Sitting of 27 July 1953

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  OXFORD CORPORATION BILL
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  PRIVATE BILLS (LORDS AMENDMENTS)
  Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) suspended until the Summer Adjournment:—As regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments to be considered at the next Sitting of the House after the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords:—When Amendments thereto are intended to be proposed by the Promoters, a copy of such Amendments to be deposited in the Private Bill Office, and Notice thereof given not later than the day before that on which the Amendments made by the House of Lords are proposed to be taken into consideration.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Attorney-General when the Report of the Royal Commission on the marriage laws will be presented.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I have nothing to add to the answer which I have to the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk. Central (Brigadier Medlicott) on 23rd July.
  Lieut-Colonel Lipton: In view of the large volume of evidence which we know that the Royal Commission have to consider, and the need to have a report within the next year or two, can the Solicitor-General say how often the Commission
  860
  meet to cope with their fairly heavy and responsible task?
  The Solicitor-General: I am not in a position to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman that information.

  TIMOTHY JOHN EVANS (TRIAL COST)
  Mr. Lewisasked the Attorney-General the cost of the trial of Timothy John Evans.
  The Solicitor-General: This information is not readily available and I do not think that the work involved in obtaining it would be justified.

  HUNGARY (MR. SANDERS)
  Mr. Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position concerning the retention in prison of Mr. Edgar Sanders by the Hungarian Government.
  Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further representations have been made to the Hungarian Government in regard to the continued imprisonment of Mr. Edgar Sanders; what reply has been received; and what further action he proposes to take.
  The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): As soon as possible after the recent change of Government in Hungary, Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Budapest was instructed to raise the case of Mr. Sanders with the new Minister for Foreign Affairs. This was done on 17th July. The Minister undertook to consider it and I would prefer not to say anything more at present.
  Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the only positive action taken to secure the release of Mr. Sanders was the stopping of trade by the Labour Government? Can he give an assurance that the Conservative Government, in their anxiety to pass everything over to private enterprise have in no way relaxed the restrictions?
  Mr. Lloyd: In answer to that rather provocative supplementary question, I would say that the Labour Government's action did not appear to be particularly successful.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to represent strongly to the Hungarian Government the great disappointment of Her Majesty's Government at the failure to include Edgar Sanders in the recent amnesty? Further, will he consider whether he should now make representations to Moscow direct because of the failure of the Hungarian Government to act?
  Mr. Lloyd: I can assure the House that, quite irrespective of party considerations, the views of the House as a whole have been put to the Hungarian Government. In the meantime, we had better await the answer of their Foreign Minister.
  Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his party have been the Government for two years and that they cannot constantly pass the buck?

  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    Coronation Broadcasts (Advertisements)
    Mr. Jayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a further statement, following his inquiries from the British Ambassador in Washington, as to the alleged insertion of advertisements into the television broadcasts of the Coronation service.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No information has been received from Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington that would lead me to modify the reply given by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for West-bury (Sir R. Grimston) on 17th June.
    Mr. Jay: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman now knows that his hon. Friend misled the House on 17th June in seeking to whitewash the American companies and to criticise the B.B.C., would not it be more handsome if he was candidly to withdraw the previous statement?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept for one moment that my hon. Friend misled the House. This Question deals with the views of the British Ambassador in Washington.
    Mr. Jay: But does the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny that his hon. Friend has in fact, admitted, whatever the Ambassador said, that the statement made in the House on 17th June was incorrect and unfair to the B.B.C.?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that that is the position at all. Dealing with the wider aspects of the case, the fact is that the Ambassador said that the treatment of the Coronation in the United States was a most profound manifestation of sympathy and good will towards Britain, and we had much better leave it at that.
    Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether they compared notes with the B.B.C. in the light of the statement of the Ambassador? Has he not seen the reports in reputable American newspapers, such as the "New York Times" and the "New York Herald-Tribune," which were critical of the way in which a number of American networks handled the Coronation? Is it fair that the Under-Secretary should have condemned the British Broadcasting Corporation when there is heaps of evidence the other way? Why does not the Government be really impartial and fair when dealing with the B.B.C? Ought not the Minister of State to impress upon the Ambassador in Washington, or upon the Embassy in Washington, that it is very important that they should give fair and impartial reports?
    Mr. Lloyd: The suggestion that the Ambassador in Washington does not give fair and impartial reports is hardly worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend, in his statement, admitted that there had been one or two isolated instances that might be regarded as lapses of taste. So far as representations to the B.B.C. are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman himself on the last occasion said that the Government should be very careful how they made such representations.
    Mr. Shackleton: I appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to do his best to preserve Anglo-American relations, but should not the truth have precedence in this matter? The Under-Secretary said that there had been one or two isolated instances, yet the very reputable "New York Times" and other reporters made the categorical statement

    863
    that they were callously repeated throughout the day in the interjection of "commercials."
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept that for a moment. I think that the episode has to be taken as a whole, and the view of Her Majesty's Ambassador is one which appears to be justified by the evidence. Taking the thing as a whole, I think it was very well treated.
    Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that it is possible that the Ambassador may be mistaken? Are we to take it that, whenever an ambassador says something nobody may question it in the slightest degree?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Question was with regard to the inquiries made of Her Majesty's Ambassador, and I am quite certain that he did make inquiries of the very important public officials present in the United States before coming to that conclusion.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have spent a long time on this Question.

    Mr. Cedric Beltrage
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Mr. Cedric Belfrage, a British subject long resident in the United States of America, though released from Ellis Island on bail, is still subjected to various disabilities, including limitations on his freedom of movement out of New York and the obligation to report at Ellis Island every fortnight; and if he will now make representations to the United States Government on behalf of this man, who has committed no crime and is being victimised for his political opinions.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As I stated on 24th June, proceedings in this case are being conducted in accordance with United States law and judicial processes.
    I am advised that the disabilities to which the hon. Member refers are not unusual under the circumstances and that it is open to Mr. Belfrage's legal representatives to make application for their relaxation. I do not, therefore, consider that it is a case in which Her Majesty's Government should make official representations.
    Mr. Driberg: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any information about how long this procedure will continue? Is he, or the Consulate, providing any legal advice or assistance?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not know how long these proceedings will take, but it is true that Mr. Belfrage has the advantage of being represented by a lawyer, with whom certain contacts have been made. There has been no request for legal assistance from Her Majesty's representative.
    Miss Lee: Would it not be more in keeping with the dignity of British citizens if Her Majesty's Government tried to get reciprocity so that there would be similar arrangements on both sides of the ocean? Are not the Government aware that before British citizens go to America they are subjected to the indignity of having their fingerprints taken and all kinds of other measures? We do not do that with Americans who come into this country and I think that we are putting up with a little too much.
    Mr. Lloyd: This Question deals with a British subject who has been resident a long time in America.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true that other countries can do what they please with British subjects now since the Tory Government came to power?
    Mr. Lloyd: I believe that each country is rather proud of having its own judicial processes not tampered with overseas. I think that that is the position of the United States in these proceedings. I am sure that we should resent it very much if we were interfered with when we were dealing with anyone in our courts.
    Mr. Driberg: Does the Minister consider that there is anything to be proud of in a judicial process which victimises a man for his political opinions?
    Mr. Lloyd: We would be much wiser not to comment on the judicial processes involved in another country.

  ARGENTINA (BRITISH COMPENSATION CLAIMS)
  Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far the negotiations have got with the Argentine

  865
  Government concerning compensation for the Anglo-Argentine Tramways and the Primitiva Gas Company.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Joint Committee, composed of representatives of the Argentine authorities and of the two companies, was convened on the 11th May. It has since met regularly, the respective claims of the two companies being dealt with at alternate meetings.
  Mr. Teeling: Can my right hon. and learned Friend clear up a point about which I am not quite certain? Was there not, originally, an idea that these negotiations had to be dealt with within six months of the original date of the agreement, or is it the case that there is six months after the starting of these negotiations? Further, is it not true that at present everybody concerned is extremely satisfied with the way things are going?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think that is quite right; there were certain delays at the commencement of these negotiations. We hoped very much that they would begin in January, but, in fact, there was further delay. For the moment, I think we had better leave it until a statement can be made, although I quite agree that the atmosphere appears to be very cordial. We are hoping for a favourable answer.

  U.S.S.R. (UNITED KINGDOM NOTE)
  Sir Edward Keelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the bad English of the Note sent to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on 15th July; and what steps he has taken to secure the better use of our language in future.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer my hon. Friend to my remarks on this subject during the foreign affairs debate on 22nd July.

  KOREA

    Armistice Negotiations (President Rhee's Assurances)
    Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will arrange for the publication of the agreement reached between Mr. Robertson, on behalf of the United Nations Command,
    866
    and President Synghman Rhee on the truce negotiations.
    Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a further statement on the message he received on 22nd July from Mr. Dulles concerning the attitude of President Synghman Rhee to the truce negotiations in Korea.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) on 22nd July, and to the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in the foreign affairs debate later on the same day, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Benn: Would the Tight hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government themselves know the details of this agreement, whether the agreement was committed to paper, and, if not, how any claim that it has been violated can be dealt with in the event of neither of these things?
    Mr. Lloyd: We do know the substance of the agreement, which has been submitted to us, but these were negotiations between the United States Government and the Government of South Korea, and, therefore, the publication of the details is a matter for these two Governments.
    Mr. Lewis: Does that mean that the Government have no idea at all of the detailed information? Are we to take it that they do not intend to ascertain exactly what is contained in the document?
    Mr. Lloyd: We do know the nature of the assurances given, but I think that, today of all days, it would be better to leave the matter where it is.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now received full reports on the various recent official statements made by President Synghmam Rhee and the South Korean Foreign Minister, on their attitude to a truce; if he will publish in HANSARD, or as a White Paper, the full texts of these statements and of the communications on this subject which have passed between the South Korean and the United States Governments; and what steps Her Majesty's Government have decided to

    867
    take in the event of the infringement of a truce by the South Korean Government.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The recent statements by the President and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government of the Republic of Korea on their attitude to a truce have been published already in the Press, and no useful purpose would be served by repeating them in the form of a White Paper or in HANSARD. The question of the publication of communications which have passed between the South Korean and United States Governments is one for those Governments to decide.
    Her Majesty's Government hope that the South Korean Government will abide by the assurances which they have given that they will respect an armistice. If these hopes were, unhappily, to prove false, the steps which would be necessary to restore the situation would depend so much on the circumstances at the time that it would not be profitable to hazard any forecast of them in advance.
    Mr. Driberg: While there is, naturally, profound relief and thankfulness at this morning's news of the cease-fire, would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that news in itself makes it all the more urgent and important that there should be a fairly exact record of what has been said and agreed between those two Governments? In this matter are the United States Government not acting on behalf of the United Nations? If so, have we not a right to know what has passed?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that in this matter the United States Government were acting on behalf of the United Nations, and I believe that, so far as the President of South Korea is concerned, the situation has to be taken as it develops. All I can say is that we hope that his assurances will be kept and that we shall do all in our power to see that they are kept.

    Unification
    Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decisions were reached at Washington with regard to the peaceful unification of Korea.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Member to the sentence in the communiqué issued on the 14th July, which says:
    868
    "They (that is, the three Foreign Ministers) agreed to pursue every effort to assist the stouthearted and sorely-tried Koreans to reunite peacefully under institutions of their own choosing."
    Mr. Benn: While no one in the House would disagree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed as the hope of H.M. Government, would he not agree that it is rather dangerous to give President Syngman Rhee the idea that the United Nations Command will be able to achieve this reunification, and, in the event of it not being possible, give Mr. Syngman Rhee the opportunity to restart the war should he choose to do so?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the peaceful reunification of Korea will be a matter for the United Nations Command at all. It will be a matter for the political conference which, we hope, will be set up as a result of the meeting of the General Assembly.

    Armistice Agreement
    The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the present position reached in the Korean truce discussions.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the truce negotiations in Korea.
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the truce negotiations in Korea.
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a further statement on the Korean truce talks.
    Mr. A. J. Irvineasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement upon the Korean truce negotiations.
    Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. I put Question No. 23 to the Prime Minister because we were asked to put down Questions on Korea to the Prime Minister. These Questions have now been transferred. While the Prime Minister has the right to transfer Questions if he pleases,

    869
    would it not be more convenient for the House, Sir, if we knew for certain whether we were to put down a Question to the Prime Minister or to the Foreign Minister?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point for me. I have frequently dealt with this matter and have said that Departments are responsible for the transfer of Questions.
    Mr. Wyatt: Could not the Leader of the House tell us?
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): A statement will be made on the Korean situation at the end of Questions. There are personal reasons why the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked to be excused attendance today.
    Sir H. Williams: May I ask whether the statement in answer to these Questions will be made on a Motion for the Adjournment?

  CHINA

    United Kingdom Trade (U.S. Report)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received following the report of the United States Senate sub-Committee with regard to United Kingdom trading with China; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No representations have been received. The report adds little to the allegations already made public during the Committee's hearings and dealt with in the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on 17th June.
    The important facts are that, whereas Her Majesty's Government welcome the development of trade with China in non-strategic goods—and there must be ships to carry these goods—they have taken energetic measures to prevent strategic goods reaching China, either from the United Kingdom or Colonies or in our ships.
    Her Majesty's Government are, of course, only responsible for United Kingdom and colonial flag ships. They do, however, deny bunkering facilities to ships of other nations carrying strategic goods, and co-operate vigorously with other
    870
    friendly countries to prevent the circumvention of the controls recommended by the United Nations.
    Mr. Henderson: In view of the widespread publicity which this report received in the United States, and of the attempts of Senator McCarthy to inflame American opinion against this country, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider issuing a White Paper and, in any event, taking every possible step to ensure that the British case receives as much publicity as possible in the United States?
    Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider further the question of a White Paper, and I entirely agree that it is very important that the British case should be circulated widely in the United States. I have no doubt that in the debate on foreign affairs which is to take place during the next few days in another place further reference will be made to this matter.
    Mr. Wyatt: What representations have the Government made to the United States about the purchase by the United States of 28 million dollars' worth of Chinese goods during last year, in view of the fact that dollars in the area concerned can be used to buy arms in any quantities and must be a very valuable strategic weapon in the hands of the Chinese Communists, who are probably buying arms in Formosa with them?
    Mr. Lloyd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is certainly one of the facts in this controversy which ought to be well-known.

    International Civil Aviation Organisation (Membership)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what basis the financial subscription of Nationalist China to the International Civil Aviation Organisation is based; and what discussion took place on this matter at the last assembly of this organisation.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when China's membership of the International Civil Aviation Organisation was held to have lapsed; on what date she was readmitted; and whether she is now a fully-paid member.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As my hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) on 20th July, this is a very complicated subject and he has sent him a full explanation in writing. He has also sent a copy to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood).
    Mr. Beswick: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I am very grateful to his colleague for the very full letter which he sent to me, but that that does not alter the fact that the original answer given by he Minister was misleading? Would it not have been better if he had stated that Her Majesty's Government made no attempt at the Brighton meeting to point out the absolutely absurd and anomalous position of Nationalist China in this matter?
    Mr. Lloyd: The matter has been frequently pointed out. We do not accept the position that China is not a member of this body now, while the majority of people who are members say that that is the situation.
    Mr. Greenwood: Put very broadly, do not the difficulties derive from the fact that Her Majesty's Government accept the Republican Government of China as the real Government of China while other Governments do not take that view? Are Her Majesty's Government losing no opportunity to impress upon other countries the desirability of following the example of Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Lloyd: Without going as far as that, I hope that, in the wider settlement of the Far East which we hope will result from present circumstances, that will be a matter which will be discussed and possibly changed.

  GERMANY

    Herr Boemcke (Activities)
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottomasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has completed his inquiry into the allegations concerning the participation in Nazi activities of Herr Boemcke, an official in the German Ministry of Labour; and if he is now in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the allegation in a German newspaper that a Herr Boemcke had attended a meeting in 1951
    872
    with persons then or subsequently connected with Naumann and his associates.
    Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility for this newspaper article, nor have they any evidence that Herr Boemcke was, in fact, present at the meeting in question.
    Mr. Winterbottom: Will the Minister make it clear that the article in question derived from information supplied by the Secret Service to our own authorities, which was then sent back to Germany, and that there has been a leak in that information, the consequence of which is that Herr Boemcke is now suffering in his work in the Ministry of Labour at Bonn because of his relationship with a trade union? Will he make it clear that, as far as the Foreign Office is concerned, Herr Boemcke had no relations with Naumann?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not know how this matter came to be published in the German Press, but I am very pleased to be able to say that we have no evidence at all that Herr Bomcke was present at the meeting in question.

    Foreign Ministers' Conference
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the representative of Her Majesty's Government during the Washington talks declined, at first, to agree to the proposal that there should be a meeting of Foreign Ministers to discuss the future of Germany.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The hon. Member's Question seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the facts. Such divergencies of view as there were between the representatives of the three Governments on this subject arose from my noble Friend's advocacy of the Prime Minister's proposals of 11th May.
    Mr. Donnelly: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the reports which appeared in the American and French Press, and can he give a firm assurance that at no stage during those conversations the Marquess of Salisbury opposed the conference of Foreign Ministers on Germany on the ground that it was going too far at that stage?
    Mr. Lloyd: I adhere to the terms of my original answer, that my noble

    873
    Friend advocated throughout those talks the proposal put forward by the Prime Minister on 11th May.
    Mr. Donnelly: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman adheres to the terms of his original answer, why cannot he say "Yes" to the question I put to him just now?

  UNITED NATIONS

    Disarmament Commission
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the work of the Disarmament Commission of the United Nations the mandate of which was continued by the General Assembly at its recent meeting.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Disarmament Commission has not met since its first report was considered by the General Assembly in April. I expect it to reconvene next month.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, on 11th May, he said that we were ready to go ahead and summon the Disarmament Commission to negotiate on this important subject, and, since it appears that the Russians are ready to do the same, is it not regrettable that Her Majesty's Government have taken no steps to convoke the Disarmament Commission during all these months?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think the House will agree that it is necessary to wait until we are certain that the surrounding circumstances are favourable. I believe that, on balance, we were wise to wait. We hope that the Commission will meet next month.

    Equal Pay Resolution
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations Economic and Social Council abstained from voting on a resolution urging the implementation of the principle of equal pay for equal work, which has been approved by this House during the present Parliament.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I assume that the hon. and learned Member is referring to
    874
    the resolution on the subject of equal pay put forward in the Report of the Seventh Session of the Status of Women Commission for adoption by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.
    The resolution urges increased efforts towards wider implementation of the principle of equal remuneration in all countries. Her Majesty's Government have accepted the principle of equal pay in relation to their own employees and have already announced their intention to give effect to it as soon as the economic and financial situation of the country makes it possible to do so.
    It was the view of the Government that as we are not yet in a position to implement this principle ourselves, it was more appropriate for us to abstain on this particular resolution. Our support for the principle, however, was made clear in the debate.
    Mr. Mitchison: Was there anything in the terms of that resolution which called upon this country to abstain, when the resolution was passed without any opposition and with only three dissentients, of which this country was one? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, in May, 1952, the House passed a resolution saying that there was no justification for any further delay in the implementation of this principle?
    Mr. Lloyd: This country did not dissociate itself from or vote against this particular resolution. On the whole, a more straightforward way to take was the line which was taken, that of abstention.

    Chinese Representation
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the discussions which took place between the representative of Her Majesty's Government and the United States Secretary of State during the Washington talks on the policy to be adopted towards Chinese representation in the United Nations.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. There is nothing I can add to the answers given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) on 16th July.
    Mr. Donnelly: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the policy of Her Majesty's Government

    875
    remains the recognition of and the exchange of ambassadors with the Peking Government, and that the fact that the Marquess of Salisbury is on record as being opposed to Chinese recognition does not in any way affect Her Majesty's Government's policy on that matter at the moment?
    Mr. Lloyd: The position of Her Majesty's Government is exactly as was explained during the foreign affairs debate. We recognise the People's Government of China and we propose to continue to recognise it. So far as its recognition by others is concerned, that is a matter which will have to be dealt with in the course of or after the political conference.
    Sir H. Williams: Have the Chinese Government of Peking yet recognised us?
    Mr. Lloyd: The actions they have taken are of a somewhat equivocal nature.
    Mr. Beswick: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that recognition of the People's Government of China is a matter which will come up in the course of or after the political conference. Is he now going back on the Washington Conference, which made it clear that the three Ministers there would not discuss this matter until there had been a satisfactory completion of the political conference?
    Mr. Lloyd: The position so far as the political conference is concerned is that Koreas is quite definitely the first item on the agenda of that conference. If that is successfully concluded, we hope that the conference will broaden out and deal with wider issues.

  EGYPT (CANAL ZONE NEGOTIATIONS)
  Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the negotiations with the Egyptian Government with regard to the Canal Zone will be resumed.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As I informed the House on 15th July, the position as regards the resumption of negotiations is as stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11th May when he said:
  876
  "If, at any time, the Egyptians wish to renew the discussions we are willing … Our hope is that negotiations will be resumed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 892.]
  Mr. Wyatt: Does that mean that Her Majesty's Government—and I am not saying that this is necessarily wrong-intend to make no move whatever towards the resumption of negotiations, but will wait for something to come from the Egyptian side?
  Mr. Lloyd: Our position remains as stated. I should have thought that from the fact that General Robertson has returned to Cairo some inference could be drawn.
  Mr. Shinwell: Meanwhile, pending negotiations on the wider issues involved, can Her Majesty's Government give any assurance that members of the British Forces in Egypt can be adequately protected? What about the case of Leading Aircraftman Rigden?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think that the last time that this matter was mentioned the right hon. Gentleman was criticising us for the action taken. The action taken as a result of that incident and of two others has resulted in a substantial improvement in the security of British Forces.
  Mr. Shinwell: But has action gone as far as to produce the body of Leading Aircraftman Ridgen? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Has it? Cannot we have an answer to that? Is there to be no adequate protection afforded to members of Her Majesty's Forces in Egypt? In view of what was said about Abadan, can we have the Government's assurance on this? No answer? Can I have an answer?
  Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case that the Minister is not without some notice of this in view of the fact that there was a Question on the Order Paper on the subject of Leading Aircraftman Rigden? Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance to my right hon. Friend?
  Mr. Lloyd: The question of this aircraftman is an entirely different question. There was a Question on the Order Paper, which has been deferred, and it would be much fairer to the hon. Member opposite who put down that Question to wait until he reinstates his Question.

  GREECE

    Minister's Visit to United Kingdom
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement as to the results of Her Majesty's Government's discussions with M. Markezinis, the Greek Minister for Economic Affairs.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already informed the House that he had a most useful conversation with M. Markezinis and that he was sure that his visit would benefit "the close and, indeed, historic relations between this country and Greece." I cordially endorse this sentiment and so, I am sure, will all my colleagues and also Opposition Leaders who had the pleasure of meeting M. Markezinis.
    The talks were purely exploratory. They ranged over the whole field of economic and financial questions of mutual interest. We were not negotiating or aiming at specific results. M. Markezinis gave us an account of his country's difficulties, and of the bold and resolute measures which the Greek Government are taking to overcome them. I understand that M. Markezinis was also able to get into touch with banking and commercial circles interested in the Greek economy.
    Sir W. Smithers: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, may I ask whether he will try to persuade Her Majesty's Government to tackle our domestic problems with the same vigour as that with which the Greek Government tackle theirs and to carry out the advice given by the Greek representative to remove all barriers to international trade as soon as possible as the only hope of world recovery, before it is too late?
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we in this country are losing great opportunities of economic development with Greece and that these opportunities are being seized with very great alacrity by the Germans?
    Mr. Lloyd: The question of the contribution by this country to the economic development of countries overseas depends very much upon the resources that are available.

    Political Prisoners
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the continued imprisonment by the Greek Government of certain of their nationals for political offences, he will take steps to withdraw from all treaties and obligations under which Her Majesty's Government are committed to render assistance to the Greek Government.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jones: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that he has received representations from trade unions in this country calling for action by the Greek Government to release persons whose only crime is to hold opposite political views? Would he further agree that the existing Greek Government will go up in the estimation of trade unionists in this country if they cease to put in prison people of other political views?
    Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that what really counts in this matter is action, but the number of people held for political offences in Greece have decreased by more than one-third, from 9,200 in July, 1952, to 6,000 in 1953. [HON. MEMBERS: "Scandalous."] I think that that is a very welcome improvement which we hope will be continued.
    Mr. Jones: While appreciating that, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take the next opportunity, when discussions are taking place with representatives of the Greek Government, even on economic matters, to intimate that those discussions would be welcomed far more widely in this country if the Greek Government released the remaining political prisoners?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Greek Government is a friendly Government, and one has to observe a certain caution about advising a friendly Government on matters which are within their domestic jurisdiction.

  MINISTRY OF FOOD

    Margarine and Cooking Fats
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Food whether he is now in a position to authorise the marketing of branded margarine.
    The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): I have nothing to add at present to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 6th July.
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Food when he expects to be in a position to end the rationing of margarine and cooking fats.
    Major Lloyd George: As my hon. Friend is aware, derationing depends on our ability to pay for substantial extra imports of materials, a high proportion of which must be bought for dollars. I cannot say exactly when this will be possible.
    Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that the sooner he finds it possible to let the law of supply and demand govern the sale of butter and margarine the better value the people will get and the more of both commodities they will get at a reasonable price?
    Major Lloyd George: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the initial steps in getting sufficient quantities to meet the situation depends upon foreign exchange.
    Mr. Robens: Do I understand that the problem is not now what it was stated to be formerly, that the late Government did not send out enough business men to scour the markets of the world, but is inability to pay for the goods?
    Major Lloyd George: The supply position proves that what we said then was right. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the currency situation. I have never suggested that there was no difficulty about currency, and when, owing to the policy of this Government, currency became available, we were able to deration sugar.

    Sweets Supplies
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Food whether he has satisfied himself that supplies of sweets in the holiday resorts will be sufficient this summer to meet the anticipated demand from visitors.
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.
    Sir I. Fraser: Thank you very much.
    Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the allocation of sweets to the holiday resorts this
    880
    year is being made at the expense of other parts of the country; and what steps he will take to remedy this.
    Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. There are enough sweets for all areas, and there is no need for me to intervene.
    Mr. Slater: Is the Minister aware that shops in country districts have inadequate supplies of sweets while in the towns and cities adequate supplies are on show, as a consequence of which the people there are able to buy a better class of confectionery than those in the country districts? Will he do something about it?
    Major Lloyd George: I see no reason why I should do anything about it, because no complaints at all have been received from the general public. While it may be true that in such districts as the Highlands of Scotland there may be shortages from time to time, taking the country as a whole supplies are greater today than before the war.
    Mr. Slater: I have sent correspondence to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department pointing out the shortage of supplies in the country districts.
    Major Lloyd George: I shall be very glad to look into it.

    Australian Ewe Mutton
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Food what percentage of meat imported from Australia was ewe mutton in the years 1951, 1952 and 1953, respectively.
    Major Lloyd George: Approximately 3 per cent. 1 per cent. and 10 per cent. in the financial years ended in March, 1951, 1952 and 1953 respectively.
    Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it was reported in the week-end Press that butchers last week failed to sell the increased allocations made to them? In view of that, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman withdraw this mutton, or, failing that, see that ewe mutton is not concentrated in districts where people were unable to buy the meat ration because it was too dear? Housewives of working men cannot afford to pay money for stuff they cannot eat.
    Major Lloyd George: They managed it very well under the late Administration. The percentage of ewe mutton in

    881
    the ration today is, I think, the lowest it has ever been. It is about 3·5 per cent. The fact is that there has been difficulty today because butchers have, for the first time since the war, to sell this meat when there is more good meat available than there was before.

    Canadian Apples
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Food what arrangements he is making for the importation of Canadian apples during the coming winter.
    Commander Donaldsonasked the Minister of Food how many boxes of Canadian apples he anticipates will be imported into the United Kingdom in 1953.
    Major Lloyd George: Owing to our shortage of dollars, I am not at present in a position to buy apples from North America.
    Mr. Johnson: Is it not a fact that we spent nearly as many scarce dollars last year in buying American apples as we spent on Canadian apples, and would it not be better to use the scarce dollars in buying food from Canada rather than films from the United States?
    Major Lloyd George: One has to be careful, of course, not to lay oneself open to charges of discrimination, but the question does not now arise because the money is not there to buy this food.

    Slaughter of Horses (Report)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Food when the report of the committee, sitting under the chairmanship of the Duke of Northumberland, to investigate the slaughter of horses, will be published.
    Major Lloyd George: The report will be published as a White Paper towards the end of August.

    Liquid Milk
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Food why, during the year 1952–53, liquid milk consumption in Stoke-on-Trent rose by 100,000 gallons, whereas in the country as a whole it fell by 33,000,000 gallons.
    Major Lloyd George: I am not in a position to account for relatively small local changes in milk consumption which may be due to many variable factors.
    Dr. Stross: Has the Minister any information to show whether this situation might be due to the increased use of liquid milk in industrial canteens, which would, of course, help adolescent boys and girls, particularly in view of the fact that this is a fairly substantial rise at a time when there has been a fall in other areas? Will not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman congratulate this most progressive city in Britain?
    Major Lloyd George: I shall be very happy to do that, but I think that one of the reasons is that sales of pasteurised milk have gone down whereas those of sterilised milk have considerably increased. That may be the explanation.
    Mr. J. Hudsonasked the Minister of Food whether he will give the number of gallons of milk imported from Northern Ireland in the last financial year, together with the value and the amount of food subsidy in respect of it paid to Northern Ireland farmers, reckoned upon a population basis.
    Major Lloyd George: Four million four hundred thousand gallons. As regards the second part of the Question, I regret that it is not possible to allocate the benefit of the liquid milk subsidy as between producer and consumer.
    Mr. Hudson: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that we are getting sufficient milk from Northern Ireland to justify the higher cost to this country?
    Major Lloyd George: I think that at certain times of the year, particularly when there are shortages in this country, it affords a very great advantage to us.
    Mr. P. O'Neill: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that on numerous occasions in the past, during temporary shortages of liquid milk in this country, the importation of this commodity from Northern Ireland has been of the utmost benefit to consumers, especially in the large industrial towns in the North-West of England?
    Major Lloyd George: Speaking from my own experience, I can say that on more than one occasion, and particularly during the war, it has been of tremendous advantage to us.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman do his best to increase supplies of liquid milk from whatever source he can so that he can destroy the stores of powdered milk as a result of the use of which children have been poisoned?

    Fruit and Vegetable Imports, Midlands (Weight)
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the Midland Area Committee of the Retail Fruit Trade Federation has complained to his Department concerning the weights of Italian apples; that these packs are marked one bushel which is accepted by the trade as 40 lb., but in few cases exceed 37 lb. weight of fruit; and what reply has been sent to the Midland Area Committee.
    Major Lloyd George: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply sent by my Department to the Committee.
    Miss Burton: I think I have heard what is in that letter and it will be helpful, but is the Minister aware that at a recent meeting of Birmingham wholesalers and retailers they complained of short weight in the sacks of Canary potatoes and of Spanish apricots and plums? Is the Minister further aware that evidence was submitted showing that the 72 lb. sacks of potatoes weighed only 60 lb.? Can he also deal with that matter?
    Major Lloyd George: I will certainly look into the matter, but the difficulty is that the bushel is a unit of measure, and with very large apples one could get a very substantial shortage in weight. My information is that the apples are marked in bushels and not in weight. I will look into the other question raised.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that Worcestershire is in the Midlands, and would he deprecate the habit of buying Italian apples and buy British instead?

    Fish Transport, Brightlingsea
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the rapid transport of fish from Brightlingsea, Essex, is being restricted as a result of the closing of the branch railway line; and, in view
    884
    of the importance of these facilities to the fishermen of Tollesbury and other places, what representations he will make to the British Transport Commission on this matter.
    Major Lloyd George: I understand that the future of the railway line is being considered by the East Anglian Transport Users' Consultative Committee under the machinery provided by the Transport Act of 1947, and that the interests of the fishing industry are being closely watched by the White Fish Authority.
    Mr. Driberg: If a decision is taken—as we hope it will not be—not to reopen the branch line, and if the Minister finds that this is affecting the transport of fish, would he regard it as his responsibility, as Minister of Food, to intervene?
    Major Lloyd George: Since the control of fish was removed from my Ministry in 1950, my Department have had nothing to do with the day-to-day work of the fishing industry. The responsibility for this was transferred to the White Fish Authority, who, I am informed, are now consulting the interests concerned, including the fishermen.

    Rationed Foods (Take-Up)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Food for the latest available period, the non-take-up of rationed foodstuffs, given separately for each foodstuff, and expressed both as percentages and in numbers of rations.
    Major Lloyd George: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Willey: As there is clearly a relationship between price and consumption, will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no further price increases this year in subsidised foods?
    Major Lloyd George: I do not altogether accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks, because where there is a larger non-take-up with a much larger ration the actual amount consumed is greater.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the latter part of the supplementary? Can we have a definite assurance that there will be no price increase in subsidised foods?
    Major Lloyd George: It is quite impossible for anybody to give a definite answer on that, and I pray in aid the experience of the hon. Gentleman's own Government.
    Following is the information:
    The following table shows for the four week period ended 11th July the percentages by which deliveries of rationed foods to the trade fell short of the estimated ration entitlement. and the approximate number of rations represented by the shortfall:

    Percentage not taken up

    Equivalent number of rations (million)

    Bacon

    …

    18

    10·1

    Cooking fat/lard

    …

    13

    7·5

    Meat

    …

    10

    6·1

    Cheese

    …

    9

    5·5

    Margarine

    …

    5

    2·9

    Butter

    …

    2

    1·2

    Sugar

    …

    0

    0

    New Zealand Meat Contract
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand has officially said that his Government had authorised the Meat Producers Board to discuss, when in London, a meat purchase contract with his Department to take the place of the present seven-year contract which expires in September, 1955; and whether he will give an assurance that no agreement will be reached which will tie the hands of private traders after the expiry of the present contract.
    Major Lloyd George: When the occasion arises, I will certainly keep in mind the consideration mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Are we to understand that the occasion has not yet arisen?
    Major Lloyd George: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the existing agreement ends in 1955. We are now negotiating prices up to 1954, so there are two years before it comes to an end.
    Mr. Manuel: Will the Minister make sure that when these discussions are taking place with the Prime Minister of New Zealand he will do nothing to jeopardise the supply of meat coming to this country? Does he not agree that
    886
    past experience has proved that a long-term agreement based on bulk purchase at a reasonable price is the best for this country?
    Major Lloyd George: I would not agree with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, though I certainly support the first part of it.

    Scottish Beef, Aberdeenshire
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Food what percentage of Scottish beef has been included in the meat ration in Aberdeenshire during the past six months.
    Major Lloyd George: Approximately 57 per cent.
    Mr. Spence: Can the Minister say how this compares with the percentage over the country as a whole?
    Major Lloyd George: On the whole, I should say that it is rather better.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: If this ridiculously small percentage is due to the inadequate and expensive transport from Aberdeen to the South, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman get in touch with the Minister of Transport with a view to rectifying the situation?
    Major Lloyd George: As a matter of fact, the percentage over the country as a whole is rather good. Aberdeen happens to be doing rather better.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the concern felt by housewives at the continued rise in the price of food, particularly since October, 1951; and what action he proposes to take to restore the price of food to such a figure as to enable the poorer sections of the population to take up their full rations.
    Major Lloyd George: I am confident that housewives appreciate our success in checking the increase in the cost of living, which rose over twice as fast in 1951 under the late Government as it did in 1952 under the present Administration.
    As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him on 15th July.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the figures he has quoted are misleading,

    887
    because when the Korean war was at its height world food prices were rapidly rising while the cost of living in this country rose far less rapidly than in any other country in the world? In fact, the reverse is now the case. World food prices are dropping, but prices here have been rising far more rapidly than in any other place. Is the Minister further aware that at the last Election the Government promised that it would bring down the cost of living to make the £ worth something, and bring down the price of food? Is he further aware that the purchasing value of the £ has now reached the lowest level ever, and that housewives are completely fed up with this Government?
    Major Lloyd George: I could not, in two minutes, possibly cover the points which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I must, however, call his attention to his own question, in which he refers to the
    "rise in the price of food, particularly since October, 1951."
    Since October, 1951, the index has risen at exactly half the rate at which it rose before.

  INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (HIGH-LEVEL CONFERENCE)
  Mr. Bennasked the Prime Minister why the proposals he made for a conference at the highest level, free from a rigid agenda and without a cumbrous array of officials, were not endorsed nor mentioned in the Washington communiqués.
  Mr. Crookshank: The statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of State, and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the debate on 21st and 22nd July, all indicated that the proposed September talks were not designed as a substitute, but as a prelude for a conference at the highest level. We hope that preliminary contact, if successful, may widen out into broader fields.
  Mr. Beswick: On a point of order. As this Question was directed to the Prime Minister and has been answered on his behalf, can we know whether the answer was first submitted and approved by the Prime Minister before it was given to the House?
  Mr. Speaker: I think we must assume that Ministers agree among themselves.
  Mr. Benn: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Marquess of Salisbury was such a gallant advocate of the Prime Minister's stand in the May speech, it is curious that there is no mention at all in the communiqué of such a meeting even at a later date? Is it not also something more than just coincidence that in that communiqué the conference is at a lower level, with a rigid agenda, with pre-conditions and with a cumbrous array of officials?
  Mr. Crookshank: All I can say is that this matter was discussed during the debate, and I have nothing to add to what has been said.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether the point of my hon. Friend's Question was urged and advocated at the Washington Conference on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and whether, indeed, they sought such a conference as had been advocated by the Prime Minister on 11th May?
  Mr. Crookshank: I do not think it is for me to disclose every step of the discussions.[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because I was not there; but it may be within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that the acting Foreign Secretary is making a speech on the whole matter in another place, and no doubt he will be able to give more details from his personal contacts in Washington than I can. The fact still remains that he went there to put forward the views of the Government.
  Mr. Morrison: Is it not the case that the Prime Minister made the statement which my hon. Friend has in mind on 11th May? Surely the acting Foreign Secretary has reported to the Cabinet on the progress of the discussions at Washington. In view of the great importance of the effect on this country of the Prime Minister's statement, are we not, as a House of Commons, entitled to know whether the representatives of Her Majesty's Government advocated at that Conference the course that was proposed by the Prime Minister on 11th May?
  Mr. Crookshank: All this is to be found in the speeches to which I have referred and which I have here. If the right hon. Gentleman likes to refresh his memory—[An HON. MEMBERS: "Read them."] Not now—he will see that it

  889
  was made quite clear that there was in no sense on the part of the acting Foreign Secretary any desire to depart from the proposal which the Prime Minister has made, but it was decided to get some kind of four-Power talks going again in the meantime; and that is what was said in the debate.
  Mr. Strachey: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if Lord Salisbury did advocate this course of action by the Prime Minister, it was one of the most miserably unsuccessful pieces of advocacy in the world's history?
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is not my right hon. Friend surprised by the recent adulation of the Prime Minister by the Opposition, in view of their continual denigration of that same gentleman?
  Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I intend, on behalf of the Prime Minister, to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Donnelly: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——
  Mr. Speaker: It was not really a point of order, although it was a customary prelude to the announcement of a forthcoming debate on the Adjournment. If there is to be a debate on the Adjournment, we cannot deal with the matter now.
  Mr. Donnelly: I have another point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance about this? Just now the Lord Privy Seal said that the Marquess of Salisbury would be answering for himself in another place. I think that that was the gist of his remarks. During the debate on foreign affairs the other day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the same thing in reply to a question by me when I think you yourself were in the Chair. The problem which arises is this. This is the House of Commons, and two Ministers of the Crown have said on two different occasions that somebody will be answering in another place for himself. Is there no Minister in this House who is responsible on these issues and who is prepared to give an answer?
  Two right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite have said that somebody else in another place is to
  890
  answer. This raises a very serious constitutional principle, and I submit that you, Sir, as the Speaker of the House of Commons, have the duty to see that the rights and privileges of hon. Members in this House are safeguarded. I am seeking to safeguard the interests of all hon. Members in this House, and I would very much like your Ruling on this point because it raises widespread constitutional issues which are involved as a result of the acting Foreign Secretary being in another place.
  Mr. Speaker: In so far as that is a point of order, the position seems to me to be this. Ministers do answer for Government policy on matters of this character, but where the conduct of a Minister is particularly attacked and that Minister happens to be in another place there seems to me to be no impropriety whatsoever in him giving an explanation in his own House. It would certainly be quite wrong for him to give it here.
  Mr. Donnelly: I am sorry to hold up the proceedings, Sir, but just now you were good enough to say that we must assume that Members of the Government always agree. Surely different Members of a Government Department are responsible for one another, even when one is in this House and another is in another place.
  Mr. Speaker: There is no inconsistency in my two Rulings.

  ROADS

    Congestion, London (Consultations)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Transport what organisations have been consulted concerning the state of London traffic; what has been the advice they have given; and what action he proposes to take.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee is a representative body set up to advise on this problem, and I do not, therefore, ordinarily need to seek advice on it from separate organisations.
    With regard to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, I would refer to the answer I gave him on 20th May last.
    Mr. Langf ord-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Committee said that in the not too distant future there was a danger that London's traffic would come to a near standstill, and that this conflicts with the statement, made in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the situation was improving? Can my right hon. Friend say exactly how his Department stands? Are they satisfied that the London traffic situation is improving, or is it getting worse?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can develop that theme at greater leisure and with greater value tomorrow.

    Dual Carriageway, Victoria Embankment
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Transport why one-third of the Victoria Embankment is closed to all traffic except omnibuses; whether he will set aside this portion as a bumper-to-kerb car park; and how many cars could be thus accommodated.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The local authorities are about to reconstruct, as a dual carriageway road, the whole width of the Victoria Embankment, including the old tram track. The whole width will then be open to traffic. The question whether any car parking facilities can be provided will need consideration at a later date.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my right hon. Friend say when it is intended to start this work, and how long it will take?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It will start about the end of September, and will progress as fast as possible.
    Later—
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. Question No. 49—upon which I sought unsuccessfully to ask a supplementary question, because you called upon the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds), Sir—contains the statement:
    "… why one-third of the Victoria Embankment is closed to all traffic except omnibuses …"
    As hon. Members are supposed to be responsible for the accuracy of statements in their Questions, and as this statement is inaccurate, because the notice proposing it is an illegal one, can the Minister of Transport clear up that difficulty?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the best way of clearing up legal or other difficulties is to open up the whole width of the Embankment, as I propose to do.

    Dartford—Purfleet Tunnel
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport (1) under what Act or agreement his Department undertook to finance the Dartford—Purfleet tunnel; on what date these powers expire; and what are the Government's proposals for carrying out the undertaking;
    (2) how much it is estimated it would cost to construct the Dartford—Purfleet tunnel; how much has been completed; and what is the estimated cost of the remainder of the work to be carried out;
    (3) in view of the importance to southeast England of a tunnel under the Thames between Dartford and Purfleet together with the fact that several Departments are concerned, if he will give consideration to setting up an interdepartmental committee to inquire into the need for expediting the completion of the tunnel commenced in 1931, the work being suspended in 1939 at the outbreak of hostilities.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Dartford Tunnel Act, 1930, empowers the Joint Tunnel Committee of the Essex and Kent County Councils, incorporated under that Act, to construct the tunnel and enter into an agreement with the Minister of Transport for the execution of the work. An agreement negotiated in 1931 provides for my Department to carry out the work of construction as agent for the Tunnel Committee.
    The powers granted under the 1930 Act for the completion of the tunnel expire on 1st October, 1960. Hitherto, only the pilot tunnel has been constructed. This has cost about £850,000, including maintenance. At present prices it would cost about a further £10 million to complete the main tunnel and road approaches.
    I see no reason to set up a committee. I am fully aware of the need for completing this tunnel, and work will be restarted as soon as sufficient funds are available.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in the business of constructing tunnels in this country there is only one set of shields, which cost a lot of money to produce, that these

    893
    are in position, and that there cannot be any more tunnels built until the Dartford—Purfleet tunnel is constructed?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am looking into that particular point and will communicate with the hon. Gentleman.
    Colonel Gomme-Dnncan: In view of the fact that no more tunnels can be constructed at present, will my right hon. Friend transfer his attention to bridges?
    Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has consulted the Service Departments, in view of the very important defence aspect of this matter?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are continually in contact with them in all matters involving strategy.

KOREA (ARMISTICE AGREEMENT)
At the end of Questions—
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: With your permission Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House, I will now make a statement, in reply to Questions Nos. 19, 22, 23, 26 and 28, on the conclusion of the Armistice in Korea, which is also being made in another place by my noble Friend the acting Foreign Secretary.
I am glad to be able to confirm to the House that the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed in the presence of representatives of the United Kingdom, the British Commonwealth and other United Nations countries whose forces are fighting in Korea, at 2 a.m. British Summer Time this morning, at Panmunjom, with provision for a cease-fire 12 hours later.
After over three years of war including two years of negotiation, the fighting has, according to our latest information, now ceased along the front and the two armies will withdraw from their forward lines to permit the formation of a demilitarised zone in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
I know that this news will be received with heartfelt thanks in all quarters of the House. It is not out of place to recall the extent of the United Nations achievement. For the first time since the formation of the United Nations, member States have taken up arms in collective
894
resistance to aggression, and the joint action has been successful. Anyone who doubts that assertion should remember the military situation in August, 1950, when the total evacuation of Korea by the United Nations forces seemed to be inevitable. Since that time the forces of aggression have been driven back beyond the line from which they started.
These results would not have been possible but for the courageous decision of President Truman and the late United States Administration in June, 1950; and it is also right to remember that immediate support was pledged by the late Government of this country sustained by all parties, by members of the Commonwealth and by other member Governments of the United Nations.
The fighting has, unfortunately, been accompanied by heavy casualties. The United States have borne with great fortitude the main burden among the members of the United Nations. We pay our heartfelt tribute to their fighting men and to their military leaders. The contribution of this country and of the Commonwealth, although less extensive, has also been one in which we can take pride. All three fighting Services have distinguished themselves. There have been renowned exploits like the heroic fight of the Gloucestershire Regiment, at the Imjin River, to which the world has paid warm tribute. There also has been a notable example, in the Commonwealth Division, of co-operation between the countries of the Commonwealth.
Tomorrow is the second anniversary of the formation of that Division. Today, we think of those who have given their lives and renew our sympathy with their relatives. We remember the sick and the wounded and also our prisoners of war, most of whom have been so long in captivity, and we rejoice with them and their families that they can now look forward to early release.
The people of Korea have suffered the most of all. Their land has been devastated: but the soldiers of the Republic of Korea have fought bravely side by side with our own, and the civil population has not flinched in adversity.
There is one other body of people to which I should like to pay tribute on the signing of the Armistice. I refer to

895
General Harrison and his team of negotiators. Often criticised, with his difficulties frequently not understood, General Harrison has patiently and resolutely persevered in his task of reaching an agreement. As I have told the House on a previous occasion, I had the opportunity of long discussions with him last year, when in Korea with the Minister of Defence, and I was greatly impressed by his earnestness and his broad common sense. I think that General Mark Clark and he deserve our thanks and our congratulations upon this result.
And now for the future. We know that there have been misgivings in South Korea about the future. We believe that this Armistice was essential for the well-being of the whole Korean people. The fighting, whilst it continued, was an absolute bar to any improvement in the general situation in the Far East. We are not yet, of course, through our difficulties, but now that the fighting has ceased we can once more look forward with hope, and we shall enter on the next stages of the meeting of the General Assembly and of the forthcoming political conference with determination that a solution shall be found to the Korean problem which will lead to the peaceful unification of Korea.
We cannot tell how long we shall have to keep our forces in Korea. Today our main feeling, I think, in all quarters of the House, is one of determination that this Armistice should form a turning point for the better in the Far East. In any case, we shall do our duty by the world causes of which we are the servants.
Mr. Attlee: I should like to express, on behalf of the Opposition, our satisfaction at the conclusion of the Armistice, and join in the tribute which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has paid to the fighting troops, to the civilians in Korea, and to those who have been engaged in these long drawn-out negotiations; and also join with him in the hope that this may prove a turning point in the affairs of the Far East and may lead on to a general settlement.
Mr. C. Davies: I think that all will agree that, throughout the world, there will be great relief and rejoicing at the news of the signing of this Armistice, but
896
may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman can say how soon the United Nations will be brought together to consider the matter, either in Council or Assembly?
Mr. Lloyd: My information is that a meeting of the General Assembly has been summoned for 17th August.
Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. and learned Friend approach the leaders of all the churches to try to arrange a Thanksgiving Service for next Sunday in all churches and chapels?
Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider that suggestion.
Mr. A. Henderson: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement made today by General Mark Clark that he expects American returned prisoners of war to reach the United States within the next two or three weeks? Can he give any indication of the arrangements to be made to ensure that our own prisoners of war reach this country as soon as possible?
Mr. Lloyd: I cannot yet give any precise information to the House, but I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we shall do everything we can to see that they get here as speedily as possible.
Mr. Irvine: I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question about the future. In view of the fact that the arrival of Indian troops in Korea is likely to be a critical matter, having regard to the attitude of the South Korean Government, will the Government be prepared to give an assurance now—as this is to happen during the Recess—that they will keep in close contact with the Government of India in order that the necessary arrangements and safeguards may be dealt with in harmony between the two Governments?
Mr. Lloyd: I can certainly give the assurance that we shall continue to be in close contact with the Government of India. In fact, I think arrangements have been made which will obviate the difficulty which was at one time forecast.
Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend issue a White Paper or otherwise publish the terms of the truce Agreement?
Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider that. It is a very lengthy document, but I think it might be well to have it on record.
Mr. Bing: Will the Minister consider, with a view to improving relations, as he said, the removal as soon as possible of the present restrictions on the export to China of medical supplies, particularly antibiotics like penicillin and streptomycin?
Mr. Lloyd: I think the question of the relaxation of these controls must be a matter to be dealt with in the future as the political conference develops. It is certainly our hope that, as the conference proceeds successfully, it should be possible to relax these controls.
Sir H. Williams: In whose custody are the British prisoners of war?
Mr. Lloyd: According to my information, at present they are all in the custody of the North Korean authorities.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Minister tell us what problems of the people of Korea have been solved? Is Korea any safer from Communism? Would the Government consider publishing a White Paper showing the tremendous devastation in Korea, the loss of life and the destruction of property? Could such a White Paper be published to show what a modern war achieves?
Mr. Lloyd: I think the answer is that there comes a time when aggression, the attempt to expand by military means, has to be checked. It was checked in Korea, and I believe that that decision and that result will be of profound effect in the future of the world.
Mr. Alport: Could my right hon. and learned Friend say what special contribution Her Majesty's Government have in mind to make towards the reconstruction of South Korea after the devastation which has taken place?
Mr. Lloyd: Various programmes are now under consideration. A programme is being carried out to which we have contributed nearly £3 million, and other programmes will be coming along for consideration. We shall endeavour to do our duty in this matter.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed a hope which we all echo—that this will be the turning point in the Far East. Will he give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will lose no opportunity at all of pressing upon the United Nations the desirability of recognising the Republican Government of China and of admitting her to the United Nations at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Lloyd: That is a matter upon which the views of Her Majesty's Government are well known. It certainly is a matter which must be considered and dealt with by the United Nations and we shall certainly see that it is discussed even before open negotiation takes place.
Mr. Noel-Baker: In considering our contribution towards the reconstruction of Korea, will the Government remember that we shall be saving a lot on military operations which have now ceased and that the better the reconstruction the better will be the chance that the fighting will not start again?
Mr. Lloyd: I certainly agree that it is necessary that all the nations of the United Nations should play their part in the reconstruction of South Korea, and I also agree that it is tremendously important that we should make a success of that task of reconstruction.
Mr. C. Williams: In speaking of those nations who have taken part in the operations in Korea, would my right hon. and learned Friend like to add Turkey, who has played a very prominent and gallant part?
Mr. Lloyd: It is true that Turkey has played a very great part, and in the cemetery of the United Nations' troops at Pusan there are very many Turkish graves.
Mr. Donnelly: While I do not wish to press the Minister of State today, is there any chance of a general statement being made by Her Majesty's Government on their attitude towards the various problems which are likely to arise at the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly?
Mr. Lloyd: That is hardly a matter for me. There is to be a debate on foreign affairs in another place.

RHODESIA AND NYASALAND FEDERATION (CONSTITUTION)
3.45 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Constitution) Order in Council, 1953, be made in the terms of the Draft laid before this House on 14th July.
I am afraid my first duty this afternoon is to go through a number of items in the Order in Council, particularly from a legal standpoint, and I am afraid that I must ask hon. Members to follow me through one or two rather technical points. I shall conclude by making some remarks which I hope the House will not think out of place about the lines on which we shall try to promote partnership after Federation has become a fact.
The document is divided into two parts. The first part, which is the Order in Council proper, consists of 15 sections containing all those measures necessary to set up the Federation and to enable it to begin its work in the interim period. The Annex to the Order in Council consists of 99 Articles and two Schedules and contains the permanent provisions of the Constitution, under which it will continue to work after the interim period has passed. The tables at the end of the document, pages 55 and 56, show, paragraph by paragraph, how each of the provisions of the Federal Scheme has been translated into the constitutional instrument.
I think I should point out here that in paragraph 42 (2) the Federal Scheme lays down that the Governor-General will be required to reserve certain types of Bill by the Royal Instructions which he will receive. This provision is therefore omitted from the Constitution. I am advised that it would not be possible or constitutionally correct to present to the House a copy of the Royal Instructions since these cannot be made by the Queen until after the Order in Council has been made, but the House can be assured that these provisions will be inserted.
May I turn now to the more general features of the Statutory Instrument? By comparing the scheme with the document, hon. Members will see, I hope, that
900
we have fully carried out our promise that the Statutory Instrument would faithfully reflect the Federal Scheme, but I think the House will expect from me some general explanation of how the four main points on which the Africans require reassuring, and upon which undertakings, were given in the final communiqué of the Victoria Falls Conference, have been met. In this, as in most constitutional instruments, I believe, the documents specify expressly the things which the Federation can do, without enunciating a list of the things which it cannot do.
The Constitution is framed and constructed so as to preclude the Federation from dealing with matters outside the field specifically allocated to it in the Constitution, and I hope the House will agree that it is the only sensible way of proceeding. It has been proved by experience to be the best way of dealing with these matters. We lay down exactly what the Federal Government can do, we then have the Concurrent List where, if the Territorial legislation should conflict with the Federal legislation, then the Federal legislation governs; and everything else in the field of government not contained in the Federal or the Concurrent List is automatically and solely in the field of the Territorial Governments.
I hope the House will agree that it would be clearly unwise to attempt to define all the things which the Territorial Governments could do and all the things which, by the nature of the Constitution, the Federal Government cannot do. That would, of course, require a list of all the existing and potential government functions which fall within the ambit of the Territorial Governments and I think it would be beyond the wit of man, and even beyond the wit of those supermen, the Parliamentary draftsmen, to ensure that every government function and every possible activity had been laid down by attempting to define all the things that Territorial Governments could do. Inevitably some would be left out, and that would be embarrassing. The plan is to circumscribe the functions of the Federal Government and of the Concurrent List, and all other government functions which remain undefined are solely within the power of the Territorial Governments.
I think it appropriate that I should deal in particular with the four main subjects which the right hon. Gentleman the

901
Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has referred to in our debates sometimes as the "four fears." I hope we have already done something to make the word "fear" too harsh an expression. I prefer to say that they are matters upon which the Africans are entitled to reassurance. First, of course, is that the Protectorate status of the two Northern Territories should be preserved. For the reasons I have already stated, the Constitution does not contain any express provision to the effect that the Federation will not have power to interfere with the Protectorate status of the Northern Territories. That would not be an appropriate or effective way of safeguarding their status.
The effective way, which we have adopted, is to safeguard the Protectorate status of the Northern Territories by constructing the Federal Constitution in such a way that these Territories remain separate and distinct political entities independent of the Federation within their respective spheres, and continue to be under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and, too, subject to the authority of Her Majesty in Council under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. This, I can assure the House, the Federal Constitution certainly does. I say in the clearest terms that it will not be competent to interfere with the constitutional position of either of these Territories, or, for that matter, of Southern Rhodesia. So much for the Protectorate status.
The effective method of preventing amalgamation except in certain circumstances is to secure, as the Federal Constitution does, that Her Majesty's Government and, in certain circumstances, Parliament, have the last word on constitutional amendments. This Government and future Governments will be under an obligation not so to amend it unless they are satisfied that a numerical majority of the people concerned are in favour of it. These intentions are clearly set forth in the Preamble, the fourth paragraph of which makes it quite clear that without a numerical majority of the people amalgamation is ruled out. The effective safeguard, however, is that Her Majesty's Government and Parliament have the last word on constitutional amendments.
I now turn to the third matter, which is that of political advancement. I cannot repeat often enough what I have said
902
in this House before, that the Federal Constitution gives the Federal Government no power either to retard or to accelerate the political advancement of Africans in any of the constituent Territories; no power to interfere with the Territorial Governments on this matter. I am thinking particularly, of course, of the two Northern Territories.
For example, as the House probably knows, we shall be discussing alterations of the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia in September this year—in six weeks' time. These discussions will be carried out and decisions reached without its being necessary to obtain any agreement from the Federal Government. Of course, they will be only an interim Government then, but the same will apply when the Constitution is in full vigour. It would clearly be only sensible that their views should be sought, but I assure the House that their concurrence is not necessary for anything we may decide. I give that as an illustration to bring home the point.
I turn now to the fourth matter, which is, of course, land. This is a matter which must be more directly mentioned. Here, again, we have fulfilled the undertakings about the inviolate character of African land. The Federal Government must have the power to acquire land for public purposes. It would be a farce if the Federal Government could not, for example, acquire a wayleave for a power line or, for that matter, a research station, but this power is to be specifically limited. It can be exercised only subject to the existing Orders in Council and subject to other legislation relating to African land in all the three Territories, and no land so acquired can be used for European settlement.
Thus the four major measures upon which Africans are apprehensive have been successfully dealt with in the Constitution, and our promises have been fulfilled at every point.
I was reading a reply which I made in the debate on 24th June to an intervention by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), and although what I said was technically correct I think it gives a misleading impression, for which I apologise to her. The Preamble is embodied in the Order in Council, but since it has no legal force

903
it would be misleading to describe it as part of the Constitution. I rather think that was the hon. Lady's point. I think she may have gained the impression from my answer to her question that a more direct constitutional device than that which we have employed was contemplated. I hope she will take it from me that what I said is technically correct and still remains a true description of the effect which has been secured by framing the Constitution as we have.
I must leave to my hon. and learned Friend the task of answering the questions which I do not cover, because clearly the House would not expect me to go into this in much detail, but there are one or two matters about which, I think, I should try to inform the House in advance of any questions which hon. Members may wish to raise.
The first concerns Chapter V of the Constitution and the judiciary powers within the Federation. There has recently been some mistaken criticism on the ground that these proposals abolish the right of appeal—or, perhaps, I should say the right to ask for appeal—to the Privy Council in this country. That is not the position. I may explain in this way. A litigant first has to exhaust his local remedies before coming to the Privy Council. If, after an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, he is not satisfied, then it will be open to him to ask for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, either as a right under Federal law, or, if the Federal law confers no such right, by special leave of Her Majesty in Council.
I have one matter to clear up upon the African Affairs Board. It was urged by the Opposition at one stage of our discussions on the enabling Measure that the Board could be restrained by the courts from construing the definition of differentiating measures in a particular way despite the fact that Article 74 of the Constitution provides that if a Bill is, in the opinion of the Board—and these are the operative words—a differentiating measure, then the machinery for reserving it must come into force.
I have taken further legal advice upon this matter, and since all that the scheme requires is that the Board should be of the opinion that the measure is differentiating, it would not be open to the
904
courts to question the opinion; the courts could not lawfully restrain the Board from expressing its particular opinion or declaring any opinion. The reason is that once it has formed its opinion it has an unrestricted right to make its report under Article 74 of the Constitution.
Before I leave the details, I should draw the attention of the House to the definition of the Federal Legislature's powers over external affairs. They are concerned only with such external relations as may from time to time be entrusted to them by Her Majesty's Government. They are also entrusted with the carrying out of existing treaties, conventions and agreements with other countries or organisations. This power is subject to two limitations. It does not include relations between the United Kingdom and any of the Territories, and under Article 34 it is not competent for the Federal Legislature to make laws to carry out anything in an international agreement that relates to something within the legislative powers of the Territories without first obtaining the consent of the Territory.
Lastly, upon defence, I may say that the effect of this item will be, speaking broadly, that the Federation will be able to provide for such matters in connection with defence as it can afford to pay for. The item does not, however, give the Federation the power to declare war.
There is nothing, I think, that I can usefully add upon the Order in Council, but I think that I should say a word about the time-table. If the draft Order in Council is passed today, it is our intention to present the draft Order to Her Majesty at the first Privy Council after the Affirmative Resolution—that would probably be about 1st August. At the same time, Ministers would present to Her Majesty a further Order in Council, naming an appointed date for the coming into force of these provisions set out in Section 1 (2) of the Order in Council, and we should also make the necessary arrangements for the appointment of the Governor-General.
The effect of this would be to bring into force what are called the interim measures necessary for setting up the interim administration, between the passing of the Constitution and the

905
holding of the Federal elections. The interim administration we should hope to do by September. The further step, which brings the whole Constitution into vigour, will be when the Governor-General appoints, by proclamation, a date for the permanent provisions of the Constitution to come into force. Shortly after this, the First Federal elections will be held, and the Federal Assembly will meet. The approximate date for both these events will be 1st January, 1954.
I apologise to the House for having taken them along some of the dusty parts of the highway, but it is a highway which, I believe, leads to a noble goal. All these safeguards and checks in this as in every other Constitution preserve to Africans and to the Europeans who live beside them in these Territories, first of all the position as it now is, and then the hope of great advancement. It goes further, because in one stroke of the pen it gives greatly increased African representation at the centre in the Federal Legislature by giving Africans or those elected to represent them a quarter of the Legislature. They have not got that in any of the three Territories.
Furthermore—I am thinking specially of Africans—I must remind Africans, particularly in the Northern Territories, that if they attach so much weight to the word and shield of Her Majesty's Government when they are spoken or wielded today, they have now got many of the unwritten safeguards with which we exercise our power written into the Constitution.
It has always seemed to me—I have said this before—that it is paradoxical, although flattering to us, to attach an unbounded confidence in the unwritten word of Her Majesty's Government, because Her Majesty's Government could, after all, if it were the wish of the majority of this House, impose all kinds of conditions upon African life which would differentiate against Africans or be detrimental to them. It is, I say, anomalous to attach such an unbounded confidence in the unwritten good intentions of the British Government, and at the same time attach no confidence whatever to those safeguards and to the exercise of those powers which are inherent in the Government when they have been
906
written specifically into the Constitution, and when the intentions behind them have been repeatedly enunciated by Her Majesty's Ministers in this House.
Although this Constitution marks, as I say, a definite advancement for Africans, it cannot by law assure partnership between the races. We cannot by law ensure that there is no racial discrimination. Indeed, the facts of today are that there are not enough Africans fitted for these responsibilities—fitted to take more responsibility than they are being asked to take under the Constitution. But I affirm, again, that it would be intolerable if we all thought or if we all worked to leave it at that.
I state with deep sincerity, as I have stated before, that the first task after the Federation comes into being is, by education, to create first of all leaders for African opinion in sufficient numbers for the Africans to be worthily represented: that is, leaders upon whom Africans will rely and who will be competent to state African views. There is one instrument by which it can be done, by education—by primary and secondary education and by higher education in a university.
Even if that university were exclusively African, it would go a long way towards achieving our first objective, but I see no reason why we should not try to do two things at once; first to create a larger class of Africans with the equivalent of home university degrees, and also to secure that while they are gaining these degrees they will have a multi-racial university, and that the two main races concerned should work closely together during the formative period of their lives. The plans for a multi-racial university, which I announced to the House in the debate on the Third Reading, have been advanced since that date, and notably by the gracious speech which Her Majesty the Queen Mother delivered during her tour in Salisbury.
I go on from universities and education to the crying need for creating a class of craftsmen and artisans among Africans. Criticism may have been heard in the past that our education has been too much the education of doctors and lawyers. No reflection is intended on any hon. or hon. and learned Member, but perhaps we have a little overdone this.
Mr. James Griffiths: And in this country as well.
Mr. Lyttelton: I think that we have to try, and we are trying, to pay more attention to the education of such people as surveyors, architects, electrical engineers, civil engineers and so forth. The subject of building up an artisan class is a little different from this, but the need for that class is no less urgent. I hope that I am not out of place if I say some of the things which I think we ought to do after the Federation becomes a fact.
Bound up with this matter there is, of course, the promotion of trade unions and co-operatives. I think that the House knows where Her Majesty's Government stand upon these matters. I think that it is hardly necessary for me to say that, with some experience of industry in this country, I have never departed from the view that it is impossible to build up a healthy economy on any modern lines without a strong trade union movement. I have seen nothing in my industrial experience which has not reaffirmed that view. Wherever we can avoid it, it is most undesirable for a Government or for any other machinery to interfere in the arrangements between the employed and their employers on wages and working conditions.
But this is, in many of these Territories, still only a goal. In many of the Colonial Territories the trade union movement is in its infancy. The leaders are inexperienced and the membership often insufficient to represent the body of the industry. Employers, too, have not yet fully realised their common interest in a good system of collective bargaining and are themselves not organised, but so far as the Government can use its influence now, when the Federation is just coming into force, it will be to promote sound organisations both of workers and employers. It is necessary, too, in some cases to have wages councils and negotiating machinery other than that based on voluntary bargaining if the practical needs of the workers are to be organised. I regard these as interim measures whilst we are advancing towards, I hope, a clearly stated objective.
Equally, I take the same stand on the subject of co-operative societies. It may
908
be that some hon. Members who are particularly interested in co-operative societies pitch their hopes of them too high. If they do, I think this is a very constructive fault, and in my experience progress has been advanced quicker by optimism, or, if I may say so, by wishful thinking, than by pessimism and by thoughts that see only the dangers and never the benefits.
I think it is quite clear that in many of these countries, and in the three of which we are thinking particularly, capital formation and the command of working capital will be slower than the opportunities open to capital. I am thinking particularly of capital formation among Africans. Just as the joint stock company in the early days of our industrial history replaced the family craftsman and the individual workman, and thereby brought the small and, at that date, ineffective saving of the people into a mobilised force of capital, so we may expect that the co-operative movement can perform a great service in bridging the gap between the savings of the peasant cultivator or proprietor and his needs at a time when he cannot, from his own funds, provide the necessary capital for the improvement of his land and for sowing, growing and harvesting his crops, either by hand tools or, at a later stage, by mechanical means. Nor should the position of co-operative societies in distribution be neglected and our thoughts be turned only to producer societies. In distribution, both in grading and marketing, and above all in efficient bulk selling, the peasant-producer will gain by having co-operative societies.
I am merely touching on these matters because I believe they are the ones which, when the Federation comes into being, will particularly engage our attention. I do not want to continue too long on the subject, nor to labour the point; I wish only to indicate a number of directions in which our idea of partnership can be fostered once the Federation is formed.
That leads me to say, in conclusion, a word about racial discrimination. There is no law which can be passed which can compel harmony in racial relations. There are many things that can be done, and have been done, in this instrument to secure in the constitutional and legal field that this discrimination will not form part either of government or of the law, but

909
they cannot regulate personal relations—if I may use the term—between one race and another, nor between one person and another. Nor has the Mother of Parliaments in many centuries of experience yet been able to frame a law which will ensure that a man and his wife live in amity and affection all the days of their life.
But we are here dealing with a practical dilemma which cannot be eliminated by emotion, however much we may admire and, indeed, share the emotion. The first horn of the dilemma is this. Once imagine that the rôle of the European is to remain permanently dominant—for example, suppressing in advance any African representation—then one of the first principles of democracy, government by consent, would at least be eroded and might be destroyed. On the other hand, the other horn of the dilemma is that if Africans are now to have the representation in the Legislature and in the Executive to which, under a modern system of democracy and franchise and in a fully literate society, their numbers can be shown to entitle them, then European influence would be destroyed, and the progress which has been so marked during the last 50 years would be arrested.
It is not only the flow of capital into these countries of which I am thinking. I am also thinking of the intrusion and expansion of our ideas of law and order, of the equality of all before the law; it is the banishment of superstition and witchcraft and its replacement by what the Bible calls charity, greater than faith and hope. Swamp the European minority at this time, and we shall sweep away the bridge across which alone can pass the ideas of our modern civilisation into that Continent.
I say again that there is nothing in our record which should lead any hon. Member to suppose that, in the exercise of these powers and of these functions in this Federation, the humanity and experience of the British race, which has written democratic institutions into the pages of history will suddenly be thrown aside in Central Africa. Look at the free institutions of the world; one finds that they often derive from the example and practice of this country and of this House. The race that invented Magna Carta and enshrined Parliamentary institutions after the Revolution of 1689 is not one which
910
is likely to reverse the trend which it has imparted all over the world. Surely we are not now trying to form governments, institutions and laws upon systems which have always been repugnant to our ideas.
There are other reasons, and we must acknowledge them—perhaps we must sometimes deplore them—for certain discrimination between the races, because the races are very different. The more backward have to be protected. Nor can we expect that those whose civilisation is age-long will readily accord a spontaneous equality to those who are beginning to learn some of the first lessons of an ordered and civilised society. Only harm is done by pitching our aspirations for no discrimination between the races too high at the present moment or by suggesting that there is some magic formula by which one of the great problems of these countries can be solved in the twinkling of an eye.
But if the present discrimination, which, as I say, may in some respects be inevitable, is believed to be an integral part of European thought regarding the Africans, then the chances of building a multi-racial society will indeed be small, and the essay upon which we are now starting to build such a society will fall in ruins about our heads and about the heads of those whom we are trying to lead towards democratic institutions.
But I have faith that the spirit which has animated our race in the past will continue to animate it in the Federation. I believe that today marks a milestone in African history. It marks the moment when we have a chance of building these countries up into political maturity, into economic prosperity and into human tolerance, and of founding a society which respects and cherishes men of any race who can play their part in the march of human progress.
4.18 p.m.
Mr. James Griffiths: From the very outset of our debates upon the proposal for Central African Federation my right hon. Friends and I have indicated to the House that we recognise very fully the economic advantages which could flow from the closer association of the Governments and peoples of the three Territories, but we have also from the outset insisted that, if those advantages were to be ensured now and in the future in Central Africa, any scheme should be

911
able to meet three tests. The three tests have been the theme of many of the speeches that we have made from these benches in the course of our long debates.
First, we have laid down that, at the present stage of African development in the three Territories, any scheme of Central African Federation must contain safeguards which are adequate to the purpose of protecting their interests.
Secondly, we have also indicated, not only in this case but also in the case of other multi-racial societies, that until such time as conditions are established in which we can be reasonably certain that the Territory will develop into a multiracial democracy, it is essential that any scheme for federation or any contitutional provision in connection with a multiracial society should leave sufficient power in the hands of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that it develops in the way we desire. In the context of Central Africa, we have laid down that it is essential not only that the Protectorate status of the two northern territories should be enshrined in the Constitution but also that there should be provided in the Constitution adequate power for Her Majesty's Government to continue to fulfil its responsibilities as a protecting Power.
Thirdly, we have laid down that within the Federal structure and the provisions of the Constitution there should be an opportunity for the Africans to advance economically, socially and politically towards full equality with the other races which inhabit those Territories.
Those are the three tests which we have applied, and because we were convinced that the scheme put forward by the Government and agreed to between them and the Central African Governments failed to meet these three tests adequately, at varying stages we registered our protest in the Division Lobby against the scheme. That scheme is now embodied in the Order in Council, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies has moved a Motion asking the House to approve that Order in Council.
That draft Order contains in substance and in essence—I reserve for the moment the right to ask questions about the details—the scheme that we have already discussed in the House. We took the
912
opportunity of discussing it fully during our debates on the enabling Bill, and because the scheme embodied in the Order in Council is in substance the scheme which we found unsatisfactory for the reasons I have given, we feel that we must continue our protest against it in the Division Lobby tonight.
Before referring to some of the things that the Secretary of State said, I want to deal with some changes in the text of the Order in Council which cause it to differ from what appeared in the Federal Scheme. I want to mention one or two such changes, and no doubt some of my hon. Friends will want to mention others. So if I refer only to one or two, it is not to be assumed that they are necessarily all. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will make a note of the points I am going to raise, and will deal with them when he replies.
The first of these is contained in Article 14 (2, (d)), of the Constitution. The last words of this Article are as follows:
"… or has within the said five years been awarded, such a sentence of imprisonment the execution of which has been suspended. …"
It seems to us that those words have been added to the Order in Council and were not in the Federal Scheme. I have searched for them in the time at my disposal and have not found them. Perhaps we could have an explanation of that.
The second change is the provision that was in the Federal Scheme, page 20 paragraph 28 (4). This has relevance to the specially appointed European members who are to sit in the Federal Legislature with special responsibilities for African interests. In that paragraph we find these words included:
"Such a member will be appointed for the duration of a parliament, that is to say he will (like a Specially Elected Member) vacate his seat upon a dissolution of the Federal Assembly; and his seat will also become vacant in such other circumstances as would cause the seat of a Specially Elected Member to become vacant."
The point I want to put to the Under-Secretary is that in the Federal Scheme there was provision for the specially appointed member to be appointed for the duration of the Parliament. That seems to be absent from the Order in Council, and I should like to ask why:
The provision in the Federal Scheme that the specially elected member was

913
appointed for the duration of a Parliament gave him a sense of security of tenure which would enable him effectively to discharge his responsibilities towards the Africans and to protect their interests, for which purpose he is specially appointed to the Legislature. If that drops out, are we to understand—this is rather an important point—that the specially elected European member who represents African interests is to sit in the Legislature at the discretion of the Governor without any security of tenure at all, and can be dismissed or pushed out at any time?
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): I can answer that now if the right hon. Gentleman wishes.
Mr. Griffiths: I do not mind so long as we do not get bogged down in question and answer.
Mr. Foster: I appreciate that the words have been left out, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look at Article 15 of the Order in Council, he will see that
"The specially elected European member … shall vacate his seat in the Federal Assembly on a dissolution of the Assembly."
That is the same thing as his being appointed for the duration of the Parliament, as stated in paragraph 28 (4) of the Federal Scheme. The actual words are:
"Such a member will be appointed for the duration of a parliament, that is to say he will … vacate his seat upon a dissolution of the Federal Assembly."
Mr. Griffiths: The paragraph to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has called attention indicates the circumstances in which a specially elected member shall vacate his seat. It clearly lays down dissolution as one of those conditions, but that is not the point that I was making because it is obvious that every member of the Legislature vacates his seat at a dissolution. I repeat my question. In the Federal Scheme a specially elected member was to be appointed for the duration of the Parliament; why has that been dropped out of the Order in Council? Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at that.
The only other point to which I should like to call attention—reserving for my hon. and right hon. Friends the right to put other points on this matter—arises on
914
Article 29 of the Order in Council. I will read the part in question, and then I will put my query. I am referring to paragraph (6) of that Article, which reads:
"For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that, subject to paragraph (3) of article eighty and paragraph (2) of article eighty-two of this Constitution, a law of the Federal Legislature may make provision for part only of the Federation or may make different provision for different parts of the Federation."
I should like to be told what law was envisaged that would apply to one part of the Federal Territory and not to the other, and would apply in different ways to different parts of the Territories that are brought together in this Federation. It may be that a provision of this kind is desirable and I am sure that in the framing of this Constitution there was some law in mind. What kind of provision was thought to be necessary?
We did our best in the Committee stage of the enabling Bill to try to embody in it some Amendments to improve the scheme from our standpoint and, in particular, to strengthen the safeguards for Africans. All our Amendments were rejected. The invariable answer given by Ministers speaking from the Box opposite, even when we put forward Amendments which were within the terms of the scheme embodied in the White Paper, was that the Government could not accept those Amendments, even though they were desirable, even though on merit the Government would not be against them, because the Federal Scheme was the result of negotiations with the three Governments in Central Africa.
Have there been negotiations since then? Have the Central African Governments been consulted about these changes? The hon. and learned Gentleman says they are minor changes, but if it has been possible, since the days not so long ago when we had discussions in the Committee stage, to get into touch with the Governments in the Central African Territories and agree upon changes of words—in our view changes of some material importance—and embody them in the Order in Council, then the Government might have taken an opportunity of consulting them about some of the Amendments which we put forward and which would help the scheme considerably.

915
At this stage I shall not discuss the Constitution in detail, but will say a few general words, since this is perhaps the last opportunity we shall have to discuss this matter. In the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition used words which have been quoted here and, indeed, misquoted in other places. He said:
"… if this becomes the law of the land it is the duty of all of us to try to make it work to the best of our ability. …"
That is the statement of a democrat and one which we accept, but I urge the House to consider what my right hon. Friend said immediately afterwards. He made this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman:
"… even at this eleventh hour I urge that it is worthwhile delaying so that we may get some tangible proof of a new relationship which will bring the Africans into harmony with the scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 427.]
We made that plea several times in the course of the debates upon this matter and it was rejected by the Government both in debate and in the Division Lobby.
None of us can doubt, however, that the other need for which my right hon. Friend pleaded and which he urged in that debate still remains, namely, the need for a tangible proof that there will be a new relationship in Central Africa. I think it will be common ground between us all that it is upon the creation and the development of such a new relationship that this scheme offers any prospect of developing towards the eventual multi-racial democracy which is the declared policy of this country in its Colonial Territories. This afternoon, therefore, I want to suggest some further tangible proof which can be brought into being in the months between now and September when the first Appointed Day will be fixed, and also between now and 4th January of next year when the scheme will come into full operation if this House approves the Order in Council by approving the Motion this afternoon.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has referred to two of these tangible proofs. The first, which we welcome wholeheartedly, is the decision to establish a multi-racial university in Central Africa. We welcomed it when
916
the announcement was made, we welcome it now, and we hope that every step will be taken to bring it into being at the earliest moment. Secondly, we welcome the initiative taken by one of the companies in the copper belt to open discussions with the European Mineworkers Union with a view to seeking their agreement to remove some of the racial discrimination which now exists and which is embodied in an agreement between the union and the company.
Mr. Lyttelton: One group of companies.
Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry, one group of companies. I have noticed in the Press with interest and appreciation that one meeting has already taken place, that it has been adjourned for a week, and will then be resumed. I hope it will succeed.
If we are to build modern democratic communities in Africa and Asia, the creation of an artisan class is essential. Artisans represent the middle of a modern democratic community and without them it cannot be built. At present in the copper belt, and in other industries in Central and East Africa, one of the obstacles to the creation of an artisan class amongst Africans and to their advancement is racial discrimination. After all, becoming an artisan is part of industrial advancement, and if they are to play their full part it is essential that all the barriers now standing in the way of their technical progress and industrial advancement should be removed.
I appreciate that this is not an easy job. We have here, as in so many aspects of life in Africa, what I described at a conference last week as a curtain of fear; that is to say, the white worker is afraid that his standards and his privileges will be overwhelmed if the African advances, and the African becomes resentful because there is withheld from him the opportunity of advancing in accordance with his ability. I agree with the Secretary of State that, if it can be done by agreement between the two unions concerned and the firms in question, so much the better. The matter has been under discussion for a long time now and efforts have been made, in Northern Rhodesia in particular, by my predecessors and myself to bring the

917
sides together in order to reach a voluntary agreement. Unless we can get that now, I do not think we can go on much longer allowing this kind of agreement to prevent the development of Africans, upon which the success of everything we are trying to do in Africa depends. However, we welcome the steps that have been taken so far.
Now I come to make one or two other suggestions, and I make two in particular: to the Federal Government when it comes into operation, and to its leaders now before it comes into operation. The first suggestion is that they should now make a firm declaration that when the scheme comes into operation, the African Affairs Board will be used to the full to safeguard African interests. Inadequate as we think are the powers of the African Affairs Board in the present scheme, weak as we think its composition is as compared with the original scheme, it is the centre of this Constitution and it still remains the one instrument by which Africans can be ensured that their interests are protected.
The Secretary of State knows that if we are to have this new relationship, it is essential to have a firm declaration from the leaders in Central Africa that when the Federation comes into existence, they will make the fullest use, not only in the letter but in the spirit, of the African Affairs Board, and are determined to see that its powers are used to the maximum in order to safeguard African interests.
One of the factors that has added to African fears in the past few months, whilst we have been discussing here and whilst they have been discussing this Federal Scheme out in Central Africa has been the statements that have been made seeking to denigrate the African Affairs Board and seeking to undermine it and to say that it does not mean very much. It means, and will mean, everything to the Africans. I hope that we get a firm declaration of the intention to use the Board's powers to the maximum, for that is important and essential.
My second suggestion concerns the time when they come to discuss the franchise. The Secretary of State ventured a definition of partnership in an earlier debate and said that he would regard partnership as being established in Central Africa when a European would be elected in a constituency in which the
918
majority of voters were Africans and an African would be elected in a constituency in which the majority of electors were Europeans and whites. We are very far indeed from that state of affairs yet in Central Africa.
When the Federal Legislature meets, one of its earliest tasks will be that of considering and of formulating the Federal franchise. It may be, perhaps, the first major measures that they will have to consider, and the first major Bill they will have to pass. Here is the opportunity of expressing partnership in something bigger than words, in a franchise. Here is the opportunity of providing, right at the very beginning, a franchise that will contain within itself, not only the hope, but the certainty, that in due time there will develop in Central Africa a real, effective partnership. I express the hope that upon those two matters, in particular, the leaders in Central Africa will give firm declarations, for I believe that those firm declarations would do much to allay the anxiety and the fears of the Africans, which are still widespread and still very deep.
Finally, I wish to say a few words about what can be done in the ensuing six months by the Secretary of State, by Her Majesty's Government and by this Parliament in regard to the Protectorate status of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. I urge one or two things upon the Secretary of State. First, I notice that in the Order in Council there are set out in very specific terms guarantees for the Paramount Chief and people of Barotseland. Those provisions are made in an Order in Council because one of the forebears of the Paramount Chief made an agreement with the British Sovereign and Government at the time. That agreement is preserved and protected in specific terms within this Order in Council.
I ask the House to consider this. We do this for the Paramount Chief and we do it for his country, his Protectorate, specifically and specially. But the Paramount Chief of Barotseland is not the only one who has agreements with Her Majesty's Government: there are others, too. The Secretary of State, the House and the country know perfectly well that there is still continuing deep anxiety and deep hostility to this scheme in Nyasaland and that that hostility is based upon the

919
fear that their Protectorate status will be impaired and that the agreements which their forebears made with the Government here are not adequately protected.
I ask the Secretary of State whether, even now, at what is nearly the twelfth hour, it is not possible to write into the Constitution some protection for the chiefs and people of Nyasaland equivalent to those that are written into it for the Paramount Chief of Barotseland. In principle, I see no difference whatever. I hope, therefore, that that will be considered.
We all know perfectly well that in Nyasaland there is still deep anxiety and deep opposition, and that the people are still afraid. The Secretary of State has carried out fully the undertakings given at Victoria Falls and afterwards that the Protectorate status in general terms shall be preserved in the Constitution; but we have gone beyond that in the case of the Paramount Chief of Barotseland. We have done it specially for him. In view of that, and in view of the continuing anxieties in Nyasaland, I hope that consideration will be given to making such a provision in this Order in Council; or if that is impossible—and it will be once the House decides this evening—I hope that consultations will take place between the Secretary of State, Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Northern Rhodesia to see what other steps and measures can be taken in Nyasaland to give further assurances to the people in Nyasaland. None of us is under any illusion that those further assurances are very necessary bearing in mind the present and continuing anxieties in Nyasaland.
Now I come to the second point that I ask the Secretary of State to consider. He has told us that in September there are to be discussions between him and the representatives of Northern Rhodesia, in particular representatives of the Africans there, about further political changes in the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia. I fully agree with the Secretary of State that in the circumstances it was desirable that these discussions about future constitutional changes in the Territorial Government in Northern Rhodesia should be held over until after the question of Federation had been settled. Once it is settled, the talks can
920
begin, and they are due to begin. I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman said, during September. I do not want to prejudge those discussions, but I make an appeal to the Secretary of State.
This is a further opportunity to give tangible proof of partnership. It has been said from both sides of the House when this matter has been discussed and argued, that in this scheme most of the matters which intimately affect Africans are left within the province of the Territorial Government. If that is true—and I appreciate it—I urge upon the Secretary of State that it makes it all the more desirable that the relative position of the Africans in the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia should now be improved; that they should have added representation in the Executive Council and in the Legislative Council.
This is an opportunity to the European elected members and to the Government in Northern Rhodesia to indicate that within what is left of the powers of the Territorial Government, the Africans will be more fully safeguarded and more fully represented. I hope, therefore, that there will be early consultations with the Africans upon political advancement within the Territorial Government. Now is the opportunity, in the context of Federation, to give them that increased representation upon the Executive Council and upon the Legislative Council.
Another point I would urge is that it is more than a year now since the Governor and the Government of Northern Rhodesia published a statement on partnership. I do not propose now to read the proposals in that official statement, but it is more than a year since it was issued and no really tangible step has been taken to implement a single one of the proposals. While we have been speaking of partnership and this official statement of Government policy has been in existence, not one really tangible step has been taken so far as I am aware. If any step has been taken, I have not heard of it. I urge that the proposals be implemented now and certainly in the next few months.
If the House approves the Motion today and the scheme comes into operation, that does not end our responsibilities. We shall still have responsibilities

921
in this House. We shall still have responsibilities for the Federal Government and for the Federal Legislature and I hope that before the end of this debate the Under-Secretary of State will answer this question. Has he sought any advice from the appropriate quarter as to whether, within the terms of this Constitution, it may be permissible to ask Questions in this House about the activities of the Federal Government and the Federal Legislature? Will it be in order to discuss how the Federal Government and Federal Legislature are working from time to time? Will it not still be a Government in respect of which we have not only responsibilities but opportunities of ensuring that those responsibilities are being carried out by Her Majesty's Government?
In seven to nine years we shall have to review this matter and what the House and the country do then will depend on what happens in the meantime. None of us can look upon the African scene in these days without anxiety. In the next seven years, up to 1960, the fate of Africa will be determined one way or the other. It has been said of Africa that it is the only remaining uncommitted Continent in the world. We want it to take the democratic way. There are others in Africa who want it to take another road.
The democratic road can lead to one end—a society in which all men have equal opportunity and are not only equal before the law, as the Secretary of State said, but equal in all phases of their life, in industry, in society and in their political life. That is the end to which we must work. If Central African Federation develops towards that multi-racial democracy, it can succeed, but if it does not, it will fail.
We have been asked to exercise an act of faith in the people of Central Africa. It is more than an act of faith. They may very well have the future of Africa in their hands. There is this upsurge of national consciousness in Africa and elsewhere; it is a great dynamic force which, if we seek to keep it back, will sweep us out of the way; but if we make ourselves its allies, it can go along the democratic road. That is the challenge; I hope they may be equal to it.
4.55 p.m.
Mr. Paul Williams: I hope the House will forgive me for intruding on what has become, for all practical purposes, a family affair limited to a small number of Members. I hope I shall be allowed to follow some of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
I hope I do not trespass on the time of the House in doing this, but, first, I should like to pay a small and, perhaps, belated tribute to the former hon. Member for Sunderland, South, the late Mr. Richard Ewart. Although I was of a different political opinion from him, although I differed deeply and fundamentally from him on political grounds and although I only knew him slightly in the course of one General Election campaign, his deep sincerity in his cause and in what he believed to be right was something which would never fail to impress people of all parties. I should like to take this opportunity of paying this tribute to him and recording my appreciation of the work of the late hon. Member for Sunderland, South.
Hon. Members, I hope, will forgive me for interrupting this debate because on several occasions I have sat listening to hon. Members on both sides of the House who, to my mind, have been going over the same arguments again and again. If one may make the comment from very nearly without this House, it seemed to me that the relative positions of either side of the House were these. We were at an historic moment for Africa—the right hon. Member for Llanelly made that quite clear—and the attitudes of the two sides of the House were also quite clear. One seemed to be a bold, trusting and confident attitude, confident in the ability of the people living in the Territories concerned to carry out development plans and to increase the responsibilities of the Africans living in those Territories.
On the other hand, there seemed to have been a frame of mind among hon. Members opposite a timid and controlling frame of mind which pleaded over and over again for delay—delay which I believe would be fatal to this great plan which was initiated by right hon. Members opposite and developed by this Government. It seems to me that to call for further delay at a time such as this, at

923
this time of decision, would be fatal to this great plan and to the future of any development in Africa itself.
I was greatly saddened by the initial remarks of the right hon. Member, saying that there would, in fact, be a Division on this issue. He has referred to "the curtain of fear" and has referred to African fears about political advancement. I believe that the majority of those fears are quite unwarranted and unfounded. I am quite willing to place my trust in the ability of those who live on the spot to develop partnership. However much we may talk in this House about partnership and about great and noble ideas, it is those who have to live on the spot with the problems who in the end will have to solve the problems.
I believe very sincerely that now is the time for decision and that to continue opposition to this new Constitution at this moment would do no more to stimulate the political fears of Africans, which are quite unwarranted and unfounded. In debates which have gone before we have heard of a request for gestures, for demonstrations of some tangible proof that this Government and Europeans in Central Africa are moving along and thinking along what probably we would all like to call the right lines. We have heard reference today to the establishment of the inter-racial university. What we have not heard about is the formation of the new Federal Party, which is welcoming within its ranks Europeans and Africans on equal terms. That seems to me the line of advance which is taking place throughout Central Africa today.
The right hon. Member referred to discussions going on with certain mining companies and the trade unions. We welcome these discussions. They are all part of a developing theme that partnership can be brought into existence not solely by the high and lofty ideals of this House but by those living, working and practising on the spot, who are living with these problems and trying to solve them.
I should like to follow the remarks of the Colonial Secretary that any development of partnership must in the long run be based on education and, in the next stage, on technical education. These seem to me to be practical lines for advance which can be supported by the House and which are being pursued on
924
the spot. It seems to me that dividing the House this evening on an issue like this will draw out the political differences which may exist—whether they are warranted or not may, I believe, still be open to debate—which will perhaps set this new child off to an unfortunate start. I, and, I think, those who are sincerely wanting the right solution in Central Africa, have hoped that support could have come from both sides for this venture and that it could have come in the form of a welcome to the new State which is being created.
I believe this to be a great new British venture in democratic development and that it will only be a successful start on a future pattern for partnership if we get the support of Members on both sides of the House. I express again my regret that there should be a Division on this issue because it seems to me that that continues a sore which may develop into a running sore. If we can do anything in this debate to reduce differences and make partnership into a reality the debate will be serving a useful purpose. For my part, I welcome the introduction of the new Constitution. I believe that it serves the present needs of European and African in Central Africa, and that through this Constitution partnership can be achieved.
5.3 p.m.
Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), and on behalf of us all, to congratulate him on his maiden speech. He won a victory for his party at Sunderland, and I am sure that in this House he will continue to give good service to his party and service to the country too. We on this side of the House were particularly pleased to hear his gracious observations about his predecessor, who was so dear to us all. I hope that we shall on many future occasions see that—was it a Celtic?—fire I seemed to observe burning? and that he will take part in what he called this family affair. I am sure that all Members of the "family" will be very glad indeed to welcome him He spoke in a forthright manner about this Order and his speech was certainly none the worse for that.
I wish to make my criticisms of the proposals. I should like first to refer

925
very briefly to the method which has been adopted in bringing these proposals into operation. They have been made without the concurrence of the people most closely concerned and affected by their operation, namely, the Africans. I can understand that happening in the circumstances. What I completely fail to understand is that when this happened particular care should not have been taken to see that the Committee stage of the Measure in this House was a reality and not a sham.
These proposals were simply pushed through the Committee stage by majority vote, by the operation of the party machine, and we had not a single Amendment accepted in Committee. I gather that there have since been discussions between the Government and Sir Godfrey Huggins and Sir Roy Welensky—I do not know; perhaps we shall hear about them. We should like to know whether the proposals put forward in the Committee stage were discussed with those gentlemen, and, if so, what has been the result of those discussions. If I may return to the definition of "differential measure," does Sir Godfrey Huggins accept the interpretation of that provision which was given by the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations?
I pass from procedure to what to my mind are the major criticisms of this scheme. First, and the point has already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend, there is no positive provision in the Federal scheme for the development of the Africans. That has been mentioned and developed in previous debates, and I shall not spend any time over it now.
Secondly, there is a division here between the central powers and the territorial powers, as there must be in every Federal organisation, but the danger, the peculiarity, of this particular division is that there is allotted to the Federal organisation matters of general interest affecting property and peoples in the various Territories as a whole whereas there are allotted to the Territorial Governments matters of particular concern to the Africans and the Africans only. In other words we have a separation of powers between the Federal and the territorial organisations on lines of racial interest and racial Government. I do not want to exaggerate it unduly but there is a danger there.
926
It is a peculiar principle of demarcation to adopt between a Federal and a territorial Government and one which, so far as I know, has never been adopted before in any other federal organisation. If the Federal Government were to fall into the hands of people who were affected by Afrikaner ideas, this might very well play completely into their hands and lead easily to an aparteid form of discrimination, and government.
The third point, which I have previously mentioned at an earlier stage in our debates, is the extraordinary provision in the Constitution for the police and responsibility for enforcing the Federal laws lying with the Territorial Government. We have the British Government still sovereign in the last resort in respect of the Federation, then at a lower level a Federal organisation set up under the Federal Constitution, and finally the territorial organisations in two of which the British Government are responsible for administration. So we have the British Government as the sovereign authority, and at the bottom the British Government again as a territorial authority in two of the Territories, responsible for enforcing the laws passed by the Federal Legislature. The British Government is under this Constitution underwriting the settlers, with their majority control of the Federation, as against the African population.
We have seen what has happened in Ireland in the past. There we had the unhappy experience of the British Government underwriting an ascendancy against the native population. I hope we shall not have that experience repeated here. It is a very real danger in the extremely anomalous position which arises from the form of Constitution adopted in Central Africa.
I wish to come now to the more hopeful aspects of this scheme. In my view it is a misbegotten and a misshapen scheme but from the very deformity and defects in the scheme there may come some good. The defects are so obvious that I trust everybody will administer this scheme with the most tender care. It depends entirely on the way it is to be administered.
There are two important safeguards in the scheme. First, there is this country's power of veto. The other

927
is the power to which I have already referred, the power which resides in the Government of this country, as the Government responsible for those two Northern Territories, for the policing and enforcing of laws in those Territories. The very fact that it is, in the last resort, British police, British power, British force, which is responsible for order in the Northern Territories makes it quite impossible for the veto in this Constitution to be regarded as merely a nominal constitutional device which may never be put into operation.
I am sorry the veto is to be exercised apparently by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations rather than by the Colonial Secretary. I think that is a mistake. I hope we all realise that because of our responsibility for order in the Northern Territories, because of our responsibility for policing the Northern Territories, we in this House have vital interests in the exercise of the veto where appropriate occasion arises.
I would reiterate the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) about whether there will be opportunities in this House to question the Commonwealth Secretary about the exercise, or the non-exercise, by him of the power of veto which lies in this Constitution and if not, why not? Why should not we in this House call the Commonwealth Secretary to account for the way in which he exercises the power imposed on him under this Constitution? I trust we cannot at this stage be told that that is merely a purely nominal matter and that, of course, he would not exercise it any more than he would exercise it if such power were obtained in the case of a country which had already achieved Dominion Status.
The positive powers we have handed over to the settlers. We retain only purely negative powers. I think that a great mistake. All the powers of positive initiation and action, of positive responsibility for the development of the African within the Federation Constitution as contrasted with the territories themselves, we have handed over to the white population. What is needed now is an actual practical demonstration by the white population of the fact that they will take seriously the development of the Africans toward responsibility, toward democracy and a
928
full participation in the democratic Government of the country to which they belong.
What then should be our future attitude? I would put it briefly in this way. We in this country should do everything possible to encourage and develop the policy of partnership. I welcome the observations made this afternoon by the Colonial Secretary. They seemed to me to be a new departure on his part, and if the settlers administer this scheme in the spirit of the speech he made today it would go a considerable way to allay fears and anxieties about it.
Not only should we encourage the settlers to take practical steps towards partnership, but also we should encourage the Africans to respond to these steps wherever they are taken. I hope sincerely that we shall have mutual co-operation between settlers and Africans within these Territories. In the last resort—I hope it will never arise—it is our responsibility, as the Government of this country, as the House of Commons, as the power responsible for the Northern Territories and for enforcing the Federal laws in those Territories, and as the Sovereign Power, to exercise the Veto and every power we have to prevent Central Africa from becoming another South Africa. Let us make no mistake about that, though I hope the occasion will never arise for any such action. Our attitude towards the scheme in the future will, as my right hon. Friend indicated, depend entirely upon the practical steps taken in Africa toward winning the allegiance of the Africans and establishing a true multi-racial community within Central Africa.
There is one reference I would make to the rather wider issue of policy connected with this Central African development. It is the general attitude which we in this country should adopt towards the development of Dominion Status. As we all know, Dominion Status was based on the Durham Report written some 130 years ago. That report was made as a means of satisfying the cry "no taxation without representation" in a world where communications were bad. It was the only means of reconciling democracy and distance. Nowadays the distance has disappeared, but the problem remains for this country to ensure democracy through-

929
out the Colonial Empire—without necessarily adopting in every single case the solution of the Durham Report.
In the laissez faire days it was common for constitutional lawyers to talk of the development of the Empire as fruit ripening until the time when the ripe fruit would fall from the tree. What we are here doing, what we have been doing in Central Africa, is not to wait for the ripe fruit to fall from the tree. We have been hacking off the unripe fruit. We have been putting into force this Central African scheme, contrary to the will of the vast majority of the inhabitants in that area——
Mr. C. R. Hobson: How do we get their consent?
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: That matter has been dealt with on several occasions and I will not be led off——
Mr. Hobson: It has never been ascertained.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It was dealt with very fully by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) in his closing speech during the first debate on this issue.
I am in favour of local government for local affairs, but we have reached the state in communications and the development of our Empire when what is needed is a closer integration of the various parts of the Empire, where the emphasis should shift to integration rather than disintegration. Our problem is to make the Empire as it is democratic without necessarily in every case decentralising. This involves a great deal of deep thinking. Nobody can produce a solution overnight. It requires a slow and practical application.
I am fully aware of the dangers involved, but I hope that every opportunity will be taken, by the Colonial Office in particular, for closer consultation with the inhabitants of all these Colonies to see, by conferences like one which has taken place within the last 12 months, that we gradually develop the Empire democratically by practical steps without necessarily in every case leading along the Durham Report line of development.
This is a huge problem. In Central Africa at this stage it was premature to have introduced Federation before the vast majority of the inhabitants wanted it. I sincerely hope that it will succeed. It
930
will be a disaster for us, for Africa and for the world if it fails. I hope that we do everything possible to make it succeed; but the key to it all lies with the settlers in Central Africa. If they will give practical demonstration of a sincere wish to develop the Africans and to have partnership and friendship with them, I am certain that they will have a response from the Africans and from all sides in this House as well.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. Archer Baldwin: I was not sure when the debate started whether we should be entitled to roam rather widely, as we seem to be able to do, on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) made an excellent maiden speech on this the last day of the debates on Federation, a day which is making a page of history. I had hoped that the Opposition would have taken the line which the leader of the opposition to Federation in Southern Rhodesia took. He opposed it until the end. After the referendum which decided for Federation he gave the scheme his blessing and said that he would endeavour to make it work. I had hoped that the Opposition would have taken the same line. It is a great disservice to Federation that we should have controversy today and a Division at the end of the debate.
Today we have heard much the same as we have heard on previous occasions. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) more or less attacked the settlers and Sir Godfrey Huggins. We have heard similar attacks on many occasions during the last five or six debates on this question. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the veto which Her Majesty's Government would still have on anything in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I would remind him that the Government of the day have had the right of veto over the Southern Rhodesian Government for the last 30 years, but the steps which that Government have taken have been such that the United Kingdom Government have never felt it necessary to exercise the veto. Why after 30 years of good service it should now be thought that the people of Southern Rhodesia have changed, I fail to see.
A great deal has been said about partnership. I was sorry to see that "The

931
Times" took up the question and was critical. Criticism has been made throughout the debates that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has not said what he meant by the term. It is not for us in this House to say what is meant by partnership. The people who have to work the partnership are those in Central Africa. They have proclaimed in no uncertain voice what they mean. But, apart from what they have said, let us look at the history of the matter during the last 60 years. I will deal with Southern Rhodesia because that is the territory which has been attacked more than any other.
Partnership does not necessarily mean advancement in the political field. Partnership which is most beneficial is partnership in the economic field. I suggest that Southern Rhodesia have done more to further partnership than has been done in any of the Colonial Territories. Criticism has been made of various activities there. We have heard a great deal of criticism about education. I was sorry to see that Miss Margery Perham, in a letter to "The Times," criticised what had been done in the field of education. The position is that there are over 2,000 primary native schools for 200,000 pupils. There are 7,000 teachers and all but 350 are Africans. They are now starting not only a multi-racial university but also an African university. If those are not practical steps towards partnership, I do not know what the word means.
Let us consider the employment position and the building up of the artisan class which has been advocated. In Southern Rhodesia there are 1,000 more Africans self-employed than there are Europeans. Surely some of them must be artisans. There are some Africans in Southern Rhodesia who earn over £1,000 a year by running their own bus services. I suppose that some of them are also artisans. The police force is largely African. There is a rapidly increasing number of African clerks. A wide range of Government posts are open to Africans in education, health and agriculture. These are practical steps towards partnership.
The housing situation has also been the subject of criticism. I refer now to something which was seen by the hon.
932
Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) and myself—I think that he was with us—when we went to the township of Umtali. We saw a swarm of Africans building houses for themselves under the supervision of one European. They were completing houses at the rate of one a day. In the last four years they have built houses for 11,000 Africans. They had there a sports field for Africans which would be the envy of many of our provincial towns.
The Director of Education there said that the citizens were proud of their township; they were law abiding; and crime was practically non-existent. How many towns in England could show the same record? This again is a practical example of working partnership. When speaking of education I forgot to add that what is being done for the African ought to be recognised in this country. The African is not merely taught academic subjects: he is also given technical training. The deputation saw Africans being given technical training in many useful subjects. This also is a case of partnership.
Then there is the question of health. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) mentioned in one of our debates that he had received a letter from the wife of a missionary who had been told by somebody who had been told by someone else of some terrible thing which had been done in a hospital which was unnamed. We visited hospitals when we were over there. What is the position? They have over 10,000 hospital beds, a ratio of one to every 230 Africans. There were 250,000 in-patients and 3,500,000 outpatients treated in 1950. Surely, that is something of which Southern Rhodesia can be proud, and we should not criticise her hospital service.
I want to mention the common roll. Here, again, I think that the way to get partnership is through the common roll, which has been criticised because it has been said that, as soon as too many Africans qualify for the common roll, the qualification will be raised. That may be so, and I do not think that Sir Godfrey Huggins has disputed the fact, but what he has also said, and what I think he is right in saying, is that he wants to see the day when the common roll is so constituted that white and black on that common roll vote according to policy and not according to colour. That day will come, in due course.

933
It cannot be said that Africans on the common roll have no effect on the decision in their elections. There are only a few hundreds of Africans who have taken the trouble to register, although there are several thousands who could qualify to be entered on the common roll. If every African who is qualified to enter the common roll did so and exercised his right of voting, Africans today could bring about a great effect on decisions taken.
There are only two parties out there, and it is up to the Africans to get their names on the register, and, when the opportunity comes, to vote for that particular party which they think will best further their own interests. If they had taken their opportunities in the past, Africans could have influenced considerably the voting at the last election.
I know that great play is made about the qualifications, which are laid down for black and white equally. I am not sure that the provision of certain qualifications before the vote can be exercised is not a good one. Even in this country, if we had some slight qualifications, if only to the effect that an elector should be able to write his or her name and could count up to 10, before exercising the right of voting, it would not be a bad idea.
With regard to opposition from the Africans, I could quote a large number of cases of influential Africans in Southern Rhodesia who are prepared to help to make Federation a success. They have declared their intentions to that effect, and they have welcomed the scheme. I know that isolated people are against it, but there are plenty of Africans in Southern Rhodesia who want to, and who will, make Federation work. I have no doubt myself that, if we leave Central Africa to manage its own affairs, the Africans, black and white, will manage them just as well as, if not better than, we can from a distance of 6,000 miles.
It has been asked whether we in this country should have the right to put down Questions about the way in which the Central African Federation scheme is functioning. I sincerely hope that my hon. and learned Friend, when he replies to the debate, will say that we shall not have that right. I think that carping criticisms and innuendoes in Questions in this House do a great deal of harm to partnership between black and white in Africa. When our people go out to Africa, they do not change their colour,
934
and, consequently, they are still as democratic as we are, and it would be a very good thing if we realised that and left them to their own devices. Western civilisation has given Africans the chance of rising from blood-stained chaos, and has helped them along the road from squalor, disease, and cruelty. I hope, that from now on the carping criticisms which we have made in the past will cease.
I have every confidence in Sir Godfrey Huggins, Sir Roy Welensky and Sir Malcolm Barrow. They are liberal-minded and broad-minded men who realise that there is a great future in Africa for both black and white, but that there will be no future at all for them if they do not both pull together. I therefore hope that tonight the House will give the people of Central Africa the opportunity of carrying on and minding their own business, while we in this country mind ours.
5.36 p.m.
Mr. Wilfred Paling: I was glad to hear the Secretary of State for the Colonies recite the list of qualities that exist in Southern Rhodesia. I am very glad to hear it, because there are some on the other side about which I want to say a few words. I am glad to find that there are some virtues, because I am hoping that some of the difficulties and disabilities that exist there may be removed, so that there may be a better chance of Federation becoming a real success.
First, I should like to ask a question of the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. The Colonial Secretary made a statement the full import of which I did not gather, but it was to the effect that any question of amalgamation would be decided by numerical majority of the people. What people? Does that include the Africans?
Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, the inhabitants; it includes all.
Mr. Paling: I am very pleased to hear it, because I listened with a certain amount of pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman's speech today. I think that if he had been as careful about his approach to this question in the past as he has been today, he might have created a better atmosphere both in this House and among the Africans, too. However, I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having improved.

935
On the question of numerical majority, it appears that the right hon. Gentleman himself does believe in the majority deciding these things, because he said with some pride that amalgamation will not be decided without a numerical majority. Why could he not have decided the question of Federation on the same basis? Why not approach the Africans to see if we can get a majority? The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) has just said that there are Africans who are ready to take advantage of the opportunity, and who have indicated their willingness to help Federation, and they are Africans who know something about it.
Why not settle the dispute and avoid a lot of criticism? The right hon. Gentleman could do it if he could obtain a concensus of opinion in the two parties, and decide by a majority, in which the Colonial Secretary believes. I think it was a mistake that he did not do that, and I am sorry, because he might have avoided a lot of the trouble that has cropped up since.
I now turn to some of the things upon which I should like to comment. I think that if Southern Rhodesia, particularly—and this is the nigger in the woodpile—eliminated some of the disabilities which Africans suffer, it would make for the success of this scheme. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of trade unions, in which I was interested, but the reference to trade unions which I find in the White Paper says this:
"Save as provided in paragraph (2) of this article, the Federal Legislature shall not have power to make laws with respect to—

(a) trade unions or other like associations; or

(b) the settlement of disputes between employers and employees,"

They only have power in regard to trade unions in the case of Federal employees. Presumably, the question of trade unions will lie with the Territorial Governments, but this is one of the main causes of complaints against Southern Rhodesia. Let me read what is stated in the White Paper on the Central African Territories (Cmd. 8235), paragraphs 73 and 74:
"In both Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, African trade unions are legally recognised and some successful organisations exist. In Southern Rhodesia, no legal provision exists for the recognition of African trade unions. …
936
The Southern Rhodesia Government considers that African labour has not yet become sufficiently stabilised, and the African himself is not yet sufficiently advanced, to be capable of organising and managing trade unions successfully with a due sense of their proper purpose."
If that is so, then they seem to do it in Northern Rhodesia, and, to some extent in Nyasaland, and in a good many of the other African Territories also. If they can do it in those territories, some of which are no further advanced, particularly with regard to industrialism, than is Southern Rhodesia, why cannot they do it in that Territory? If the Southern Rhodesian Government want to prove that they desire to do everything possible for these people, why do they not remove these causes of friction and irritation among the people there?
This kind of excuse has always been used against trade unions. It was used in this country. But trade unions have grown up and had shown their usefulness, and today even Ministers on the Front Bench opposite have nothing but praise for them—at least on some occasions. I hope that the Southern Rhodesian Government will take heed of what has been said in this House this afternoon and will eliminate the causes for the unrest.
Then there is the question of the wages paid to African labour in Southern Rhodesia. If an industrial democracy is to be developed in Southern Rhodesia, there will be a dependence on Africans for the necessary labour. If the Government there want to give the African a sense of being well treated, they must not only provide him with work, but they must let him see that he is having a fair deal. I suggest that it is difficult to make any man believe that he is having a fair deal when he is drawing the kind of wage paid in Southern Rhodesia today.
The average wage paid to a native agricultural worker is 32s. 6d. a month, and I think I am right in saying that in some parts of Africa the working month used to be something like 30 working days. It is quite true that a food allowance is paid in addition, but, even with that, the wages remain miserably low. Hon. Members will remember that only a few weeks ago a huge increase in wages was given in Northern Rhodesia, where the workers have trade union representation and where the trade unions played a big part in getting that increase.

937
Is the reason why Southern Rhodesia do not want trade unions because they wish to continue to pay these miserably low wages?
Mr. Baldwin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair. Is he aware that wage rates in Southern Rhodesia are higher than in any of the three Territories and that there is a big migration of labour from Nyasaland into Southern Rhodesia?
Mr. Paling: I am aware of that, and, also, that there is no work of this kind for these people in Nyasaland. But Southern Rhodesia is relatively well advanced in this, and if she gave trade unions the right to negotiate wages she might eliminate some of the present trouble.
I now want to say a word or two about the land question. The Colonial Secretary went to some trouble to say that the land of the Africans was to remain inviolable. I am glad to hear that, but I doubt whether it is enough. In Southern Rhodesia there are some 130,000 white people in about 75,000 square miles, whereas there are millions of Africans living in about 50,000 square miles. The land of the Europeans there has been protected to a very large extent. Listen to this:
"As to the European area, the Act states (Section 26 as amended by Section 3 of Act No. 14 of 1945) that
'Subject to the exceptions provided in this Act—

(a) no native shall acquire, lease or occupy land in the European Area;

(b) no owner or occupier of land in the European Area, or his agent, shall—

(i) dispose or attempt to dispose of any such land to a native;

(ii) lease any such land to a native;

(iii) permit, suffer or allow any native to occupy any such land"."

That is protecting the Europeans all right. Is the same measure of protection to be given to the African? Is he, in particular, also to be allowed access to this land in Southern Rhodesia? That is one of the questions that need answering and one of the things to which the Southern Rhodesian Government can attend. If they want to create this multiracial community and to live in peace with the Africans, then I suggest that they should attempt to deal with some of these things now without waiting for Federation to be put into operation.
938
The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon talked about the university, which is something everybody welcomes, but, again, listen to this:
"Restrictions are imposed on Africans in Southern Rhodesia regarding the possession of liquor and they are not admitted to European hotels save by special arrangement. Separate accommodation in trains, buses and taxicabs is provided for them. They mix freely with Europeans in shops, but are not admitted to European cinemas. In the larger centres there are separate entrances and counters for Africans in post offices and banks. Africans are debarred from participating in State lotteries and from betting."
Looking after their morals, I suppose. These are the kind of things that operate in Southern Rhodesia, and if they and the other Territories want to make a success of Federation they should attend to them.
I was pleased to hear the guarantees read out by the Colonial Secretary this afternoon. Does the right hon. Gentleman remember—he probably does—a Tory Colonial Secretary stating that In any dispute between Africans and Europeans the interests of the Africans should be paramount. Have they been? Can anybody say that they have been or are paramount today?
Speaking in the debate on 6th May, the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said:
"What stronger guarantee could we have than was contained in the Order in Council setting up the new State of Southern Rhodesia and giving it self-government? It is a tremendously strong one, but it did not afford protection to the Africans. When we look at the Order in Council of 1923, Clause 28, we And that nothing shall become a law, but that it shall be reserved by the Governor
'whereby natives may be subjected or made liable to any conditions, disabilities or restrictions to which persons of European descent are not also subjected or made liable.' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 445.]
How does that read in face of the colour bar? What protection, up to now, have these guarantees been to these people?
Whenever this business of federation has been discussed, particularly in Southern Rhodesia, some people have shown by their speeches a cynical disregard for all these things. If they want to make a success of this, let them begin now and show some proof that they want to make Federation succeed.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. Julian Amery: The right hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wilfred Paling) has spoken with the sincerity and strength of feeling which we expect from him. If there was as much cause for indignation as his speech suggested, it is rather surprising that the Government of which he was a Member was the first to raise this question of Central African Federation. He touched on the differences of trade union policy between the two Northern Colonies and Southern Rhodesia, and there is some substance in what he said. Let me remind him, however, that although trade unions are not legally recognised in Southern Rhodesia, the trade union on the railways does receive de facto recognition. I think that both sides of the House, and no one outside the House more than Sir Godfrey Huggins, will have savoured his reference to Southern Rhodesia as "the nigger in the woodpile."
The Order in Council which we are asked to approve brings to an end discussions that have been going on for a generation. Although our debate has been calmer and more formal than previous debates, the decision that we are taking is of the utmost significance to the whole future of the African Continent and perhaps even of the Commonwealth. I do not want this evening to go into a detailed argument, but to consider for a moment what responsibilities we have assumed, and what are the next steps we have to take.
It is fair to say that in the years between the wars the three Central African Territories were a peaceful portion, I might almost say a passive backwater, of the Commonwealth and Empire. With the war, all that changed. The intensive development of the Copper Belt and the post-war migration of European settlers and European capital, revolutionised the social and economic conditions in the three Territories. At the same time, political developments in the South African Union and in West Africa projected their shadow over European and African alike in Central Africa.
These developments were producing a situation which would have crystallised sooner or later around some issue or other. They were brought to a head by
940
the action of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in raising the question of Central African Federation. Had he not moved in this matter the situation would perhaps have remained dormant a little longer, but not for much longer. The moment he moved, he set in train a process which neither he nor anybody else could have stopped.
The thing that struck me most when I went out in 1951 on the all-party Parliamentary delegation to Central Africa was that a point had been reached where a decision had to be taken one way or another. If the Governments of the United Kingdom and of Southern Rhodesia decided to go ahead with Central African Federation the project would go through, but if one of those two Governments decided against it, the project would be killed stone dead. The decision was not an easy one to take, as I think hon. Gentlemen opposite who fought this matter out at some length upstairs will agree.
There were a few of us on this side who thought from the beginning that Central African Federation was right, and a few hon. Members opposite who thought from the beginning that it was wrong; but most of the House approached this question in a mood of uncertainty and inquiry. It was very natural that they should. The economic and social considerations all pointed in favour of Federation, as the right hon. Member for Llanelly said a few moments ago. But the political considerations were more uncertain. Vocal African opinion and a substantial minority of European opinion were against Federation. The experts were divided. There was the great problem whether we, as democrats, should do what the majority of the people on the spot, the inhabitants, wanted, or whether, as trustees, we should do what we thought best for them.
In face of these perplexities and uncertainties it would have been awfully easy for the Government to have hesitated and to have tried to postpone a decision. To have done so would have been very popular politically, both with the Opposition and certain sections of opinion in the country; but it would have been thoroughly dishonest because it would have meant not the postponement of Federation but its abandonment.

941
It is sometimes rather invidious for back benchers to pour praise upon Ministers, particularly at a time when the Press is talking about a Ministerial reshuffle. Nevertheless I would congratulate the Government most heartily on having made up their minds on a very difficult matter, and having stuck to their decision once they made it and seen their decision through. All of us who have any experience of the Colonies will have heard provincial or district commissioners say at one time or another, "If only the Government had a policy." On this matter the Government have had a policy. They have known their own mind and have made their mind known. That is a great deal.
Central African Federation is, of course, only a beginning. We know the starting point of our journey and we think we know the direction in which we are moving; but whether we shall reach our destination of a great new British Dominion founded on a partnership of all the races no one can say. No one can say because the issue depends not on the contents of this Constitution but on how all the different parties concerned bear themselves in the years to come. We on this side of the House, and hon. Members opposite who have supported the idea of Federation, have put our trust in Sir Godfrey Huggins and Sir Roy Welensky. We believe that they are liberal-minded Englishmen who, had they lived in this country, might well have found their places in this House, on either side. I do not doubt that they will be worthy of our trust; but much will depend upon how far those who come after them will live up to the standards they have set and the principles on which their policies have been founded.
So far the signs have been encouraging. Reference has been made to the multiracial university and to the action of one of the mining companies in raising the whole question of breaking down the industrial colour bar. I would refer also to the decision of the same company to set up a chair of race relations at one of our great universities to stimulate inquiry into this difficult matter. Here I should like to make a suggestion of a different character.
One of the first decisions that the Federal Parliament will have to make will be to choose a Federal capital. It
942
does not seem a very great point, but there is an important symbolism about the location of a capital. I am told that the decision is likely to fall an Salisbury because it is the most developed and, from the European point of view, the healthiest situation. At the risk of being thought fanciful, I should like to press the claims of Livingstone. To call a country "Rhodesia" after Rhodes, and to call its capital "Livingstone" after David Livingstone and situate it by the noblest of African rivers and in sight of the greatest waterfall on earth—these are things which might well inspire the imagination of all the people in Central Africa and perhaps of the countries outside it. "Rhodesia, capital Livingstone, by the Victoria Falls," would not be a bad entry for the encyclopaedia.
A heavy responsibility will fall not only on the Europeans in the Rhodesias but on the African leaders. Whether Federation is, in the long run, to advance or retard African development has been a matter at issue between us, between both sides of the House. Whatever view we take on that matter, there can be no doubt that one of the first results of Federation will be to extend the sphere in which Africans will be politically active, in so far as it creates new posts for Africans to work in politically. I should like to pay my tribute to the very responsible attitude adopted by the African trade unions. I hope that their example will be followed in due course by the African political leaders. They have not followed it yet, but we must not blame them too much. We have to remember the encouragement they have received in their tendency to resist from at any rate some hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House.
Another body which has a great responsibility is the Church. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, in opening this debate, said very truly that nobody can legislate for every aspect of inter-racial relations. This is something that individuals have to decide for themselves and carry out by moral and personal discipline and self-control and here the Churches might be more active than perhaps they have been in the last.
The ultimate responsible for this undertaking rests upon us here, upon the Government and the Opposition. For the Government the setting up of the

943
Federation will present altogether new problems—problems of relations with a dependency which will be neither a Crown Colony in the old sense nor yet a Dominion in the accepted sense; a dependency which will need and will benefit from our influence and guidance, but which would bitterly resent our intrusion or our interference. Whatever views any of us may have taken on this controversy, I am sure that the new Governor-General will enter on his mission with the good wishes of all sides of the House.
May we hope, too, that the Opposition will accept the new situation and do their best to make it work? May we hope that they will show patience and restraint before passing judgment on the first steps of the new Federation? I should like to pay tribute, if it is not embarrassing to them, to those hon. Members opposite who have supported the idea of Federation. It has not been always an easy decision for them to take. It has been unpopular with their own side and, what is even worse from their point of view, popular with our side. But if one day the party opposite again assume office it will have the salutary effect of making it easier for them to start good relations with the new Central African dependency.
I regret the decision of the Opposition to vote against the Government tonight, but having voted, I hope that whatever their fears for the future, they will at least accept that those here and in Africa who have advocated and devised the Federal Scheme have been inspired by the faith that in Central Africa there should arise a new state, in which men of different races who have made the country their home, shall live and work together in a genuine partnership, founded upon Cecil Rhodes's conception of equal rights for all civilised men.
6.3 p.m.
Mr. Clement Davies: I do not intend to intervene for more than a few moments. The sole question before us today is whether the House, by affirmative vote, will propose an humble Address to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will be pleased, by Order in Council, to bring this scheme for the future Government of Central Africa into being.
944
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies has fulfilled completely the promise that he undertook to this House from the outset, namely, that he would lay the Federal Scheme before the House for its information and that the matter should be debated by the House. It was debated and then he brought in an enabling Bill which then had to be taken through all its stages. That Bill contained the provision that the scheme could only come into effect on an affirmative Resolution by this House, and that is all that is now before us.
From the outset, when I first heard of this scheme two years ago, I have protested against this form of Federation. I have voiced my protest in this House and outside on every possible occasion. There is no more that I can say about it. This is now the beginning of a new era for Central Africa, in which there will be involved the fate of six million people. All I wish to add is that I sincerely hope that all my forecasts will be wrong and that the forecasts made by the Government will be right.
I hope, also, that these people, beginning upon their new career, will succeed in what is expected of them. No words of mine will be used to prevent them from succeeding. All that I can do now is to record for the last time my protest, but I do not utter any word which will make the position more difficult.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. S. N. Evans: I am sure that the House will have listened to the last words of the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) with relief and satisfaction. The climate in which this new ship of State is to be launched is of immense importance. We have had our debates, they have been prolonged and very searching and I, too, am sorry that my party are going into the Division Lobby tonight. I have been a good soldier all my life, but tonight I shall be a defaulter because I feel very strongly that Central African Federation will provide conditions in which African advancement can be accelerated. In no other way can what we all wish to see, the speedier improvement in the lot of the Africans, be brought about.

945
Therefore, although I shall not go into the Division Lobby against my party I shall certainly not go into the Division Lobby with them. [An HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) need not worry about those of us on this side who do not take the party line on this occasion. We belong to the most democratic party in the world. Our views upon this subject have been known for some time, and although I would not go so far as to say that they are welcomed in some quarters I do not think they are severely frowned upon.
It is very important that we should all realise, especially our friends in Central Africa, that the clock cannot be put back. There has been talk here today about the new artisan class springing up in Central Africa. If Africa is to make progress inevitably there will come into being a new African middle-class, consisting of technicians, managers and administrators. These will provide a new African middle-class and they must be conceded freely and gladly that position in society to which their talents, their energies and their character entitle them. Let us make no mistake about that.
It would be a grievous error if any of our friends in Central Africa looked upon the passage of this imaginative project through this House as providing them with a hammock in which they can relax for the next two decades. Rather must it be a springboard, because we who have supported the Government on this matter feel just as strongly as any of my hon. Friends about the necessity of this partnership of which there has been so much talk. We all require to make an act of faith at this moment.
I think, with all respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wilfred Paling), that the Southern Rhodesians have taken time by the forelock. The no-colour-bar university is a tremendous stride forward. It will be one of the death blows to racial discrimination. I am sure that the question of the trade unions, which my hon. Friend raised with considerable feeling, he being a distinguished ornament of the trade union movement, will be taken care of in the not too distant future.
We must not forget that there are a certain number of Afrikanders in Southern Rhodesia whom Sir Godfrey Huggins was not able to ignore entirely if Federation
946
was to be accepted. Then there are the black Africans. I do not like talking about settlers and Europeans. We should talk about black Africans and white Africans. The black Africans must make an act of faith that the promises which have been made in this matter of partnership will be implemented. If I may say so to some of my colleagues, who have been very forthright in their criticisms, an act of faith is due also from them. This is a very bold project. A multi-racial society is the only hope of Central Africa.
Some of the speeches to which we have listened during the past 12 months have not been very helpful. Their inference has been that the black African has nothing to look forward to and no hope except through the direct intervention of United Kingdom influence. That is a bad thing. It casts a slur on our people, the people who, in Africa, found tribe exterminating tribe, the tyranny of witchcraft and the cruelty of slavery. In a comparatively short time our people have gained the confidence of the Africans by their fair dealing and their character, and they have created a measure of civilisation in Southern Rhodesia and have brought to these Territories a degree of prosperity hitherto unknown. These are the people about whom some very savage things have been said inside and outside this House.
I hope that whoever winds up the debate for the Opposition tonight will bless this scheme, as indeed the Labour Leader in another place did in very striking and statesmanlike language. I am surprised that his remarks have not been quoted in this debate. Speaking on 14th July the former Labour Lord Chancellor used the word "fervent." He said that there would be nobody more fervent in their good wishes for the success of this Measure than those on his side of the House. He said that great good could come out of the Bill. He hoped and expected that all men of good will would bless the Bill. He himself certainly blessed it. I thought that that was a very courageous and statesmanlike utterance, and I hope it will find its echo on the Labour Front Bench in this House tonight.
Whether black African suspicions of white Africans' intentions are justifiable

947
or not will soon be put to the test. I, personally, think that the white Africans will stand up to that test. I do not think there was ever a time when our white African brethren were more in a mood to move towards genuine partnership, and that is very important because there is no doubt that unless the barriers standing in the way of African social and economic advancement are removed the educated African will be a very ready prey to agitators.
I was very glad to learn of the cordiality with which these opening talks between the representatives of the mine owners and of the white African trade union in the Copper Belt had opened. I have thought, on occasions, that this trade union was a body like my friends at the N.F.U., and that they were in some danger of sacrificing real security for a security that would turn out to be illusory. I believe that the emergence of this African middle-class of which I have spoken is inevitable, and I think that all in Central Africa, including Mr. Dendy Young and our friends in the white trade union, would be wise to face this fact now.
I am glad that the Government have gone on with this scheme. I am glad not only because I think it will bring about speedier African advancement, but because I think it reveals signs in this country of a renewed grasp of the simple essentials of power. I believe that it marks a turning point in what, for me at any rate, has not been a very happy period. No nation can be great without the capacity for greatness. I believe that in partnership with the Africans—using the word in its full sense, and speaking as one who will feel himself betrayed unless steps are taken in the direction of a real partnership—we can, as was said by the hon. Member for Preston, North, create in Central Africa a multi-racial society which is an example to the world.
618 p.m.
Mr. Niall Macpherson: This is certainly not an occasion for anything of the order of a party speech. Indeed I think this debate has been noteworthy in the main for the absence of party contention. I suggest also that neither is it an occasion on which we should be reading lectures to those on
948
whom we are about to ask Her Majesty to confer this new Constitution. The way in which we give our blessing to this Constitution today is of tremendous importance.
I very much regret that the Opposition consider it necessary to vote against this Motion tonight. After all, Parliament has already passed into law the Act under which this Order in Council has been made. The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said that the Order in Council carries out the scheme that has been prepared. He also asked several questions, but he left the House in no doubt that he agrees that is what this Order in Council is doing. If so, why vote against it?
The former Solicitor-General thought that closer integration between the various parts of the Commonwealth was something which we ought to have in mind in dealing with this matter of Central African Federation, but that closer integration must surely continue to be, as it has been in the past, a matter of consultation, of common feeling, and of overdeveloping common interest between the different parts of the Commonwealth.
I rather regretted the attitude of the right hon. Member for Llanelly. He seemed to be saying, "There are from seven to nine years in which this Constitution has time to prove itself. We are going to watch how the settlers behave during that period, and then we shall have another look at it." The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) said that all the time there is this threat of British veto. He laid emphasis on the question of the veto, and on the fact that the Territorial police, who are to enforce the Federal law, are to remain ultimately under the control of this House.
Surely that is not the right way to send forth from this House this Constitution? What we are doing here is to put into the hands of the people out there the responsibility for their future. Certainly the Secretary of State will be available to guide and to advise but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) said, the more we try to force them along certain lines of action the less likely we shall be to get the kind of response that is desired here and throughout the Commonwealth.

949
The fate of this Central African Federation will lie fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of the people out there. There will be many difficulties to face. There is the great initial difficulty of bringing into line the voting systems of the three Territories. At the moment, one of the Territories has a common electoral roll and the other Territories have something more like communal electorates.
I want to express one slight misgiving in connection with that part of the Constitution which leaves to the Governors of the Territories of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia the task of designating one body for the election of the special African representatives. That seems to come too close to a system of communal representation which will be diametrically opposed to what—judging by today's debate—both sides of this House are aiming at, namely, a common electoral roll. I welcome the fact that a conference is to take place in September with regard to the electoral system of Northern Rhodesia, and hope it will bring nearer this aim.
In parting with this Order in Council, which is the culmination of so many—some may even think too many—of our debates, I want to add my fervent prayer that this Constitution will prove to be the beginning of a great experiment which will lead Africa towards greater prosperity and greater spiritual and moral welfare.
6.25 p.m.
Sir Frank Sosfcice: I venture to intervene at this stage for, amongst other reasons, the reason that we have on the Order Paper other matters, relating to the British Transport Commission (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, which I know many of my hon. Friends—and, I feel sure, many hon. Members opposite—are anxious to discuss. It therefore seemed to me that it might be convenient, if the House are nearly ready to come to a decision on this matter, to indicate the advice which, speaking from this place, I would venture to tender to my hon. Friends and to the House.
We have now arrived at the concluding stage of a series of, perhaps, the most momentous debates, in their import upon the future of millions of people, that we
950
have had for many years. This scheme for Central African Federation, if put into operation, marks an enormous change in the destinies of untold numbers of people. As has been said on many occasions in this debate, its failure could spell immeasurable disaster; its success would bring great good.
We on this side—and when I say "we," I speak subject to some exceptions—have sought to indicate, with deep sincerity, the forebodings which have haunted us for a long time as we have considered the form of this scheme. We now say, with equal sincerity, that we profoundly hope that those forebodings will turn out to be wholly unfounded. Nobody would be more delighted than my right hon. and hon. Friends who have voiced these forebodings if it should turn out, in the result, that they were without foundation; but we still entertain them.
Nothing has transpired during recent months and weeks which gives us reason to think that the view we have formed is the wrong view. There is still opposition to this scheme. Nothing has yet been done on a large scale to conciliate the fears which Africans undoubtedly entertain with regard to this scheme. The position remains substantially unchanged in that respect. We are greatly heartened at the project for the university which is to embrace all races. We are equally heartened by conversations which may seek to point the way towards some real implementation of the idea of partnership. Without exception, wherever we may sit in the House, we are all agreed that without real partnership this scheme is bound to fail. Therefore, anything which can lead, in however small a degree, to the idea of partnership is welcomed by us as much as it is by hon. Members opposite.
That is all speaking of the future, however, when this Order in Council has been approved by Her Majesty the Queen after we have resolved that it shall be presented to her. Events then must lie in the hands of those on the spot and those here who will shoulder responsibility for the future progress of this scheme.
What we have before us tonight is the question whether we should vote for the approval of the Order in Council. It is

951
on that point that I respectfully desire to tender my advice, which is the same as that which has already been tendered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). When the law is finally formulated, it will be our duty, as good democrats, to abide by that law and do our best to make it prevail. As long as the Order in Council has not been approved, the law has not been finally formulated, because the Order in Council is part of that law.
Throughout the debates we have voiced our objections to the scheme, and the Order in Council is simply that very same scheme. It is almost exactly as it was presaged in the scheme in the earlier White Papers put before the House. Nothing has been changed; it is simply that scheme; and as we disliked that scheme, so equally we dislike the Order in Council. We have very carefully compared it with what was foreboded in the scheme. All the provisions concerning the Africans Affairs Board which we criticised, we hope searchingly, find their place in the Order in Council. All is exactly as the Government indicated it would be. There are minor changes—changes of wording here and there which may be discovered on a nice comparison between the two—but the scheme is simply reproduced in the Order in Council, and as we opposed the scheme, so we must now oppose the Order in Council.
We sought to remove the objectionable. features in the Committee stage of the enabling Bill, but none of them has been removed. That was the occasion for us to put forward our individual objections to the scheme, and we did so. We were met on each occasion, as my right hon. Friend has said, by the answer that the scheme had already been negotiated and that nothing could be done. Nothing was done, and the enabling Bill found its place on the Statute Book. Now, the child of the enabling Act is the draft Order in Council. Consistently with the attitude which they have hitherto adopted, I recommend to my hon. Friends that they must now oppose the Order in Council as they have opposed the scheme. The Order in Council is simply the scheme put in formal language. It is in no way improved.
May I add my word of welcome and congratulation to those offered to the hon.
952
Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). Glad as we were to hear his very valuable and sincere contribution, I would answer him, when he suggests that we would do well no longer to oppose the Order in Council, that this is the final stage in our debates and, just as we made clear our attitude towards the Government's proposals in previous debates, we must, consistently with that attitude, up to the eleventh hour and the last minute, and in conformity with the duty which we have felt upon us, register in the Division Lobby our disapproval and dislike of the scheme. I hope my hon. Friends will agree with me in doing that when the Question is put.
This is a moment of the utmost significance for vast numbers of people. We on this side of the House have done our best to make known what we regard as the real dangers inherent in the Government's proposal. We can do no more but go into the Division Lobby and, by our votes, for the last time record our protest.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: It has been a splendid thing that so many debates have taken place on this subject, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends have carried their opposition through these debates. Have the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues on the Front Bench considered the reaction to this vote in the Territories—the fact that the Socialist Party, who have shown so much sympathy towards the coloured races, now vote against this Order in Council? It will divide opinion and discourage the men out there who carry the burden. I still think that at the last moment the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends should think this over.
Sir F. Soskice: That is a very lengthy question. Of course we have considered most earnestly whether to vote for or against the scheme and, for the reasons I sought to indicate, after that long and earnest consideration we think it is our bounden duty to vote against it.
6.35 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): I want to start by adding my congratulations to those from all quarters of the House to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) on

953
his first speech in the House. He made a very valuable contribution and we look forward to hearing him frequently make equally valuable contributions in subsequent debates.
May I, at the outset, take up the question with which the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) ended his speech, namely, the attitude of the party opposite in deciding to divide the House against this proposed Order in Council? He justified that decision on the ground that it is necessary to register one more protest. I should have thought that the expression of his good will to the law, if it is passed, would have been more suitably given in not dividing and that it would have given a better send off to the law of Federation if, on this occasion, he had decided not to express yet one more protest. Everyone is quite well aware of his misgiving. I make that plea especially to the Leader of the Liberal Party. He has protested again and again. Surely his good wishes to this venture will be more suitably expressed by his voting in favour of the Order in Council.
I want to deal with three or four particular points which were addressed to me from the benches opposite. The first is the question on which I tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to intervene earlier when it was necessary to look at two parallel texts—namely, the omission of the words
"for the duration of a Parliament"
after the words in relation to the specially elected European member. The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said that by omitting those words it looked as if the European member would not be appointed for the duration of the Parliament. We are entirely at one in what we seek to do and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied by the explanation.
Article 15 of the Order in Council, to which I drew his attention, gives a list of the cases in which the specially elected European member vacates his seat. One of these is when the Parliament comes to an end. If one of the reasons for vacating his seat was the cessation of the term of his appointment, it would has been stated there. The fact that it is excluded shows that the object of the scheme has been achieved in exactly the same way and, incidentally, in exactly the
954
same language as is used in Clause 28 (4) of the scheme. I drew attention to the fact that that passage goes on to say:
"that is to say, he will … vacate his seat upon a dissolution of the Federal Assembly."
I think that if the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend is seized of the point he will probably agree that it is exactly the same.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly also raised the question of a suspended sentence and asked why there had been introduced in the disqualifications in the Order in Council, and not in the scheme, the words "a suspended sentence of imprisonment." The reason is that there would have been a contradiction between the qualifications for being elected and the reasons for vacating. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the scheme he will see that it is provided that a specially elected European member shall cease to be a member if he suffers any sentence of imprisonment. That would cover a suspended sentence.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Would the term "a suspended sentence" include suspension without trial? Suppose a man were detained under emergency regulations without being sentenced. I take it that it is clear from the wording of the Article that such detention would not be included in the words used.
Mr. Foster: I think not. There must be a conviction, and then the sentence is suspended. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find it is necessary to bring the two qualifications or disqualifications into line.
I was asked either by the right hon. Gentleman or by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) about the provision which said that the Federal Legislature could legislate for the different parts of the Territory, and he assumed we had special legislation in mind when this provision was put in. I can assure him that that is not so. It was put in, perhaps, out of a lawyer's caution, but I should have thought that that kind of provision might have been necessary, to apply different laws to different parts.
For instance, in the United Kingdom we may have to legislate differently for the East Coast when it suffers flood damage. Unless we have that provision

955
in it might be objected that laws were not of universal application. I do not think it is an important point at all. I am not saying that it should not have been raised, but I do not think that this particular section is of any other than technical importance. I think that in providing the legislative powers of the Federal Legislature it is right to say laws can be different in different parts of the country.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East drew attention again to his point about the police, and he raised the argument again that it was wrong to provide that the police who, as he put it, were under the ultimate control of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom should be called upon to enforce laws which were Federal. He based his argument on this contention that the laws which the Federal Government might pass might not be popular in the Territories, might be contrary to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and that, therefore, we should have the Territorial police, under, as he said, the ultimate control of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, enforcing those laws.
I think that his criticism is misdirected. I should have thought that what has emerged at successive conferences is that one of the cardinal safeguards for the Africans and for the Territories and for the status of the Protectorate is that law and order is a territorial subject and that the police should be territorial, and that though the Federation might have the right to establish a police force at the request of the Territories the Federal police should not go into the Territories except at the request of the Territorial Governments; that would be the alternative to his proposal. The alternative to his proposal would be that the Federal police would have to go into the Territories, already be in existence in the Territories, be imposed on the Territories, for the enforcement of Federal laws to which the Territories objected.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that I am not arguing for the establishment of the Federation police as against the Territorial police. I am merely pointing out the anomalous position that results, and
956
on this occasion as on the previous occasion I was pointing out that this raises the need for the Government of the United Kingdom and this House to have a really effective veto over the Federal Legislature legislation. That is the point I wish to make. I do hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will come to the point as to how effective the veto will be, and of what control this House will have over its operation.
Mr. Foster: With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he has slid off the point which I wanted to make. [Laughter.] Yes, it is the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He is objecting to Territorial police. Unless his objection is to Federation as a whole there must be some police. The police must enforce the Federal law. If he does not want Territorial police, I will leave it to the House to judge what police he does want. It must be Federal police. Therefore, I suggest to the House that that is the point he has to face, and does not face even in his intervention. He said he was not proposing to have Federal police. Evidently he is not proposing to have police at all. Probably, that would make the Federation not work.
He did not put it on this ground, either: he did not say, "I am in favour of a Territorial police, but in the execution of their duties by the Territorial police we have to be very careful to see the Federal laws agree with the temper and wishes of the inhabitants of the Territories." I could have understood a point put like that, but on the previous occasion and on this occasion he came all out against Territorial police having the enforcement of Federal law. I face him squarely on that, and I say that it is intended that the Territories should have responsibility for law and order, and to that, under the system, any alternative is impossible.
Further to the subject of the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention, the Constitution provides two cases in which what he calls the veto of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall be entitled to operate. I would differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the emphasis being on the Government in the United Kingdom keeping a tight rein on what the Federation does and does not do. We are anticipating and hoping that the working of the

957
Federal Constitution will be such that these clashes will not occur. As to a difference of opinion that may arise about some particular piece of legislation, it has been found from the experience of Southern Rhodesia that negotiations between the parties concerned avoid the clash, and I think it would be regrettable if from this debate the idea went out that the Government are anticipating that there will be serious divisions of opinion about legislation, and that the reserve powers of the Secretary of State will often be called into operation.
In this connection, both the hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman asked about the responsibility of Ministers in answering Questions. It is not a matter on which I can give any authoritative answer or one on which I can bind the House or Mr. Speaker. I can only hazard what I think would be the position. The question of whether any particular Question can or cannot be answered is, naturally, for Mr. Speaker, probably seeking advice from the proper quarter; but I should have thought that the position is fairly clear and depends on well-established principles, and that in so far as Questions are about the responsibility of the Government with regard to the two Northern Territories and the Protectorates, those Questions would be answered by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, because they would be within the sphere of his responsibility.
With regard to Federation Questions sought to be put on those matters, I should think that they would be adjudged as being for the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if they affect his responsibility, and could be put; where he has not got responsibility, not got control, the Questions would not be allowed to be put. I think that in one's experience of Questions about Southern Rhodesia that principle works very well. Naturally, there are always borderline cases which may cause particular difficulty, but the broad lines of the position are clear.
Where a Question is addressed to the Secretary of State, we will say for Commonwealth Relations, about his responsibility, or about the Governor-General or the Governor-General's responsibility to him, I should think, without expressing anything more than a personal opinion in
958
order to try to help, because I have been asked this question, in that case, as his responsibility would be involved, it is likely that Mr. Speaker would apply the principle and allow the Question.
Mr. R. W. Sorensen: Does that not mean that the position will remain as it is now in respect of Questions asked about Southern Rhodesia?
Mr. Foster: Broadly speaking, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether this veto is to be an effective veto or is to be treated as something nominal which, as a matter of constitutional custom or convention, will not, in fact, be exercised? That is what we are concerned about. We all hope that there will not be clashes. But will this veto be treated as an effective veto or merely as a nominal veto which, as a matter of constitutional convention, will not be exercised, and will it be possible to ask Questions in this House about the exercise of this veto?
Mr. Foster: The antithesis on the question about an effective or non-effective veto, I do not accept. The duty of Her Majesty's Government is to live up to their responsibility. If, for instance, legislation has been reported by the African Affairs Board to the Secretary of State, his duty is to examine the reasons given by the African Affairs Board, to consider all the circumstances, and to do his duty. I do not admit that any Government, either Socialist or Conservative, would do otherwise than do its duty according to the Constitution and according to the provisions which had been laid down.
I was also asked questions about the constitutional development in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. The right hon. Member for Llanelly, in a very interesting observation about the future of the Continent, asked about the political advancement in these two Territories and whether anything was likely to be done, or what steps had been taken. I would remind him—he knows this quite well, but for the information of other hon. Members of the House—that in Nyasaland already extra representation of the Africans has already been provided, as a result, I think, of a state-

959
ment which was made in May or June. Provision was made for the appointment of one more African to the Nyasaland Legislative Council.
The situation in Northern Rhodesia is that the principle of extra African representation in the Legislative Council has been accepted. The talks will be resumed in September in the light of that principle and on that basis. So I think that the right hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is fully aware of the need for the gradual political advancement of the Africans in these two Territories, consistent, of course, with all the circumstances which justify that advancement.
I was also asked what negotiation had taken place since the enabling Bill and before the final draft of the Order in Council. The reason for those questions was, of course, the argument from the benches opposite that, if they had put forward sensible Amendments why could not those sensible Amendments be incorporated in the Order in Council by negotiations with the Government? I think that I am putting the argument fairly. I would, first, deny the premise of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not say that the Amendments may not be sensible taken in the abstract—that is a matter for discussion. But what I do say is that in none of the cases in which Amendments were so forcibly argued by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite on the occasion of the Committee stage of the enabling Bill was I personally satisfied, nor, I believe, were my right hon. and and hon. Friends, that those Amendments were an improvement to the enabling Bill.
In many cases they ran directly contrary to the whole framework of the scheme in which it was designed to have an enabling Bill, as has been done in other constitutional provisions, to allow Her Majesty's Goverment to bring out a constitution in the form of an Order in Council. Since the enabling Bill was passed, there have undoubtedly been negotiations in the sense that there have been meetings of officials to deal with the wording of the Order in Council. As the right hon. and learned Member for Neep-send said, the scheme is translated into legal language in the Order in Council.
960
There have been no changes of substance, because I am quite sure if there had been right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite would have been the first to draw the attention of the House to any change in substance.
Two questions put to me by the right hon. Member for Llanelly and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, show, as the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend said, purely changes of wording, and it was on those changes of wording and some others to which hon. Members opposite have not drawn attention, but all equally ones of legal phraseology, that meetings of the officials took place to get agreement as to the slight technical changes.
That is the position tonight. We stand ready to go into the Division Lobby, unfortunately, at the wish and request of the party opposite on the matter of this Order in Council. Hon. Members opposite have, on the whole, made temperate speeches. They have wished the Federation well. I only regret that the right hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wilfred Paling) saw fit to launch an indiscriminate attack which was an indictment of his own party when they were in power, because he made wild accusations about the Africans having been betrayed. They were wild accusations against his own Ministers when he was supporting them. It must be regretted that that kind of speech should go out to the world when we are trying this great experiment. We can only hope that the world will give it the amount of attention and the amount of weight which it deserves.
We come, at various moments of history, to a great constitutional departure in Commonwealth matters. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) alluded to the abolition of the slave traffic. This is a landmark in the administration of the Commonwealth. It is satisfactory to see that, as the Leader of the Socialist party in the House of Lords said, it does go forth with the approval of the party opposite in the sense of their approval to make it a working success. I would remind the House that the Leader of the Socialist party in the House of Lords said that it was to be worked by men of distinction for whom he had expressed great admiration, and he welcomed the appointment of the Governor-General.

961
In these circumstances, while regretting the decision of the Socialist Party to divide the House, I will ask them to note the size of the majority, to show that they have been mistaken perhaps as to the unanimity of hon. Members both on the Front Bench and behind them to support them in Federation, because, in my submission,
there are many who do not. I therefore commend the Order in Council to the House, and I urge the House to pass it with a substantial majority.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 242.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Constitution) Order in Council, 1953, be made in the terms of the Draft laid before this House on 14th July.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

TRANSPORT COMMISSION EMPLOYEES (COMPENSATION)
7.11 p.m.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move,
That the Draft British Transport Commission (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
It would be convenient for the House if I gave an outline of these Regulations and made one or two observations which I have undertaken to the trade unions and others that I would make. Owing to the absence of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, it will also fall to me. by leave of the House, to reply to the points that may arise during the debate, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen will accept me on these two occasions.
In the debates on the Transport Bill, I said that we would do our best to have these Regulations submitted to Parliament before the process of dispersal started, and I said that in framing these Regulations I, as well as my Department, would consult the trade unions and other interested bodies to get a wide measure of agreement. I hope I shall be forgiven
966
if I remind the House that we are asking for a decision on these Regulations less than three months after the Transport Bill became an Act of Parliament, while in 1947, under the Socialist Government, the compensation Regulations for railways, canals and the London Passenger Transport Board did not appear until 11 months after the Act, and nearly three years afterwards for the road haulage employees.
I fully realise that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) was breaking new ground, and we have had the benefit of the work that was then done, but none the less I think those who have worked so hard in my Department and elsewhere to get these Regulations before the House quickly deserve the thanks of all of us.
I have consulted, as I said I would, the Trades Union Congress, the 12 unions and staff associations and, of course, the Commission itself. As those hon. Members who are interested in this highly important matter know, there have been a wide variety of compensation provisions since 1945 and 1948 under the various nationalisation Acts, and there has emerged a common pattern in most of those Regulations. I have very largely followed the common pattern in the case of the railways, improving it in at least three particulars. The Regulations are broadly based on the common pattern set by the Labour Government's Regulations, and indeed are expressed in exactly the same language.

967
The House may realise that the main features of these common patterns have been that there shall be an eight-year qualifying period in the industry, and the cause of claim shall arise within 10 years from the date of the statutory change; that the claim must be made within two years of the cause arising; that interim payments can be made while the claim is being assessed; that each payment can be up to two-thirds of the earnings less deductions in respect of other earnings and unemployment benefit; and that this interim payment is payable up to 13 weeks from the date of the claim, by which time the claim for compensation must be decided.
In connection with this, regard has to be had to the efforts to obtain alternative work, and in judging what is reasonable alternative work the relative security of one job and another is considered, and the extent by which the individual claimant has, in fact, sought alternative work. The long-term compensation up to 65 in the case of men and 60 in the case of women is an annual payment not to exceed one-sixtieth of the loss of pay for each year of service, plus one-sixtieth for each year of service after the age of 45 with a maximum of two-thirds, thus deliberately weighting the amount in favour of the older man or woman. The award, as the House has known in the past, can be reviewed within a period of two years, and after that it is final. There is provision now, as there has always been, for appeal to an independent tribunal.
All these features and others in previous Regulations relating to railwaymen we have preserved, and they are virtually the same as in 1948 and, as I have said already, are often in the same language. We have, however, improved in at least three particulars the position of any railway claimant who might be displaced or whose position might be worsened through the compulsory reorganisation imposed on the railways by the recent Statute.
In the first place, an aggrieved claimant could under our new Regulations go to the appeals tribunal direct and not through his employer, the British Transport Commission. Secondly, in computing the interim payment only two-thirds
968
of the earnings are to be set off instead of the whole of the man's earnings. This brings the interim payment for railway-men into line with what we are proposing for the road haulage workers. The object of this is to avoid penalising a conscientious man who may deliberately take a job at once at a lower rate of salary or wages while he is waiting for a better one. In allowing this principle for displaced road haulage workers, it seemed only fair to apply it also to railwaymen.
Thirdly, while the 1948 Regulations provide for the setting off of two-thirds of the actual unemployment benefit, in this case the full single man's benefit is to be set off, and this is done deliberately to avoid penalising a man with dependants. I think we can claim in the case of railwaymen that we have improved on the Regulations submitted to the House under the late Administration.
But the common pattern in the earlier Regulations in 1948 was not applied by the late Government to road haulage workers in general in the same way as it was to railwaymen. There were quite understandable reasons for this. There was no previous history of statutory compensation in the road haulage industry as there was in the case of the railways. The late Government proposed in the case of road haulage workers long-term compensation up to the age of 65 based on the years of service, but there was the considerable restriction that it was given only to those who could show that in their previous employment they had an expectation of compensation to retiring age in the event of discharge. That, as hon. Members know, was an exceedingly difficult thing to do. In fact only six people succeeded in taking advantage of that provision for long-term compensation, all the rest were limited to the short-term compensation, 13 to 26 weeks according to age and length of service; and to get that, a man had in most cases to have had substantially more than eight years' service.
When I became Minister I was conscious of the hardship caused to a number of individuals by this strict regulation. Some of them were those who had been their own employers before they had passed into the service of the Commission, others had not, but both groups had alike to prove that they had an expectation of compensation. Hon. Members who

969
listened to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) on 25th July, 1952, in regard to the case of a certain man in the road haulage industry, Mr. Hurst, will know of some of the hardship that was caused.
Mr. James Callaghan: No.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Very definitely caused to people who could not prove——
Mr. Callaghan Mr. Callaghan indicated dissent.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Let the hon. Gentleman wait until I have finished before he says anything.
Mr. Callaghan: I am saying it now.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Shall I sit down? I do not know whether the Front Opposition Bench are really anxious to see that these Regulations are framed in a manner fair to all concerned, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will wait for any elucidation that may be necessary until I have finished what I have to say.
Mr. Callaghan: The only point I am concerned with is that in developing the case of hardship, the Minister should also indicate that Mr. Hurst, or his firm, of which he was the major proprietor, was paid compensation amounting to over £200,000.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That was not compensation to the individual, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that matter was discussed at great length in the House and it is by no means as simple as the hon. Gentleman has suggested by that interruption. As I have said, we were not satisfied that this was fair, or that it was reasonable to expect people to have to prove an expectation of compensation in an industry where we all know that expectation existed only in a very few cases. My right hon. Friend the present President of the Board of Trade, in the debate on 28th June, 1950, made it plain that the Conservative Opposition, as it then was, did not regard that provision as fair.
So I thought that when we were drawing up these new Regulations, and taking account of the changed circumstances, it was right and proper to have provisions that were both wider in scope and less restrictive than had been the previous provisions. We have come to
970
the following conclusions in regard to road haulage workers. The first necessity for road haulage workers who may be displaced is to give them short-term assistance on a wider basis to tide over the interim period. It is our conviction that the majority of them will be absorbed in new employment and that the disturbance will be very small, but for those for whom there is an interim period there should be some short-term assistance with fewer restrictions and on a wider basis.
The terms of the proposed short-term assistance are set out on page 13 of the Regulations in the Explanatory Note. They follow, broadly, the short-term compensation provisions of 1950 but there are important improvements. The first improvement is that the resettlement payment is not confined to those with eight years' service. It will be possible to get it for employees with even less than two years' service if, for example, disposal should be started before the end of this year and they have been less than two years in the service of the Commission.
Another improvement is that the maximum duration of the payment now depends solely on age and not on the length of service. For example, a man of 45 can get the resettlement payment for 13 weeks, a man of 58 can get it for 26 weeks. That is based on our conviction that it is harder for an older man to get resettled.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) urged me in the House in May this year, and some of the trade unions have done the same, to widen the basis of compensation so that anybody who was working for the Commission should be entitled to it. They argued that, at any rate until the Government White Paper came out, men might have been in some uncertainty as to the intentions of the Government, and they urged that we should take the date of 1st May, 1952, as the operative date.
We made it perfectly clear in the House as long ago as November, 1951, what were the intentions of the Government. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the debate on the Address used these words:
"Whatever else hon. Members opposite may have doubt about, they cannot have any doubt about our intentions in this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 720.]

971
And then he proceeded to say what our intentions were. It seems to me, therefore, to be perfectly fair to say that no one entering the service of the Road Haulage Executive after that could do so with any conviction that he was entering secure employment. It would have been possible to make the date of entry 12th November, 1951, when that Government statement was made, but, as the last of the compulsory acquisitions did not take place until December, 1951, we are now providing that for resettlement payment a man must have been continuously employed since 31st December, 1951, and that is not unreasonable under all the circumstances.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: What exactly does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "continuously employed"?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In continuous employment with the same employer, that is, the Commission, since 31st December, 1951.
Mr. Sparks: The Minister means, presumably, that the man works the full period of time that a normal permanent employee would work, that is, a normal 44-hour week?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is no confusion on this point with the unions concerned. Everyone on the permanent staff—and it was clearly understood by the unions in my talks with them what that means—displaced from the Road Haulage Executive by the Act who has served since 31st December, 1951, is eligible, but for those not on the permanent staff a period of three years' service at the date of discharge is required as evidence that they are not transient employees but genuinely working for a continuous period with the Commission.
So much, for the moment, for the resettlement payments for road haulage workers. We have altered the provisions as to long-term compensation, for road haulage workers in the following particular. Remembering the hardship caused to people who could not prove that they had an expectation of compensation with their previous employer, in these Regulations I have abandoned the 1950 requirement that there must be such an expectation of compensation in their pre-nationalisation employment.
972
I felt it vital to do this, otherwise the Regulations, although they might look well, would be as ineffective in this way as the requirement of our predecessors in the same particular, but I could not at the same time retain the provision in the earlier Regulations in 1950 which allowed any service with any A or B licence work to count towards the eight years' qualifying period. Had I done that, men displaced by the Transport Act would have long-term compensation up to the age of 65, even if they had neither a right nor an expectation of any compensation in their previous employment and had never become settled in any employment, not even with the Commission. I do not believe that anybody facing the issue frankly would have thought that such a wide departure from the principles of compensation would be fair or proper.
To sum up in that field, to be eligible for long-term compensation, a man must at the date of loss of work have had eight years' continuous service, including service with his last employer before transfer to the British Transport Commission; but he need not have had an expectation of compensation with his previous employer. This will bring in a lot of people, and we regard it as a considerable advance on the provisions in the previous Act, whereby virtually no one was able to claim long-term compensation because an expectation of such compensation could not be proved.
Mr. James Harrison: On page 6 of the Regulations there is a definition of "whole-time service." Would the right hon. Gentleman interchange the words "whole-time" for "continuous"? Whole-time service need not necessarily be continuous.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I speak subject to correction by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, but "whole-time service" means, I think, service of not less than 30 hours paid employment a week, during which period a man is not entitled to take any paid service with anybody else. That is quite different from "continuous service," which means that a man is continually employed by the same person.
Mr. Harrison: I was thinking of such things as military service, which is covered in page 3 of the Regulations but

973
which might not be covered by the word "continuous."
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have expressly provided that military service—compulsory National Service—shall count as continuing employment. If there is any further doubt, I shall clear it up later, but I am myself in no doubt that it ranks equally with employment with the Commission or with the previous employment.
Mr. Herbert Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman has referred three times to the 1950 Regulations. Does he mean that year or 1948? I had forgotten about the Regulations of 1950 and what they were.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think it unfriendly if I say that he has, perhaps, conveniently forgotten. There were other Regulations in, I think, 1948 dealing with railway and canal workers and the London Passenger Transport Board, but it was not until 1950, I think, that we had the Labour Government's Regulations relating to road haulage workers. That is one of the mild charges that I made in justifying my claim that the present Government had been more prompt about it. The 1950 Statutory Instrument No. 1083 contained the Regulations which were brought in by the previous Administration three years after the disturbance.
There are three other points that I should like briefly to make. I have undertaken to certain interested bodies that I would make these observations. First, as the House knows, and as certainly the hon. Member for Swansea, West is aware, I am under a statutory obligation by Section 27 of the Transport Act—I have been dealing with Section 28 up to now—to bring in provisions in regard to pensions. There is one aspect of the pensions Regulations which has a bearing on compensation.
As the House may know, we are proposing to provide that a pensionable employee over the age of 40 shall be compensated for any loss he may suffer of opportunity to earn further pension by further service—by discharge from the Commission's service, for example—by supplementing the pension preserved for him under the separate Regulations that I propose to make under Section 27. If
974
a man is unable to continue longer and thereby eventually earn a greater pension, we are providing in the Regulations under Section 28 that for that particular loss of long-term pension he also can rank for compensation.
These Regulations relating to pensions are well advanced. I have sent them to the trade unions for their comments. They do not require an affirmative Resolution; they are subject to the negative procedure. It should be possible, if all goes well and we get a wide measure of understanding in the matter, for me to bring in these pension Regulations during the Recess. If anybody wants to debate them, the negative procedure can apply as soon as the House reassembles.
Mr. Sparks: The right hon. Gentleman, I understand, is explaining that if the pension rights of a displaced worker are better than any pension rights that he may acquire in a new employment, the difference will be made good to him by way of compensation. Will that be a permanent payment of compensation until such time as the displaced worker ceases to draw pension because of death, or will it be limited in period of time?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: What I was saying was not quite that. I was saying that if a man, by discharge from the Commission's service, is prevented, as he might well be, from qualifying later for a larger pension which he had an expectation of getting, for that loss of eventual pension—for the difference between what he gets and what he could have got—he will be entitled to rank for compensation.
Mr. Percy Morris: May I put a hypothetical case? Assume that a man has had 35 years' service, with every prospect of 40 years' service, but as a result of the Act has had to finish after 35 years' service; do I understand that, because of the prospective loss, the Government now say that they will give that man compensation for the additional five years?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On an immensely complicated matter of this kind it is always difficult to answer a hypothetical question, but I shall do my best to answer it in more detail when I wind up the debate. I can, however, say this. Subject always to the maximum amounts which are laid down for this annual payment up to the age of 65 for men or 60

975
for women, a loss of pension rights can be made good by a supplementary pension, as provided for in the Regulations that I shall make under Section 27. I should be a little loth without further thought to answer specifically on that point, although I hope I may be able to do so later.
Mr. Ernest Popplewell: The Minister made an important statement when dealing with the pensions Regulations that are to be made under Section 27. He said that his proposals had been sent to the trade unions and that he hoped to lay the Regulations during the Recess. How soon does he hope to lay them, and how soon are they likely to become operative? How long is it since the Minister sent his proposals back again to the trade unions?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not suggesting that the trade unions have had them for more than a few days.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Not at all. I am certainly not going to wear a white sheet about our speed either in the field of compensation or of pensions. We have dealt first with compensation. That has occupied the attention of those officers in my Department who are now applying themselves to pensions. I am only anxious to make it plain that I do not propose to wait until the House reassembles in October before I introduce the pension Regulations. If they are ready, I shall bring them in straight away, and then they are subject only to the negative procedure.
Mr. C. W. Gibson: May I ask the Minister——
Mr. Speaker: I wish there were fewer interruptions. It is a somewhat disorderly debate for the House of Commons when the Minister is getting up and sitting down every few minutes.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thought it essential to make a general introductory statement, otherwise some of the things that required to be mentioned might not be said if I was not asked questions about it. I am here for the convenience of the House as long as the debate continues and when eventually I wind up the debate I shall try, with any legal help that may be forthcoming from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, to deal with any points that arise.
976
The second thing with which I am anxious to deal is certain misgivings that have arisen about the phrase "suitable employment." The suggestion has been made that this might make men take inferior jobs or the alternative might be the loss of their compensation. All hon. Members interested in these things know-that this is a fairly common form of words in similar Regulations—indeed, ins the Regulations introduced by the last Government. These words are also used in the National Insurance Act, 1946, for which again we have to thank the previous Administration. Section 13 of the National Insurance Act uses those words more than once. I shall deal with this when I wind up, if hon. Members wish. Section 13 (5) expressly provides against "suitable employment" being interpreted harshly in the period immediately following the loss of employment.
Finally, I have been asked by one or two of the unions to say a word about paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule, which governs the assessment of compensation. These conditions are almost the same as in the earlier Regulations, introduced by the last Government. They require the Commission to assess the amount of compensation according to the circumstances of the particular case within the maximum limits laid down in paragraph 8. In considering this compensation, the Commission must consider whether the conditions of any new employment compared with the previous, employment are better or worse—for example, from the angle of security of employment—and then deal with each case on its merits.
I am grateful to the House for the interest shown in these Regulations. I have taken a keen interest in them from the start. I regarded it as an inseparable part of my duty as Minister to see that they were introduced and that they were carefully drawn. I have had help from the Commission, the trade unions and not least from colleagues in my Department, who have worked very hard so that these Regulations should appear before the House rose for the Summer Recess. Whilst I shall be glad to answer any questions which may be raised, I think I can claim that in regard to railwaymen we have preserved all that was good and improved their conditions, and have considerably improved the conditions of the

977
road haulage workers. It is with confidence that I commend the Regulations to the House.
7.42 p.m.
Mr. Herbert Morrison: We are obliged to the Minister for the exposition he has given of Regulations that are not only complicated but, in some cases, very difficult to understand. I know the difficulties of draftsmen over these things, and I do not want to be too rough about them.
I wish to quote from the Second Schedule, paragraph 3 in particular, as an example. If I read that paragraph at a public meeting—an assembly of road transport workers or railwaymen—I think I would have a rough house. I am not sure that they would not say, "What is all this about; what does it mean? Talk English." I will read the paragraph:
"The amount of the resettlement payment payable to an applicant in respect of loss of employment shall be a sum which, when added to a sum equal to the aggregate of the following sums:—

(i) two-thirds of any sums the applicant is receiving under a service agreement or contract; and

(ii) where he is or would if he made a claim thereto be entitled to draw unemployment, sickness or injury benefits, (he sum which would be so payable in respect of a person having no dependants,

is equal to two-thirds of his current net emoluments immediately before his loss of employment."
When one has read all that one begins to ask, "What is the chap going to get?" I think it is very difficult to answer. I rather gather that what it all comes to is that he cannot get more than two-thirds of his existing wage or salary. This is an example of drafting which I am bound to say will make it exceedingly difficult for the average workman concerned to understand the position. It may be said that he has his trade union officials who will understand it. I daresay they will. That, of course, demonstrates the great value of men belonging to a trade union. But what about the non-union chaps—the special friends of the Conservative Party? How are they going to understand when they read this with no trade union officials to advise them? These are complicated and complex Regulations.
There is a point to which our attention has been drawn by one of the trade unions concerned, the Transport Salaried
978
Staffs' Association. They and, I believe, the Transport and General Workers' Union have had a communication from the Road Haulage Executive to the effect that, in view of the uncertainties and fluidity of the present situation, substantive promotions, permanent promotions, are not being made for the time being and that future promotions or upgradings will be on an acting or temporary basis. Of course that arose out of the utter insecurity and uncertainty created for all sorts of people—not only in road transport but, to some extent, in rail transport as well—consequent on the passing of the Transport Act. The Regulations refer to permanent employment. I should like the Minister to say in his reply whether this stipulation in the Regulations in certain respects as to permanent employment will be interpreted as meaning that the permanent employment of the officer or servant is his ordinary substantive rank and not the acting or temporary basis on the basis of which current promotions are to be made.
Clearly it is not the fault of the officer or servant that he is promoted at this time on an acting basis. I should have thought that he ought to be compensated on the rank he holds, even if it is on an acting basis, because the acting or temporary basis is not the fault of the Commission. It is not the fault of the Railway Executive, or the Road Haulage Executive, but is the consequence of the Act of Parliament for which this Government are responsible. The unions and the House are entitled to know whether in those cases compensation will be payable on the lower or substantive rank or on the so-called acting or temporary basis. I can understand the motives of the Commission and the Road Haulage Executive, but I should think that in all the circumstances compensation ought to be payable on the basis of the position to which the man has been promoted, even though it is only on an acting or temporary basis.
The next point is the qualification for resettlement payment. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the question of what date ought to be taken as the basis for the date upon which the employee was in the employment of the Commission, or one of its Executives. The choice is between 1st December, 1951, and 1st May, 1952. The unions have put their case to the Minister and

979
he has rejected it. I think the unions have a strong case for their point of view. This Transport Act, introduced by the Government, is the result of a fair amount of evolution. There were declarations in the Speech from the Throne and a debate in which statements were made, it is true, but there was more than one public declaration of policy. The final declaration of policy, if I recall rightly, was not made public until the White Paper of May, 1952.
Therefore workpeople, seeking employment with the Commission or one of its Executives were perfectly entitled to take the point of view, up to May, 1952—it may be that they would have been rather unwise so to do in view of the nature of the Government and their policy, but a lot of people who go about the world are hopeful philosophers—" It looks as if the Government are not clear in their own minds what they are going to do." That indeed is the case. "We do not know what provision they will make for this, that and the other, including compensation. Therefore, I shall give up the job I have and chance it on the basis of what appears to me to be a rather better job in the employment of the Transport Commission or one of its Executives." That is a rather understandable point of view. One might say that it was risky, but it was understandable.
I should have thought that justice requires that the date should be fixed not at the period of those early and somewhat speculative stages of Government policy, but at the point at which it had become firm policy in the White Paper of 1952. In those circumstances, therefore, we think that the union view was right and that the operative date in this connection should be, not 31st December, 1951, but 1st May, 1952. After all, the amount of money involved so far as the compensation authority is concerned is not all that great. I think that the Minister might make this concession in order that justice should not only be done but should appear to be done as well.
I turn to the length of the resettlement period, which is dealt with in Article 2 of the Second Schedule. The Minister has been at pains to argue that in some respects the Government have, in his judgment, done better than was the case
980
in respect of certain Regulations made under the Transport Act, 1947. I wish to put to the House the point that running through all the arguments that we shall have tonight and all the points that the Opposition will make and through nearly all the points which the trade unions have made to the Minister, the fact must be faced, and ought to be faced, that the circumstances of the operation under the Transport Act, 1953, are of a totally different order to the circumstances which obtained under the Transport Act, 1947.
The Minister has made play with the 1950 Regulations. That is all right; but those circumstances were not at all a tragic affair as compared with the situation which we now face. The only case which the Minister quoted of a grievance was that of a man who received compensation of over six figures, according to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is grossly untrue. The individual with whom I was dealing received £800. This was not only debated in the House; it actually came before the Lord Chief Justice and other judges, when many harsh comments were made. It would be grossly untrue if it were allowed to go out that anything approaching £200,000 was paid to the man, whose compensation was £800.
Mr. Morrison: It is the case that the compensation to the firm of which, presumably, he was a member—[An HON. MEMBERS: "The principal proprietor."]—the principal proprietor, was extensive and that he received some personal compensation on top. He went to the courts, I gather, but did not succeed. This case has been brought up when we are discussing the affairs of very humble workmen who have sometimes had difficulty in thinking in terms of three figures, let alone six, or some hundreds of pounds.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pardon my intervening again, but I gave way a number of times when I was speaking. That again would be grossly unfair. I quoted that case because it was debated at length in the House. It was one of many cases in which no compensation other than what the Lord Chief Justice called a derisory figure was payable. There were only six people who contrived to get compensation at all. Yet the party opposite

981
made great play about the compensation which would be available. The Regulations were so drawn, however, that only six received compensation. I say that we have been fairer and more honest.
Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman quoted this case of a man who was comfortably off—comfortably placed, I understand. I think it is indicative of the psychological approach of Conservative Ministers that they are somewhat quicker to see an injustice in the case of well-to-do people than in the case of poor people. It may be that we on this side of the House are quicker to see an injustice in the case of poor people rather than in the case of well-to-do people. I should expect it to be that way, and that is a state of affairs which will continue.
The argument to which I was addressing myself was that under the Transport Act, 1947, the whole business was that of the absorption of a host of existing railway, road transport and other undertakings and the transfer of their ownership to a responsible public authority which would be acting in a public-spirited way. They would take over the properties and they would take the officers and servants of the existing private undertakings and would then consider the problem as a responsible public corporation owning and continuing to operate all those undertakings.
The British Transport Commission sought to reduce dismissals to the minimum, and to a great extent succeeded. Indeed, I am informed that under the 1947 Act about 1,000 claim forms were issued, which was a very modest number in all the circumstances. Approximately only 500 cases were eligible, and of those about 250 were in respect of loss of employment, the remaining 250 being for diminution of emoluments. So the claims were very limited, and it must be remembered that those claims—only a few hundred—were in relation to the 85,000 staff now employed by the Road Haulage Executive.
The truth is that in that operation a great responsible public authority was taking over the undertakings and the workpeople concerned and it was the natural desire of the public authority that dismissals should be reduced to the minimum; and that where they were inevitable and could not be helped compensa-
982
tion was paid. Moreover, in that case it is much easier to deal with the problem as a matter of wastage, as it is sometimes rather unkindly called, as the years pass; that is, men die or resign for one reason or another, and it is then possible for the public authority not to fill the positions thus made vacant if it is not necessary to do so. That is an infinitely less painful process than is likely under the Act of 1953.
What is happening now is not a transfer of undertakings and physical assets from private ownership to a great public authority; it is a transfer of physical assets—and, let me add, of the human beings who go with the physical assets—from a public authority to private concerns. But whereas under the 1947 Act, when the physical assets were taken over, the human beings were transferred as well, in this case the physical assets are to be sold with no obligation and no automatic corresponding consequence that the human beings who have been working with the physical assets will go with them into the new ownership.
Moreover, none of these private employers to whom the undertakings will be sold will be under the slightest obligation to employ any of the men who have been working for the undertaking. Therefore, if the Labour Party in this House, and their trade union colleagues outside, are asking for somewhat better conditions under these Regulations than was the case under the earlier Regulations, it really is to be expected.
I say, quite frankly, that there are some arguments which I have advanced tonight I would not feel obligated to advance were the transfer the other way, from private enterprise to public authority, because public authority is in an easier position to discharge the obligation and more trusted to be able to do so. As a matter of fact, some of these purchasers of the physical assets will not want to discharge the obligation, but some will not be able—and therefore off it goes.
I notice that the right hon. Gentleman said he consulted the Trades Union Congress and the trade unions concerned, and we are all very glad that should be so. He consulted the British Transport Commission. But he did not say whether he consulted the Road Haulage Association, which I understand was consulted in connection with the policy, very fully

983
consulted. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would care to tell us now——
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can say straightaway that to the best of my knowledge this matter did not appear to be their responsibility. We are dealing with compensation for people displaced from service with the British Transport Commission, and I have consulted the proper bodies. I have no recollection of raising the matter with the Association.
Mr. Morrison: I thought that would be the answer, but now see where we are. Under the 1947 Act it was a transfer to a public authority which had to meet the compensation and the arguments for that compensation. In this case it is a transfer from public authority to private authority. On the Bill itself and the policy behind the Bill the Minister consulted the road hauliers and the Road Haulage Association. But here is a case where he ought to have consulted them. He should have said to them, "Now gentlemen, we are faced with this delicate and complicated operation which may be rather brutal if we are not careful, and I do not want it to be so. What arrangements can you enter into with me, as Minister, on behalf of your members to see to it that the minimum hardship and trouble is inflicted upon the chaps now employed by the British Transport Commission?"
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is quite another matter. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested I should have consulted them as to the terms of compensation which would have to be paid by the compensating authority. As to how the transition can be most smoothly accomplished that, of course, is a matter properly to be discussed with the Road Haulage Association and with many other bodies. I was accused of consulting them too much before setting up the Disposal Board. The Board and the Commission are now responsible. It would be clearly improper for me to engage in talks, either with those members of the Road Haulage Association on the Disposal Board or with the Association itself. If I did so, and the right hon. Gentleman prised out that fact, he would come running to this House as if he had unearthed another scandal.
Mr. Morrison: I understand that what all that means is that the right hon. Gentleman has not consulted with the Road Haulage Association as to how they are proposing to discharge to the best of their ability a public duty and make this operation as painless as possible to the workpeople concerned.
We did criticise the right hon. Gentleman for having certain relationships with many of these gentlemen and some of the financial undertakings they have created. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was very active in the matter, and I think he was right. But this is another story altogether. Where are these people going? From a public authority to private enterprise. And the private enterprise trade association, which the right hon. Gentleman was so careful to consult about the policy the Conservative Government should pursue regarding the possible reorganisation of transport, has not been consulted—they who are to receive these assets—as to what they can do to make the transition as smooth as possible.
This is typical again of the Conservative psychological approach. When it is a question of acting against the community—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, in selling assets belonging to the community and handing them over to the friends of the Conservative Party, this trade association representing friends of the Conservative Party are fully consulted. When it comes to the poor devils of workpeople who are to be left in the air, or on the streets when the physical assets go, they do not consult the receivers of the physical assets to see what they are going to do to make this operation——
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes any further——
Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member will go further one day, but never mind.
Mr. Wilson: —can he tell us whether the trade unions concerned have had any negotiations with the Road Haulage Association recently as to wage agreements?
Mr. Morrison: I do not know, and I cannot see what wage agreements between the unions and the Road Haulage

985
Association have to do with the policy to which I am now referring. Here the Minister is making Regulations under which it is his duty to make this transition as smooth as he can, and as least harmful and damaging as possible to the workpeople, and he has not consulted the very people who are largely concerned. But he has consulted the Commission.
Regarding the length of the resettlement period, and certain other matters, the Minister and the House should realise that we are now engaged in totally different transactions from those transactions under the Act of 1947. I will go further, I will even make a move in the Minister's direction. In the case of the Railways Act of 1921, which was a compulsory merger by Act of Parliament of some hundred or so companies—[HON. MEMBERS: "One hundred and twenty."]—over 100–111—separate railway undertakings into four main-line groups of companies, there were provisions for compensation.
In that case it was the transfer of what were in many cases small railway companies to four large companies. It was much easier, much more certain, that the four great companies would have a better opportunity to take care of the workpeople; that they would be more responsible and reasonable in providing compensation, or making the operation as easy as they could. I think my railway friends will agree that they did their best in that direction. But this is a different operation from that, which was a private ownership merger towards private monopoly on the railways.
This is a case where we are dealing with a large number of small operators who either will not be concerned with making this thing work justly, equitably or smoothly, or who will just not be able to do so because of the circumstances in which they are working. That must be realised. In those circumstances the likelihood of the men being without reasonable employment is much greater than under the Act of 1947, and materially greater than under the Railways Act of 1921. Therefore it seems to the trade unions, and to us on this side of the House, that in the circumstances of this operation the maximum period for resettlement payment should not be 13 weeks, and 26 in case of certain of the older men, but should be 52 weeks.
986
That seems to us to be a case worthy of consideration.
The unions have argued—I admit this is rather more disputable—again taking into account the special circumstances of the totally different operation from that under the Act of 1947, that the maximum payment should be, and could be, the full rate of pay at the time of the loss. In their judgment the proportion proposed in the Regulations is no longer adequate in view of the circumstances with which we are dealing under this Act.
I come now to the qualifying period of service for long-term compensation under Regulations 4 and 5. Again it appears to us that the qualifications for compensation should be less rigorous than they were in the Regulations made under the 1947 Act and that the qualification period for this purpose, as requested by the unions, should be not more than two or three years, instead of the eight years specified in Regulation 4 (2, c) and Regulation 5 (2, b). In the circumstances with which we are now dealing, that appears to us to be a reasonable thing to claim.
Moreover, the unions make a further claim, which I should have thought was fair and proper, taking into account the nature of the road haulage industry. These Regulations are rigid. Some of these men have been employed by the Commission and the Road Haulage Executive and before that as drivers of vehicles carrying A licences and sometimes carrying B licences. In this industry change of employment is more frequent than on the railways, for example. Men move about to better their employment. It seems to us, therefore, that the A and B licence service should be taken into account in calculating an employee's period of service and that the period of service required should be reduced in accordance with the terms which I have mentioned.
As to the scale of compensation payment dealt with in the Second Schedule, paragraphs 6 and 8, it is claimed that as in the case of the resettlement payment the maximum payment should be equivalent to the full rate of pay at the time of the loss. The Minister dealt with the next point on which I cannot follow why, if I may say so, he is somewhat sticky. It is the point about suitable

987
employment, namely that if the workman has a chance of suitable employment or if he gets that employment that serves to take him out of the compensation provisions.
The trade unions ask that the words "reasonably comparable" should be substituted for "suitable." I forget what the terms are in the Rent Restriction Acts, but I do not think that the word used is "suitable." My impression is that the phrase is "reasonable alternative accommodation" or "equivalent accommodation." No doubt we shall hear more about that when the Government bring in their legislation dealing with rent restriction, which I understand they are considering; but "suitable employment" is not as good a term as "reasonably comparable employment." We think that these words should be substituted for the words "suitable employment" in the Regulations.
I draw the Minister's attention, moreover, to the point that he actually uses these words "reasonably comparable" in Regulation 2 (a) which ends with the words
"… and he is not offered by the Commission a reasonably comparable office or situation;. …
When the Minister replies, perhaps he will be good enough to tell us why the words "reasonably comparable" are used in that Regulation and yet he declines to use them in the other Regulation. I should have thought that if they stand up in that Regulation and the words are reasonable in themselves he might be willing to consider their use in the other case. The Minister has given a view of his interpretation of "suitable employment." I did not gather that he specifically stated that the words "suitable employment" are as wide or as good as "reasonably comparable," nor, of course, would it bind the courts of law if he did say that; but perhaps he will deal with the matter further later on.
Those are the points which we have wished to raise. It may be that some of my hon. Friends, particularly those who are associated with the industry, will wish to raise others. It is no good the Minister arguing comparisons between 1947, 1948 or 1950, and 1953. The circum-
988
stances are entirely different. The previous operation was a great public operation of absorption of private competitive undertakings. One of the reasons for absorbing them was that they caused no end of trouble in the matter of standards and conditions. They were absorbed by a great public authority which could be trusted to discharge its responsibilities in a responsible spirit, whereas in this case, though the Commission will pay out the compensation, they are not in control of the situation.
It is a situation in which these men are scattered and it is very uncertain what will happen to them because this is a transfer of assets from a great public authority to a whole host of individual proprietors of one sort or another. I beg the House to take that into account. It is a vital and essential difference between the situation under the 1947 Act and that under the 1953 Act.
We have given careful consideration to the question whether at the end of the debate we should divide or not. We agree that the Minister has met the unions and has had friendly consultations with them and that in a number of respects he has been able to make concessions. On the other hand, there are outstanding a material number of points and we apprehend that when this Act works in conjunction with these Regulations there will be an awful lot of un-happiness among many men and possibly women employed in this transport world who will feel pretty bitter and miserable about the whole thing. They will have difficulties because of insecurity of employment and there will be difficulties under the Regulations in respect of the points to which I have drawn attention.
On balance, we think it is reasonable that all these people should have the right to know and that the country should have the right to know when these troubles arise, which may cause a great number of difficulties, who supported this situation and who did not. In these circumstances we feel that the House ought to have a Division. Without saying that everything in the Regulations is wrong, but saying that there is enough in them which is unsatisfactory, in order to make clear who is responsible and who is not we propose to divide the House at the end of this debate.
8.19 p.m.
Major Sir Frank Markham: I do not share the gloomy prognostications of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), because I think that these Regulations mark a new step forward in the legislative history of this country. They place on the Statute Book for the first time recognition by a Government that they have a duty and a respect to pay to those who leave nationalised industry and go into private industry. Hitherto there has been nothing comparable with these Regulations on the Statute Book and therefore I welcome them. They are something new, just, and very valuable to the structure of this country. I am rather puzzled why the right hon. Gentleman should have regarded them with so much disapproval when obviously, from the point of view of himself and of every thoughtful Member of this House, these Regulations should be wholeheartedly welcomed.
There is one point in the Regulations which leaves me a little confused—a matter which does not appear to have occurred to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South. Let me first of all read the Explanatory Note, the first paragraph of which, to my mind, emphasises the whole purpose of these Regulations:
"These Regulations provide for the payment by the British Transport Commission of compensation to their officers or servants who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights or whose position is worsened in consequence of the denationalisation of road haulage, the modifications of the functions of the Commission, or the re-organisation of the railways, provided for by the Transport Act, 1953."
That seems perfectly clear. Then it says in the third paragraph:
"To be eligible for long-term compensation a claimant must at a given date have had eight years continuous service after the age of 18."
I link that up with Regulation 3 (4, d) which reads:
"In this Regulation the expression 'whole time service' means employment after attaining the age of eighteen years—(a) as an officer or servant; … (d) on war service following immediately upon any of the preceding employments."
My question to the Minister is this. Where a man—obviously a young man—has had his period of service with the railways or with the nationalised road
990
haulage undertaking interrupted by military service, is it quite clear that the military service is reckoned in lieu of service with the railways or with the road haulage undertaking? My point is that no man who serves his country in the Armed Forces of the Crown should be penalised because he has been so called up and has not remained at his work, as so many other railway or road haulage workers have.
I welcome these Regulations, and I am astonished that hon. Members opposite do not recognise that this is one of the most generous measures which could be provided.
8.23 p.m.
Mr. David Jones: It is a pity that the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) did not grace this Chamber with his presence while the Minister was trying to explain these Regulations. If he had done so, he would have realised that the Minister said that he had moulded these Regulations upon something that the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) had said when he was in the position now occupied by the right hon. Gentleman.
The other interesting feature is that he now tells us that when employees leave the nationalised industry to return to private employment, they are to be compensated. The simple fact is that it is because the Minister does not think that private enterprise will want them that he is providing compensation. If they can be found a job, there will be no compensation. I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is under the impression that they are to get compensation as well as a job, but if that is what he thinks, he has an awful shock coming to him one of these days, particularly in the constituency which he represents.
I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) is right. These Regulations ought to be resisted in the Division Lobby, because they are certainly not good enough in the circumstances in which these people are likely to find themselves. The Minister told us that he had had long consultations with the Trades Union Congress. Indeed, he told us that the period of cause of action is to be 10 years, but what he did not tell the House was that

991
in his original outline of the Regulations he provided for five years. It was only when the Trades Union Congress drew his attention to that, and asked for an unlimited period of cause of action, that he reviewed the situation. In that respect the Minister has not been honest with the House——
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman has no right whatever to say that. In the course of negotiations on matters of this kind with the Trades Union Congress or with any other body, obviously there is a good deal of give and take. Certain suggestions are made; some are knocked down by one side or the other, and eventually an agreed compromise on some matters is reached while on others the parties do not agree. To refer to one period of my talks, and say that at every stage I should have said how my mind developed in the talks, is very unreasonable. I presented a complete picture to the House, and by that I stand.
Mr. Jones: I shall justify the charge before I finish. I say that the Minister has not been honest with the House. In his original outline he indicated a period of five years. The Trades Union Congress asked for unlimited time. But that is not the whole of the story. In the debate on 18th December, 1952, the Minister referred to a question which had been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris). This is what the right hon. Gentleman said:
"The hon. Member for Swansea, West asked about the period of action. The period of action is not laid down in the Act of 1947, but in the Regulations. The period is 10 years in the Labour Government's Regulations. I see no reason why it should be different, but that is the sort of point I should like to discuss with the various bodies I have mentioned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 1663.]
I charge the Minister with having put five years in the Regulations in order that he could appear to be making a concession to the Trades Union Congress.
The Minister went on to tell us that the date 1st May is not justifiable because of something that his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in the House in November, 1951. He proceeded to read the first part of this extract, and I want to read the second part. The Home Secretary said:
"Whatever else hon. Members opposite may have doubt about, they cannot have any doubt about our intentions in this matter."
992
Then he went on to explain what they were, and he said:
"They are set out quite clearly in our election documents. …"
Was it not the Prime Minister who said, during the previous Administration, that the insertion of a promise in an election programme is not binding on any future Government? What reason have we to suppose that, because the Tory Party put something into their election programme, that policy will be followed by the Government, after the statement which the present Prime Minister made in 1950? What right has anybody to assume that a document prepared by the Conservative Central Office binds the Government to carry out the policy laid down when the party are elected to power? It is a new doctrine that because a political party inserted a statement in an election programme it must be taken——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): That is a little remote from the Regulations which we are now discussing.
Mr. Jones: With due respect, the Regulations mention a date upon which a person must be in the employment of these authorities if he is to receive compensation. The Minister has argued—and he quoted in aid the very passage from HANSARD which I am now quoting—that the pledge given by the Home Secretary ought to be taken as a guarantee that at some time or other this Government would carry out that pledge, I am endeavouring to say that that is not the case.
In any case, it is advancing a new doctrine if a promise in a programme of a political party is to be taken as binding that party, when it becomes a Government, to do something at some future date. I have merely called in aid the speech made in this House by the present Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, in which he said that putting a statement into a programme was no reason for carrying it out. That is not good enough. There is nothing in the speech of the Home Secretary which conveys anything at all, because he goes on to say:
"They are set out quite clearly in our election documents, and our intention is, as it has always been, to diminish the monopolistic powers of the British Transport Commission over the long-distance section of the road haulage industry, and to give an opportunity

993
to those private hauliers who wish to do so to return into a business from which so many of them have been ousted…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 720.]
That is no indication of what the programme was.
I would remind the Minister of Transport that in the debate on the King's Speech on 6th November, 1951, there were merely these few words:
"Proposals will be made to facilitate the extension of private road haulage activities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 53.]
In those circumstances I suggest that there is no justification whatsoever for taking 31st December, 1951, as the date. I want to prove to the right hon. Gentleman, out of his own mouth, that he argued that the White Paper was a declaration of policy. On 21st May, 1952, there was a debate in which the right hon. Gentleman took part; indeed, he opened it. He said:
"I must ask the House to listen to an argument which may take a little time to evolve, but the purpose of the White Paper is to direct Parliamentary and public attention in advance of the appearance of the Bill to the broad issues of policy and principle involved."
If he is to be honest with the people who are to be displaced in this industry, he should admit that that is the first intimation that anybody had of the detailed policy that was to be followed by this Administration and by his Department.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to deal in detail with that policy. He said:
"In regard to the sale of road haulage assets, there are one or two observations I should like to make to the House. Her Majesty's Government will be glad to see the former owners of long-distance road haulage undertakings come back again into the business. We are particularly anxious to see again those people who were compulsorily acquired and to whom no compensation, however high, was really a return for what they have lost, people who had spent their whole life in a business they had themselves created and who gave local and personal service to their friends and neighbours."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1952; Vol. 501, c. 481–491.]
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman must be honest with those people who, through this Act of Parliament, will be put out of work—and I say those words deliberately—because of the policy of the disposal of the road haulage industry which he proposes to follow and which is designed to that end. The first point I want to make, therefore, is that there is every justification for making 1st May, 1952, the operative date, and neither the
994
right hon. Gentleman nor the Government by any stretch of the imagination can justify choosing the date 31st December, 1951.
I want to say a few words about the resettlement period. The Road Haulage Executive have built up not only a whole series of trunk routes which we know include the principal towns of the country but also, in very many parts of the country, substantial repair and overhaul depots. Very many skilled people, some in supervisory capacities, are employed in these depots. I have tried to examine the scheme as carefully as I can, but I cannot see how these depots can remain in existence. They must inevitably be broken up. Large numbers of people, highly skilled in the motor engineering world, will inevitably find themselves out of a job.
The right hon. Gentleman has argued from the beginning—and, indeed, the Prime Minister said this in the White Paper debate in 1952—that the small men were to come back into this industry. The right hon. Gentleman said these people who gave personal service were to come back into the industry. If they do, they are bound to displace large numbers of people, many the wrong side of 40 to get jobs easily. To tell men of that kind, highly skilled men, that at the end of 13 weeks or something between 13 and 26 weeks, through no fault of their own but through the deliberate action of the Government, they are to be placed on the scrap heap, or, at best, upon the lists of the employment exchange, is all that this Government can do for them seems to me to be betraying all the fine promises which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues gave when the Bill was being debated in this House and in another place.
I therefore suggest that the least the right hon. Gentleman can do is to give to the older people a 52-week resettlement period. If he brings the date forward to 1st May, 1952, and doubles the period of resettlement, he will to some extent, at any rate, mitigate the hardship which has been created.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South that this is an entirely different type of operation. He read out the number of claims that have been made so far as compensation is concerned. I had some experience during a previous period of reorganisa-

995
tion on the railways when the 120 companies were amalgamated into four under the Railways Act, 1921. I know that there were very many men in those days, middle aged, skilled at their jobs, who did not know what was to happen. They were skilled craftsmen. In the absence of a job in the railway service, and having to go into some other industry at the age of 45 or 50, they were good only for unskilled labour. That is the sort of thing to which large numbers of these people are today to be condemned.
I do not want to repeat what my right hon. Friend said earlier, but when the road haulage organisation was being built up by the British Transport Commission, it was the ambition and desire to create and build up a road haulage organisation covering the whole of the country. Very few of the people who desired to go with their vehicles were denied the right to go over to the new organisation. Has the Minister sought from the Road Haulage Association or from the prospective purchasers of transport units an undertaking that they will take over, to man the vehicles in their control, the equivalent number of men now working them in the control of the Road Haulage Executive who will be displaced?
Has he made any inquiries at all? Has he made any attempt whatsoever to safeguard the employment of those people? Or does he believe these Regulations are going to be good enough to satisfy people who are being thrown from pillar to post? Not because of anything they have done, not because of shortcomings on their part, but because of a promise made by the Tory Party to the Road Haulage Association, these people are now being thrown to the wolves.
Indeed, already anxiety is being felt. Here is a letter dated 18th July from a man in the employment of the Road Haulage Executive who does not know what is going to happen to him. He says in a letter to an hon. Friend of mine:
"I beg to take this opportunity of writing to you in an endeavour to seek your guidance in connection with the grave position I find myself in with the denationalisation of road transport. I am aged 45, married, with two children. I obtained grammar and technical school standards. My lifetime has been spent in transport, 28 years with Messrs. Pickfords and the last two years with the Road Haulage Executive. I attained an executive position in Messrs. Pickfords as a branch manager at"—
996
and he gives the name of the town—
"and in November, 1951, obtained a transfer with no personal gain to myself to another group of the Road Haulage Executive, to assist in reorganising a depot which had been very badly controlled, with an adverse trading return amounting to thousands of pounds. During the last two years my endeavours have been rewarded and my depot is now a commercial proposition revealing a profit on each four weekly period. Sir, in the event of Pickfords and its subsidiaries continuing to operate as heretofore, has any provision been made for staff previously in their employ to be reinstated? I have been a contributor to a superannuation scheme introduced by Messrs. Pickfords for the past 28 years. My house is mortgaged with this firm, which, I trust you will appreciate, places me in a very unhappy position. I must be frank and say I was warned not to leave the employ of my previous employers, but my experience plus long spells of duties have proved an asset to the Road Haulage Executive. Thanking you in anticipation of a reply at your earliest convenience. …"
This is one of the men whom the right hon. Gentleman says, because of something nebulous which was said by the Home Secretary in this House in November, 1951, ought to be satisfied with that. If that is the best which the right hon. Gentleman can do for these people whom he is displacing deliberately by the introduction of the Measure, I am very glad that I shall go into the Division Lobby tonight to vote against these Regulations.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I wish in a very few words to welcome these Regulations, and I do so because I am quite satisfied, notwithstanding the speeches that have already been made by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), that there is no justification whatever for suggesting that these Regulations are not better drafted and more comprehensive than either of the two previous sets of Regulations dealing with compensation which have appeared under the Transport Acts. It really is preposterous that we on this side of the House should discontinue to hear the suggestion that the road hauliers must be bad employers if they are private hauliers.
Mr. Callaghan: You cannot re-write history.
Mr. G. Lindgren: Does the hon. Gentleman really expect us to forget that during all the period of

997
the inter-war years those were the only people with whom we could not get trade union agreements?
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that one. I interrupted the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South to ask him if the Road Haulage Association had had any recent negotiations with trade unions. I am informed that they have had satisfactory negotiations and there has been no complaint.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This seems, too, to me to be a little remote from the Regulations.
Mr. Wilson: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was led into digression by the hon. Gentleman. The point I want to make is that I am satisfied that these Regulations are better drafted and more comprehensive than the Regulations which arose out of the 1921 Act or the Transport Act, 1947. As the House is aware, I have certain experience of dealing in a legal capacity with the 1921 Act and the Regulations which arose under it. I think that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools will confirm that the Regulations under the 1921 Act were extremely vaguely worded and that many controversies arose on the compensation Clauses under those Regulations, particularly in the case of the South Wales Railways, with one of whom the hon. Gentleman was employed before both he and I were servants of the Great Western Railway Company.
Mr. D. Jones: The hon. Gentleman will agree that it was a Coalition Government with a predominantly Tory majority who drafted the 1921 Regulations.
Mr. Wilson: I was saying that these are very much more satisfactory Regulations than those put forward under that Act. It is a fact that cases under those Regulations were dragging on right up to the beginning of the war, and I am told that cases are still from time to time arising, especially in connection with the South Wales Railways, because when a man retires he may claim that his conditions as to the age of retirement were worsened by reason of the amalgamation of 1921. These Regulations today are a great improvement on those because those Regulations had no time-limit on
998
the period under which the cause of claim could arise.
It was most unsatisfactory from the employers and employees point of view that there should be no time-limit. In the Regulations which we have before us there is a time limit of 10 years within which the cause of claim must arise, and that applies not only to the railways under Regulation 5 but to Regulation 4 which deals with long-term compensation for road haulage employees. In that respect the Regulations are a great improvement upon the preceding ones.
There is a second very good point. Regulation 5 is in very much the same terms as the railway Regulations arising under the 1947 Act which came into force in 1948, but besides Regulation 4 which deals with the long-term compensation for road haulage employees who have been in the employ of the Road Haulage Executive for eight years, we also have Regulation 3 which provides for resettlement payments as a temporary measure and is something new. I do not follow this argument of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools, who seemed to think that Regulation 3 was unfair because it applied only from a certain date.
Mr. A. Hargreaves: Can a man have served the Road Haulage Executive for eight years?
Mr. Wilson: Regulation 4 specifically provides permanent compensation. Regulation 3 is an interim measure to provide compensation for a man changing his job. One hon. Member said that it is nothing unusual for a man to change his job in the road haulage industry. It is nothing to do with the way in which the road hauliers treat their employees; it is the custom of the industry for men to change their jobs from time to time. Here we have a provision which will enable men to get something which they would not otherwise have in the ordinary course.
Mr. D. Jones: I do not want the hon. Member to mislead the House. Will he tell us what would happen to a man who got a 13 weeks' resettlement payment if at the end of the 13 weeks he had not found a comparable job?
Mr. Wilson: A man who gets 13 weeks' resettlement payment is 13 weeks better off than a man in private industry who changes his job frequently during the course of a year. If the man was a

999
permanent employee of a firm which subsequently became absorbed in the Road Haulage Executive, he has permanent compensation under the new Regulation, but if he has been only a short time in the employment of the Road Haulage Executive it is probable that he is a man who is changing his job from time to time and he has temporary compensation for 13 weeks, or it may be up to 26 weeks, which will cover the interim period.
The argument that this is unfair has been put forward with a great deal of force except when it comes to the alternative. Having explained at great length the hardships which would arise under Regulation 3, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South went on to say that he wanted 52 weeks instead of 26. If it is going to be such a great hardship and these men are going to be "thrown on the scrapheap"—that was the right hon. Gentleman's expression—surely the argument is not between 26 and 52 weeks. Either the men are being given a temporary payment while changing jobs or else hon. Members opposite are asking for some better form of compensation. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways.
These Regulations are an improvement upon the previous ones in many respects, and my right hon. Friend and his advisers are to be congratulated upon bringing them forward.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. A. Hargreaves: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) agrees that the Regulations are very useful, but he does not know why. He is not seized of the point that when the 1947 Act brought the Road Haulage Executive into existence it made a vast difference to the security attached to employment. That is the whole point of the argument against the present Regulations. There is a real need for the Minister to recognise that when the men went into the service of the British Transport Commission, it offered them security and better conditions and in most cases infinitely better salaries and wages. I was wondering whether there was going to be any objection to that statement from the other side of the House.
Mr. G. Wilson: That is very far from the truth.
Mr. Hargreaves: That comes from a railwayman.
Mr. Percy Collick: The hon. Gentleman opposite is a solicitor, not a railwayman.
Mr. Hargreaves: It is not untrue; it is exactly what happened. In the case of Pickfords, for instance, when the men were brought into the service of the British Transport Commission it represented an increase in wages of 35s. a week. That applied to members of the union to which I belong.
Mr. Wilson: Why did not the hon. Gentleman's union get the better wages from Pickfords? It was a big enough company.
Mr. Hargreaves: Again the hon. Gentleman does not realise that we could not function fully until the men came under the Road Haulage Executive. The hon. Gentleman does not begin to understand the position about these Regulations.
The Minister has a direct and personal responsibility to these people. I know he recognises that, but will he recognise that he has to do his very utmost to see that these Regulations take into account the fact that these men, having been employed by the British Transport Commission—I know that he has argued against this in the past—feel that, when they go into a smaller undertaking and to an unknown employer, they are to some degree embarking on a sea of insecurity? Therefore, we are entitled to ask for these Regulations to be an improvement on previous compensation Regulations.
The 1921 Act attempted to give the employees a bigger organisation which could offer them better superannuation and better salaries. The 1947 Act offered to them the same kind of principles, and they were much more ready then to accept the Regulations governing compensation than to accept the present Regulations, which appear to be a reversion to conditions of employment in the past which they did not like, with smaller salaries and security almost non-existent.
I should like to make it clear that these people are not asking to be made secure against every ill wind that blows. They are not asking to be "feather-bedded" in regard to their conditions, but they are entitled to ask the Government, which

1001
are responsible for these schemes, to see that their terms and conditions are not worsened. In the past the House has always recognised that, and it is the central and essential principle which the House and the Minister must recognise.
Now may I invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a point of detail about which I am not satisfied—the question of the emoluments upon which compensation is to be based? Since the announcement of the Government's policy many thousands of positions which had been graded for salary, pension, and so on, have been varied in that regard because vacancies have been filled on a temporary basis. I do not know whether in his negotiations the Minister has heard of the mystic letters D.O.P., which represent difference of pay as between the pay attaching to an appointment and the lesser grade which undertakes appointment on a temporary basis? Obviously, that difference will affect the emolument of the person concerned and his entitlement to pension. I am certain that the Minister seizes the point, and while I do not necessarily want him to deal with it this evening, I ask him to go into it and say that he will have some regard to it.
Another question to which the Minister's attention was drawn earlier was that of reasonable employment or comparable employment. The phrase which we would like him to use is referred to in Regulation 2 on two occasions. In Regulation 2 (a) the last phrase is "a reasonably comparable office" and in the last paragraph it is "be deemed to be not reasonably comparable." If the Minister would use that term within the Regulations as applicable to the kind of work which people displaced under the operation of the Act do undertake, rather than the phrase "suitable employment," it would be preferable. "Suitable employment" might not apply to transport at all, whereas "reasonably comparable" work is work associated with transport. Suitable work for the individual might not be associated with transport and might take no account of the skill, technical or otherwise, and long experience within the transport industry. I hope the Minister will take that into account in considering this matter.
My main point is that in road and rail transport a serious atmosphere of
1002
insecurity has been aroused. The Minister ought to take more account of this and so ensure that these Regulations are an improvement upon those which followed the 1921 and 1947 Acts.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: It is the burden of our case on this side of the House—this is the answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson)—that these Regulations are being introduced into an entirely different atmosphere in the transport industry. The hon. Member must believe that we are sincere in that. When the 1947 Act came into operation in 1948, I was closely associated with many trade union officials who were engaged in the change-over from private enterprise to public ownership. In my area some 60 firms were taken over. One would have imagined that there would have been a great deal of friction and difficulty. Speaking for myself, however, I had not a single complaint, and I am assured by the unions that when the employees were taken over they were in the main taken over entirely.
But that will not apply today; it just is not possible. It is almost certain that the vast number of those who buy the lorries will not, in the first instance, at any rate, take on the drivers automatically with the vehicles. The buyers will take only the better quality vehicles and obviously they will not want those drivers who are redundant because of the fewer vehicles that will be bought.
There is one respect in which the Regulations do not satisfy us and which so far has not been mentioned, not even by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). I understand from the trade unions that up to the time of the proposals of the Conservative Party, they were in process of negotiation with the Road Haulage Executive for a pension scheme for lorry drivers. They had, in fact, got to an advanced stage of negotiation. One of my colleagues in the trade union movement assures me that another year would have seen the fruition of such a pension scheme.
Does the Minister not realise how galling will be the Regulations to lorry drivers who were within a year of being within a pension scheme for the

1003
first time in their lives but who again are to be denied any possible hope of ever being in a pension scheme of any kind, because private enterprise cannot give it to them?
I ask for this concession, and the Minister will know that what I say is true. After long negotiations, that pension scheme almost came to fruition. Cannot the Minister now accept for these drivers that had there been a pension scheme he would give it to them under the Regulations? Can he not accept some form of compromise which would concede something to these men? Under the nationalised undertaking, they would have had their pension scheme within a year, but the Minister has now denied them its fruition.
There can be no comparison whatever between conditions in transport today and in 1948. I hope, therefore, that the points that were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South will be considered. Much has been said of the older men in the industry but one thing of which we can be certain is that in comparison with 1948 their prospects are now much worse. The Minister recognises this and is to give them compensation for 26 weeks. There is no reason why he should not make it 52 weeks. These men, who have been in transport for a long time, some of them most of their lives, will have great trouble now in finding alternative employment. That is the view of most of us in the industry, and I hope that the Minister will look with favour at the suggestion to increase the length of the resettlement period.
9.9 p.m.
Mr. C. W. Gibson: It is important that stress should be laid on the point about the date of operation. I do not propose to argue it in detail, because it has already been mentioned by one or two of my hon. Friends from this side of the House. It seems to me and to the trade unions that a date in May, 1952, would be a much more reasonable date to put into the Regulations than the date put in by the Minister. I think it also important that the words "reasonably comparable" should be in Regulations dealing with employment given in exchange for another job rather than the words "suitable employment." A man
1004
might get some alternative suitable employment, but it would not be reasonably comparable with the kind of job he had under the Transport Commission. That point ought to be covered. There should be no doubt about the justice of the way in which the Regulations are drafted.
I want to stress, most particularly from the point of view of the road haulage men, the necessity for reducing the qualifying period of eight years of employment. The effect of this provision will be that most of the road transport men—lorry drivers and so on—will be cut out of compensation. I do not know whether that is the intention, but that is what will happen. I would press the Minister very strongly to accept the suggestion put to him by the trade unions concerned that the period should be about three years rather than eight. In so doing he would give the road haulage men, who I anticipate will be much more affected by this than most of the railwaymen, a much fairer chance of getting compensation if—as some of us fear will happen—they are thrown out of employment or suffer serious loss or diminution of earnings.
I want also to refer to the Second Schedule, over which the Minister took some trouble. Paragraph 5 deals with the loss or diminution of pension rights. I defy anyone who is not a lawyer to understand it and I doubt whether many lawyers could understand this paragraph. I have read paragraph 16 and find a full stop at the end of the fifth line and then 10 lines without a full stop. It is extremely difficult to understand, except the old phrase which some of us are so used to in negotiations with Government Departments, "whichever shall be the less." Whatever happens, at the end of the sentence—if we understand it—it is that the lesser of the two payments will be made, if any.
Paragraph 17 is even worse. I have tried to understand it, because the Minister referred to it. It is a paragraph which, apparently, gives some compensation in cases where men lose pension rights because of a change of employment arising out of the de-nationalisation of road transport. It consists of 15 lines before one comes to a full stop and it is quite impossible for most people to understand. In the course of a long trade union experience, on many occasions I have, as a lay lawyer, tried to interpret the meaning

1005
of such paragraphs as this, but this one has beaten me. If a road transport worker or a railway worker has this presented to him and is told, "This is what you are entitled to if your pension rights are interfered with," I cannot see how on earth he will understand it.
I should like the Minister to deal with this matter. It seems that even the parts which, on the explanation of the Minister, appear to give compensation are limited by an earlier provision which limits the amount of compensation persons may get to one-sixtieth of current annual emoluments. If a man who has long service gets reasonably large compensation on the one-sixtieth basis, is he to get compensation for loss of pension rights in addition, or is it limited by the amount covered by that paragraph? As I understood what the Minister said, he is subject to the maximum. It seems to me, therefore, that this paragraph really does very little for the man concerned. If these Regulations are to be issued, I plead that they should in some way be rewritten in plain simple English which the average man in the transport industry can properly understand, and that there shall be a careful and simple explanation of them.
My only other point is that if these Regulations go through tonight, as I fear they will, it is absolutely essential that there should be a spirit of willingness to give the men the benefit of the doubt, where there is any doubt, when these Regulations are applied. I have considerable experience of the compensation Regulations under the Electricity Act. I know that under these, where there is some doubt, unless the benefit of it is given to the workman, the workman suffers nine times out of ten and has a grievance, and there is trouble as a result. I suggest that if the Minister gets these Regulations approved and wants to make them work, he must give instructions that they must be worked reasonably and with sympathy, and that where there is any doubt, the workman should be given the benefit of the doubt.
9.16 p.m.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: The Minister recognises that the denationalisation of road transport must create disturbance and loss of employment. That is the reason for the introduction of these Regulations. Some of us have a vivid memory of what
1006
happened when there was a big merger of 120 different railway companies into the four main-line companies. The compensation provisions were quite ineffective, and I could not find anyone who got compensation under those previous Regulations. I knew many thousands of railway men who were displaced or who lost their grade position and lost a great deal of money over many years. We are afraid that we shall have a repetition of that position when these Regulations are brought into force.
Once the Act is put into operation, the Minister cannot say how many railway-men will be displaced consequent upon the competition which the railways will receive from road competition on certain stretches. He cannot tell us how many railwaymen will lose their grade position or their wages. I am sure that the denationalisation of road transport will cause great upheaval among railway and road transport workers. After the sale of the road haulage units, are workers expected to move about the country to keep their employment? I wish the Minister to deal with that point—are they expected willy-nilly to move about the country in order to keep their jobs?
Road haulage depots have been built up; they have been strategically sited to meet the needs of road traffic movements about the country. These vehicles are now to be brought up and operated, not to meet the geographical needs of the country. Hosts of other reasons will be brought into the reckoning—where the private operator lives and where he has been accustomed to having his business; and—of a certainty—these units which will operate will be much smaller than those built up by the Road Haulage Executive. The smaller owner will have his own employees; possibly he will be buying the vehicles because he needs new ones, and possibly he will prefer to recruit his workers from his own area.
That is the position as I see it. If transport workers are asked to move their homes for hundreds of miles in order to keep their jobs, and do not do so, will they come under the compensation Regulations? They may not be able to do so because the move would result in worse conditions of employment, possibly less wages; or it may be because there would be difficulty in securing a home in the new area. It may be that an operator

1007
would be asked to remove to Scotland, and I imagine that that would be a blow to some Englishmen. It might possibly be an even greater blow to a Scotsman to be asked to come, say, from Glasgow to the outskirts of London in order to retain his job.
I cannot imagine local authorities putting a clause in their housing allocation schemes to provide accommodation for transport workers in order to help this Government who have displaced those workers. I asked about this matter on Committee stage and the Minister promised a reply, but he forgot to make it on that occasion. I appreciate of course that he had then many other matters to deal with, but I would ask him to deal with this question tonight. The people we are discussing have given their lives to the industry. They have built it up and are the very timber of it. We want something much better than these Regulations as a protective measure for them, and if the Minister cannot provide it I for one will have much pleasure in voting against them.
9.23 p.m.
Mr. Percy Morris: In pressing the Minister to withdraw these Regulations for further amendment I am not unmindful nor unappreciative of the agreements he has already reached in conversations with the trade unions and other interested parties. I have no doubt the Minister fully understands the position, although he is not prepared to concede all our points of view.
British transport has a long and chequered history. Three major Acts of Parliament have had a great influence upon the well-being of employees and the transport services of this country; the Railways Act of 1921, and the Transport Acts of 1947 and 1953. It is perfectly true that those three Acts have several analogies. They have features in common, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and the Minister were perfectly right to quote in support of their arguments. But I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is a fundamental difference between the Act of 1953 and the other two Acts to which I have referred. The 1921 Act and the 1947 Act aimed at integrating not only the
1008
transport services but the staff organisation. It was an attempt to set up a cohesive body administering the transport affairs of Great Britain, and I fear that the people who were responsible for that re-organisation have not been given the credit that was due to them.
The first thing that the Minister said today was that he took pride in the fact that he had been able to introduce the Regulations within three months of the passing of the Act and that the Labour Government took 11 months to introduce Regulations for the railways and three years to introduce Regulations for the Road Haulage Executive. He compels me to remind him of the chaos out of which we had to evolve order. Does he not realise that when we took over there were nearly 3,700 different transport concerns in the country and that the overwhelming majority of them had no trade union conditions?
Does he not realise that the first thing we had to do was to clear the Augean stables and set the house in order to encourage men and women to remain in the industry under decent and proper conditions? It was a great administrative achievement on the part of the Road Haulage Executive to get that house in order in such a short time, and to be able to introduce Regulations governing such things as compensation really adds to their credit.
On the question of compensation there are two or three broad principles of which I should like to remind the House. The first is that when we acquired these private concerns to merge them into a public service the public had to pay compensation. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is handing over to private concerns this great public asset, the public have to pay compensation. The public have to pay on every occasion. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the direct question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South: if he is going to let the Road Haulage Association take over these public assets, is it not fair to ask them to accept the liabilities as well? It is because the right hon. Gentleman has not done that that we have so much cause for complaint.
I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should quote the company which he mentioned on the question of

1009
hardship of compensation. I should not like to try to adjudicate between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I will not do so now but will content myself with quoting the actual facts from HANSARD. My hon. Friend asked the Minister of Transport what was the total amount of compensation paid by the British Transport Commission for the acquisition of Hurst and Payne Limited and its allied company. The answer on 1st August, 1952, was £200,840. But what are the facts governing that situation? Mr. Hurst
"… was employed as managing director at a salary of £3,000 a year with an annual commission of £1,000; making £4,000 altogether. He had other advantages such as an entertainment allowance and the use of a car."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1952; Vol. 504, c. 1052.]
On nationalisation, when the Road Haulage Executive examined the position they said to Mr. Hurst, "Why, you can have a job as group manager"—and to his credit he accepted it—" but that job is not worth more than £1,200 per annum."
It surprises me that people have not noticed that while as a rule the Government are accused of paying extravagant salaries and paying very much more than the business world, here we have a competent Government Department like the Road Haulage Executive telling a man frankly that the job is not worth more than £1,200, although previously he was getting £3,000 a year, £1,000 commission, and an entertainment allowance and the use of a car. He must have thought that the Road Haulage Executive was speaking the truth and he was glad to accept the position. The extravagance is not on the part of the Labour Government but on the part of the Government represented by the Minister in this debate tonight. To quote that as a case of hardship is to introduce a tone of irony into the matter which surprises me very much indeed.
The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham), who has retired from the scene for a few minutes, welcomed these Regulations because he said it was the first time the House had been given an opportunity of approving such regulations. Of course, it is the first time. It could not have happened unless the Government decided to denationalise the Post Office or the Civil
1010
Service. It is the first time that such a situation has arisen, and it is because the matter has not been dealt with adequately that we are asking the Minister tonight to withdraw these Regulations and amend them still further.
May I emphasise the first point made by the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition tonight when he asked for an interpretation of a point in a letter sent by the Road Haulage Executive to the General Secretary of the trade union. It was the point where they say:
".. in view of the current uncertainties and in order to avoid increasing the problem of grade redundancy that might well become serious in the event of a rapid run-down of the organisation … we are arranging that any promotions or upgradings should be made on an acting higher grade duty basis."
We want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us frankly, if and when some of these men who are serving on an acting higher grade basis are entitled to compensation, the amount will be arrived at by taking the whole of the figure into consideration.
Some people say that the point is quite clear, but I am disturbed by a phrase which says that other payments which do not reflect a permanent state of affairs will not be calculated. It is obvious that a man acting on a temporary basis is not engaged in a permanent state of affairs. But it would be manifestly unfair to give him lower compensation because he had had to accept the post on an acting basis in view of the state of flux through which the industry is passing just now. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us his personal view on this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be proud of the fact that he was making the qualifying date for compensation 31st December, 1951. I repeat the request that it should be 1st May, 1952. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that in the debate on the Loyal Address the policy of the Government was made known. Our reply to that statement is that the White Paper was not issued until 1st May, 1952. I would add that anybody reading that White Paper is unable to find a single reference to the conditions of the staff.
It was only as a result of a debate in this House, when we exposed the perils to which the operational and administrative staff were being exposed, that the right hon. Gentleman said that he would put that right in the second Bill that

1011
would be brought forward. It is manifestly unfair to take 31st December, 1951, as the qualifying date. Why does the right hon. Gentleman worry about it? Surely the difference between 31st December, 1951, and 1st May, 1952, cannot mean very much to him. If his confidence in the Levy is fully justified, the money will be available and the men to whom we are doing an injustice unless we accept the second date will have their injustice set right.
No reference has been made tonight to the question of the appeals procedure. I know the right hon. Gentleman will say that that is not a matter for him but for the Ministry of Labour. That is true, but we want to hear something from him in the matter. This is his Act, and these compensation Clauses are his responsibility. We want to know in what strain he has been talking to the Minister of Labour about this Question. Does he agree that we have a case in the matter?
The House should be informed of the difficulties. In the case of appeals, the only possibility is to apply to the High Court for a writ of certiorari. That cumbrous and expensive machinery is the only way of appealing. No appeal is possible when a tribunal decide on a point of fact, or even on a point of law, unless the tribunal state their reasons, and no obligation rests upon them to state any reason for their decision. We have had a very unhappy experience in many cases because of the present unsatisfactory appeals machinery.
It has been suggested that this machinery requires revising, not only in respect of the transport industry but of every other industry, but our problem tonight concerns the men and women who are engaged in the transport industry. We want the Minister to commit himself definitely and tell us precisely what are his views about this matter, and what representations he has made to the Minister of Labour, who was here a moment or two ago and whom I was hoping would hear our views on this matter.
There is some query as to the period with regard to resettlement payment. We say that it should be a minimum of 52 weeks, unless the person concerned finds suitable employment. The Regulations we are discussing are quite inevitably
1012
expressed in cold, formal and legal terms, but, as some of my hon. Friends have reminded us tonight, they are of vital concern to the men and women who have spent their lifetime in this industry. I suggest that even the men and women who were engaged in the private sector before nationalisation, have devoted nearly the whole of their time and talent to transport, and are now being compelled to seek other employment, should be given a longer period than the Minister suggests, to try to adjust themselves to their new circumstances.
This is a deliberate act on the part of the Tory Party, and they ought to put up with the consequences and provide for the displaced men and women. I have asked on previous occasions for evidence that the compensation proposals in respect of the various features which I have mentioned are satisfactory to the people concerned. If we can find £2,080 for a small firm of approximately two directors, there should be no quibbling about giving the men and women 52 weeks in which to resettle. There ought not to be any ambiguity as between 31st December, 1951, and 1st May, 1952. There must be no ambiguity, either, in respect of the men who are qualifying for compensation and the conditions under which they qualify.
If I were to reflect upon the experience of the last 32 years, I would say that even the Railways Act of 1921 and the Transport Act of 1947 made better provision for these people than does the Act of 1953. In the 1947 Act a dual task was performed. Order was evolved out of chaos, and a transport service was established which met the needs of the public far and wide. Men and women who had been employed under the most shocking conditions were given proper salaries, proper sick pay, entrance into a superannuation scheme, and holidays each year.
All this has been done since 1945, and now these public assets are being handed over to the private investors. The Tory Party gave a pledge to the Road Haulage Association, at every level early in the October before the General Election. Nobody has denied that. The Chairman of that Association said that the Opposition—referring to the Tory Pary of the time—had promised them, at every level, that if they got into power they would

1013
denationalise transport. We are asking for a quid pro quo. If they were ever promised that, the Minister is entitled to say to them, "Now that these men are leaving the security of employment, where their conditions were infinitely better than they ever had before, and now that they are going into your service, what are you prepared to do to lend a helping hand?"
Is it beneath the dignity of the right hon. Gentleman to ask members of the Road Haulage Association to give these men a trade union salary and to give them proper provisions for superannuation? Could he not say that they should maintain arrangements in respect of sick pay and annual holidays? Could he not say, "Do what you can to give them a ladder of promotion. They had this under public employment. You must see that these men are given good conditions which are worth having and which will encourage them to remain in your employ"?
The Road Haulage Association have been very successful in lobbying Her Majesty's Government in their actions. We want the Minister to be equally successful and, if I may say so, equally persistent in his efforts to lobby them to give those employees, north, south, east and west, the conditions which are their due. I do not want to introduce anything of an intimidating nature into the debate. The country has decided that for the time being the Tory Party should rule. I warn the Tory Party that these acts of sabotage in respect of industrial conditions will have their repercussions. If we were more concerned with political prestige than with the rights due to men and women we would not oppose these Regulations but would let the Government carry on and give them enough rope to hang themselves. But we are not sacrificing principle to expediency. We are really worried and concerned about the well-being of these men in the industry.
We therefore ask the Minister to take these Regulations back and amend them in the way we have suggested. It will cost him nothing at all because he can get the money out of the Levy. The Road Haulage Association should be grateful to him and should pay up cheerfully. For those reasons, I support my
1014
right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South and ask the House, if the Minister does not meet us reasonably tonight, to reject these Regulations so that he can start all over again.
9.42 p.m.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) said that he hoped I was conscious of the uncertainties in which many people find themselves as a result of Government legislation. This is almost inherent in Government legislation and we all regret it, whatever the cause may be. Most changes are unwelcome to all of us, and I have noticed that frequently to be the case in practice with the Socialist Party, certainly much more frequently than many of their spokesmen would suggest. Most people dislike changes even if, in their heart of hearts, they know that the result of the change in the long run may be for the better.
It is, as I have said, our hope that there will be a very smooth transition in that part of the road haulage business which is to pass from the public into the private sector. I very much hope, and I take it that hon. Members on both sides of the House equally hope, that the number of people who will be obliged to take advantage of these Regulations will be very small indeed. We all hope that.
The concluding speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) was couched in vigorous language and inspired by the knowledge, of which he is undoubtedly an expert, of the background of these Regulations. It is quite true that I did not consider—and I repeat that I was right not to consider—that it was part of my proper province to consult the Road Haulage Association on the precise terms of the compensation to be paid by the British Transport Commission to those who lost their employment, but I lose no opportunity of urging on all those engaged in the road haulage business, and particularly those who will have renewed and greater opportunities in the future as a result of the Government's Act, their obligation to keep the standards and conditions of employment as high as possible and to make the indifferent employer look to the good employer so as to raise his standards to those of the good employer. I have no doubt whatever that in this

1015
business there will be improvements all along the line, although I would repudiate completely the oft-repeated assertion—repeated without any justification—that there were scarcely any good employers in the road haulage business.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West made a number of points, most of which, I think, had been made by previous speakers, and I shall take them up as I go along and deal with the various observations that have been made, but there are two points on which I should put the hon. Gentleman right. He said it was the case that the public always paid. In the sense that the users of transport in the long run have got to pay for the cost of transport, of course that is true, whatever the policy may be; but he said that the public paid compensation when the private industry was taken over and now the public are going to pay again.
Of course, the truth of the matter is that, though the British Transport Commission are the compensating authority under these Regulations, the cost of compensation of the road haulage employees will be borne out of the levy, and so it will in fact be borne by the very people who, the hon. Gentleman said, ought to bear it, the new owners and the owners of the road haulage industry, and by those other operators of transport, the C licensees, who are going to find as a result of the better service to be available that their opportunities of service will be better looked after than before.
There is one other point the hon. Gentleman made which, I think, ought to be picked up. He dealt with the question of appeals, and no one else, I think, referred to that. I did myself in my opening speech refer to appeals but not to this particular aspect. When the trade unions spoke to me about their dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the appeals procedure, I pointed out to them that under Section 28 (3) of the Transport Act, just like Section 101 (3) of the Socialist Government's Act, the appeals under these Regulations are to go to the appeals tribunal set up by the Minister of Labour and if they did not think that the appeals machinery was working smoothly they should realise, as indeed they freely did, that the procedure of this tribunal covered many subjects quite
1016
apart from transport, and only the Minister of Labour could properly deal with this issue.
Then they said to me, "Will you represent to the Minister that we are disturbed about it in this and other fields?" I said that I would certainly point out to the Minister of Labour that the trade unions had doubts on this matter, and we did so inform him, and that is now, I understand, the subject of direct communication between the Trades Union Congress and the Ministry of Labour.
Mr. P. Morris: The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point I was making. He has just recited that he has conveyed to the Minister of Labour what the trade unions thought about the matter. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman what he thinks about the matter. Does he agree, and is he prepared to support us in our representations? I am not imputing to him any failure to report what he said he would to the Minister of Labour, but will he support us in our representations? The new procedure is unsatisfactory. Does he agree?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I say, it is now under direct discussion between the Minister of Labour and the trade unions, and I think we had better see what emerges from those discussions. It is the appeals machinery in the Socialist Act of 1947 that is causing the trade unions a certain amount of anxiety.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) asked whether these Regulations could be rewritten in simpler English. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) quoted one passage of the Regulations which, I recognise, is in rather elaborate prose. It would be possible, if I had time, to take Statutory Instrument 1083 of 1950 for which his Government were responsible, which dealt with the same subject, and find a great many phrases in it that one would require to sit quietly by oneself wholly to elucidate on first reading. But let me point out to him that if his Government's Regulations were couched in simpler English, in the upshot they did not give anybody long-term compensation, and surely it is better that the Regulations should be complicated and do justice than be simple and prevent justice from being done?
Mr. Lindgren: All that happened under the 1947 Act was that a few employers lost their businesses without in fact losing their livelihood, but these people are losing their livelihood, and there is a difference between the two.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept that explanation of the difference, but I hope to deal with one or two points to show that we are really looking after people who may lose certain rights.
The hon. Member for Clapham referred also to paragraph 16 in the Second Schedule, and he said he could not make out what it meant. It is perfectly plain. It deals with the point which I made earlier about the continuation of pension rights under the separate Regulations which I am going to introduce, I hope, during the Recess.
Under Section 27 of the Act we shall preserve the pension rights by service up to the date of loss. One hon. Member, in an interruption, quoted the case of a man aged 50 years who had 30 years' service. We would preserve his pension rights to that extent now under the Regulations to be issued under Section 27, but by the compensation to which I drew attention today we would increase his pension rights by the pension that he would have earned if he had done 40 years' service, that is, by one added year for each year of service after 40, so that he would not be at a disadvantage even if he was in no position to continue to make his payments as a contributor under the British Transport Commission.
I think that a trade unionist would prefer to have a complicated Clause and be all right than to have a simple Clause that gave him nothing at all. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South, in his wide-ranging speech, raised almost every other issue which has been raised tonight. May I say that perhaps his juggling with figures this afternoon would manifestly qualify him to any treasurership which might ever be available, even if some of the wild language which he used about the matter was not designed to facilitate that very end.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the people who are employed now on a temporary basis. He asked whether they are going to get compensation on their temporary pay or only on their substantive pay. The answer is that compensation is based on the annual rate of
1018
earnings at the time of the loss, and whether these are acting earnings or permanent earnings does not affect the issue. I draw attention to page 1 of this Statutory Instrument which sets out the definition of "current net emoluments." The next point which the right hon. Gentleman raised was the question of the qualifying period.
Mr. P. Morris Mr. P. Morris rose——
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have only six minutes and there are other questions I should like to answer.
The hon. Members for Swansea, West, Clapham and The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) all dealt with this point. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools got very impassioned about my failure to date from the White Paper and my insistence that we ought to date from December, 1951. Then he proceeded to quote from a letter which, if I understood him correctly, came from somebody who would appear to have 30 years' service and therefore would qualify three times over; but I am not claiming that that gentleman is so qualified, because I do not want to take up the functions of the compensation authority. The quotation he gave of the actual instance——
Mr. D. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman's charge was that the Home Secretary on 12th November did in fact set out the Government's policy. I proved by quoting the Home Secretary's speech that he did nothing of the kind. In fact the right hon. Gentleman himself on 21st May, in the debate on the White Paper, actually admitted in his speech that he was then setting out the Government's policy.
Mr. Morris: Does the right hon. Gentleman——
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I felt it right to give way to the hon. Member for The Hartlepools because I referred to a letter which he quoted. In my last five minutes I must deal with other points which have been raised.
I shall not again go over the qualifying period, the long-term compensation and the other issues with which I dealt fully in my opening speech, but as a number of hon. Members have spoken about "suitable employment" and

1019
showed that they have confused it with "comparable employment," I wish to make a few observations about it.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite will look at page 7 of their own Regulations of 1950 they will find "suitable employment" used on the two relevant occasions. There has been some confusion about this. A man can be refused compensation because he does not take up "suitable employment." I defend the use of those words because they occur in the 1950 Regulations and in the 1946 National Insurance Act of the Socialist Government, and the phrase is common form. But if the man accepts "suitable employment" which is not "comparable employment," he gets compensation for the difference between the new job which is not comparable and his previous job.
I think hon. Members slightly confused the phrases "suitable employment" and "comparable employment." In Section 5 of the National Insurance Act, 1946, it is expressly provided that the phrase "suitable employment" and the whole section should not be rigorously interpreted in the period immediately after the loss of employment. If there are any further worries about that matter, I will gladly discuss them with hon. Gentlemen on any suitable occasion, publicly or privately, but I do not believe that their fears are justifiable.
Mr. Manuel: Might I put one question to the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Mark-ham) asked me a very important question about National Service. He wanted to know if it is clear that, when a man's appointment with the Road Haulage Executive is interrupted by military service, the military service ranks as continuing service with the Road Haulage Executive. I can give an absolutely definite "yes" to that. Service with the Road Haulage Executive and service with the State as a National Service man constitute continuous employment.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) raised a very important point. He said it would be very galling for road haulage drivers now leaving the
1020
employment of the Road Haulage Executive to find that there will shortly be a pension scheme for the Executive's employees. I ask him to ponder upon the consequence of that observation if there is soon to be——
Mr. Mellish: That is not what I said. I said that a pension scheme for Road Haulage Executive employees was being negotiated and if it had not been deferred because of the introduction of the Bill, drivers now leaving would be in a pension scheme. I asked the right hon. Gentleman what he was prepared to do about the pensions guarantee in the light of what he had said.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is exactly what I was saying. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be galling for people who might be leaving the service of the Commission to know that if they had stayed they would have got a pension and to see those remaining get a pension. But has the hon. Gentleman not realised that there would not have been a pension scheme at all but for the efforts not only of the British Transport Commission and the trade unions but of Her Majesty's Government? After the short period that this Government has been in office, we are entitled to claim very considerable credit by reason of the fact that a problem which baffled our predecessors looks as if it is in process of being solved. After this full discussion, I hope the House will approve the Regulations by the large majority which they deserve.
Mr. P. Morris: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he clarify one point? What will be the position about compensation for a man who by force of circumstances is compelled to accept promotion on an acting or temporary basis?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I said that a salary is taken into account with the net annual emoluments and it did not matter for that purpose whether it was the salary from a temporary job or a permanent job. I made that perfectly clear.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 234.

Division No. 222.]

AYES

[7.0 p.m.

Altken, W. T.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Lambert, Hon. G.

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

Duthie, W. S.

Lambton, Viscount

Alport, C. J. M.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

Langford-Holt, J. A

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Leather, E. H. C.

Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Erroll, F. J.

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

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Fell, A.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Arbuthnot, John

Fisher, Nigel

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

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Lindsay, Martin

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

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Ford, Mrs. Patricia

Llewellyn, D. T.

Baker, P. A. D.

Fort, R.

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

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Foster, John

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Baldwin, A. E.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Banks, Col. C.

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Barber, Anthony

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

Longden, Gilbert

Barlow, Sir John

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Low, A. R. W.

Baxter, A. B.

Gammans, L. D.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Beach, Mai. Hicks

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Godbor, J. B.

McAdden, S. J.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Bennett, Or. Reginald (Gosport)

Gough, C. F. H.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Bennett, William (Woodside)

Gower, H. R.

McKibbin, A. J.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Birch, Nigel

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Bishop, F. P.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Maclean, Fitzroy

Black, C. W.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

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

Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

MaLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

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

Boyle, Sir Edward

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Braine, B. R.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

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

Markham, Major Sir Frank

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

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Marples, A. E.

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Hay, John

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Heath, Edward

Maude, Angus

Billiard, D. G.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Maudling, R.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Higgs, J. M. C.

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

Campbell, Sir David

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Medlicott, Brig. F

Carr, Robert

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Mellor, Sir John

Cary, Sir Robert

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Molson, A. H. E.

Channon, H.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Hollis, M. C.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Cole, Norman

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Colegate, W. A.

Hope, Lord John

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Neave, A. M. S.

Cooper, Sqn, Ldr. Albert

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Nicholls, Harmar

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Horobin, I. M.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Craddock, Beresford (Shepthorne)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

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

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

Crouch, R. F.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

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

Nutting, Anthony

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

Odey, G. W.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Hurd, A. R.

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

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

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

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Davidson, Viscountess

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

De la Bere, Sir Rupert

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

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

Deedes, W. F.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

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

Digby, S. Wingfield

Jennings, R.

Osborne, C.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Partridge, E.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Donner, Sir P. W.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Perkins, W. R. D.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

Peto, Bri. C. H. M.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

Kaberry, D.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Drayson, G. B.

Keeling, Sir Edward

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

Kerr, H. W

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Pitman, I. J.

Snadden, W. McN.

Turner, H. F. L.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Soames, Capt. C.

Turton, R. H.

Powell, J. Enoch

Spearman, A. C. M

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Speir, R. M.

Vane, W. M. F.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

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

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Profumo, J. D.

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Vosper, D. F.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Rayner, Brig. R.

Stevens, G. P.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

Redmayne, M.

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

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Renton, D. L. M.

Storey, S.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Watkinson, H. A.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Robson-Brown, W.

Studholme, H. G.

Wellwood, W.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Summers, G. S.

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Roper, Sir Harold

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Russell, R. S.

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Teeling, W.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Scott, R. Donald

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Wills, G.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Shepherd, William

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Wood, Hon. R.

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

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

York, C.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn.'Peter (Monmouth)

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Thornton-Kemsley, Col C. N.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Touche, Sir Gordon

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and

Mr. Oakshott.

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Driberg, T. E. N.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Adams, Richard

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

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Albu, A. H.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Edelman, M.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Attles, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Keenan, W.

Awbery, S. S.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Kenyon, C.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Baird, J.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

King, Dr. H. M.

Balfour, A.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Bartley, P.

Fernyhough, E.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Bence, C. R.

Finch, H. J.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwiek)

Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Lewis, Arthur

Benson, G.

Foot, M. M.

Lindgren, G. S.

Beswick, F.

Forman, J. C.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

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

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Logan, D. G.

Bing, G. H. C.

Freeman, John (Watford)

MacColl, J. E.

Blackburn, F.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

McInnes, J.

Blenkinsop, A.

Gibson, C. W.

McKay, John (Wattsend)

Blyton, W. R.

Glanville, James

McLeavy, F.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Gooch, E. G.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Bowden, H. W.

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Bowen, E. R.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

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

Bowles, F. G.

Grey, C. F.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Manuel, A. C.

Brockway, A. F.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Mayhew, C. P.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Grimond, J.

Mellish, R. J.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Hale, Leslie

Messer, Sir F.

Burke, W. A.

Half Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mikardo, Ian

Burton, Miss F. E.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Mitchison, G. R.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Hamilton, W. W.

Monslow. W.

Callaghan, L. J.

Hannan, W.

Moody, A. S.

Carmichael, J.

Hargreaves, A.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Morley, R.

Champion, A. J.

Hastings, S.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hayman, F. H.

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

Clunie, J.

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

Mort, D. L.

Collick, P. H.

Herbison, Miss M.

Moyle, A.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Mulley, F. W.

Cove, W. G.

Holman, P.

Murray, J. D.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

Nally, W.

Crosland, C. A. R.

Holt, A. F.

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

Crossman, R. H. S.

Houghton, Douglas

O'Brien, T.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Hoy, J. H.

Oldfield, W. H.

Daines, P.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Orbach, M.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Oswald, T.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Padley, W. E.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Paget, R. T.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

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

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Janner, B.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Deer, G.

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

Pannell, Charles

Delargy, H. J.

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

Pargiter, G. A.

Dodds, N. N.

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Parker, J.

Donnelly, D. L.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Pearson, A.

964

965

Peart, T. F.

Snow, J. W.

West, D. G.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Sorensen, R. W.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

Popplewell, E.

Sosklice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Wheeldon, W. E.

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Sparks, J. A.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Praetor, W. T.

Steele, T.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Pryde, D. J.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Wigg, George

Rankin, John

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

Reeves, J.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Wilkins, W. A.

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Willey, F. T.

Rhodes, H.

Swingler, S. T.

Williams, David (Neath)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Sylvester, G. O.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

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

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Ross, William

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

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

Royle, C.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Shaokleton, E. A. A.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Shinwell, Rt. Hen. E.

Thornton, E.

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Short, E. W.

Timmons, J,

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Wyatt, W. L.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Yates, V. F.

Simmonds, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Viant, S. P.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Skeffington, A. M.

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

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Weitzman, D.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Mr. James Johnson and

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Wells, William (Walsall)

Mr. Wallace.

Division No. 223.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m

Aitken, W. T.

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

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

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Alport, C. J. M.

Harrison Col. J. H. (Eye)

Nutting, Anthony

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

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

Oakshott, H. D.

Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

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

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D

Arbuthnot, John

Hay, John

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

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Heath, Edward

Osborne, C.

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

Henderson, John (Catheart)

Partridge, E.

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Perkins, W. R. D.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Peto, Grig. C. H. M.

Banks, Col. C.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Peyton, J. W. W.

Barber, Anthony

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Barlow, Sir John

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Baxter, A. B.

Hollis, M. C.

Powell, J. Enoch

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Hope, Lord John

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Hornsby-Smith, Mist M. P.

Ralkes, Sir Victor

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Horobin, I. M.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Bennett, William (Woodside)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Redmayne, M.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Birch, Nigel

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Bishop, F. P.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Renton, D. L. M.

Black, C. W.

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

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Bowen, E. R.

Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hurd, A. R.

Robson-Brown, W.

Boyle, Sir Edward

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

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Braine, B. R.

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Roper, Sir Harold

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

Russell, R. S.

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

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Jennings, R.

Scott, R. Donald

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Shepherd, William

Bullard, D. G.

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

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

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Campbell, Sir David

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Carr, Robert

Keeling, Sir Edward

Snadden, W. McN.

Cary, Sir Robert

Kerr, H. W.

Soames, Capt. C.

Channon, H

Lambert, Han. G.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Lambton, Viscount

Spelr, R. M.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W)

Cole, Norman

Leather, E. H. C.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Colegate, W. A.

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

Stevens, G. P.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

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

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

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Storey, S.

Crouch, R. F.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Studholme, H. G.

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Summers, G. S.

Davidson, Viscountess

Longden, Gilbert

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Deedes, W. F.

Low, A. R. W.

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

Digby, S. Wingfield

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Teeling, W.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Doughty, C. J. A.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

Macdonald, Sir Peter

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

Drayson, G. B.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

McKibbin, A. J.

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Duthie, W. S.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Touche, Sir Gordon

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Turner, H. F. L.

Erroll, F. J.

Maclean, Fitzroy

Turton, R. H.

Fell, A.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Vane, W. M. F.

Fisher, Nigel

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Vosper, D. F.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

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

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

Ford, Mrs. Patricia

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Fort, R.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Marples, A. E.

Watkinson, H. A

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Maude, Angus

Wellwood, W.

Gamer-Evans, E. H.

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

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

George, Rt. Hon. Maj G. Lloyd

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Godber, J. B.

Mellor, Sir John

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Molson, A. H. E.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Gough, C F H.

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Gower, H. R.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Wills, G.

Graham, Sir Fergas

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Wood, Hon. R.

Grimond, J.

Neave, A. M. S.

York, C.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Nicholls, Harmar

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Nieolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Major Conant and Mr. Kaberry.

Harden, J. R E.

Nield, Basil (Chester)

1022

1023

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Hamilton, W. W

Pargiter, G. A

Adams, Richard

Hannan, W.

Parker, J.

Albu, A. H.

Hargreaves, A

Peart, T. F.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham E.)

Popplewell, E.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Hastings, S.

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Awbery, S. S.

Hayman, F. H.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Bacon, Miss Alice

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

Proctor, W. T.

Baird, J.

Herbison, Miss M.

Pryde, D. J.

Balfour, A.

Hobson, C. R.

Pursey, Cmdr. H

Bartley, P.

Holman, P.

Rankin, John

Bence, C. R.

Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood

Houghton, Douglas

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Benson, G.

Hoy, J. H.

Rhodes, H.

Beswick, F.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

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

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Bing, G. H. C.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Blackburn, F.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Blenkinsop, A.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Ross, William

Blylon, W. R.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Royle, C.

Boardman, H.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Bowles, F. G.

Janner, B.

Short, E. W.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

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

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Brockway, A. F.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

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

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Skeffington, A. M.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

Burke, W. A.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Snow, J. W.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Sorensen, R. W.

Callaghan, L. J.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Carmichael, J.

Keenan, W.

Sparks, J. A.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Kenyon, C.

Steele, T.

Champion, A. J.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Chetwynd, G. R.

King, Dr. H. M.

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Clunle, J.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Coldrick, W.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E

Collick, P. H.

Lewis, Arthur

Sylvester, G. O.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Lindgren, G. S.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Cove, W. G.

Logan, D. G.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

MacColl, J. E.

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

Crossman, R. H. S

McGhee, H. G.

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

McInnes, J.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

McLeavy, F.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Timmons, J.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Turner-Samuels, M

Deer, G.

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

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Delargy, H. J.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Viant, S. P.

Donnelly, D. L.

Manuel, A. C.

Wallace, H. W.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

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

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mayhew, C. P.

Weitzman, D.

Edelman, M.

Mellish, R. J.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Messer, Sir F.

Wells, William (Walsall)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Mikardo, Ian

West, D. G.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Mitchison, G. R.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Monslow, W.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Moody, A. S.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Fernyhough, E.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Finch, H. J.

Morley, R.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Wigg, George

Foot, M. M.

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

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

Forman, J. C

Mort, D. L.

Wilkins, W. A.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Moyle, A.

Willey, F. T.

Freeman, John (Watford)

Mulley, F. W

Williams, David (Neath)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Murray, J. D.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Gibson, C. W

Nally, W.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Glanville, James

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

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

Gooch, E. G.

O'Brien, T.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Gordon Walker, Rt Hon. P. C

Oldfield, W. H.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Oliver, G. H.

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Orbach, M.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Grey, C. F.

Oswald, T.

Wyatt, W. L.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Padley, W. E.

Yates, V. F.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

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

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Griffiths, William (Excharge)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Hale, Leslie

Palmer, A. M. F

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Pannell, Charles

Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.

Resolved:

That the Draft British Transport Commission (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, 19S3, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT COUNCIL (IMMUNITIES)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Wheat Council) Order, 1953, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 16th July.—[Mr. Nutting.]
10.11 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I do not think there is any quarrel with the purpose of the Order, but we should have some explanation from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the circumstances out of which it arises. The purpose is to give the employees of the International Wheat Council exemption from Income Tax, but what puzzles some of us is why this step should be taken now.
Although it is said in the Order that the United Kingdom is a member of the International Wheat Council, we cease to be a member at the end of this week. The future of the Council is in some doubt, because Australia and France have not ratified and, apparently, it is not known what their action will be until the meeting in Madrid. I much regret the sorry pass into which the International Wheat Council has fallen, but this is not the appropriate occasion to debate that. It is, however, an occasion when we should have an explanation from the Government of why the Order has been laid, in view of the uncertainty as to the future of the International Wheat Council.
Mr. Frederic Harris: I want to ask a similar point as to why the Order should apply if after the end of this week the United Kingdom is withdrawing from the International Wheat Council. The Explanatory Note says that the Council has its headquarters in London. Is it to continue to keep its headquarters in London? Can my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary give some information on that point?
10.13 p.m.
Sir Herbert Williams: I am always critical of diplomatic exemptions. Paragraph 2, on the back of the Order, says:
1026
"All employees of the Council, except citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, shall enjoy exemption from income tax in respect of emoluments received by them as officers or servants of the Council as from the twelfth day of July, 1950."
The Council, apparently, sits in London. Therefore, presumably, the people are paid in sterling. They are not, as I understand it, servants of their own Governments; they are not ordinary diplomatic persons. If they are foreigners, they pay no taxation. If they are British, they will pay taxation.
Imagine the case of two people of the same status, in receipt of the same gross salary, one an American or Frenchman or Australian or anything else, and sitting in adjoining rooms. One may have two or three times as much spending power as the other. Are these people who are not
"citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies"
liable to pay taxation in their own countries in respect of an income paid to them in this country by an international organisation which has its headquarters here?
It seems to me a very strange state of affairs. They are not in the position of Ambassadors. An Ambassador, even though he is accredited to the Court of St. James, is theoretically living in his own country. But these people to whom the Order relates are not of the status of Ambassadors and are, apparently, to be free of all taxation here. Will they be free of taxation in their own country?
10.15 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): I will certainly do my best to enlighten the House on the points which have been raised and to give a general explanation of this Order. I was asked by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) why we had introduced the Order now. Of course, neither Her Majesty's present Government nor the late Government have an entirely clear conscience on this subject. Both had considerable periods of time in which the Order could have been produced.
As far as Her Majesty's Government and my responsibility are concerned in the matter the answer is that we hoped to be able to bring forward a number of Orders relating to international organisations. As the hon. Member knows there

1027
is one relating to the Universal Postal Union, another relating to the World Health Organisation, another to the International Telecommunications Union, another to N.A.T.O. and other organisations. We had hoped to bring them all together in order to save Parliamentary time and to have a discussion on the whole subject. That has not been possible because those Orders are not ready and, as I shall explain, we are obliged to introduce this Order whilst we are still a member of the International Wheat Council, therefore, before 31st July when our membership ceases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) asked whether the headquarters of this organisation are likely to remain in London. I cannot give him a definite answer on that. We shall not be members of the International Wheat Council as from 31st July, when our membership lapses, and it will be for the International Wheat Council to decide where its headquarters shall be. No question of diplomatic immunities privileges can arise as far as this country is concerned. We shall not be obliged to grant any immunities or privileges after we cease to be a member whether or not the headquarters of the Council remain in London.
The general explanation of the Order is briefly this. On 27th June, 1949, the late Government ratified the International Wheat Agreement, which had been signed in Washington in March of that year, and under Article XVII (7) of the Agreement the Government accepted an obligation to grant exemption from tax on salaries paid to the staff of the Council if the seat of the Council should be established in this country. This exemption was not mandatory in the case of nationals of the country where the Council was set up, that is, in the case of nationals of this country. Since it came into being in 1949 the seat has been in London and, therefore, the obligation to grant exemption has fallen on Her Majesty's Government. The purpose of this Order is to carry out that obligation.
The draft Order is to be made under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950. This Act provides, as the House is aware, in Section 1, subsection (1) that it may only be applied in the case of organisations of which this country is actually a member.
1028
Since we cease to be a member of the International Wheat Council on 31st July, when the present Agreement expires, this Order must be made before that date. If it were not there would be no power to make it thereafter.
I am well aware that no diplomatic immunities Orders are ever popular on either side of the House, or for that matter, in another place, but I hasten to reassure my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite that the practical implication of this Order is in fact very modest. The International Wheat Council employ what I think can be described as a very small staff. There are at present 17 members in this country, of whom 14 are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and, therefore, untouched by this Order. Since the Wheat Agreement places no obligation on Her Majesty's Government to exempt their own citizens from tax and since the Act of 1950 specifically debars United Kingdom citizens from being given exemption, unless the agreement requires it, the Order only applies to Commonwealth and foreign members of the Council's staff. But there are only three such people at present employed on the staff. One is an American national paid by the United States Government, and not by the Wheat Council. He is exempt from paying United Kingdom Income Tax by Section 462 of the Income Tax Act, 1952.
Thus in effect the Order applies only to two present employees of the Council. Of the former Commonwealth and foreign employees only one is still resident in the United Kingdom. Therefore, in practice, this Order will benefit only three persons, two present employees and one past employee of the Council. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) about the position of foreigners and Commonwealth citizens who enjoy exemption under this Order, and whether they pay Income Tax on salaries in their own countries. I cannot answer for the Income Tax law of other countries. That is a matter for those other countries. Be they Commonwealth or foreign, this Order in no way exempts any Commonwealth or foreign citizen who is or was a member of the International Wheat Council staff from paying Income Tax in his own country. It applies only so far as United Kingdom Income Tax is concerned.

1029
I cannot say exactly what the concession will cost the Exchequer—only a few hundred pounds, certainly less than £1,000. The important point, however, is that by not making the Order Her Majesty's Government would be in breach of an international obligation under the International Wheat Agreement. This is a matter of principle, and whatever the size of the sum involved, this Order is necessary to discharge our international obligations. I hope that, with this explanation, the House will approve the Order.
Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Is it clear or is it not whether this Order will lapse on 31st July?
Mr. Nutting: The Order will not lapse but the power under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, to make the Order will lapse on 31st July because on that date we cease to be a member of the International Wheat Council, and the Act provides that we can only make an Order of this kind—or of any kind—for diplomatic immunities or privileges in respect of an international organisation of which we are actually a member.
Mr. George Brown: Does the Order have continued effect?
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Wheat Council) Order, 1953, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 16th July.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

ARMY ACT AND AIR FORCE ACT
Select Committee to have power to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House.—[Sir P. Spens.]

TRAINING OF TEACHERS, SCOTLAND
10.23 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Training of Teachers (Scotland) (Amendment No. 7) Regulations, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 1121), dated 21st July, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be annulled.
In the debate on the Estimates in the Scottish Grand Committee I and some of my hon. Friends asked the Secretary of State to withdraw the draft Regulations on the training of teachers. Since that time opposition has poured into his Department from many educational bodies in Scotland. But in spite of the representations that were strongly made in the Scottish Grand Committee, and in spite of these very strong representations that have since come to the Secretary of State, he has decided to present these Regulations to the House, Regulations which lower the standards and qualifications of persons who desire to enter the training colleges. It is true that the representations have had little effect. The Secretary of State has now decided that one of the subjects to be passed on the higher standard must be English. That is an improvement.
The right hon. Gentleman has also decided that these Regulations should apply only to women entrants. Originally they applied to some categories of men entrants. This again shows very clearly that the representations have had some effect. But the Regulations and what they contain are still a great danger to our country. The present position is that anyone wishing to enter a training college must have passed in two subjects on the higher standard and three subjects on the lower standard. These Regulations make it possible for a young woman to enter the training college with one pass on the higher grade, which must be English, and three on the lower, or two on the higher and two on the lower.
For a very long time in Scotland it has been the considered opinion of those interested in education that the present qualifications for non-graduate women are too low. The policy, particularly of the Educational Institute of Scotland has been graduation for every woman in the profession. These low qualifications the

1031
Secretary of State is now making even lower. The Joint Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for the Department of Education has had a Press conference in the last few days. I am not sure whether he has had two Press conferences——
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): One.
Miss Herbison: On Friday there was in the "Glasgow Herald" a statement he made about these Regulations, and in the "Glasgow Herald" of Saturday the statement he made about the new bursary Regulations. In the case of each of these it seems that some members of the Press asked him how those things included in the Regulations compared with the position in England. On Friday we find that he says:
"I admit that our standards"—
that is the standards asked of Scottish students—
"have hitherto been higher. The English will now be able to claim that in this narrow respect they are no worse than we are."
On Saturday, when he was dealing with the bursary Regulations he said,
"Why should we have to drag ourselves at England's coat tails? We have our own traditions and surroundings and we think that within the Scottish conditions these are pretty adequate bursaries."
There are two very different statements—one saying that these Regulations for entrants to training colleges bring us side by side with England and the other saying "Why should we drag behind England?" I would say that in the Regulations we are discussing tonight we are following England in a way that Scotsmen would not wish to do.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I correct the hon. Member? Actually the position in England is that their Regulations provide that the earlier training organisations, which correspond to our training authority, may at their discretion accept a person whose passes do not strictly fulfil the requirements of the Regulations, provided he or she is deemed likely to become a good teacher. That is all we are suggesting should be done here.
Miss Herbison: I am making no complaint that that is the position in England. I have known that for a long time. I am complaining of the fact that the Joint
1032
Under-Secretary wishes to hide behind England when it suits him and does not want to follow England when it does not suit him. That is the whole gravamen of my complaint. I would say indeed that these two statements of the Joint Under-Secretary show great vacillation on his part and are an excellent example of opportunism. I would say how typical this is of those who at present are responsible in this House for the well-being of Scotland.
What do hon. Members opposite know about the Scottish educational system? From my inquiries, I would say precious little. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who I see about to interrupt, is among the nine Scottish Members on the Government side who were educated wholly in Scotland. Out of the 35 Scottish Members on the Government side, 21 were educated wholly in England. I find that four of them began their education in Scotland, but their parents did not seem to think it was good enough and they finished it across the border. Only nine of them had the whole of their education in Scotland.
Where are the children of hon. Members opposite being educated at present? Are their children being educated in our primary schools in Scotland? I should be surprised indeed if that applied to many, if any, children of hon. Members opposite. What moral right have they to try to foist on our children in the primary schools teachers with qualifications lower than those for which they would ask in teachers for their own children?
Mr. H. R. Spence Mr. H. R. Spence (Aberdeenshire. West) rose——
Miss Herbison: I am sorry; I cannot give way. There are many who wish to speak and I must finish soon. I have been very good at giving way, and perhaps if the hon. Gentleman catches Mr. Deputy-Speaker's eye he will be able to make his point later.
When we were responsible for education in Scotland we were faced with exactly the same problem, but we tackled it in a very different way from the way in which the present Government are tackling it. We introduced a special recruitment scheme for teachers which required the normal qualifications from those wishing to enter the profession. In

1033
a little over two years that special recruitment scheme has brought in 1,069 recruits, of whom only 50 per cent. will be graduate teachers when their training is finished. Would it not have been much better for the Secretary of State and his Department to have tried to improve on that scheme, to have made that scheme more attractive and by so doing bring in more teachers while in no way lowering the qualifications asked for? If that is what they are doing, why this unseemly rush to lower the qualifications?
Perhaps in reply the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to tell me whether these figures are correct. He was reported as saying that in five years' time this lowering of the qualifications will produce 400 extra teachers for Scotland. I would say that was perhaps the maximum. It may even be fewer than 400 with the lower qualifications. Is he quite certain that as against that, at the most, 400, he will not lose many honours graduate teachers from the profession?
At present we are having the greatest difficulty in attracting teachers for mathematics and science. I pointed out in a previous debate that in almost every other profession in the country the qualifications are being raised. Qualifications required of doctors, dentists and other professional men and women are being raised and by so doing the status of those professions is being raised. By lowering the qualifications for teachers we shall obtain 400 non-graduate teachers in a little less than five years' time, possibly at the expense of honours graduates of whom we are very short indeed in the teaching of certain subjects
We on this side of the House are not the only people who oppose these Regulations. As the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows full well, many local authorities oppose them. The biggest two in Scotland, Glasgow and Lanarkshire, have protested to the Secretary of State.
Sir William Darling: Edinburgh have not.
Miss Herbison: I am coming to those reactionary local authorities who are ready to accept anything at all.
Glasgow and Lanarkshire are joined by Aberdeen, which has always been famous for its interest in education, and
1034
by Dumfries, Kincardine and Renfrewshire. They are all completely opposed to these new Regulations. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) has said, we find that Edinburgh is supporting the Regulations. One should not be surprised at anything reactionary that might come from Edinburgh City Council. Moray, Nairn and Sutherland education authorities completely oppose the Government's proposals.
It is evident that the education authorities in Scotland who are responsible for the education of the overwhelming number of Scottish children are opposed to the lowering of these entrance qualifications. The Joint Under-Secretary appears to be indicating dissent, but on examination I think it will be found that the overwhelming number of the children are under the care of local education authorities who are opposed to this scheme. The members of the local education authorities are the men and women who are on the spot and who face this problem of shortage of teachers every day. They are the men and women upon whom the Government have imposed the duty of providing facilities for education. Yet these same men and women are those who, in their wisdom, oppose the lowering of the entrance qualifications.
It is true that the National Committee support this proposal, but let us consider the views of those who are nearer the problem and those who know what qualifications should be required. There are four provincial committees on the training of teachers in Scotland. Three out of the four—the Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen committees—are opposed to this lowering of the entrance qualifications. I do not know whether the fourth—Dundee—have made any representations at all, whether they have told the Secretary of State that they support these proposals or whether they have kept silent. These men and women who are responsible for the training of teachers in Scotland realise what a retrograde step the Government are proposing. The Educational Institute of Scotland oppose this scheme completely.
Even at this late date the Joint Under-Secretary should reconsider the decision that he and his right hon. Friend have made. I should very much like to know

1035
from where this suggestion has come. I have my own suspicions, but I should very much like to know, because it means that if these Regulations become law tonight Scotland, who was always so proud of the fact that she demanded certain qualifications, is now going to be in a position of knowing that this Government—these Tories who are in control of us—have as little hope of dealing with educational problems as they had when I left training college, when it was not a question of a shortage but a surplus of teachers.
At that time teachers in Glasgow were teaching anything up to 50 children in one class, and I and hundreds of other graduate and fully trained teachers were going about the streets of Scotland, idle. The Tories of that day could not or would not deal with that problem, and they are saying today that they cannot deal with the present one.
I have never made an attack without proposing some other means of meeting the shortage. I ask the Joint Under-Secretary to read—if he has not already done so—what I said in the Scottish Grand Committee. The problem today is a shortage of educated men and women in all professions, and we are not going to cure that shortage if we do nothing to ensure that more of our children stay at school after they are 15 years of age. I beg him to bend all his energies to getting these children to stay at school after they are 15. Then, in five years' time, he would have many more students for the teaching and other professions than he has now, and without lowering standards in any way.
10.42 p.m.
Mr. John Rankin: I beg to second the Motion. In view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has covered a great deal of the ground in her able speech, I do not propose to follow her by repeating many of the points she made. I should like, however, to put one or two points, to which the Joint Under-Secretary referred in our debate on the Scottish Estimates.
When he was speaking then he said:
"Supposing there is a girl who, instead of getting 51 per cent. in French, gets only 49 per cent. but, on personal examination"—
1036
a peculiar sort of phrase—
"is found to be well-qualified so far as all the attributes of teaching are concerned, the proposal is that the training authorities shall have the right to say, 'Yes, we will accept that exceptional case.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 30th June, 1953; c. 89–90.]
There are some unusual phrases in that statement by the hon. Gentleman, but I leave them to him. I should have thought that one of the attributes of education was a cultural background.
I simply cannot imagine a teacher in the proper sense of the word who was deficient in that respect. I should apply that yardstick not merely to one particular stage of education, but to all its stages. I think that cultural background is just as necessary at the infant stage of teaching as at the secondary stage, and, furthermore, to teach the pupil at the secondary stage is no more difficult than teaching at the primary stage or the infant stage. Teaching at the secondary stage is no more difficult than it is when dealing with the younger children; and time and time again we have heard complaints from secondary schoolteachers of the weakness of the material that comes to them from the primary schools. The various stages are interdependent.
If we are, by these Regulations, to lower the cultural background of those engaged in the early stages of education, then we shall weaken performances throughout the whole school. We shall hinder the pupil at every stage, and that is one reason why it is so important that we should maintain the standard of qualification of the teachers at all stages if we wish to maintain the standard of the output which comes from our schools today.
That is one of the chief criticisms that can be laid against this proposal by the Government. The Government are admitting to teacher training those who just fail in the leaving certificate examination. Is there any logical reason why they should not, at some future date, admit to teaching those who just fail at the training college? The second step could quite easily be a logical consequence of the step proposed tonight and that, to me, is one reason, and a very important reason, why we should oppose these Regulations in the Division Lobby tonight.
During the course of the debate on the Estimates stage when mention was made

1037
of this subject, I pointed out that we were dealing with an old type of solution which had been tried before in the teaching profession; that is, the lowering of the standard of entry; lowering the attainments necessary and, thereby, providing more necessary personnel for the schools. That method has failed in the past. It has been tried before without success. I have pointed out on a previous occasion that these Regulations were to apply principally to women. That is because it has unfortunately always been found easy in this matter to divide the teaching profession.
So long as we have these two different types of qualification, so long as the Government can say to the men, "This is something which does not affect you," so long will they find it easy to put the Regulations through, because they will have divided the teaching community. The Joint Under-Secretary of State met the objection about lower qualification by saying that the Regulations would not apply to men and that the qualifications necessary for entry to the training colleges would be preserved for them although it would be lowered for women. We welcome that little concession, but it is a qualified concession because it means that the Government have made the separation complete, which is a dangerous thing.
They are separating the women engaged in certain phases of teaching from the remainder of the teaching profession. They are applying more clearly than ever the old policy of dividing the profession in order to try to get part of it to carry out Government policy. That is a dangerous thing to do, for we cannot degrade one part of the profession, we cannot attack the foundations, without finding by and by a creeping paralysis affecting the entire profession. Gresham's law will operate here just as surely as it operates in other parts of our economy.
There is another reason why I oppose the Regulations. The attempt to lower the status of women, which is inherent in the Regulations, is in direct conflict with every trend in life today. The claim which women are making today is for a status and salary equivalent to that of men. We recognise that here; there is no discrimination within Parliament such as we are seeking to impose on the teaching profession. There is no discrimination in other professions—the medical
1038
profession. The claim for equality is being recognised more and more widely throughout every profession and business in the country, yet in these Regulations the Government are taking the retrograde step of moving in the opposite direction. That is wrong for the profession, for the children of the nation and for the nation itself, and because of that I hope the House, even at this late hour, will reject the Regulations.
10.55 p.m.
Sir William Darling: I am pleased to enter this debate because the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) was good enough to say that I was one of those qualified to take part in it. I understand that she went on to say that she thought I had a broad outlook. She went on in the language of exaggeration when she said that these Regulations were a great danger to our country. I must say that when I hear my country is in danger it is a call I am unable to resist. When I heard those words I had to look at these Regulations and the kind of problem we are discussing. It is to get more teachers. That is what we want.
That is the position, and the desire of the Secretary of State is to get more teachers. Is that not a laudable object which we may well commend to the House, although it may be that the method by which he proposes to do it may not commend itself to the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends; but the hon. Lady is prejudiced because she speaks from a very narrow point of view—the class of persons she represents.
Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I do not represent the Educational Institute of Scotland or any teachers in this House. I represent all the people of North Lanark.
Sir W. Darling: The hon. Lady entered this House as a representative of the profession she chose and in which she showed much distinction, and she still speaks from that point of view.
Miss Herbison: I do not.
Sir W. Darling: The hon. Lady is by profession a teacher, and she is proud to be a teacher. She was a teacher of the very highest quality, and she speaks for a limited class quite effectively. I am not a teacher, I have never been one, I am

1039
not qualified, I am not one of those, but I am one of those of whom the teachers ought to be ashamed. They failed to make anything of me. They could do nothing for me, but the common people of South Edinburgh have shown on many occasions a high appreciation of my talents.
The object is to get more teachers ultimately in schools in Scotland, but immediately we have to do something about the present situation. We find we are not getting sufficient applicants to enter this extremely important calling. and if I understand the proposals, my right hon. Friend proposes to take special steps to get more teachers, more persons to enter the training colleges. In order to do that he has looked at the number of people coming forward and has found that a large number of persons, particularly girls, want to be teachers but have not the full qualifications to enter the training colleges.
Miss Herbison: There are 450.
Sir W. Darling: The number is unimportant. I do not think we want to deny to any clever young girl, who feels teaching to be her calling, the right to become a teacher. If she wants to do this I do not want to be the one to keep her out of it. I am not like the trade unionists who want to keep everything for people of their own class. If there is a girl in Edinburgh who wants to become a teacher, I do not want to discourage her. I am going to give her a job, particularly when I learn what the Regulation is.
This is what is happening. Here is a clever girl who has qualified in four subjects out of five, English, geography, history and mathematics, but who is not very good at Latin. She gets 100 per cent. in the first four subjects, but is not good enough at Latin. She is mad keen to be a teacher. On a Saturday she sets ups her little dolls and teaches them, she goes to Sunday school, but she has only four qualifications out of the necessary five subjects. But she has a feeling about teaching, she wants to impart knowledge, she has ideals and is anxious to be a teacher. This girl does not want to be a shop assistant, a nurse, or even an M.P., but under the present arrangement she is not allowed to enter the training college.
1040
A girl who qualifies in four subjects but fails in another may show personality and keenness at the interview. My right hon. Friend's proposal is that such a person should be allowed to enter a training college with a view to becoming a teacher. That is all the proposal is. There is to be no lowering of the standard upon leaving the training college. If the girl does not reach the required standard as a result of the course, she does not become a qualified teacher. We are pleading not for the qualifications to be lowered but for the right to enter the college. Should a keen girl with four qualifications, although not four and a half or five, be denied the opportunity of entering? My right hon. Friend says that she could get a chance.
I speak for a constituency which is in no way inferior to others in education. It is in no way behind Glasgow, nor does it humble itself before Dundee. The City of Edinburgh takes the view that it has a lot of bright girls to whom it would like to give the opportunity of becoming teachers. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) say that they are not to have it. The two hon. Members represent a trade union whose desire has been to keep a narrow class limitation in the interests of the profession. All trade unions act in that way. The hon. Members are acting true to form. They are narrowing down the area of choice of free citizens, and I object to it.
Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, I should like to make it clear, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is not true that I represent a trade union.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Sir W. Darling: It is not a very good tribute to the clarity of mind which the profession confers upon those who follow it that the hon. Member does not know what a point of order is. I believe I am right in saying that both he and the hon. Lady represent the teaching profession in the sense that they were at one time teachers and have not lost the taste for the profession. I suggest that they are trying to make their profession more exclusive, maybe for good reasons, like the engineers and other trades seek to do. They want to make it more difficult for people to join the profession. It may be

1041
a reasonable point of view, but I do not agree with it. I speak for Edinburgh, whose girls who want to become teachers are at present denied the opportunity.
Mr. William Ross: Who was it tried to keep certain people from opening shops in Princes Street?
Sir W. Darling: I could easily give the reason for that——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Any discussion about shops in Princes Street on this Motion would be very much out of order.
Sir W. Darling: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was as much out of order in that intervention as was the hon. Member for Tradeston just now.
Those who oppose the Motion are, intentionally or otherwise, restrictionists. They are hindering the opportunity of people to follow a certain calling. I should be in agreement with hon. Members opposite if the standards on leaving the training colleges were being lowered, but that is not so. People who are anxious to follow the profession are to be allowed to enter; if they qualify they will be allowed to become teachers, but if they do not qualify they will be forbidden to become teachers.
A young girl who is anxious to become a teacher takes her courage in her hands and enters a training college. She knows that if she fails to pass the required standard she will be discarded and will not become a teacher. She knows that her life will be broken. Yet, because she is to be given this opportunity, hon. Gentlemen opposite are against it. I do not think that by hindering and limiting the choice for the citizen to make a mess of his or her life it will improve education.
I would go further and say to the teachers and those who represent the teaching profession that this quandary in which we find ourselves is not a reflection on the Government, or its predecessor, but on the teachers themselves. We are not getting boys and girls coming forward with the necessary qualifications because the primary and secondary school teachers have failed in their duty and, having failed, now turn round and say, "Because you are not fit we are excluding you by law." That is most unfair and unjust. Here is a profession which has failed entirely to do its duty and, having failed to do its duty, attaches a penalty on
1042
children who are victims of its incompetence and ineptitude.
I hope these Regulations, put forward in such grandiose terms, it is "a calamity" said one member, "a disaster" said another, will be approved. Let it be quite clear that it is no calamity or disaster, but a worth while decision and a serious plan to increase the number of students into the teaching profession.
11.12 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I think the Opposition were perfectly right to initiate this debate, and the Government welcome the opportunity to explain and justify the measures that are before us. It was to be expected that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) would oppose these Regulations. They said that they would do so, and we know that in any matter affecting teachers they have a natural interest. In the present case their language has been almost as strong as their feelings.
Mr. A. Woodbum: There is going to be a lot of misunderstanding if my hon. Friends are held to be speaking for teachers. Their interest in putting forward this Prayer is the interest of the children and not of the teachers.
Mr. Stewart: I did not say anything to the contrary, but it is clear that the hon. Members who have spoken feel very deeply about this matter. It does not necessarily follow in a problem of this nature that to feel deeply is the same thing as to think rightly. Deep feelings, particularly in this case, may very well lead one to quite wrong conclusions and to a completely distorted judgment of the situation. This is what we have witnessed tonight from the other side.
Mr. James H. Hoy: What about your own side?
Mr. Stewart: According to hon. Members opposite, by introducing these revised Regulations we are taking what they call a retrograde step, a degrading step, which is a danger to our country. I must say that these phrases do not strike me as an expression of mature thought or sober judgment. Their language is rather biased and prejudiced; it is the

1043
language of political controversy rather than of impartial consideration. It really does not serve any good purpose for hon. Members to get so worked up about this matter. We have here certain plain, indisputable facts confronting us, facts which demand not only lip service—the hon. Lady gave them lip service—but action, if we are to safeguard the education of our children next year, the year after and for the next few years.
Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman has referred to me and says I have given lip service to the facts. I think that my time in his office showed clearly that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) and myself gave a great deal more than lip service to it. I would also draw to the attention of the hon. Gentleman that it is not only my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston and myself who are opposing these Regulations, but provincial committees for training teachers and the education committees—ordinary men and women who are responsible for education in Scotland.
Mr. Stewart: I am sorry if I have upset the hon. Lady; I did not mean in the slightest that she did not do a good job when occupying my position. But I say that it is no good in the face of the existing facts to pay lip service to them; we have to take action on them. That is what I am concerned with now and I want to recite those facts for the benefit of the House. When the present Government took office this is what we found, and it is because of the situation in which we found ourselves that we are obliged to take the action we propose tonight, and for no other reason.
The year before we took office the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends had become very much concerned about the shortage of teachers and set up a Departmental Committee to ascertain the existing and prospective vacancies in the schools. The Committee reported early in 1951. It said that the staffing outlook was far from satisfactory; in October, 1949, the number of teachers required to replace uncertificated teachers, retired teachers and married women wishing to be replaced, and to fill vacancies was 2,300; and added:
"According to our estimates the figures will fall to about 1,250 by the end of 1952 but
1044
thereafter the occupation of new buildings, the rise in the school population and the virtual cessation of output from the Emergency Scheme will together bring about a deteriorating position, and, if the present trends continue, the total assessed as above will be at least 3,000"—
that is to say, deficiencies—
"by 1956. The above figures minimise the gravity of the situation as several important factors such as the reduction in the size of classes have so far been excluded from the statistics."
By any test, those were serious figures, and it was to the credit of the hon. Lady and her colleagues that they introduced the Special Recruitment Scheme, designed to attract to the teaching profession men and women who had gone into other walks of life. Successful candidates, as she quite properly said, had to pass the usual tests and have the usual training before being awarded a certificate as a teacher. On more than one occasion I have complimented the hon. Lady on that scheme and I do so again now. It brought in 1,069 effective students to the training colleges, of whom already 292 have completed their courses.
It may interest the House to know that of the total just over half have been accepted for graduate courses, just under a quarter for non-graduate courses and under one-tenth for technical courses. This is the point on which I want the House to concentrate. Good though that scheme was in theory, valuable though it has turned out as an instrument for additional recruitment, it was and still is attacked and denounced by many of the same people who are attacking this Measure we are considering tonight.
The hon. Lady was the object of criticism, even abuse, for her scheme, just as we are for the step we are taking. Let me recall to the hon. Lady some of the things that were said about her attitude and her scheme. The Educational Institute, in their journal of 19th October, 1951, just before the General Election, said,
"The present proposals … merely touch the fringe of the problem and are unworthy of a great profession."
Later on, when the Secretary of State published draft Regulations to continue the scheme, the E.I.S. wrote to us on 29th February, 1952, to say,
"The Executive … have instructed me to intimate to you their opposition to the Secretary

1045
of State's proposal to continue the special scheme of recruitment."
And one other example. In their journal, that is to say, the Scottish Schoolmaster's journal—
Mr. Rankin: It is not their journal.
Mr. Stewart: The "Scottish Schoolmaster," the journal of the Schoolmasters' Association, in October, 1951, said this of the recruiting scheme,
"The constant dilution of the teaching profession by the entrance of individuals through emergency channels "—
there they were referring to both the Emergency Scheme and the Special Recruitment Scheme—
"gives a feeling of instability regarding the qualifications which a teacher should possess."
I could give other quotations of the same kind.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the point he has just made disposes of the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), and which I understand was imputed by the hon. Gentleman, that my hon. Friends are speaking tonight for the teaching profession? They were speaking for myself and other hon. Friends who are not members of the profession.
Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman has quoted what the Educational Institute has said. In the Estimates debate I took up the points they made and I also quoted the provincial committees of educational authorities who criticised the special arrangements scheme.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Lady is quite right, and if she will be patient I will come to all these matters. The same sort of criticisms from the same people have been levelled against the scheme we are discussing tonight. I want the House to know that. We now know there was no justification for the fears expressed to the hon. Lady in 1951. She was right about it from the start. She said there was no justification for any qualms about dilution. I am just as confident tonight that similar fears arising from the present proposals will equally prove to be groundless.
Let me continue with the little bit of history I must offer to the House. Despite the success of the Special Recruitment Scheme—and it was a marked success, for
1046
the hon. Lady secured a large number of applicants—the problem of teacher-shortage remained and the hon. Lady realised that something additional had to be done. She spoke on the wireless and elsewhere most eloquently, making earnest appeals for more teachers. But there was a continued shortage which I think increased in her time.
When the second report of the Departmental Committee was presented to my right hon. Friend some months after we took office, the position was demonstrated to be more disturbing than ever. After making full allowance for the potential increase of entrants to the Training Colleges from the Special Recruitment Scheme and for other factors such as the new Code, this revised report found this:
First of all they found that the deficiency of teachers in October, 1951, was no fewer than 2,300. That is when we took office. Secondly, they found that, while normal recruitment, plus the output of the new scheme of the hon. Lady and of its predecessor, the Emergency Training Scheme, would safely cover wastage up to 1957, after that date, when the flow from these exceptional measures was likely—and I think the hon. Lady will agree may very well be likely—to diminish, the output from normal training courses would be insufficient unless more students entered the Training Colleges in the next few years. The conclusion of that second report, which was given to us a few months after taking office, was that unless something substantial was done, and done quickly, to stimulate recruitment, by 1957 the deficiency would rise to 3,300. That was the grim situation which the hon. Lady's Government left us to face and, somehow, to deal with.
When we examined the details and analysed the total figures we discovered three particularly dangerous features in that situation. First of all, the shortage of mathematics and science teachers was acute when we took office and had been worsening every year since the end of the war, and this Departmental Committee forecast that by 1957 the shortage of these highly specialised trained men and women would be as much as 26 per cent. of the total strength required.
I should perhaps tell the House that there are at present 1,550 teachers of

1047
mathematics and science in Scotland, that we are short of 280, and that the deficiencies are increasing at the rate of 50 per annum. The potential effect of that situation upon industry and upon the production of future scholars of these two supremely important subjects gave my right hon. Friend the gravest concern.
Next we discovered that in October. 1951, the shortage of women domestic teachers was 220 and by 1957 would rise to something over 300. Lastly we discovered that by far the largest deficiency of all was among teachers in primary schools, which accounted for almost half the total. In 1951 it amounted to 1,000. and we were advised by the Committee that by 1957 the figure would rise to at least 1,500.
The House is, I think, aware of the particularly difficult phase into which Scottish—and English—education has moved, and is moving in the course of the next few years. Partly because of the peak birth-rate in the years 1947–50, partly because of the continued drive for smaller classes, but not least as a result of the growing number of new schools in new housing areas, we shall in the course of the next few years be faced with a substantially larger school population. In primary schools it will mean an increase of 25,000 over this year's figure, and in secondary schools an increase of 52,000 on this year's figure. In consequence, we shall find an acute, an increasingly acute, demand for teachers.
Now, it is the combination of those conditions, concentrated as they are into a relatively limited period, and coming upon us almost at once—indeed, it has started already—that makes this problem so anxious and so urgent. That was the inheritance which we took over, and it was a pretty bleak inheritance. We had to do something swiftly and effectively, and since the problem is so many sided we had to consider not one remedy but many. I will tell the House what we propose to do. On the shortage of teachers of mathematics and science, my right hon. Friend has already indicated that he proposes to set up a committee to advise him. Tomorrow he will have——
Mr. Ross: I suggest that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is completely out of order.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the Regulations are of a much narrower scope than will enable the Joint Under-Secretary or anybody else to survey the whole educational field.
Mr. Stewart: I was replying to the hon. Lady, who dealt with the shortage of teachers of science and mathematics. She asked what we were going to do and I was about to say to the House that tomorrow my right hon. Friend has an interesting statement to make on this very matter. I leave it at that. Again answering the hon. Lady who asked what we were doing, we are proposing a propaganda campaign by leaflets, talks, speeches, and broadcasts, just as she suggested.
Mr. Speaker: These Regulations really deal mainly with the admission of women teachers, and all these other things are out of order. I do not think that the debate can go as wide as this.
Mr. Stewart: I am bound by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but when one is attacked and criticised by the mover and seconder of the Motion for not doing certain things, it is very difficult when one is refused the opportunity to reply.
Mr. Speaker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman makes a general statement denying what has been said, if he feels so inclined, but that thereafter he should confine himself to the Regulations, for we really must get on with the business.
Mr. Stewart: I will content myself with saying that we are taking those measures, for which the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North asks, to encourage more people to become teachers and to encourage particularly gifted children to stay on at school. We are doing exactly as she asked. We have increased bursaries by as much as 60 per cent. with that end in view, and soon we shall be undertaking an inquiry to find out whether there is anything that prevents people who otherwise would do so from becoming teachers. Teachers' organisations, and the hon. Lady, have said, "That is not enough. What you want to do is to give us bigger salaries." It would be out of order, however, to deal with that.
Miss Herbison: I did not say that.
Mr. Stewart: Well, the teachers are saying that, and it would be out of order for me to deal with it.

1049
I think that the plans which I have outlined will commend themselves to the House. Many of them arise from suggestions made, among others, by the hon. Lady. We shall carry on with those plans with all the strength we have. But that demands good will from everybody concerned and, as every experienced person will know, these plans will take time to develop and fructify. Meanwhile—and that is the reason for this measure—the "bulge," that perplexing, educational monster advances upon us inexorably, and may overcome us unless we take special steps—immediately—to increase the flow of recruits into the Training Colleges.
The Regulations with which we are concerned, in the opinion of the Government, are an essential step towards increasing the flow of recruits. We have not taken this step of issuing these Regulations lightly, nor without seeking the best advice available to us in Scotland. I am satisfied, despite what the hon. Lady has said, that the bulk of responsible educational opinion supports us. It is true that a number of bodies and organisations have declared against these Regulations; but if the House would care to add up all the bodies who have pronounced they would find that just as many have come down in their favour as against them.
I could give the hon. Lady details of them if she asked me. For example, six education authorities have criticised them, but six are for them, in view of the changes we have made in the draft Regulations. The Association of Headmasters are against them, but the Association of Headmistresses are for them. One university senatus is against them, but the directors of education are for them. Three Provincial Committees are against them, but the National Training Committee—the central authority for training teachers in Scotland—pronounce in favour of them. Teachers' organisations are against them, but they were also against the hon. Lady's recommendations. When we recollect that the great majority of Scottish education authorities have not commented at all, it is safe to assume that the majority of them take our view, and that is certainly the impression I formed when I met the local authority associations some weeks ago.
1050
What does this scheme amount to? If the Regulations are carried into effect, what changes will take place? The answer is quite simple. Eighty or so additional girls each year will be given the chance to enter the Training Colleges and become certificated teachers of young children, but apart from that virtually no change will occur. It has been suggested that this is dilution. I ask, dilution of what? It is not dilution, in any sense, of the demands of the training colleges. Indeed, the tendency may be quite the reverse. The girl who enters the college with 48 per cent. instead of 51 per cent. in, say, Higher History will have no easy passage. She will be required to go through exactly the same training as others, to meet the same exacting tests, and pass the same examinations.
The very fact that she goes in with a mark or two less than her class-mates will make it incumbent upon her—and her instructors—to pick up the difference before the end of the course. If she fails to satisfy her instructors within the first few months of her course—within what is called the probationary period—out she will go. If, at the end, she falls short of the standards demanded by the College, again she will be failed, and will not become a teacher. Only those students who meet the normal, full requirements of the Training Colleges will be awarded certificates as qualified teachers.
That being so, I cannot understand how this can be described as dilution. It is a complete myth. There is no dilution. That is the situation, and I feel that the House should not be unduly moved by the spate of specious propaganda which has descended upon us. The situation with which my right hon. Friend is now confronted, is that at this moment we have a crisis on our hands. It is nothing less than a crisis. Present methods are insufficient to meet the country's educational needs. Others have to be found—and found at once.
I have searched earnestly for alternatives to those proposals which the House has discussed tonight. I have waited anxiously for constructive suggestions from the Opposition, but I have heard none. In fact there are no practical alternatives. None have been offered by anybody in the discussion tonight, nor have any been offered by anybody outside; and, since there are no practical

1051
alternatives, my right hon. Friend has had to take a decision. But, he is conscious of the many fine traditions of Scottish teaching, and he desires that we shall maintain our high standards. He is resolved that the children of this generation shall by adequate education, with classes of proper size, and with adequate teachers; and, in the interests of the children—which must be our overwhelming order that they may have
sufficient teachers, he has come to the conclusion, reluctantly, but confidently, that this change must be made.
Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Training of Teachers (Scotland) (Amendment No. 7) Regulations, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 1121), dated 21st July, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be annulled.
The House divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 164.

Division No. 224.]

AYES

[11.36 a.m.

Allen, Scholefield (Crowe)

Hamilton, W. W.

Parker, J.

Awbery, S. S.

Hannan, W.

Peart, T. F.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hargreaves, A.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Balfour, A.

Hayman, F. H,

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Bartley, P.

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

Price, Phillips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Bance, C. R

Herbison, Miss M.

Proctor, W. T.

Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

Hobson, C. R.

Pryde, D. J.

Benson, G.

Holman, P.

Rankin, John

Beswick, F.

Houghton, Douglas

Rhodes, H.

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

Hoy, J. H.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Bing, G. H. C.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Blackburn, F.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Ross, William

Blenkinsop, A

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Blyton, W. R.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Short, E. W.

Boardman, H.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Bowden, H. W.

Janner, B.

Simmons, C. J. (Brlerley Hill)

Bowles, F. G.

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

Skeffington, A. M.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Sosklce, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Burke, W. A.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Sparks, J. A.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Keenan, W.

Steele, T.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Kenyon, C.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Champion, A. J.

King, Dr. H. M.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Clunie, J.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Sylvester, G. O.

Coldrick, W

Lindgren, G. S.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Colliok, P. H.

MacColl, J. E.

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

McGhee, H. G.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Cove, W. G.

McInnes, J.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Cullen, Mrs. A.

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

Wallace, H. W.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Manuel, A. C.

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

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

Wells, William (Walsall)

Deer, G.

Mayhew, C. P.

West, D. G.

Delargy, H. J.

Mikardo, Ian

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Mitchison, G. R.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Monslow, W.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Moody, A. S.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Fernyhough, E.

Morley, R.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E.)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Wilkins, W. A.

Foot, M M.

Nally, W.

Willey, F. T.

Forman, J. C.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

Williams, David (Neath)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

O'Brien, T.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Gibson, C. W.

Orbach, M.

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Oswald, T.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Grey, C. F.

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

Wyatt, W. L.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Pargiter, G. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Royle and Mr. Horace Holmes.

NOES

Aitten, W. T.

Boll, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

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

Bennett, William (Woodside)

Campbell, Sir David

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Carr, Robert

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Birch, Nigel

Cary, Sir Robert

Arbuthnot, John

Bishop, F. P.

Channon, H.

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

Bowen, E. R.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grlnstead)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Boyd-Carpenter J. A.

Cole, Norman

Banks, Col. C.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Barber, Anthony

Braine, B. R.

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

Barlow, Sir John

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Baxter, A. B.

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Crouch, R. F.

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Bullard, D. G.

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Davidson, Viscountess

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

Renton, D. L. M.

Deedes, W. F.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Digby, S. Wingfield

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Roper, Sir Harold

Donaldson., Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Scott, R. Donald

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Shepherd, William

Drayson, G. B.

Longden, Gilbert

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

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Fell, A.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Snadden, W. McN.

Fisher, Nigel

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Soames, Capt. C.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Speir, R. M.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

McKibbin, A. J

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

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stem)

Mackle, J. H. (Galloway)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Gomme-Duncan, Cal. A.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Cower, H. R.

Maclean, Fitzroy

Stoddart-Soott, Col. M.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Studholme, H. G.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E

Summers, G. S.

Harden, J. R. E.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

Harris, Frederic (Croydan, N.)

Maude, Angus

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

Teeling, W.

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

Medllcott, Brig. F.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Mellor, Sir John

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

Heath, Edward

Molson, A. H. E.

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Neave, A. M. S.

Touche, Sir Gordon

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Turner, H. F. L.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenehawe)

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Turton, R. H

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

Vane, W. M F.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nugent, G. R. H.

Vosper, D. F.

Holland-Martin, C. J

Oakshott, H. D.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Hollis, M. C.

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

Walker-Smith, D. C

Hope, Lord John

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Horobin, I. M.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Osborne, C.

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Partridge, E.

Wellwood, W

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

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

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

Pitt, Mist E. M.

Wills, G.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Powell, J. Enoch

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

Wood, Hon. R.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Kaberry, D.

Rayner, Brig. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Kerr, H. W.

Redmayne, M,

Major Conant and

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.

Question put, and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY DEPOT, EASTRIGGS
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Studholme.]
11.45 p.m.
Mr. Niall Macpherson: The question I want to raise tonight concerns a Mr. Stothart and a Mr. Richmond and the circumstances in which they parted company with their employers, the Ministry of Works. They were employed at the Ministry of Supply establishment at Eastriggs, a village in my constituency built up entirely during the first World War in order to meet the needs of the war at that time. During the Hitler war the Ministry of Supply, I am told, employed at that place five joiners, two bricklayers, two painters and a plumber. I am informed the actual accommodation to be maintained is much the same at the present time, except that three farm buildings were taken into use for storage of empty cases during the war.
1054
In 1942–43 the Ministry of Supply took on the two employees in question. Mr. Stothart was taken on as a joiner. He is a man who was wounded in the leg at Gallipoli. He is very lame still, and the wound still gives him trouble. At the moment he is awaiting admission to hospital for the removal of a dead bit of his limb. He belongs to the district, he has a house there, and he is aged 58. Mr. Richmond is a plumber. He is a man who was badly shell-shocked at Tobruk in 1941. He was invalided out in 1942, and taken on in 1943 at Eastriggs. He belongs to Glasgow. He was advised when he was invalided out of the Army to go and work in the country because of the state of his health.
The Ministry of Works took over the maintenance of this establishment in 1946, and the establishment was then cut down to a joiner and a plumber, Mr. Stothart and Mr. Richmond, and ultimately two labourers. I understand at the beginning of 1953 the Ministry of Works gave notice that they were going to hand

1055
over the maintenance of the establishment to outside contractors, and they gave six months' notice at that time of their intention to Mr. Stothart and Mr. Richmond and the two labourers. Three, at any rate, of them were established, and being established civil servants, of course, they were offered alternative employment elsewhere. They were to be sent to Glasgow. Mr. Richmond was to be sent back to the place which he was told to leave for his health. The odd thing is that the labourer asked to be sent to Edinburgh, his home, but he has been transferred to the Ministry of Supply at Eastriggs. The others could have been taken on by the Ministry of Supply at Eastriggs, but as labourers and not as tradesmen. The position is, of course, that both have lost their jobs because they declined to go to Glasgow. They lost also their pensions with their jobs, and they do not get compensation because they were offered these jobs in Glasgow.
I appreciate that the decision of the Ministry of Works to hand over the maintenance of the building at Eastriggs to private contractors may have been the result of a general decision, but the general decision ought not to have been applied without consideration of the special circumstances of the employees on the spot. I am informed that a man is working there whole-time doing the very job that Mr. Stothart was doing.
I seriously suggest to my hon. Friend—I have had discussions with him about the matter—that men like these two who have lost the zest of life through the service which they have given to the country, deserve special consideration. When considering future policy for Eastriggs, it would have been reasonable for the Ministry to take their special circumstances into consideration. Yet Mr. Richmond was virtually told "We recognise that you had to leave Glasgow for the good of your health, but you must go back there or leave your job without compensation." To Mr. Stothart. the Ministry said "We know that you are in no condition of health and not of an age to change your home, job and way of life, but the regulations say that you have either to take the job which is offered to you or lose the pension rights which you would have had in two or three years' time in your present job and also
1056
your rights to compensation." It is extremely hard.
I recognise that, rightly or wrongly, the Ministry have taken the step at Eastriggs and have already handed the maintenance work over to a private contractor. But the work is still there to be done by somebody. I urge my hon. Friend not to let his Ministry gain a name as a bad employer. The Ministry should set an example as a good employer. In this case, the compensation at least ought to be paid, but if the regulations preclude the payment of compensation, the right and proper course is to make an ex gratia payment. The cost to the Ministry for both men would perhaps be £500, but the Ministry would gain the advantage of a feeling among the employees that the regulations will be used not against them but in their favour and that the Ministry will do—as I am sure my hon. Friend will say—everything in its power to stretch points in such hard cases as this, giving the men who have served it well the greatest possible consideration when a difficult decision has to be made.
11.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), discharging the duty of representative of his constituents, has raised tonight the case of these two men who were employed by the Ministry of Works at Eastriggs. I hope to be able to satisfy him that, having due regard to the amount of work to be done and the need for economy in public administration, every reasonable step was taken by my Department to give these men an opportunity of alternative employment.
My Department is responsible for the maintenance of the establishment belonging to the Ministry of Supply at Eastriggs. The amount of work to be done has been declining and for some time before the beginning of this year it was found that Mr. Stothart, the joiner, and Mr. Richmond, the plumber, and the two labourers, were not fully employed upon maintenance. In fact they were not employed more than two-thirds of the time. In the circumstances it was natural that we should look to a local contractor to undertake the responsibility for the maintenance of this establishment.
The hon. Member will realise that we have principles which have to be applied

1057
throughout the many establishments and buildings for which the Ministry of Works is responsible. Because these men were established we were under an obligation to try to give them continuous employment. If they had been unestablished industrial employees it would have been possible and natural for us merely to discharge them when, owing to the decreased amount of work, it was decided to employ a local contractor instead of direct labour. Because these two men were established industrial employees we offered them alternative employment.
The hon. Member has referred to the fact that Glasgow is a long way from Eastriggs, but that was the only place where we could offer them alternative employment. We have approached the Minister of Supply who had found employment for the two labourers, but they had no job to offer to a joiner or a plumber. They were willing to take either or both as labourers. We were able to offer them alternative employment in Glasgow, and one of the obligations which an established industrial employee undertakes in return for his increased security and right to a pension is that he will move to where the Department can give him employment.
In the case of Mr. Richmond, I understand he has now elected to go to a local authority which has employed him in the place where he lived.
Mr. Macpherson: That is not actually correct. He is employed by a private engineering firm as a machinist.
Mr. Molson: Yes. The reason I was not entirely informed about that is because we have not dismissed either of these two men. In fact, as the hon. Member has said in carefully chosen words, these men and the Ministry of Works have parted company and we have never dismissed them. They were told to report for work at Glasgow and they did not do so. As a result of representations made by my hon. Friend Mr. Stothart was granted an extension first of one week and then of a second, but he has not elected to report for work in Glasgow. I am without information as to whether he has obtained alternative employment or not.
My hon. Friend has referred to Mr. Stothart's service in the Army and to the wound he sustained at Gallipoli. I am
1058
quite sure that that information is reliable but we had heard nothing about his going into hospital until I received my hon. Friend's letter, dated 8th June, and we still are without information about it from Mr. Stothart. If it had been the case that he was just on the point of going into hospital he could have obtained sick leave for that purpose, but in fact he never made complaint to us upon the subject at all.
My hon. Friend has suggested that the Department should consider the particular cases of all their employees if ever they decide to close down an establishment. I do feel that if my hon. Friend considered what that would involve he would realise that it would make the ordinary administration of a rather large Government Department almost impossible. We are bound by the Superannuation Acts which have been passed by this House and which lay down the general principles upon which pensions are to be awarded and gratuities are payable. Gratuities are payable on three grounds; first, ill-health; secondly, abolition of office; and, thirdly, age limit. In fact these men do not come under any one of those three categories. I followed my hon. Friend's speech carefully and I think he was careful not to attempt to base his case upon any one of those three contingencies which are provided for in the Superannuation Acts.
What in effect he asked us to do was to depart from the general principles which are applied by the Superannuation Acts and which have, therefore, the authority of this House, in order to treat these particular individuals in an entirely exceptional way. When my hon. Friend referred to what the cost of paying a pension or gratuity to Mr. Stothart would be and represented it as a very small amount, I think he omitted to notice that it is really impossible for us to treat a single individual in an exceptional way without creating a precedent which must apply throughout the country. It is for that reason that the Ministry of Works is obliged to apply in the case of its own employees those general principles which are applied by all Government Departments under the direction of the Treasury in accordance with legislation passed by this House.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we made every effort to find alternative em-

1059
ployment for these two men at Eastriggs. We made representations to the Ministry of Supply and were successful in the case of the two labourers and we could have obtained employment for these two craftsmen as labourers. We could not undertake to pay a gratuity to a craftsman if he is unwilling to remove to where another job is offered. The effect of that would be to bring completely to an end mobility of labour among those employed by the State. We should find that wherever Government establishments were closed down all the employees would ask to receive a gratuity and would not move to other parts of the country where the Department was able to give them employment.
I feel that in the way we have treated these craftsmen who have worked for a number of years for the Ministry of Works, but not long enough to qualify for a pension, we have shown great consideration and done the best we can to find them alternative employment. We have no information about Mr. Stothart's illness, other than that given by my hon. Friend——
Mr. Macpherson: Which I trust is accepted.
Mr. Molson: Which indeed I accept, but we still have no confirmation from the man himself. He has made no claim for a gratuity on that basis. It is impossible for us, simply out of sympathy for these two craftsmen, to depart from the established principles.
Mr. Macpherson: May I ask if it is open to Mr. Stothart to make such an application for a gratuity on the grounds of ill-health?
Mr. Molson: I think it is extremely unlikely that he would be able to obtain it. His record shows very little absence due to sickness. What is open to him is to report to Glasgow and the extensions of one and two weeks which we have already considered as a result of the representations of my hon. Friend will be extended to re-employ him in Glasgow if he likes to re-consider his decision to remain in our employ.
Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes past Twelve o'Clock a.m.

  N.A.T.O. POWERS (STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT)
  N.A.T.O. POWERS (STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT)
SHIPPING
  Medical Aid and Life-Saving
  Medical Aid and Life-Saving
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  S.S. "Nidar"
  S.S. "Nidar"
  Statutory Instrument No. 1036
  Statutory Instrument No. 1036
ROADS
  Stoke-on-Trent
  Stoke-on-Trent
  Traffic Congestion, London
  Traffic Congestion, London
  Bridge, Ardrossan
  Bridge, Ardrossan
  Accidents, West Riding
  Accidents, West Riding
  Roundabouts (Size)
  Roundabouts (Size)
  Lancashire, Cheshire and Staffordshire
  Lancashire, Cheshire and Staffordshire
  Grant Allocations
  Grant Allocations
  Totnes By-pass
  Totnes By-pass
  Manchester Area
  Manchester Area
  Lossiemouth
  Lossiemouth
  Lay-byes (Woodlands)
  Lay-byes (Woodlands)
  Victoria Embankment
  Victoria Embankment
  Queensferry Bridge
  Queensferry Bridge
  Shetland
  Shetland
TRANSPORT
  Commission and Executives (Appointments)
  Commission and Executives (Appointments)
  Hire Purchase Agreements
  Hire Purchase Agreements
  London Fare Increases
  London Fare Increases
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Woolwich Arsenal (Government Proposals)
  Woolwich Arsenal (Government Proposals)
  Ordnance Factories Inspections (Committee's Report)
  Ordnance Factories Inspections (Committee's Report)
  Jet Engines (Noise)
  Jet Engines (Noise)
  Steel Plate
  Steel Plate
  Security Officers
  Security Officers
  Princess Flying Boats
  Princess Flying Boats
  Brabazon Aircraft Project (Cessation)
  Brabazon Aircraft Project (Cessation)
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Benefits (Cash Payments)
  Benefits (Cash Payments)
  Retirement Pensioners (Assistance)
  Retirement Pensioners (Assistance)
  Pneumoconiosis Benefits (Partially Disabled)
  Pneumoconiosis Benefits (Partially Disabled)
COAL
  Stocks and Supplies
  Stocks and Supplies
  Colliery Houses (Valuation)
  Colliery Houses (Valuation)
  Devon and Cornwall (Prices)
  Devon and Cornwall (Prices)
  Pithead Baths
  Pithead Baths
  AIR POLLUTION (LOW GRADE COALS)
  AIR POLLUTION (LOW GRADE COALS)
  PETROL (PRICE)
  PETROL (PRICE)
MINISTRY OF MATERIALS
  Softwood
  Softwood
  Blown Timber, Scotland
  Blown Timber, Scotland
  SINGAPORE (HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION)
  SINGAPORE (HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION)
  MALTA (NEW INDUSTRIES)
  MALTA (NEW INDUSTRIES)
  NIGERIA CONSTITUTION (LONDON CONFERENCE DELEGATES)
  NIGERIA CONSTITUTION (LONDON CONFERENCE DELEGATES)
  DIPHTHERIA IMMUNISATION
  DIPHTHERIA IMMUNISATION
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Housing (Exchequer Subsidies)
  Housing (Exchequer Subsidies)
  Rural Water Supply Schemes
  Rural Water Supply Schemes
  Exchequer Equalisation Grants
  Exchequer Equalisation Grants
  Repairs and Renewals Funds, London
  Repairs and Renewals Funds, London
  PROVISION FOR OLD AGE (COMMITTEE)
  PROVISION FOR OLD AGE (COMMITTEE)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Rat Poisons (Sale)
  Rat Poisons (Sale)
  Crime Statistics, London Area
  Crime Statistics, London Area
  AGRICULTURE (LLANVERIAN ESTATE PROJECT)
  AGRICULTURE (LLANVERIAN ESTATE PROJECT)
  SLAUGHTER OF HORSES COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  SLAUGHTER OF HORSES COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  LINEN EXPORTS (RETURNS)
  LINEN EXPORTS (RETURNS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS BILL [H.L.]
  2.37 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [The references are to Bill No. 58 as first printed for the House of Commons]
  Clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—
  ("(a) the Rector; (b) the Principal of the University;").
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to retain the Rector of the University as the Chairman of the University Court. Your Lordships will remember that, at an earlier stage of the Bill, much of our discussion centred round the question whether the Rector or the Principal should preside. My noble and gallant friend Lord Tedder and the rest of the Royal Commission in their Report, had suggested that the Principal should preside over the University Court, and I must say that at an earlier stage of this Bill I felt that those arguments held the field. At any rate, I also felt it was as well to let the Royal Commission's proposals go as a whole to another place where they could be fully debated with the benefit of our full discussion before them. When the Committee stage was finished, I warned the Secretary of State that the arguments and the feeling in your Lordships' House seemed to me to be moving towards keeping the Rector in the Chair, and that he might well find
  880
  in another place a situation very similar to that which prevailed in your Lordships' House. That was in fact the result when the Bill came to Committee in another place; the proposal to retain the Rector in the Chair was carried by a decisive majority, and the Government accepted that view. My Lords, when personality—in the person of Lord Crawford—and tradition hold the field, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to execute a modest political somersault. The Government ask your Lordships to accept the Commons Amendment. I therefore beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Home.)
  LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I wish to add nothing to what the noble Earl, Lord Home, has said: indeed, I was hoping that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, might offer his own observations. I think, however, it is correct to say that tradition, and perhaps mainly the personality of the individual suggested, accounts for the fact that the other place decided to reverse the opinion expressed by the members of the Royal Commission. My own feeling is that the Royal Commission were correct in their recommendations. At the same time, one cannot help but recognise, and admit, that the present Rector of the University is one who is acceptable to everyone. It is to be hoped that under his chairmanship the University will have the success that those of us on the Commission hoped it would achieve.
  LORD REITH: My Lords, may I say to the noble Earl that some of us are very glad that the Government saw fit to change their minds on this matter. It is a satisfaction to us that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, should be retained in the position which we felt he so fully merited. I think we should have been even more glad had the Government seen fit to change their minds a few months earlier, rather than put the Whips on against what we so earnestly and urgently then suggested. At any rate, it is a matter of great gratification that the noble Earl now feels as he does.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 3, page 3, line 3, at end insert ("not exceeding five years").
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, it was thought reasonable that the Crown Assessors who are to sit on the University Court should not have their term extended beyond the initial five years by Order in Council for more than a further five years. The Government's intention has always been that the Crown Commissioners should sit on the Court only during the period of reorganisation of the University, and that clearly, I think, ought not to exceed ten years. That period should give ample time; indeed I hope that the reorganisation will be completed very much sooner. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 3, page 3, line7, leave out subsection (2).
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 15, page 10, line 5, leave out ("(except subsection (5) thereof)").
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this Amendment will bring the repeal provisions of the Bill, which are in the final subsection, into force on the passing of the Bill. Before amendment the Bill required these provisions to be brought into force by Order in Council. This was proposed only because one of the repealed provisions was a necessary part of the provisions changing the chairmanship of the University Court, and should not have taken effect until the new Court came to be constituted. As there will now be no change in the chairmanship of the court, repeals can take place at once. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 15, page 10, line 10, leave out line 10 and insert—
  ("(5) In that portion of the Act twenty George the Second, chapter thirty-two, which relates to the right of patronage and presentment of the Principal and the several professors in the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard the words "Principal and" where they first occur,")
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this Amendment will have two results. It will repair an omission by repealing the provisions of the Act of 1747 which empower the Crown to appoint the Principal of the United College. In future, he will be appointed by the University Court. Secondly, it will delete the provision repealing Section 5 (5) of the 1899 Act, which places the Rector in the chair of the University Court. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  2.46 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the consideration of the Commons Amendment read.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [The reference is to Bill No. 59 as first printed for the House of Commons.]
  Clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end insert—
  ("Provided that nothing in this section shall authorise the transfer to the Trust of endowments which in the aggregate yielded in the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, an income exceeding one hundred and twenty thousand pounds.")
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this Amendment was adopted by the Government in the light of the general view that there should be a specific limit on the

  883
  extent to which the Hospital Endowments Commission are empowered under Clause 2 (1) to transfer endowments to the Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust which is to be set up. I think the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, was interested in this matter. It was thought that there should be sufficient funds left in the hands of the hospital authorities to meet amenities and things of that kind. The Amendment has the effect of limiting the transfer of endowments to the Trust to an aggregate of such an amount as in the year ended March 31, 1952, produced an income of £120,000. This is the equivalent of about 27 per cent. of the current income of the endowments vested initially in the boards of management. That is thought to be a reasonable arrangement, and I hope your Lordships will agree to it. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Home.)
  LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, may I be allowed to intervene for a moment only to say that I am sorry to see that a specific figure has been put there. I think that both the Trust and the hospitals would have benefited, if anything, by there being no figure at all. It is, I think, an exaggerated fear that the hospitals will not be left with enough money for amenities and certain improvements which they say they have to introduce from these moneys. My belief is that if the Trust are allowed to get the figure which is adequate for their needs, particularly in research, they will be satisfied, and the hospitals will have no reason for complaint. In the circumstances, however, I do not think it necessary or worth while to vote against the figure in the Bill.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  VALUATION FOR RATING BILL
  2.48 p.m.
  Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUS- TRIAL INJURIES) (No. 2) BILL
  Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

  MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COMMISSION BILL
  2.50 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, I have asked my noble friend Lord Mancroft whether he would be agreeable to my putting this Bill before your Lordships. In the White Paper on Full Employment which I published when I was Minister of Reconstruction, and in the production of which I had the great benefit of beng associated with the noble and learned Earl who now leads the Opposition, we wrote these words:
  "There has in recent years been a growing tendency towards combines and towards agreements, both national and international, by which manufacturers have sought to control prices and output, to divide markets and fix conditions of sale. Such agreements or combines do not necessarily operate against the public interest, but the power to do so is there. The Government will therefore seek power to inform themselves of the extent and effect of restrictive arrangements and of the activities of the combines, and to take appropriate action to check practices which may bring advantages to sectional producing interests but work to the detriment of the country as a whole."
  I think that in the Coalition Government we were wise to make this provision. It was as a consequence of that that the Monopolies Bill was subsequently passed.
  The Bill that I have the honour to introduce to your Lordships to-day has a limited scope and a single purpose. It is to strengthen the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission so that they can deal at any one time with a greater number of investigations. Monopolies and restriction of competition, as we said in 1944, are not necessarily harmful, but they have the power to do harm. The Monopolies Act did not, in fact, prohibit restrictive conditions or any particular example of them, but it instructed and empowered the Government to arrange for their investigation and to take what remedial action they thought was necessary in the public interest. The Commission were embarking on a difficult task: it was a novel task in which they were not able to be guided by precedents. They had to establish a procedure which brought a steady stream of reports, and they have succeeded in doing so. I think they have a good achievement to their credit.

  885
  It is most important that we should now review the situation and make whatever changes experience has shown to be necessary in order to improve the machinery of the organisation that we placed at their disposal. This Bill, which I imagine will have the support of all sections of the House, is a simple machinery Bill. It provides the terms of service of the chairman, makes arrangements for the appointment of one or two deputy chairmen and seeks to lay down the sort of conditions that will attract men of the necessary background and ability. It increases the permissible maximum of the Commission. If I remember rightly, the members originally numbered eight, and when noble Lords opposite were in power that was increased to ten. Now we are proposing, in Clause 2 of this Bill, to increase the number to twenty-five. Having done so, we now propose that these twenty-five gentlemen, or such of them as are appointed, should be permitted to work in groups. As the Act now stands, the chairman is appointed from time to time by direction of the Board of Trade. He may be appointed for a maximum of seven years, in the first instance, and this may be extended to twelve years. There is no power to pay any pension and no power to appoint a deputy chairman.
  We have been fortunate up to date, but it would be relying on extraordinary good fortune to expect that men of the calibre needed for this Commission, and to strengthen it, can be induced to serve on these terms. Whilst it is not necessarily the case that lawyers should be appointed to these high positions, the qualities of mind and personality required are little, if any, inferior to those required in a High Court Judge. Important aspects of the work are of a semi-judicial character. I think your Lordships will agree that, in these circumstances, it is appropriate that we should have terms of security and superannuation likely to attract the right kind of men. The type of men we have in mind is, broadly, similar to that suitable to act as County Court Judges or as National Insurance Commissioners. We are hoping we may get men who have already achieved some distinction in their professions, who would probably be in their early fifties, and in our opinion it would not in these days be reasonable to expect such men to apply for positions
  886
  that were neither permanent nor pensionable.
  Therefore, in the Bill we are proposing that the chairman and deputy chairmen should be permanent appointments. Permanency is conferred by prescribing the age limit of seventy for retirement, with possible extension of not more than two years at a time, without any provision for earlier determination of appointment, except on the unlikely ground of misbehaviour or on the ground of incapacity. The chairman or deputy chairman would not get a pension under the Bill if he retired after less than five years' service, and no pension on retirement below the age of sixty-five except on medical grounds, unless he was certified as being permanently incapable of continuing the work. His pension would be on a sliding scale, rising from one-quarter of his salary on vacating office after five years' service to a maximum of one-half of his salary after completing fifteen years or more. The power to appoint deputy chairmen is permissive. None will be appointed until it is found necessary to make appointments in order to engage in the work.
  Your Lordships will notice that in the Bill we have arranged for groups in the Commission. Experience has suggested that live is the minimum number of members required to provide the necessary variety of outlook and experience, and accordingly it is thought desirable to make this a statutory requirement. In this new field of Government investigation, it is important that we should build up a volume of case law, so that, as a result of inquiries, discussions and conclusions, both public opinion and business opinion may be guided to sound conclusions as to the practices which are, and those which may not be, in the public interest. The expansion of the Commission and the transition to the group principle will hasten the time when this body of case law can be established. As a consequence of the discussions that took place in another place, when we come to the Committee stage we shall make three drafting Amendments of a minor nature, with which I do not propose to trouble your Lordships to-day.
  I have given your Lordships a brief outline of the Bill that is before the House. Since I had something to do with the creation of this body, along with the

  887
  noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, I should like to pay tribute to the present chairman and the members of the Monopolies Commission, men of sound and educated judgment, who have carried on their work free from political bias or preconceived ideas: we are considerably indebted to them. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill he now read 2ª.—(Viscount Woolton.)
  3.2 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, has expressed the wish that this Bill should be passed through your Lordships' House with a blessing from all sides. I can tell him that we shall offer no opposition to the Bill, as a Bill, but during the Committee stage we may endeavour to persuade the Government that certain Amendments are desirable. When I have finished my short speech, your Lordships will perhaps realise that there is some ground for extending this Bill, if we can. I say that, because this Bill has been narrowly drafted. It is bound down closely by the Money Resolution passed in another place, and it may be that, if we endeavour to move Amendments on certain lines, they will not be in order. If your Lordships read the debates on the Committee stage in another place, you will find that some comment was made about this, because it restricted the character of the Amendments put forward by our friends in that Chamber.
  First of all, I should like to say a few words about a sentence in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade in another place. Apparently, he was resisting a suggestion that this Commission should be given authority, not merely to deal with monopolies, as we have hitherto understood them, but to deal with the nationalised undertakings, also. We are pleased that the President of the Board of Trade declined to accept the pressure brought to bear upon him in that regard. We may not entirely agree with the reason that he put forward, but to get a refusal from him seems to me most useful for the welfare of the great undertakings now run by the State. We on this side of the House do not admit that a nationalised undertaking is a monopoly, in the ordinary sense of that term and as we
  888
  have hitherto understood it. A monopoly, hitherto, has been to us a man, or a few men, controlling an industry to the exclusion of everybody else, and possessing the right of exploitation over the whole population. We look upon the nationalised undertakings as something quite different. They are a form of co-operation in which the whole of the population is involved. They do not exclude anyone from participation politically in the government and control of their organizations; they are subject to the power of the Government; they come under decisions of Parliament; and they have to stand every kind of criticism that can be brought upon a public body of every description. Therefore, we are pleased that the Minister found it unnecessary to accept such a suggestion, and has drawn a difference between a nationalised industry and one which is run as a monopoly in the old form.
  A second reference to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade in another place enables me to make a small point about something said by the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, as to the flow of activities which proceed from the Commission as now constituted. The President of the Board of Trade stated that in the four and a half years of the existence of this Commission there have been thirteen(an unlucky number) specific references to that body, and one general reference. From the Commission we have received in all Reports in six Cases—namely, on Dental Goods, Rainwater Goods, Electric Lamps, Electric Cables, Insulin and Matches. I hope it will be realised that, although we on this side of the House should be reluctant not to give our thanks to the Commission for the work they have done, we still have a feeling that much quicker progress might have been made had the conditions under which they were working been better. I am well aware that the conditions were largely laid down by our own Government which preceded the present Government, but we were then taking our first step in that direction. The scheme now in operation can be looked upon as a pilot scheme, and we were hoping that this Government, now that they have some little time, would, in view of the experience gained, give us a more extensive scheme than this Bill provides. There are many things that we have got to do if we are seriously

  889
  to tackle the evils which spring from private monopoly.
  Let us look for a moment at the extent of the field which is to be covered. In the White Paper published in 1951 it was stated that as long ago as 1938 30 per cent. of the consumer goods reaching the public came under price maintenance schemes laid down by manufacturers for the guidance of the retail trade. If one measures what has been done up to now with the great work that still remains to be undertaken, it will be realised that the steps taken by the Government to-day will not expedite matters very much in the great fields revealed. We should like to see the work of the Commission more developed than it now is. Before I say anything about the size of the Commission as it is to be, perhaps I should mention one other fact about the production of Reports hitherto. Sir Archibald Carter, the chairman, has indicated that, although the Commission have been working very well, none of their Reports have been issued in under a period of eighteen months—and, indeed, the average length of time taken to bring out a report has been just over two years. So, given that great expanse to be covered, and given the rate of progress up to the moment, it will be realised that it will be a long time before we defeat monopolies by the present measures.
  In another place members of my Party moved Amendments as follows: first, that there should be four vice-chairmen, instead of the two vice-chairmen proposed by the Government. They did that, in the first place, because there are to be twenty-five members of the Commission. They are to work in groups of five, so that if there is only a chairman and two vice-chairmen there will always be ten reserves standing by apparently with little to do.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: May I help the noble Lord? The whole twenty-five will not be sitting all the time, and in the opinion of the Commission a chairman and two vice-chairmen will be able to cover the work, so that there will always be either a chairman or a vice-chairman in charge of the investigation when they are taking evidence.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for his explanation.
  890
  While there is a slight difference between what he says and what I say, it will be realised that at no time will there be more than three groups sitting.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I do not realise that.
  LORD SHEPHERD: If there is to be a chairman and two vice-chairmen, and if the groups have to be presided over by the chairman or one of the two vice-chairmen, no more than three groups could sit on any one day.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: Yes, on one day.
  LORD SHEPHERD: Or at one period.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: No.
  LORD SHEPHERD: Perhaps the noble Viscount will give us more information when he replies.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: May I do it now, because it is so simple? The members of the Commission will not be sitting every day, and a chairman or vice-chairman will be able quite easily to be chairman of two groups at the same time, because the groups will sit on different days. I do not wish to pursue the matter further.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I understand what the noble Viscount has said, and I will accept it, but I can still see that if a chairman or a vice-chairman is a chairman of two groups, he will have to sit on different days, and on the day on which he presides over one group there will be no chairman for the other.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: The other will not be sitting.
  LORD SHEPHERD: It will not be sitting, because there will be no chairman to preside. At any rate, in another place we moved to have four deputy chairmen, instead of two. The Government, however, decided that they could not agree. Then we moved that the deputies should be made full-time members of the Commission, in order to extend the amount of working time and so expedite the work of the Commission. That, too, was declined. We then wanted to strengthen the basis upon which the Commission worked, by making it impossible that the chairman or deputy chairmen should have a great

  891
  financial interest in the trades or industries with which any inquiry was connected. Whilst it was pointed out that this was borne well in mind when appointments were made, we still feel that it would have been useful had there been something in this Bill which would have made it impossible for anyone who had a strong financial interest to undertake work in a given case. That, too, was refused. Then we moved another Amendment—the last one that I will mention—dealing with the appointment of assessors. We felt that if assessors were appointed, bringing skill and knowledge to the Commission, the work of the Commission would be more efficiently performed and, at the same time, would enable the Minister to enlarge the area from which the Commissioners would be drawn.
  We also quarrel with the Bill because we do not think it looks at the whole field as it ought to do. If, for instance, your Lordships will look at the number of inquiries that have been made and will study the names, it will be found that they are chiefly in the light and secondary industries. We feel that the time has come when we should take cognisance of some of the larger industries, and make quite sure that decisions taken within their own organisations respecting prices are for the public benefit. We are all aware of the fact that, in the steel trade, price fixing is the order of the day, and has been for a long time. Both sides of the House have taken special steps in establishing an authority which could deal with steel prices, on behalf of the State, the consumer and the producing bodies. But another great industry, such as the cotton industry, for example, can fix prices and yet, apparently, not be brought within the Government's supervision and the provisions of this Bill. What we must realise is that we are living in changing times. The old days when the price mechanism could vary the price at which an article was sold are fast passing away. Industry after industry is safeguarding itself against the price mechanism in that respect, and is fixing prices for commodities which will pay a profit and which, at the same time, will give the workers engaged in that industry the standard of living to which they are entitled.
  892
  In the 'twenties, when the cotton industry lived in the fiercest kind of competition, the trade of Lancashire and Cheshire had a very thin time indeed. It was almost impossible for factory and mill owners to make a profit at all. Those industries had been largely built up on loan capital, a part only of which has been subscribed in the first instance. When the bad days under competitive enterprise came after the First World War, to save the textile industry those uncalled monies were called up to the extent of£30 million, and in a very few years, because of continued bad conditions, nothing whatever could be seen for the great sacrifices some people had been called upon to bear. But now, in the spinning mill section of the cotton industry, we have price fixation; profits are again being made and, indeed, some sections of the cotton industry have been doing remarkably well. I should like some reference to be included in the Bill by which that industry could be brought under the terms of this Bill, so that, even though it is not selling goods bearing a trade mark, it shall not, because of its power, be able to hold customers at too high a price. On the other hand, members of my Party do not wish to see a condition of affairs under which there can be no unity or organisation in a trade. We are not anxious that it should be brought down to the level of the cotton industry between the wars, because that is bad for the working people and bad for the country. Therefore, we should like to see the Government taking a more positive line in this Bill than is the case now.
  Under this Bill and the main Act, action is taken only when a fault has been committed. Further action will be taken only when further faults are committed. We should like to see some machinery established which will enable the Government, or their representatives, to take action by which business can be put upon a positive footing. We agree that there must be a return on capital, because we think that capital is entitled to its due, whether it be owned by the State or by a private person. We want to see proper wages paid; we want to see continuous activity in trade. We are anxious about full employment. We desire to see fair and even prices. We want a sensible scheme of distribution, and for that purpose we want the State to enter into con-

  893
  sultation with all concerned, so that in each industry, by organisation, we can be given a certainty of good wages and good business. As I have said, we do not propose to object to the Second Reading of this Bill, but we shall hope, when the Committee stage comes, to make suggestions to the Government which may result in the Bill becoming a little more valuable than, I am afraid, it seems to be at the present moment.

  KOREAN ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
  3.22 p.m.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I hope the House will allow me to intervene for a short time to make a statement about Korea. I am glad to be able to confirm to your Lordships that the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed in the presence of representatives of the United Kingdom, the British Commonwealth, and other United Nations countries whose forces are fighting in Korea, at 2 a.m. British Summer Time this morning at Panmunjom, with a provision for a cease fire twelve hours later. After over three years of war, including two years of negotiation, the fighting should by now already have ceased along the front, and the two armies will withdraw from their forward lines to permit the formation of a demilitarised zone in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. I know that this news will be received with heartfelt thanks in all quarters of the House.
  It is not out of place to recall the extent of the United Nations achievement. For the first time since the formation of the United Nations, member States have taken up arms in collective resistance to aggression; and the joint action has been successful. Anyone who doubts that assertion should remember the military situation in August, 1950, when the total evacuation of Korea by the United Nations' forces seemed to be almost inevitable. Since that time the forces of aggression have been driven back beyond the line from which they started. These results would not have been possible but for the courageous decision of President Truman and the late United States Administration in June, 1950; and it is also right to remember that immediate support was pledged by the late Govern-
  894
  ment of this country, sustained by all Parties, by members of the Commonwealth and by other member Governments of the United Nations.
  The fighting has, unfortunately, been accompanied by heavy casualties. The United States have borne with great fortitude the main burden among the members of the United Nations, and we pay our heartfelt tribute to their fighting men and to their military leaders. The contribution of this country and of the Commonwealth, although less extensive, has also been one in which we can take pride. All three fighting Services have distinguished themselves. There have been renowned exploits, like the heroic fight of the Gloucester Regiment at the Imjim River, to which the world has paid warm tribute. There has also been a notable example in the Commonwealth Division of co-operation between the countries of the Commonwealth. To-morrow is the second anniversary of the formation of that division. To-day we think of those who have given their lives, and renew our sympathy with their relatives. We remember the sick and the wounded and also the prisoners of war, most of whom have been so long in captivity; and we rejoice with them and their families that they can now look forward to an early release. The people of Korea have suffered the most of all. Their land has been devastated. But the soldiers of the Republic of Korea have fought bravely, side by side with our own, and the civilian population has not flinched in adversity.
  There is one other body of people to whom I should like to pay tribute on the signing of the Armistice. I refer to General Harrison and his team of negotiators. Often criticised, with his difficulties frequently not understood, General Harrison has patiently and resolutely persevered in his task of reaching an agreement. My right honourable friend the Minister of State, as your Lordships know, had conversations with him last year when he was in Korea with the Minister of Defence; and he was greatly impressed by his earnestness and his broad common sense. I think General Mark Clark and he deserve our thanks and our congratulations upon this result.
  And now for the future. We know that there have been misgivings in South Korea about the future. We believe that

  895
  this Armistice was essential for the well being of the whole Korean people. The fighting, whilst it continued, was an absolute bar to any improvement in the general situation in the Far East. We are not yet, of course, through our difficulties; but now that the fighting has ceased we can once more look forward with hope, and we shall enter on the next stages of the meeting of the General Assembly and of the forthcoming political conference with the determination that a solution shall be found to the Korean problem which will lead to the peaceful unification of Korea. We cannot tell how long we shall have to keep our forces in Korea. To-day our main feeling, I am sure, in all quarters of the House, is one of determination that this Armistice shall form a turning point for the better in the Far East. In any case, we shall do our duty by the world causes of which we are the servants.
  3.28 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should like on behalf of the Opposition to express our concurrence with the views which the noble Marquess has expressed to-day and our profound thankfulness that this Armistice has at long last been signed, especially when we think of the number of casualties—I believe there have been over 400,000 casualties in all on our side, and that involved about 70,000 people killed. At a time like this, however, we should not think only of one side; we should think of the far greater casualties, as I believe them to be, on the other side; and we should feel thankful that that slaughter of precious human lives has apparently, for the moment at any rate, come to an end.
  I should like to endorse what the noble Marquess has said about the thanks which are due to the various people who have worked so hard, sometimes in the face of misunderstanding, to bring about that result. We should be foolish, on the other hand—as the statement which the noble Marquess has just made makes plain—to think that our difficulties are all over. Like the noble Marquess, I earnestly hope that it will not be long before our troops are back, but it would lie very wrong to treat the matter as though all the difficulties were over and our troops could be expected back in a
  896
  week or so. Unfortunately, it is not so. Although we hope that this will be a turning point, we realise that there are still great difficulties ahead, but I do not want to embark upon a discussion of them to-day, because we are having a Foreign Affairs debate on Wednesday, and that would be a more appropriate time to do so. We can, however inadequately, express our thankfulness. We have reached what the noble Marquess described as the turning point. I earnestly hope that we shall be able to carry on from this point so that, in future, peace may be restored to that tortured country.
  3.30 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches would desire to join with the Leader of the Opposition in expressing our thanks to the noble Marquess for the statement we have just heard and to join also in declaring how we share in the universal feeling of profound relief that this prolonged war, prolonged so far beyond all expectations, has at last come to an end. We realise to the full that this is only the ending of one, though perhaps the most hard and difficult, phase in the Korean struggle, and that there remains the political aspect. The ending of the war only opens up access to those difficulties which lie ahead and which we trust may reach a satisfactory conclusion.
  I observe that a leading article in The Times to-day bears the headline "Fought to a draw." I do not think that that is a true description of this war and its ending. I concur rather with the statement made by the Government, that this is the first time in the history of the United Nations when member States have collectively taken up arms to resist aggression and have been successful. The mistake really has been that at a previous stage in the war we were not content with that, but pushed on beyond the original frontier up to the frontier of China. If that had not been done, perhaps this war would not have lasted so long and the casualties would not have been so great. I think we should take the opportunity to-day of paying tribute to the Government of India, a member of the Commonwealth, which not only took a leading part in arranging diplomatically for the cessation of hostilities, in the face of very great difficulties, but also has taken the lead, together with four intermediary

  897
  nations, in solving the difficult question of the care of the prisoners. I need say no more but renew our expression of cordial satisfaction at the result that has been announced.
  3.33 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to raise a matter of detail, for I think it is a very important one. Reference has been made to the sufferings and the casualties, and my noble and learned friend the Leader of the Opposition has referred to the very heavy casualties suffered by the other side. But we must not overlook the fact that the civilian populations on both sides have suffered atrociously, especially in North Korea, owing to the intensity of the bombing. The unfortunate peasants there have been through terrible ordeals. In the South of Korea the civilian population has been fairly well looked after, thanks to the efforts of the United Nations and its various organs; but I am informed that in North Korea there is a great shortage of medical stores, curative drugs and the like which were prevented from going there—an action which is perfectly proper when fighting is in progress. Now that there is an Armistice and there are likely to be long-drawn-outnegotiations—I do not want an immediate answer to this question, but I think it is a matter to which we should have an answer on Wednesday—could we not see our way to allow the sending of drugs, medicines and medical relief for the civilians, particularly in the North of Korea, without any further delay? Could arrangements be made for those to be allowed through? This is a matter which will touch the common humanity of everyone, and I cannot see how there can be any real objection to it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I fully realise the importance of the point raised. I will look into it and give the noble Lord an answer on Wednesday.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have one question which I think the noble Marquess can probably answer at once, and another question for him to consider. The immediate question is this: to what extent does the statement about being determined to secure a reunited Korea go? Is it a hope, or is it a
  898
  pledge?—because I recollect that the Prime Minister said:
  "I very much doubt whether there could be any agreement at the present time on a united Korea."
  I ask this because it would be dangerous if we entered into a new pledge at this stage. The second question I ask the noble Marquess to consider, for answer in the debate on Wednesday, is this: if the South Koreans break the Armistice, or if the President of South Korea carries out any of the threats he has been uttering with regard to the Armistice, to what extent are we involved? Does it mean going back to U.N.O., is it covered by previous decisions, or is it something we can consider de novo; because, if President Syngman Rhee were to upset the whole arrangement, necessarily it might mean involvement in various serious operations. If the noble Marquess could consider that question by Wednesday—I will not ask him to deal with it now, of course—I should be grateful.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I certainly will look into the second question, which is a delicate and technical one and one which I could not answer without consideration. With regard to the former question, the noble Viscount will notice the words which I used were:
  "will enter…the forthcoming political conference with the determination that a solution shall be found to the Korean problem which will lead to the peaceful unification of Korea."
  The noble Viscount asks whether I make that a pledge. Clearly, nobody can pledge that a solution will be found; but it is a pledge of a definite intention. I do not think I can go further than that. After all, it depends not only on us but on the peoples of Korea and many other States whether a real solution can be arrived at. But it is a definite pledge that it is towards that that we shall work.
  LORD FARINGDON: May I ask the noble Marquess a question, again for answer presumably on Wednesday. Would he consider whether there is any possibility of freeing trade with China during the period, which may be a long period, that negotiations will be proceeding in Korea?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There was reference to that in the communiqué, and no doubt it is a matter

  899
  which would properly come out in the debate. The position is that arrangements will remain as they are for the moment, but the matter can be reconsidered in the light of the behaviour of the Chinese Government in the period following the Armistice. So there will be a possibility of reconsideration. That is to say, the door is not shut; the door is open. But I think it would be perhaps rather unreasonable at this early stage to expect a pledge here and now that this or that shall be done, or exactly when. We shall have to watch and see how the situation develops. I do not doubt that something may be possible, but I clearly could not say at this stage definitely what.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: What does the noble Marquess mean by saying "in the light of the behaviour of the Chinese Government"? Are there other charges against the Chinese Government except their participation in the Korean War?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I really meant was that obviously our judgment of the situation in the Far East must depend on how it appears that the situation develops—what the frame of mind, the atmosphere, and so on, in that part of the world are. And if it turns out that things are improving, as I most sincerely hope they will, then that will tie a reason for reconsideration.

  MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COMMISSION BILL
  3.39 p.m.
  Debate on Second Reading resumed.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, resuming the Business of the House, I would in the first place express the satisfaction that we feel that the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, has come to the House today, somewhat unexpectedly, to move the Second Reading of the Bill dealing with monopolies and restrictive practices. He was able to take a very just satisfaction in the fact that, as Minister of Reconstruction, he was able to announce that the Government of that day would introduce the original Bill. Possibly I may be permitted a not less just satisfaction in the fact that the Liberal Party was for many years the only Party that took any interest whatsoever
  900
  in this subject. It was as long ago as 1928, when the Liberal Yellow Book was published as the outcome of the Liberal industrial inquiry, that this question of monopolies and restrictive practices was put upon the carpet of our political life, and I remember very well that for some years before the incident mentioned by the noble Viscount we on these Benches were the only ones who ever raised this question of monopolies, to which both the Conservative and the Labour Parties were indifferent. However, that is by the way, and perhaps your Lordships will forgive a paternal, or perhaps a grand-paternal, interest in this subject.
  We welcome this Bill as a further step towards the solution of what is a serious economic and industrial problem, and we here cordially support its Second Reading, and we will support the Bill if it is challenged at any other stage. The setting up of the Commission on monopolies has been fully justified by its work, and I am glad that tributes have been paid to its membership. Its Reports have always been unanimous on all matters of importance; its recommendations have all been accepted by the Minister, and have been put into operation and have been approved by public opinion. If it has been unduly slow in its operation, that is not the fault of the members of the Commission; it was because the machinery has been inadequate for its purpose. As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, very few inquiries have been carried to fruition over the period of four and a half years during which the Commission has been sitting—in fact only six, while one of the Reports shows that about forty requests have been made from industry for inquiries to be held. Not all of those have been accepted, not all may be justified; but at all events, there is that list of forty. Although that list may be thinned down, on the other hand others may be added; and if six inquiries have been completed in four and a half years, at that pace, as Lord Shepherd has said, the completion would cover a long time—in fact the 1980's would have arrived before the Commission had reached the end of its queue.
  The Chairman himself has described his Commission as a "bottleneck," and it is a very good thing that the Government propose to provide the Commission

  901
  with a new neck, one having a larger aperture. That is the main purpose of this Bill. The Commission has also been inadequate because it has no power to take any general action affecting a number of industries. There are such questions as exclusive dealing, collective boycott, re-sale price maintenance, and other matters which raise general principles, which extend throughout a large part of industry. This Commission may find, as it has found in particular cases, that a practice that has been customary in a particular trade is definitely wrong. The Commission reports that the practice is wrong, and steps are taken to put an end to it; but precisely the same practice, or very similar circumstances, may be operative in a great many other industries, and the Commission can do nothing. Therefore it is a. matter for consideration and inquiry whether there should not be a change in the legislation—or, if such would suffice, in the regulations—to enable a case which is a general one to be dealt with generally. It may be that opportunity should be given for appeal in the event of special circumstances justifying a case in one instance whilst it might not do as a general rule. But details of that kind can well be left to the future.
  Furthermore, there has grown up nowadays, particularly since the two wars, a practice of limiting entry into industries or trades. Some of them have been made almost into a closed circle, and no one can get in without finding his way through some of the regulations made to keep him out. It is rather like the medieval system whereby people were not allowed to carry on business unless they were admitted as freemen of a certain corporation. I suggest that that is a matter which urgently needs inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, spoke about the nationalised industries, and said that they ought not to be treated like the general run of monopolies. I agree there, in principle. I do not think that the coal industry or the road transport industry, or any of these great industries such as electricity, can properly be subjected to an inquiry by a body like this Commission, with a deputy chairman and five members. It is far too great a matter for that. This question, and the right method of proceeding to supply the need for inquiries is now under consideration by a. Select Committee of the House of Commons.
  902
  For the rest, this matter derives its great importance from the fact that it is one element in the great problem of the rise in prices. Only slowly and dimly is the country realising, and the political Parties beginning to realise, that the very essence of our whole economic problem is the question of the rise in prices and the high cost of living: everything depends upon that. The demands for increased wages and salaries, the question of the rising costs of production, the hindrance to our exports, the balance of trade, the stability of the pound, are all tied up with the steady rise, year by year, in the cost of living; and anything that can be done—and this is only one measure among a number—to stop and reverse the trend must be beneficial. At present, the trade unions are occupying a very self-contradictory position in this matter. I have noticed reports of trade union conferences in which two resolutions have been passed, the first vehemently protesting against the rise in the cost of living, and the second demanding an immediate advance in pay of 10 or 15 per cent., whatever it may be. At this moment, some of the trade unions are actively engaged in taking measures to raise the cost of living. That is not their intention or their desire, but it is what must inevitably follow, if the costs of labour and other costs of production go up without a corresponding increase in productivity.
  Furthermore, there is the question of restrictive practices which have to be fought within the trade unions. We must get the willing co-operation of the trade unionist to abolish restrictive practices. I noticed the other day that one of the leaders said, "We must not be Luddites," but I am afraid that they sometimes have been—and perhaps sometimes still are. The reports of the joint committees established by the leaders of American and British industry which have been investigating the cause of the far higher productivity in the United States, man per man, have always, or at all events usually, pointed out that in the United States the whole aim of the trade anions is not to prevent up-to-date machinery from coming into the factories, or to prevent changes in methods that will secure much greater productivity, but that, on the contrary, they attack their employers and protest if they fail to employ the most

  903
  up-to-date plant and adopt the greatest measure of enterprise. That is by the way. I am led to these remarks by the fact that this Bill will have very little importance indeed unless it is a means to prevent the rise in prices, directly or indirectly, and to speed the trend in the opposite direction. Having made those observations, I would again express my cordial support for the principle and for the provisions of the Bill.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, concludes, may I ask him a question? He has indicated to your Lordships that he supports the principle of the Bill, and he has said that he would support the Bill at other stages of its life, if his support should be wanted. Should I be right in assuming, from that, that on the Committee stage, if Amendments to the Bill were moved, he would give them favourable consideration?
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Certainly, if they tended to strengthen the Bill. But having read the Report of the debate in another place, I have not so far come across any Amendment which has greatly raised my enthusiasm.
  3.51 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should not like this Bill to go through without a few words of support from the Back Benches. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, I was struck, when I read the Reports of the Commission, with the number of cases that had been referred to them. Another feature of the Reports which struck me, and struck me very favourably, was the mixture of firmness and sympathy with which the cases they had decided were handled. I regard that as a good augury for the future. I think that the action of the Commission really extends much further than noble Lords opposite seem to think, because every case that is properly dealt with by the Commission acts as a warning, and will be taken as a warning by a great many other industries with the same sort of organisation.
  Moreover, the experience thus gained by the Commission is the best possible source of knowledge as to whether general legislation on a specific point is required (as suggested by the noble
  904
  Viscount) or not. An American friend of mine told me many years ago that when the Anti-Trust Act was passed in the United States, the Standard Oil Company, whose ramifications and associated companies spread all over the North American Continent, was doing very badly. But immediately the Act was passed—and it was strictly enforced—the subsidiary companies that broke off began making profits and doing very well. The lesson to be learned from that, it seems to me, is that the monopolist is often his own enemy: he does not realise what is best in the business. Of course, if I may use a vulgarism, he sleeps soundly because he knows that he is in a position to "soak the public." In spite of Lord Shepherd's observations on the point, I do not see that the nationalised industries are any less monopolists than any other, because I cannot imagine any industries in a better position to "soak the public" than they are. With those few words, I beg to intimate my support for the Bill, and the hope that it will have a rapid passage.
  3.54 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, and I are grateful to your Lordships for the kindly and friendly, if not wholly unqualified, support which you have been good enough to give to the Bill. It is, of course, a small measure, and it sets out to achieve narrow and restricted objects; but it is an important Bill, nevertheless. Both the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, were critical, in their remarks, of the speed with which the Commission have been working in the past. I think that that criticism is not entirely unjustified. But I would remind your Lordships that this Commission were doing pioneer work. I think they would have been justly blamed had they tried to go too fast and produced reports which were hurried or had not discussed details such as ought to have been discussed, and which thereby had produced some injustices. It must also be remembered that the Commission have been labouring for some time under the handicap of shortage of staff. To remedy this is, after all, one of the purposes of the Bill. The Bill is designed to give the Commission a stronger right arm and thus to enable them to work a little more quickly and to

  905
  keep what one might term a head of work constantly before them. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, mentioned a bottleneck. It would be impertinent of me to comment in any way upon the noble Viscount's experience of bottles, but I hope he will agree with me that in a great many bottles the neck is at the top. It is for that reason that two deputy chairmen are to be appointed: to make things easier for the Commission to achieve the objects which Lord Samuel has enumerated, and to remove the necessity for him in the 1980's to come down and once again criticise the Commission for their lack of speed.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I did not blame the Commission. I criticised rather the machine that they had to work.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I fully appreciate that point. We hope that when this Bill becomes an Act the Commission's machinery will be better. I repeat that the Bill is a narrow one. I want to make this point because the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, talked about Amendments. I am not clear, and I do not think Lord Samuel is either, whether Lord Shepherd contemplates putting down different Amendments from those he outlined to us as having been put forward by his friends in another place. We will, of course, consider any Amendment he puts down in as polite a light as we possibly can, but I think even the noble Lord would be surprised if a cordial reception were given to Amendments going wide of the scope of the Bill. I rather thought at one moment that I read into his remarks a suggestion that his Amendments might go wider than the Amendments which his friends in another place put down.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think we made it clear that we were of opinion that this Bill was very tightly drawn, and that we might find, if we moved certain Amendments, that those Amendments were out of order. Might I suggest to the noble Lord that when we come to drafting our Amendments we should have a little talk with him and see whether his advice can help us in the direction in which we want to go?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I shall be only too happy to place my mediocre help at the disposal of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. But I should warn him
  906
  that I shall hope that his Amendments are more or less within the admittedly narrow scope of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: When will the Committee stage be taken?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I must consult my noble friend who is in charge of these matters before I can answer that question definitely, but I should have thought that the Committee stage could not possibly be before October, so there is plenty of time to discuss as many Amendments as Lord Shepherd wants.
  I am glad, for more reasons than one, that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade did not see fit to deal with nationalised industries in the scope of this Bill. That would have been wrong, for the obvious reasons given by Lord Samuel, and unfortunate also, because, since Lord Shepherd and I clearly differ considerably on what we think the monopolistic rôle, or otherwise, of nationalised industries is, we should clearly have crossed swords and turned what I hope is a non-controversial Bill into a very controversial measure indeed. I was grateful to Lord Saltoun for raising, in his interesting speech, what I believe to be an important point. Some people, when they criticise—as they have criticised—the Commission, have said: "What have they actually done? Let us see in writing what they have achieved. Where is the order for carrying out this recommendation, or the prohibition against that?" That does not seem to me to be the most useful way in which the Commission can work. The Government do not want to see a whole flood of orders directing one industry to take certain action and another industry to take some other action.
  To take another point to which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has drawn attention, it seems to me that the most effective way in which the Commission can work is by gently hinting, or suggesting, that other industries should put their houses in order upon the lines suggested in the case of the industry which is then under examination. Even with the industry which itself is under examination, we would prefer that it should be by the industry's own initiative and volition that their house should be put in order rather than by too much governmental interference. We would far rather

  907
  see the recommendations of the Commission brought into action by persuasion than by force.
  May I conclude by saying that there are three separate views held upon monopolies. There are people who hate all monopolies, who think that all are bad and that all restrictive practices and all trade associations should be proscribed. That is not a view for which I hold much enthusiasm. There are people who would treat monopolies in the same way as they treat babies—they are against them until they have one of their own. The Government's view is that not all commercial monopolies are necessarily bad. Their view is that a commercial monopoly is bad only when it has been proved to be so. That task is one of the principal functions of this Commission. This Bill is a very narrow Bill, designed only to improve the means available to the Commission for searching out monopolies that are bad and industries that are not operating to the national good or to the good of industry as a whole.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Like the B.B.C.?
  LORD MANCROFT: I indicated a little while back that I did not wish to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on the nationalised industries. I have already crossed swords with the noble Viscount on the B.B.C. and lost badly. I do not propose to enter that affray again this afternoon. I wish to stick to the terms of the Bill, which, as I said, are narrow and designed solely to enable the Commission to work more efficiently. I think that in the speeches that have been delivered this afternoon your Lordships have made it clear that the House is at one with that ideal; and therefore I am confident that the Bill will be given an unopposed Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANE- OUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

  HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL
  4.3 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will recall that a few weeks ago we had a most illuminating and interesting debate on the whole subject of historic houses, and in the course of the Government reply, which was given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, it was announced that we should shortly be introducing a Bill to enable financial assistance to be given for the preservation of historic houses. This is the Bill: it has passed through another place, and I ask the House to give it a Second Reading to-day.
  I suppose it would be true to say that any discussion on historic houses naturally starts with the Gowers Report. This valuable document, for which we are extremely grateful to Sir Ernest Gowers and the other members of his Committee, sets out a system by which some 2,000 houses of historic and architectural interest may be preserved for posterity. As was announced on the previous occasion, we are unable to accept the heavy financial burden which we should have been forced to accept if we had approved all the recommendations of the Gowers Report. We are not alone in that, for I think I am correct in saying that the previous Government found exactly the same reason for declining to agree to all the recommendations contained in the Report. Nevertheless, we have accepted the main findings of the Gowers Committee: that without financial assistance these houses would perish one by one and with ever-increasing rapidity. The amount of money which can be given in the present circumstances must, however, be strictly limited.
  The House will remember that when we had the earlier debate a statement

  909
  was made by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack about the financial obligations which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to undertake to implement this scheme. Let me briefly recall them. A sum of £500,000 will be provided from the Land Fund over a period of five years to enable my right honourable friend the Minister of Works to purchase buildings and chattels. In addition, an annual sum is to be made available which in the first year will add £250,000 towards giving grants for the upkeep and maintenance of historic houses and their contents. I am well aware that this sum calls far short of what many of your Lordships think is necessary for the preservation of these houses, but, as I have said, in present conditions it is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to agree to any bigger sum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed that when the scheme has been in operation for a period of one year, he will consider what can be done in the future, but for the moment, at any rate, he is not prepared to make a bigger grant than £250,000.
  This Bill is intended to attain two objectives: first, to enable the Government to take immediate action to preserve the best of the historic houses in the country and, secondly, to remedy a number of defects in the existing legislation on ancient monuments. Noble Lords who have examined this Bill with care will see that under its provisions financial assistance for the maintenance of historic houses can be given either by grants to owners or by direct purchase. The Gowers Committee recommended that, in the main, assistance to owners should take the form of relief from taxation. Much consideration was given to that proposal, but, for reasons which were clearly stated on the previous occasion, we have not been able to accept it. Apart from this, if the Gowers proposals had been accepted in full, they would have involved Her Majesty's Government in the expenditure of a vast sum of money, which, as I understand it, could not be calculated in any way whatever. We believe that the system of grants set out in this Bill is the best way of maintaining these houses of historic and national interest.
  910
  The Bill is divided into four Parts. The first Part gives the Minister of Works powers for the preservation of buildings of outstanding historic or architectural interest; the second Part makes certain procedural improvements for the making of preservation orders under the Ancient Monuments Acts; the third Part deals with certain minor amendments to these Acts; and the fourth Part deals with sundry matters. Under the first three clauses of the Bill an Historic Buildings Council is to be set up for England, Scotland an Wales, and the primary duty of the Councils will be to advise the Minister in the exercise of his powers under Part I of the Bill. The Council for Scotland will have, in addition, the duty of advising the Secretary of State for Scotland in the exercise of his powers relating to buildings of special architectural or historic interest under certain sections of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947. Annual reports will be made by each Historic Buildings Council and laid before Parliament.
  Clause 4 enables the Minister to make grants, subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, to the owner of a building of outstanding interest to assist in maintaining its structure, its contents and the amenity land in the immediate neighbourhood. Clause 5 empowers the Minister to acquire, manage and dispose of buildings of historic interest, their contents and amenity land. Clause 6 enables him to assist the National Trust or a local authority in the acquisition of historic buildings. Clause 7 gives authority for the National Land Fund to be used to assist in the acquisition of historic buildings, and Clause 8 enables the Minister to accept endowments from private persons towards the upkeep of historic buildings. I suppose that none of your Lordships will have overlooked the importance of the Historic Buildings Councils as set up in the first three clauses of the Bill. They will obviously have a most important and considerable part to play throughout the workings of the new scheme. It is therefore the intention of my right honourable friend that the members of these three Councils shall be persons who can give him the best possible advice in fulfilling the powers which Parliament intends to give him under the terms of this Bill.

  911
  I turn now to the second Part of the Bill, and the Schedule, which lays down the amended procedure for the protection of ancient monuments. Under the present Ancient Monuments Acts, the Minister may take a monument under his protection by making a preservation order under which his written permission must be obtained for all work done to the monument. If, however, the owner objects to the order, it lapses after twenty-one months, unless confirmed by Act of Parliament. This. I am sure your Lordships will agree, is a very cumbrous and perhaps weird method of procedure. Accordingly, the Bill proposes to substitute the Special Parliamentary Procedure for an Act of Parliament to confirm a disputed preservation order. Clauses 10 to 13 and the Schedule set out the procedure in detail, and perhaps I need not at this stage draw attention to them. But, in passing, I think I must mention Clause 12 of the Bill, which enables compensation to be paid to any owner who suffers loss as the result of a preservation notice or order being served upon him.
  Part III of the Bill deals with Amendments to the Ancient Monuments Acts. Here I think I need mention only Clause 15, which extends the period during which a prosecution can be made under the Ancient Monuments Acts from six months to one year from the commission of the alleged offence. I am sure the House will support the Government, and agree with our view that no one should be able to avoid being prosecuted for an offence under those Acts merely because a time limit of so short a duration had expired. I do not think I need weary the House any further with the important but miscellaneous provisions contained in the other clauses of the Bill. I myself feel that the measure will be welcomed everywhere. I think that it clearly indicates the wishes of Members of both Houses, and of all Parties, that the houses of historic and architectural interest and importance which are to be found in this country, and are, possibly, unique throughout the world, should be preserved, so far as our resources will permit at the present stage. That is the Bill which I ask the House to read a second time. It is one which I believe it is important that we should get on to the Statute Book, and I hope that to-day
  912
  I may have the support and concurrence of noble Lords in all parts of the House when I move that this Bill be read a second time. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(The Earl of Munster.)
  4.18 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl who has just introduced this Bill that he will have the wholehearted support of Members of your Lordships' House on this side of the Chamber—indeed, I believe, with confidence, that he will have the support of every single Member of the House. On reading this Bill, my mind went back to the most difficult days of the war, when the nation was in great peril and we were struggling for our lives. Yet we found time, as the noble Earl will remember, to discuss such questions as the Uthwatt Report, the Barlow Report and the Scott Report, and to look to the future with that unconquerable spirit upon which we justly pride ourselves. I doubt whether any other nation in the world, in that situation, would have thought it practical to discuss questions of that kind. To-day, when there is a real financial stringency, and we are faced with great financial difficulties, and when there is every need for economy, it is once more remarkable that we should be discussing a measure of this kind which involves a certain amount of expenditure out of public funds. It is an indication, also, of the fact that we realise that man does "not live by bread alone." I therefore congratulate the Government most cordially on introducing this measure at this particular time.
  Of course, the Government do not claim for a moment that this is the work of one Party. The paternity of this measure will no doubt be claimed by many people—and justly so. The amenities societies, for instance, can claim a great deal of credit for having kept before the general public the idea of the preservation of historic buildings. I think my right honourable friend Mr. Dalton can claim some credit for having set aside the sum of £50 million towards the creation of the Land Fund, out of the interest of which this Bill is able to provide the funds. I think Members of your Lordships' House, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, can claim a

  913
  good deal of credit for having kept this matter alive in your Lordships' House.
  I believe I am right in saying that this Bill follows very largely the Bill which was in draft and which had been prepared by the late Government. I should also like to pay a tribute to the present Minister of Works, Sir David Eccles, whom we all recognise as a man of high æsthetic interests and culture, and but for whose insistence and pressure, I imagine, this Bill would not at this moment have seen the light of day. I should like to congratulate him also on a practical example of the restoration of an historic building for which he is responsible, namely, Lancaster House—the noble Viscount was there the other day. It is a most remarkable achievement. It is one of the loveliest of the London buildings which we possess, and I think it right that tribute should be paid to the Minister of Works for having carried through this great improvement.
  I will not emphasis the inadequacy of the amounts which are being provided under this Bill. I am glad that no specific sums are stated in the Bill, because that fact will enable constant pressure to be exercised on the Government of the day to ensure that the amounts provided are adequate. I imagine that the amounts stated by the noble Earl in introducing this measure are initial sums. He recognised, as indeed the Minister of Works recognised, that they were inadequate for the purpose, and they are very different from the £10 million which the Gowers Committee regarded as necessary. I feel that the important thing is to get the principle of State assistance recognised in these matters; and this Bill fairly and squarely admits; the principle that, in many cases, historic buildings cannot be preserved without the assistance of the State. For that we are all grateful. It follows that the sums of money to be provided must be adequate for the purpose, and I think that any Government which has once committed itself to the principle will find it difficult to avoid reasonably implementing that principle as time goes on. I do not believe that it will be a very expensive matter at the outset. These schemes have a habit of taking a long time to mature. And if the proposal is that a sum of £250,000 should be made available in the first year, I say frankly that I doubt whether, with the best will
  914
  in the world, that amount will be spent. I hope that it will be possible to carry that sum forward, and even to increase it, if that should become necessary, although I do not ask the noble Earl for any undertaking on that point. I regard it as inevitable that that should be so. The noble Earl has explained the Bill in adequate detail, and I do not think there is anything that anyone need add to the general principle of the Bill, which I am sure we all accept.
  There was a certain amount of discussion in another place on machinery. I do not think there was any substantial discussion at all on principle. I myself was glad—thoughI know there will be some difference of opinion in this House on this point—that the grant is to be given, not by way of relief from taxation but by a direct grant to the individual concerned. There would have been considerable controversy if it had been otherwise, and I think the Minister has been wise in making provision in the form in which it has been made. There was also some discussion as to whether access should be mentioned in the Bill. We all agree that, wherever State money is provided, and it is practicable, the public should have access to the buildings which have been preserved. Obviously, there will be some buildings which will receive State assistance to which it will not be possible to give access, but I think it right that the Bill should contain specific provision that, wherever possible, access should be provided.
  There was another Amendment which was carried against the will of the Government, and carried, not by one Party but by representatives of all Parties. That is the provision which provides for giving an endowment to the National Trust to enable them to maintain buildings, in addition possibly to acquiring buildings on their own behalf. I am not sure whether that was a wise Amendment, so long as the amount available for capital expenditure is limited to £500,000 over a period of five years. If it had been possible substantially to increase that sum, then I think it would have been right to give the National Trust some assurance of continuity in the provision of maintenance grants. As it is, I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate that very little assurance is given as to continuity. All that is provided is £250,000 for one

  915
  year, and I think the National Trust are understandably apprehensive that they might undertake the expense of maintaining a building and then find that there was no guarantee of continuity of the grant. Nevertheless, it may well turn out to be a burden on the £500,000 that is available for capital expenditure, and in actual practice it looks as if Her Majesty's Government may have to increase that sum before long.
  There was also a good deal of discussion of administrative tidiness. It was thought to be untidy to have one Committee listing buildings of historic and architectural interest on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and then to set up another body—the Historic Buildings Council—which would be responsible for advising the Minister of Works and other Ministers on exactly the same type of building. I think that both the Minister of Works and the Minister of Housing and Local Government were alive to the possible untidiness of that. It is, however, one thing to see a certain amount of untidiness, and quite another to find a way of clearing the matter up. My own view, for what it is worth, having gone into the matter, is that it is quite easy to make matters even more untidy by clearing up a particular piece of untidiness. I think that this is a very good example of that. Here I want to confess that, perhaps rather hastily, I allowed myself to be persuaded to sign a letter to The Times, instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen. I think it was right that the point should be put forward; but, having read the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on an Amendment to combine the two Committees, I am bound to say that I am very much alive to the difficulties that he put forward. Certainly, I realise that it is not as simple a matter as it looks; and there is a considerable danger, as I say, of making matters worse in the attempt to create tidiness.
  Nevertheless, I should like to have this point discussed in this House, and particularly after the Minister of Housing and Local Government—who we are glad to see is well on the way to recovery—has had an opportunity of looking at it. So far, it has been considered
  916
  by the Parliamentary Secretaries of both Departments, but I think this is a very important matter, and one which should be looked at by the two Ministers themselves. I should like, after that has been done, to have an opportunity of discussing the matter in this House and settling once for all whether it is desirable to make any change. A good deal of time was taken up in Committee in another place in considering whether such a change could be made at all—whether it could be done by Order in Council, or whether it was necessary to have a Bill. My own view is that it could not be done by Order in Council. I think it would be essential to have legislation. But whether that be so or not, one must recognise that, of course, it is possible to have either Orders in Council or a Bill which would amalgamate the two functions and take care of all the consequences. That is not the real problem: the real problem is whether it is worth doing; whether it would not create more difficulties than would be removed.
  There is one other matter which I think ought to be discussed—it is a matter of machinery, rather than of principle. I refer to the definition of an "ancient monument." The significance of the point is that ancient monuments are dealt with by the Minister of Works and historic buildings are the responsibility of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I must confess that until a day or two ago I was under the impression that the distinction lay in the date of the erection of the building—that anything before the year 1700 was an ancient monument, and that anything after that was an historic building. I am now advised that that is not the case. If it is not the case, I do not understand what the distinction is. I have looked at the definition of an "ancient monument" and it certainly offers no help at all. Apparently an ancient monument is a structure which the Minister of Works says is an ancient monument. That does not get us very far. No doubt the Minister says it on advice, but I think we could probably do better than that. In any case, there is the significant factor that there is an Ancient Monuments Board. No doubt they have an organisation and a staff, and so on. But they are busily engaged in doing what seems to me, and to other people, exactly the same job as

  917
  the people who are listing historic buildings. Their job is to list ancient monuments. There is no great distinction between one and the other, and it would appear to be unnecessary to have two separate Committees doing very much the same job.
  I mention this not because I expect the noble Earl who is to reply to give me a definition of an ancient monument, or to explain where it differs from an historic building, but because I feel that this is a matter which we may as well attempt to clear up while we are discussing this Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Bill. There are a great many other points of that kind which I think ought to be considered in Committee. Here, however, we come up against a difficulty. This Bill in its present form left another place late on Wednesday night, and was not available here until Friday morning. It is pretty good going to have had it available at all on Friday morning, and I make no complaint about that at all. But to-day is only Monday: we have had only a week-end to look at the Bill. That is not a very long time, and normally one would have liked longer. The Bill was substantially amended on the Report stage in another place. A considerable number of important Government Amendments were made, and one could have no clue as to what the Bill was going to look like merely by having read the Committee stage.
  That is the first point: we have had very little time to consider the Bill. Secondly, some pressure was put upon Members in another place. I do not know whether similar pressure has been put on us here to speed up the consideration of the Bill so that it may become law before the Recess. If this sort of pressure is placed upon us, it means, in practice, that we have to take this Bill or leave it. There is no opportunity of making any Amendment, and very little opportunity even of putting Amendments down. I know that the noble Earl has been engaged on the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Federation Act, and he may have taken the view that that was virtually a treaty, which it was not open to this House to amend. But I do not think he would be right in taking that line with this Bill. I am sure he will agree that we should have an opportunity of amending this Bill, if we so desire. It
  918
  is a great pity, therefore, that the Bill should have reached us so late.
  On the other hand, I say quite frankly that I would rather have this Bill and forgo any discussion on the machinery, rather than lose the Bill altogether. We are, therefore, in a dilemma. I want to ask the noble Earl whether it would not be possible, with the good will of the House—upon which, I am sure, he can rely—for the Committee stage of the Bill to be taken within the day or two after the Recess. I can promise him that it will be considered with all expedition. There are matters which call for consideration, and even for amendment. Even if Amendments are not pressed, it must be remembered that they are often moved in order to obtain explanations from the Government or a statement of their intentions. That is a legitimate purpose for putting any Amendment down. If the noble Earl can assure us that the Bill will not be lost, by the remaining stages being taken after the Recess, then I should very much prefer that procedure to be adopted.
  In order to facilitate matters, I am perfectly prepared to let the noble Earl have in advance, before the end of the Recess, any Amendments for which I or my friends would wish to be responsible. Of course I am not in a position to speak for the whole House, but I should be grateful if he would consider this before the time comes for him to reply, and let us know whether there is any danger of this Bill being lost if the remaining stages are taken immediately after Recess. If his answer is that there is no danger then I believe the whole House would prefer it. Whether that is so or not, we all welcome this Bill. We hope that it will have a successful passage, and we are quite sure that it will do an immense amount of good in preserving the priceless heritages which we in this country possess. They are, indeed, unique, because I know of no country which has so many and such beautiful historic buildings and ancient monuments.
  4.41 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, the National Trust takes a great interest in this Bill, and I have been asked to express on behalf of my noble friend Lord Crawford his regret that, owing to the unconventional Monday Sitting of your Lordships' House, he has been unable to

  919
  represent the Trust on the Second Reading of this important Bill. I am aware I am a pale substitute for the Chairman of the Trust, but I have been on its executive committee for more than twenty years and I have been Chairman of the finance committee for more than fifteen, during which time I have concerned myself with trying to save and preserve the beauty of this ancient land. It is no easy and, indeed, is often a disheartening task, for there are large numbers of "death watch beetles" nibbling away at our endeavours by saying there is no use for old buildings and no money to preserve them.
  For a long while the National Trust has been anxious about the future of these magnificent houses and has watched, helplessly, many of them go down into decay and ultimate demolition. I need hardly say, therefore, that the National Trust warmly welcomes this Bill and that we should like to express our admiration to the Minister whose energy and imagination has enabled it, amid all the pressure of Coronation Year, to reach the Statute Book. Some voices have been raised to say it is inadequately financed; and no doubt it would be pleasant to have command at once of the large sums of money that will ultimately be required to complete the job. But it is the first step that counts, and it is the first step that all Governments find it difficult to take. Reading the debates in another place, I was much struck, as I was on the debate on the National Theatre Act, by the absence of any genuine opposition. I think the reason for that is the wise flexibility of the Bill which will enable us to deal with circumstances as they develop and adapt them in accordance with acquired experience. Another encouraging feature is the intimation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will perhaps not look unfavourably on a request from the Minister of Works for a larger grant in 1954.
  Naturally, the National Trust welcomes the principle that the Government have power to use the Land Fund to endow or partially endow houses given to the National Trust. We have lost so many houses by the inability of the donor to endow sufficiently that we consider this amendment of the highest importance. We should like to pay tribute to the
  920
  unusual moral courage shown by the Minister in accepting the Amendment, in spite of official disapproval of the principle involved. I do not share the Minister's alarm. Everybody knows how small the sums at present are for carrying out the purposes of this Bill, and no one is going to bring on the Minister unreasonable pressure for endowments he cannot provide. He also has power—which he certainly has character to use—to refuse such demands. But sometimes such an endowment is the only way to save a great house; and surely the power to do this should be an integral part of the legislative plan—all the more so as we hope that in more prosperous times a larger sum than £100,000 a year will be allowed out of the Land Fund for these purposes.
  After all, our great objective is to save as many houses as possible. I hope the Minister and the Councils who will advise him will not restrict their policy to keeping up a few houses in perfect order. The Ministry, as we know, is too easily led away into expensive restoration; the Trust, on the other hand, has always been obliged to seek the minimum in such matters. But even within its limited scope the Trust, under its country house scheme, has, by the generosity of owners, by grants from the Pilgrim and Dulverton Trusts, by donations and bequests and with the co-operation of the Ministry of Works, local authorities and the Government of Northern Ireland, saved for posterity some 100 houses, great and small, of endless variety and interest, and most of them as living entities. There are many important people who say there is no use for these houses; that a revolution has taken place, and therefore they should be pulled down. Your Lordships will remember that those who guided the Reformation did not adopt this ruthless and unintelligent policy. As many as possible of the abbeys and religious foundations were adapted to the new world and used to house the rising aristocracy.
  We, on the other hand, have already suffered by tearing down so many of the great houses in London—Devonshire House and Chesterfield House, for example—that the Government has found itself in the position of being unable to give a cocktail party to Miss Margaret Truman without turning out the London Museum. Surely we should—as we are

  921
  all Liberals nowadays—"wait and see," and the use for these houses will emerge. They can be put, and have already been put, to many uses. Sometimes the Ministry of Works buys a house like Audley End and uses it for a State institution; sometimes the Ministry of Works leases a house, like Ham House, from the National Trust and the Victorian and Albert makes out of it a perfect museum; sometimes the National Trust divides a house like Attingham into three—the centre full of superb works of art shown to the public; the right wing lived in by the family; the left wing let to Shropshire County Council for adult education. All these result from successful co-operation, the unity of public authorities and private enterprise for a common purpose.
  We live in a time of new experiments in government, and I have been surprised to find that the Treasury, held up as a reactionary institution which says "No" in its sleep, is always ready to back a new idea. The old principle that if the taxpayer pays the Treasury must control has been admirably relaxed to meet the necessary freedom required by the B.B.C. and the Arts Council. In this Bill we move a step further, undertaking what I hope will be a joint enterprise between the Ministry of Works and the National Trust. So far as the National Trust are concerned, I can say that we have no feelings of jealousy in this matter at all. In our view, the Ministry of Works excel in some directions and the National Trust excel in other directions.
  In giving evidence before the Gowers Committee, whose admirable work paved the way for this Bill, I said that I thought the natural division of activity between the Ministry of Works and the National Trust was that the Ministry should deal with houses from which the family has departed and the National Trust with houses in which the family remains. This, of course, is no binding rule, only a general guide. The Trust has shown in its eventful history that it is not out for power and prestige but is ready to work with anybody who shares its desire to save and preserve our great artistic inheritance. We are grateful for this Bill. We believe it will give a great impetus to that objective.
  This is a late date in the Session, and I hope that the Government agree with me that only Amendments will prevent
  922
  its passage into law before the Recess. There are many slips in political life. A General Election may intervene and we may lose the vital advantages which are already written into this Bill. Most of the improvements which we can all suggest—and I can suggest them myself—can be obtained afterwards in its administration. We want the Bill passed and, when it is, I can assure your Lordships that the National Trust will do everything it can to make it asuccess.
  4.53 p.m.
  VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Works, when he introduced this Bill in another place, made no extravagant claim: he described it as a small beginning. He suggested—and I think we can agree with him—that it represented a step in the right direction, and he did, in fact, hold out some expectation that the financial provisions contemplated at the moment might be enlarged at some future date. Indeed, he went so far as to liken this Bill to a pilot plant—which, if the metaphor was sound, means something that may be followed by a more elaborate and a more productive enterprise in the future. I was delighted to hear the noble Earl, Lord Munster, give an assurance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared at the end of the first year to consider the possibility of increasing the annual grant of £250,000. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that perhaps nothing need be lost by a more modest beginning, but everything will depend on the experience gained and on what it may be found possible to do hereafter.
  Despite the friendly taunt that was addressed to me by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when we debated this matter some weeks ago, I am bound to say that I am quite unrepentant in the views that I expressed on that occasion. In particular, I think it unfortunate that it has not been found possible to adopt what I have always regarded as the major recommendation of the Gowers Committee: that relief should be given, in part at any rate, in the form of tax allowance. I recognise that such a provision would have introduced a note of controversy, but I think very little of the argument, which I notice was used in another place, that a tax

  923
  relief has the great disadvantage that it gives more to those with the larger incomes. That argument seems to me to be on exactly the same footing as the argument that it would be wrong to make any reduction in income tax because that would benefit, in the main, those with the larger incomes. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has had an opportunity of looking again at the observations that fell from him on the previous occasion, but perhaps he would agree that what he said about the financial and economic implications of a grant from the Land Fund was not wholly accurate—certainly not as accurate as it would have been if the interest on the Land Fund had accrued to the Chancellor of the Exchequer instead of piling up in the Fund itself, because in fact the Fund has been quite deliberately segregated from the other operations of the Exchequer.
  I want to say only this further word about tax relief in this matter, as distinct from direct grant. It seems to me that procedure by way of tax relief has this great advantage: that, when once the conditions have been clearly laid down, the operation of the system can be more or less automatic, whereas the administration of what is of necessity a discretionary grant must involve an element of discrimination, and I personally think that experience will show that the practical difficulties of administering a grant of that kind for this sort of purpose are likely to prove greater than is at present supposed.
  Now just one word about the administrative arrangements upon which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, touched. I notice that the Minister of Works, in introducing the Bill, made some reference to the co-operation that would be necessary between his colleague, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and the Minister of Works, and he indicated that the discussions that were going on as to the most effective method of co-operation were not complete. I agree that there may be difficulty in bringing about at this stage a more complete integration of the powers of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the cognate powers of the Minister of Works, but I should have thought, with great respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, that there would be
  924
  a distinct advantage in having one advisory body, responsible, on the one hand, to the Minister of Works and, on the other hand, to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. That is the system which has found approval so far as Scotland is concerned, and I do not know why it should be supposed that difficulties would arise in England or in Wales which need not be apprehended in Scotland. At any rate, it may be found possible to give further consideration to that matter and to have at least a council which could serve in more than one capacity. We do want to mobilise for this important purpose—these councils will have a very important task—the best available talent. That problem may be aggravated if more than one committee dealing with the same kind of subject matter has to be effectively manned. I hope that it will be possible to give further consideration to that matter. I venture to think that what I have in mind could be achieved by administrative action, without express provision in the Statute. However, having made these few observations, I should like to make it clear how warmly I welcome the introduction of this Bill. I hope that its provisions will continue to have the full measure of support of which evidence has been given in the debate, and I, for my part, will certainly support the Second Reading.
  5.0 p.m.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS AND MARCH: My Lords, it is pleasant to find an important Bill like this one now before the House accepted with such unanimity by all Parties and interests in the country. It is quite right that this should be so. The Bill comes too late to save so many examples of our architectural heritage, which have already perished, but the preservation of the many that remain is becoming more and more the desire and interest of all sorts of people. It is not necessary for me to labour the point that the financial provisions are quite inadequate, for Her Majesty's Government themselves have freely admitted that. What is more important is that the Bill sets up what I feel sure is essentially the right machinery, though doubtless it can be improved later, as experience is gathered. It sets out, according to the right principles, to make a start in this important national work. Here I should like very strongly

  925
  to support the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, in his hope that the passage of the Bill before the Recess will not be prevented by the tabling of a mass of Amendments which, though they may be improvements, are not vital and which may result in the loss of the Bill. In order to make sure that the machinery of the Bill is successful so far as Scotland is concerned, I should like to assure Her Majesty's Government that the National Trust for Scotland are determined to give their wholehearted co-operation and to place any experience they have at the service of the Ministry of Works and the Historic Buildings Council.
  I fear that this question may be premature, but I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Munster, to tell us all he can about the composition and the personnel of the Historic Buildings Council, in particular, the Council for Scotland. What type of people will they consist of—how many, and how chosen? What will be the remuneration of the secretary or the chairman? Will such people as, for example, members of the Councils of the National Trusts be debarred from membership of the Historic Buildings Councils, or, on the contrary, will they be welcomed because of their experience? I am sure the House will be glad of any information that the noble Earl is able to divulge at this stage.
  We in the National Trust for Scotland welcome the provisions in Clause 4 (2) that were inserted into the Bill in another place, enabling the Government to give the Trusts capital moneys for endowments. We have long been pressing for this, because we know from experience that in the long run this is the most economic way to use money; and it will enable further funds to be raised from owners and other sources, at no cost to the taxpayer. I should like to emphasise the words "in the long run." We have never claimed that it is the best way to use extremely limited funds for the next year or two when so many buildings are urgently needing support; nor have we asked that the annual grant should be increased for this purpose. We have asked only for the principle to be conceded. Now, however, the principle of endowments from the National Land Fund has been conceded, largely, I understand, at the insistence of the right
  926
  honourable gentleman whom we all acknowledge as the "father" of the Land Fund.
  Whilst not pretending for a moment to understand where the Land Fund really lurks, nor what the Treasury, in their wisdom, have done with it, I should like to contrast for a moment the power to give endowments with the power to purchase, which is also contained in this Bill. The Trusts agree that the power to purchase is desirable—I think I am speaking for both Trusts here—but they would deprecate strongly anything which would encourage a selling mentality in the owners of historic buildings. What we want is a giving mentality. We need to continue and to increase the happy and fruitful co-operation which now exists between the owners, the Trusts, the Inland Revenue, the Ministry of Works and, above all, of course, the general public. It is far better to accept gifts of property in this way and to allow any concerned, including the Government, to put their reserves into a secure endowment fund against future expenditure. After all, if you purchase a property you have still to make provision for future expenditure for its upkeep, either by endowment or in some other way.
  May I ask the noble Earl one final question—namely, is the annual grant to be of the kind that can be carried over from year to year, or will any balance not spent at the year's end have to be returned? I can foresee that an Historic Buildings Council might have a project not quite ripe to be grant-aided, and would wish to keep something in reserve as the end of the financial year approaches. But if there is a threat that the money will be forfeited, the Council may be faced with having to spend it on a less worthy project to avoid losing it. This would appear to be a direct incentive to extravagance, and I hope the noble Earl can reassure us on this point. Meanwhile, I think this Bill should be welcomed and supported generally by all your Lordships.
  5.7 p.m.
  LORD METHUEN: My Lords, I have great pleasure in speaking, as briefly as I can, on this Bill. I am sure we are all pleased to see it and we desire, I know, to congratulate the Minister of Works for having produced it at a time when he

  927
  has been preoccupied with other matters. Those of us who have followed the debates in the House of Commons, on Second and Third Readings, and in Committee, must have been impressed by the way the arguments have gone and how the opinions of Members of that House changed from time to time, as they explored more and more some of the difficulties and intricacies of this particular Bill. I must say that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said about the letter that some of us sent to The Times a little time ago. There was a slight delay in the actual publication of the letter, and by the time it was published I had already begun slightly to change my mind. With the noble Lord, I am afraid I also have veered round a little, and I am very doubtful indeed whether it would be wise to amalgamate the listing with the scheduling.
  There have been discussions with the Minister of Works about this particular subject. It is a very difficult subject, and I do not think that at this stage we in this House can say anything particularly definite about it. It is, I think, for the two Ministers to confer and, with the advice of their experts, to come to a conclusion. But in my view, for what it is worth, there is a slight confusion of thought here. We have on the one side, the Ministry of Works, which is responsible for preservation, and on the other hand, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which is responsible for the listing. We need in some way to marry the two. But it seems to me that what will happen eventually, and what I believe is already happening, is that when monuments of first-class importance are listed they will be handed over to the Minister of Works for preservation and, where the money is available, for grants.
  It is for the two Ministers concerned to find out to what extent they can amalgamate the experts in their particular Departments. To transfer the investigators to the Ministry of Works might be a fundamental mistake, in so far as they have built up with the local authorities a very great work which might suffer on their transfer. It might be advisable, for that reason, to leave them where they are under the Minister of Housing. Their work is not only listing, but it is closely wrapped up with the actual planning, and it would probably
  928
  diminish seriously the value of the planning Ministry if they were removed. At the same time, there is no doubt that the Minister of Works requires men of experience with regard to seventeenth, eighteenth and early nineteenth century buildings. At the present time—I am not making any sort of suggestion which is in any way derogatory to them—his experts are rather on the prehistoric and mediæval side. I think he needs to strengthen his Ministry with architects with interests in the somewhat later periods, and, of course, he would have them if he had the investigators passed to him.
  This is a matter upon which I should like to put forward Amendments, but that depends entirely on the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, to Lord Silkin's question. If putting forward the Amendments which I personally should like to put forward—they would be similar to Amendments supported by Sir Edward Keeling in the other place—would mean that we should belikely to lose the Bill, then I say for heaven's sake let us have the Bill! If it would mean nothing more than a loss of three months' Treasury money and that we should not lose the Bill (in normal circumstances the Amendments could be considered after the Recess) then let us have the Amendments. As Lord Silkin has pointed out, putting down Amendments is a way of obtaining clarification of matters which have seemed to us obscure. I will name one or two. I have already mentioned the questions of listing, planning, and scheduling—which is obviously a very difficult point which cannot be resolved at once, but which, I think, can be resolved over a number of years.
  Some of the things about which I should like to put down Amendments are these. Clause 4 (3) of the Bill states:
  "A grant under this section may be made subject to conditions imposed by the Minister for the purpose of securing public access to the whole or part of the property to which the grant relates, or for other purposes as the Minister may think fit."
  I do not think that is good enough. I think we should know a little more. I know well what was in the minds of Members in another place when they discussed this matter: it was the question of whether the public should be admitted or not. Obviously, the public should be

  929
  admitted whenever possible to houses which are receiving a State grant. But that is not my point. My point is that if public money is going to be spent on the restoration of buildings, the Minister must see that those to whom he delegates powers have the last say in how that money is going to be spent. They should not necessarily supervise it, but the work should be done to their satisfaction. Subject always to the noble Earl's answer to Lord Silkin's question, I should like to move an Amendment to that effect.
  May I tell your Lordships how the law on this subject stands in France? In France a scheduled monument or a part of it cannot be destroyed or moved, or restored, repaired or modified in any way, without the consent of the Minister. A monument which is receiving a grant from the French Government has to be subject to the Beaux Arts supervision. The Beaux Arts Minister can always undertake, through his administration and at the public cost, with the ultimate agreement of those interested, works of repair or maintenance considered indispensable for the preservation of scheduled monuments that do not belong to the State.
  I see nothing in the Bill—it may be in some existing Act, but if it is I do not know of it—forbidding the building, without the permission of the Minister, of a new structure against a historic building or ancient monument which is receiving a grant from the Ministry. This, I believe, may be covered by the Town and Country Planning Act. Perhaps the noble Earl will let me know if that is so—not now, but at some later time. If that is not provided for in the law, I think it should be. We do not want buildings to be suddenly erected against some historic monument. That has been done in the past, not necessarily in this country but certainly in other countries.
  Another matter which may be dealt with by departmental machinery designed for the purpose is that any historic building of outstanding importance occupied by another Government Department should come under the Minister of Works for preservation purposes, although his Department might not actually pay for its maintenance. That matter should be dealt with. I think it is essential to air these subjects in the form of Amendments, which can, of course, be withdrawn when
  930
  a satisfactory reply is given. Here is one point which I think important. It was touched upon by the Minister in the debate on Third Reading on July 23. Owing to the rate of demolition of buildings of historical or architectural importance it is imperative that a proper record be taken before permission to demolish is given. The obvious body to do this is the National Buildings Record, either itself or in conjunction with some other body. The Minister, at present, has no such powers. It would be a small matter to add this provision to the Bill. The Minister, in the debate which I have mentioned, said he would like to take steps in this matter. I question whether he has power to do that.
  Finally, there is the word "property," which is used constantly in the Bill, particularly in Clause 5. It is apparently defined in Clause 10 (3). I want to know whether it is intended to include chattels, fittings, fixtures, furniture, objects of art and so on. I give a case in point. Suppose there is a house which the owner is contemplating demolishing, and the Minister makes a preservation Order. Let us suppose, further, that this house has some very fine panelling. If the owner says: "You can have the house, but I am going to sell the panelling," can you prevent him from doing so? I doubt it. I think that these are all points that ought to be cleared up. That is why I agree with Lord Silkin that it is essential that at some time or other these matters should be aired and that the best way to air them is by means of Amendments. If it would mean that we should lose the Bill, of course, they are not sufficiently important for that. In conclusion, I should like to say how pleased we are to have this Bill at all. It may be a half measure, but it is a jolly good half measure, and I should like to congratulate the Minister, in particular, and all concerned who have made it possible.
  5.18 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the very crisp and clear way in which he introduced this Bill to the House. I wish that I had his capacity for lucid explanation. This is a Bill for which all of us who are particularly interested in the great historic houses of this country have been waiting for a long time, and it is indeed a great pleasure to find that

  931
  at last there is a real prospect that a Bill for the preservation of these wonderful houses of ours will reach the Statute Book. I should be very sorry indeed if it did not reach the Statute Book before the Recess. I appreciate everything that has been so strongly urged by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in regard to the desirability of putting down Amendments, and also that some of the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, do require attention. On the other hand, as the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, has said, one can never be quite sure what is going to happen in a political situation. Quite apart from that, the position in respect of these houses is so disastrous that the sooner we can get these Councils established and at work, and the necessary administrative arrangements ticking over, the better. It may well be that a gain of six, or even three, months at this stage may mean the difference between preserving and losing a number of really valuable buildings. Far from pressure being brought to bear on the noble Earl to forgo the Committee stage, I was pressing him the other day to make arrangements for the final stage of the Bill to be taken before the Recess.
  I was glad to hear the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, on behalf of the National Trust. I think I have been on the executive committee of the Trust even longer than the noble Viscount, although nobody connected with the Trust has done more valuable work for historic buildings than he has, not only in the National Trust but also in the Historic Buildings Society. I am glad that he has spoken for the National Trust this afternoon, because I can speak perhaps more as a private individual. Although I support the Bill in general, some of my reactions are not so favourable. I think the main value of the Bill is that it sets up useful machinery, the plans for which were worked out by the Gowers Committee, probably the best that could be instituted for the purposes we all have in mind. I think it is a particularly valuable aspect of this machinery that it is being kept flexible, a point stressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Esher. It is especially important that the Councils should be strong bodies. I entirely agree with the noble
  932
  Earl, Lord Wemyss, that the success or failure of the Bill will depend to a considerable extent on getting the right men on the various Councils to be set up, and in getting really competent and able chairmen. There is no doubt that the amount of remuneration forthcoming will be altogether inadequate, but I hope it will be possible to get men with real administrative ability, drive and energy, prepared to take on the work of chairmen.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, that it is a pity the opportunity was not taken to co-ordinate the existing machinery. I appreciate that it is a fairly complicated task, and it may well be that, in the urgency to get the Bill before Parliament, there was no time to provide for that. If it is possible, I hope that the Government will begin thinking about arrangements which ought to be made, and will, if necessary, introduce a small amending Bill to have that done, because it is an important aspect of the whole problem.
  The main criticism that has been made and—made perhaps more strongly in another place than in your Lordships'House—is of the amount of finance the Government are prepared to provide. That, of course, is quite derisory when we look at the magnitude of the problem with which we are dealing. Assuming that the Gowers Committee's estimate of £10 million a year was right at the time it was made, the amount now needed per annum is a great deal larger. To think of tackling this problem on £250,000 is like trying to put out a fire at a petrol dump by means of a Minimaxfire extinguisher. When I read in The Times that it is proposed to spend no less than £6 million—twenty-four times as much—on a new aerodrome at Gatwick, I cannot help feeling that the Government lack a sense of proportion. I was glad to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who was responsible for the finances of the country at a vital period, and who is well qualified to discuss these matters, indicate in the recent debate that in his view we could afford a great deal more. I think this point ought to be rubbed in, because it may well get about that as the Government are now supporting the preservation of historic houses, the general public are no longer required to give subscriptions. If

  933
  the result is that the money forthcoming for the two National Trusts falls off substantially, the situation would be as bad as, or even worse than, if we had never had the Bill at all. I do not think there is any need to emphasise that every month which goes by means that a new historic house in some part of the country is lost to us; and therefore, as I have said, it is of vital importance that the Councils should be set up and the administrative machinery put to work as rapidly as possible.
  At this point I should like to make an observation about the important historic buildings which are already in the ownership of the State as such. In these debates we have been preoccupied, very properly, with the problem of privately owned national monuments. We have tended to forget the condition of some of our nationally owned monuments; and just as the financial provisions made by the Government in this Bill for privately owned houses are altogether inadequate, I am afraid that we have been making inadequate provision for some of our most famous State-owned historic monuments. I am credibly informed that the situation at Hampton Court is very serious, because money which is needed, if only to deal with the dry rot which has broken out in several parts, has not been forthcoming. Some of the historic houses referred to in these debates, important as they are, are really insignificant compared with Hampton Court. It would be a thousand pities if, in our anxiety over all these country houes, we were to forget that proper financial arrangements have not been made for dealing with those already under care.
  Kensington Palace, which was badly damaged by enemy action during the war—a war which terminated as long as eight years ago—has not yet been effectively repaired; and every year that passes without the necessary work being done means that this important and valuable building continues to deteriorate. I say that rather aside from this debate, but I feel that the public, as a whole, do not realise what a serious situation exists in respect of a number of these absolutely priceless monuments, which, because they are already in the hands of the Ministry of Works, are regarded by people as being completely safeguarded.
  934
  I should like to turn again for a few moments to the importance of getting on with this work as quickly as possible. Our experience at the National Trust has made it abundantly clear that £1spent this year is often the equivalent of £5 spent next year; and if you have to wait two years, it may well be that you will have to spend £10 instead of the £1which would suffice this year. That emphasises the great importance of persuading the Treasury to be rather more generous in respect of the amount of money which is forthcoming. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, it may well be that in the first year, owing to the time spent in getting the Councils established and the administrative arrangements made, the whole of the £250,000 will not be spent. If that is so, I hope that use will be made of the Amendment made to the Bill in another place under which endowments can be provided for the National Trust; because I can assure the Minister that over the last few years there have been many cases before the Committee of the National Trust where, if we had had only10 per cent. of the £250,000 to spend, we could have taken over the preservation of most important buildings.
  As the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, indicated, the real difficulty at the National Trust has always been the fact that the owner who has generously brought before the National Trust proposals for handing over his family house has not been able to provide an adequate endowment. Quite often he has proposed to make sacrifices which have evoked one's respect and admiration. The "pinching" to which he has been prepared to put himself, so to speak, and the cutting off of his family, in a way, in order that he may make all the farms on the estate, and other properties, available, has frequently evoked my admiration. But, in the hard light of surveyors' reports, what he could provide has not been anything like sufficient, and we have had to decline his generous offer, with regret. That is why I think the Amendment which was obtained in another place is so important. It may quite easily be that some comparatively small sum will make the difference. Certainly, in a number of cases which I can bring to mind so small a sum as £10,000 would have made all the difference. Out of the £250,000 it might be possible, even

  935
  in the early periods, to provide one or two endowment funds on that sort of scale—although I entirely agree with what was said by, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss: that it is not likely that there will be much demand during the early years for the use of this provision about endowments.
  The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said he could imagine that the National Trust would be worried, because this Bill provides the finance for only one year, and after that, from a legal point of view, if the Trust were to take over properties on the strength of the Bill, it might find itself in difficulties. But I am glad to say that we have received assurances of a most generous character, and I am sure they are assurances which would be implemented, not only by this Government but by Governments in the future. It must be perfectly clear that, if these assurances are not, in fact, implemented, it will be quite impossible, in a number of cases, for the National Trusts to preserve houses which they undoubtedly will be taking over on the basis of these assurances. The resources behind these institutions are insufficient to enable them to maintain and preserve a substantial number of further buildings without financial support of the kind contemplated in this Bill.
  The National Trust have frequently taken great risks in the past; and on a number of occasions, as the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, will remember, those risks have proved to be bad ones. We have been hard put to it to find the money required to carry out even rather inadequate maintenance work. I am sure that the risk which we still take on this occasion, in accepting these assurances from the Government, is nothing like so serious as many of the risks that we have taken in the past. I am confident that, as soon as this Bill is on the Statute Book, the National Trust will be able, with the active co-operation of the Ministry of Works, to go ahead with their work; and in the co-operative endeavour referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, we shall be able to get on—and, I hope, get on quickly—with the job which so many of us have been looking forward to doing over all these years—namely, that of making safe this magnificent heritage of our people.
  5.38 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I do not want to cover any of the ground which has already been covered by the noble Lords, Lord Esher and Methuen, except to add my hope that time may be found to debate Amendments; although again, like them, I should much prefer to see the Bill go through than risk losing it. There is one point that I should like to raise, however, though it has now been substantially covered by an Amendment on the Report stage in another place which I had the advantage of seeing only this morning. It refers to Part II, to ancient monuments which have been scheduled or on which certain orders have been issued. The two cases I have in mind where the existing provisions were insufficient have been only partially covered by a new clause inserted in the Bill, namely, Clause 15, which gives power to prosecute in the event of an infringement against something scheduled as a monument.
  The point here is that, in practice, a period of six months has been insufficient to collect the information and to institute proceedings under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts in the two cases I have in mind—and in one of those two cases the twelve months now provided in the Bill would have been insufficient, too. If Amendments are to be inserted in the Bill, I should like to see that period of twelve months extended to at least twenty-four months. If a monument is scheduled, and the appropriate entry is made in the Land Register, I do not see why, an infraction of that act of scheduling should be treated any differently from any other infringement of a similar nature—forexample, a charge, like a way-leave, or some other entry in the Land Register, as a charge against that land. In practice, the time taken to collect information about the destruction of some of the more obscure, but perhaps equally interesting, ancient monuments referred to in Part II is such that a period of twelve months is still as totally inadequate as six months has proved to be in the past. That brings me to what is, as I see it, the main gap in Part II of this Bill, the provisions for scheduling and the provisions for making interim orders on a building, delightfully described as one which
  "…appears to the Minister to be an ancient monument."

  937
  I do not know from where the Minister derives inspiration. I suppose that he wakes up one morning and sees something and says," By Jove ! I suppose that is an ancient monument."
  The real difficulty is that the machinery of collecting information of damage or destruction does not appear in any of the Acts. It is almost the case where action by a common informer—if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would allow such a procedure again to be established—might be more useful. Nobody will suggest that there should be a large staff of inspectors or people constantly touring the country to see whether ancient or scheduled monuments have been destroyed. None the less, I am sure that the present machinery for collecting information is very haphazard. There are representatives in every county except one—and that is a small one—who are Ministry of Works correspondents for this purpose. Some of the areas which have to be dealt with by these repre5entalives of the Ministry are so large that, unless there is a very close network of information provided by voluntary workers, it seems almost inevitable that the destruction of monuments will escape unnoticed for a much longer time than the limit in which prosecutions can be instituted. If the Bill is debated in Committee on Amendments proposed, I should like that particular point to be raised, just as I should like to see an Amendment introduced extending the period of twelve months to something considerably longer.
  5.42 p.m.
  LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I should like to support the plea which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. I am certain that in this matter of ancient monuments he is undoubtedly right as to the length of time needed to bring a prosecution effectively. It is with regard to the first part of the Bill that I should like to crave your Lordships' indulgence for a few minutes. It is customary on these occasions to genuflect towards the Gowers Report, and I should like to add my tribute to the work of that remarkable Committee. On the other hand, I feel that the Government have been right in their decision to proceed by way of grant rather than by the way of tax rebates or allowances which were suggested in the Gowers Report.
  938
  Such tax arrangements would be open to considerable criticism, and are probably politically not feasible.
  I will not repeat what everyone else has said, that the amount proposed in the Bill is too small. On the contrary, I should prefer to say that I am grateful for what has been given, and I hope for more in the future. I believe it possible that even as this scheme is worked, so it will be found that more is needed, and that the "more" will be forthcoming. The Gowers Report, apart from its suggestion for the method of financing the maintenance of these historic houses, made, in my view, one other miscalculation. I believe that all its proposals, even had it been possible to carry them out in full would have been of only temporary utility. I think they made insufficient allowance for the immense expense nowadays of inhabiting even a fairly large house. It is too much to expect that in the future there will be people who will be prepared—except in a limited number of cases where it is a family house, and even then there will be fewer and fewer of them—to spend a half, and very often much more than half, of their income on running the house. No matter what grants they may receive for maintenance, the mere living in the houses is so expensive that I am afraid as time goes on it will become increasingly difficult—and this must be an anxiety for the National Trust—to find people able to inhabit these houses.
  For that reason, I am afraid that in the long run we shall have to consider alternative uses for these houses. In that matter, again, there are both happy and less happy auguries. Some years ago, many of us were grateful when one of the greatest English country houses was taken over for what has become one of our great public schools. We thought that this would preserve the house and give to the school a setting which would be ideal and would have an influence upon the boys going there. Alas, we have been disappointed. Those who have recently visited that house will have been dismayed by its condition and horrified by the damage which has been done to the house, the park and the monuments in it. This is indeed a very unhappy augury. An American friend of mine who visited this house recently, on leaving it described it as "a pig-pen." I could use even stronger terms. A deep

  939
  responsibility must rest upon those who are in charge of boys coming from homes in which, for the most part, one would expect that a respect for such things as beautiful houses, buildings and parks would have been inculcated.
  On the other hand, to look at the brighter side, I had the pleasure recently of visiting a fine house in my own neighbourhood, Lydiard Ingoze, acquired some time ago by Swindon Corporation. The Corporation had the misfortune to find that the house was in extremely bad condition. They have undertaken extensive repairs, and whilst I believe that at the moment those repairs have had to be supended for lack of funds, the house is made safer and there is a prospect that the superb internal decorations will be restored. It is with pleasure that I read Clause 6 of this Bill, which gives the Minister the right to help local authorities to take over houses. it seems to me that this is one of the most useful parts of the Bill, and I would suggest that the Minister of Housing should send out a special circular to local authorities to remind them that this help may be forthcoming in the future.
  I have two small suggestions which I should like to put to Her Majesty's Government and which I hope it may be possible, if Amendments are moved, to incorporate in the Bill. I suggest that some provision should be made for the recording of those houses not judged to be sufficiently important—though perhaps containing parts of great importance or features of great importance—to merit special preservation by means of grant. Would it not be possible for the buyers of such houses, who buy them in order to demolish them and to make a profit out of their materials, to be compelled to make an adequate record of such buildings before they are destroyed? Heaven knows! it is a small consolation. It would be something if, for example, photographs could be taken and measured drawings made and deposited with the National Buildings Record.
  Another suggestion I should like to make is in connection with the question of endowment. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, mentioned the embarrassments of the National Trust when offered buildings which they would like to accept, but which their owners are unable adequately
  940
  to endow. To some extent this may occur because the owners have no funds which are not settled funds from which they could make endowments. It might be possible, so far as endowments are concerned, to put settled funds in the same position as settled houses and settled properties under the 1939 Act, under which it is possible for the owners of such properties to give them to the National Trust. It might not meet very many cases, but it would meet a certain number of cases of owners who would be pleased to make over some part of their settled funds as an endowment for houses which they desired to give to the National Trust. I hope these two small suggestions may be considered by Her Majesty's Government, and may also be considered by the House in general to be useful and helpful. I hope that the Bill may be placed upon the Statute Book soon. I believe it to be wholly good so far as it goes, and I hope that in practice it will go a little farther.
  5.51 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, will you allow me to stand for just two minutes between you and the reply which is to be given by the Minister? I do so as a consequence of certain observations which fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in regard to the Land Fund. I am quite prepared to accept that in my reference to the Land Fund in the previous debate I was not entirely accurate, and I apologise to the House for any inaccuracy. I wonder whether, in two minutes, I might endeavour to say to the noble Viscount correctly what I appear to have said incorrectly.
  First, how was the Land Fund established? It was established by the Finance Act of 1946, a Fund of £50 million out of the Consolidated Fund. For what purpose was it established? Again we must look at the Act of 1946. It was established in the first place for a specific purpose mentioned in the Act, and in the second place it was established
  "for such purposes as Parliament might there after prescribe."
  They were wholly general. The third purpose for which it was prescribed went back to the Finance Act, 1910. By that

  941
  Act, the Inland Revenue had been empowered to accept land in satisfaction of death duties, and the primary purpose of the National Land Fund was to enable the Treasury to remit to the Inland Revenue the value of property which it had received—because property, unless it is sold, is not immediately available for the purposes of the Exchequer. That was the primary purpose. The second purpose, as I say, was absolutely general: "for such purposes as Parliament might…prescribe."
  It will be asked: In what way was this dealt with? It was immediately invested in Government securities, except to the extent—and it was a large extent, £5 million—to which it was applied to Ways and Means Advances. And it now consists of those Government securities and a sum largely in excess of the £5 million applied in Ways and Means Advances. What, then, is the consequence—and this is the last question—of applying any part of the funds for this or any other purpose? Surely it is this: that when you have applied the money for these purposes it is not available to be applied for any other; and if the money is wanted for any other, then the Government have to raise it by borrowing, or in some other way. I wonder whether that is a satisfactory statement in relation to this National Land Fund.
  I will add only this: that, of course, it might well have been in the minds of the Government of the day that it would be applied for a particular purpose, for some concrete purpose. But it lies with Parliament; and I cannot help thinking that Parliament expressly made the provision in these general terms just in order that future Parliaments might not be bound as to the way in which it should be used. I hope that I have explained the matter clearly and to the satisfaction of the noble Viscount—who, I see, is straining at the leash—and that he will correct me if I am wrong.
  VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, with your permission I should like to say that your Lordships will no doubt all be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said, and for the explanation which he has given. I made reference to this matter only because I had thought that on a previous occasion the noble and learned Lord suggested that I
  942
  had fallen from grace since I ceased to have any responsibility for the national finances, and that he sought to support that view by a suggestion which perhaps he did not intend to make: that payments from the Land Fund, which I suggested might be increased, were for all purposes tantamount to payments out of the Consolidated Fund.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount has increased in grace. I am grateful to him for what he has said.
  5.55 p.m.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think I can rightly say that you have given this Bill a universal welcome: indeed, each noble Lord who spoke made remarks to the effect that he hoped this Bill would soon find its way to the Statute Book. Let me say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it is, of course, true to say that the political Parties in the State, and also outside private individuals, have all contributed towards the progress of this Bill towards the Statute Book. The people to whom we have the greatest sense of gratitude must be the members of the Gowers Committee itself. I should like to endeavour to reply to some of the many questions which have been addressed to me to-day. As was stated by Lord Silkin and by Lord Waverley, I feel that this is a modest beginning. Anyway, we are proceeding on the right path, and I hope that, as the years go by, the importance if this legislation, and of the bodies which are being set up under it, will become greater and greater.
  The question was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, whether it would be possible for the Ministry of Works to carry forward any unspent balance from year to year. That, I regret to say, is not possible, as I feel certain Lord Waverley will agree. It has always been contrary to Treasury practice. But I at least feel this: that if the Minister should find that he was unable in the course of one year to spend the £250,000 which had been granted to him, then he might well go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the next year and ask for a little more. Then there were questions raised about the very important bodies which are being set up under this Bill, the Historic Buildings Councils. What I have said before I repeat now: I imagine that those bodies will become increasingly important as

  943
  time goes on. My right honourable friend is therefore anxious to find the best people he can to serve on them. He is already in discussion with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and he would like to see, in conjunction with him, a small body set up comprising practical men and women who are interested in buildings and who will get their expert advice, not only from the Ministry of Works but from outside it as well.
  Then we come to the question of the work carried out by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the job carried out by the Minister of Works. I have no desire to go into that question at any length this afternoon, but, as was said in another place during the passage of this Bill there, discussions are now proceeding between the two Departments to see whether some settlement can be reached on what is obviously a difficult and complicated question. It remains to be seen whether some scheme can be worked out. I have no doubt that if and when that has been done, a statement will be made, either in this House or in another place, announcing that a decision has been reached. It could, I think, be done by administrative action, so far as the amalgamation of the committees is concerned; the transfer of powers would require an Order in Council. But it is a complicated story, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, and one with which for the moment I do not wish to weary your Lordships further.
  I come now to deal with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. I doubt very much whether Her Majesty's Government would be wise to extend the period in Clause 15 by a further year. We have already added six months to what was undoubtedly a short period, but I think that the twelve-month period during which someone can be prosecuted for damaging an ancient monument should be sufficient, if we can arrange—and I think it can be done—with local authority bodies, together with voluntary workers, to keep the Ministry well informed about any damage which may take place to ancient monuments. But I hope that in no circumstances shall we again have the common informer to assist us in our task.
  The two questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, I should like to
  944
  discuss with the Department concerned before giving him a reply, but I can assure him that I will write to him in due course.
  Lastly, I come to my noble friend, Lord Methuen. I was a little doubtful as to the particular point he wished to raise. As I understand it, no modern buildings can in fact be erected against historic buildings. I think that that safeguard would be well preserved by the machinery of planning under the Town and Country Planning Act; and, for my own part, I have not much doubt that it is very unlikely that a modern erection would be placed next to an historic building.
  LORD METHUEN: I thought that that would be the noble Earl's answer, but I wished to be certain.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am glad I have satisfied the noble Lord. I think I have answered the majority of the principal questions addressed to me.
  May I now come to the question of the future stages of this Bill? I do not wish to apply any pressure at all to noble Lords, but we are naturally anxious to get the Bill as soon as we possibly can. If your Lordships concur in my suggestion that we should take the remaining stages of this Bill next Thursday, then it will be on the Statute Book that evening—namely, before we adjourn for the Long Recess. But if there are a large number of Amendments which noble Lords wish to put down for consideration on the next stage of the Bill, then I am bound to admit that it may be wiser to postpone consideration until a later date. I am nervous, not that we should not have opportunity and time in your Lordships' House to discuss the Bill when we come back at the end of October, but because, as noble Lords know full well, the legislative programme in another place might conceivably be heavy, and if your Lordships decided to amend this Bill, there might not be time to bring it back from another place and pass it before the end of the Session. If your Lordships agree with my proposition, I should like to have the concluding stages of the measure on Thursday, if that would be convenient. I think I need say no more except to thank noble Lords again for the way in which they have received the Bill, and I hope they will assist us in the future stages of the

  945
  measure in order to get it on to the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment.
  On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  WEST BRIDGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  COVENTRY CATHEDRAL BILL
  Reported, without amendment.
  COLONIAL GROWN SUGAR
  COLONIAL GROWN SUGAR
  GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS
  GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS