine tools, super-priority has worked. The noble Lord has referred, quite justly, to the ordering by the late Government of 20,000 machine tools, and that action has shown favourable results. Delivery dates of some materials have been reduced quite remarkably in some cases. May I give an example? Before the introduction of the super-priority scheme, alloy steel bars, after ordering, took sometimes nearly two years to deliver. Now that delivery is down to nine or six months, which is a pretty big drop. Aluminium alloys, again, are now being delivered in three months, compared with twelve months before the super-priority scheme came into operation. It is not yet possible, because of the production cycle, to point to any remarkable improvement in delivery dates of aircraft, because the aircraft to which this policy
460
has been applied are those in the first stage of production or the even earlier stage of development. That applies, of course, to the civil types, as well as to the military types. Again, it has been said, quite rightly, if we give super-priority to too many types of aircraft we defeat our own object. It is the old story of the queue for super-priorities. In fact, it is eleven types out of sixty, which is an important proportion to remember. The second point to remember is that it is not super-priority within the aircraft industry but super-priority for certain aircraft within that industry, over competing firms in the engineering industry as a whole. The queue behind is larger.
The keynote of the super-priority scheme has been co-operation on a voluntary basis between Government and industry; and the scheme has really worked. It is not surprising that it has worked, because there is a valuable record of good relations between the Government and the aircraft industry. Over this period, I think, mutual respect and confidence have been built up, and the functions of each party in this complicated set-up are, if not easy to define, well understood. It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that the Government must play a big part, not only in the military field, but also in the civil field of the aircraft industry. I agree that it would not be possible, even if it were desired—and one would not desire it—to separate the civil and military fields in aircraft manufacture. The general rule is that the Government finance the prototypes of large civil types of aircraft, and a proportion of the proceeds of sales is paid by the firm to the Government. This proportion is calculated on the assumption, after market research has been done, that a stated number of aircraft will be sold. The Government get their money back if the estimated number is sold, and make a profit if that number is exceeded—as is likely in some cases. Therefore, I would emphasise that the keynote in this whole set-up is partnership.
Of course, as the noble Lord knows—I think he told the House this on a previous occasion—the Comet I was rather an important exception to the general rule. Certainly all credit goes to the firm of De Havilland and to B.O.A.C. which have combined, the one in making and the others in purchasing, these (as I may call them) revolutionary

461
new aircraft. Again, showing the relationship between military and civil design, the Comet I was designed round the Ghost jet engine which was designed and developed to Government specifications, and with Government finance, primarily for military purposes. Indeed, it is now used in the Venom fighter. As with aircraft, so with aero engines. The design and preparation for the production of a powerful new jet engine, such as the Avon or Proteus, is quite as expensive as the same process for complete new aircraft. In present conditions, it is not possible to cover the costs of a new jet, or turbo-prop, engine developed purely for civil purposes. That is why most modern civil aircraft are propelled by engines which have been designed in the first place for military purposes. It is interesting to note that one of the latest types of large jet engine under development in the United States, the Allison turbo-prop, will be financed by United States Government money, exactly on the same principle as in this country. Again, in this field it is worth noting further examples of joint enterprise that benefit our export trade. I am talking about the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire engine, which is being made under licence in the United States and is coming into production there. The royalties are shared by the Government, and the firm and the whole national economy benefits from the dollars earned by this joint enterprise.
I have gone into this aspect, perhaps at some length, of the partnership between the Government and industry because I believe that we cannot appreciate the scope to which the partnership has developed without some knowledge of these facts. I am sure its merit is—although not designed, in the sense that it was conceived on an a priori plan—that it works and produces results. I, for one, cannot believe that any greater control by the Government, and certainly nationalisation, would be of benefit either to the industry or to the nation—quite the reverse. The healthy rivalry and competition between aircraft firms, more especially in the field of design, with the pride of the individual firms in their own ideas and products, is at the root of the great advances made since the war, and of the lead we now hold over the rest of the world. I must, therefore, say that in my belief it would be folly to threaten
462
with nationalisation an industry which is performing so great a task. In my estimation the result would be to quench the enthusiasm and destroy the confidence which now exists, whether in the board room, the design office or on the shop floor. In my present duties I would certainly fear for the re-equipment of the Royal Air Force in these critical times, and I believe that on the civil side our prospects of gaining a greater share of the market for civil aircraft would be gravely prejudiced.
I should now like to pass on to the part which fundamental research plays in this great aviation complex. A great deal has been done by the Royal Aircraft Establishment, by the T.R.E. and others; and the universities have made a valuable contribution. Wind tunnels, and other complicated and costly equipment, are made available to the industry by the Government. These facilities, the creation of the Scientific Civil Service, to which I pay my tribute, form the reservoir which can, as it were, irrigate the complex of channels, scientific and technical, military and industrial, which may be loosely termed the aviation interest. Let me state explicitly that there is a direct connection between the efforts and resources devoted to fundamental research and the appearance of these fine aircraft to which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has referred and to which I referred earlier in my speech. Here again there is a partnership between Government scientists in the. Ministry of Supply and the research establishments, and those in industry—a partnership in which, so far as I can see in my contact with the industry, neither side claims a dominant interest.
Despite the wider terms of the Motion on the Order Paper I have advisedly addressed myself primarily to the question of the production of civil aircraft. I have asked my noble friend Lord Mancroft to wind up for the Government, and to take up the points which I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will shortly be raising on the production of aircraft for the Royal Navy, a matter on which he speaks from his intimate knowledge. No doubt there will be other noble Lords who will follow the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in dealing with this aspect. I have not dealt in any detail with the production of

463
specific types of military aircraft for the Royal Air Force, for the reason that shortly we shall have a debate following the publication of the Air Estimates. Some of the ground will also be covered on the publication of the Government's Defence White Paper. I am sure that it would make for a much more complete and satisfactory discussion if our debate on this type of aviation were conducted in the light of the information to be provided. But I would emphasise, once again, that it is not because I do not agree with the noble Lord that aviation is indivisible but rather for the convenience of the House that I suggest a division of the debate.
I should like to take up one of the passages in Lord Ogmore's speech, in which he referred to three types of medium bomber. First of all, I can reassure him that they do not cost£1 million each. Perhaps a leading article in The Times may have led the noble Lord to suppose so. There was also a speech by an officer, now in the Ministry of Supply, who unfortunately was not at the time completely informed on costs. I am happy to say that the cost is somewhere between£300,000 and£400,000, which is a considerably smaller amount.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I think this ought to go on record, as being the first time in recent years that an Estimate from the Government has been found to be three times greater than the actual amount. That is a triumph.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: It was not a Government Estimate.
LORD OGMORE: I thought the noble Lord said the Ministry of Supply.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: An officer who had joined the Ministry of Supply was giving a lecture in a private capacity to a body of engineers and unfortunately gave this figure which had not been checked. A million pounds is a lot of money, and although£300,000 is still a lot of money it is a good deal less than a million pounds; and we could get two or three bombers for that amount. That is the first point I think I should make perfectly plain. The Valiant was the first four-engined jet bomber to be designed, if not put into production, and inevitably later specifications have called for higher performance. Two solutions have been
464
offered by the houses of Handley Page and Avro, which are to a large degree different answers to the same question. Until the matter can be tested, as in the last war, when there were three bombers, no one can say which will be the most suitable. Indeed they might both be suitable for highly different but critical purposes. It is most important that everybody should realise that we cannot predict, until an aircraft has been in service, whether its performance will match up to what is required.
The second thing, which is also vital, is that we cannot yet tell which aircraft—to use a term of jargon—has most development in it. In the last war the Lancaster bomber was produced from the rather unpromising Manchester bomber, which had two engines. It was redesigned with four engines and proved the stalwart of our bomber force. For the purposes of defence progress, the Government would have been wrong not to be bold enough in this matter to order from the drawing board not only the Valiant, but the Victor and the Vulcan. I have gone into this point because it is important that I should correct any misconception. I hope the noble Lord will allow me to deal on a later occasion with the question of the production of other military aircraft, so that we can concentrate our attention on it.
The noble Lord referred to helicopters. I have asked my noble friend Lord Mancroft to take up that point, in order that my speech shall not be inordinately long. But as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has been a little critical of the Royal Air Force on the question of helicopters I must, in fairness, explain that, although the Royal Air Force would like to develop a great many further different types, if they had more money, they have always devoted resources to those things which they consider of most importance. I concede that it has proved important in Malaya to have aircraft of that type, and the American Government, with great generosity, have advanced some which are now flown by Royal Naval pilots. But when only a limited amount of money is available—and the noble Lord and his colleagues were responsible for allocating the funds at the time really under discussion—it must be devoted to those things which seem most important. And at that time, rightly I think, it was felt

465
that the money available should be devoted to the production of what I might call offensive military aircraft, meaning bombers and fighters and other kindred aircraft.
On the question of the Pioneer, my attention has already been called to the utility of that aircraft, and all I can say is that this question is being examined again. It must come back to ends and means, and we have not unlimited funds; we have much more limited means than the United States, and we have to think carefully before we order a prototype, however attractive it may appear, to see that we are getting these things in the right order. I thought that the noble Lord was going to talk about rearward facing seats—he gave me notice of that point. In this matter, which I find of great interest, I happen to have informed myself, as best I can, about the state of affairs, and perhaps I may offer him, gratuitously, a little information about it.
LORD OGMOR.E: May I apologise to the Secretary of State for not mentioning this subject after I had given him notice? It was for the same reason that he decided to give some of his material to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I thought it would perhaps make my speech inordinately long, and possibly it is a little off the track of the main. Motion to talk about seats.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: The noble Lord has rightly reminded me that we must not individually take up too much of your Lordships' time. Shortly, there is great difficulty in this matter, unless every civil air line adopts the same policy and accepts the same weight penalty. In the experience of the Royal Air Force, rearward facing seats have proved a utility, and certainly we think they have saved lives in accidents. As to any private schemes of the noble Lord, they have been examined, but technically they have been found lacking in certain important and desirable data. I have taken too long, but this is a matter which I find of consuming interest. I hope that noble Lords—though I suppose they would not be here unless they found themselves interested in this topic—will share the enthusiasm and interest which I think covers both Front Benches and both sides of the House in this great topic. I should like, in conclusion, to
466
repeat the opinion which I have on a former occasion expressed in this House, that air power is one, and that we must regard it as one. I am equally convinced that air power will play an important part in our affairs, both economically and militarily, and that the opportunities which it offers to us as a nation, to our ingenuity and contrivance, as a medium of transport and economic expansion, make it admirably suited at once to our needs and abilities.
3.55 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I hope I shall be forgiven for intruding rather unexpectedly in this debate. I had not expected that I should be present in the House this afternoon, and even now I fear that I may have to leave before the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, replies. If I do so, I trust I shall not earn the censure of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin; and I hope that I shall not be handled as roughly as was the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the other day. I also have my living to earn, though it is not such a lucrative living as that which I am sure comes the way of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Having mentioned Lord Hailsham, which I know is a dangerous thing to do in his absence from the House, I apologise in advance, not only partially, but completely, for any slight that may have been contained in my words. I am asked to make it an abject apology. I have known the noble Viscount too long to make an abject apology to him, but I make it a very friendly apology all the same.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L' Isle and Dudley, can be relied upon to deal with a large topic in a spacious and attractive way. I am sure that my colleagues on this side of the House will feel that he has lived up to his reputation this afternoon. It would be too much to suggest that he has given us a full and complete picture, or that he has torn away the veil to the extent that noble Lords in Opposition would wish. We realise the difficulties of his task. But, having heard him speak, I should certainly feel—if it is not an embarrassment to him—that his mind, the minds, I am sure, of his colleagues, and our minds, are at one as to the urgency and importance of the task before us. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in what seemed to me a most effective introduction, referred to "the

467
chance of the lifetime." Those words I would certainly echo. I, too, feel that there lies before the aircraft industry at this moment what may well be a fleeting opportunity. I think that is only putting in other words what was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. We have this lead. We cannot say how long we shall have the lead, or how long we shall have in which to take advantage of it. One can think of variouspicturesn. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, sketched a race in which the Americans were, as it were, beginning to breathe over our shoulder, or soon would be catching us up. One can think in terms of catching or missing a bus. So far as I am concerned, I do not know whether we are catching the bus at the present time. There is the bus moving along in front of us, if you like at twenty miles an hour; and here we are running at, perhaps, fifteen miles an hour. Whether we can accelerate to catch that bus, or whether we are accelerating enough to catch the bus, I really should not be prepared to say this afternoon.
I do not believe that we shall find it easy to "collar" the jet market for a generation—to use an expression employed, I thought a little enthusiastically, by a noble Lord on the Government side last summer. I simply do not know what is going to be the result of this race. I believe it lies within our power to "collar" that market, but it will need a great increase of any effort that is being put forward at the present time. I am not making any kind of Party point, because it would need a great increase on anything that we ourselves were doing when we were the Government. At any rate, that is my own point of view. I certainly did not detect any sort of complacency in the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley. If I understood him correctly, he agreed that it will not be an automatic success in this business. I believe that was the expression, or thought, at any rate, that he conveyed to us.
The real question is whether we are increasing our efforts with the kind of intensity required by this unique moment. I call it a unique moment, because, after all—I am thinking particularly about the export of aircraft—the world's export market in aircraft has for years been dominated, almost monopolised, by the
468
Americans. It will be a very remarkable thing if we succeed in crashing into that market; in getting a large share of the market when they have so long possessed a monopoly. I believe it can be done, but it will not be at all easy. I do not think the noble Lord will think it churlish, after his remarks, if I say that I am not at all sure whether we are doing it as a country at the present time.
The noble Lord referred to one or two physical questions—the all-important issues of manpower, materials and houses. I do not know whether he had time yesterday, in his busy life, to read an article in the Observer—he will forgive my not giving him notice of the fact that I was going to refer to it—but the thought may have passed through his mind as he listened to the debate to-day: "Is super-priority enough?" There are certain statements in this article which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will probably wish to deal with when it comes to his turn to speak. The argument is submitted in the Observer by Mr. Chester Wilmot, whose rather controversial talents are widely applauded. He concludes that it is desirable to extend super-priority for housing for aircraft workers, even at the cost of reimposing some controls. He has made a special study of this subject, and he assures us that the removal of building restrictions has undoubtedly made it more difficult for the Government to get the houses needed for the rearmament drive. That is Mr. Wilmot's opinion, and it is based on a careful study. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will wish to say something about it.
If any element of complacency is to be detected by the most critical in the observations of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, it was on this question of housing. He gave us the impression that things were going pretty well on the housing front. I am not in a position to correct him, and certainly not to refute him, but I wonder whether they are going quite so well. When I last went into this matter in detail last year—which was since the present Government has been in power—I did not get the impression that the local authorities were playing up quite so magnificently. I realise that when one is a Minister it is tempting to hand out tributes to those for whom one has

469
any kind of indirect responsibility—the industry, the officials, local authorities and nearly everyone concerned. But it is rather difficult for a local authority in Bristol, say, to allocate houses to people who have, so to speak, just arrived, when there are long waiting lists of local inhabitants. I think there is a problem there, and, while not criticising any particular local authority, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, after consultation with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, would care to tell us if there is still a good deal of improvement which might be forthcoming from the local authorities in this respect.
That is just one detailed point, and I should like to raise with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, a rather more fundamental issue. Here, again, I am not speaking from any completely up-to-date or inside knowledge, but from a good deal of background. The noble Lord made a point often made on behalf of the aircraft industry. I do not think there is anyone in this House who has a higher opinion of the aircraft industry than I have, and that is a very high opinion on the whole. The noble Lord made the point that we are not losing any orders at present. I wonder whether that is good enough? I wonder, in other words, whether we ought not to be producing ahead of orders more than we are doing? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will say a few words on that subject afterwards on behalf of his noble friend. Frankly, I hope that we are not waiting for orders before we move ahead on a much bigger scale than we have moved in the past.
Obviously, there is a question of balance. We have to pay considerable attention to balance, and I think we all wish that to be done. Equally, I feel we must produce aeroplanes on a large scale before having the orders. I cannot accept the view that because we have not yet missed any orders, we are producing fast enough or on a large enough scale. In my opinion, it remains to be shown whether that is so. I should have thought that some months ago the financial question was important, and I should be surprised if it had been entirely eliminated as a factor in retarding production. Some months ago, I am sure it was a limiting factor, and I was a little surprised this afternoon to learn from the
470
noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley—if I understood him aright—that to-day finance is no obstacle. I have not been in touch with that great firm De Havilland's lately and, therefore, I am in no way quoting any opinion recently imparted to me. I should have thought that some months ago there was a very real problem before that most illustrious firm: whether they could legitimately risk the money of their shareholders on the scale required in the national interest, as it seems to many of us in this debate this afternoon. Probably there is no more efficient firm in the aircraft industry—it maybe in the country—than De Havilland's. Even so, I am doubtful whether it is within the power of a single firm, unaided by the State, to launch out on the scale which this fleeting opportunity demands. That, I believe, was the position a few months ago. Are we to understand that all those difficulties have now been cleared up?
I agree with my noble friend Lord Ogmore that one cannot be dogmatic on these points. One cannot indicate precisely the form of State assistance required. It might be some sort of guarantee for aircraft produced for export purposes; it might be some sort of guarantee for the development of the Comet III and Comet IV. I hope that Her Majesty's present advisers—whose interest in this is, I know, at least as keen as ours—have not abandoned the idea of some new partnerships between the State and industry in connection with the aircraft industry. I had not intended even to refer to nationalisation. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, thought it necessary, for reasons I can well understand, to touch upon it in passing. I am certainly not going to come forward this afternoon and offer any personal opinion, or opinion on behalf of the Labour Party, as regards the principle of nationalisation. I would only say this, as, I hope, a friend of the aircraft industry: that if no more effective form of partnership between the State and the industry is discovered in the next year or two than has hitherto been arrived at, and if this fleeting opportunity is in fact missed, then I believe that, quite apart from Party politics, there will be a widespread demand in this country for revolutionary and drastic solutions. That is not said in a threatening spirit or

471
after any kind of discussion with any particular political elements.
I should like to touch upon the subject of naval aircraft. I certainly should not claim to be any kind of expert compared with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, or the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I have landed once, and once only, on a deck, and the whole performance seemed to be sufficiently miraculous, even though it was a very calm day in July. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, of course, has done many things much more dangerous in that kind of sphere. I would offer the opinion—and I should be surprised if naval Lords present disagreed with me—that the Navy has never had worthy aircraft. We have never had aircraft worthy of the Royal Navy, at any time, whatever Government was in power, whether it was Labour, Conservative, Coalition or indistinguishable. Quite apart, therefore, from any political influences, there has been a consistent failure on that part of the front.
I realise that one must use words here with discretion, and that particularly the spokesman for the Government must do nothing to give the boys who fly the idea that the machines are not adequate. Well, of course, I am not suggesting for a moment that the aircraft flown by our naval airmen are not safe. I am not wishing to suggest any kind of insecurity of that kind. But when we compare our aircraft—and I know it is difficult to compare naval, military and civil aircraft—over a long period of years with the naval aircraft of foreign countries, I should say that we come out of it rather badly: I do not mean in the flying of them—most certainly not—but in the supply. I think that as politicians who have played our part in different times we ought all to stand together in a white sheet. There may be some other prisoners in the same dock. Some blame the aircraft industry: they feel that the industry have not taken enough interest in the Navy. The industry blame the Navy: they say that what the Navy want is a kind of Christmas free upon which to keep on hanging things until the point is reached when the aircraft will not fly. We get these charges and counter-charges, and the result has been such that we, as public men, must resolve to see that the position in the future is better than it
472
has been in the past. These are general observations. I am sure we shall come back to them in the Defence debate.
I have given the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, notice of one or two questions about particular aircraft. If they embarrass him seriously I will gladly defer them. But can he tell us anything about the Attacker? For a long time we have read in, the papers that all was not well with the Attacker. There have been serious allegations about failure of one kind or another. Can the noble Lord tell us the story about the Attacker in service? If there has been anything wrong, I hope he will indicate what was wrong, and I hope also that he will not tell us that all was for the best with that aircraft. I hope he will find it possible to tell us what was wrong, and whether whatever was wrong has now been put right. And what stage has now been reached by the Sea Hawk? Can he tell us how late it will be? Will it be one year later, or two years, or more, when it does come into service? And if it is very late, can he tell us why? Can he also tell us whether the same kind of procedure which produced that aircraft so late is being applied to other aircraft?
When all is said and done there is something of a mystery here. It is not enough to say that individuals or Parties have failed, that the industry have failed or that anybody else has failed. Perhaps the machinery for ordering and producing the supply of the aircraft is unsatisfactory. I hope the noble Lord will not tell me that this machinery has always been perfectly satisfactory. It is not so very long since I was connected with it and I know it was not perfect then. If the noble Lord can say that it has been improved since then, well and good. But if he can only say that it is the same old thing, that he and others are merely imitating us, I shall certainly attack him on some other occasion.
I have here a quotation from a newspaper, which I should like to read. It is a quotation from an article by The Times Military Correspondent. I have given the noble Lord a little notice—about an hour's notice—of this, and I hope he will be able to explain the words away and send us from here more happy. The noble Lord will understand that these words are taken out of their context but I do not think he will consider

473
that this is in any way unfair. The article says:
"…the Admiralty's assent to recent policy regarding naval aircraft must have been mingled with doubts."
That alone, my Lords, makes one prick up one's ears—or, if one is in the Government, hang one's head. Perhaps I may be allowed to read another quotation. In it we are referred to economies such as those made in naval aviation. It says:
"This applies particularly to decisions such as that on conscription, which affects most families throughout the nation, and economies such as those made in naval aviation.…"
Can we be told by the noble Lord whether these two sentences hang together? Apparently in the last few months economies have been made or planned in naval aviation; and, unless I am mistaken, it is those economies to which the Admiralty's assent has been given—"mingled" presumably "with doubts." It is proper that the noble Lord should have an opportunity of replying to the disquieting suggestion in this article.
Whether we are concerned with civil, naval or military aircraft, we are all struggling for the same object; we are all conscious of the vital character of success in the aircraft field. I agree that it would be most unfair, and indeed rather foolish, to begin denouncing noble Lords opposite in connection with their general policy. Speaking broadly, it seems to me to be a policy which they have carried on from us. I, for one, am not ashamed of our own record in this connection, and I hope the noble Lord opposite will be able to tell us of even greater achievements and a better policy during his and his Party's term of office. I cannot see ally signs of that occurring, but that is my patriotic hope; and, like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, to whose speech I listened with so much enjoyment, I am very glad that this debate has taken place this afternoon.

FUTURE BUSINESS: THE FLOOD DISASTER
4.18 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to interrupt the business for a few moments in order to make a statement which I think is of some importance. It is proposed in another place that on Thursday next a Motion should be tabled—and, I am sure, passed—dealing with the floods, not only in this country but in the other countries which have suffered. The Netherlands, for instance, have suffered far more seriously than we have. It is proposed in another place to table a comprehensive Motion expressing sympathy with those who have suffered and acknowledging their sympathy with us, and also acknowledging and placing on record our deep gratitude for and appreciation of the help and sympathy which has come to us from all quarters abroad and from the Commonwealth.
I felt sure—and I have consulted the Leaders of other Parties, who wholly agree with me—that your Lordships would desire that, When that is done in another place, we should take the opportunity of passing in this House a Motion in the same or similar terms. I propose, therefore, either to-night or to-morrow, to table an appropriate Motion, which will be similar to that which will be tabled in another place and to which I shall ask your Lordships to agree. There was no Business down for Thursday, but I am sure your Lordships would wish to meet for that express purpose on Thursday. I therefore propose that the House should sit on Thursday at four o'clock to consider the Motion which I will table and which I feel sure will receive the full support of all quarters of the House.

SUPPLY OF AIRCRAFT
Debate resumed.
4.21 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord who has introduced this Motion has brought forward a very important subject and one which requires careful thought. I should like to deal in a little more detail than did the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, with the question of the supply of naval fighters. I was particularly interested in what he said about the machinery of supply, which I think is very important and in which I think there is something lacking in the Admiralty at the present time. As the noble Lord will be well aware, in connection with the design and building of warships the buffer between the naval staff and the builders of the ships is the Corps of Naval Constructors. I cannot help feeling that in asense it might be a good thing to expand that Corps, and have attached to it a Corps of Naval Air Constructors That would be likely to lead to a much more continuous programme of design bf naval aircraft. Recently, an extension of super-priority, I understand, was made in the case of the four-jet bombers, in addition to the shore-based fighters, but no such super-priority has been given for naval fighters.
We were given to understand this afternoon by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Air that the super-priority list now contains the names of about eleven aircraft out of sixty. Why not a round dozen to include naval fighters? I should be the first to admit that a strong bombing force for the delivery of atomic attack to deter an aggressor is of the greatest importance, and there is every justification for building up our bomber force as soon as possible. But, on the other hand, a bomber force with a shortage of oil fuel is of little value. All oil for the bombers' use must come in tankers across the oceans, and if those tankers cannot be protected by naval fighters of the highest class they may never arrive.
I submit that it is urgently necessary that carrier-borne jet fighter aircraft should have the same super-priority as that accorded to long-range strategic bombers and shore-based fighters of the Royal Air Force. I think it is true to say that we have no naval fighters at the
476
present time which can deal with the modern jet bomber, and the defence of merchant shipping outside coastal waters obviously cannot be carried out by shore-based fighters. It is quite impossible. It has been argued, I know, in some quarters that it was the bomber offensive more than anything else which led to our air supremacy over the seas in the later stages of the last war. That may well be true, but I suggest that it would be highly dangerous to rely on a bomber offensive to destroy an enemy's war potential, such as Russia's, in the early stages of a war. The defence of our merchant shipping must be our No. 1 priority over everything else, and it cannot wait for a bomber offensive to take effect. Strategic bombing is of great importance, but I suggest that to some extent it has taken the place of the traditional naval blockade of the past in that, although its strangulation effect is, in the end, inevitable, it must take a long time to achieve. It is in the early months of a war that our merchant shipping will be in the greatest danger from the air. I maintain that our capacity to sustain a war, even for a few months, will depend on the safe passage of our tanker fleets and other war stores, and not least our food.
As I have pointed out already, the Navy at the present time has no operational jet fighter aircraft of high performance, and unless they are added to the super-priority list there will be no chance of getting them for a very long time. I suggest that this risk cannot and should not be accepted. I would go so far as to say that the whole military setup in Europe is endangered at the present time by the lack of such provision. There is no doubt that since the last war there has been a very great increase in the danger of air attack on our shipping. The twin-jet bomber, which we know is already possessed by the Russians, has a long range over the Atlantic, and is almost as fast as most modern fighters. With the aid of improved radar, and in co-operation with enemy submarines, it could be devastating to our shipping. There is only one weapon that can be really effective in such an attack in the middle of the Atlantic and far from shore: that is, the high-performance carrier-borne naval fighter, operating in task forces from light fleet carriers or from auxiliaries operating within the

477
convoys themselves. I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to recast the super-priority list before it is too late, so that our merchant fleet can have the all-important naval fighter protection of the highest grade at the earliest possible moment.
4.27 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I was very interested to hear the remarks made by the noble Lord opposite, but I was rather shocked at the lighthearted way in which he talked about atomic warfare offensives and so on. I hope that the atomic bomb will never be used again, and that everyone will be afraid to use it, just as gas was not used in the Second World War, though it was used in the First. This country will be the most vulnerable and the most easily attacked of any country if atomic warfare is let loose. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord was using that argument only to strengthen his very strong case, if I may say so, for super-priority for naval fighters.
I saw some interesting pictures of the Air Minister in the newspapers recently. I was delighted to see that he was trudging about in the mud of Canvey Island, where certainly his men did very good work, as they did up and down the coast, and as did the Army as well. I hope that the pictures were not symbolic. I hope the policy is not bogged down, as the Air Minister, for a time, unfortunately was. But there are certain things which I feel are rather alarming. I do not take any complacent view, and I hope the Government do not either, of our aircraft position. We are still woefully short of labour. I have not had the advantage of seeing the Observer of last Sunday, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, did. The lady members of my family always seem to get it away from me. I had given notice some days before the Observer appeared that I was going to raise this question of manpower in the aircraft industry, which I am advised is very serious indeed. As has already been mentioned, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, quoting this distinguished writer, whoever he was, in the Observer, one of the causes of the trouble is the immobility of labour. Again, that is causes by the still woeful lack of houses. So serious is the situation, and
478
so difficult is it for the aircraft manufacturers to increase their labour force, especially of skilled labour, that there is much to be said for moving the aircraft factories to where the labour is. Here, again, we are up against all sorts of restrictions, and that is why many people are uneasy that the Government are still adhering, or are allowing local authorities to adhere, to these regulations which are hampering that larger policy of moving the factories making aircraft and engines and the like to the places where the labour is to be found. I hope that that matter will be tackled very soon by those who are in a position to do so.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will be speaking later in the debate. Perhaps I may take the opportunity of saying how glad I am that he has recovered from his recent operation and that we see him back here, apparently in his usual rude health. I am sure he will do justice to the subject under discussion.
I have one or two other matters to raise. I think we should direct our attention very closely to the whole question of the export trade in aircraft. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, spoke about£43 million worth of exports of aircraft in 1952. My figures were£44 million, so there k nothing much between us there. That of course is a very remarkable figure, and I think he was well justified, given other favourable factors, including the increase in the skilled manpower position to which I have already referred, in looking forward to an increase to£60 million in the next year or so. Our export of ships of all kinds, which has always been one of our major industries, produced only£36 million in 1952, compared with£44 million worth of aircraft and parts. I think that is very remarkable. In 1951, the export and sale of ships for abroad and the building of new shipping for sale produced£53 million. That has dropped to£36 million, partly due to the beginning of a world recession—there is a falling off in the shipping freight market in the world. It is one of the early signs—the early puff of wind which indicates the coming of a gale; and unless something is done or there are economic changes we may be facing a very serious recession. That is why there have been fewer orders

479
for ships, and, as I say, a falling off in the export of ships from£53 million in 1951 to£36 million in 1952.
Nevertheless, aircraft exports have gone up and, as the noble Lord said, I think there is a prospect of maintaining this increase. But we must have more labour, and, somehow or another, as my noble friend Lord Pakenham suggested, we must get more houses, especially for occupation by skilled workers in the aircraft industry. Alternatively, we must encourage and assist the erection of aircraft factories near and around centres of population, and particularly where engineering skill is situated. Already, on its export side, the aircraft industry is third in our engineering exports. I think that is very remarkable indeed. As one or two of my noble friends have already said, that gives us a great opportunity, if we can take advantage of it.
The other thing that rather disturbs me, apart from this question of the lack of skilled labour—I hope that noble Lords who adorn the Government Front Bench are equally alive to this unfortunate state of affairs—is that we still have not available a modern British freight-carrying aircraft. I understand that the Bristol Britannia and the Blackburn freighter will not become available for another three years. In the meantime, the business of carrying freight by air is increasing all over the world. There are six foreign companies carrying freight only across the Atlantic. No British company is able to do that because they have not the machines. Through a loan from the World Bank, backed by the Dutch Government, the great K.L.M. company have recently obtained American freighters. I congratulate the Dutch Government and K.L.M. on being able to get these freighters, and on obtaining some of this important trade and the goodwill going with it at the present time. But why have we not given the same sort of advantages to our own operators? Why, in the absence of a British freight-carrying aeroplane, have we not allowed them to purchase American planes, by making the dollars available? That is another matter which I am bound to bring to your Lordships' attention, and which I think gives ground for some uneasiness.
480
I also ventured to give notice to the Government that I should raise another matter. I am advised that it is rather bad economy to use our very expensive and, incidentally, complicated and delicate jet fighter-bombers over the battlefield in support of the Army, when that is not really their function. They are being used for that purpose in Korea, because they are the only machines available. I do not pretend to be an expert in this matter at all, but I have confidence in the source of my information. I am told that what is needed is a rather cheaper and simpler type of pistonengined aircraft, if you like, specially designed for use with the troops in the field. Such an aircraft is at present badly needed in Korea—that is one of the lessons of the Korean campaign. There is an analogy in the case of the Royal Navy, where, for a time, we had to use our expensive and necessarily few destroyers for all sorts of shipping protection work, work for which a cheaper vessel and, therefore, one capable of production on a greater scale, would have been equally suitable. So we designed the frigates to take the place of large numbers of destroyers, thus enabling the destroyers to do their work with the Fleet while the frigates did the convoy work. That, I suggest, is a parallel case. We need a cheaper and simpler aircraft for the support of the Army in the field, in order that we do not have to use the expensive jet fighter-bombers in work for which they are not really designed.
My Lords, I have made these suggestions to the Government, I hope in a helpful manner. I have tried not to be hypercritical. From all I know, I believe that the Royal Air Force is as efficient and up to date as it has ever been, and that civil aviation in this country has no rival anywhere in the world. I believe that our civil aviation companies are doing splendid work. They have the highest reputation, and deservedly so.
I gather that my noble friend Lord Ogmore was not advocating—at any rate, on this occasion—the nationalisation of the aircraft industry. Therefore, he did not put up a ninepin for the noble and gallant Lord to knock over. But the Minister put one up himself. I gather that my noble friend Lord Pakenham also avoided that subject. With great respect. I am glad that they did. I think that we

481
need to know a great deal mere about the means of nationalising industries, and the way to make nationalised industries 100 per cent. efficient, before we tackle this particular industry. I can think: of many other industries to which we can devote attention before we come to that of aircraft manufacture and design. I congratulate my two noble friends on avoiding that particular subject. Therefore the ninepin was in the imagination of the Minister.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, to say that it was not in my imagination; it had already been mentioned by certain members of the noble Lord's Party.
LORD STRABOLGI: Of course, all sorts of things have been mentioned, but it is not an official policy of my Party. Therefore, I am quite free to say that I think the aircraft industry is one of the last industries to be tackled from that point of view. However, we are all in agreement on that particular subject, and I am sure we are all in agreement on the need for preserving the efficiency and strength of the air force, both from the military and the civil point of view.
4.40 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I join with your Lordships who have already spoken in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for initiating this debate. It has been an extremely interesting debate, a debate in which, when I have sat down—as I am going to do in a few minutes—the third one-time Minister of Air Transport will participate. I refer, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Winster. I listened with very close attention to the interesting speech made by the noble and gallant Lord, the Secretary of State for Air. As the noble Lord pointed out, the difficulty is that of speeding up the time, from conception to realisation, with aircraft for operational service on the aerodrome In the early days, as your Lordships will know, such could be achieved in about a year. To-day, as the Secretary of State has pointed out, it takes many years more than that. In fact, I suppose the noble Lord would agree with me that the time now is nearer from seven to eight years—the time is getting longer. Something, I know, can, and I urge should, be done.
482
As your Lordships know, there are two aspects in this gestation process. The first aspect is that of research and development; the second that of production. Until now, these two stages have proceeded in series, whereas it is essential, I submit, that they should proceed in parallel. If that were ensured, a great deal of time could be saved. That, of course, is vital, especially in the military field. Now as regards manpower. Some three years ago, the manpower situation in the aircraft industry was such that hands were being got rid of. Two years ago, the total number of hands in the industry was around 140,000; to-day it is some 210,000. Quite recently, the defence programme was recast, and substantial orders for aircraft had to be cancelled. This presented a tremendous problem to the Ministry of Supply and the aircraft industry, who were adjusting the situation to fit the but recently announced plan. It is not for me to go into the ins and outs of this decision, or the reasons for it; I must accept it and, as an engineer, assess the results of it. One result is that there are now available both skilled manpower and space which were not available until quite recently. My submission is that such manpower and space should be used immediately to produce a number of civil types, in which, as some of your Lordships have said, this country is leading—for example, the De Havilland Comet, the Vickers Viscount and the Bristol Britannia. I think such a policy is desirable—indeed I understood the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to recommend it. And if I am correct in that point of view, I strongly back the suggestion that the available capacity of the industry which is not now to be employed on military aircraft should be employed by the Government on the production of these civil types.
I now want, if I may, having said a few words about civil land types, to refer for a moment to flying boats, in the development and use of which Britain has for four decades played the leading part. I want to refer in particular to the Saunders-Roe 40, better known as the Princess. As your Lordships will remember, this type of flying boat will carry 105 passengers in the greatest comfort—all with full sleeping accommodation—and seven tons of freight non-stop

483
from London to New York. What is the position as regards these aircraft? It is a most extraordinary and unsatisfactory position. As I think your Lordships know, the first Princess started flight trials a short time ago, and these are slowly proceeding. She is fitted with the Bristol Proteus Mark II engines, and these are the only types available for the moment. They are just suitable for preliminary trials. Now this large flying boat, the latest of its kind in the world, has proved most satisfactory aerodynamically, and tests can proceed with the Bristol Proteus Mark II engines. The Princess, however, as your Lordships will remember, was designed for the Proteus Mark III engines, and, as matters now stand, some considerable time must elapse before such motors can be delivered to Messrs. Saunders-Roe by the Bristol Company. As your Lordships will remember, the Bristol Company are fitting Proteus Mark III engines to the Britannia, a land aircraft which has already been referred to in this debate, and one of very considerable promise. The Princess, however, requires coupled Proteus III engines, and since this is a special requirement not demanded by the Britannia, development work on the coupling has yet to be undertaken.
The other two boats, which are part finished, are I understand, to be "cocooned." It is a shaming thing to think that the latest flying boat, which Britain has done more than any other country to develop and use, should have come to this plastic grave. I might remind your Lordships of the part that the flying boat has played in the development of Empire air transport. Your Lordships will remember that the Empire boats were built by Short Bros, from the design of Sir Arthur Gouge, the designer of the Princess. They were in use for some time by Imperial Airways before that company was dissolved into B.O.A.C. These boats came into service in 1937 and were taken over when B.O.A.C. was formed in 1940. The first of the Empire boats was delivered in 1936 and subsequent boats were delivered at the rate of two a month. The whole fleet of twenty-eight boats was in use in 1937. From these boats a larger type was developed, and all gave a very fine account of themselves. They were the main carriers in the British Empire air transport system.
484
I think the maximum number of flying boats at any one time in service with Imperial Airways, and later in the B.O.A.C., was some thirty. When certain further tests with the present Princess have been completed, I propose to initiate a debate in your Lordships' House on the flying boat, its development and use.
With regard to land aircraft, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Mancroft can let your Lordships know the present position with regard to the granting by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the United States of a certificate of airworthiness for the Comet. As your Lordships know, the Civil Aeronautics Board lay down federal policy, and the Civil Aeronautics Authority carry out that policy. Conversations have taken place between representatives of the Ministry of Civil Aviation and of the Board and I should very much like to know what the present position is with regard to that.
With regard to the industry as a whole, the Secretary of State for Air has said, rightly, that our leading aircraft firms were all still being run, and run efficiently, by the pioneers who founded them. I think a tribute should be paid to others in touch in an important way with the aircraft industry on the Government side. As my own activities in the field of engineering take me over most of the world, I come in contact with the requirements for different types of civil aircraft in all the countries I visit. It often becomes necessary to get assistance from the Government, and I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, who handles transport matters and who has always been particularly helpful in facilitating a procedure or a delivery. In this connection, I would also mention the assistance that I have always received from the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Sir George Cribbett, and from Mr. Dunnett and Mr. Robbins of the Ministry of Supply.
On the question of production, the figures given by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Air show how splendid is the work which has been done by the volunteers from industry who were brought into the Ministry of Supply. Sir George Briggs and Mr. Rawson were two who have now gone

485
back to industry after serving very usefully in the Ministry of Supply. Mr. Puckey, the Deputy Controller and specialist in charge of aircraft production, is another. As a production engineer he is, I should say, the most skilled in the art in the country; and he is about to leave the Ministry. To these gentlemen we owe a great debt of gratitude for the efficient way in which they have administered the problems in the Ministry of the aircraft industry, and because they are volunteers I felt that it was appropriate that I should mention their names to your Lordships. I hope that when he comes to reply my noble friend Lord Mancroft will be able to say something about these matters, and that both he and the right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Transport in another place, will use their influence to prevent the crime of the suffocation of the Princess.
4.55 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, we are certainly confronted with gem opportunities in the realm of civil aviation, and, in spite of the persuasive speech of the Secretary of State for Air this afternoon—and I am always disposed to believe anything he tells me—I am afraid I do not feel reassured that the Government is alive to these opportunities, or that, if it is alive to them, it is seizing them. This is the sort of matter in which opportunity knocks only once. It is a great opportunity. Air traffic has been increasing by leaps and bounds. The carriage of freight by air, in particular, shows a spectacular increase. Tourist class services are also on the eve of great developments. I know that figures are often considered tedious, but I should like to quote one or two in support of my statements. In the last five years passenger air traffic has shot up by 80 per cent. and freight air traffic has more than doubled. In three months of 1951, 100,000 passengers crossed the Atlantic by air, and in the corresponding three months of 1952 that figure was up by 50 per cent. This almost fabulous expansion will go on, aided, as it will be, by jet and jet-prop developments.
The emergency is said to produce the man, and the opportunity in the air has most certainly brought forth a galaxy of talent amongst our aircraft and aircraft designers who, in turn, owe a great deal to that splendid team of test pilots, whose
486
work, I think, is not always sufficiently recognised. Thinking of that, I rejoice in the triumphs of firms like De Havilland and Rolls Royce and in seeing a great firm like Avro redeeming a series of misfortunes which once afflicted it. These firms and these men have presented the Government with a chance of a lifetime. Is the Government, in turn, producing the man and the men to take advantage of the opportunity the aircraft designers are presenting to it? I have no doubt that Mr. Lennox-Boyd, the Minister of Transport, has been so preoccupied with the Transport Bill that he has not yet been able to give his full attention to civil aviation; but now that the Transport Bill is passing out of the way, I hope very much to see the Minister leave the imprint of his forceful and resourceful nature on the field of civil aviation.
We now have these two fields open to us—the air carriage of freight and the export of aircraft. This has been a country of great shipbuilders, and the Clyde and Tyneside maintain to-day the old traditions of unequalled workmanship. Always we have been the great carriers of commerce by sea. To these achievements we now have the chance to add an aircraft building and carrying industry of equal lustre. We should think of our aircraft factories as we think of our great shipbuilding yards. And we should think of our air services as we think of our great shipping services—the P. & O., the Union Castle, Runciman's and the Cunard. We have a certain lead for a few years, but if we fail to grasp the opportunity which that lead offers to us, it is unlikely to recur.
As I have mentioned the carriage of cargo by air, I should like to say that, to exploit the opportunity to the full, I think we must give a due place in the development of freighting to the independent operators. This is a sphere of work which is peculiarly suited to them, and, in my opinion, they can be given that opportunity without any detriment to the two great nationalised Corporations. There is plenty of room for the independent operators to have a cut at that particular cake. My own belief is that those who direct the two great nationalised Corporations are open-minded on this point and would not refuse co-operation. For, indeed, the opportunity is so great that this is no time for sectional jealousies, but a time for co-operation and good will

487
between all who can make a contribution. When we were building up our great shipping industry there were captains of tramp steamers who had a reputation for being able to smell out a cargo in the most unlikely and remote parts of the world. In my view, we want that same instinct in the air freight business to-day, and that is a line of country particularly suited to some of the independent operators.
If I speak strongly about this opportunity with which we are confronted, let me say at once, quite frankly, that I do so because I am tired to death of hearing that for evermore we have to play second fiddle to America. Here, in the air, is the chance to play first fiddle to the world. For Heaven's sake let us take it! But to do so, we have to move quickly. Let us look for a moment at the potentialities of the aircraft market. There are at present about 1,000 4-engined civil aircraft in service. They will require replacement during the next few years. If we add to them the twin-engined aircraft, it may well be that during the next ten years upwards of 4,000 passenger and cargo aircraft will be required. Even to-day—as I think we have heard this afternoon—aircraft exports are running at round about£43 million worth a year; and I understand that, at any rate quite recently, the aircraft industry had£75 million worth of orders in hand. I heard some figures quoted about exports of ships which rather conflict with those I have in mind; but the last time I went into the question of exports of ships it was running at about£53 million worth a year. Therefore, if that was right at that time, exports of aircraft were running at only£10 million worth a year less than the exports of our great shipbuilding yards.
We are justly proud of our cargo carrying ships, but we can and should be equally proud of our transport aircraft. I am sure that the Secretary of State will bear me out that we ought to be thinking in terms of building up the greatest air merchant navy in the world. But if this is to be done, there must be some financial backing from the Government. There has been a good deal of talk in the past about the aircraft industry not being able to accept foreign orders. I think that talk came particularly to the front when we
488
had the pleasure of welcoming here last year an American operator of great fame, Captain Rickenbacker. Certainly the idea was much publicised and in the air at that time that Captain Rickenbacker had come over here wanting to place enormous orders, but could not get any promise of delivery from the aircraft industry, and consequently he had to go back to America with his money unspent. The Secretary of State for Air, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will know the inner story far better than I do, and I can give your Lordships only what I have heard. However, I have heard of no evidence that Captain Rickenbacker was prepared to place a firm order, whatever date of delivery he was offered. He certainly told the De Havilland firm that their planned dates for the Comet III were too late for him. He said that they were too late, but I am not sure that he said what date would suit him, and I have heard of no date that would induce him to give a firm order for the Comet III. I have heard that another firm said to him: "Tell us your date, how many you want, and we will deliver them." But even on that no firm order was forthcoming from him. Therefore I do not think the case is entirely proved that our aircraft industry is unable to accept foreign orders.
But the question of finance looms very large indeed in this matter, and what the industry requires to-day is firm orders from the Government for such aircraft as the Comets and the Bristol Britannias, so that if orders come along the goods will be there for delivery when firm inquiries are received. It is too much to ask the firms to shoulder all the finance. After all, one is not asking, for anything unusual in asking for Government assistance in this matter, because without Government help we could never have built those two great ships, the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth," which I am sure to-day we all feel were a very good investment of Government money. In asking for financial assistance from the Government for some of the aircraft firms, I do not feel that we are breaking entirely new ground, or asking for something absolutely unusual.
The question of the Ministry of Supply has not been gone into in any detail this afternoon, but, after all, the Ministry of

489
Supply plays a great part in the matter of the supply of aircraft. Certainly it is the fact that a great many Departments—perhaps as many as four—are involved in the production of civil aircraft, and it seems rather cumbrous and to militate against speedy decisions by tile Ministry of Civil Aviation. But I believe improvements have taken place which have had the effect of placing the user in more direct contact with the builder, and I do not want to enter into that matter at any great length. However, I have one point I should like to make about the Ministry of Supply—namely, whether as at present constituted it would take the strain which would be imposed upon it in war time; or whether in war time it would be found that it had far too great a load upon it to enable it to face up to new requirements and the exigencies of war. I feel that we want to get the Ministry of Supply so organised in peace time that, if war should come, it would be able to take on its war tasks and duties without having to undergo a great deal of reorganisation, and possibly a good deal of shedding of the load at the very time when it ought to have no anxieties of that nature upon its shoulders.
Something has been said this afternoon about more factory space and more labour and machine tools being required. I wonder about that. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is to reply—and if he does not mind my saying so, I feel that he has slipped into his new duties with all the ease and elegance of a duck slipping into water—can tell me this afternoon how many aircraft factories to-day are working more than one shift. It seems slightly illogical to erect new factories and to buy a lot more machine tools to work one shift in the new factories. But with this situation confronting us, I think it would be of interest to know if any aircraft industry is at the present moment working more than one shift.
In confronting the situation to-day, we have to remember that America regards our lead as a challenge, and that America's production technique is, I regret to have to say, much better than ours. Boeing's have a jet transport in hand to-day which they hope to have demonstrated in mid-1954. They are putting£7 million into the project, and
490
they hope that air lines will be operating it in late 1956 or early 1957. Douglas have coming along in 1958 the D.C.8. which is to cost£1 million, to carry 90 to 120 passengers and to cruise at 560 miles an hour at 40,000 feet. Comets I and II will carry from 36 to 48 passengers. Believe me, the Americans are going to get very hot on our trail, and we have little time at our disposal in which to take full advantage of the opportunity which our designers have given us to-day.
There is one matter only to which I wish to refer in conclusion. Naval aviation has been mentioned this afternoon. I did not know that it was going to be referred to, and consequently I have not had time to refresh my memory on the subject. I do remember, however, that during the war nothing caused me more distress than the way in which the naval air arm was treated in the matter of supply of aircraft. It was shockingly treated. To the best of my recollection, I think there were in pre-war days two firms which were more or less earmarked to give special attention to naval aircraft. As I say, I have not refreshed my memory, but my recollection is that neither of those firms turned out any satisfactory aircraft for the Navy during the War, and that the Fleet Air Arm ended up armed and equipped, to all intents and purposes, with American aircraft. It was a shocking story. Your Lordships will recollect that the unhappy Esmond attacked the "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" with those practically obsolete Swordfish aircraft. Although I cannot confirm it, I heard that they had not even the latest war-head fitted on their torpedoes. That story of Esmond and of the escape of the "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" up Channel, is the measure of the way in which naval aviation was treated during the war. I hope with all my heart that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will be able to say something in reply which will assure us that naval aviation is being treated as it deserves and given the aircraft which the skill and courage of its pilots merit.
5.15 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, when I saw the notice of this debate upon the Order Paper, I thought that as the question was being raised from the Opposition Front. Bench it might develop into a discussion on the pros and cons of the nationalisation of the aircraft industry. I

491
therefore came prepared to plunge into the fray on that subject. But as things have turned out the subject of nationalisation has been avoided. As my practical experience in aircraft supply dates from 1930 to 1936, when I was the Air Member for Supply and Research at the Air Ministry, I am very much out of date, and am not qualified to take part in today's debate except upon one point which has arisen, and that is the subject of the supply of naval aircraft. First mention was made of it by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. He did not say that the Navy had not worthy aircraft to-day; he said that they never had had worthy aircraft. Therefore my experience, although it may be out of date for most of to-day's discussion, is perhaps apposite to the broad statement that they have never had worthy aircraft.
From 1930 to 1936, as I have said, I was in charge of the technical side of research, development and supply at the Air Ministry, and I can tell your Lordships in a nutshell why the Navy never had the best aircraft. It was because they would insist on fighters which were designed for performing quite different tasks, and sometimes tasks which were almost mutually exclusive. Some names come to my mind to-day: torpedo-spotter-bomber, all to be confined in one aircraft; also, fighter-reconnaissance-bomber, and so on. That is really like asking for a horse to enter for the Derby, to draw the milk cart and to pull the garden roller in the intervals. You cannot get a first-class aircraft if you give it such divergent roles as that. I believe the basic reason, at that time at any rate, was that they had not at the Admiralty in the high positions where the orders were placed, where the specifications were made out, people with practical experience.
One particular instance comes to my mind now. When I first went to the Air Ministry, we were using wooden, canvas and wire aeroplanes. During the course of my time there, the change-over was made to metal construction, to monoplane types, and so on; and, of course, it was obvious that the weight and the dimensions of the aircraft changed correspondingly. When some new types were being asked for by the Admiralty, we sent to them competitive tenders from
492
the manufacturing firms. We were told, "Those will not do; they will not go down the hatches of aircraft carriers; they are too heavy; the span is too great: we cannot use aircraft that size; there is not room between decks." This naturally worried me a good deal, and I went to the Admiralty to see the Fifth Sea Lord, who was my "opposite number." He said, "I'm very sorry about this, but the new carrier is half built now and these things cannot be altered."
Provision had been made for a Committee, called the Aircraft Carrier Committee. It was an Admiralty Committee and there were on it two or three members from the Air Ministry who were to be called upon when the Committee met. The meeting was to be called when a new aircraft carrier was going to be designed. Now, that Committee never met at all while I was at the Air Ministry. Again, I do not think that the people in charge were competent to make operational decisions. For instance, at the beginning of the war it was decided that aircraft of the Hurricane type could not land on a carrier. Some experiments had been made at Gosport, and that was the opinion of the junior officers who made the experiments. That opinion was accepted by the Admiralty and therefore they denied themselves the use of aircraft of the Hurricane type. When we left Narvik, there were two squadrons to be evacuated. One of these was a Hurricane squadron; and they all landed on the carrier—the "Glorious"—although none of the pilots had ever had any experience of landing on a carrier. It is true, of course, that owing to a most lamentable set of circumstances, "Glorious" was sunk on the way home; but those Hurricanes had all landed on the deck without any previous practice.
It has always been difficult to introduce any startling new development to the Navy. The development of steamships was fiercely rejected; the supply of breech-loading guns was delayed for ten or fifteen years after it was due. I hope that now that a new generation has grown up, the people at the Admiralty have the necessary practical experience to avoid the kind of mistake about which I have been speaking. At any rate, since this subject had been brought up and the suggestion made that the Navy never had

493
worthy aircraft, I thought I should take the opportunity of giving your Lordships the results of my personal experience.
5.25 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, since the end of the war we have had something like a score of debates on the subject of aeronautics or the aircraft industry. I believe that I have attended nearly all of them, but I have ventured to speak in only one or two, for I have felt rather overawed by the weight of technical and Service experience which was at your Lordships' disposal on this particular subject. I am no less overawed this afternoon, but circumstances prevent my restraining myself in this debate. We have had speeches from distinguished sailors, and just now from an Air Chief Marshal—always to be remembered as the victor in the Battle of Britain. I rather regretted that he spoke last, for I fancied that I heard at the end of his speech a faint trumpet call to battle from a distinguished sailor. But, alas!no answer came.
LORD STRABOLGI: They have fired all their shots.
LORD MANCROFT: They have fired all their shots, as the noble Lord says. We have also had contributions from three noble Lords who have been at the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and from another who was at one time First Lord of the Admiralty—and in this capacity the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who has been in both positions, is acting as a dual-purpose machine. If I cannot in any way match them in their experience, I hope that at least I shall be a match for them in the skill and. determination with which they have restrained themselves from bringing any attempt at Party politics in to this debate this afternoon.
The first matter to which I should like to devote my attention is that of naval aviation. That is a matter to which several noble Lords have referred—Lord Pakenham; Lord Ogmore himself; Lord Teynham, who is not able to stay to the end of the debate and who has asked me to apologise to your Lordships on his behalf; and many other noble. Lords. I have been asked point blank to say whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the present state of naval aviation. The answer to that, point
494
blank, is, "No," and I suppose that the answer that has always been given by any Government to that question is, "No." I only hope that I shall be able to make it clear to your Lordships that there is no complacency whatsoever on the part of Her Majesty's Government concerning this vexed question of naval aviation. Your Lordships may have noticed a highly informative and interesting article in the magazine Flight of, I think, February 6, which in itself caused considerable comment in the daily and Sunday papers. I thought I could detect many of the opinions expressed in that article in some of the speeches made this afternoon; As I say, Her Majesty's Government are not yet happy about the position and are constantly and earnestly seeking means of improvement.
One or two specific charges have been made this afternoon. One was not, perhaps, made directly, but it was hinted at. I am glad that no one suggested that the Admiralty or the Navy or senior officers in the Navy are not air-minded. That would be quite untrue. More and more senior officers in the Royal Navy have themselves active experience of aviation or have been connected with air matters. More and more the need for knowledge of air matters is given common acceptance in the Admiralty. I was asked whether we are satisfied concerning the co-operation between the Admiralty, the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Supply and the industry itself. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in particular, put that point. He speaks, of course, with far greater knowledge of that subject than I do. He knows that the situation was not perfect in his time, and he knows that, when he took over, it was not perfect. It is still not perfect. But I think I can give him the assurance that he asked for, that it is being rapidly and successfully improved. This question of co-operation is a matter commanding the strongest study in all. Departments concerned. I should not like to face a charge of complacency by telling him that we are satisfied that all is now well. I can assure him that the need for improved relations is most acutely appreciated, and that Her Majesty's Government will not rest content until they are satisfied that that complete co-operation which the noble Lord knows so well is needed has, in fact, been achieved.

495
I was also asked whether Her Majesty's Government were of the opinion that undue delays did not attend upon the provision of naval aircraft. Again, the answer to that must be, up to a point, "Yes." The reasons for that have, to a certain degree, been voiced in the debate this afternoon—the complexity of naval aircraft which have to land on and fly off that tiny space which, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, knows, and as I do, so terrifies civilians like ourselves who are taken on to aircraft carriers; and the need for complex strategic rôles for naval aviation. All these factors tend to make a change of demand by the staff a temptation, to say the least of it. We know, from individual aircraft, as all your Lordships from personal experience can tell, that there have been perhaps too many changes; there have been too many demands to meet strategic requirements—but the Royal Air Force have had the same difficulties. Those are problems which are well admitted and which all concerned with the production of new aircraft for the Royal Navy are earnestly trying to overcome. I wish I could say to-day that those difficulties have now been fully overcome. I hope, however, that in the near future it may be possible to say that.
Now, as to the question of super-priority, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and one or two other noble Lords, with particular reference, of course, to naval fighters. I hope it will not be gathered from the fact that the naval fighter does not appear on the list of eleven aircraft eligible for super-priority, that a proper priority is not attached to the strategic position of the fighter aircraft. Those are two different things. The situation is this. The production delays of the Sea Hawk naval fighter have been sufficiently overcome, and it would not appear that, at this particular stage, super-priority would greatly accelerate production of that particular aircraft. If Her Majesty's Government thought that the production of fighter aircraft for the Royal Navy would be accelerated by the application of the super-priority label, they would not hesitate to apply it. But the advice given to me is that at the moment the super-priority label would not be of particular assistance to this particular type of aircraft—that is, only the fighter.
496
As your Lordships are aware, another type of naval aircraft is on the super-priority list.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I should like to ask whether that view is accepted completely by the Government?
LORD MANCROFT: All I can say is that my statement is the best advice available to me at this moment. Upon that, I must stand.
I will try to answer the questions which have been asked me about three particular types of aircraft. The first was the Attacker. The Attacker is a jet fighter-bomber and it is attracting to itself a little unhappy notoriety. I can answer Lord Pakenham's question categorically. It is a good aircraft, it is doing good service. It is giving satisfaction to the staff. It is giving satisfaction to the pilots who fly it.
LORD PAKENHAM: Thank you.
LORD MANCROFT: It is satisfactory now. As the noble Lord knows full well, it is an aircraft that has passed through some difficult times. The two difficulties which I think the noble Lord probably had in mind were armament defects and defects of water in the petrol supply. I am given to understand that they were not major defects and were not widespread throughout the class of aircraft. This aircraft is, of course, only a stopgap aircraft: it should not be regarded as anything else. But I should not like the idea to be current for one moment that it is not what it is—an absolutely first-class aircraft.
I was next asked about the Sea Hawk, a jet day-fighter, which is eventually to supersede both the Attacker and the Sea Fury. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, asked me whether I could say exactly when it was coming into squadron use and how late it would be in its timetable. The answer to the first part of the question is: "In the immediate future." In answering the second part of the question, I am afraid that I can be no more specific than to say that the Sea Hawk, like the spring this year, will be a little late. Whether it will be of any use to the noble Lord, or to anybody else, to go into the exact details of its lateness, I will leave the noble Lord to decide. There have been serious production delays, mostly concerned, I

497
think, with labour difficulties, but those have now been overcome. The aircraft will shortly be coming into squadron use. It is by no means an obsolete aircraft—I can answer that question categorically, too. It will be a much better plane than the Attacker. It is a genuine naval aircraft, and we hope that eventually, with luck, it will have had fewer teething troubles. As I have said, it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government (to deal with the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander) that the application of the super-priority label to this particular aircraft would not vastly accelerate its production.
The third type of aircraft upon which I was asked to make a comment was the Gannet. This machine has, unfortunately, been seriously delayed. Noble Lords will remember that in another place there have been a number of Questions on this subject within the last few weeks; and I believe that there are mote to come. The Gannet was, of course, seriously delayed in 1950 and 1951 owing to changes of requirements, necessitating the insertion of a third seat and new equipment in the aircraft. But it is a potent anti-submarine weapon. It is a weapon which the staff have every confidence will fill all the tasks that will be allotted to it, and the production, with the super-priority label attached, is corning along well.
May I conclude on this subject of naval aviation by saying this? There is no complacency whatever in the Admiralty or in Her Majesty's Government upon this subject. There is no sitting back. There are many important developments, looking well into the future, now in train. Your Lordships will have seen in this morning's Times newspaper a photograph of the launching of the new carrier "Hermes." You will have seen reference to steam catapults and angle-deck carriers—both British inventions, both taken up enthusiastically by the Americans, both possibly revolutionary inventions—and also the introduction of the side-lift, which I think was an American invention. This is not the time or place to discuss this matter, because it does not fall within the terms of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogrmore. I mention that merely to illustrate the point that I am seeking to make, that Her Majesty's
498
Government are thinking and acting as far ahead as they possibly can. There is no spirit of complacency. The urgency of this problem is fully appreciated. The defects of the past are recognised. A determination not to repeat them in the future, if possible, is recognised with equal firmness.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? If the noble Lord is leaving naval aviation—and I am much obliged to him for what he has told us—while he is still on the the subject, may I mention again the item in The Times newspaper to which I referred? Is the noble Lord in a position to comment on the cryptic and disturbing sentences in this connection in The Times which I read out earlier to the House? I recall for him the sentences about the economies such as those being made in naval aviation.
LORD MANCROFT: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was coming on to that point later, but I will deal with it now if he so wishes.
LORD PAKENHAM: I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he would, because I have to leave the House, with many apologies to your Lordships.
LORD MANCROFT: There goes another one! The noble Lord gave me notice of this point, but I am afraid I have not had time to study it with the care that I should like; nor indeed to take the advice that I should like. Of course, I am not responsible, and he will not so hold me, for articles in The Times. I must confess that the two particular paragraphs of that article to which he drew my attention puzzled me a little, and I should like a further explanation of what the author had in mind. Economies have certainly been directed towards the subject we now have in hand in naval aviation, but they are not major economies, compared with the other economies which the author of the article envisages. So far as I know, there has been no major change of policy to which that particular paragraph could apply. That is my first reaction to the article. I may have misread it, I may completely have misunderstood it; but my first impression is that that particular paragraph is either inaccurately worded or misconceived. I do not want to be held upon that at a later date, if I have

499
entirely misunderstood it. But that is my first impression.
LORD PAKENHAM: With great respect, although the noble Lord says that that is his first impression, the official world has had a few hours since just before lunch this morning to be able to form an opinion. I assume that the noble Lord is speaking with a measure of authority.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord is entitled to assume anything he likes. I have given him, as best I can, the answer to the question which he asked me.
The next question which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked me concerned helicopters. The noble Lord pleaded for a more rapid development of helicopters and for the introduction of this type into commercial service. One or two other noble Lords also touched upon this point. I agree that we are at a critical period in the design of helicopters. Our experience is accumulating rapidly. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are now operating a substantial number of the smaller types of helicopter, which have proved themselves well in service. They are, of course, limited in their range of usefulness, because of their size, but within their range they are of high value. From my own personal experience recently in Malaya (I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was there too) I can say that they are performing great service and are being used in increasing numbers. Your Lordships would probably like to be reminded that nine Royal Naval Dragonfly helicopters have recently been lending most gallant and valuable assistance to our stricken neighbours in Holland and have, I understand, been responsible for saving something like 700 lives.
My Lords, the Helicopter Experimental Unit, which was established in B.E.A. over five years ago, has also provided a great deal of information on the civil uses of the helicopter. The scheduled passenger services with helicopters, which began in June, 1950, were discontinued last year, but not because either the Corporation or Her Majesty's Government had lost faith in the helicopter. The work of the Unit has been largely experimental, and cannot be justified on merely commercial grounds. Further progress in civil operations will depend on availability of the
500
twin-engined Bristol 173 (to which more than one reference has been made in the debate this afternoon), of which the second is expected to be delivered to B.E.A. for development flying for a period beginning next June. It is hoped that the Bristol 173 may prove suitable for certain routes in the United Kingdom, although development of the basic design may have to make more progress. Its use is still likely to be restricted by the high cost of operation, which I am given to understand works out at about one shilling per passenger-mile. B.E.A. have been able, from the experience gained in the Helicopter Experimental Unit, to produce a specification for a larger and more economical type, of which design studies from five firms have been commissioned by the Ministry of Supply. I think that point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. So, my Lords, we see that the future of the helicopter is bright, and one, clearly, to which great attention must obviously be given.
I was also asked, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Sepal, and by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, questions on the subject of transatlantic capacity and services, and ability to make use of the tourist fares recently introduced into the Atlantic trade. The tourist fares introduced on the North Atlantic in 1952 led, of course, to a considerable increase of traffic. In the eight months from May to December, 1951, 95,000 passengers were carried by air between the United Kingdom and North America. In the corresponding eight months of 1952, 134,000 passengers made the trip, of whom 69,000 used the new tourist services. This increase in demand was met by a very considerable increase in capacity, and while flights were at times fully booked there were never, so far as I can understand, any really serious shortages of services. Traffic on the North Atlantic is rather a specialised and seasonal traffic, particularly in the summer, when the movement is much greater in one direction than in the other, and some excess of bookings has obviously to be expected. This being Coronation Year the capacity will be increased still further. B.O.A.C. have acquired two more Constellation aircraft for their tourist services, and other airlines are introducing new aircraft of high seating capacity. While a further increase in demand is predicted, there is no reason to suppose that the aircraft

501
available for this important traffic will not be sufficient.
I was also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, about certificates of airworthiness in America, with particular reference to the Comet III. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also mentioned that point. It was rather unfortunate that the impression got abroad some week or ten days ago that the Americans were being difficult about this matter. I do not believe that to be so at all. As the noble Lord knows, there is and has been for a long time, nearly twenty years, in fact, a system of interchange of airworthiness between the two countries, with the only proviso that in unusual circumstances both countries can insist upon new conditions of air-worthiness. And that is exactly what has happened in the case of the Comet III The Americans have had no experience of flying or operating an aircraft of this type, and they Are naturally a little chary of accepting everything we say about it. After all, we have not yet flown the Comet III. But there is no suggestion whatever, I am certain, that the Americans are deliberately being difficult, out of a sort of "dog in the manger" attitude, because they themselves have not produced a Comet III. Nothing could be further from the truth. There have recently been close conversations in America on this subject, and I gather that in the very near future my right honourable friend will be in a position to announce a final and satisfactory result. In the meantime, all I can say is that I am certain that the result will be satisfactory.
My Lords, there are one or two other points on which I should like to touch. I have mentioned the question of The Times newspaper article to which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, referred. He also raised the point of waiting for orders. I can assure him that there is no case of aircraft manufacturers having their initiative damped, when they can go out into the market, because there is no Government support or backing. I can settle the noble Lord's fears on that point. As to the question of housing, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and by Lord Pakenham, at the moment that is not a serious difficulty. In certain specified areas there may be some difficulty, but on the whole the question of housing is not at the
502
moment standing seriously in the way of aircraft production. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, also referred to the question of a British freighter. I agree with very much that he said in his remarks. I would remind him, though, that production of the Blackburn Beverley, the freighter to which he referred, was stopped by the previous Government in 1949, and it has been re-started and ordered only within the last year. So that may prove one answer to the question which he put. I agree very much with many of the remarks which the noble Lord made on that. subject.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would the noble Lord address himself to my suggestion that we should do what the Dutch Government have done in the case of K.L.M. and give them credits to buy American freighters?
LORD MANCROFT: I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to that interesting point. I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord's question at the moment.
Lord Sempill raised the vexed and difficult question of flying boats, with particular reference to the Princess. Since he himself has given us notice that he intends to raise the whole matter in a debate in the future. I think he would agree that it would probably be preferable if I restrained myself from indulging in the pleasure of answering his question now, in order to see how the debate develops when he himself raises it. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, made, as usual, a most interesting speech. In the course of it he asked me, point blank, whether I think the Ministry of Supply—which I have the honour of speaking for in a very junior capacity in this House—is fit to do its job when called upon. I have put his question a little strongly. I can, I think, answer him by saying that, obviously, you cannot keep all Government Departments at war-time pitch in peace time. When war breaks out, all Government Departments have to undergo considerable change, particularly those concerned as closely as the Ministry of Supply with the immediate conduct of the war. I do not for a moment deny that some branches of the Ministry of Supply may have to hive off and attach themselves to other or new Ministries. I can reassure the noble Lord that the

503
point which he mentioned is being borne strongly in mind, and I can tell him also that the nucleus of the Ministry of Supply is trained and equipped to facilitate the change-over to war work in the manner he suggested, though, of course, there might well have to be some adjustments when the time actually came.
LORD WINSTER: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene for one moment? I regard the Ministry of Supply as the fourth wheel of the lorry which the Minister of Defence drives, the other three wheels being the three Service Ministries. They do not have to undergo a radical reorganisation when war breaks out, and my own feeling is that the Ministry of Supply ought to be treated on the same footing, and that just as the Service Ministries require no reorganisation in the event of war so the Ministry of Supply should not. That is my point.
LORD MANCROFT: With great respect, I would not agree that Service Ministries do not require radical reorganisation at the outbreak of war. Having been at the War Office at the very beginning and at the very end of the last war, I certainly noticed some slight change. The parallel is not a complete one but I think it is fair to say that, in varying degree, all Ministries need certain reorganisation. I accept the noble Lord's point that the Ministry of Supply might well be the fourth wheel and should require far less reorganisation than other Ministries. I accept that point.
May I end on a note which Lord Winster sounded? I know I have not answered all the questions put to me. I hope that noble Lords who have not received answers in detail to questions they have put will allow me to say that they will be individually answered. I have attempted to concentrate on what I thought to be the more important of the questions raised. Every speech, I believe, raised this point: "Here," it was said in effect, "is a wonderful opportunity. Here we see an industry forging ahead and bringing immense credit, both to our national prestige and to our purses. Are we going to waste this opportunity?" If I, in my remarks, have concentrated more upon the complaints made in the course of the debate and have not emphasised the praiseworthiness of that which my noble friend, the Secretary of State for
504
Air, said about the opportunity in his interesting speech, it is only because that is the function of a winder-up in a debate. I do heartily agree with the sentiments expressed.
"The hill discovered the dale".
and I have been dwelling largely in the dale of complaints. I heartily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, that this opportunity is here and we should be mad if we let any aspect of it go by default. I can assure the noble Lord and the House that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of letting this opportunity go. We have heard many references to "missing the bus," and to the vital importance of taking the opportunity when it presents itself. I have not the exact quotation by me, but I believe it comes from Heine, and I think it runs something like this:
"Your opportunity only presents itself to you once in a lifetime. Grasp it, for it will never come back."
Her Majesty's Government, in this matter, recognise the opportunity and are determined to grasp it as firmly as they possibly can.
5.57 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly the Secretary of State for Air and Lord Mancroft, who wound up so ably and did his best on a somewhat difficult wicket, speaking, as he does, for the Department in which he is an occasional lodger. The noble Lord described the coming of naval aircraft as "like spring, somewhat late this year." I would say that this debate is obviously the first swallow of that spring, because when the Defence White Paper is before the House and when the Estimates are presented in another place, there will be a number of opportunities, so far as military and naval aircraft are concerned, to consider these various matters. I think this debate has enabled us to find out what are the Government's intentions on many points which were worrying us. They have put some flesh on the skeleton of our knowledge, and—although I will not say it is fully clothed—for that we are grateful.
Like the noble Lords, Lord Pakenham and Lord Winster, I was a little disappointed with Lord De L'Isle and Dudley's statement. I thought he had not quite grasped, or the Government had not

505
quite grasped, the great opportunity, and were not quite aware of the fact that the opportunity might be lost. I realise that possibly we may have been doing the noble and gallant Lord an injustice in so thinking, but we did think it, and both of my noble friends who spoke before me mentioned it in their speeches. I must say, however, that after Lord Mancroft's speech we are by no means so despondent. Whether it is that he has not quite the same responsibility as the Secretary of State for Air, or whether it is that he was, so to speak, hitting balls which were loose and lying about the place after the Secretary of State's speech, I do not know, but, at all events, he gave us very much more the feeling that the Government are with us in this matter and are anxious to enable the aircraft industry to take the opportunities which we feel are there.
I was surprised to hear the noble and gallant Lord, the Secretary of State for Air, say that the aircraft industry had the finance they wanted. I do not speak for the aircraft industry at all, and I have no responsibility for them. Indeed, I should probably be the last person they would choose to speak for them. But, according to the information which I have, they are by no means happy about the financial position, and they are very worried because aircraft are getting more and more expensive to make and, of course, restrictions on credit are making credit more difficult to obtain. Lord Mancroft—perhaps wisely—did not say a word on that particular topic but it is one on which we must have some definite information before the next debate. It goes to the root of the whole matter. If the aircraft industry are satisfied, well and good. If not, some provision must be made to enable them to seize this opportunity. Most of the debate has turned on naval aircraft—quite by accident, I think it was not intended—and that, in itself, is significant. I have listened with great interest to the various authorities who have spoken, and it seems to me that in the result a very sad story has been displayed to the House. It is matter for alarm, otherwise the several noble Lords, without any combination, would not have come along and, one after the other, informed the House of their worry about this matter. It is a sad story, there is no doubt about that, and I think it is time it was put right.
506
I must say I was a little astonished to hear the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, say that he was surprised we had not turned this into a Party political debate. On a subject like this, the last thing I should want to do would be to turn it into a Party political debate. This is so important a question that I feel that both sides of the House want to give every support to the aircraft industry in this field. I, for one, should regret any attempt to bring Party politics into this question, at this stage at all events.
To wind up this interesting debate, I should like to say that while the British have always had an inventive genius—there is no doubt about that—for many years past we have not been so good at applying our knowledge. I remember that when I was closely in touch with the D.S.I.R., as Chairman of the Colonial Research Council, I was told that industry was ten years behind the results of industrial research. Industry had not taken advantage of the knowledge that research had made available. We do not want that to happen here. I repeat that this is the chance of a lifetime, and I hope that the aircraft industry and the Government will take it. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  EMBANKMENT TRAFFIC LIGHTS
  EMBANKMENT TRAFFIC LIGHTS