Sitting of 31 March 1953

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For North Down, in the room of Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Walter Dorling Smiles, C.I.E., D.S.O., deceased.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TEES CONSERVANCY SUPERANNUATION SCHEME BILL
    TYNFMOUTH CORPORATION BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.

BELPER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
As amended, considered; Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

FOUNDLING HOSPITAL BILL [Lords]
GREAT OUSE RIVER BOARD (REVIVAL OF POWERS &C.) BILL [Lords]
LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER BILL [Lords]
NATIONAL TRUST BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time, and committed.

NEWBURY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  RUNCORN-WIDNES BRIDGE BILL [Lords]
  To be read a Second time To-morrow.
SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Palace of Westminster (Heating and Ventilation)
    Major Markhamasked the Minister of Works at what temperature and humidity he keeps the atmosphere of the Chamber and the remainder of the new building.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): The air conditioning plant enables us to maintain the air in the Chamber, the immediately adjoining Lobbies and in the two floors below at a fairly steady temperature. Normally we maintain a temperature of 66 degrees and a relative humidity of 55 per cent. In the course of late sittings the temperature is gradually raised so that it probably reaches 70 degrees by about 6 a.m.
    The air in the Chamber is completely changed six times each hour. As soon as a Division is called, the influx of air is directed into the Aye and No Lobbies. It is difficult to avoid a substantial increase in temperature if several Divisions follow immediately as 10 human bodies have the same heating effect as a 1 kilowatt electric fire.
    Major Markhamasked the Minister of Works what complaints he has received that the Chamber and adjacent rooms are usually too hot.
    Mr. Molson: From time to time I receive complaints that the Chamber is either too hot or too cold, but since the investigation made at my request last Whitsuntide by Dr. Bedford of the Council of Medical Research they have been fewer. I hope that we have now arrived by trial and error at a temperature, humidity and circulation of the air in the Chamber which is agreeable to the majority of Members.
    Major Markham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present conditions of heating and ventilation give almost universal satisfaction, and would he convey this message to his staff?
    Mr. Molson: I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend and, as the engineers have given a great deal of

    1007
    time and thought to this matter, I am sure they will be much gratified when I convey his message to them.

    Building Labour and Materials
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Works in what proportions the building labour force and building materials are distributed in the construction of housing accommodation, factories, schools and hospitals; and what the comparative proportions were in October, 1951.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. David Eccles): On the distribution of building labour, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) on 3rd March, 1953. Building labour for hospitals would account for less than I per cent. of the total. No figures of the distribution of building materials are available, but the proportions may be assumed to follow broadly the figures for labour.
    Mr. Sparks: Is it possible to increase the amount of building materials and labour particularly for schools and hospital development, as there has been in the past 12 months a very substantial reduction in the amount of building?
    Mr. Eccles: It follows the investment programme, and to the best of my information this is slightly bigger this year than last year.
    Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how, in the transfer of labour to housing, there has been such a large decrease in the amount of labour devoted to the repair and maintenance of existing buildings, which is almost sensational according to his returns?
    Mr. Eccles: The explanation is quite simple. It is that the war damage has gradually come to an end, as the right hon. Gentleman can see from the figures issued by the War Damage Commission.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: On a point of order. May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call for candles?
    Mr. Speaker: I will see that there is more illumination.

    Bricks and Cement, Glamorgan
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to ensure an adequate supply of bricks and cement
    1008
    in East Glamorgan; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eccles: East Glamorgan has brick and cement works which should be able to produce adequate supplies for local requirements. No complaints of brick shortages have been received, and the only complaint about a cement shortage is being investigated.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that shortages have occurred from time to time? Is he further aware that one of the largest brick works in this area is in a difficult position and has applied to the Board of Trade? Will he bring to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade the need, if possible, to keep this particular brick works in production?
    Mr. Eccles: If my hon. Friend will bring to my attention any shortages of bricks, I will look into them. If he will also bring to my attention the difficulties of a particular brick works, I will look into them too.

    Royal Parks (Speed Limit)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Works why he will not raise the speed limit for vehicles in the Royal Parks from 20 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour.
    Mr. Eccles: The Royal Parks are intended primarily for rest and recreation, and I am anxious not to spoil the amenities by increasing still further the noise and disturbance from motor vehicles.
    Mr. Russell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most vehicles using the parks now disregard the 20 miles an hour limit but keep within 30 miles an hour, and would he not only be legalising what is the prevalent practice?
    Mr. Eccles: In the last 12 months there have been 1,300 prosecutions for speeding in the parks. It may be that my hon. Friend has been lucky so far.
    Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Would the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the London County Council about this matter so that we may have a uniform speed limit in all the parks in the London area? In Battersea Park, for example, and other London County Council parks the speed limit is 12 miles per hour, and that makes it a little bit confusing for Londoners, and visitors, too.
    Mr. Eccles: My responsibility is for the Royal Parks only. I could hardly do more than ask the London County Council, but I think they must remain responsible for their parks.

  CORONATION

    Anti-Litter Campaign
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to publicise the need for keeping London free during the Coronation celebrations from the blight of cigarette, ice cream and sweet cartons and other litter.
    Mr. Eccles: It is proposed to call special attention to this matter by broadcasting and by an announcement to which, I hope, the Press will give publicity. I hope everyone will help to keep the streets and parks clean on this great occasion.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there will be an adequate supply of bins and baskets for receiving litter?
    Mr. Eccles: We have ordered special cleaners and bins for the Coronation. I cannot say that there will be enough, but I hope so.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the ice cream vendors are not entitled to exploit the Coronation just as much as the hotel proprietors? Will not the American visitors expect liberal supplies of ice cream and Coca Cola on the route?
    Mr. Eccles: I think we had better wait until 2nd June and see what happens.

    Wales
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Works what special arrangements in connection with Coronation celebrations his Department have made within the Principality of Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eccles: I am arranging to decorate a few prominent Government buildings which are on the route which Her Majesty will follow during her State visit to Wales. My Department will also make the necessary arrangements for the visit to Caernarvon Castle.
    Mr. Gower: While thanking my right hon. Friend for what he has said about the Royal visit to Wales, may I ask him if he will also do something to assist the celebration of the Coronation in the Principality on the actual day of the Coronation, and particularly at the greater centres of population such as Cardiff and Caernarvon?
    Mr. Eccles: No, Sir, I am afraid we have not enough money to spend on decorations otherwise than on the route along which Her Majesty will go.

    INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (SURVEYS)
    Mr. Albuasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress has been made with the surveys of the technical resources of industrial firms carried out by the Manchester Research Council, the Department of Engineering Production at Birmingham University and the Social Survey of the Central Office of Information; and whether he will publish the results.
    Mr. Molson: The Manchester Joint Research Council's survey is complete and the Council is preparing a report with a view to possible publication. The Department of Engineering Production at Birmingham University is continuing its survey under a research contract with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Bodies working on such contracts usually publish their results in an appropriate scientific journal. A pilot survey of the technical resources of industrial firms in two small selected areas has been carried out by the Social Survey. It is not proposed to publish a report of this survey, but the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are considering the preparation of a general paper covering all three surveys.
    Mr. Albu: In view of the very great importance of these inquiries, will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his noble Friend to see that the fullest publicity is given to the results, in whatever form it may be, but in a way that could be fully understood by industry? Will he also ask his noble Friend to ensure that the funds which are devoted to this research are not reduced, and that, in fact, further inquiries are carried out?
    Mr. Molson: The Department do try to ensure that all valuable results from such surveys are available in public form, and will continue to do so. As regards the matter of finance, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are trying to maintain and extend the surveys they are carrying out, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the financial stringency which affects the D.S.I.R. as well as all other Departments.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the report of the Manchester Research Council be available to Members, and, if not, will the hon. Gentleman arrange to have copies placed in the Library so that the report is made available to us in that way?
    Mr. Molson: I will arrange for the report, when it is published, to be made available in the Library.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Noise (Protection)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour whether he has noted that about half the number of men employed in chipping, riveting, stamping, plating and heading become deafened to speech at more than three feet after 20 years' exposure to the noise created at their work; and what steps are being taken to protect them from this type of deafness.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Harold Watkinson): My Department is aware of the recent report of a committee of the Medical Research Council on the medical and surgical problems of deafness and that exposure over many years to noise above certain intensities may cause deterioration in hearing. Much research is being carried out into this question and, as announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works on 24th March, a committee has been set up jointly by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Medical Research Council which will consider, among other things, the effect of noise in relation to human efficiency.
    The harmful effects of noise on the individual can be reduced to some extent by the wearing of protective ear coverings and by eliminating injurious noise at its source by improved designs of machines and their mountings and the sound
    1012
    insulation of walls and ceilings; but the subject has been found to bristle with practical difficulties.
    Dr. Stross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that protective ear coverings appear to be very much in their infancy and that there is not a satisfactory type available? Could he tell me if specific research is to be conducted into finding the right type of protective ear covering for these men?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, that is so.

    Atmospheric Pollution (Fluorine)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour whether the inspectorate of his Department have noted the production of fluoride compounds as a by-product of certain industrial processes in Stoke-on-Trent and other areas; and, in this connection, what advice is given to protect the health of the workers engaged in these factories.
    Mr. Watkinson: The Department are well aware that some processes in some industries, including some processes in earthenware trades, give rise to fumes of fluorine or its compounds. The recognised forms of protection are enclosure and ventilation arrangements to prevent the fumes from entering or accumulating in the workplaces to an extent likely to be injurious to health. The Department will continue to be on the watch for any signs that such arrangements are inadequate at particular factories.
    Dr. Stross: Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is need for specific research in an area like Stoke-on-Trent, where there appears to be a considerable amount of fluoride contamination, not only of the area, but of the soil by particles which are deposited on it, which we know kills cattle; and would he see that research on the human population in the vicinity takes place as soon as possible?
    Mr. Watkinson: I know the great interest the hon. Gentleman takes in this question, but our inquiries so far seem to show that the only risk of injury is to animals and not to humans. However, we will continue to keep the matter very carefully under review.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to consult the various Government Departments affected?

    1013
    Already the Ministry of Agriculture and several other Ministries are keenly interested in this, and has not the time arrived when they should be brought together in order to take co-ordinated action?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will look into that.

    North-East Scotland
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour the figures of registered unemployed in each of the employment exchanges in the North-East of Scotland immediately before the announcement of the new policy for the area on 29th October last; and the latest available figures of registered unemployed for the same exchange areas.
    Mr. Watkinson: I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    NUMBERS OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS ON THE REGISTERS OF THE UNDERMENTIONED EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES AT 13TH OCTOBER, 1952, AND 16TH MARCH, 1953

    Employment Exchange

    13th October, 1952

    16th March, 1953

    Males

    Females

    Males

    Females

    Buckie

    …

    …

    …

    …

    184

    58

    413

    154

    Portsoy

    …

    …

    …

    …

    28

    15

    43

    25

    Banff

    …

    …

    …

    …

    132

    42

    229

    54

    Fraserburgh

    …

    …

    …

    …

    268

    149

    469

    337

    Strichen

    …

    …

    …

    …

    28

    30

    61

    21

    Peterhead

    …

    …

    …

    …

    224

    141

    555

    213

    The figures for these two dates were affected by seasonal causes.

    Re-Armament Work, Scotland
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Labour the figures of persons employed in Scotland in 1952 on work connected with re-armament.
    Mr. Watkinson: It is estimated that at the end of 1952 some 70,000 persons were employed directly and indirectly on defence work, including research and development, in the manufacturing industries in Scotland.

    Ex-Regulars (Training)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that the facilities are adequate for giving trade or occupational training to the large numbers of time-expired Regulars of all three Services, who will be discharged this year after having been retained beyond their normal engagement, if they desire such training.
    Mr. Hamilton: Has there been any appreciable change in the unemployment figure since the implementation of this new policy; if there has been, in what direction has it been; and if there has not been, what further steps do the Government intend to take to solve this very difficult problem?
    Mr. Watkinson: If I tried to answer that I should only show how misleading statistics so often are because, due to differing levels of unemployment at different seasons, the fact is that if the last bad peak period, which was January, 1951, is compared with the present March figure, the totals are about the same. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better look at the figures. They are rather detailed.
    The following is the information:
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir, within the limits imposed by the capacity of industry to absorb adult trainees.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman look into this matter again? May I draw his attention to the case of one of my constituents, an ex-paratrooper with seven years seven months Regular service, who recently applied to the employment exchange at Cradley Heath with a view to being trained in the use of bulldozers and heavy vehicles of that nature, and who was told that no such facilities for training were available?
    Mr. Watkinson: It may have been that a course of that nature was not at the moment available. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be kind enough to write to me, I promise him that we will look into the case most carefully.

    NATIONAL SERVICE, SCOTLAND (CALL-UP)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Labour the figures of National Service men called up in Scotland in 1952.
    Mr. Watkinson: Nineteen thousand three hundred and twenty-six.
    Mr. Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman say how many of them were farmers?
    Mr. Watkinson: Not without notice.

  FORESTRY, SCOTLAND

    Ben Nevis
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to acquire Ben Nevis for afforestation with a view to its ultimate use as a forest park.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): The Forestry Commission have already planted parts of the lower slopes of Ben Nevis. If and when other parts suitable for afforestation become available, they will be considered for acquisition.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Would my hon. Friend not agree that Ben Nevis, our highest mountain, is a great asset to the British Isles; is he not aware that there used to be a track going up Ben Nevis, with several bridges which crossed burns, and that these bridges have fallen into very great disrepair, giving a bad impression to tourists; and does he not think that acquisition by the Forestry Commission would be one way of putting this right?
    Mr. Snadden: As I have said, we will consider any lands that become available, but, of course, sheep interests are involved, and I should imagine that my hon. Friend would have that in mind too.

    Blown Timber (Clearance Arrangements)
    Mr. Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) the most recent estimate of the total damage done to Scottish forests and woodlands by the gale of 1st February, 1953, and subsequently; and whether he is satisfied that
    1016
    the arrangements made will ensure orderly marketing, a fair price for the grower and the sawmiller, and an efficient and reasonably quick clearance of the ground;
    (2) what additional labour force will operate in the devastated areas of Scotland to deal with timber clearance; and how many additional sawmills it is proposed to set up.
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the arrangements so far made for handling the fallen timber in Scotland, with particular reference to the negotiations for reduced charges on the railways and to the prices for the timber.
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether the negotiations with the Transport Executive regarding reduced freight charges for blown timber have now reached a satisfactory conclusion;
    (2) whether the National Coal Board and the Transport Commission have now agreed to purchase blown timber from the North of Scotland; and in what quantities, and at what price.
    Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend had intended to make a short comprehensive statement about the Scottish windblown timber this afternoon, but he very much regrets that some details of the arrangements which he had hoped to announce have not yet been fully worked out. He intends to make a statement before the House rises for Easter.
    Mr. Spence: Could my hon. Friend give a more definite assurance on the timing of this statement? Can we have a definite assurance that a statement will be made after Question time tomorrow, and that the statement will deal with the question of freight charges?
    Mr. Snadden: I cannot add to what I have said. My right hon. Friend will make the statement immediately he has the information to which I have referred. Whether that will be tomorrow or Thursday, I am unable to say, but I can say that the statement he will make will cover the questions referred to by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Boothby: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, while we on this side of the House all agree that the statement

    1017
    should be comprehensive, there is no unanimity about it being short, and we hope that we shall have an absolutely full statement dealing with this problem? As the time of the House is not at stake and there is no reason why the statement should be short, why does my hon. Friend say that it will be short?
    Mr. Snadden: I think my hon. Friend can leave that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Lieut-Colonel Elliot: In dealing with the question of the fallen timber and the freight charges, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State be able to deal with the fact that there are, to my knowledge, important timber projects in the South which cannot be carried out for lack of timber, whereas in the North there is a surplus of timber which has not yet been brought into productive use?
    Mr. Snadden: I think we should await the statement of my right hon. Friend.

  EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

    Personal Case, Sutherland
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the 12-year-old Sutherland boy, details of whose case have been sent him, has been deprived of any education while awaiting a vacancy in the Rudolf Steiner School. Aberdeen, or other similar school.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): This unfortunate child could not be educated at an ordinary school. He requires a particular form of special educational treatment, and the number of special schools providing this treatment is very limited. The education authority are trying to get a place for him in the only type of establishment which might be able to do something for him.
    Sir D. Robertson: Does my hon. Friend realise that this boy's father was killed during the crossing of the Rhine eight years ago, and that there is on the State a special responsibility to see that he gets a chance; and will he take immediate steps to see that this boy is taken out of the very small house in which he has been cooped up for all these years while his mental state has deteriorated?
    1018
    Is there not some building in the Highlands which could be used for this purpose?
    Mr. Stewart: This is a very difficult and pathetic case, into which I have made very careful inquiries. I can assure my hon. Friend that everything possible is being done. It is hoped that the Rudolf Steiner School in Aberdeen might be able to do something for him, but the specialist's report is that the boy is virtually ineducable, which makes it exceedingly difficult.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have recently seen this boy at his home with his mother, and that I am perfectly satisfied that if he had had some education in the last seven or eight years he would be in a much better state than he is today? Is it not quite wrong that any child like this should be left for seven years without any attention at all?
    Mr. Stewart: The difficulty is that he is in such a state that there is no ordinary school in the country which could cope with this poor, unfortunate boy. There are only one or two special schools which are possibilities, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing our very best to pursue them.

    Teachers' Superannuation
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that school teachers regard his proposal to amend the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme as a cut in salary; and, in view of the likely detrimental effect of this step on increased recruitment to the profession, what steps he is considering to offset such results.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend is postponing further action on his proposals for the present, as he understands that the teachers and their employers have agreed to set up a working party to review the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme as a whole, in the light of the proposals made last July and of proposals for a scheme of pensions for widows and dependants which the teachers favour. He has arranged to give the working party such help as he can, and if they can let him have their recommendations quickly, he will await them before anything further is done.
    Mr. Hamilton: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he could indicate why the teachers were not asked to enter into the negotiations in the first place, and why were the teachers, of all the professional bodies with superannuation schemes, singled out for this particular amendment?
    Mr. Stewart: It is a reasonable argument to say that they might have been consulted a little earlier. They are now getting ample opportunity to be consulted. We are awaiting with interest their advice, and I very much hope that we can agree about something.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the teachers regard this as a cut in their salary, and that no scheme is likely to be successful which implies that at this time, when other people are receiving increases, the teachers are to receive a decrease; and is he further aware that he would be more successful in his negotiations with the teachers if the scheme submitted to them appeared somewhat more reasonable?
    Mr. Stewart: It is to get a scheme which appears more reasonable that the working party has been set up. As I have said, I look forward to the recommendations of the working party.
    Mr. Steele: Will this working party be concerned only with the position in Scotland, or will it be a United Kingdom working party?
    Mr. Stewart: A similar working party is being set up in England, and I understand that close liaison will be kept between the two bodies.

    Costs, Cumnock
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the annual cost for each pupil attending the Dalblair School at Cumnock, Ayrshire.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The annual cost per pupil is £101.

  SCOTLAND

    Police Widows (Pensions)
    Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that widows of police officers who died before the Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1948, came into
    1020
    force are not entitled to apply for a discretionary supplementation of pension, whereas widows of police officers dying thereafter are so entitled; and whether he will remove this anomaly.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: All police widows not entitled to National Insurance pensions other than the widows of officers above the rank of inspector who died before 5th July, 1948, may have their pensions supplemented; but the maximum amount of the supplement is greater in the case of those widows whose husbands died after 5th July, 1948, and accordingly had contributed under the National Insurance Scheme. The position was discussed in the debate on the draft Police Pensions Regulations on 9th December last, and no amendment of the Regulations is contemplated.
    Mr. Macpherson: Does the reply mean that supplementary pensions can be given on a discretionary basis, both in respect of those who died before that date and of those who died after it?
    Mr. Stewart: This is a complicated matter. If my hon. Friend would care to do so, I will do my best after Questions to discuss it and explain it to him. I confess that it is very difficult, as the House will recollect from the course of the recent debate.

    Development and Industry (Report)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet completed his study of the Cairncross Report; and what action he proposes to take to implement its recommendations.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade during the course of the debate on development areas and the distribution of industry on 25th February.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that it is now almost a year since this Report was issued and the Government's intentions must be suspect if, in the meantime, they are not doing anything about it? Can the Minister indicate what, if anything, the Government intend to do with these proposals, or are they going to be pigeon-holed in his office?
    Mr. Stewart: I think that if the hon. Member would contemplate this matter for a moment he would see that it is not easy to come to a decision on this matter. The Scottish Board of Industry are considering the Report. They have not yet offered us their recommendations, and the Government's view, as at present advised, is that they do not think it right to alter the present scheme of development areas; but the matter is still being examined.
    Mr. Brooman-White: Arising from this Report, should there not be a full review of the whole position of the distribution of industry policy in Scotland?
    Mr. Mclnnes: Will the Minister say, apart from the position indicated by the President of the Board of Trade, what consultations have taken place between the Scottish Office and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and the Board for Industry? Surely something has been done during the past 12 months on this matter?
    Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Member can imagine, we are in very close and constant contact with these two bodies and— indeed, it may be that because of these contacts—we are not able quickly to decide upon this matter.

    Land Reclamation
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has concerning the land reclamation work undertaken at Inverasdale; and what steps he is taking to collate existing information of similar experiments in view of the importance of land reclamation to the Highlands.
    Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend has received a report from the Highlands Voluntary Development Association on their work at Inverasdale last year. This work consisted of the cultivation, maintenance and improvement of existing crofts rather than of reclamation. The Department of Agriculture have experience of land reclamation work being done elsewhere and I do not think that special steps of the kind that my noble Friend has in mind are necessary.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is it not the case that over the last 13 years Mr. Rollo has been working in Inverasdale and no member of the Department has
    1022
    been near his work or examined it during that time? Is it not also the case that this type of work, whether it is on old crofts or reclaiming new land, is valuable as serving as a pattern for future development in the Highlands?
    Mr. Snadden: We appreciate very much the work of these students which is carried out on a voluntary basis, but the work that has been done on these crofts is not land reclamation. It consists of ploughing, carting and spreading of farm manure, and so on. In the Question reclamation is referred to: the Departments have already had experience of reclamation in the working of the Marginal Agricultural Production Scheme, and the Hill Farming and Livestock and Rearing Acts, and we do not think that anything further is required.

    Road Scheme, Isle of Skye
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when work on the road to the 13 crofts in Earlish, Isle of Skye, is to be started; and when it is expected that it will be completed.
    Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend has been in communication with the County Council of Inverness about this road and he is at present awaiting their proposals. I cannot say at this stage when the work is likely to begin or when it will be finished.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is not this a very unsatisfactory state of affairs? This road has been waiting for years, and is not this the type of thing which is holding up the expansion of agriculture in the Highlands?
    Mr. Snadden: The position is that the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked the county council to consider a scheme for this road with the aid of a grant. We have been informed that they are preparing a scheme, and when that scheme is received, it will receive consideration.

    Local Government Law (Consolidation)
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take on the First Report of the Scottish Local Government Law Consolidation Committee and the Draft

    1023
    of the Local Government (Public Order) (Scotland) Bill, which has been prepared by the Committee.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): The Committee's Report and their draft of a Local Government (Public Order) (Scotland) Bill were referred as soon as they were published, to the Scottish Local Authority Associations and their comments are awaited.
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take on the Second Report of the Scottish Local Government Law Consolidation Committee and the Draft of a Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Bill, which has been prepared by the Committee.
    Commander Galbraith: The Report and draft Bill have been published so that they may be considered by interested parties. The Scottish Local Authority Associations and other bodies have been asked for their observations, which my right hon. Friend will consider when received.
    Captain Duncan: With regard to the draft Bills, does my right hon. and gallant Friend intend to introduce consolidation legislation, and, if so. as it will be new, what will the procedure be?
    Commander Galbraith: That is rather a different question from the one on the Order Paper.

    Herring Trade (Negotiations With Russia)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the negotiations for a further purchase of cured herring by the Soviet Government have now reached a successful conclusion.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Negotiations are still in progress between the Herring Industry Board and the Russian agents.
    Mr. Boothby: If canned salmon and canned crab enter into this business, will my hon. Friend point out to the Ministry of Food that the British people are very keen on both canned salmon and canned crab?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that fishermen in the West of Scotland are being refused insurance benefit on the grounds that they are
    1024
    seasonal workers, and that, if this goes on, there will be no fishermen to catch the herring for the Soviet?
    Mr. J. Grimond: Will the hon. Gentleman impress upon his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that it is very necessary to find a bigger outlet for cured herring before the summer season starts?

    Farm Workers' Wages
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has noted that increased labour costs in agriculture were taken into account at the Annual Review and fixing of farm prices as set out in Command Paper No. 8798; that producers in Scotland have been awarded increased prices to meet these costs; that farm workers in Scotland have not been awarded an increase in wages and that therefore the increased costs have not been incurred; and what action he is taking to ensure that farm workers in Scotland will receive minimum wages comparable with those received in England and Wales.
    Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend has noted the situation to which the hon. Lady draws attention. But he has no power to intervene in decisions of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.
    Miss Herbison: Since the Scottish farmers have been given an increase in prices under the annual review, and since the increase took into account a rise in the wages of agricultural workers, surely the Secretary of State ought not to give a gift of the taxpayers' money to Scottish farmers? Surely the Secretary of State has the right to say to the Scottish farmers, "Wages have not been increased and, therefore, the prices which you are to be paid will be smaller"?
    Mr. Snadden: It is true that the aggregate increase in labour costs taken into account at the Annual Price Review reflected mainly the rise in wage rates in England and Wales, but so long as we have a United Kingdom price structure and two separate wages boards such a position is inevitable. Of course, the reverse could have happened; wages might have risen in Scotland.
    Mr. Patrick Maitland: Will my hon. Friend at the same time bear in mind the

    1025
    delicate position of Clyde Valley horticulturists who have been dealt a body blow by the rise in the price of coal?
    Mr. Woodburn: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the farmers in Scotland will not put this money in their own pockets? If they have been given money to compensate for a rise in wages, surely common decency demands that they should pay the wages? Is he suggesting that the agricultural wages board would prevent the farmers giving the increase for which they have received the money?
    Mr. Snadden: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the intricate problem arising out of the fact that there are two separate wages boards was presented to his own Administration but nothing was done about it. However, we have received representations from the farm servants' union recently about this and I am able to say that we are now re-examining the position.
    Mr. Woodburn: Surely the point is not that there is a separate agricultural wages structure; the point is that there is nothing to prevent the farmers paying this money whether the agricultural wages board suggests that it should be paid or not.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Is it not a fact that the vast majority of agricultural workers are paid higher wages than the minimum rates?
    Mr. Snadden: It is true that the wages in England are struck on a different basis from those in Scotland and that in Scotland 80 per cent. of our agricultural workers are in the specialist classes and are receiving wages certainly not less than those in England and Wales.
    Miss Herbison: Surely it would not be impossible for the Secretary of State for Scotland to decide what proportion of the increase ought to go on wages and, having made that decision, could he not say to the Scottish farmers, "We are withdrawing that proportion from the money which you will receive"? Is it not also the case that when considering wages one has to have regard to 100 per cent. of the agricultural workers and not merely a proportion of them?
    Mr. Snadden: Any interference which would change the wage-fixing methods of today would require legislation. However, I have said that the representations recently made by the farm servants' union about this are now being re-examined by the Government.
    Sir W. Darling: Has my hon. Friend received any representations from farm workers to the effect that they have not received an increase in wages? It is certainly within the knowledge of some of us that voluntary increases have been made in response to the rise in the price level.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Will the Joint Undersecretary assure us that the Secretary of State will seriously consider introducing amending legislation to provide for one Wages Board for Great Britain? Is he aware that this difficult situation did not arise during the period of the Labour Government? Does he appreciate that, generally speaking, horticultural workers receive the minimum wage? Does he also appreciate that forestry workers employed by the Forestry Commission receive the minimum wages, which means that Forestry Commission workers in Scotland receive 5s. a week less than do their colleagues in England and Wales who are working for the same employers?
    Mr. Snadden: I have already said that we will re-examine the position in the light of representations recently made to us. It is a fact that similar representations were made to the previous Administration.
    Miss Herbison: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies which we have received, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Population and Industry (Distribution)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the overspill problem within the Clyde Valley; and what measures of assistance to local authorities he proposes to help in a solution.
    Commander Galbraith: The problem of overspill in the Clyde Valley area is receiving the urgent consideration of the Clyde Valley Regional Planning Advisory

    1027
    Committee. Their report, which is expected shortly, will deal with the extent of the problem and of the measures which might be taken to deal with it.
    Mrs. Mann: If the Clyde Valley Planning Committee decides in the affirmative, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be able to say that Scotland will get the benefit of the Town Development Act just as England does?
    Commander Galbraith: We do not know that benefits will accrue. We would rather wait and see what the Committee reports before we make up our minds about this.
    Mr. Patrick Maitland: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend direct the attention of housing authorities to the importance of providing housing where there are sites attractive to industry and where surplus labour is available?
    Mrs. Mann: Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is showing an amazing ignorance when he states that he is not sure if there is an overspill problem in the Clyde Valley? It is well known that Glasgow has already intimated that it has an overspill problem requiring 60,000 houses.
    Commander Galbraith: The hon. Lady has taken me up wrongly. I never made any such remark. I said that we were not quite sure of the benefits which would accrue to that area as a result of the application of the Town Development Act, 1952.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will appoint a commission to inquire and report on the distribution of population and industry over Scotland as a whole, in order to achieve a more balanced economy.
    Commander Galbraith: Comprehensive information about the distribution of population and industry in Scotland is already available to the Government and numerous aspects of the problem have been separately reported upon by Government committees, the Scottish Board for Industry, committees of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and other bodies. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend does not think that a general commission of inquiry is necessary at the present time.
    Mrs. Mann: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend if he would consider a commission or planning committee to view Scotland as a unit because up to now Scotland has been incorporated in corn-Departmental planning? In other words, the Clyde Valley Committee, the Eastern Committee, the Highland Development Committee have been set up to deal with separate areas, whereas the problems of one are probably created by the problems of the other. Would he not consider a planning committee for the lot?
    Commander Galbraith: I will not add to the reply which I have given to the hon. Lady. She knows perfectly well that there are different problems in the different areas.

    Tuberculosis
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the rate of pulmonary tuberculosis for Scotland, during 1950, 1951 and 1952, with the West of Scotland's percentage of that rate; and what steps he is taking to remedy the higher incidence in this part of Scotland.
    Commander Galbraith: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mrs. Mann: The Question does not completely ask for figures. The latter part of the Question asks for steps— would the right hon. and gallant Gentle-may say "what steps he is taking to remedy the higher incidence in this part of Scotland? "Could we have a reply to that?
    Commander Galbraith: All known measures are being used in that particular part of the country.
    Mrs. Mann: As the known measures have not proved very effective, will he try to study some unknown measures?
    Commander Galbraith: I would find insuperable difficulty in that.
    Dr. Snmmerskill: Could the Minister say to what he attributes the high tubercular mortality rate among young girls as compared with England?
    Commander Galbraith: I do not think the reasons are really known. As the right hon. Lady knows, it is being studied but so far we have had no definite reply.
    Following is the reply:

    Year

    Respiratory Tuberculosis

    Scotland

    "West of Scotland" (comprising Counties of Dunbarton, Lanark and Renfrew and all Burghs therein)

    West of Scotland rates as a percentage of the Scottish rates

    Notification per 100,000

    Death rate per 100,000

    Notification per 100,000

    Death rate per 100,000

    Notifications

    Deaths

    1950

    …

    …

    157

    47

    207

    70

    132

    149

    1951

    …

    …

    152

    37

    197

    53

    130

    143

    1952

    …

    …

    144

    27

    188

    41

    131

    152

    All the established measures for combating tuberculosis have been and are being intensified in the West of Scotland.

  HOUSING, SCOTLAND

    Eastfield Farm, Cambuslang
    Mr. Brooman-Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered plans for the proposed housing development at Eastfield Farm, Cambuslang; and what are the reasons for the delay in commencing work on this project.
    Commander Galbraith: No plans have been submitted for this development, as his right hon. Friend's approval is not required. The delay in starting work has been caused mainly by difficulties about the selection of a suitable site for a school, but these difficulties have now been resolved and the preliminary work of laying sewers will start shortly.
    Mr. Brooman-White: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the local authority had access to this site for many months, and as the housing in Lanarkshire is as bad as any in Scotland, and Cambuslang is one of the worst places in Lanarkshire, will he use his influence to impress on the local authority the importance of carrying out the preliminary paper work at a tempo more in accordance with the urgency of the need?

    Agricultural Land
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to take steps to ensure greater compactness of layout in local authority housing to minimise the loss of agricultural land.
    Commander Galbraith: A circular giving guidance to local authorities on this subject was issued by my right hon. Friend's Department in 1951. Since then he has consistently urged local authorities to include in their schemes as large a proportion as possible of flats and terraced houses in order to make the most economical use of building land.
    Mr. Maitland: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is not aware that there is still a great and unnecessary encroachment upon good agricultural land through failure to build on sites already available, which can be built on more compactly, and will he particularly draw the attention of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to a volume called, "Design in Town and Village," published this year by the Stationery Office?
    Mrs. Mann: Would the Minister not rather call the attention of the Secretary of State to the Scottish manual "Planning Our New Homes," where it was stated that more than 70 per cent. of the population desire houses and not flats?

    Flats
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in favour of including a block or blocks of flats in local authority housing schemes in urban areas.
    Commander Galbraith: No such representations have been received, nor are

    1031
    any necessary. Blocks of flats are already included in local authority housing schemes in many areas.
    Mr. Maitland: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that in many cases local authorities in their housing schemes go in for buildings of two storeys, and that the addition of an extra storey would cut the encroachment on building land by some 50 per cent.?

    Aluminium Houses (Condensation)
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to reduce or remove the condensation and consequent dampness in many aluminium houses.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend recently obtained a report on the results of the remedial experiments already carried out and is considering, in the light of this report, what further steps may be taken in any area where serious condensation persists. In the case of Ayr Burgh, he has already agreed exceptionally to the provisions of thermal insulation at the cost of the Exchequer.
    Sir T. Moore: Is it not a fact that, initially, many of these houses were of such poor design and construction that really nothing can be done to them now except to pull them down?
    Commander Galbraith: I cannot agree with that.
    Mr. Woodbum: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the remedy for this is perfectly well known to the companies in Scotland and England who manufacture the houses and that this was the result of a well-meant, but unfortunately false, economy?
    Commander Galbraith: The remedies are being put into practice.
    Mr. Brooman-White: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that experiments carried out with houses which are still occupied have considerably improved conditions for the tenants, and will he extend these arrangements as soon as possible?
    Commander Galbraith: That is what we are doing.
    Mr. Steele: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us how many of all the houses built have been reported
    1032
    to the Scottish Office as being affected by dampness? Is he aware that this has been going on for a considerable time and that I had a report from the Scottish Office more than 18 months ago saying that something was going to be done about it? Will he ensure that the Scottish Office moves more rapidly?
    Commander Galbraith: A very great deal has been done about this already, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I regret I cannot give the detailed figures for which he asks, but the number of houses affected to a greater or lesser degree is some 6,000 out of a total of about 30,000.

    NORTH SCOTLAND WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEE
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Minister of Pensions the date on which the North of Scotland War Pensions Committee last met.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Brigadier J. G. Smyth): The main Committee last met on 4th June, 1952, and there have been five meetings of sub-committees since that date.
    Sir D. Robertson: Does the Pensions Committee justify its existence when it only meets at such rare intervals, and is there not some responsibility on my hon. and gallant Friend's Department to see it really does the work for which it was appointed?
    Brigadier Smyth: The main Committee is very widely spread about, as my hon. Friend knows, and it meets whenever there is anything important to discuss. Very often it is better to rely on the subcommittees which are easier to assemble and can deal with local matters.
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Minister of Pensions how many counties are included in the North of Scotland war pensions area; and what is its extent in square miles.
    Brigadier Smyth: Eight counties are included in the North of Scotland War Pensions Committee area which covers 11,581 square miles.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not obvious that this area, which represents at least a quarter of Scotland, is much too large

    1033
    an area, and does ray hon. and gallant Friend's answer to the previous Question not indicate that that is so? Will he take steps at least to divide it into two?
    Brigadier Smyth: It is, of course, a big area, but there are comparatively few pensioners living in it and only 218 badly disabled. The War Pensions Committee is, of course, helped out with voluntary workers and voluntary organisations like the British Legion and the British Red Cross. Generally speaking, we do not have any complaints about the service.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the hon and gallant Gentleman name the counties concerned?
    Brigadier Smyth: I have them here. The counties are Caithness, Inverness, Moray, Nairn, Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland and Shetland.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Widows' Pensions
    Miss Leeasked the Secretary of State for War whether widows of officers who served in the Boer War receive pensions; and how far provision is made for widows of non-commissioned officers and other ranks who served in that war.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): Where death is due to a disability connected with active service in the Boer War, the widow can be considered for a pension on that ground; this applies both to officers and to other ranks. Apart from this, the fact that the husband served in the Boer War would not of itself entitle the widow to any award.
    Miss Lee: Can the Minister say whether there is a general arrangement providing that the widows of officers who served in those pre-1914 wars get pensions while the widows of other ranks do not get them? Is there a distinction there?
    Mr. Hutchison: Any such regulations as exist apply equally to officers and other ranks.

    Gift Parcels (Cost)
    Mr. Murrayasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Mrs. Carter, 4, Frederick Street, South
    1034
    Meadowfield, County Durham, has been asked to pay 9s. to send a half-pound tin of Coronation sweets by air to her son, 22507667 Private R. Carter, 4th Platoon B Company, 1st Durham Light Infantry, British Army Post Office, 3, Korea, and that, owing to this price, this man, along with many others, will be denied such small luxuries; and whether he will make it possible for parents to send such small gifts at reasonable rates.
    Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: This sum of 9s. represents a considerable concession, since a similar packet sent by air at the normal rates would cost 30s. If the delay in sending the packet by sea were accepted, the cost would be only ll½d. The Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes under the Forces Parcel Service provide facilities for a whole variety of gift parcels to be sent to men serving in Korea.
    Mr. Murray: Is the Minister aware that that will give no consolation to the people in the country? I have a letter in my hand in which a woman states that she was actually asked for 25s. for sending an Easter egg to her husband. Could the hon. Gentleman's Department not show some more humanity in cases like this?
    Mr. Hutchison: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the cost of sending parcels and mail to Korea is already very highly subsidised, and it was for that purpose that the Forces Parcels Scheme was introduced whereby an individual in this country could pay at this end and a man at the other end would get the present.
    Mr. Murray: This boy has never been out of his house in his life before, and yet he cannot have half a pound of Coronation sweets to celebrate the Coronation while we are spending millions of money in this country on the same kind of thing. It is absolutely ridiculous.

    Essex Regiment (Married Quarters)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are being made for the accommodation of the wives and families of men serving in the Essex Regiment, at present living in married quarters in Germany but due to return to the United Kingdom when these soldiers are posted to Korea.
    Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Arrangements are being made for those families who

    1035
    cannot find accommodation for themselves to use the families hostels in this country.
    Mr. Driberg: Can the hon. Gentleman say if it is correct, as these families believe, that if they had been in married quarters in this country they would have been allowed to stay on in them until they had found proper accommodation for themselves, and can he say whether it is also the case that there are 30 or 40 families who will be required to find their own accommodation—which it is very difficult for them to do?
    Mr. Hutchison: It is true that when soldiers are sent to Korea from this country we do what we can to leave the families in the accommodation in which they are, but sometimes they also have to be accommodated in the families hostel camps. I am aware that we are asking some of the families to try to find their own accommodation when they get here, but none of them will be left stranded.
    Mr. Driberg: Why should there be this discrimination against Service men and their families serving in Germany as compared with this country? If it is because of the shortage of married quarters there, is there not also a great pressure on accommodation here?
    Mr. Hutchison: It arises from the shortage of available married quarters.
    Mr. McAddeo: Can my hon. Friend say if there is any accommodation available in the married quarters at Warley and Colchester, and if not, will he make representations to the housing authorities in Essex to try to do something to help in this matter?
    Mr. Hutchison: I should really have to have notice of that.

Film (Argyll Regiment)
Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War what extra pay has been given to the soldiers of the Argyll Regiment for taking part in the production of Mr. Walt Disney's film Rob Roy.
Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: None, Sir.
Mr. Hughes: Are we to understand that the troops of the Argyll Regiment were given voluntarily to Mr. Walt Disney, and is he aware that the local Home Guard
1036
think that Mr. Walt Disney would be a far better director of military operations than the present Secretary of State for War?
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Undersecretary be a little more frank with the House and at least confirm whether or not the War Office were receiving the sum of 25s. per day per soldier from the film company concerned, which sum is to be retained by the War Office?
Mr. Hutchison: The War Office, of course, received some remuneration for the use of these soldiers and the War Office pay the soldiers their ordinary Service pay. I should have to have notice from the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the actual figure which he gave.
Mr. Wigg: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House what the situation of these soldiers will be if they suffer from an accident in the course of these operations?
Mr. Hutchison: I shall have to have notice of that question. These men are volunteers. They volunteered for this work.

KENYA (MASSACRE, UPLANDS)
Mr. Paget Mr. Paget (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has a statement to make with regard to the massacre at Uplands, near Nairobi, on Thursday last.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): On the night of Thursday, 26th March, a number of Mau Mau gangs attacked simultaneously in an area about six miles by three in the Uplands District, about 25 miles from Nairobi. The attacks were carefully planned. The method adopted was to wire up huts from the outside, set fire to the roofs and cut down the people with axes and swords as they tried to escape from the windows. Between 40 and 50 huts were burned. Of their inhabitants, 71 were murdered, 51 are still missing, and 50 were wounded.
Most of the dead are women and children who were cut down as they ran through the maize plots. The heat of the fires was intense. Many people ran away in terror: often only the charred bodies of the victims were left. Thus it

1037
is difficult to estimate the casualties with accuracy, and the final figures will probably prove higher than those I have given.
About 2,000 inhabitants of the location have been screened and some hundreds have been detained, of whom at least 150 have been identified by survivors as having taken part in the massacre. A large party of police and an extra company of the King's African Rifles are now conducting an extensive investigation in the area. About the same time a gang attacked Naivasha Police Station and killed three constables and some prisoners. They were unable to break into the police armoury but forced the adjoining Kenya Police Reserve armoury and stole about 30.303 rifles, 18 Lanchester sub-machine guns and a double-barrelled shot gun, and some rifle and revolver ammunition. While the attack on the police station was going on, another part of the gang released 137 remanded prisoners of whom some 50 have since been recaptured or have returned of their own accord. Military and police forces are now combing the district.
I am sure that the House will wish to express their deepest sympathy with all the victims of this outrage. The Governor informs me that every possible step is being taken both to follow up the criminals and to prevent a recurrence of these hideous crimes.
Mr. Paget: Whereas previously we have had sporadic criminality from Mau Mau, the diversionary attack upon the police station and the planned attack by three columns is a quite large-scale military operation and involves a new situation which is well calculated to demonstrate the impotence of the Government to protect their friends and the power of Mau Mau to destroy their enemies. Does not this situation call for very urgent action?
Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. Let me reply to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question by saying that certainly the situation has taken on a new phase and that raids by armed gangs have taken the place of sporadic assassinations. All measures possible have been taken. There is no doubt that the situation there is now of a semi-military character and is more like a war than an emergency.
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I associate myself, as I am sure every hon. Member of the House does, with the Secretary of State for the Colonies in conveying our deepest sympathy to all those who suffered from this very savage outbreak? Two questions are disturbing correspondents in Kenya. One is whether the Home Guard are as adequately equipped as they could be and ought to be to deal with savage attacks of this kind. The second is whether the reserves are becoming overcrowded by people flocking there from other areas.
Mr. Lyttelton: Perhaps I might answer the last question first, about migration. This is a matter which causes great anxiety, as much of the migration into the Kikuyu Reserve is voluntary. The Government are doing what they can to check it, but rumours are spread around that those who are not in the reserve will receive no share in the White Highlands when the Europeans have been driven out and that unless the Kikuyu return to the reserves the Royal Commission will not recommend further grants of land. The Government are doing what they can to see that migrations take place in a controlled manner through the transit camps.
The first question related to the equipment of the Home Guard. There is no doubt that while these forces are being built up some improvement is highly desirable in this direction, and we are doing all we can to see that it is made.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: In view of the fact that the great majority of the victims of Mau Mau have been Africans, as is indicated so tragically in this incident, will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Kenya Government to accept the offers of African leaders to take their part in the campaign against Mau Mau?
Mr. Lyttelton: That is a question that the hon. Gentleman has asked before, particularly with regard to the holding of meetings, and he should know that it is open to any African leader to ask the Kenya Government to permit him to hold a meeting of supporters. No such application has been made by any African leader.
Mr. J. Hynd: Some time ago I asked the Minister whether he was satisfied that adequate protection was being given to loyal Kikuyu after the chief had been murdered in hospital, and I was assured

1039
that adequate steps were being taken. We now have a further and much more serious incident and the Minister simply tells us that he is satisfied from the Governor's report that everything is done to prevent a recurrence. Can he tell us precisely what that means, and what steps are being taken?
Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, I can tell the hon. Gentleman what I mean. There are 5,000 or 6,000 troops in this area and they are being strongly reinforced; about 12,000 police and about 10,000 Home Guard. I cannot give any guarantee in the course of operations about incidents of this kind, but I can say that everything humanly possible is being done.
Mr. Alport: As this incident indicates the existence of a strong central organisation of the movement, can my right hon. Friend give any idea of the form of that central command?
Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir, I cannot give any evidence of it except to say that these two incidents appear to have been carefully planned.
Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the security and intelligence arrangements in Kenya are adequate and that we are likely to have warning of any movement that may spread further and involve Kenya in other problems of this character?
Mr. Lyttelton: As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the intelligence and security services have been reorganised in accordance with recommendations made by Sir Percy Sillitoe. I am never satisfied in any territory that the intelligence is all that it might be. We must keep it under constant pressure.
Miss Lee: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many daily papers, weekly or other journals, written for Africans by Africans, are still permitted?
Mr. Lyttelton: I should have to have notice of that.
Mr. Wigg: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is the first occasion on which an organised and planned
1040
attack upon a public building has been made by Mau Mau?
Mr. Lyttelton: No, I do not think that would be quite accurate. There has been evidence of some concentrated gang attacks other than this, but this is perhaps the first time that several simultaneous attacks have taken place.
Mr. Paget: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I shall ask your permission to move the Adjournment of the House Standing Order No. 9 to discuss this matter. In my submission—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must do that at the proper time. We have another Private Notice Question.
Later—
Mr. Paget: I desire to ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, in order that we may discuss the massacre which occurred at Uplands. In my submission, there can be no question that this is a definite event. Equally, there can be no doubt that it is important. A massacre on this scale, even in these dreadful times, must be important.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is arguing it a little prematurely. He ought to bring up his notice of Motion.
Mr. Bowles: Before you give your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, will you hear a submission from one or two other hon. Members?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the massacre of loyal subjects of the Crown at Uplands, near Nairobi, in Kenya, on Thursday last. Has the hon. and learned Member the support of the House?
The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public import-ance), until Seven o'clock this evening.

AUSTIN COMPANY (DISPUTE)
Sir E. Boyle Sir E. Boyle (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make about the Austin motor dispute.
The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): Yes, Sir. As the House will be aware, the stoppage of work at Austins began on 17th February, and up till yesterday the intervention or assistance of my Department was not sought by either party. The other unions concerned within the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions had recommended to the National Union of Vehicle Builders that they should consider asking me for the appointment of a court of inquiry, but the union decided instead to approach the Trades Union Congress.
On Monday, 23rd March, the company announced its intention of discharging any employees who had not returned to work by Friday, and in accordance with this decision 1,583 men were discharged. On Saturday, the union decided to take certain measures for widening and intensifying the stoppage. It was in these circumstances that I received yesterday a request from the union to set up a court of inquiry under the Industrial Courts Act, and my Department at once communicated with the parties concerned in order that I might be informed of their views.
Discussions are proceeding and I will make a further statement before the House rises for the Easter Recess.
Sir E. Boyle: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he does not agree that the public interest is best to be served by an inquiry into this long-drawn-out trade dispute?
Sir W. Monckton: I quite follow the point which my hon. Friend makes, but I take the view that it is better that discussions, and opportunity for discussions, should precede a decision.
Mr. Isaacs: May I ask the Minister whether the party making application to the Minister for a court of inquiry have given any indication of their intention of resuming work while the inquiry is going on? In that event, would he approach
1042
the management of the firm with a view to their withdrawing the dismissal notices if such an arrangement were made?
Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. The union concerned has approached me to order a court of inquiry. That is all they have asked for, and that is the proposition I am now considering.
Mr. Edelman: As the application comes from the union, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the meantime, use his restraining influence with the British Motor Corporation to prevent them from taking any further reckless action which might have the effect of spreading the strike throughout the industry?
Sir W. Monckton: I am sure that the hon. Member would be among the first to realise that the sort of point he has been making is one which is part of the discussions taking place now. I do not want to add anything to what I have said on the main point. I shall be ready, with permission, to answer a Question on Thursday which has been put down on this matter, even if it is not reached.
Mr. Sevan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is no more effective way of producing a strike than to give notice to workmen on the grounds of redundancy, and then to re-employ some and not re-employ others who are available for the work and who have a claim to it on grounds of seniority; and that this is calculated almost to cause stoppages? While not wishing at all to prejudice this inquiry, unless hon. Gentlemen want to have a series of strikes all over the country will the right hon. and learned Gentleman call the attention of the employers' representatives on the Industrial Advisory Council to the necessity, where men are put off and re-employed, that they should be re-employed in such a manner as to give a sense of justice and equity to all the men concerned?
Sir W. Monckton: I am very well aware of the necessity of giving a sense of justice and equity to all the men concerned. I am equally aware of the necessity of giving a sense of justice to both parties who are interested in a dispute of this sort. It would not be wise for me to take any particular point by itself. If there is to be a court of inquiry I had better not give judgment before I hear evidence.
Mr. Chapman: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any reason to believe that the management is willing to accept and to abide by the findings of a court of inquiry? After all, the men have said that they will. Has the management given any assurance to the Ministry on those lines? Secondly, can the Minister confirm or deny that the management is now threatening to dismiss other workers who refuse to perform work regarded as "black" by the National Union of Vehicle Builders?
Sir W. Monckton: The right to set up an inquiry of this sort, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, does not depend upon the consent of the parties. Those applying in this case, for reasons which I well understand, have said that they will follow whatever the recommendations of a court would be. I have not asked for, and, therefore, I have not received, any undertaking of a comparable kind from the other side. What I want to do is to get the views of those concerned and then to decide for myself whether the court ought to be set up. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have no knowledge of the matter to which he has drawn attention but I will make it my business to get it.
Mr. Bevan: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not decided to set up a court of inquiry immediately, we are entitled to ask questions in the House on the matter, however controversial they might appear to be. All that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing at the moment is having discussions. Will he, therefore, represent to the employers concerned in all parts of the country that as there is short-time working going on in some places, and as men are being put off on grounds of redundancy, they ought not to provoke strikes of this sort?
Sir W. Monckton: I hope that I always make it plain to employers and others that the last thing I want to do is to see action taken which will provoke strikes. I want now to provoke a settlement, and I do not think that any criticism by me of the parties at a moment's notice like this is likely to have that effect. That is the only reason. I am not for a moment suggesting that it is improper to put controversial questions but I desire, if I can, to remain in a judicial position.
Mr. Poole: In view of the fact that there are over 1,000 men now who have been thrown out of employment and dismissed by this firm, is not speed the essence of a settlement here? Would not the Minister be well advised to set up a court of inquiry at once, unless he wants an extension of this dispute?
Sir W. Monckton: Speed is certainly the essence of this matter. On 12th March, I indicated my readiness to consider any efforts, any approach which might be made to me to conciliate. The matter reached me for the first time yesterday. I at once got into touch with all parties concerned. The discussions are taking place today. I propose to make a decision by Thursday. I do not think that I am lacking in speed.
Mr. Yates: While appreciating the Minister's prompt manner in dealing with this matter, may I ask him whether he will take into consideration—and I am speaking as one who has lived in this area for many years—the very deep-seated feeling there is about the methods by which redundancy is considered by this factory? Will he also bear in mind the deep-seated resentment there is in the City of Birmingham at the recent action of this firm, which they do not feel is justified, in discharging 1,583 men?
Sir W. Monckton: The matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are, plainly, matters which will have to be borne in mind by anyone who is making a decision on this case.
Mr. Summers: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, before this episode is concluded, take a look at the regulations affecting the withholding of unemployment pay so far as it may affect those who are anxious and willing to take a job but are prevented, through no fault of their own or anyone else, from the means of occupying one?
Sir W. Monckton: I am well aware of some of the difficulties that arise in that connection, but fortunately for me there are limits to what falls within the scope of the Department concerned, and I shall have to take up that matter with one of my right hon. Friends.
Mr. McGovern: If I understood the Minister aright he said that the strike had lasted for a month before the trade union

1045
took any action. Is it not deplorable that a strike of this magnitude should be allowed to continue for so long before any effective action is taken? Is it not about time, in order to prevent a recurrence of this nature, that there should be some automatic arbitration on matters of this kind?
Sir W. Monckton: It would be dangerous to assume that responsible people in the trade union movement did not take interest in this matter. The matter went from the trade union concerned to the confederation in which that union has a part. It was two or three times considered there before it came to the Trades Union Congress. I do not think that there was any lack of interest in dealing with it.

MEMBERS' SALARIES
Mr. Lewis: I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting me the opportunity of making a correction in connection with a Parliamentary Question to which the Treasury gave me an answer on Friday last, 27th March. I asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer
could give the net and gross incomes that would be necessary for a Member of Parliament today to receive the same purchasing value in his salary as a Member of Parliament received in 1911.
The answer, in columns 119 and 120 of HANSARD, states that in 1911–12 a Member of Parliament received a net income of £391 and that it would be necessary for a Member today to receive a net income of £1,408 to be on a par with the Member in 1911. Correspondingly, the gross income was given to me as a figure of £1,229. Obviously, this figure could not have been correct, and I have now been notified by the Treasury that inadvertently, through a typist's error, that figure of £1,229 should be £1,829.*

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
That the proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 213.

Division No. 125.]

AYES

[3.55 p.m.

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

Channon, H.

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

Alport, C. J. M.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Galbraith, T. G D. (Hillhead)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Cole, Norman

Godber, J. B.

Arbuthnot, John

Colegate, W. A.

Gough, C. F. H.

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Gower, H. R.

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

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Astor, Hon. J. J.

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

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Grimond, J.

Barber, Anthony

Crouch, R. F.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Barlow, Sir John

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Harden, J. R. E.

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Cuthbert, W. N.

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

Davidson, Viscountess

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Bennett, Or. Reginald (Gosport)

Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Deedes, W. F.

Heald, Sir Lionel

Birch, Nigel

Digby, S. Wingfield

Heath, Edward

Bishop, F. P.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Black, C. W.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Boothby, R. J. G.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Bossom, A. C.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Bowen, E. R.

Drayson, G. B.

Hollis, M. C.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

Holt, A. F.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Hope, Lord John

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

Errell, F. J.

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Brooman-White, R. C.

Fell, A.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Finlay, Graeme

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

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

Fisher, Nigel

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Bullard, D. G.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Hurd, A. R.

Burden, F. F. A.

Fort, R.

Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Foster, John

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

Carr, Robert

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Cary, Sir Robert

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

* Correction made in col. 120.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Stevens, G. P.

Kaberry, D.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

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

Keeling, Sir Edward

Nicholls, Harmar

Stewart, Henderson (Fill, E.)

Kerr, H. W.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Lambert, HOT. G.

Nutting, Anthony

Storey, S.

Lambton, Viscount

Oakshott, H. D.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Odey, G. W.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Langford-Holt, J. A.

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

Studholme, H. G.

Leather, E. H. C.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Summers, G. S.

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

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

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

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

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

Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Linstead, H. N.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Testing, W.

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

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

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

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

Peyton, J. W. W.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Pickthorne, K. W. M.

Thomas, P. J. M (Conway)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Longden, Gilbert

Pitman, I. J.

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

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Powell, J. Enoch

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Tilney, John

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Touche, Sir Gordon

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Profumo, J. D.

Turner H. F. L.

McAdden, S. J.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Turten, R. H.

McCallum, Major D.

Rayner, Brig, R.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

MoCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

Redmayne, M.

Vane, W. M. F.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Remnant, Hon. P.

McKibbin, A. J.

Renton, D. L. M.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Vesper, D. F.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Robertson, Sir David

Wade, D. W.

Maclean, Fitzroy

Robson-Brown, W.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)

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

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Walker-Smith, D. C.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Russell, R. S.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

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

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Watkinson, H. A.

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Wellwood, W.

Markham, Major S. F.

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

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Scott, R. Donald

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Marples, A. E.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Shepherd, William

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

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

Wills, G.

Maude, Angus

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Maudling, R.

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Wood, Hon. R.

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

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

York, C

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Snadden, W. McN.

Mellor, Sir John

Soames, Capt. C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Molson, A. H. E.

Spearman, A. C. M

Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Speir, R. M.

NOES

Adams, Richard

Carmichael, J.

Follick, M.

Albu, A. H.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Foot, M. M.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Champion, A. J.

Forman, J. C

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Chapman, W. D.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Awbery, S. S.

Coldrick, W.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

Bacon, Miss Alice

Collick, P. H.

Gibson, C. W.

Baird, J.

Cove, W. G.

Glanville, James

Balfour, A.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Crosland, C. A. R.

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Bartley, P.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Bence, C. R.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Grey, C. F.

Benn, Wedgwood

Daines, P.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Benson, G.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Beswick, F.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

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

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Bing, G. H. C.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Blackburn, F.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hamilton, W. W.

Blenkinsop, A.

Dodds, N. N.

Hannan, W.

Blyton, W. R.

Donnelly, D. L

Hargreaves, A.

Boardman, H.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

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

Hastings, S.

Bowden, H. W.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hayman, F. H.

Bowles, F. G.

Edelman, M.

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

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

Brockway, A F.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Herbison, Miss M.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Hobson, C. R.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Holman, P.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Fienburgh, W.

Houghton, Douglas

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Finch, H. J.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Callaghan, L. J.

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

1048

1049

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

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

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Mulley, F. W.

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Murray, J. D

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Nally, W.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

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

Swingler, S. T.

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

Oliver, G. H.

Sylvester, G. O.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Oswald, T.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Janes, David (Hartlepool)

Padley, W. E.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Paget, R. T.

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

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

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Keenan, W.

Pannell, Charles

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Kenyon, C.

Peart, T. F.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Thornton, E.

King, Dr. H. M.

Poole, C. C.

Thurtle, Ernest

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Porter, G.

Timmons, J.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Price, Joseph T (Westhoughton)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Lewis, Arthur

Proctor, W T.

Wallace, H. W.

Lindgren, G. S.

Pryde, D. J.

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

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Rankin, John

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Logan, D. G.

Reeves, J.

Wells, William (Walsall)

MacColl, J. E.

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

West, D. G.

McGhee, H. G

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

McGovern, J.

Rhodes, H.

Wheeldon, W. E.

McInnes, J.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

McLeavy, F.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Whiteley, Rl. Hon. W.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Ross, William

Wigg, George

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Royle, C.

Wilkins, W. A.

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

Shinwell, Rt. Hon E.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Short, E. W.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Manuel, A. C.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

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

Mayhew, C. P.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon A

Mellish, R J.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Wyatt, W. L.

Mitchison, G. R.

Slater, J.

Yates, V. F.

Monslow, W.

Snow, J. W.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K

Moody, A. S.

Sorensen, R. W.

Morley, R.

Sparks, J. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Merris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Steele, T.

Mr. Popplewell and Mr. K. Robinson.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TRANSPORT BILL
  Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  4.6 p.m.
  Mr. Herbert Morrison: I beg to move, to leave out "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add "upon this day three months."
  I understand that three months is the necessary form and, whilst we might have been content with somewhat less than that period, it does not suffer from being on the wrong side as far as we are concerned. I want to appeal very strongly to the Prime Minister, as well as to the Leader of the House on a matter which is of considerable Parliamentary importance.
  I will give the history of how these Amendments were received. The Bill had its Third Reading in another place as late as Thursday. The Lords Amendments were not received in the Vote Office, and could not very well be received in the Vote Office of the House of Commons, until Friday. It is the case that some of my hon. Friends asked in the Vote Office for the Bill as it went to their Lordships' House, without which, of course, it was not possible properly to consider the Lords Amendments, and that Bill was not available in the Vote Office to some of my hon. Friends. There may have been a mistake, but there it was—or rather there it was not.
  That, in itself, is a very serious thing. The Lords Amendments were not in the Vote Office until Friday morning. I want to be fair and I admit that there was available to a limited number of us on the Front Opposition Bench some duplicated copies through the usual channels, but the last of those did not come until late on Thursday and that does not alter the fact that whatever is supplied privately to the Front Bench does not meet the point of view of the House as a whole.
  Therefore, I start with the point that the Lords Amendments were not available in the Vote Office until Friday
  1052
  morning. The House was counted out, on the initiative of an hon. Member opposite, on Friday about one o'clock. Clearly, there was not time on that day for the responsible leaders of the Opposition, or for anyone else on the Opposition side, to consider what Amendments to the Lords Amendments should be drafted. The House was dispersed; hon. Members went to their homes and their constituencies and Friday was ineffective for this purpose.
  The next day was Saturday, the day that followed was Sunday and the House did not sit on Monday for sad reasons, with which the House is familiar. So Monday was not an effective Parliamentary day and it was impossible adequately to get together with one's hon. Friends interested in the Bill and make proper preparations for the proceedings which are before us today.
  I submit to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House that, in these circumstances, it is quite unfair to the House of Commons, and quite contrary to good Parliamentary tradition and usage, to consider these Amendments today. I beg them, on the basis of elementary Parliamentary decency, not to proceed with the consideration of the Lords Amendments today. Moreover— I say this with some hesitation and I will not dwell upon it—this is an unhappy day on which to be involved in the series of highly controversial debates which are bound to arise. For that reason alone I think it undesirable to take these Amendments today.
  We were informed that our Amendments to their Lordships Amendments had to be with the Public Bill Office by 4.30 p.m. yesterday, because the House was not sitting. In the ordinary way the Amendments to the Amendments need not have been in until the rising of the House. So we were at that additional disadvantage. Not only was Friday ineffective, but Monday, which was substantially ineffective, would have been wholly ineffective as well, had I not asked some of my hon. Friends to consult me about this. Even then, the Amendments had to be in by 4.30 p.m., instead of at the rising of the House. These are all material points which have made a farce of Parliamentary procedure on these Amendments.

  1053
  The House is in no proper condition to proceed to the consideration of the Lords Amendments themselves. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, indeed, hon. Members on this side of the House and anybody else —except those of us who drafted them— have not until this morning at the earliest, seen the Amendments to the Amendments which we propose. I submit, therefore, that the House will be proceeding to debate the Amendments from another place and the proposed Amendments to them without having had an opportunity to study them.
  The important feature of Parliamentary procedure is that the House should know what it is doing. Hon. Members cannot know what they are doing if mere is not a reasonable time between the circulation of papers and Amendments and the discussion on them. I doubt whether the Minister himself has had adequate time to consider these Amendments to the Amendments. Presumably they were not in his hands until yesterday evening at any rate, and officially they were not printed and available until this morning.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have spent the last five hours on them. They were nearly all very old friends.
  Mr. Morrison: That will not do. If he is proposing to adopt that attitude of contempt at this early stage, the Minister is not being a sensible Parliamentarian. He is being unwise. What he means is that he has given a fleeting glance at these Amendments. He has just been to the office and said, "I don't care what the Opposition have put down. Away with them. I will oppose the lot." That is the consideration which the Minister has given. I submit that though this may be "smart Alec stuff" it is not a good Parliamentary policy.
  All through the proceedings on this Bill the Minister of Transport has not treated the House of Commons fairly, I do. not support the Minister of Supply. I thoroughly dislike his Bill. But if we contrast these two Ministers in their handling of two Bills involving a similar principle, the Minister of Supply was much more competent than the Minister of Transport. That is well known.
  A number of substantial Amendments have been put down by their Lordships. There are some new Clauses. In some
  1054
  cases they represent policies which, in part, we urged upon the Minister. One proposed new Clause could have been a Bill and ought to have had consideration by the House in Committee and on Report. All the Minister said was, "I will consider the matter, and, if necessary, something may happen in another place." He did not tell us what he was going to do. We had no opportunity of debating it. Time after time the Minister set aside the House of Commons. He almost ignored us. He adopted an attitude of contempt. He proceeded on the basis that he was proposing to do things in another place.
  Another place has its job to do. I consider it to be a body of considerable ability when revising legislation. But we cannot accept it as a substitute for the House of Commons. These Amendments of substance have now to be considered by us as though it were substantive legislation before the House of Commons for the first time. As we were not able to consider them in Committee or on Report, we must give them adequate consideration now.
  There is another difficulty which affects you, Mr. Speaker. The Government have been unfair to the Chair in involving us in a situation whereby the Chair could not see these Amendments until this morning at the earliest. I am not sure that you, Sir, could have seen them even this morning. I submit that that is not treating the Chair properly, because the Chair has to decide what Amendments to accept —and possibly what Amendments should not be accepted, although I hope there will not be many of those. However, the Chair has that direct responsibility and I submit that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have not treated the Chair properly.
  The House must not think that we have put down these Amendments merely to use up time. Indeed, they cannot think that, because in the case of the Labour Government's Transport Bill the consideration of the Lords Amendments was not completed until 10.20 a.m. on the following morning. Therefore, the Government knew that the Lords Amendments to a Bill of this nature were liable to take a long time. They must have regarded it as legitimate to involve the House in the consideration

  1055
  of those other Amendments until 10.20 a.m., and it is obvious that the consideration of these Amendments will take a substantial amount of time.
  Now we have had another event which is a further reason for not considering these Amendments today. At seven o'clock our proceedings will be interrupted under Standing Order No. 9 and we cannot resume until ten o'clock if the Adjournment debate goes for the full time. Then we start again. In all these circumstances, and on a day such as this, I put it to the Government that we ought not to proceed today with the consideration of the Lords Amendments.
  The Third Reading of the 1947 Bill was on Tuesday, 15th July, and the Lords Amendments were not taken until 23rd July, eight days later. In this case the Third Reading was on 26th March and the Lords Amendments are being taken today, five days after. But the intervening period has been substantially ineffective for proper Parliamentary purposes. In the circumstances, I ask that we should not be pressed to proceed with the consideration of these Amendments today.
  If it was a matter of urgent public importance that the Bill should reach the Statute Book by Easter I could understand the position. But whatever may be thought about the merits of the Bill— we think that it is a bad Bill and, presumably, hon. Gentlemen opposite think that it is a good one—there is no urgency for its being on the Statute Book before Easter. I should have thought that it would have been good enough if the Government got the Bill this Session.
  The Government will merely be standing on a basis of rather obstinate false dignity if they try to force consideration of the Bill today. The Amendments could easily be handled later. I know that the Budget comes after Easter, but this Bill could be dealt with possibly between the Budget and the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. It is not essential in the public interest that the Bill should be dealt with before Easter.
  Whatever may be thought of the merits of the Lords Amendments, or of our Amendments to them, there is one consideration which I always thought united this House and that is respect for the
  1056
  proper conduct of our Parliamentary institutions. I think that it must be accepted, by the Prime Minister at any rate, that I have proved that we have not been treated in time on this matter and that, owing to the circumstances of the sad bereavement with which we are all familiar and certain consequences that followed from it, it has been utterly impossible to consider properly the Amendments from the other place and our Amendments to them.
  I earnestly plead with the House, and especially with the Prime Minister who, as I have said before, I regard as a Parliamentarian—a man who has the Parliamentary spirit. I think he will see the point that it is impossible for the House to be effective in considering these matters today and that to do so will do an injury to the prestige and the rights of Parliament. I trust that the Government will be good enough to accept the proposal which I have made.
  4.23 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): We have listened with great care to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) said. Perhaps the House will now allow me to put the other side of the picture. I accept from the right hon. Gentleman that there have been difficulties in the circumstances of the last few days, but those circumstances were known at the time when this business was set down for today. There is no surprise about it—none at all.
  Mr. H. Morrison: There was.
  Mr. Crookshank: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me. May I make my case?
  Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman is saying something that is not true. This was announced on Thursday. It was not known then that Her late Majesty was dead.
  Mr. Crookshank: It was.
  Mr. Morrison: It was not known until Thursday night. Therefore, it was not known that the House would not meet on Monday.
  Mr. Crookshank: I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman because I thought that he had a point to make. I should like to repeat exactly what I said on

  1057
  Thursday which was, of course, subsequent to the sad event. In answer to the Leader of the Opposition I said:
  "Yes, Sir. In view of the Lying-in-State in Westminster Hall of Her late Majesty Queen Mary, the House will not meet on Monday next."
  Then I said that the business would be consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill. I added:
  "These Amendments are expected to be received from another place during the course of today's Sitting."
  The fact of the matter is—
  Mr. Morrison: I am sorry about that. I made an error in the day. The right hon. Gentleman is right. He will appreciate, of course, that it is still true that we had not got the Amendments at that point. We had not seen the measure of the job which was to be put before us on the Tuesday.
  Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman has made his case. I ask him to let me make the case for the Government. I have just read that I said on Thursday:
  "These Amendments are expected to be received from another place during the course of today's Sitting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 840.]
  Mr. G. Lindgren: They were not.
  Mr. Crookshank: They were.
  Mr. Lindgren: We did not have them.
  Mr. Crookshank: They were received by this House though, and they were in the Vote Office by Friday morning. That is the normal procedure.
  I hope that I may be allowed to explain what the situation was and is. The fact remains—the right hon. Gentleman knows it and everybody else knows it—that the business for the week was made known at the usual time. There were conversations, as there always are, before that. When I made the statement on Thursday about these Amendments being taken today no representations were made by anybody in this House or anywhere else.
  The Leader of the Opposition, upon whom the duty normally falls if exchanges are to be made on the Floor of the House, said nothing. If any pressure is put upon us, if a case is made or even if a question is asked, I am always only too anxious to consider the matter, but not a single word was said on this subject.
  Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Crookshank: No. I propose to explain what happened.
  As a matter of fact, all the Leader of of the Opposition inquired about was the procedure on the Leasehold Property Bill, which I explained and he was good enough to say that that would be satisfactory. So we had not one word about the Amendments to the Transport Bill at a time when, if there had been any feeling, I should have expected to have heard about it.
  This complaint is made a little late in the day. If there really was any strong feeling about it it should have been expressed then. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is shaking his head meaning that there was no strong feeling, that may be the explanation—
  Mr. James Callaghan: May I make it clear to the Leader of the House that I was not shaking my head to indicate that there were no strong feelings but to indicate that, as soon as we saw the size and number of the Amendments, representations were made through the usual channels last Friday to try to get the situation altered and the business put back? We were told that it was not possible to do that.
  Mr. Crookshank: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point. It is true that we received a message, but it was too late to do anything because the House had risen and the business bad already been put down. Therefore, those representations were out of time. But the fact remains that the number of Amendments coming from the other place, and their quality, could not have been unknown to hon. Gentlemen who were following the Bill. They were not all passed on the last day of the consideration of the Bill by the other place.
  As always on these Measures, a number of hon. Gentlemen who are interested in what is going on attend the Sittings of the other place. They are well aware of what is happening and the kind of Amendments which this House will eventually be asked to consider. That is always so.
  Lieut-Colonel Marcus Lipton: We have to sit in two Houses now?
  Mr. Crookshank: Not at all. We do not ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to sit in either. I am merely saying that that is the normal practice for hon. Gentlemen who are interested in a certain piece of legislation. Of course, we are bound to be in difficulties when, for any reason, the House does not sit. That is accepted.
  Mr. Aneurin Bevan: The point which the right hon. Gentleman has just made must strike the Prime Minister as extraordinary. What the right hon. Gentleman has now suggested is that we had more time than we alleged because hon. Gentlemen knew what was happening in the other place. Can we now reverse the position and say that, as the other place has now got some Members interested in what is happening in the House of Commons, we ought not to give them any notice either about legislation?
  Mr. Crookshank: That is a very clever remark, but I do not quite take the point.
  I am merely speaking from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen who have been following this legislation, and I was only saying that, on the number of Amendments, the right hon. Gentleman had said that it was a large number, and that was the only point with which I was dealing at the time. I merely said that hon. Gentlemen who were interested in this legislation probably had a very good idea of the number of Amendments that would be coming along. If they had not, and if they had been curious enough to ask me, I should have been able to have given them that information myself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow me to put the case. I quite realise the difficulties which have arisen in this particular case. I am only trying to put to the House how the matter arose.
  On Thursday, when the announcement was made, there was no protest, no complaint. Not a word was said against our proceeding with this business today, although it was known that the House was not going to sit yesterday, and, therefore, the usual opportunities which would have been open had the House been sitting were not going to be there. All that was known, and there was no surprise element about it. As far as I can see from what the right hon. Gentlemen has said, the only surprise element was the number of Amendments with which
  1060
  we were confronted on Friday evening. In reply to that, I say that the number was not at all an unknown number, and, indeed, I am certain that it was, in fact, known to many hon. Members.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman must not get irritated if he gets interventions now and again. It is part of what we are all paid for. May I put this to him? Is he not now advancing the doctrine, not that there is a responsibility on the authorities of the House or the Government to print and circulate the Lords Amendments—that is not the official act—but of passing the responsibility for knowing all about Lords Amendments that may come down to us on to every Member of the House who has to discharge his own responsibilities?
  May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we could not know adequately on Friday the whole picture and that I did make representations through such channels as were available to me, putting forward our point of view, but, as the right hon. Gentleman says, because the House rose early on Friday, no effective action could be taken. All these are reasons for the Government reconsidering the situation. Their dignity will not suffer, but the dignity of the House of Commons will be enhanced if they will give way.
  Mr. Crookshank: That is a matter of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. I am not laying down any doctrine; I am merely stating the facts of the case.
  I pass now to the second argument which the right hon. Gentleman put. That was that five days was an inordinately short time between the receipt of the Amendments from another place and their discussion in this House—that it was an inordinately short time to discuss Amendments to a Bill of this magnitude.
  Mr. Morrison: I said effectively.
  Mr. Crookshank: It depends whether they are effective or not. Sometimes, the fact that the House is not sitting makes it more effective for those who are concerned in working out Amendments, and they have more leisure to do so than would otherwise be the case, especially at week-ends. That is a matter for consideration.

  1061
  I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, who was saying that, when his Government's Transport Bill came to this House, there were, in fact, eight days between the consideration of the Lords Amendments and the return of the Bill from the House of Lords, that that is quite true in that particular case, but there were also over 240 Lords Amendments, which was more than three times the number which we have to consider on this occasion, so that that is not a very good analogy. If the right hon. Gentleman likes to cast his mind back to other cases of major Bills—of a nationalisation character and others—he will find that this occurred at the end of a Session in 1947. This is always apt to happen at the end of a Session or a section of a Session, because that is the time at which the House has more or less finished with legislation. In 1947, the length of time given for considering the Amendments was exactly the same—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is exactly the same in days, whether it happened in March or July.
  In that year, on 31st July, this House received the Agriculture Bill and the Electricity Bill, both major Government Measures, and the Lords Amendments to the Agriculture Bill were taken on Monday, 4th August; that is to say, four days after its receipt. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many were there?"] There were over 70, just the same number as in this case. The Electricity Bill was also received on 31st July, and the Lords Amendments were taken on 8th August; that is to say, after five days, again the same as in this case. As to the number of Amendments, there were over 120, so that the right hon. Gentleman is not on very strong ground in saying that there are only five days available, because here were these two cases of major Measures coming simultaneously before the House, and in one case the interval was four days and in the other five days.
  The fact is that it is always the experience when Amendments come from another place that there is not over-much time before the discussion, and that is the practice of the House and the Government of the day, whatever Government is in power, which hopes to get the Bill enacted, if it is to be enacted at all. The right hon. Gentleman said it was the hope of the Government to have the Bill enacted by Easter, and the number of days
  1062
  available from the receipt of the Lords Amendments is not very different from what happened in the time when he was in charge of public business.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: What is the urgency of the Bill?
  Mr. Crookshank: The urgency of the Bill is the desire of the Government to put it on the Statute Book, which is endorsed by a majority of this House and of another place, so far. So far, so good.
  As a matter of fact, I understand from my right hon. Friend that about one-third of these Amendments are about matters which were of direct concern to the Opposition at the time when the Bill was going through its earlier stages, and, therefore, there does not seem to be anything in the nature of the Amendments which have come to us—I see that the Opposition have put down Amendments of their own to them—to which exception could be taken by the Opposition, judging by the debates which have taken place hitherto.
  It is unfortunate that there should be an interruption of business at 7 o'clock, but that certainly cannot be put down to the responsibility of the Government. [Interruption.] It is not our fault that the Adjournment of the House is to be moved at 7 o'clock, because a sufficient number of hon. Gentlemen opposite stood up and demanded that it should be done; it was granted, but it was not our fault that it was to happen today.
  In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, in view of the fact that it was known that this business was to be taken this week, despite the changes which have been necessary in business owing to the events of last week, and in view of the fact that no comments and no representations were made at the time —they were not made at the tune—it is necessary, in the opinion of the Government, to get this Bill as soon as we may. We have made good progress all through the year, and we therefore hope to get this Bill on the Statute Book this side of Easter.
  It seems to me from what I have gathered about these particular Amendments that there is no particular reason why, if we apply our minds to them and go forward now, instead of having a long discussion on whether we shall discuss

  1063
  them or not, we might make very good progress. I therefore hope that the House will reject the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman and accept the Motion to proceed with the Lords Amendments which has been moved by my right hon. Friend.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Bing: It would be a great error if this House were to proceed with this matter under a misapprehension created, I am sure entirely unwittingly, by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. From what he said, it is clear that he is all too unfamiliar with the procedure of another place, and we on this side feel that if steps were taken better to familiarise him with it by giving him a seat there so that he need not just watch the proceedings from the outside like one of those "near-peers" that he advises us all to be, the business of this House and that of another place would go more smoothly.
  His main complaint was that my right hon. Friends did not complain of the number of Amendments when he announced the business. But, my Lord— [Laughter.] That comes of paying too great attention to the proceedings of another place. The point that the right hon. Gentleman entirely omitted was that in another place, unlike in this House, Amendments can be moved on Third Reading, and if he will examine the actual times—which are, fortunately, marked—he will find that he made his announcement before 3.50 and that it was not until 4.15 on Thursday that the Amendments in another place were being moved. So what is his complaint? It is that we did not know in advance that the Amendments were to be moved. He knew, but he did not bother to tell the House.
  What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says that because he did not bother to tell the House the amount of the business, and because we could not know, owing to the fact that the Amendments had not been moved, we ought to have complained, and that, as he has pulled off a fast trick, we ought to sit down and think how clever he is. I do not think the House works in that way or that all hon. Members on this side should be converted into a kind of "near-peers." We already have some hon.
  1064
  Members opposite who are as near "near-peers" as possible, and we do not think any more of this nearness. I think we are far better occupied dealing with the affairs of this House than snooping round trying to see what is being done elsewhere.
  We on this side adhere to the original and ancient arrangements of this House and we do not take notice of the affairs of another place until they are officially communicated to us. The Bill was brought from the Lords on Thursday. It was ordered by this House to be printed on Thursday, and it was available on Friday, when the House sat and was counted out by the party opposite.
  Mr. A. Hargreaves: May I interrupt my hon. and learned Friend to correct him on one point? The Bill was not available in this House on Friday, at least not at one o'clock.
  Mr. Bing: The argument which is being quite seriously adduced by the right hon. Gentleman is that we should not have devoted ourselves to the other business—all the other business was unimportant—but should have been in the House of Lords preparing for this business. Why? Because every hon. Member on this side should have anticipated that some such trick as this would be played on us.
  Normally speaking, there is no reason why hon. Members should concern themselves with what is happening in the House of Lords; they should wait until the Amendments are prepared and put before them in the normal form. The only reason they should run to the other place to see what is being moved is that they anticipate that they are to have the thing rushed on top of them at a moment's notice. That is the only reason anybody on this side should have gone to the House of Lords. I suppose that we on this side are to blame for believing that the right hon. Gentleman would lead the House in a proper manner. That is a vital assumption to make, but it is because we made that assumption that we did not run round to the House of Lords.
  That was practically the only argument adduced by the right hon. Gentleman why we should consider this matter tonight, other than that he had announced it. But that does not decide what this House decides. Fortunately, what the

  1065
  right hon. Gentleman can announce is not what Parliament decides. All he can say is what the business is to be, and the business he announced was that a Motion would be moved to the effect that we should take the Lords Amendments into consideration. It is a question for this House to decide whether or not we should, and I hope that is a matter to which many of my hon. Friends will give a little time and attention.
  The only other argument adduced was a short interuption from the Minister of Transport. He said, in regard to all these things, that they were very old friends— that was his argument—unless, of course, the right hon. Gentleman treats his very old friends in the same way as the party opposite treat their electors, making promises one moment and paying no attention to them the next. This is a very shabby way to treat the Lords Amendments.
  To take the first of his very old friends, he forgot it entirely. What does the Amendment that we shall come to consider deal with? It is a matter, I should have thought, paramount in the mind of every hon. Gentleman opposite—property. We allowed this Bill to go through the House without containing any proper definition of "property," and this was a matter which obviously had to be looked at with very great care and attention in another place. I have here the actual passage, which I can quote, from the speech of the Earl of Selkirk who, speaking on behalf of the Government, said that this was a very important issue.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not think we are yet dealing with the Lords Amendments, and, therefore, we must only discuss whether we should discuss them now or not.
  Mr. Bing: Exactly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that is the point to which my argument was devoted. I am only going to say that it may be necessary to ask you to accept a manuscript Amendment relating to this very issue of property. I think it would be far better if hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are far greater experts on property than I am, had an opportunity of examining the thing when they see it on paper rather than having a very complicated and long Amendment read out to them.
  1066
  The only point I was going to make was that in another place a Bill of this sort is looked at in quite a different way from here. The point that occupied their Lordships on the first occasion was the nature of the property they were discussing. It was said on behalf of the Government, "Now that we are in the course of transfering property, particularly to companies, we wish the definition to be rather wider." That was their trouble, but when they came to the question of what was the property which they were to sell, then, of course, they had to have the definition rather narrower.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon and learned Gentleman is going beyond my Ruling. He must not discuss the Amendments now.
  Mr. Bing: In that case, I shall, no doubt, have an opportunity of discussing this aspect of the matter later.
  I only wish to add one or two arguments which I hope will appeal to the Leader of the House. I do not know how long hon. Members on this side have had the Amendments. I have an arrangement with the Vote Office by which I have the full Vote sent to me every morning, and I am sure that many of my hon. Friends who take a great interest in the work of this House have a similar arrangement. I did not receive these Amendments this morning. Indeed, I had to ring the Vote Office at 9.30 a.m. in order to study the Amendments on the Paper, and I think that may have been happening in the case of many of my hon. Friends.
  I do not blame the Vote Office in the least. The arrangements of this House are not geared to deal with procedural tricks of the type which the Leader of the House likes to play on Parliament. Therefore, it is quite impossible for the very able and very devoted servants of this House to be up to, and to gear their printing machines to, the chicanery of the right hon. Gentleman. That is one of the practical and technical problems which we must face in this House.
  If that is so, it ought to be understood by other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that it really brings Parliament into contempt if the only place where there is not to be a Guillotine on discussion of the Transport Bill is another place; that

  1067
  their Lordships can go into it at all the length that they like, and into exactly what is the right sort of property to suit property interests and every phase of property; that they are allowed all facilities to deal with it, yet when it comes to this House another Guillotine applies. It is not a Guillotine of time, because, fortunately, we have all this week and probably next week to discuss the Bill, but a Guillotine on opportunity to consider the Amendments. Incidentally, that is why I referred to the first Amendment, because we may be able to dispose of that one, at any rate, tonight.
  It really brings the whole of Parliamentary procedure into contempt if we are to be told that another place can have as long as they like over this Measure. If this Measure needed to be passed before Easter, has the Leader of the House no influence in another place? Could he not have speeded up their proceedings a little, or is the time-table of this House to be adjusted to the dinner hour of their Lordships? That is what the Leader of the House is saying. It is quite true that their Lordships sat until midnight once—what an appalling imposition! But the procedure of this House, where things really matter, is to be fixed by a time-table dictated from another place. That is a most reactionary idea which is derogatory to the dignity of this House. It is possibly what we might expect from the Leader of the House, but not what we might expect from all other right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
  I hope, therefore, that one or two voices will be raised on the other side of the House in favour of this House of Commons. We all know that many hon. and right hon. Members opposite have their eyes set on another place, but that should not prevent them in their transitory stay here from saying a word or two in favour of this House. It makes a mockery of democracy when we have long speeches about the value of democracy, when we are told that we have the most perfect democracy in this country, and then people who happen to be in another place through the hereditary principle decide things and we in this House cannot have a clear 24 hours to examine what they have decided but must vote on them straightaway. That is no
  1068
  way to run a democracy, and it is one which I hope that this House will reject.
  4.54 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: One wants to be thoroughly reasonable in matters of procedure, but one expects a certain amount of reasonableness from the other side of the House. That something has gone very wrong here I should have thought ought to be obvious to any reasonable person. Quite apart from whose fault it may be, or the other reasons for it, what has gone wrong is that a very large number of hon. Members of this House were unable to see the Lords Amendments until Friday, and even a larger number were unable to see them at all until either Saturday, or, in some cases, today.
  After all, these Amendments are 70 in number. They introduce substantial and important changes in an important Bill, and the Lords Amendments have had to be considered by the majority of hon. Members of this House at quite inadequate notice. The practical difficulty has been very much greater than that. These Amendments introduce not merely verbal changes, but whole new Clauses and new Schedules which will require consideration as important pieces of legislation and which, if they had been introduced in the Bill in the first instance, to some extent would have had that consideration in this House.
  They were flung at us—that is really not too strong an expression—without any opportunity or time to consider them and under a threat, not made by any person but arising out of the situation, that any Amendments to them had to be brought in by 4.30 p.m. yesterday. One does not need to be an expert, one does not need to have any political prejudices to realise that that kind of thing is dead wrong and is grossly unfair to individual Members who want to do some work in connection with this Bill. The effect of it is to deprive hon. Members who are interested and the whole House of a proper opportunity of considering beforehand what they have to debate today.
  I cannot exaggerate from my own point of view the extreme unfairness of conduct of that kind if it is attributable to anyone. Does any right hon. or hon. Member opposite really feel satisfied with what has happened, quite apart from the question of who is to blame or how it

  1069
  happened? I cannot think that any right hon. or hon. Member opposite really thinks that this has been a proper procedure, fair to the House and to hon. Members and such as to enable us to discharge our duty to our constituents and to the country as a whole. I do not really believe that any right hon. or hot). Member can defend it.
  I was exceedingly interested, as I always am, by the speech of the Leader of the House. I find him a fascinating study from the point of view of advocacy as well as other points of view. I hope that he will not mind my saying that his speech was altogether too clever to be remotely convincing. The reason was very simple. He did not really go into the merits of the case, the real difficulty into which we have been put, more than superficially. He did not attempt to defend any action of his or even attempt to give any reason for it. All that he tried to do in quite a long address to the House was simply to say, "Even if I did the wrong thing you did not put me right." That is a really remarkable view of the business of the Government.
  I should have thought that the Government as a whole, and the Leader of the House in particular, had some responsibility for sustaining the institutions and decencies of Parliamentary democracy. They have not dotted the country with constitutional clubs for nothing, but when they go into those clubs, or their supporters do, they have to blush for what has been done by the Tory Party in this connection.
  It is pertinent to remember that this Bill was forced through this House by the Guillotine. It was, therefore, all the more in need of some Amendments when it reached another place; and when the Bill comes back to this House the more is the need that those Amendments should have full and proper consideration. In those circumstances we were told on Thursday that Amendments which had not then been completely passed would be considered by this House today. We were not told how many there were. There are, in fact, no fewer than 70 on the Order Paper.
  We were not told, of course, the nature or character of the Amendments. We are now told, "That is your fault. You ought to have run along to another place to see for yourselves." Apparently quite
  1070
  a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are so busily engaged in doing that that they expect us to do the same. I can only reply that I find it hard enough already to do my work in this place and I do not consider that I ought to be expected to run along to another place to listen, even for the short time of the day during which the other place is in active operation, to the momentous words of those who sit there.
  Are Members of Parliament nowadays supposed to be completely full-time Members? Is there no right hon. or hon. Member opposite who, when he was in Opposition, was engaged in other comparatively lucrative employments? Is there no hon. Member opposite now who has not other things to do besides his duties here? Do we really wish that Parliament should be solely composed of whole-time Members, whole-time Members of an athletic character engaged during a large part of the afternoon in attempting to be in two places at once? That sort of thing needs only a little examination for anyone to realise that a thinner excuse was never put up from the Front Bench by any Government for what has been, in effect, a silly muddle and one which is grossly unfair to this House as a whole and to hon. Members.
  The next thing that was said was, "Oh, you were just as bad." The right hon. Gentleman, or someone on his behalf, has raked through the history of legislation to find cases with which he could compare this one. I am getting rather tired of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite defending the preposterous by attempting to show that it was also done by the Labour Party when it was in power. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that it was so done. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite really resigned to setting as the very highest standard that they can attain in these matters the very lowest standard that we ever attained? Are they really saying to the country that that is the very best they can do, and that, however ridiculous, however inconvenient, however hostile to every principle of democracy some piece of procedure is, it can always be defended if only one can say that something like it was done by the Opposition?
  That is Conservatism in essence. Conservatives never advance, never get any

  1071
  better; they stand by the worst traditions of the past and defend themselves by saying, "Oh, this was done before by someone else."I did not think we had relapsed to quite those depths, but that was the right hon. Gentleman's second line of defence, and he had no more than the two. He said, first, "You might have told me on Thursday I was doing the wrong thing," and at the end of it he said, "If you call me black, you have at any rate been a dark grey in the past." The dignity of those arguments will not, I feel sure, appeal to his own supporters, it certainly ought not to appeal to the House and it certainly ought not to appeal to the country.
  Let us look a little at what really ought to be done. What is the reason for this indecent haste to apply the Guillotine to us in the early stages of the Bill and then to force us to deal with Lords Amendments which we obviously have not had time to consider properly? The only reason is that the Government wish—we had it from the right hon. Gentleman himself—to get the Bill before Easter. The Government might have had some regard to things which have been happening in the country.
  If the Parliamentary time-table has been interfered with, it has been interfered with by the floods, which the right hon. Gentleman will find as difficult to control as did his predecessor in office, King Canute. It has also been interfered with by other matters, to which I will make no detailed reference, which are well in the mind of the House, and which are, of course, beyond the control of mortal man, be he right hon. or hon. Gentleman or not.
  Surely when the Government lay out for themselves a nice tidy time-table and say to their supporters, to the road hauliers or to the United Dominions Trust —who appear to be the dark figure behind all this—or whoever it may be, "We will get the Bill through before Easter," they cannot regard their decision as fixed and irrevocable. I do not pretend to talk Scots, but I believe that Robert Burns was once responsible for saying:
  "The best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley."
  Whether we are to regard the right hon. Gentleman as a mouse or a man, he might certainly take that maxim to heart.
  1072
  In this case his time-table has been wrecked by circumstances entirely outside his control.
  What may earlier have been a matter of pride or some virtue or other, now becomes, if persisted in, a matter of folly. There is no particular point in getting the Bill before Easter. It never had any point, and now the Government are simply showing themselves too obstinate and too blind to give way, when they are obliged to give way not by anything that we have done or by anything that has been said here but by quite inevitable and unexpected circumstances.
  Nobody will blame the Government for a moment if they give up a proposition which has become completely impossible and impracticable, but everybody will blame the Government, and blame them quite rightly, if, by adhering to something which is impracticable, they deprive the House of the opportunity of considering carefully what is on any showing a Measure of very considerable importance and, in particular, of considering those parts of the subject which arise out of the Amendments and now form a substantial part of the Bill as a whole.
  If the Government do that, and if we are driven to hurry through these Amendments, to deal with the matter in a hustle and a bustle, to give it no fair consideration and to pass it knowing that we have not given it proper preparation. I say with confidence that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and his supporters are in effect sacrificing the decencies of Parliament and the principles of democracy to a bit of what I can only call prejudiced pigheadedness-unless, of course, they have some bargain with the United Dominions Trust, or someone else, that, notwithstanding anything, they will get the Bill through before Easter.
  What are we to think about a party which treats Parliament in this way and treats our duty to the country and to our constituents in this way, and which, through nothing more than a piece of pigheadedness and in accordance with a catch-word which they have put into their own mouths, insists on depriving this democratic assembly of the opportunity of doing its job decently, properly and fairly on behalf of those who sent it here?
  5.9 p.m.
  Mr. John Hynd: I wish to add my word of protest against what is being done by the Government, because whatever may have been said from the Opposition Front Bench about comings and goings, about delays in getting notification of the Lords Amendments and lack of opportunities for putting down Amendments to their Amendments, this House has to recognise that the back bench Member is an essential part of the House and that, without the effective participation of the back bench Members, our constituents are not represented. It would be a deplorable thing if the procedure of this House were to deteriorate to a matter of bargaining between the Front Benches, even on the basis of the most fair and adequate method of exchanging information between those two quarters.
  I am one of those who have followed the Bill through the whole of Second Reading and the Committee stage and have taken considerable interest in the details of the Bill because of the feeling that the Bill, irrespective of the political purposes behind it, was a piece of major legislation, vitally affecting the interests of large numbers of people in the country one way or the other. It is a matter of argument whether it affects them for better or worse, but it is beyond argument that this is a first-class item of legislation the implementation of which, in whatever form it may emerge from this Parliament, is of first-class importance and will directly affect the lives and interests of many hundreds and thousands, and maybe more, of our people.
  How are we to have an opportunity of deciding on the final form which the Bill should take? It has already been pointed out that in the Committee stage the Bill was driven through under the Guillotine and we were not able to give adequate attention to some of the important propositions which were made in Amendments to the Bill. However, we got through the Committee stage, and the Bill has now been to the Lords, and the Lords Amendments have come to us.
  I do not want to give a long recitation of the facts—I emphasise "facts"—that we had from the Leader of the House. The facts have been peculiarly changed by interventions by my right hon. and hon. Friends; but I leave that for the
  1074
  moment. The simple fact for me is that very important and far-reaching Amendments have come from the Lords for consideration by this House. What opportunities have back benchers had of seeing the Amendments?
  Like some of my hon. Friends, I have an arrangement with the Vote Office, whereby I am sent papers relating to official business. I returned from my constituency on Monday morning. Whatever may be said by the Leader of the House, it is part of our duties and responsibilities to visit our constituencies occasionally, and if we do that at weekends when the House is not sitting, I do not see that anyone can criticise us for it, because it is our duty.
  Returning from my constituency yesterday morning, I found copies of the Lords Amendments. Monday was not a sitting day, and it was not until this morning that I was able to obtain a copy of the Amendments to the Lords Amendments. They would never have been tabled but for the fact that a number of my hon. Friends came here yesterday and by some special arrangement were able to see the Amendments.
  Mr. Mitchison: There was no special arrangement. Those Amendments were handed in. as they had to be, by 4.30 on Monday.
  Mr. Hynd: I understood from my right hon. Friend that if it had not been for his persistence or for some other factors, that would not have happened as the House was not sitting. However, I stand corrected. I am speaking from the point of view of the back benchers, and the fact is that we had no opportunity of seeing the Amendments to the Lords Amendments before this morning.
  It has been pointed out that in these Amendments from another place there are proposals, in some cases new Clauses, which in themselves represent almost major pieces of legislation. Certainly in some cases they have a greater import and will have more important effects upon the industry of this country and upon the lives of some of the people than some of the thousands of items of delegated legislation to which hon. Members opposite have always objected so strongly —indeed, against which over a period of

  1075
  years they have carried out a major campaign, claiming that so much of this delegated legislation, without adequate opportunity for the House of Commons to consider it and move Amendments to it, is undermining our Parliamentary democratic procedure.
  Some of these Lords Amendments are certainly as important and far-reaching as many of those items of delegated legislation about which we have had so many protests and in respect of which we have witnessed so many late-night scenes in this House when we on these benches were the Government. Yet we are to have no opportunity of examining those Amendments. Some of us got together this afternoon during the earlier part of Question time, when we should probably have been in the Chamber, to try to tie up the Amendments to the Lords Amendments with the Lords Amendments to the Bill. I submit that it is quite impossible to expect us to do that satisfactorily.
  It is not as if it were merely a matter of scoring points off each other in this House. It is not as if it were merely a matter of the Government "putting one across" and getting away with it because they happen to have a majority. There are many thousands of people outside this House who are concerned about this Bill. There has not been a single word about the 600,000 or so railwaymen and their wives and the hundreds of thousands of road transport workers and their wives and families who are concerned by this Bill, and who, whatever the Government may say, have staged protests about this Bill all over the country during the last two or three months.
  There are many hundreds of thousands of people who are concerned about the buying and selling of the transport units and about what is going to happen in the long run to our transport system after that buying and selling has taken place. What is to be the economic position of our railways? They are not being given an opportunity through the representatives sent to this House to examine the implications and the repercussions of the proposals that have come from another place. Some of those people were discussing the Bill with their representatives last Sunday, and even on Monday, as the House was not sitting.
  1076
  I think it is really a monstrous situation, and whatever the Leader of the House and the Government may say about other occasions when there were only five days provided to consider Lords Amendments to major Measures, they have not been able to cite a single case where five non-effective days constituted the only time that was given, when there was no opportunity at all in the normal course of our Parliamentary meetings for dealing with the Lords Amendments.
  I do not want to overload the appeal that has been made with regard to the special circumstances which prevented us meeting yesterday. They should be clear to the Government. If the position is not sufficiently clear to the Government, I think it will be clear enough before this night is over to the country at large that the Government on this occasion are engaged in a piece of slick practice which will do no good to our Parliamentary reputation in this country; and will do no good to the cause of democracy throughout the world, which in many cases is based upon a careful study and emulation of the methods which are adopted in our Parliament.
  In view of the importance that we on these benches and so many people outside this House attach to the situation that has been created by the Government—the impossibility of discussing, not merely adequately but at all with any clear understanding, the very important propositions which are before us today— I wish to make a very strong appeal, as a representative of the back benchers, in support of the appeal made by my right hon. Friend to withdraw this item from our programme so that we can proceed to our other business.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McLeavy: I wish to support, as strongly as I can, the appeal made by my hon. and right hon. Friends to the Leader of the House and the Minister of Transport not to proceed with consideration of the Lords Amendments this afternoon. I ask the Leader of the House to try to imagine what the feelings of people outside will be. I am sure that the ordinary decent commonsense person will regret and resent the attitude of the Government in not allowing adequate time to Members of Parliament to consider, not only the

  1077
  Lords Amendments, but proposed Amendments to those Amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench.
  The circumstances which have arisen out of the passage of this Bill cannot be divorced from the discussion of this Motion. We have had a virtual Guillotine at all stages of the Bill. Although I have spent a lifetime in the transport industry, I was unable to catch Mr. Speakers eye on Second Reading because of the limitation imposed on that debate. There are many hon. Members on this side who, because of the serious time limitation, were not able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye at any stage of the Bill and put forward a constructive point of view.
  As I understand it, the Lords Amendments were not available to back bench Members of this House until Saturday morning at the earliest. The proposed Amendments to those Amendments, which have been put down by the Opposition Front Bench, were not available to back bench Members until today. In those circumstances, it is obviously physically impossible for back benchers to give a considered opinion upon either the merits or demerits of the Lords Amendments or the proposed Amendments tabled by my hon. and right hon. Friends.
  The average citizen of our country is a decent-minded individual, and, whether he is for denationalisation or against it, I believe that he, like hon. Members on both sides, is conscious of the need to satisfy the public, not only that we are maintaining the democratic system in the country, but that we are allowing it to be applied in Parliament. If this Bill were a question of life and death, if it were a question of preserving democracy in this country, or of dealing with an urgent matter affecting the well-being of society, one could understand the indecent haste of the Government.
  But here is a Bill which has been cold-shouldered by every section of the industry which understands anything at all about transport. It has been received luke-warmly by some hon. Members on the Government side. Many of them have supported the Government in the Lobby out of sheer loyalty, realising that this is a thoroughly bad and disgraceful Bill. During Second Reading, and at the other stages of the Bill, many of us were prevented from putting forward the constructive viewpoint of men and women
  1078
  engaged in the industry with whom we have had such a long and intimate association.
  We have had to tell the workers in the transport industry—men and women who have rendered such great service over so many years—that the Government have allowed inadequate time for the discussion of this Bill in the House of Commons. We now have, in effect, to consider a miniature Bill, which is what the Lords Amendments represent, and we are told that we must proceed to consideration of these Lords Amendments although we have had inadequate time to consider the matter.
  We are indebted to the workers in the transport industry for their contribution to the development and welfare of this nation, and they are entitled to better treatment than this. Are we to go from this House and say to our friends in the transport world that a Tory Government, who are always paying lip-service to the desire to be fair to organised labour and to the trade union movement, who are now compelling us to consider about 70 important new Amendments and an important new Clause to the Transport Bill, are apparently afraid of proper examination and are denying us the opportunity, first, fairly to examine the implications of these Amendments; and, second, an opportunity to give our considered opinion upon them?
  I do not understand the great urgency in rushing this Bill through before Easter, unless it be that the Government are anxious to give a nice Easter egg present to their friends in the road haulage and investment industries. That can be the only reason. There is no urgency about this Bill which, if it does anything at all, will cause great difficulties in the transport industry; it will have repercussions upon the facilities available to other industries using transport; it will disturb the well-organised and developing principle underlying the Transport Act; it will confer no advantage upon the nation or upon industry. The only advantage this Bill can confer is an advantage to those who want to benefit financially at the expense of the nation.
  These Lords Amendments are of vital importance to organised labour. Am I to go to my friends in the transport industry and say, "We are not to be allowed to make our contribution towards considering these Amendments?" Are we to

  1079
  tell them that the Government are so afraid of examination of these Amendments, so scared that the mistakes contained even in these Amendments will be revealed to the community, that they do not want them fully considered, lest, perhaps, they may be compelled to have further thoughts about carrying out this Measure?
  I appeal, if any appeal is of any avail, to the Leader of the House. It has always been accepted that the Leader of the House has not merely the duty of pushing through the House the business of the Government but also the responsibility for seeing that there is fair play to every Member of the House on both sides. I say to the Leader of the House that he has failed lamentably in that duty, his first duty in the House, of seeing that the back bench members are given some consideration. His duty is to lead this House in a dignified way, and in such a way that the general public may be able to say, "We do not agree with the policy of the Government but, at least, they have allowed the Opposition a fair chance of putting forward their case."
  If this bad example of the Leader of the House is followed by future Leaders of the House there will be a deterioration in the whole system of Parliamentary government. With all the dangers that there are arising from dictatorships in the world, the most important thing for us in this country to do is to set an example in the application of our democratic system, to show the world that it can work. It is a part of our democratic machinery that the back bench Members of this House, whether on the Government or the Opposition side, are entitled to put forward the viewpoints of the people they represent here.
  Once we create the impression in the minds of the electors that Parliament is no longer the place where the back bench Member can fight for the interests of his constituents, however poor and however humble they may be, we shall be on the road to dictatorship. If we value our democracy we should make sure that this House of Commons reflects it as a shining light, a beacon, to the whole world, particularly to the dark areas of the world where they have no opportunity of
  1080
  democracy and of voting to select democratic governments.
  I make an earnest appeal to the Leader of the House even at this late hour that he should assert leadership; not political leadership, but dignified leadership of the whole House. Let him show that the protests of the back benchers have penetrated even his mind. If we cannot penetrate his mind, let us, at least, try to penetrate his heart.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Has he one?
  Mr. McLeavy: These are genuine protests that are being made against the Government's proposals. Let the right hon. Gentleman show that he realises that, and realises what will be the repercussions of his refusal to heed them on the minds of the people engaged in the industry. Let him be big enough to say that, in view of all the circumstances, in view of the misunderstanding which may arise from the Government proceeding with this matter now, the Government will take another day, or at any rate give ample time, to allow the House of Commons, and the trade union Members of the House, to put forward considered views upon these Amendments. I believe that that is the way we shall preserve our democracy, and that that is the only way in which democracy can deserve to be preserved m any country.
  5.36 p.m
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I should like to support the passionate plea to which we have just listened, though I should like to adduce rather different reasons why I would hope that the Leader of the House will respond to the request being made to him from these benches. We are face to face with one of those occasions when, whether or not democracy is involved, the decencies of Parliamentary conduct are involved. We are concerned with the proprieties of Parliamentary conduct. I think it is really an intolerable outrage that the House should be asked to deal with the Lords Amendments today.
  We are faced with the problem of dealing with a lengthy series of Amendments from another place to this Transport Bill. I do not propose, as my hon. Friend did in the course of his remarks, to argue the merits of the Bill. That is a matter we have debated on other occasions, and if

  1081
  necessary, will debate again. What we are concerned with at the moment is whether it is reasonable, fair or tolerable to ask this House at this short notice, with no adequate preparation, to consider this lengthy series of Amendments made to this Bill in another place and at the same time to consider the Amendments put down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and others.
  The Leader of the House knows perfectly well that the Amendments made in the House of Lords are Amendments which, presumably, are deserving of consideration by this House. They are of varying importance. Some are technical, some arc matters of policy, some are matters of principle, some are matters of detail; but they are all complicated. I am sure that the Leader of the House would be the first to agree that this House would not be fulfilling its functions if it were to treat any of these Amendments which have come down from another place in a perfunctory manner. I am sure that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary and all the members of the Government wish to give the attention which they deserve to these Amendments. They all require careful consideration.
  We have as part of our constitution this bicameral arrangement under which the Lords have a great deal of time and leisure, leisure denied to us in this House, to go through a Bill of this importance. This is the only opportunity we shall have of being able to consider with leisure the Amendments which have been made in another place. I am speaking purely for myself. I did not get an opportunity to take part either in the Second Reading or Third Reading debates, and owing to the Guillotine arrangements with which the House were confronted by the Government, I had only the briefest opportunities on the Committee stage. Under the Guillotine our debates were notoriously curtailed, and there were very few facilities for ordinary back benchers like myself to take part in the debates.
  When a Bill is subject to the Guillotine procedure it is inevitable that the burden falling on the Opposition to examine the Bill in detail is concentrated into the hands of a relatively few Members, but that does not relieve every other hon. Member of his duty and responsibility to
  1082
  make sure that before the Bill finally leaves this House it is in a state which is as near perfection as it can be, notwithstanding the fact that on these benches we are violently opposed to the principle of the Bill. We are not concerned today with the principle of the Bill but with its technicalities as a piece of machinery, and every Member of Parliament has a duty to make sure that any ambiguities have been removed before we part with it. This is our last opportunity to tidy it up and to consider what Amendments their Lordships have made.
  Hon. Members on this side of the House are not particularly in love with the House of Lords as an institution. Many of my hon. Friends would regard that as an understatement. I realise that I should be out of order if I ventured very far on a consideration of the merits or demerits of the House of Lords as at present constituted. For the purposes of this Bill we have to take the House of Lords as we find it, with all its faults, hoping that before long we shall have an opportunity of changing its constitution. But having the House of Lords as it is, we must assume whether or not we agree with it that they are a responsible body. Many of my hon. Friends have their doubts about that, but I am prepared to assume that some of the Amendments which have been introduced by the House of Lords have been introduced by a responsible Chamber and are therefore worthy of our consideration.
  Mr. Ede: That is a most unwarrantable assumption.
  Mr. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend says it is an "unwarrantable assumption."
  Mr. Ede: "Most" unwarrantable.
  Mr. Fletcher: It is a "most" unwarrantable assumption. But a great many assumptions which we make in this life are quite unwarranted. Very few assumptions, if one took the trouble to probe and analyse them, could be justified in logic, reason or common sense. But this is not the occasion for pursuing that theme.
  I am prepared to base my arguments to the Leader of the House on the footing that some of the Amendments made in the House of Lords, as at present constituted, are put forward by persons having

  1083
  some responsibility and are therefore worthy of our consideration. As the elected Member for Islington, East, I feel it is my duty to consider as best I can the proposals which have come from another place. I did not receive the Lords Amendments until this morning, and only then did I have an opportunity of considering the Amendments—put down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South—to those Amendments.
  As everybody knows, I am a loyal supporter and admirer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South. I should be disposed to assume that any Amendments to which he attached his name were Amendments which deserved my support, but no Member on either side of this House should be put into the position of having blindly to support either Amendments to Lords Amendments or anything else. As elected Members of the House of Commons it is our duty to exercise our individual, independent conscience and judgment, and to see whether Amendments are right or wrong by examining them.
  Apart from the principle of this Bill, to which hon. Members on this side of the House are violently opposed, we are anxious to see that when it does become an Act it is as free from ambiguities and absurdities as we can make it. Therefore, since this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss this Bill without being subject to the Guillotine or to a closure Motion—
  Mr. Ellis Smith: That is to come.
  Mr. Fletcher: No. I suggest that it is quite inconceivable that a closure Motion will be moved on this debate. This is a matter which affects the dignity, the decencies and the proprieties of Parliamentary Government, and I do not imagine for a moment that even the Government Chief Whip would have the effrontery to attempt to stifle discussion of a matter which touches us all so seriously and vitally as does this debate.
  I want only to do my duty. I want to understand these Amendments which have come from the House of Lords. There are 70 pages of them. I could not be expected—as the Leader of the House suggested a moment ago—to listen to the
  1084
  House of Lords while they were debating the Transport Bill. A moment ago the Leader of the House almost suggested that it was the duty certainly of those who were particularly interested in the Bill, if not all of us, to follow line by line and Clause by Clause what was happening in the House of Lords.
  That is not my conception of my duty. I believe my duty is to attend in the House of Commons to watch the Government and be vigilant in seeing what they do here. I cannot follow what is happening in the House of Lords at the same time, and if Amendments come from the other place, before I can pass any judgment upon them I want to understand them and then read the debates which have taken place in the House of Lords in order to see by what argument the Amendments have been supported. How else can I decide whether to approve or disapprove of these Amendments, or how I should comment on the Amendments to the Lords Amendments which have been suggested by my right hon. and hon. Friends?
  Other hon. Members on this side of the House have pointed out that some of these Amendments deal with matters not only of considerable complication but considerable obscurity. For example, we have an Amendment in page 8 of the Bill, occupying four and a half pages of very complicated Parliamentary language. It amounts to a new Clause, which introduces a new principle. It is something about which, presumably, the House of Lords had taken a great deal of time and thought before suggesting that it should be put into the Bill, and we must, at any rate, consider whether or not it should go into the Bill. If it is to go into the Bill, we have also to consider whether it should be amended in the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South, suggests.
  All that I am asking the Leader of the House to give me and my hon. Friends is the due opportunity of considering these documents. I would suggest that to enable us to perform our Parliamentary duties in this House we must have time to examine them. It is not enough to consider the document containing the Lords Amendments; it is not enough to consider the Amendments to the Lords Amendments which have been framed in circumstances of great haste, but, if I

  1085
  may say so, with great ability, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South. In order that we can appreciate the points we have to consider the Bill itself. We have to consider the debates that took place in this House and the debates that took place in their Lordships' House. It really is not fair to ask the House to deal with a matter of this seriousness and this magnitude at this short notice.
  It is not the fault of the Government that there has been, unfortunately, this interruption in our business during the last few days, owing to the circumstances of national bereavement in which we all suffer alike. Because of these circumstances, I think that the Leader of the House and the Government have a particular obligation to observe what, I should have thought, was an elementary principle of Parliamentary decency.
  I am pleading with the Leader of the House, who I do not think is entirely devoid of feeling. One might sometimes think from his appearance and demeanour that he was not particularly responsive, but it is, after all, his duty as Leader of the House to be responsive to these human appeals which are being made to him by back benchers in the interests of Parliamentary decency. I want most seriously to urge that in order that we as Members of Parliament may fulfil our constitutional duties adequately and well, we should have a much longer opportunity of considering these Amendments from the Lords and the Amendments to the Amendments of the Lords before we are asked to pass an opinion on them.
  May I, in conclusion, make this observation: if the Leader of the House fails to respond to this appeal, he, and he alone, will be responsible for the consequences that ensue. If we have an opportunity of studying this matter at our leisure during the Recess, which will be a convenient opportunity, we shall then be able, no doubt, to formulate a judgment upon the Lords Amendments. If, on the other hand, we are compelled to consider this matter in circumstances of stress and haste and at a late hour tonight, after the business that takes place between 7 and 10 p.m., it will inevitably take the Government much longer, because then we shall have to press each particular Amendment as we come to it.
  1086
  Every Member of this House will want to be satisfied as to what the Lords had in mind in putting down these Amendments.
  We shall not have had an opportunity of looking into them ourselves. We shall have to try to study them as we go along. I and other of my hon. Friends will have questions to put, and it will produce, I should have thought, an interminable debate. We shall be failing in our duty unless we examine every Amendment. We shall not be able to consider and pass any Amendment until we are fully satisfied. Therefore, I should have thought that, not only the considerations of elementary Parliamentary decency, but also considerations of expediency, would induce the Leader of the House to reflect on this matter, and bow to the wishes of the House.
  I would suggest to him in all sincerity that, if he does that, he can do it with perfect dignity. After all, it is not asking very much, and if the right hon. Gentleman will listen to this appeal, and, as I hope, accede to the appeal we are making, we shall recognise that he is doing it, not by way of a concession, but because he is as anxious as we are to observe and maintain Parliamentary propriety. May I, in all seriousness, urge the Leader of the House to accept the Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend.
  5.56 p.m.
  Mr. Aneurin Sevan: I do not rise to conclude the discussion, because I am quite sure that there are many hon. Members in all parts of the House who would like to make a contribution to the debate. A very great deal has been said, but very much more can be said on this Motion. This is a most unusual debate. It is very rarely that a Motion of this sort is resisted.
  I was trying to remember whether there had been an occasion during the time that I had been a Member of the House when a debate of this sort had occurred. Usually, the Lords Amendments are taken on the Motion of the Government without opposition, so the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this discussion today is of a most unusual character and must have a bearing upon the development of Parliamentary procedure. That is the reason why it is necessary for us to take note of some of the things which the right hon. Gentleman has said.

  1087
  I must admit that, with my usual naivety, I thought the Amendment would be accepted, because when I heard last Friday that the House was up, and we had only just had all these Amendments from the Lords, and we were not to have a sitting day on the Monday, I thought that the combination of all those events would influence the Government to postpone the consideration of the Lords Amendments. I must, therefore, confess that I was astonished when I listened to the speech of the Leader of the House today.
  It did not seem to me to make the slightest attempt to answer the very weighty case which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) had addressed to the House. In fact, not one single argument has been answered. May I also say that it really is not good enough—and for the record we must say this—to argue that a number of Members of the House are familiar with what is happening in the House of Lords and that, therefore, we should telescope the time available to us, because, apparently, we ought to be spending a great deal of our time in the other place listening to what they are saying. As a matter of fact, the physical organisation of the two Houses was never so arranged as to enable us to listen to each other at a given time.
  If one is to take the statement of the Leader of the House seriously, apparently what we are supposed to do—all of us— if we are to have our time circumscribed in this way, is to troop to the House of Lords and listen to the debates there. The result will be, if this is to be an established constitutional precedent, that the House of Commons will be empty while we are listening to the debates in the House of Lords, and, as the same will logically apply to the House of Lords, the House of Lords will be empty while we are debating. I agree that if the procedure worked that way it would be to the advantage of the education of the House of Lords.
  Nevertheless, it is apparent that the relationship between ourselves and the other place in the British constitution assumes that there must always be a decent period between the debates in the two Houses during which both can consider what the other has said. Otherwise,
  1088
  if that is not the case, obviously we must reorganise the facilities in both places. Or are we to stand at the Bar, with the utmost discomfort, to listen to what is being said there? Physical discomfort and mental boredom are very difficult to bear together.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore be good enough to assure the House when he replies to the debate, or through whoever replies for the Government, that that was not a serious argument, and that he cannot say that we ought not to proceed with the Amendment on account of the fact that some of my hon. Friends are familiar with what was said in the House of Lords?
  As has been said by some of my hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman is the Leader of the House. The Patronage Secretary ought not to resort to the jaded old Parliamentary trick of whispering in the ear of the person who is being addressed. I am asking the Members of the Government to consider what they are going to say in reply, and if the Patronage Secretary has anything to say to the Leader of the House let him take him outside the House and say it there, but do not let us have such juvenile tricks here. I see that the Patronage Secretary has now left the Chamber. That is what comes of spending too much of one's time in the Oxford Union.
  Evidently the Leader of the House had looked up the precedents in this matter, because he mentioned the two circumstances of the Electricity Bill and the Agriculture Bill, in 1947. The Leader of the House has an exceptional position. He is not only a partisan member of a political party, but his Office calls upon him to look after the interests of the House as a whole. Therefore, he ought not to deceive the House. When he makes his quotations and when he uses his illustrations, he ought to be impeccable in his selection. He ought not to try to trick the House, which is exactly what he did when he referred to the two Bills.
  In the first place, as my right hon. Friend reminded him, these came at the end of July and one ran until 4th August, 1947. It is always understood that in circumstances of that sort consideration of the last stages of a Bill is likely to be rushed, and hon. Members prepare for that contingency; but they do not expect

  1089
  it in these circumstances. The Agriculture Bill was non-controversial in the sense that the Opposition did not divide against it. I have had some facts ascertained, because I am always so suspicious when the right hon. Gentleman recalls any circumstances, for I know very well that they will be very much edited. The Agriculture Bill was brought from the Lords on Thursday, 31st July. It was considered on 4th August. There were 84 Amendments, but 46 of them were preparing for consolidation, 15 were consequential and the remaining 23 were mostly Amendments put down by the party opposite which were accepted by the Government of the day. No one can suggest for a moment that that is a precedent for what is happening this afternoon. This is a highly controversial Bill, it has been opposed from the very beginning, and it sharply divides the nation; and it has, indeed, divided the party opposite.
  When we come to the Electricity Bill the story is even more against the Government. It is true that the House of Lords finished it on 31st July, but we had the whole of the Friday for the consideration of the Amendments and the whole of the Monday up to 6.45 on Tuesday morning. What we have had this time is not one sitting day. Can the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that there is any comparison between the two? If the right hon. Gentleman has read HANSARD and has deliberately not quoted from it, that is very naughty of him, but if he has not read HANSARD referring to the illustration which he gave, he ought to have done so in order to arm himself for this debate. What happened was that when we came to the consideration of the Lords Amendments, the Minister of Fuel and Power moved that they be considered, and he went on to say:
  "I understand that, because there is general consent to the Amendments which come from another place and which appear on the Order Paper, with the exception of two which are contested, it would serve the convenience of hon. Members in all quarters of the House if you, within your discretion, Sir, agreed to put them en bloc. If that were done, it would save hon. Members a considerable amount of time."
  Then up got Mr. Hudson, speaking for the Opposition, and said:
  "If it is within your competence to do as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, I feel that it would be for the convenience of everybody. It would save a good deal of time and
  1090
  enable us to devote rather more time to the two points on which the Government are not going to accept the Amendments proposed from another place."
  Then Mr. Speaker said this:
  "I must say, as one who sat up all last night, that I am very grateful for the suggestion. If the House allows, I propose to do what I have done before. I will have the lines called, and if any hon. Member wants to stop to query any point, then he may indicate."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th August, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 1305.]
  Those are the two illustrations selected by the right hon. Gentleman as a precedent for what he is doing with this Bill. First, it happened at the end of the Session. Secondly, the Opposition was not opposing; maybe the Opposition had become wary, or had been converted, but by the time the Bill reached that stage they no longer proposed to oppose but accepted all the Amendments to be put en bloc. Moreover, the other Bill was a non-controversial Bill and most of the Amendments were non-controversial in character.
  I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, in selecting these two without giving any of the other facts, he was once more guilty of that sharp practice that we have come to expect from him. Here we are on an entirely different basis. Here is a Bill which is deeply resented on this side of the House. It has been guillotined mercilessly. Many parts of the Bill have not been properly considered. This is the stage now that gives us an opportunity of further examining points which have not received proper examination before.
  I want hon. Members on the other side of the House to listen to this if they will. I put it forward most earnestly. It has been suggested to many of us in different parts of the country, by groups of organised workers, that they should oppose the passing of these Bills by industrial action. There is very strong feeling about it, exceedingly strong feeling. Do not let hon. Members on the other side of the House misunderstand it. There is very strong feeling especially among road workers. It is starting among railwaymen, too, who are beginning to realise the consequences of what the Government intend.
  Whenever that suggestion has been made, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House have resisted it. We have said that the House of

  1091
  Commons is the place where this must be fought out. But when we said that we were speaking quite sincerely, and we expected it to be fought out here. This is not only an unusual debate in itself, but the nature of the legislation is unusual. It has been pointed out by one of my hon. Friends that this is the first time for centuries that in so short a time major legislation has been repealed. Generally, Parliamentary government in this country stands on the rule that important social changes are accepted and the party that opposes them attempts to modify them, retard their occurrence or tries to prevent their repetition.
  But in the repeal of these two Acts of Parliament dealing with steel and transport within so short a time we have a most revolutionary decision by the Government of the day. These Acts are to be entirely repealed within a year or two of the start of their operation, although the Government which are doing it have a slender Parliamentary majority and are in a minority in the country. In those circumstances, I should have thought that it would be in the common interests of all Members of the House to see that the Parliamentary consideration of these proposals is of such a nature as to convince the country that they are being properly considered.
  What will happen when this debate is reported to the trade unions of the country? What will they hear? They will hear that the House of Commons received from the House of Lords certain Amendments. I am bound to inform right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the House of Lords is not a popular institution among the vast mass of the industrial workers in Great Britain. It may be revered and respected by some, but I have never noticed any significant enthusiasm for it in any trade union meeting that I have attended.
  What will they be told? They will be told that their livelihood, their prospects and their conditions of employment are being determined and decided by decisions of the House of Lords and the House of Commons without adequate opportunity for debating them. I suggest that that is a most serious situation. It creates a bitter psychology. Why do it? What is the hurry? We have not heard any real explanation. The right hon.
  1092
  Gentleman says the hurry is because the Government like the Bill and the Government want it by Easter because they like it. But that is no reason for juggernauting the proceedings of the House of Commons. There is no justification for setting aside the rules of the House and the precedents of the House merely because the Government like a Bill. I have never heard such a reason before. The Government are entitled to have it, but only by decently considering the rules of the House and the precedents that guide us here.
  May I say this before I sit down? I expected that the Government would accept this Amendment. Tomorrow we are to have a Bill to deal with flooding. We shall facilitate the passage of that Bill, after giving it consideration, because the Bill is urgently required. I must say that if the Government are in a hurry with legislation they ought to have been in a hurry about that legislation, not about this. After all, the floods have been there for a very long time. That Bill ought to have been prepared a long time ago. It ought to have been passed into law a long time ago, but what the Government have been doing is devoting their energy to getting legislation through as quickly as possible in order to share the swag with their friends, neglecting the interests of the poor, flooded people in the east of England.
  It is only tomorrow that we are to debate that Bill and we are not to have it passed into law until after Easter, although it could have been done long before. Therefore, it seems to me and to some of my hon. Friends here that in bringing forward these Amendments we were, in fact, serving the interests of the House.
  There is a further point to be borne in mind. We have not yet finished our consideration of the Lords Amendments and the Amendments to the Amendments. Therefore, we may have to put in manuscript Amendments. That is inevitable, because as we go on we discover more and more defects in what is proposed. What will happen? At 7 o'clock we shall start to debate another issue. At 10 o'clock we shall be resuming discussion on this Bill with all the Amendments and manuscript Amendments.
  Do hon. Members opposite believe that when they go to their constituents and

  1093
  report this matter they can seriously say that Parliament has given adequate consideration to this Bill in all these circumstances? I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the Amendment, and that we shall consider this Bill after Easter. I am convinced that if the Government try to thrust it through against our wishes we shall be here until the early hours of the morning. We shall be here very late indeed. [Interruption.] I did not say which particular morning. We shall be here for a very long time, because there is no Guillotine. It is significant that we have always considered Amendments from the other place so respectfully that they have never been guillotined. I have never known of a Guillotine at this stage of a Bill, because at this stage we are anxious to finish consideration of the Measure and give attention to the Lords Amendments.
  For all those reasons and for others which my hon. and right hon. Friends have advanced with great cogency, I hope that for once the Leader of the House will remember that he is not only a little partisan politician, but also Leader of the British House of Commons.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Crookshank: Perhaps I may speak again, with the leave of the House, and not because I want to argue the case with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). Some of the language which he has just used is tending to deteriorate the debate from the high standard at which it started. I hoped that we should not get into that frame of mind in this House, particularly today.
  Therefore, I rise to make a suggestion. [Interruption.] I hope hon. Members will listen. It is very difficult for me. They have made speeches at me for about two hours or more, to which I have listened most patiently. I have not left the Chamber for a minute. I have not been from here. I have been weighing up in my mind all that has been said, as it is my duty to do. I wanted to put before the House a proposal to which the House might be agreeable, in order to get us out of some of the difficulties which I appreciate have caused anxiety to hon. Members, through no fault of mine or of anybody else's.
  The proposal is this: that we should not proceed with the Opposition Amend-
  1094
  ment now, but should get on to considering the Lords Amendments for such time as remains before the Adjournment Motion is moved at seven o'clock. We should fill up the gap by starting on consideration of the Lords Amendments. We should not proceed further with the Lords Amendments today, in order to make the position easier for hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have heard what has been said. I have not always enjoyed some of the remarks which have been addressed against me personally. Although we would not proceed after the Adjournment at ten o'Clock tonight, the understanding would be that means should be found through the usual channels by which the Lords Amendments and the other Business which I have already announced should be taken before we rise for Easter, on Thursday. I should be very reluctant to suggest that we should sit into what is normally the Easter Recess, or that we should—
  Mr. Bevan: We are trying to understand what the offer is, but at the moment it does not seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman is making any concession. All he is saying is that we should facilitate the passage of the Bill at a time more convenient to the Government. We are suggesting that there is no reason why the Bill should be taken before Easter.
  Mr. Crookshank: That may be the view of the right hon. Gentleman. I am trying to find a bridge, a compromise, between the two, and I was basing myself on the stream of argument that I have heard. Owing to the House not having sat after one o'clock on Friday and not having sat yesterday, it had been very difficult for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to marshal their arguments and the Amendments which they wanted to put on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman also said that we would be threatened with a great many manuscript Amendments, and the rest of it. To get over that difficulty, I have suggested that we should carry on the debate on the Lords Amendments today only until seven o'clock, but the understanding would be that before we rise for Easter the Lords Amendments would be disposed of as well as the rest of the business. [HON. MEMBERS:"Why?"]
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale leads the cry "Why?"

  1095
  I am suggesting that an arrangement should be made, through the usual channels, on the understanding which I have outlined. If that is not agreeable to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am very sorry. I thought it was a fair offer, in view of the arguments which I have heard. By leaving over these Amendments they could deal with the difficulties which they have said they experienced. I have not had these difficulties put from other quarters, but hon. Gentlemen opposite have put them, and I am trying to meet them. The House should realise that we are giving a helping hand in those difficulties. [Interruption.]
  The right hon. Gentleman keeps on asking why we should take these Lords Amendments before Easter. I have already said that the Government and their supporters feel that the Bill should be on the Statute Book as soon as may be possible. That was what we had in mind, and has been our objective all along. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman—I am not quite sure which right hon. Gentleman at the moment is in charge of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman who interrupted me just now or the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) who opened the debate—will consider that what I have said is a reasonable way of getting out of the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman so much stressed, and which have occurred because the House did not sit on Friday after one o'clock or on Monday.
  I must say, in conclusion, that to give a whole day to Lords Amendments on any Bill is very unusual. I hope that what I have suggested may be agreeable, and that we may dispose of the Opposition Amendment forthwith and get on to the consideration of Lords Amendments until the Adjournment is moved at seven o'clock.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I do not understand what concession the right hon. Gentleman is offering. We are all anxious that the Bill shall be as perfect as this House can make it, whatever side we sit on. I am in favour of the Bill and of its principles, but I know that other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen
  1096
  on this side of the House are against them. When a matter comes before the House we should make as perfect a result of it as we can. The Constitution provides two Houses. There is the other place, which makes its own proposals, and this place. We are bound to consider one another's opinions. The other place has, as I understand the matter, made 70 Amendments to the Bill which left this House. It is only right that this House should consider those Amendments and consider them properly, and should have time in which to do it.
  Why should the Bill be rushed in this way? If it is a good Bill it will be as good after Easter as before Easter. If it is a wrong Bill, then I can well understand why it should be rushed. Why cannot the Government give time for proper consideration of these matters? There is a real controversy going on in the country as to whether there should be a Second Chamber or not, but so long as there is a Second Chamber it is only right that this House, which is the dominant Chamber, should consider what is being done by the other place and have time in which to do it.
  Therefore I appeal, with great sincerity, to the Government and to the Leader of the House that we should have time to reconsider this matter. What concession has the right hon. Gentleman made? [An HON. MEMBER: "None."] So far as I can understand it, it is nothing except that he insists upon the House agreeing to this Measure before it rises for the Recess. Is that a concession at all?
  Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will surely see that it is a very different proposition from the original one of going on today with these Amendments after ten o'clock.
  Mr. Davies: We have already lost one day, in circumstances which we all deplore and regret. Surely this is a moment when the country is most anxious that we should work together in these very sad circumstances and agree to get the best Bill that we can. Whether we disagree in principle or not, we can at least do our utmost to see that when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it is the best that this House can produce.
  6.29 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Boothby: I should not have intervened in this debate unless I had been a Member of this House for a very long time. This has been a very controversial Bill and, as against the Steel Bill, it was guillotined through the House. I do not object to that, if necessary, but it must inevitably mean that certain subjects cannot have been as adequately discussed as was necessary in the national interest. In those circumstances, Lords Amendments assume a greater importance than they otherwise have.
  I was astonished at the attitude of the Leader of the House towards the House of Lords. He said that it was almost unprecedented that this House should give a whole day to considering the Lords Amendments. These Lords Amendments cover pages of the Order Paper. Quite a number of them are of very considerable importance and most certainly deserve most careful consideration by this House.
  I have always understood that if it became necessary for a Guillotine to be adopted in respect of a Bill in this House there was always the safeguard of the House of Lords, which could then consider any specific cases which, under the Guillotine, had not received adequate discussion in this House, and make the necessary Amendments. I believe in a Second Chamber and I believe that we have a very good one. I am one of those who really believe in the House of Lords. I am almost alone in that matter, but I think they are very good and that their opinions deserve the most careful consideration.
  In the last few days there have happened two tragic events, one abroad in East Africa and one at home, which have inevitably and greatly disturbed our Parliamentary programme. We all feel deeply about those happenings. In a short time we are to consider one of them and this House has already passed a Motion in respect of the other. Quite frankly, if the Government had held to their original intention and had kept this House sitting all night of the day of the funeral of Queen Mary in order to consider these Lords Amendments, we should have earned the contempt and derision of this country, and rightly earned it.
  What is the position? We have one day tomorrow before the Easter Recess.
  1098
  Are we to be asked to sit all night tomorrow to drive this Bill through? If I were convinced that it was vital in the national interest, I would say that we must do it, but I cannot seriously bring myself to believe that it is vital in the national interest. In all the circumstances, the country being moved by the events that have taken place both abroad and at home, and on the eve of the Easter festival, I think the Government might reasonably say, "We will consider these Amendments carefully, and in the full light of the thought we have been able to give them, we will deal with them after the Easter Recess."
  6.32 p.m.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Like the Leader of the House, I can only speak for a second time by leave of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has made a proposal whereby these Amendments would be considered tomorrow. Whatever may have been possible if that had been considered at an earlier stage, it is not possible at this stage for us to accept that proposal.
  We have had to make our preparations in a great hurry. I had to ask the Chief Whip to warn my hon. Friends that we should need them until a late hour or an early hour, whichever is the right word. Many of my hon. Friends, for sheer financial reasons that will be known to many of them, have cancelled their hotel accommodation tonight so that they will not have to pay for it. Having cancelled it, where will they be at 10 o'clock? They may be on the streets or in the soup. [Laughter.] No, this is a relevant point. It is not funny. When they were faced with an all-night Sitting, they cancelled their hotels because, quite frankly, they cannot afford to pay more hotel bills than are necessary. Having made all those arrangements, which are understandable to the House, at any rate to hon. Members with a heart, it is impossible now to go back on them.
  If we take these Amendments tomorrow, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) said, we shall go all through the night by the look of it. I agree with him that it is not seemly in. this week that we should do so. The hon. Gentleman made an excellent speech, as did the Leader of the Liberal Party, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) made a forceful speech also.

  1099
  I suggest to the Leader of the House, in all friendship, or, at any rate, with understanding of the functions of the Leader of the House, that there are moments when the Leader of the House should bend. I know that he does not like doing it. I myself was not in the habit of bending when I was Leader of the House. However, there are moments when the Leader of the House must face the fact that the House is against him and that it does not like the flavour of things or the way of doing things. All we are asking is for a reasonable pause in which to consider these important Amendments that their Lordships have sent along.
  Why did the Inter-Party Conference on the future of the House of Lords break down? It broke down on this very point of adequate time to consider the I
  nterchanges between the two Houses. The time is proved utterly to have been unreasonable, and while I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has made an effort to see whether he can solve the problem, I really do not think that his suggestion solves it. The alternatives are either that the Minister should withdraw his Motion "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," which we think the right thing to do, or we must go on.
  I still say that I cannot understand why it is considered so absolutely vital that this Bill should be on the Statute Book this side of the Easter Recess. I could understand it at the end of a Session, but the Easter Recess is only an artificial interruption of the course of the Session owing to the holiday of a week or 10 days, and the Whitsun Recess is much the same.
  Surely the right hon. Gentleman can see that the sense of the House, based upon considerations of decency and of Parliamentary correctness, is against him. I urge him, even at this late stage, to withdraw the Motion. His reputation will not suffer, his dignity will not have been hurt, and he will have shown that he is big enough and sufficient of a Parliamentarian to recognise the will and the spirit of the House at a crucial point in our history.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I rise only in order that the Government may have a little time in which to consider the situation afresh,
  1100
  rather than that we should proceed now to a Division on the Motion and the Amendment. I hope that I may have the attention of the Leader of the House because I am addressing a serious argument to him. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind two or three of us occupying the time between now and seven o'clock so that the Government may have an opportunity of considering the matter afresh?
  The right hon. Gentleman might well consider what has been the history of this legislation. The Government introduced a White Paper long ago setting out their policy. As the result of public discussion they withdrew that White Paper and propounded a totally different policy in a subsequent one. Then, as a result of further discussion in the House and elsewhere, they produced the original version of the Bill which is now reaching its final stages. That, too, was withdrawn and another version substituted. In spite of the difficulties in the course of the Committee and Report stages, fundamental Amendments were accepted by the Government and made in the Bill as a result of the detailed Parliamentary examination of the proposals made.
  This was not the case of a static piece of legislation proposed by the Government and driven through the House of Commons. True, there was a Guillotine; true, discussion was curtailed, but in spite of that, at every stage when examination of the proposals of the Bill revealed defects, the Government were compelled to change their minds. And now, after all the alterations that have been made so far, the Bill comes back from the House of Lords with 70 new Amendments. Some of them undoubtedly refer to matters that have been discussed before, but we are now being asked at this stage of a much altered Bill and a much altered policy to consider 70 new proposals.
  What is wrong with the proposition of the Leader of the House? The objection to considering the Amendments today is only partly the lack of an opportunity of considering the Amendments on the Order Paper and Amendments to those Amendments. It is true that that is a formidable part of the case against the Government's Motion, but it is only part of it. The other part is that even if adequate time to enable us to discuss the

  1101
  Lords Amendments had elapsed, there is still not adequate time to discuss them here. Both things are necessary. It is not only necessary to consider what Amendments are being put before the House; it is not only necessary to consider what Amendments to those Amendments will be recommended to the House; it is also necessary that there should be adequate time to consider those matters in the House in debate.
  What opportunity is left? Even if we accepted the proposal of the Leader of the House we should have only another 10 minutes to begin considering the Amendments today, and we should do nothing else until tomorrow, which is the last day before the Adjournment debate. Of course, it would be possible for the Leader of the House to say, "Let us do without an Adjournment debate on Thursday. Never mind all those matters which Members of the House have been waiting many weeks to discuss and which Mr. Speaker, in his discretion, has selected for debate on Thursday. Let us wash all that out in order that we may have a few more hours on these Amendments." Even if that were done, Mr. Speaker, there would still not be sufficient time, and what an outrageous thing it would be to do.
  It has been asked time after time in the last couple of hours, what is the urgency of this Bill? Why hurry it through? It is no answer for the Leader of the House to say, "We are in a hurry because we are in a hurry. We are in a hurry because we want it. We want it now because we want it now." The House is surely entitled to know why the Government ought to have the Bill now rather than after Easter, and the House is perfectly ready to consider any reason for that which the Leader of the House may have. But it will not do to go on repeating, "We want it because we want it" without giving any reasons for dealing with it in such a hurry.
  It is quite true that if the Leader of the House insists upon this matter he can have his way. The Government command more votes in the Division Lobby than we command. There may be some distinguished exceptions—I do not know. Judging by the speech to which we listened a short while ago, one would hope there would be some exceptions. It may
  1102
  even be that there are enough exceptions to prevent the Government from having their way, but that I doubt.
  The right hon. Gentleman can probably have his way if he wants it. He can insist. He can say, "Never mind the arguments, never mind the reasons and never mind the decencies. We have the power and we will exercise it. We will call upon our supporters to disregard the debate, disregard everybody's opinion and disregard the merits of the question, and in the end there will be more Ayes than Noes, or more Noes than Ayes, as the case may be," and the Government will have vindicated their power.
  Supposing that the right hon. Gentleman does that, what will he have achieved? What will he achieve that he will not achieve equally well or much better after Easter?
  Mr. Callaghan: He is going to do it anyway.
  Mr. Silvennan: We shall see. I hope not. It is suggested to me that the right hon. Gentleman is going to use a power of guillotining even this very debate in order to force this Bill through. What will he have gained if he does that? What he will have gained is that he will have put upon the Statute Book, perhaps a fortnight or three weeks earlier than it would have gone on to the Statute Book in any case, the Bill that he wants, in the form in which he wants it.
  In order to gain that two or three weeks of time, which cannot really matter to him, which does him no good and which makes no difference to the merits or the faults of the Bill either way; in order to make sure of that, the right hon. Gentleman uses his giant's powers—he is not so big as that, but never mind—in order to get it through and to have his way and to get his Bill two or three weeks earlier. In order to do that he strikes one more heavy blow at the respect in which representative Parliamentary Government is held in this country and throughout the world. He will have said to thousands— perhaps hundreds of thousands—of industrial workers who are vitally affected by this Measure, "Parliamentary democracy is only the rubber stamp of whatever party happens to have a Parliamentary majority at any given time."
  Is that really worth doing? Is it really worth doing at a time when representative Parliamentary democracy is under such

  1103
  heavy challenge in so many parts of the world? Is it really worth while, for the sake of having this Bill on the Statute Book, perhaps, 10 or 12 days earlier— and that is all—allowing people all over the country to say that there is nothing in Parliamentary democracy, that it is a mere farce and a question of arithmetic, of counting heads in Division Lobbies; that it has nothing to do with the merits of Measures, nothing to do with decency and with argument, but depends only on how many people there are in the House of Commons committed to one side or the other at any particular time?
  Surely the right hon. Gentleman, who is an old Member of the House of Commons, and who at the moment is its Leader, Leader of the whole House of Commons in these matters, Leader of the Opposition on these benches as much as his own when it comes to considering the way in which Parliamentary affiairs shall be conducted, does not really think it worth while, for the sake of this 10 or 12 days, this fortnight, it may be, to strike so heavy a blow at the prestige in which Parliament is held. Surely it is not worth doing that.
  Let the Leader of the House think again. I hope that my hon. Friends will give him the opportunity to think again, not now, when his passions are obviously involved, then he feels personally piqued because the proposal that he made was not immediately and gratefully accepted with both hands on this side of the House. Let the right hon. Gentleman give himself time to get over the natural resentment about his proposal being treated in that way, and consider the matter again against the broader background of what is really involved, weighing what he can gain by obstinacy against what he loses by temperateness, and seeing whether it is really worth while to proceed with the matter in the way that is now proposed.
  6.49 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Delargy: I do not want to make a speech, but I should like to ask a question. I did not altogether understand what the Leader of the House meant by the "concession" which he offered to us. It did, however, involve discussing the Lords Amendments before Easter. Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore contemplate dropping or postponing the Bill for the
  1104
  repair of the river and sea defences which is set down for Second Reading tomorrow? If so, that is a perfectly monstrous proposition to make.
  The Coastal Flooding (Emergency Provisions) Bill is an urgently needed Bill, far more urgently needed than the Transport Bill. The people in the flooded areas have suffered quite enough without having their interests set aside in this manner in order to gratify the Government's desire to get the Transport Bill through.
  Even if that were not in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman—and if it were not, I do not know what was—the effect of pushing through these Lords Amendments tonight and tomorrow morning might very well cut into tomorrow's business and, therefore, the Bill dealing with the defence of the sea walls would have to be postponed until after Easter. So far, all the debates we have had about the floods have been on a non-party level. No partisan political bitterness has been introduced into any of them, but if the Leader of the House goes on with the intention to put this Bill dealing with floods in jeopardy, he will introduce into the question of the flood disasters the party bitterness which, so far. all of us have kept out.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: I think it significant that the only speech in favour of the Motion has been the speech of the Leader of the House. All other speeches, including the one from the benches opposite, have been against the Motion. It ought to occur to the Leader of the House that he has not anyone on the back benches supporting him.
  I want for a few moments actually to have the impudence to talk about transport—
  Mr. Speaker: Strange as it may seem, we are not talking about transport.
  Mr. Mellish: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, except that the Lords Amendments are, of course, related to transport.
  In that sense I want to remind the House of one reason why we are so very concerned to have a full opportunity of discussing these Amendments. The Minister is aware that in May last year he indicated, on behalf of his party, that he would bring in a Bill to take

  1105
  transport back to pre-nalionalisation days and, under the original Bill, that would have been done. Throughout the proceedings on the original Transport Bill the intention was there but, fortunately, the Minister was able to learn something about transport during the process of that Bill because he was able to meet the trade unions, the British chambers of commerce, and all those interested in transport and they strongly advised him on the matter. As a consequence, on Third Reading, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), in a very able speech:
  "it was not until we reached the Report stage that the Minister came to the House and told us that a large number of complicated Amendments would have to be put down in another place in order to try to meet the criticism which was focused upon him last summer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 904.]
  That was criticism of the previous intentions of the Government. The Minister has given his assurance, and these Amendments alter the whole structure of the Bill. The original intention of the Government has gone. What they intend to do now, having met the criticisms of all those people, is to amend the Bill by means of the Lords Amendments. I respect the Minister for doing so and for taking the advice given him by people who know a lot more about transport than he or I do.
  We now come to the task of discussing the Lords Amendments which alter the Bill in a way in which many of us want it to be altered, bad Bill as it is. As a Member of this House I should like an opportunity of discussing with some friends outside the House, who have a great interest in transport and whose livelihood is affected—in some cases those who represent drivers, and so on—the implications of these Lords Amendments; but I have no chance of doing that. We are supposed, as responsible Members, to say what lorry drivers, trade union officials, and so on, think about the proposed Lords Amendments, but we are not given an opportunity of considering them properly.
  In his last speech, the Leader of the House said that it was not the usual practice to give a whole day to discussing Lords Amendments, but I should have thought that a whole day in which to
  1106
  discuss matters of consequence like this is an opportunity which he has missed. It is an extraordinary argument that fully to consider these Amendments did not warrant a fully well-ventilated discussion. In my view, it is essential for the Minister himself to find out about the Amendments. We shall find out later whether he has considered the whole of the Amendments, which completely alter the structure of the Bill, with the outside interests.
  Reference has been made to one Amendment alone which covers four and a half pages of the Lords Amendments paper. That is an Amendment which alters the Bill very much indeed. I do not think that the Opposition are asking anything unreasonable when we ask that those qualified to talk on these matters should be considered and that the whole question should be discussed in a decent atmosphere. There is a reference to page 35 of the Bill and to the question of compensation of those employed in the industry. That is another example of how absolutely vital it is, if the Bill is to work properly, that there should be satisfactory discussion with people outside who, after all, are affected by the Bill.
  I do not think that even now the Leader of the House has realised what the Bill means to many people in the country; thousands will be affected. I should have thought that a day's debate, at the proper time with proper consideration of the Amendments from the Lords, affecting so many people, would not be an unreasonable thing to ask.
  I appeal to the Leader of the House again. It has been said that he is a very experienced Parliamentarian. Many of us who are young in the House look to those with great experience to set us an example. Since I have been a Member —only since 1946— I have noticed that in opposition the right hon. Gentleman did set an example of ability and many times of integrity but, since he has been Leader of the House he has certainly not set that example to us. He knows that the Opposition have had to put down Motions of censure and that he has been personally responsible for complicating the business of the House.
  Here is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to show that he is a big

  1107
  man, that he recognises the rights of Parliamentary democracy and that there ought to be time to discuss a Bill of such a character. Not one supporter of the Government on the benches behind him has supported him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It is no good hon. Members objecting to that, because the only way in which to support is to get up and say that one supports the right hon. Gentleman
  The only speech from the benches opposite was by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) who, with exemplary frankness, told the right hon. Gentleman just what he thought of him, and we entirely agree. There can be no doubt at all that the hon. Member has shown up the rest of his party by the courage he has displayed. In fact, he was so good that we almost forgave him for the nonsense he tried to perpetrate when in opposition. We of the Opposition have no doubt that we have a good case but we have tried throughout the discussions of the Bill not to provoke any unnecessary argument.
  The Minister himself, in his Third Reading speech, paid tribute to the Opposition for the way in which they tried to meet him and said how much they had helped to improve the Bill. We want to meet him on the Lords Amendments and discuss them fairly and honestly, but at least we want to be given a chance to discuss them with a knowledge of what they really mean and what they are about. There is no doubt that we are being denied that opportunity.
  On this issue we have the support, not only of the road transport men, in whom I am particularly interested. In my constituency there were 60 firms which were nationalised, but also in my constituency there are a large number of railwaymen who are very interested in the Bill. There can be no doubt that these people consider the Bill will affect their livelihood. What they are hoping and praying for is that the Bill will not weaken their position. They are looking forward to the next Labour Government—
  It being Seven o'clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 {Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), further Proceeding stood postponed.

  KENYA (MASSACRE, UPLANDS)
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  We have now to discuss what is perhaps the most shocking event that has occurred in the history of our Commonwealth and Empire. I say that advisedly, because at the time of the Indian Mutiny—an event which seems most comparable with this massacre— India was not part of our Commonwealth and Empire. It is perhaps significant that, as a result of the Indian Mutiny, we altered the Government of India.
  What happened on this occasion? At about nine o'clock on Thursday there was a diversionary attack by lorry-conveyed members of the Mau Mau on a police station some 20 miles from Uplands. This attack, which dispersed the defending forces, was carried out with resolution. The police post was stormed and arms, including machine guns, were captured, as well as ammunition. About an hour after this attack no fewer than three columns converged simultaneously upon the settlement at Uplands. Their arrival was timed to coincide with the absence of the male population on Home Guard patrols. Those patrols had probably been diverted by the original attack on the police station.
  This second attack demonstrated discipline. It was a selective attack upon the houses of the families of the Home Guard and of the servants of the Government. Those houses were burnt down and the women and children ruthlessly massacred. Anyone who was concerned with Commando operations will realise the organisational difficulty of bringing three converging columns to a perfectly synchronised attack, which is what occurred on this occasion. This operation was on a military scale and argues highly competent central direction and planning. Since that occurrence, screening of the local inhabitants has taken place. Apparently local people have identified a large number of men who are said to have taken part in this attack.
  As a lawyer I am always suspicious of. "That is the man" evidence. I shall

  1109
  have something to say later about police methods adopted in Kenya. I shall not be altogether convinced even if this identification is corroborated by a quota of confessions. I find it hard to believe that an organisation which carried out and controlled this attack could leave the— I almost used the word "troops"—the people which it used for this purpose, to be collected and screened in that immediate locality. An organisation which could carry out an operation of that kind could also have carried out their evacuation to the Mau Mau hide-outs.
  It is now for us to consider the causes of what occurred and how they may be met. As the Secretary of State for the Colonies agreed at Question time, this is a new situation calling for new action. We have first to consider where the responsibility lies. I would say, first, that we cannot lay the responsibility upon the Kikuyu. The whole justification of our presence in that Colony, as in any other Colony, is that the Kikuyu are irresponsible; that they are people incapable of governing themselves; that they require protection and guidance. It is never for the protector and guide to place the blame for what goes wrong upon the colonial people, any more than it is right that a parent or a schoolmaster should place upon his children the blame for mischief which he ought to have controlled.
  I would say first that the responsibility lies upon the white settlers. They have been a governing class. They have failed to secure the loyalty of their servants, their tenants and their retainers. For a governing class to fail to secure that loyalty is a formidable indictment. I would say next that responsibility lies upon the Government of Kenya. Mau Mau came suddenly and unexpectedly on the Government, which argues a shocking failure in their intelligence service.
  At one time it was said that there was difficulty in finding in the whole Colony two people who could speak the language of the Kikuyu. These facts, ignorance of what was happening among the Kikuyu and ignorance of their language, argues a regrettable lack of interest in these people who are our wards.
  Thirdly, I say that responsibility rests in some measure upon the Minister. Though I consider it to be a false impression. He has in this House created an
  1110
  impression of indifference to African interests and African liberties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I say that may be a mistaken impression, but it is an impression which has been created, and which has done great harm in Africa. We understand the right hon. Gentleman better than do the Africans. It has perhaps been an error in manners, but it has resulted in serious consequences.
  Finally, I would mention failure to make economic provision for the people. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in believing that the primary cause of Mau Mau is a failure in personal relations, while not going so far as he does in saying that economic causes are irrelevant. So much for the causes of Mau Mau. But what are the causes of its growth, which has been so alarming that they can now carry out this military operation?
  Mau Mau began last summer with sporadic attacks on cattle. By September there were murders. By 20th October, when the right hon. Gentleman made a statement in the House, it had reached, as he recognised, the proportions of a national resistance movement. He then said of it that its purpose was to destroy all authority save its own. That is as good a definition as I can give of a national resistance movement.
  What have we done? Since then we have made almost every mistake available to an occupying or colonial Power faced with a national resistance movement. I recall a conversation which I had with a very experienced and, as I thought, wise German commander. He talked to me about resistance movements, and his success had a grim tribute paid to it in the transportation of the population of the Crimea to Siberia, which occurred afterwards when the Soviet forces came back.
  What he said was, "Hitler was always saying to us 'You must make the inhabitants more frightened of you than of the guerillas.' I believe that that is profoundly wrong. Terror is the coin of the guerilla. The purpose of the guerilla is to create chaos and anarchy, and terror is the foundation of chaos and anarchy. As one creates terror so does one build up what the guerilla is seeking to create. The only answer to a resistance movement is to obtain the support of the people, and we can do that only if we

  1111
  provide protection for those who support us, and if we provide them with justice and the means of living when they are under our protection."
  If those maxims are correct, then since October we have done almost exactly the opposite. We have failed to protect the Africans who support us. Chief after chief has been killed. There was Chief Waruhiu, who had been threatened. There was Chief Nderi. We failed to protect one chief even in hospital, so that the Mau Mau could kill him there. There was a councillor of the Council of Nairobi who, having asked for police protection and having been refused it, was killed in the streets of Nairobi. Finally, there was this massacre which occurred while the local Home Guard were out. and when no steps at all had been taken to protect their helpless dependents.
  We have failed. We have allowed the Mau Mau to demonstrate their power and our impotence. That is the first failure. The second is our failure to appeal to African opinion. The right hon. Gentleman said at Question time that African leaders are not forbidden to address their followers—
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): I am sorry to interrupt this travesty of what I said. I did not say anything of the kind. I said that the Kenya Government would sympathetically consider any application by an African leader to address a meeting, but no such application has been received. The hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to confine himself to the facts.
  Mr. Paget: What else was I saying? I said that at Question time the right hon. Gentleman had said that African leaders were not forbidden to address their followers, and that applications would be favourably considered. What use is that? Here are men who risk their lives if they attack Mau Mau. Is it enough to say that applications to do so will be favourably considered? It was the Government's duty to make every effort to persuade them to do so, to build up an alternative African leadership to Mau Mau, instead of adopting an attitude in which they did everything in their power to discredit the Africans who
  1112
  would help. They treat them in this sort of manner.
  Instead of trying to bring people round to their support they have done everything to antagonise them. They have gone in for collective punishment in a situation which was not like that in Malaya. General Templer went in for collective punishment in Malaya in a situation which he controlled. The Government have gone in for collective punishment in a situation which they did not control and in which they could not protect. That is the one way to antagonise a population and make them enemies.
  Finally, we have indulged in what I think can only reasonably be described as a competitive terror in this area. I wish to refer to some of the ordinances which have been issued. One provided:
  "Any person who … fails to stop after being challenged by an authorised officer, may be arrested by force, which force may, if necessary to effect arrest, extend to voluntarily causing death."
  Authorised officers are:
  "… any administrative officer, any forest officer, any game officer, any subordinate officer within the meaning of the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance …"
  Included are special constables who, without police training, have been enrolled from among the youngsters. They are men who I have heard reported from two sources have been heard in the bars of Nairobi hotels swanking about how many Kukes they have "potted." That has been the attitude of undisciplined police who have been causing terror.
  I should like to read a letter which was published in the "South London Press" from a detective named Tony Cross. He was a detective in the Streatham force and he is now a member of the Kenya Police Force. In a letter to his former colleagues he said that he polices 30 square miles in the heart of the Kikuyu country and that he inherited 50 prisoners without records of their crimes. He says:
  "As to Mau Mau activities we have three home guard sections each about 50 strong and they go out and bring in the information. Some are pretty good, and we go out and raid and knock a few off. Don't ask me why … just because the home guard say they are bad men. Anyway, after persuasion they usually confess something. I inspect all prisoners and if they are a bit dubious I refuse to have them. The next morning I am usually called to a dead body, and proceed normally.

  1113
  If you are on patrol and find some men hiding in the bush you call on them to stop and if they don't they are shot, or rather shot at. These boys are rotten shots, so I grab the first bloke's rifle and have a go. Compared with coppering in London, this really shakes you. There seem to be no judge's rules, cautions, etc., but I am gradually getting some proper policing. I am sure that all this Gestapo stuff never got anybody anywhere."
  That is a letter from a member of the Kenya police who had served as a detective in the London police. I agree with him. These Gestapo methods, as has been proved by one resistance movement after another throughout Europe, get nowhere in face of this sort of problem.
  I have not previously intervened in debates about Kenya. My grandfather was a distinguished colonial governor. I have been brought up in an atmosphere of government, with an intense feeling, which he felt and which was the basis of our Colonial Service, of responsibility for the protection of the natives whom we govern, and also in the profound belief that the man on the spot should be supported until the time came for him to be removed. I intervene now because I think that time has come. The Government have failed and they should be removed.
  The Kenya constitution ought to be suspended. Until we establish a new Government we shall not gain the confidence of the people. That Government, by their weakness, their failure and their irresponsibility, as evidenced by their police methods, have lost the confidence of the people. We shall not regain that confidence until we substitute for that Government strong government.
  I would urge upon the Government to recall General Templer from Malaya. The nut there seems to have been just about cracked, and the situation is in hand. Let them bring General Templer, who has proved himself in Malaya, to Kenya. Give him the power. Let him have political officers. Tell him not merely to pacify the country, which is essential, but also to build up there a proper foundation for an effective Government.
  Let his instructions include the Devonshire Declaration made by the Government of 1923, which is to this effect:
  "Primarily, Kenya is an African territory, and His Majesty's Government think it necessary definitely to record their considered opinion that the interests of the African natives
  1114
  must be paramount, and that if and when those interests and the interests of immigrant races should conflict, the former should prevail."
  Let that be given to General Templer or whoever is sent, and placed in his instructions.
  Tell him to start with a clean sheet, to form a new Government and to make it strong; and, by their resolution, by their justice and by their interest in all native populations that have been neglected, let them re-win for Britain the confidence of the people, who have to trust us. The Government, I feel, should go. They have allowed Mau Mau to build themselves up to a size when they could carry out this operation. This is the time for drastic, quick action, and it must mean a new Government.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: There is one matter on which the whole House will be united tonight, and that is our abhorence of the methods of Mau Mau. The mutilations and the murders which it has committed must have horrified everyone with a shred of human feeling, and these have reached their climax in the events of last week, which have led to our discussion tonight.
  May I say that I am particularly disappointed in the emergence of Mau Mau, because I have been identified with the African cause in Kenya, and I have seen that movement concentrating upon education and taking a series of constructive steps in preparing its proposals. It was a shock to see even a proportion of the Kikuyu tribe reverting to these methods of barbarism. In an earlier speech I recognised the strain which there has been on the European settlers—those men in the isolated farms who must have their guns at hand day and night, and who live under constant anxiety for their wives and children—but I think we shall do well to remember tonight that the African victims of Mau Mau have been many more than the European victims.
  I think I am right in saying that, up to this moment, eight Europeans have been murdered, while the number of Africans who have been murdered must by now have reached the figure of 250. While I want protection for the isolated European farmers, the Africans in the native reserves, with the danger of attack from the surrounding community never absent, require protection even more than the isolated European farmers.

  1115
  My first criticism tonight would be to emphasise the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), that that protection has not been provided. In the instance of the Larhi location, where the families of the members of the Home Guard were massacred, the members of the Home Guard on that occasion had all been called away, and it was in their absence that their unprotected families were massacred. In the case of the attack on the police station, the lives of three policemen were lost and a large store of munitions was seized, while less than three miles away were the Lancashire Fusiliers, and such little co-ordination was there in methods of defence that the European armed forces were entirely ignorant of the attack, which lasted some time.
  I say to the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the first condemnation must fall upon the Government of Kenya, and upon his representation of that Government in this House. I am not surprised that, among the population in Kenya, there is now a loss of faith in that Government. There is the demand by the white settlers for associations of responsibility in that Government. I welcome the demand for self-government in Kenya, but when that self-government comes it must not be self-government by one race but by all the races.
  The drawback of the policy which has been pursued by the Kenya Government and supported by the Secretary of State for the Colonies is that, from the beginning of the Mau Mau emergency, despite what he has said in this House, there has been the tendency to outlaw and to repulse the efforts of African representatives to co-operate against Mau Mau and against violence.
  I would urge tonight that, when we ask whether there should be African co-operation or not, the dividing line should be on this simple issue: Are you opposed to the methods of Mau Mau and of violence? That has not been the dividing line which has been drawn by the Government of Kenya. The dividing line which has been drawn by that Government has been to say that they will accept co-operation from the Africans only if the Africans themselves endorse
  1116
  100 per cent. the policy of the Government. But if the Africans are critics of the Government or have been leaders and have voiced the grievances from which the African people suffer then they are outlawed and their co-operation is refused.
  The African people are seething with grievances. Their leaders would not have represented them if they had not criticised us. They have their land problem. There are 1,200,000 Kikuyus on 20,000 square miles of cultivable land looking at 12,000 Europeans on 12,000 square miles of land. There is the serfdom of their condition among the European farmers. They sign three-year contracts and their wages are between 3s. and 4s. 6d. a week. They are not allowed to leave the district without passes from the manager. At the end of three years they have no alternative but to renew the contracts because there is then no land in the reserves and the conditions in the towns are worse.
  There are 10,000 homeless Africans in Nairobi every night. They receive a wage of 56s. a month, when the Medical Officer of Health for Nairobi says that 60s. a month is the lowest figure on which one human being can be kept healthy. Then there is the humiliation of the colour bar. I have been in Nairobi with men much more cultured than myself, and I have seen restaurant after restaurant and hotel after hotel refuse to serve them because they were coloured. I was ashamed, and they were humiliated. When one has that sense of frustration can one wonder that it turns to bitterness and sometimes to viciousness?
  Not only are there those practices of normal times, but there is now this practice of collective punishment. A European is murdered, and for 25 miles around every African, men, women and children, is moved, their huts burned down, their cattle seized, and they are dumped into already congested African reserves. With the men arrested, the women folk are left unprotected. The Government may by these methods destroy the Mau Mau organisation, but they will only increase the bitterness which is the cause of Mau Mau.
  I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government of Kenya to seek the co-operation of Africans who feel

  1117
  even more deeply than I do about the grievances which I have described, but who are opposed to the methods of Mau Mau and to violence. I was astonished by the statement twice made by the right hon. Gentleman in answer to Questions which I put to him in the House and once when interrupting the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, that on no occasion have the Africans in the Legislative Council offered to speak and to denounce Mau Mau at meetings.
  The right hon. Gentleman was in Nairobi at the same time as myself. The members of the Legislative Council made that offer to the Governor during the right hon. Gentleman's visit. That offer was refused on the ground that those leaders were not then prepared to denounce their predecessors who had been arrested. I believe they rightly said that they were not prepared to denounce the leaders of their organisation until those leaders had been found guilty. But because they adopted that attitude way back last November, the Government of Kenya refused to accept their offers to act against Mau Mau.
  I will now bring the matter more up to date. The right hon. Gentleman says that they have never offered to denounce Mau Mau. I will quote from the—
  Mr. Lyttelton: Before the hon. Gentleman continues with this particular argument, I think he should at least do me the justice of quoting me accurately. What I said was that no applications to address meetings had been received. The Kenya Government do not allow assembly on a large scale in the present state of the Colony. Therefore, in order to get a meeting, an application has to be made. It is quite true that one statement was made in the Press, but it was not accompanied by an application.
  Mr. Brockway: I will try to be moderate in my comment on what the right hon. Gentleman says, but, honestly, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to excuse the failure to secure African cooperation on the ground that they had not presented a signed chit to the Governor saying, "Your Excellency, we would like to address a meeting of our constituents of the Nyanza Province on such a date,"
  1118
  then I know of nothing which more condemns the Government of Kenya or the right hon. Gentleman.
  These men are members of the Legislative Council; they are Members of their Parliament as we are Members here. On 3rd February last Mr. Awori moved in the Kenya Legislative Council that African Members should be free to hold meetings with their people. That Motion was opposed by the Kenya Government, and was defeated by 24 votes to 13. On that occasion, Mr. Awori said that African Members found themselves in a most difficult position. When they came there they were supposed to speak on behalf of five million Africans, but when they left the Council they could not speak with them. If the Government had no faith in them then it was quite wrong for Africans to hold seats in the Council. Mr. Awori said:
  "If you do not want our co-operation the consequences will fall on the Government. You will regret it later."
  Those are prophetic words; but let me bring the issue right up to date. The tragedy which we are discussing today is that which occurred last Thursday night. "The Times" of last Saturday published the following report:
  "Mr. Awori said, ' This is definitely the work of Mau Mau gangsters and has shown the necessity of even stronger resistance against Mau Mau.' He added that peace loving Africans were not going to compromise with murderers, who might use the cloak of fighting for African freedom yet murder innocent women and children. Events had shown more than ever the necessity of the Government's allowing African leaders to speak to the people personally, and he was still prepared to go out into the reserves and forests to do so."
  I say to this House and to the right hon. Gentleman, that to withhold cooperation from the leaders of the Kenya African Union and the African people because those people rightly denounce the social, economic and political injusties from which they suffer, and when they are more deeply hurt by the methods of Mau Mau and this violence than we are, is a gross betrayal of all the responsibilities of Government.
  I hope very much that we shall regard the shock which will be aroused by the events of last Thursday as providing a new opportunity. I should like to see the right hon. Gentleman and the Governor in Kenya inviting inter-racial co-operation to deal with the issues which now

  1119
  face that Colony. I should like that racial co-operation to be based not only on plans to defeat Mau Mau but on a series of reforms which would remove the social, economic and psychological frustrations which are the causes of Mau Mau. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not impossible. On the day when I arrived in Nairobi, Mr. Michael Blundell, the leader of the European group on the Legislative Council, said that I ought not to be allowed to enter the Colony. He denounced me as a Communist, as having attended Communist conferences throughout the world and as having been arrested in Poland as a Communist. I have never attended a Communist conference in my life and I have not been arrested in Poland as a Communist or anything else.
  I mention that to show the psychology when I arrived in Nairobi. But before 10 days had passed, Mr. Michael Blundell was sitting round the table with us, with three other representatives of the European group, with the Indian representatives, with the Arab representatives and with the African representatives. There we discussed a programme of reforms. That programme of reforms was endorsed in general by those at that round table conference of the four races, with the exception of one of the European representatives.
  I say to the right hon. Gentleman that if my hon. Friend the Member for Old-ham, West (Mr. Hale) and myself, private Members of this House, could achieve that in 10 days, with all that psychology against us, then the right hon. Gentleman, if his real purpose in this House is to bring about inter-racial cooperation, should use the authority which he has here, and use it far more effectively, to bring about that result in Kenya. This is the only method by which we will stay the civil war which is now taking place among the Kikuyu. It is the only way in which we shall bring about racial co-operation. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to apply this method before it is too late.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. C. J. M. Alport: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) has once again made a passionate appeal for associating leading Africans with the problem of
  1120
  winning over the African population against Mau Mau. I recollect that on previous occasions when he made similar appeals the names with which he made some play were, in the first case, Mr. Mathu, and, in the second place, Mr. Odede. He knows as well as I do the problems which now surround those two individuals. It is true that they are quite different problems, but they are ones which any Government must clearly bear in mind.
  The hon. Member's judgment of these matters and his use of the names of leaders of the Kenya African Union would be more convincing if, in fact, there was precedence for reliance to be placed upon them for the purpose which he has in mind. I should have thought that his case would have been much stronger if in making his point he had used the names of the type of men who carry weight with African opinion and who represent the sort of influences which we wish to see spread among the Kikuyu. His case would have been much stronger if he had used the names of the loyal chiefs who have played a gallant and a practical part, at the cost of their lives in many cases, in meeting the hideous menace of Mau Mau.
  I find it difficult to follow entirely the logic of the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), because, in the first place, he was strongly critical of the Government in Kenya for not following religiously the normal processes of the law and then, towards the end of his speech, he posed as his solution of the crisis the complete abrogation of the present form of constitutional Government in the Colony. It may be that the Government in this country and the Government in Kenya are subject to criticism because they have been too closely attached to using the normal processes of colonial government, but surely that is, at any rate, an error on the right side. A complete abrogation of political forms as they have been developed in Kenya over this period should not be adopted except as a last resort.
  As I listened to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton I felt that this House was under considerable difficulties in debating this matter without complete information. It is all very well to rely for evidence upon chance conversations

  1121
  at the Nairobi bars, or the correspondence columns of the "South London Press" or even the leaders in the "Tribune." But in a matter of this seriousness, when speeches made in this House will clearly have an effect for better, or more probably for worse, on the situation in Kenya, it seems to me that this House would be only in the right in trying to ensure that before it discussed the matter it had the fullest information at its disposal.
  I do not find it at all curious, for instance, that the Kikuyu in the Mau Mau were able to execute a military operation of the sort that took place at Uplands. After all, many of them were trained in the Army and saw service in Burma for months and years in the last war. There is nothing extraordinary in the fact that those who wished to turn those experiences to ill-use should be able to do so. In fact—and here perhaps is the change in the situation which exists —we are facing a situation of civil war in the first place, a native war in the second place, and, in the third place, an organised revolution against the Government, led by what is clearly a centrally directed organisation.
  One of the most important questions —on which, I hope, it will be possible to get more information in due course— is who exactly is at the back of that central organisation. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton was very liberal in his distribution of the blame both here and in East Africa. He said, first, that the settlers were to blame for failing to secure the loyalty of the Africans who worked for them. My experience has been that the loyalty of the Africans—Kikuyu and others—is directed particularly towards the settlers with whom they have been associated and whom they have known as friends, in some cases for very many years. The persons who do not evoke loyalty from the Africans are very often those who have recently gone to live among them.
  It would be unfair to the vast majority of the white community in Africa to accuse them of failing to exact that loyalty from the other races with whom they are associated. We have the evidence of the last war—and I do not think that the bulk of the African peoples in Kenya have changed—that the sense of comradeship between the white settlers
  1122
  in Kenya and the Africans was stronger that it was between the Africans and those of us who came from the United Kingdom and were new arrivals to the Territory.
  Blame was attached to the Government in Kenya. It is true that when a great crisis like this develops in a small and poor Colony like Kenya it is frequently found that the machinery of government is inadequate to deal with the crisis. It may be that a modicum of blame attaches to the past, but it is very easy for us, here, who are now blessed with after knowledge, to apply that blame too viciously and too directly to those who were able, as they believed, to dispense with some of the elaborate machinery for the maintenance of law and order because they felt that in their Colony there was an atmosphere of peace and contentment.
  If the hon. and learned Member for Northampton read the Kenya Report for 1950, he would find that there was no reason for Her Majesty's present Government or the present Government in Kenya to have realised that this outbreak was imminent. It came suddenly, and it is extremely difficult in these cases to get more warning.
  Mr. Paget: I would entirely agree that the Government here cannot possibly be blamed for not knowing what would happen. The people who must be blamed are those in Kenya, who were responsible for the Kikuyu and were utterly ignorant of the great movement which was being organised there.
  Mr. Alport: Yes, but I would point out that the censure by the hon. and learned Gentleman must be directed at the present Governor who in fact, was not responsible for the particular matters which have been put forward by the hon. and learned Member.
  The next matter to which the hon. and learned Member referred—and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough repeated it —was the failure to deal with the economic conditions existing in Kenya. Let us be quite clear about this question. The economic conditions in Kenya are no worse than those which exist in other Colonies in Africa. I entirely agree with those hon. Members who say that there is an urgent need to raise the economic conditions and the standard of living of African peoples as a whole. We should

  1123
  all agree with that. But it is wrong to single out an incident, desperate and sad as it is, in a single tribe in a single territory, and to assume that the particular community involved was in a different position from others.
  Mr. Brockway: Is not the difference between Kenya and other Colonies—particularly Uganda—the fact that in Uganda Europeans are not allowed to own land, while in Kenya they possess much of the best land?
  Mr. Alport: That is not relevant to this point, for the Africans in Kenya own relatively—I am not going to argue the figures—as much land as they do in Uganda. The point that some hon. Members do not seem to realise is that relative to Uganda, Kenya is a very poor Colony. There is considerable mineral wealth in Uganda and there is very much better land available for certain types of primary products, and Uganda has always been known to be a much richer territory than Kenya. It is, therefore, most improbable, to say the least, that it would be possible to raise the standard of living—even with the best will in the world—and to ensure that the economic progress of a poor Colony like Kenya was exactly the same as that of a rich Colony like Uganda.
  The one point which I want to take up with as much vigour as I can is the use by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton of the phrase "national resistance movement" in relation to Mau Mau. We have had national resistance movements in the past. The Maquis in France were a national resistance movement and there were other movements of that type, but does the hon. and learned Member really think that Mau Mau, with the methods they have used and the organisation and inspiration which are behind them, are comparable with those other movements in Europe? As in so many cases, the use of words and the giving of titles are most important. They are apt to blind public opinion to the real significance of what is happening in Kenya at the present time.
  Mau Mau is primarily an organisation intended to enrich the organisers as much as possible. It is they who get the advantage of the money taken in for administering the oath. It is they who employ the thugs from Nairobi to carry
  1124
  out the robberies which have taken place in European and African quarters. The hon. and learned Member is doing a grave dis-service by giving such an appellation to this movement.
  In East Africa, and in Kenya in particular, we are facing a position which will require new action. One of the most important things which must be done is to ensure that in Kenya and in East Africa generally there is a far more stable basis for law and order than has existed up to the present, and I would urge my right hon. Friend to use all his influence to ensure that East Africa becomes, as it was to become under the previous Government—but did not, because for some reason plans were changed—a military base, which will ensure that if trouble arises again there will be a quick means of dealing with it.
  That military base should not be simply a European one; it should also include, as was planned in the past, an adequate African element. During the years which are to come in Africa—and we must consider not only the short-term interests but the long-term interests as well—it is vital, in my opinion, that there should be a basis of order and stability such as would come from a development of that sort.
  There is no hon. Member who has not heard the news of this last outrage in Kenya with horror and dismay and who does not realise what it means in terms of day-to-day living for Africans, Europeans, Asians and all those who support the Government and law and order. But I also believe that there is no hon. Member in the House who is not determined that law and order will be restored to Kenya from now onwards and who will not give to my right hon. Friend and to the Government full support in carrying that out.
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: I am sure we all join with the last words of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport); indeed we heard almost with dismay of the outrage last week. I intervene for only a short time in order to ask a few questions and to make a few comments. In the debate so far we have used the term "civil war." Indeed, there seems to be every danger that we are rapidly reaching a stage in Kenya which amounts to civil war.

  1125
  I was in Kenya a little under two years ago, and at that time there was no indication from any quarter that a movement of this kind existed, or, if it existed, that it was a movement which within two years would create this terrible situation in Kenya. The right hon. Gentleman was there much less than two years ago. I am sure that he, too, has felt that one of the problems which needs to be investigated is how it came about that a movement of this kind could grow to these proportions without the Government at home and the Government of Kenya being aware of it.
  We had a debate on Kenya last July in which the Secretary of State spoke. It was our usual annual colonial debate, but we devoted it, in the main, to the problems of Kenya, and the Secretary of State spoke about those problems. During that speech there was no indication at all that there was any trouble of this kind—that there was Mau Mau or any possibility of this outrage. Had he been advised of it, I am sure he would have told the House that there was this very great danger. Indeed, when this trouble first began, those representatives of the Government of Kenya who came to this country indicated in their public statements that this was a movement of a very few people, of a minority of the Kikuyu. We have now been told by very responsible people that a stage has been reached at which something between 80 and 90 per cent. of this tribe have taken this oath and at which it is believed that this movement was responsible for the horrible massacre of last week.
  I come to the points which I wish to make. It is quite clear to me that the massacre of last week was part of an attempt which is now being made by Mau Mau to terrorise and kill all those among the Africans who are loyal and active in support of the Government and against Mau Mau. That seems to be quite clear. I asked a supplementary question when the Secretary of State made his statement this afternoon, and I hope he will tell us something further about this matter later.
  Among these active, loyal Kikuyu are a number—I do not know the number; it must be hundreds and it may be thousands—who have taken all the very great risks of joining the Home Guard— how horrible are those risks was shown
  1126
  quite clearly by the events of last week. Correspondence from Kenya in the "Manchester Guardian" and other papers has been quoted to us, and there is a feeling that these men who are taking all these risks are not adequately armed to meet the danger which confronts them. I hope the Secretary of State will deal with that problem when he replies.
  I mention the next point because it is rather important. To what extent it has been a question of deliberate policy and to what extent it has been a question of voluntarily leaving the Highlands I do not know, but there has certainly been a movement away from the Highlands. There were a quarter of a million Africans working on the farms in the Highlands. I do not know how many are left now, but very large numbers of them—certainly thousands, and it may be tens of thousands—have left the Highlands and the farms and have crowded into the reserves.
  One of the major problems of Kenya, and it may be one of the deep-seated, root causes of Mau Mau, was the continuing congestion and overcrowding of the reserves, with all its consequences. If, three or two years ago, or even 12 months ago, before this outbreak occurred, the reserves were so terribly overcrowded, what must the position be now, with the outpouring into the reserves of the thousands of rootless proletariat? This afternoon the Secretary of State said this movement was due to the fact that the Africans were told by Mau Mau—I paraphrase what he says, and if I paraphrase unfairly no doubt he will intervene—"If you stay on these white Highlands and on these farms, and if you do not go back to the reserves, you will lose your share of the white Highlands when the share-out takes place." I do not know whether that is true.
  I have received what I think is the fourth issue of a news letter issued by the East Africa Women's League. Other hon. Members have received it, too, and no doubt the Secretary of State has received it. The issue contains a deeply impressive letter written by the wife of a settler describing the life and the terror which falls to their lot in the isolated farms. The letter is related to this problem which I believe is very much aggravated by the continual flow of Africans into the reserves.

  1127
  It is a deeply impressive letter which I hope hon. Members will read and which I should like to see published. It sets out all the problems and all the terrors which they face. She says:
  "But there is a third factor which is to me far more painful and difficult to contend with than either the fear or the boredom, and that is the atmosphere of suspicion in which we must live. Continually, on the wireless, by our Elected Members and other leaders, by our own E.A.W.L. Headquarters, we are reminded that we must not—repeat must not— trust our Kikuyu servants."
  In warning people in the Highlands that they must not trust their Kikuyu servants, are we not contributing to what I think is one part of the problem—and I am not putting it too high: by this policy we are playing right into the hands of Mau Mau and aggravating every possible problem. I asked the Secretary of State to deal with that aspect, and he gave a short reply this afternoon to a supplementary question.
  I shall not speak at length, because I have discussed previously all these problems and their underlying causes; but I should like to come to my main point and to what I think has been a mistake of policy. I put this forward with diffidence and with humility, but I believe that from the beginning we made a great mistake in policy in Kenya. It seems to me that the essence of wise leadership would have been to isolate Mau Mau from the Africans and the Africans from Mau Mau. After all, it was reported to us by responsible servants of the Kenya Government that when this movement broke out it was among a tiny minority. None of us can believe that tonight. Are we, therefore, to understand that the net result of our policy is this: whereas, less than 12 months ago, when this outbreak took place, Mau Mau could command the allegiance of only a minority of the people of the tribe, they now dominate it and that even up to 90 per cent. of the tribe have taken the oath?
  It may be said that it is due to the fact that they are able to terrorise the people of the tribe, and there is no doubt that there is a good deal of truth in that; but there is another aspect, and that is that from the very beginning we have left them to Mau Mau. I urge again what I have urged before: it seems to me that one of the first things that we
  1128
  should have done in Kenya was to support and strengthen the hands of the responsible African leaders who could have won the Africans away from Mau Mau. That seems to be the essence of the problem. Instead of that—I do not think anyone can deny it—the effect of what we have done is to leave the people leaderless.
  I wish to come again to the question of meetings, a matter which I raised earlier. The Africans are a people who love to come together. Their very life is built on that. They are continually together. Yet we now leave them entirely to the leaders of the Mau Mau, to the terrorists, and they are never able to see or hear their own responsible leaders. It was several months before Mr. Mathu, a member of the Executive Council and a member of the Cabinet, was allowed or was asked to broadcast to his people, but eventually he was permitted to do so. The Secretary of State referred to that this afternoon, and repeated his remarks in an intervention.
  It may be that the African leaders have not made a request to be allowed to address meetings—I do not dispute it for a moment if the right hon. Gentleman says so—but I should like to repeat something that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), that recently there was a debate inititated by the Africans in the Legislative Council in which the terms of the Motion debated sought to enable them to speak to the African people and offer them constructive responsible leadership against Mau Mau. Yet the Kenya Government advised the Legislative Council to reject the Motion, and it was rejected. Why should it have been rejected?
  There were Members of Parliament asking the Legislative Council to approve a Motion to enable them to go and speak to their own people and to rally them behind the responsible Government against Mau Mau, and yet the Kenya Government advised the Legislative Council to reject the Motion. I cannot understand it. The Secretary of State has told us about the reasons the African leaders have not been addressing meetings. I know there has to be a limit on the size of the meeting and I appreciate the security problems, but if an important reason is said to be that the Africans

  1129
  have not asked to be able to do so, here was an instance of them asking collectively (in the Legislative Council, and yet the Kenya Government advised the Legislative Council to turn down the request.
  I wish to plead with the Secretary of State again. Why should we wait until the Africans ask to be allowed to go and address their people? Why do we not encourage them, support them and stand by their side? If we do so, we shall offer alternative leadership to these African people.
  I should like a conference of representatives of all the races concerned. I should like to see joint leadership being offered to all the people in Kenya— Africans, Asians and Europeans alike. I should like us to take all the steps that are possible to bring all the races together so that we might provide an alternative leadership to that of Mau Mau. What is the alternative? That is what worries me. What I am afraid of is not the danger that this might become a struggle between all the responsible, loyal, peaceful people in Kenya and the Mau Mau, but that it might become a racial conflict.
  If it becomes a racial conflict, which of us would dare contemplate the future of that Colony? The hon. Member opposite who said that this is not one of the richest Colonies in Africa was right. In many respects it is one of the poorest in its resources. It has a very big task to build up its resources. We know perfectly well that there is no future for anyone in Kenya except on the basis of racial co-operation. What future would there be for the settlers?
  We know what is happening now. What would happen to the farms in the white Highlands without the 250,000 Africans there? It is true that the settlers bring the capital, the skill, and knowledge and the technique, and have established European agriculture in the white Highlands, but unless they can get Africans to work with them there will be nothing but desolation. The Africans are going away, and I do not know what will happen. Who can contemplate what will happen?
  If this situation is to harden and deepen into a racial conflict, then there is nothing
  1130
  but a very bleak and unhappy prospect for Kenya. It is essential for us to avoid any policy, wherever it may stem from, which may harden the present tendency for this trouble to become a battle between whites and blacks. We must encourage every possible movement to make it a battle of all the responsible people, Europeans, Asians and Africans, against the terrorism.
  Last week many of us had the privilege of listening to and discussing and arguing with Mr. Michael Blundell, the leader of the Europeans in Kenya. I wish to make a suggestion to the Secretary of State as an alternative to a suggestion which I made when we were discussing this matter earlier. I then suggested that an all-party delegation should go from this House to Kenya. I still think it was a wise suggestion, for it would have established contact on an all-party basis with all sections in Kenya. However, it was rejected. Mr. Michael Blundell has been over here and we have had the opportunity of meeting him. of discussing and arguing the problems with him, and of listening to his point of view and of putting ours.
  I suggest to the Secretary of State that he should invite representatives of the Africans and the Asians to come here as well. It may seem a small tiling, but I beg the House to accept the viewpoint that in everything we do and say, all the emphasis must be on bringing the whole of the people together. We have had the opportunity of meeting Mr. Blundell—I was very glad to renew my acquaintance with him, because I had met him in Kenya—and now that we have heard the European leader and he has gone back, it is important for us to say that we are anxious also to hear the African leaders and the Asian leaders.
  Let us maintain the right relations with all the races in Kenya. I hope it is not too late still to urge that we ought to avoid like the plague any step of any kind, economic, political or military, which will finally transform this trouble into a bitter struggle between white and black. We today ought to take every possible step to encourage all the people in Kenya to make this a battle of responsible people, working together in strict co-operation, to destroy Mau Mau.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Amery: I am sure that the whole House joins with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in the emphasis he laid on the importance of avoiding anything that might make this conflict into a racial war. I think, too, that the anxiety which he has expressed, and which all of us share, over events in Kenya has been increased and deepened by what has happened recently.
  We all know that at the beginning of the trouble in Kenya there was a breakdown in the intelligence services advising the Government as to what was taking place inside the country. We had hoped that the reorganisation of those intelligence services that was carried out recently would have changed the situation; that the Kenya Government should now be more familiar with what was happening among the Kikuyu. I am bound to say, however, that recent developments have aroused in my mind concern about the reorganisation of the intelligence services and the general set-up for tackling this insurrection. It seems they are not yet in the shape they should be.
  There has been a tendency from the beginning, particularly in the Press and among public opinion, to underestimate the gravity of the Kenya development. I am not one of those who sees a Communist under every bed. But it is quite clear that the leaders of the Mau Mau insurrection have understood and adapted, at any rate a good deal of the Communist revolutionary technique which has been applied to insurrections in other parts of the world. Of this I am sure: that if we do not succeed in bringing the movement under control very soon Communist influences will eventually take hold of it and grow.
  One of the questions we have to ask ourselves is: are we tackling the insurrection problem from the right point of view technically? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) emphasised the importance of assuring protection to the loyal African elements, and that is the key to the matter. Have we got the right kind of organisation and forces to meet this danger? To put the matter in simple form: is the Army the right instrument for suppressing guerilla warfare? I must say, as one with slight experience of guerilla warfare, that I rather wonder
  1132
  whether regular formations like brigades, battalions and even companies are the right kind of formations for dealing with a trouble of this kind.
  What I am going to suggest is rather outside the scope of this debate, but it has to do with the matter. We have a cold war developing and insurrectionary undertakings in different parts of the world. Should we not therefore contemplate the formation of some new corps, something between the Commandos and a gendarmerie that would be equipped and divided into the right size of squadrons and units to cope with this kind of activity?
  Let me mention another technical subject, that of collective punishment. It is a very difficult subject. Having seen collective punishment carried out by the Germans in the occupied territories of Europe, I would say, studying it simply as a technique for the restoration of order, that there is one fundamental principle which we must bear in mind. Any collective punishment which deprives a man of his means of livelihood and yet leaves him at liberty tends to drive him into the hands of the insurrection party, whoever they may be.
  A man can be imprisoned, or confined within certain limits and punished, as General Templer is doing in Malaya, or he can be dealt with as the Germans and Russians do and his life taken away, but if his means of livelihood is taken from him and his home burned down, there is a tendency and temptation to find a new home among the rebels.
  Having voiced these anxieties and criticisms over what is happening in Kenya, I should like to turn to what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway). First of all, I should like to say, since it has not been mentioned yet, that I thought it was regrettable that in this very important debate the hon. and learned Member for Northampton should have made a gratuitous, unfounded accusation against the alleged indifference of my right hon. Friend, which has nothing to do with the debate and for which he has not produced a shred of evidence.
  He made one main constructive point in the sense that it was new. He said that the settlers were in the position of

  1133
  ruling classes in Kenya, and he deduced from that that the present constitution should be suspended and all power concentrated in the hands of the Government. I thought he was wrong when he said the settlers were a ruling class. Certainly, from the Marxist point of view he was wrong. As I understand, the essence of a ruling class is not only their privilege but their responsibility.
  The weakness and the difficulty of the situation in Kenya is that, though the settlers undoubtedly have privilege and economically constitute a privileged class, they have not got political responsibilities. One of the reasons for the tension there and in some of the other Colonies is because there are two classes separated economically, glaring at each other, as it were, across the barrier, with the scales held by an administration which is responsible to neither. If, eventually, things could be brought to a point where they form a homogeneous community in which the ruling classes economically also have responsibility politically the racial conflict may become less grave than it now is.
  Mr. George Wigg: If the hon. Member is thinking in Marxist terms it seems to me he is falling into error. Not only have the settlers in Kenya privilege but they have power, and my hon. and learned Friend was pointing to the fact that we have a class in Kenya which has privilege and power and certainly has no responsibility.
  Mr. Amery: I will meet that point. It has not got responsibility at the moment. At the moment, it has not power in the sense of controlling and ruling the country in the sense of directing the operations against Mau Mau.
  I think it is a mistake to refer to the settlers as ruling classes in the way the hon. and learned Gentleman did, and I think it was a mistake to deduce from this that the Constitution ought to be suspended. What I would say is that, not necessarily at present, when the emergency is going on, but eventually, when we come to try to settle the long-term problems, there is something to be said for giving much more power not to the settlers only but to all the different communities on the spot; to try to create a Government which will be more responsible to the people on the spot than it is today.
  1134
  The hon. Member for Eton and Slough spoke of the importance of overcoming the deep-rooted economic and social problems of Kenya and of the colour bar. He will remember that these difficult and intractable problems are not easily solved. It was surely not through lack of goodwill that it was not solved in the six years when the party opposite were in power. It was a very difficult and intractable problem then, and it is not possible to meet and solve this particular emergency by producing out of the hat, like the conjuror producing the rabbit, a solution of the particular problem presented by the insurrection.
  It is difficult to see an easy solution to these matters. Anybody who has seen guerrilla warfare from the guerrilla point of view knows what tremendous advantage the guerrilla has against the forces of law and order, particularly in a country where the means of subsistence are not hard to come by. The hon. and learned member for Northampton, who initiated the debate, did us a service in giving us a chance to make our views known, but he drew the wrong conclusion, in casting blame on the Government of Kenya, on my right hon. Friends here, on the Army, the police and on all concerned.
  That is the wrong approach and is not helpful. This is not a political issue between the parties here. There are loyal Africans supporting us, and some of them have laid down their lives. There may be others who are wondering whether to support us actively themselves. This terrible blow, which has fallen not on the white settlers but on our African fellow-subjects, this atrocity, may convince many who are wavering today of the need for drawing together with the Government and helping them pursue a more active policy to suppress Mau Mau. It may be that out of this disaster will come a new chance for all concerned.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mrs. Eirene White: Many hon. Members will agree with a number of the points put forward by the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), but will regret that he did not make some of them a little earlier. His view on collective punishment is one with which many of us would have heartily agreed, but his comments come a little belatedly when this particular method of dealing with the trouble is being regarded

  1135
  in Kenya as doing more harm than good. His comments, drawn from very valuable experience, might have been made with rather better effect some three or four months ago.
  Mr. Amery: It is not always possible to catch the eye of the Chair.
  Mrs. White: The columns of "The Times" are usually open to the hon. Gentleman, I believe.
  It is very useful for us to have this debate. Every hon. Member is convinced that affairs in Kenya are entering a new and very serious phase. It is no longer purely a matter of small numbers of persons operating in small gangs. We are entering a phase of organised guerilla warfare, of quasi-military operations. It is right that we should have this debate because it is clear that there is considerable lack of confidence both in this country and, as I hope to show in a moment, in Kenya on the steps which have been taken to deal with the situation, and doubts whether the Government and the forces in Kenya are fully apprised of the difficulties of the task and adequately organised.
  I am not a military expert in any sense of the words, but if I were a loyal Kikuyu and if I had been told only a week before this massacre, for example, by Mr. O'Hagan, Provincial Commissioner of the Central Province, in Nairobi on 19th March, that three teams of loyal Kikuyu were touring certain districts to assure their fellow-tribesmen that now, with protection, they had a chance for a change of heart, and if, within a week, this massacre occurred, I should have doubts that, far from strengthening my resolve to join the forces of law and order, might very much weaken that resolve.
  One cannot help wondering how anyone could give the kind of advice which Mr. O'Hagan was giving to Africans in view of the events, not only of the massacre at Lari but also of the attack on the police post on the same night. How could one pretend that conditions were such that loyal Africans could reasonably be encouraged to come forward when one has a position in which a large amount of ammunition and store of arms was available, and in which we were told there were only six police
  1136
  constables on duty—five, I think, resting —and in which two lorry loads of attackers had managed to drive 40 or 50 miles, it is suggested; when, according to the regulations which are nominally in force in Kenya, there should have been somewhere along those roads police posts, road blocks, and so on? After all, this attack was not right up in the Aberdare Mountains, and it seems to me that purely on grounds of organisation there is serious cause for concern.
  I have said that it is not only in this House that there is lack of confidence in this matter. I shall read a passage from an editorial in a weekly newspaper printed in Kenya written before this latest disaster. The last issue available, 20th March, of the "Kenya Weekly News" says:
  "Reports still persist of muddle and inefficiency in the battle against the Mau Mau. Every settler who returns to his farm on leave from the fray seems to have a similar and depressing tale to tell. It is a tale of waste of money and of opportunities, of the lack of a common policy and of over-all direction; of highly-paid 'dugouts' in jobs for which they are no longer mentally or physically well-equipped; a tale which always leads to the conclusion that there will be no near end to this business without a radical change of policy and of practice."
  That is not a "long-haired Socialist" speaking, but the editor of a well-known paper in Kenya. I believe, from letters I have received and from other publications I have read, that it represents a fairly strong body of opinion in the Colony itself.
  It is pointed out that the state of emergency has now been on between five and six months. Before that, there were several months of unrest. It has been suggested by Major General Hinde that at least another six months will be required to get anywhere near restoring law and order. Only now, apparently, are steps being taken to give the kind of training at which I think the hon. Member for Preston, North was hinting. A number of times in this House we have referred to the deficiencies of the intelligence service which appear to be once again demonstrated. There are complaints of vacillation in Government policy.
  There is also the question of collective punishment which was employed despite very strong criticism from this side of the House, and we are now glad of some

  1137
  support from the other side. There are stories of treatment by the police which, when it is meted out very often to persons who are, in fact, innocent, can hardly have the effect of making them enthusiastic supporters of the Government. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the House further information about the methods and the criticisms which are being made on the more technical side.
  After all, as we have proved in this country, it is not brutal and brutalising punishments that cure crime; it is the certainty of detection—in other words, the organisation of the police and military forces, as the case may be. To adopt methods of collective punishment or third degree treatment by the police is far from being a substitute. It has the worst possible effect, whereas adequate and thoroughly efficient organisation would be a much better encouragement to loyal Africans to come to the side of the Government.
  We are particularly concerned by the position in the reserves and by the drift of people from the European settled areas. The Secretary of State suggested that this was largely due to the encouragement of the Mau Mau leaders themselves, but there appears already to have been in Kenya a diversity of official voices on this matter. The police and the military authorities have been encouraging the settlers to get rid as rapidly as possible of their squatter labour. The civil government, on the other hand, have been aware of the extreme difficulties which have resulted from this, including the threat of famine, and have, I understand, been trying to exercise a more moderating influence. What they are trying to achieve now, in the most difficult of circumstances, is the settlement of the squatters in villages, which has been urged from this side of the House for some time past on quite different social grounds as being desirable.
  Two things are needed if we are to master this situation. Both points have been emphasised in one way and another by previous speakers. The first is a much more competent direction of the operations. This lack of confidence, both here and in Kenya, is not without foundation, I am quite certain. Until one has real assurances of that kind, we will not get the real co-operation of the Africans.
  1138
  There will, in addition, be the gulf between a number of the settlers and the administration in Kenya, which also appears to be widening. This in itself is a serious problem.
  I agree again with the hon. Member for Preston, North that that gulf exists and is bound to widen until and unless there is a more responsible Government in Kenya; and this must be on a multiracial basis. It is extremely unfortunate that the constitutional discussions initiated by my right hon. Friend have, no doubt necessarily, had to be postponed, but even in this emergency it would be worth while to start those discussions again.
  I say that not only from the point of view of the Africans, but also from the point of view of the Europeans and the Asians, who have very great interests in the present state of affairs in Kenya. It would be in the interests of all three races that discussions of that kind should once more be started. One of the hopeful signs of the situation is that people like Mr. Michael Blundell and some of his associates have been prepared to continue discussions on economic and other social measures although the emergency has been continuing. I should have thought that if those matters of wages, and so forth, could be discussed, so, also, could the political issue. Unless the full co-operation of all sections of the community in Kenya can be obtained in this matter, the outlook for progress and development in the Colony is very dim indeed.
  I hope we shall have from the Government spokesman tonight reassurances on these points and recognition that it is not just fractiousness on our part, as is sometimes suggested by the Secretary of State, which makes us bring up these matters. We are very much concerned with what is going on there and I think the House is entitled to have reassurances both on the technical matters and on the political issues which are at stake.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: We are grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and other speakers on this side of the House who, since the opening two speeches, have kept the debate on a reasonable level, but there were certain points in the hon. Lady's speech with which I could not fully agree.

  1139
  I think she did less than justice to the loyal Kikuyu in saying that because of the terrible events of the massacre they would not tend to line up and help deal with the emergency, but would rather be discouraged. I am sure that they would react in just the same way as she would if there were lots of burglaries. I am sure she would find out how to join the special constabulary and not take the advice of a former Solicitor-General on her own Front Bench to see if there was a burglars' club she could join. I am sure that loyal Africans are the same, and will do their best in the emergency as it exists.
  The hon. Lady spoke of the amount of work to be done. Quite often people do not appreciate the enormous amount of work to be done by a relatively small body of manpower, not only in fighting the emergency, but also in moving and re-settling thousands, and possibly tens of thousands, of Kikuyus moving back to the reserves.
  I regretted very much some of the remarks by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in opening the debate, but I should like to support what he said about this operation being clearly very well planned. Knowing very little about the planning of such operations, I believe that it was not planned by any African of the type of which I have heard in Kenya at present. The timing of the two raids to distract the attention of those who might have been guarding this particular settlement was obviously very carefully and closely planned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) said, there are many Africans who could carry out such a raid, but I think that the planning of such an operation was a different matter and as time goes on we shall have to see how the planning of such an operation might have been carried out. In Kenya, after all, we are in a state of war. It is not just some sudden emergency, but a state of war resulting from a long period of preparation.
  I repeat what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, that there was, I believe, a shortcoming in the intelligence service in Kenya. The greatest shortcoming probably was among the district officers. As I said in a similar debate last November, I do not blame
  1140
  them because I think that with the mass of work that has been given them, particularly since the war, the district officers are more and more taken from their primary job of knowing their people and are given all sorts of paper work and office work to do, arising from the vast growth of central Government. What we have to do, and I know that many administrations throughout Africa are trying to do it, is to relieve the district officer of this over-burden of paper and get him back to his primary job.
  I regret very much the disgraceful attack made on my right hon. Friend to the effect that he is indifferent to Africans. Thank goodness we had him with his firm policy, to deal with these situations as they arise. I shudder to think what would have happened if certain hop. Members opposite had had to deal with these matters. I thought it was a disgraceful and unwarrantable attack, unsupported by any evidence.
  The hon. and learned Member went on to talk about the failure to make economic provision in the past. I do not wish to raise the temperature of this debate or to introduce party feeling. But surely more could have been done about that during the 6½ years while there was a Socialist Government. More could also have been done about the settlements in Nairobi, which everyone agrees have grown up to the great detriment of people of all races living in Nairobi.
  The situation, which the hon. and learned Gentleman described as different from that in Malaya, is not in my opinion all that different. I did not understand quite what line he was taking about that, but I know, despite the attacks made upon him by certain hon. Members opposite, that General Templer has by his policy obtained a control over a large part of Malaya. But do not let us think that the battle is over there yet.
  I would say a word in support of the "young constables" referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. I am reminded of what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) on another occasion about "brash" young men dealing with this emergency—and "swanking about in bars" or elsewhere. It was astonishing for the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, who is a lawyer, to call

  1141
  purely hearsay evidence to support his argument. I think that the hon. and learned Member and others should go and see what these young men are facing every night—the tortures and the attacks on people of all races.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: I know from his general attitude to the House that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) would not wish to make an incorrect statement. I believe that the statement which he attributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who is a lawyer, was made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway).
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I was referring to a debate some months ago and reference was made to a "brash" young man—
  Mr. Wigg: That is a little unfair to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who, when he was reading a statement made by a police officer, was in fact reading a statement reported in the "South London Press." The Secretary of State was sufficiently interested to instruct a senior police officer from Scotland Yard to go to the police station to get the original letter. My hon. and learned Friend was making no allegation but was repeating what was said in the letter.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is a different point from the one I made. If the hon. Member looks at HANSARD tomorrow he will find that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton talked about "young constables" swanking in bars about the number of Africans they had shot. I can assure the hon. Member that that is the point with which I was dealing.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), the former Secretary of State for the Colonies, referred to the Kikuyu being leaderless. I would say to him that there are other leaders than politicians. Many leaders still exist among the Kikuyu in the tribal areas. In particular there are their chiefs and others to whom they look for guidance. I think it wrong to say the Kikuyu are leaderless because some members of the Legislative Council with a knowledge of English and other attributes are not doing what the right hon. Gentleman thinks they should;
  1142
  or that there are not other leaders doing their best to give a lead to their people.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Those representatives have not got on to the Council. An African on the Executive Council was appointed by the Governor. Those on the Legislative Council are appointed by their own people.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is not the point the right hon. Gentleman was making. He gave the impression, even though he did not mean it, that he regretted the members of the Legislative Council were not taking the lead, and he thus implied that the Kikuyu were leaderless. The point I am endeavouring to make is that there are other leaders among the Kikuyu in Africa and in this country, in addition to members of the Legislative Assembly. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that these loyal chiefs and leaders among the Kikuyu are doing a tremendous amount of work. Many of them have paid with their lives for the loyalty they have shown in trying to protect their own people from the murderous element of the Kikuyu.
  Relatively few people realise the enormous task which the forces of security have to face, and how large is the area of the Aberdare Mountains. Those forces are doing their utmost to see that order is restored in an area which has been described as being only as large as Surrey but which, in the conditions of Africa, is very large indeed. In such an emergency, as we found in this country in 1940, a very large organisation is required to arrange quickly and efficiently a competent security system with all the forces, the police, the Regular Army, who I am glad to see are being strengthened, and the Home Guard.
  Everybody in Kenya would agree that there are many shortcomings, but we should pay tribute to what has been accomplished in the past few months rather than try to stress those shortcomings in this House. I am sure that all hon. Members will support Sir Evelyn Baring, the present Governor, the Administration and the efforts of all races— all races are co-operating and suffering from Mau Mau—to restore once again law and order in what must again be a happy part of Africa.
  8.57 p.m.
  Sir Leslie Plwnmer: We are not only discussing the dreadful and frightful disaster of last Thursday but also the appalling consequences which may flow from it. Statements have been made about young Europeans swaggering about the bars of Nairobi and boasting of the Africans that they have potted. I do not know whether that story is true. I happened to read it in a newspaper, just as did my hon. Friends. But what happens in conditions like this when the passions of young men are aroused by the dreadful happenings in the country is that some of the more hotheaded and irresponsible may use phrases which do not redound to their credit, and which do a great deal to exacerbate the hatred which the Africans are showing to anybody who exercises law and order and authority.
  One of the terrible consequences of this situation is the possibility that people may be actuated by revenge instead of a desire to try to get a clean sweep in Kenya". Some doubt has been cast on the letter from Tony Cross, the ex-detective from Streatham, which he wrote to his friends at the station house. That letter is written in most moving terms. It is not couched in official language. It is not the report of a detective to his inspector detailing an account of the night's work. It is a letter written in language that his friends will understand.
  Therefore, it is all the more convincing. This fellow writes this private letter home using the phrases that detectives use to each other in the canteen. He describes a situation where revenge is the motive instead of the preservation of law and order. On all sides of the House hon. Members can understand the emotions of people caught up in this dreadful web of murder, assassination and mutilation. We must resist this attempt to use the situation for purposes of revenge, and I think it is the duty of the Government here to see to it that every restraint and influence is put by the Government of Kenya on the people in the Home Guard.
  There are some sinister phrases now appearing in our newspapers from correspondents in Nairobi. For instance, there is the sinister phrase to the effect that prisoners were shot dead while trying to escape, which is a familiar phrase which we remember so clearly from 1939 onwards. Then there are sinister phrases
  1144
  about men jumping over cliffs and out of windows to escape, and may be they are true; but there is growing up in this country today an unhealthy feeling that something is not quite right with the forces that we are using. When a detective writes home to his friends here and says, "I do not like the situation that is going on and I do not like to go out and have to pick up dead bodies; I do not like this institution of a Gestapo," we must listen to what he has to say, for he speaks with the voice of honesty and in terms with which nobody could quarrel.
  There has been some discussion by the hon. Members for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) and Colchester (Mr. Alport) on the point that this is a carefully organised campaign. I am sure it is; it is a campaign organised in the teeming slums of Nairobi; it has been born out of the hovels behind the Swamp Road. It is born out of the grievous sense of dissatisfaction, the grinding poverty and continuing despair which Africans have. In my time here, I have urged that one of the best ways in which we might try to meet this situation is by raising the wages of the Africans. These Africans' wages have been referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) and Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who produced in this House actual contracts between African squatters and Mr. Michael Blundell, whereby these Africans got 12s. a month.
  Mr. Alport: Is there any evidence that the contracts were authentic?
  Sir L. Plummer: There was every evidence of it, because they were signed by the employer's agent, finger printed by the employee and attested by the district commissioner or other legal officer whose duty it was to approve them. At least, I have not seen that anybody has yet denied their legality.
  Mr. James Hudson: Does not my hon. Friend recall that, when my hon. Friend produced the contracts in this House, they were passed across to hon. Members opposite, who did not question their authenticity?
  Sir L. Plummer: There is nothing peculiar about these contracts; they were the ordinary run of contracts for labour at that time throughout the whole

  1145
  country, and nobody has argued against them. These are the forms used and the standards laid down, and the defenders of this low wage economy have been saying that if we raised the wages of the Africans we should upset the economy of the country; that is to say, the low wage economy of the country which is based on 12s. a month for the squatter plus a few cents a pound to his family for picking pyrethrum, and 56s. a month for Africans who work in Nairobi.
  Mr. Anthony Marlowe: Did the hon. Gentleman pay those wages when he was out there?
  Sir L. Plummer: I did not employ on the same terms, but I was constantly under pressure by the Government not to increase African wages because, if I did so, it would upset the economy of the country and would make it difficult for other employers to get labour. This theme was constantly being urged, and I honestly do not believe that it is to the benefit of this country or the African people for us to deny that we are running the country on the basis of a low wage economy. It is the very nerve and nub of the situation we are facing.
  It has been argued that in trying to raise the wage of 12s. a month for the squatter and of 56s. a month for the town worker we shall upset the economy of the country and place a burden upon it which it cannot afford. But the present state of affairs is costing the country £500,000 a week. That money is going down the drain, and is a dreadful burden on the country.
  Mr. Lyttelton: It is £500,000 a month. Divide by four.
  Sir L. Plummer: I meant to say £500,000 a month, which is a tidy sum of money. While I do not agree with the view that every penny spent in a war could, if saved, be spent on social services, I do believe that part of that £500,000 could be used to raise African wages to a level which would enable the Africans to keep themselves and their wives and children in health and decency. That would go a long way towards making it clear to the Africans that the Government want to defeat Mau Mau not only with military weapons, but with the economic weapon of enabling people to increase their standard of living.
  Mr. Alport Mr. Alport rose—
  Sir L. Plummer: I am afraid I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have been interrupted enough, and I want to finish because there are several other hon. Members who wish to speak.
  Sir Philip Mitchell has described the life of the African in Kenya—and I hope it does not upset hon. and right hon. Members opposite—as being short, dark and brutish, but the African endures. The lot of the African is not a happy one. It is a hard and dismal one, and it is not being made any better by the present situation, and the African will not accept the position that he will get nothing at all out of this situation.
  I beg the right hon. Gentleman to see that motives of revenge are not used in Kenya, that caution is used and exercised in seeing that the forces of law and order conduct themselves with absolute propriety at all times, and that immediate steps are taken by this Government and by the Government of Kenya so to raise the economic life of the people of Kenya that they will recognise and accept that this House and this country are concerned about them.
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: If I do not follow in detail the remarks of the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), it is only because they appear to me to have little relevance to the Motion we are now discussing. We have had these economic diatribes and the production of contracts in this House many times before.
  I thought that the purpose of this debate was to discuss the very serious issue, as presented by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), of the massacre of a large number of loyal Kikuyu. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton suggested how protection could be given in the future to Africans loyal to the Government. He also made some criticism of the Kenya Government and said that he thought it ought to be replaced. At least, that is how some of us interpreted his speech.
  When it comes to a question of confidence in the Kenya Government, I am not at all sure how much hon. Members opposite should claim to have this interest

  1147
  at heart when by their speeches and their actions in recent months they have done nothing to contribute to the establishment or the maintenance of confidence in that Government. Some of the speeches we have heard can hardly be calculated to raise the prestige of the Government there or to hold in check the forces at present running riot.
  I was a little surprised by the arguments put forward from the other side of the House on the subject of affording protection because, as far as I could see, the accusation that we are alleged not to be affording sufficient protection is tied up with the accusation that these young police officers whom we are using are inexperienced and incompetent to carry out their tasks. There are, altogether, only 40,000 whites in Kenya. Unless constructive suggestions are to be made about sending a large force from this country, then, if these allegations of inexperience or incompetence are true— which I do not accept at all—I should like to know how the hon. and learned Member for Northampton suggests that we draw from that small number of people in Kenya experienced officers able to carry out these duties and able to step into the breach in an emergency. If those experienced people are not available, I do not know how the hon. and learned Member imagines they are to be trained up to the mark in time.
  Mr. Paget: I said that we must not put automatic weapons into the hands of unsupervised and inexperienced people, with orders to shoot to kill.
  Mr. Bennett: Nobody on this side of the House or anywhere else, and no one in responsible government, has suggested putting automatic weapons in the hands of people to be used to shoot at sight. Nor has anything been said to justify the use of the expression "Gestapo" which was used earlier in this debate. If there is criticism of these officers, who, of necessity, have been recruited for this work, where is the hon. and learned Member going to find experienced officers at short notice unless he advocates that a large force of police should go out to Kenya from this country?
  When one considers their small number, the greatest possible tribute ought to be paid to the gallant way in which
  1148
  something like 50 per cent. of the adult whites of that country are engaged in constabulary duties. When one considers the size of the Colony it is a magnificent achievement, and it should not be belittled in this House by attacks on their alleged inexperience.
  A suggestion was made that we should secure the services of General Templer from Malaya. I could not see the relevance of allegations contained in the hon. and learned Member's speech in the light of that suggestion. General Templer's efforts have been successful precisely because he has been able to follow a strong policy, and the establishment of law and order is his primary purpose. If the criticism of hon. Members opposite is that the Government have not been sufficiently strong in enforcing law and order in Kenya then I cannot follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), which appeared to indicate that we had been far too strong in Kenya.
  Mr. Paget: Everything that has been done there shows that the hon. Member's Government have been weak, vacillating and incompetent. That is why the Government have this trouble.
  Mr. Bennett: If the accusation against us is that we have been weak and vacillating then, whether that accusation be true or not, it is not an accusation which we should be receiving from the hon. Member for Eton and Slough and his hon. Friends who have used such words as "Gestapo" against us. Whatever else the hon. and learned Member for Northampton thinks about the Gestapo, presumably he would not think it weak and vacillating.
  Mr. Paget: Does the hon. Member not realise that weakness and brutality go together?
  Mr. Bennett: As another, even if not such a distinguished lawyer as the hon. and learned Member may say, that is a very gallant attempt to tie up two completely opposite attitudes.
  What we have been trying to do in Kenya—and our efforts have not been helped by this and previous debates—is to try to establish law and order before we come to any question of economic or other concessions. It would be fatal to

  1149
  the preservation of law and order if we were to make economic and other concessions precede the establishment of law and order. That would be an encouragement to everybody elsewhere in our Colonial Territories to start a revolution in order to secure concessions from the Government.
  If economic or political concessions are due they can best be granted—not only by this Government, but by the Government and citizens of Kenya—when the situation is quiet and law and order has been restored. It is precisely that which both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government of Kenya are doing their very best to achieve. I cannot see that the criticisms against them have any relevance to that task; in fact, they will tend to make the task of the Secretary of State and the Government of Kenya even more difficult that it has been up to now.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The terrible massacre which has given rise to this debate has naturally raised very widespread doubts about the effectiveness and the general basis of the Government's policy in the emergency and crisis in Kenya. It is impossible for any Government to guard against every act of terrorism which occurs in what is, in effect, almost a civil war, but this massacre is the latest item in an appalling list of failures to protect loyal Africans as well as whites in Kenya.
  What is even more significant is that it is a further instance of the fact that Mau Mau has steadily kept the initiative ever since this trouble started. If we are to regain the initiative, as we must do, it is essential to discuss not only the immediate measures but the whole approach which gives rise to the particular measures upon which the Government decide. It is in regard to the approach to the problem, which decides all the tactical and immediate points, that the Government are open to very considerable criticism.
  We face here by far the most extreme instance of the root problem of East and Central Africa, which are the most difficult parts of the world at the moment. We have two problems superimposed one upon the other. Elsewhere these problems can usually be dealt with separately,
  1150
  but here we have to deal with them together. On the one hand there are the whites who, if they were elsewhere, could look forward naturally to increasing self-government, until they became a fully self-governing country like Canada or Australia; and on the other hand there are the Africans who, elsewhere, could look forward to increasing self-government of the type to be found in the Gold Coast.
  If our policy breaks down we are faced with a continuous double danger. On the one hand there is danger of the "Boston Tea Party" type, with a violent assumption of power by the white settlers, and on the other hand there is the danger of Mau Mau. Those two dangers are always present in the whole of East and Central Africa. We must avoid both, otherwise we shall be landed with a war of races which will mean the end of our position and the end of all hope in Central Africa.
  If we are to avoid both those dangers we have to recognise them. We must not fix our eyes wholly or exclusively on one or the other of them alone. We must recognise that both dangers exist and also that all these races are Africans. They are white Africans and black Africans. It is a great mistake to talk about European and Africans. It poses the problem quite falsely. We have to win the co-operation of the moderate opinion of all races involved to a far greater extent than we have done, and that requires a positive and urgent policy.
  This massacre has shown that important changes of policy are now necessary to achieve these ends. The Government in Kenya must be in closer touch with all races. At the moment they are clearly not in very good touch with the Africans. There have also been steady complaints from the leaders of the white settlers that the Government in Kenya have been isolated from the Europeans. Many moderate European leaders have been put in a very difficult position, where they have had responsibility without power, without knowing what is happening or being able to influence the course of events.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) that we should give greater power to the local government in Kenya. At the same time,

  1151
  the Colonial Secretary ought to instruct the Governor to set up at once a council of all three races, and to associate that council very closely with the inner running of government. It should not be just an advisory council but should be very close to him and based on trust— because one cannot govern without trust; and the people of all three main races should be closely associated with the very centre of government.
  This Government, with greater local power and in closer touch with the communities, must be based on moderate opinion. That means that we must be ready to break with the extremists in both races, both amongst the Europeans and amongst the Africans. The massacre which caused our debate seems from all accounts to have caused a great revulsion of feeling amongst many Kikuyu and many other Africans; but, as "The Times" reported in its accounts of the massacre, there is a danger that it will provoke some extremists among the Europeans to demand harsh action. The Government in Kenya must withstand that. They must withstand the demands which are likely to come from the more extreme wing of the Europeans for harsh measures to meet these problems.
  In all these races—among the Africans, the Europeans and the Asians—there are many moderate men, and it must be the task of the Government, with far greater success and vigour than they have shown so far, to gather these moderate men around them and to base themselves much more closely upon these men. The Government in Kenya and this Govern-must must show much greater readiness to tackle the fundamentals of the problem. The Secretary of State has, I think, far too much given the impression that the fundamentals do not matter, that they are long-term and distant and that one must worry only about the immediate military and similar measures.
  The immediate military measures are of vital importance, but the tackling of some of these fundamental problems is overdue. They must be tackled quickly. I do not believe that if we settle a few economic problems we shall find a remedy for all our difficulties. Indeed, I do not think that economic problems as such are at the root of our difficulties. It is far more a question of social problems.
  1152
  As Sir Philip Mitchell said in his admirable despatch, the whole of East Africa is going through a social and economic revolution. If hon. Members read that despatch, knowing what has since happened amongst the Kikuyu, they will find it very striking how often Sir Philip quotes instances from the Kikuyu—long before anyone had dreamt of Mau Mau —as examples of this social and economic revolution at its strongest and worst. Undoubtedly that must have been one of the underlying causes of the trouble which has arisen.
  This great social revolution started 50 years ago, as Sir Philip says. These people have been torn out of their own culture and their own discipline. Under their tribal law they had a great system of discipline, but all that has been destroyed and nothing has been put in its place. They are in a vacuum. It is in those circumstances that this great problem arises, although there are always local reasons as well.
  Obviously, this great social problem cannot be solved in a short time. I think it will be with us for a generation before we have fully solved it. But that is not a reason for saying we can delay. This revolution has been going on for 50 years and has hardly been noticed. It is long overdue for vigorous tackling, and we should not delay at all in tackling the more fundamental aspects of it at the same time as we go ahead with the immediate, military and police measures.
  I think there are three things, in particular, upon which we should concentrate. Although in a sense they are long-term they would begin to yield results relatively quickly. The first is a far greater drive in the building of schools. I think the growth of the Mau Mau schools, which, after all, was an important part of this movement, could not have occurred had there not been a shortage of schools. They were filling a need, a need left partly by the missionaries and partly by the public authorities. If we are to fight Mau Mau with success we must fight it in the schools as well as with bullets.
  Then there is also the vital need for an increased policy of improved housing in the towns. Many Kikuyu now live in the towns. Their housing is appalling. It is no good saying that the housing is no worse than the old tribal housing,

  1153
  because the Kikuyu are making comparisons not with tribal conditions but with what they see in the towns. The awful housing conditions, plus the vision which they now have, because they have seen how one can live in a town, have, in this case, as in so many other peasant revolts in history, been one of the causes of the trouble.
  There is another problem for the Government to face. They must bring all the pressure they can to bear in favour of a gradual relaxation of the colour bar. As long as that problem is not tackled— I do not mean anything dramatic; I mean that there must be steady progress towards its solution—we shall not get away from this sort of problem in Kenya, and elsewhere in Africa. This is particularly so in the towns. The colour bar is not nearly so important in the countryside, but it is important in the towns, where the people crowd together; and, above all, between the white Europeans and the educated coloured Africans.
  The most dangerous thing of all in Africa today is the isolation of the educated African from everybody else. Because of his education, he is cut off from his own people, and because of the colour bar he does not form proper relationships with people of his own culture and education. This relaxation of the colour bar will be difficult to achieve, but if it is not done, there is no solution to our problem, which will get worse and worse in one part of Africa after another. We do not want sudden dramatic solutions, because they cannot be found either; we want a steady pressure which will get this relaxation proceeding faster than if it is left without any pressure at all.
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that these things are too long-term; but there is one immediate thing which should be done. It has been mentioned by a number of my hon. Friends. There should be a much more active drive to win African opinion over to our side. It seems that at this moment there is a better chance of that than at any time since Mau Mau started. There has been a great revulsion of feeling against the atrocity in which women and children were killed.
  The Colonial Secretary told us today about rumours which were spreading and causing great trouble and difficulty. I
  1154
  agree that rumours are hard to cope with, but it is no good sitting down and doing nothing about them. The only means of coping with them is to have an active policy of propaganda. There is no doubt that one of the things that helped to turn the tide in Malaya was the decision to embark on an active, co-ordinated and vigorous propaganda campaign to spread not lies but the truth about the things which were happening. If we want to change the situation in Kenya we must do that.
  We must make full use of loyal, friendly Africans who are eager to cooperate. We were very disappointed about the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman to that. He said that applications would be considered but that none had been made. In such a circumstance, the Government ought to ask the Africans to help. They should be asking the African leaders to speak to their people and should be offering facilities.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) said, Mr. Awori, an elected leader of the Africans, said, after the massacre—this was quoted in "The Times"—that he himself was still ready to go into the reserves and forests to speak to the people. That was a public statement made by Mr. Awori. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why Mr. Awori has not been encouraged to go into the forests and the reserves to talk to his own people?
  The terrible massacre presents us with a very great crisis in Africa, and a very great challenge. It may be a turning point for all our endeavours in this part of Africa. Mau Mau is not only a Kenya phenomenon. If it is not properly handled, Mau Mau will spread and reproduce itself in different forms elsewhere in Africa wherever basic conditions exist like those in Kenya. Mau Mau might spread right across British East and Central Africa, but on the other hand, the reactions against Mau Mau following the massacre could be used, if a vigorous bold and constructive approach were made by the Government along the lines that have been suggested this evening.
  As many hon. Members have said, out of this massacre good may come if we know how to use the reaction it has caused. This will only be possible if the Government do not falter and if they do

  1155
  not show themselves feeble and unimaginative. It is only possible if the Government will, with greater boldness and greater trust in all moderate opinion of all loyal Africans, press forward with a more progressive policy—not a wild Utopian one—directed to proper ends, namely, to improve conditions in Africa. If this is done, then out of this atrocious thing we have been discussing this evening good may yet come.
  9.32 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): The thanks of the House are due to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) for the temperate tone of his speech, so sharply in contast with those of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway). My first task should be not only to assure the House about our objectives in Kenya, but to try, as far as I can to show that those objectives are common to all hon. Members in every part of the House.
  Some criticism has been made of my lack of sympathy. The hon. and learned Gentleman was at it again and he talked about me ignoring the progressive movements in the Colonies. I am not going to attempt to meet that. It is quite untrue and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite can go on saying it as long as they like. I can say with the utmost sincerity that what we are trying to do in Kenya is to build a society of all races, to raise the economic conditions of the country, including wages, and to see that all races co-operate together in the country where they can go on living and educating their children as they wish, as, indeed, they can in Kenya. That is our objective and let no one have any doubt about it.
  But it does this objective no good whatever to make the kind of malicious, mischievous and intemperate speech such as that delivered by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton. He threw the blame chiefly on the white settlers in Kenya. The white settlers there are under great pressure at the moment. We want to see this whole situation dealt with calmly and I will try to do it in that spirit. I have very few notes and if I miss any point which hon.
  1156
  and right hon. Gentlemen opposite want me to take up I hope they will interrupt me.
  I think that the main tenor of the debate is designed to show that Government policy in Kenya is now in rags and tatters, that it has failed and we have to retrace our steps. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick used the phrase that we must regain the initiative from Mau Mau. That is not at all the kind of phraseology that I should use. Let us go back and see what the facts are. On 28th January I used these words in the House:
  "There is evidence that the area under Mau Mau influence is being reduced. These developments, and the closer policing of the Kikuyu districts, have, however, driven some of the Mau Mau leaders to more desperate measures, and the danger of savage attacks-by gangs may even for a time increase."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1953; Vol. 510; c. 1014.]
  I spoke of what had been happening; that the area of Mau Mau activities had been compressed and that the leaders had been driven, by such measures as-combing the edges of the bamboo forests and closer policing of the Kikuyu areas, to take these new measures and to resort, not to sporadic assassinations but to more or less organised raids and so forth, by large bodies of men. That is what has happened. This is—
  Mr. Paget Mr. Paget rose—
  Mr. Lyttelton: I really cannot give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I allowed the hon. and learned Gentleman a great deal of latitude. He made a most intemperate speech and has done a great deal of harm. He must at any rate let me develop the first part of my argument before I give way. I will give way later. No, I will give way now.
  Mr. Paget: All I was wanting to ask the right hon. Gentleman was whether he was claiming that the fact that sporadic crime had now developed into the major military operation of which Mau Mau were capable was an improvement. That is what he seemed to be saying.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Nothing of the kind. I only said that the compression of this terrible Mau Mau into an area of Kenya and closer policing were following a very common mathematical formula and causing these particular activities to be much more intense than they were. That is what has happened.

  1157
  Nearly every argument that has been used this afternoon, and some of the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I heard about Malaya. The hon. and learned Gentleman had only one constructive suggestion to make in his speech, and that was to move General Templer from Malaya, to cancel the Constitution of Kenya in every respect, and to set General Templer in sole authority over all these matters. The hon. and learned Gentleman coupled that argument with the rather peculiar one that the Government was rather too authoritarian and he actually read a number of extracts from the regulations, of the drastic nature of which he complained. I ought not to devote very much time to the hotch-potch of inconsistencies which he delivered.
  There was one other thing he said. He referred to the Mau Mau movement as "a national resistance movement." Could anything be more fantastic when, as a matter of fact, out of the whole population of Kenya only one-quarter are Kikuyu and out of the 1,250,000 Kikuyu, or thereabouts, a very large proportion are loyal? A very large proportion of those who have taken the Mau Mau oath have done so under intimidation. To describe this as "a national resistance movement" and to relate that term and all that it means to us to what happened on Thursday is unworthy both of the intentions of the hon. and learned Gentleman and of his profession.
  What we want to do is to build a common society in which inter-racial cooperation is raised to the greatest point that we can. Of course, these are difficult matters. It is very difficult at this moment, when Europeans are under great pressure and live under conditions of terrible strain; when nobody knows, when the dogs begin to bark at night, what will happen. There is great difficulty in bringing them in. We have the great difficulty in getting co-operation from the Africans because they themselves, as the figures will show, are rent by intestine strife.
  It is customary for hon. Gentlemen to describe the inhabitants of Kenya as just "Africans," but do hon. Members think it is easy to get co-operation among the Masai, the Luo and the Kikuyu at this moment? Has it ever occurred to them
  1158
  that the term "African" is entirely misused in this context? They say "Asian." Are they not aware that it is very difficult to bring the Asians together, the Hindu and Moslem populations? These vague phrases—"Let us bring all the races together now"—are a little difficult.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Surely the Secretary of State knows that all the races, including the Asians, such as the Hindus and Mohammedans, are all represented on the Legislative Council.
  Mr. Lyttelton: The Moslems are solidly behind the Government of Kenya at present. But let us have no argument about our objectives. What I have to think of, what Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Kenya have to think of, is what we are going to do now. With all due deference, all the speeches to which I have listened show a complete lack of reality. We have to deal with the threat now. I heard all these arguments over Malaya and yet the previous Government allowed the Malayan situation to get into an almost irretrievable position, not from lack of good intentions —they were full of those.
  All their intentions over the long-term problems of Malaya—racial co-operation and internal government—I share, but one must have more than good intentions in this world. We have first to deliver freedom from fear to the inhabitants and, in doing that, we have to make it quite clear that they are fighting for something. There I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick has been saying. They have to see an objective, an ideal for which they are struggling, but our first duty is to deliver peace and order. We must do that. No suggestion that has been made this evening impinges on the immediate problem, which is, first, how are we to protect the loyal Kikuyu, secondly, how are we to build up racial co-operation in the present circumstances, and, thirdly, how we are to suppress what is a terrorist organisation.
  Mr. John Dugdale Mr. John Dugdale (West Bromwich) rose—
  Mr. Lyttelton: I have a very short time. I did not interrupt many of the speeches.
  Mr. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have anything to say.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I have a good deal to say. I did not interrupt many of the speeches—
  Mr. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman invited interruptions.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I am entitled to a hearing on this occasion. What are we going to do now? The only constructive suggestion, other than the general ones I have mentioned, is that we ought to bring the responsible African leaders into play. There, again, the phrases used are completely misleading, because that is exactly what we are doing. What do hon. Members opposite think of those Africans who, all over the Kikuyu areas, are leading the resistance groups—now I am using the correct phrase—against the Mau Mau? Those are the responsible African leaders and everything they are doing is being helped by the Government. I have messages from them here with which I will not trouble the House, but these are the men who are doing it.
  The responsible African leaders to whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was referring were, of course, one or two political leaders. What has happened over them is that time and again they have been told by the Government that if they would define the constituencies or the meetings which they wished to address, security arrangements would be made if it were possible. Not surprisingly—I am not throwing a brick at them—those applications have not been made.
  The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that we are deterring these African leaders from getting into touch with their people. I have a recent telegram here, about three weeks old, saying that Mr. Mathu had been offered the opportunity of addressing his constituents in the Kikuyu reserve and he may yet do so. Arrangements have been made for himself and one other to tour the settled areas of the Southern Rift Valley to talk to Kikuyu labour on European farms. The object of this it to try to dissuade them from the voluntary movement back to the reserves. They have just returned from such a visit.
  I must make it clear that I could not approve, nor does the Kenya Government ask me to do so, of an unlimited right of assembly in these circumstances. The only result of that would be inevitably a large increase in the number
  1160
  of murders. I do not quite know what line the hon. and learned Member would take then. So utterly unrealistic is the approach to all this that the solution of an incident last Thursday is put forward of making assembly unlimited and without check.
  But I give this pledge to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If any African leader wishes to address his constituents, the Government of Kenya will do their very best to make conditions under which that is possible. That has been the condition for many weeks, but we are dealing with a community in which very great risks have to be run.
  My duty, for the remaining quarter of an hour, is to tell the House where we are on restoring peace and law and order, which, I think, is our first duty. Does any right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite disagree with that?
  Mrs. White: The right hon. Gentleman was not present while I made a few remarks. The tenor of some of the remarks, from this side of the House, at any rate, was precisely that the Government in Kenya are not effectively dealing with the very problem of law and order and that there is, therefore, lack of confidence both among the settlers in Kenya in their own Government and in this House.
  Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Lady is exactly making my point. I hope, therefore, I am correct in assuming that in the remaining short time the House would wish me to address myself to what we are doing to restore law and order.
  I have already tried to say that we have common objectives. The point to which I shall address myself now, and with which, I think, the Opposition agree, is that we must attempt to restore law and order, which means also the protection of the loyal Kikuyu.
  The duty of Her Majesty's Government, of course, is to be satisfied that the resources and organisation are adequate; and I say, in parenthesis, that we must be satisfied that they are being employed for the right objects. The military forces are, at present, about 5,000 or 6,000 and, as the House knows, are being reinforced by two battalions, a brigade headquarters and also an infantry brigade signal headquarters. In all these matters of an incoherent impalpable sort of war, the matter of communication is prime. The result

  1161
  of these reinforcements will not only be two further battalions who must be used, not only in offensive operations against the Mau Mau, but also in defensive operations of trying to protect what I may call, for want of a better word, the loyalists.
  In addition to that, we want a very much better system of communications and, therefore, the extra brigade headquarters and the signal headquarters troop will attend to that. The plan is to have a brigade headquarters at Nyeri for the Central Provinces and one at Nakuru for the Rift Valley. I mention this because the reinforcements were a result of the visit of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, his appreciation coinciding with our own that the movement was becoming more violent because it was being compressed. Therefore, we think that these reinforcements are necessary. The object of the extra reinforcements is to be able at one and the same time to carry out active operations against the Mau Mau gangs and also to provide extra defence for the loyal Kikuyu.
  There are in Kenya altogether 12,000 police, of which about 8,000 are regulars and 4,000 are reserves. Thirty-five new police stations have been established and 150 police posts are being built, of which 50 are now occupied. This, again, is part of a policy to try to police these areas more closely; not in the main to hunt down gangs, but to provide protection for the loyal Kikuyu.
  I must say a word about the Home Guard and how they are armed. The right hon. Member was particularly concerned about this question, as we are. I say, quite frankly, that no Home Guard we can organise or arm can be expected to act without full aid from both the military and the police. If we tried to form such a force we would fail. I say, equally frankly, that we must arm them as well as we can, but it will have to be done gradually. If we armed the Home Guard, which has just been formed, for instance, with automatic weapons—which I think an hon. Member mentioned—we would run the risk that, with the lack of training in the Home Guard those weapons would fall into the hands of Mau Mau.
  That is not a risk any hon. Member opposite, or on this side of the House, would wish to run. So we must aim at
  1162
  building up the Home Guard and equipping them with better and better equipment as their training warrants. In the early part of their training the Home Guard tend to be vulnerable. We will use all our endeavours to see that they are protected as well as our forces can ensure that and reinforcements will help them.
  As the House probably knows, the whole of the intelligence system has been reorganised as a result of a visit by Sir Percy Sillitoe, last November. He has left behind an officer, Mr. Macdonald, who has done most devoted work in the field of intelligence. To prove that the Mau Mau have not wrested the initiative from the Government but rather the opposite, I would point out that the kind of information which is coming forward has greatly improved. A trickle is beginning and, of course, in all this type of guerrilla warfare or para-military operations intelligence is valuable. It is almost impossible to conduct a campaign to restore law and order unless it is backed by every effective intelligence and it has not been effective. It was not effective and it is not easy to improve on that in a short time.
  In the last few minutes I wish to go back to where I began about these objectives. We all had the advantage of talking to Mr. Michael Blundell last week. There is no doubt that his ideas are extremely liberal and his intentions in all these matters are such that we can all support. He sees, as I do, the necessity of trying to get together as early as possible another racial conference which the right hon. Member promised, a promise from which I do not resile in any way. I do not want it to come together at a time when I know from information that it would be likely to fail. I believe, as the right hon. Member said, that the horror of this last incident has possibly given us a new opportunity of looking forward to such a conference and I again pledge myself to this extent: if I thought there was any chance of useful results and not merely further quarrelling emerging from such a conference. I would do my best to see that it was called together.
  The right hon. Member asked a question about an article concerning suspicions of their Kikuyu labourers and squatters entertained by some Europeans.

  1163
  It is no good supposing—[Interruption.] I hope I am not interrupting the conversation on the Front Bench opposite. Perhaps, having moved a Motion of censure, the hon. and learned Member is deciding whether to divide the House. The terms on which the hon. and learned Member for Southampton moved and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough supported the Motion were in the form of a vote of censure and it would be curious if they did not divide the House. Perhaps we shall hear about that later.
  I was dealing with the suspicion which the European employer is said to entertain against his Kikuyu squatter. That we cannot help. The most effective way of doing it was by this method, which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough condemns, of having cards containing the photograph of the man and his previous employer and place of employment. That has been very much criticised, but the object is to try to restore the confidence of employers that when they take on someone new they are not taking on a Mau Mau terrorist. It appears to me to be a simple measure to meet the very point which the right hon. Gentleman was ventilating when he read out the rather moving words of the lady in East Africa.
  With the extra reinforcements we have, and the reorganisation of the police and intelligence service we can look forward to compressing and containing this terror. I do not take such a gloomy view about the immediate future as do some hon. Members opposite. I make no prophecies. It will require a much less impalpable situation to make any such promise. We cannot even talk about the numbers of the Kikuyu who are infected by this disease. All these things are difficult to assume. But I am sure that we are getting better information; that we are building up an increasing number of resistance groups. They receive a set-back because of such occurrences as the ghastly incident of last Thursday and we must do everything we can.
  It is a matter of military and police organisation and intelligence to prevent those who are beginning to believe in our good intentions for the future of Kenya from being murdered in their beds, or what is worse, having their wives and
  1164
  children murdered while they are out trying to defend the cause of law and order.
  I fear that some of the things which have been said will do no good in Kenya. That remark does not apply, as I need hardly say, to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly or by his right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick. In all these debates on Kenya hon. Gentlemen opposite have paid lip-service to the cause of suppressing terrorism and have then proceeded to exacerbate the situation, as did the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, by intemperate remarks and criticisms of the settlers and the Kenya Government, and, so far as possible, of Her Majesty's Government.
  We shall get this terror down. We shall restore peace, not with the object of one race or another dominating the situation in Kenya, but so that Kenya may be built up by all races and have a prosperous and a peaceful future.
  Question put, and negatived.

  TRANSPORT BILL
  Postponed Proceeding on Amendment to Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," resumed.
  Question again proposed, "That' now' stand part of the Question."
  Mr. Crookshank: I speak by leave of the House—
  9.59 p.m.
  Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. I had the Floor when the debate was adjourned at seven o'clock.
  I shall not keep the right hon. Gentleman long from addressing the House. I hope that he has reconsidered the whole question, and recognises that what we on this side of the House have said was said in a conciliatory fashion, with due regard to the fact that it would be most unfortunate should there be a dispute. We believe, that the issues concerned are far too important to be debated in such a way, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that at least he will withdraw this Motion.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. Crookshank: If I may speak by leave of the House, I would say that my previous intervention which I made after the debate had been in train for some time

  1165
  was designed to get over the difficulty that we had heard about arising out of our not sitting late on Friday and not sitting at all yesterday—the difficulty of having the opportunity of sufficiently considering the Lords Amendments and even the opportunity of putting down Amendments to them.
  When I spoke earlier and made the suggestion that by taking this business tomorrow instead of today I thought that we could have got over quite a lot of our difficulty, I thought that that was true and I still think so. But that did not receive complete assent in all quarters of the House. It was an attempt to meet the situation but it was not acceptable.
  Since then we have further considered the matter to see if we could continue the discussion tonight, but we have lost three hours on the debate on the Adjournment which has just concluded. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not lost."] Lost from the point of view of this discussion. The debate was of great value but I am not discussing the value of that debate. I am discussing it in the setting of the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill. That state of affairs could not have been foreseen by myself or anybody else.
  We feel, therefore, that perhaps it is rather late now to begin the discussion of the Lords Amendments. Inevitably the disarrangement of business on Wednesday and again yesterday led the Government to assume that, in the circumstances which were quite outside our control, we should receive some co-operation from the Opposition. I am afraid that our assumptions have been falsified. Our surprise—if I may say our incredulity —is all the greater because no protests were made by the Leader of the Opposition when I made the business announcement last week. Indeed, I go further and say that the fact that two Prayers were put down under the aegis of the Front Opposition Bench for tonight was a clear indication, we thought, that it was not expected by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that business on the Lords Amendments would be unduly prolonged. Otherwise, why put down Prayers on such an evening?
  Be that as it may, for some reason not altogether clear to the Government, the situation has completely changed. An element of bitterness was introduced today, of all days, which certainly was not here last Thursday. I introduced no
  1166
  bitterness. I have merely been called names all day. We do not in any way desire to increase that bitterness. But we feel—and I must say this—that the game as played today and the tone of many of the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite was out of place and should not today continue any longer.
  I hope, therefore, that the House can now dispose of the Question before it. In the view of the Government there cannot be any question of postponing the Lords Amendments for three months. What we propose now is to ask leave to withdraw the Motion that they be considered today. We intend to ask the House to deal with the Lords Amendments in the week after the Budget debate. The business for tomorrow will be as announced. If my proposals are accepted, I suggest that the most convenient course would be for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham. South (Mr. H. Morrison) to withdraw his Amendment, and then I and my right hon. Friend will withdraw the original Motion.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The Leader of the House, at the end of his speech, has reached a very wise decision, which will reflect the wishes and spirit of the House in all quarters, but I think he was unwise to lead up to it with controversial observations that really were not necessary. On the case that I submitted to the House at the beginning of the debate, supplemented by the later speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), and by others who have spoken in the debate, we made a complete and conclusive argument why the Lords Amendments should not be considered today. There has been an accumulation of circumstances, for unhappy reasons over which we had no control, and the fact of the early rising of the House on Friday, which made a material difference, and I think we made a perfect and conclusive case why these Amendments should not be taken.
  I am only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not see the force of the case earlier in the day. That case was made, there was no effective answer to it, and I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Transport started the day in a mood which suggested that the Government had so decided and that was the end of it. As

  1167
  the discussion proceeded, with the speeches from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies) and the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby), both of them based on good Parliamentary judgment and opinion, it became clear that the general sense of the House was that it really would not be decent, for a number of reasons, for us to proceed with these Amendments tonight.
  Having said that, and, I hope, having answered the points made by the Leader of the House, let me add that I am very glad that he has come to this conclusion. It is the right conclusion that we should not proceed with these Amendments tonight, and it is right that they should be left until after Easter, and, indeed, until after the Budget. I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought that it was necessary to be controversial, because I should have thought that the best thing for him to say would have been that he realised the feeling of the House and that, as Leader of the House and also the servant of the House, he would bow to the feelings of the House. That would have been better, and my task would only have been to thank him for it.
  I still thank him, and I say that we accept the proposal that he has made. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding which the right hon. Gentleman indicated —that the Minister will then withdraw the original Motion. In these circumstances, I would advise my hon. and right hon. Friends that there is no need for further discussion of the matter tonight.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CONSTITUENCIES (REDISTRIBUTION)
  Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Sheffield) Order, 1953 [copy presented 11th March] approved.
  Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Hastings and East Grinstead) Order, 1953 [copy presented 11th March] approved.
  Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Ipswich, Eye and Sudbury and Woodbridge) Order, 1953 [copy laid 11th March] approved.
  Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Preston, South and South Fylde) Order, 1953 [copy presented 11th March] approved.
  Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Stockport, South and Cheadle) Order, 1953 [copy presented 11th March] approved.
  Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (The Hartlepools, Bishop Auckland and Sedgefield) Order, 1953 [copy presented 11th March] approved.— [Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Newton-le-Willows [copy presented 26th March] approved.
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Rotherham [copy presented 26th March] approved.—[Mr. Studholme.]

  SERVICE DEPARTMENTS' LAND, PLYMOUTH
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Studholme.]
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. Michael FootI am sure that one of the reasons which must have persuaded the Leader of the House to agree to postpone the Lords Amendments on the Transport Bill is his recognition of the importance of the matter to be raised on the Adjournment tonight. Therefore, whatever criticism we may have to make about the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to express my gratitude to him for doing so.
  I also wish to say that the people of Plymouth have been waiting some 300 years for this matter to be raised in the House, and that, therefore, it would have been most regrettable if we had had to wait a few hours longer. I am sorry to see that there is no representative of the War Office on the Government Front Bench at the moment. I gave notice to that Department that I proposed to raise this matter, and it may be that the Minister has been delayed for a few minutes. However, I hope he will be here shortly.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): May I say that my hon. Friend has asked me to take his place for a few moments and to make a few notes of the no doubt lucid and cogent speech which the hon. Gentleman is about to make?
  Mr. Foot: I am very glad to see the hon. Gentleman. I have had arguments with him before about the City of Plymouth, but, as I have said, we have been waiting for 300 years to say this to the War Office, and I think it is a bit thick that they should not be present to hear it when the time comes.
  The question I wish to raise is that of the land held by the War Office within the boundaries of the City of Plymouth. It comprises a total of something just under 1,000 acres. Another 1,000 acres are held by the Admiralty, but partly because it is a good principle of military
  1170
  strategy and partly because the land held by the War Office is the most precious of all, I thought it wise to start the attack on the War Office because, if we succeed with them, then, no doubt, the campaign can be transferred to the Admiralty.
  I hope that when he arrives the Minister will agree at least on one simple proposition. The Service Departments owe a special obligation to the City of Plymouth and, indeed, Plymouth has a special relationship with the Service Departments. Not only is it the fact that the Service Departments hold many military establishments in the city, not only is it the fact that the dockyard is the main industry, but it is also the fact that whenever war comes the people of Plymouth have to bear the brunt of it, more perhaps than those of any other city in the land. We have to pay a heavier price than almost any other city and, therefore, we are entitled to ask that when we make requests to the War Office or other Government Departments they should treat them with genuine concern.
  Ever since the days when the Black Prince came to Plymouth the Service Departments have been increasing their demands upon us. They have taken more and more, and they never give anything back. I can only recall one exception to that rapacious rule. That is the case of some forts built outside the City of Plymouth in the middle of the last century. Owing to some brilliant military contrivance on the part of the War Office it was only discovered that they were obsolete after they were completed. They were known as "Palmerston's Follies." Some 80 years later the War Office discovered their mistake and were then prepared graciously to sell them to the people of Plymouth.
  Apart from that, the War Office and the Admiralty have never given back to the people of Plymouth one inch of the land upon which they have been able to lay their hands. The process has gone on for many years and we people of Plymouth think that it is time to call a halt. Indeed, we believe that something further should be done and that we should reverse this process which has.gone on for so long.
  When the War Office informed Plymouth Corporation a few weeks ago that they were going to close off the area along the Stonehouse foreshore facing

  1171
  Plymouth Sound, it was only natural that Plymouth should be alarmed. This area is known as Eastern Kings and Western Kings, and for many years the people of Plymouth exercised recreational facilities there. There was a slight interruption in that state of affairs during the war but otherwise, ever since 1905, the people of Plymouth have been able to use these facilities.
  Now we are told that the agreement made in 1905 is to be terminated by a War Office diktat. No negotiation has taken place; indeed the demand so far presented to Plymouth is unconditional surrender. The reason given is security, but I do not think that anybody can really pay much regard to that claim. Are we really to believe, in this atomic age, that the safety of the kingdom would be put in jeopardy if the people of Plymouth continued to do some of their courting along the foreshores where their fathers and grandfathers practised the same art? I do not believe that anybody can pay much regard to that excuse on the part of the War Office.
  My first demand is that this diktat should be withdrawn and that proper consultation with Plymouth Corporation should be started; and, if necessary, an independent inquiry appointed to decide on the issue. The ease with which the War Office have believed it possible for them to take over and take exclusive control of Eastern and Western Kings along the foreshore of Plymouth only gives us greater anxiety about the claims which they may make in the future.
  That brings me to the main issue of the ownership of Plymouth Hoe. I must apologise if I go back into history, but I challenge the Under-Secretary of State for War, who is to reply, to deny any of the historical facts which I shall present. Plymouth Hoe faces what is probably the most famous strip of water in the whole world. If it had not been for the exploits of those who sailed from Plymouth Sound in years gone by there would never have been a War Office at all. Plymouth Hoe is also one of the most beautiful natural promenades in the world, and the earliest plans and charts, dating from the middle of the 15th century, show without any possibility of doubt that the whole of the area once belonged to the people of Plymouth. The
  1172
  principle of the public ownership of Plymouth Hoe was thus established before the first Queen Elizabeth came to the throne.
  The question arises: how did we ever lose this property? The first great Queen Elizabeth never thought of tampering with the rights of the people of Plymouth. She never had any quarrel with them. Indeed, she was wise enough to know that a large part of her own fame and the fame of England was owed to the people of Plymouth and their enterprises. Unhappily, later monarchs did not follow her example. During the Civil War Plymouth fought on the side of Parliament, against tyranny, and the fight of the town of Plymouth, as it was then, transformed the whole aspect of that war in the West Country and played an essential part in defeating the chances of the Stuart Monarchy.
  At the time when the siege of Plymouth was lifted, towards the end of the Civil War, Prince Charles Stuart was in the West Country and could see exactly what effect the successful fight of Plymouth had had on his chances. He therefore resolved that if ever he got a chance he would have his revenge on the people of Plymouth. That is the real reason why Plymouth Hoe does not belong to the people of Plymouth today.
  When Charles II came to the throne, in 1660, a vicious counter-revolution was unleashed against Plymouth. One prominent resident had his head stuck on a spike above Plymouth Guildhall. Others were thrown into jail on Drake's Island. The town's charter was taken away and transactions were immediately started for the seizure of Plymouth Hoe. The main agent in that deal was a Royalist—the first Quisling—by the name of Sir Edward Hungerford. He sold a large part of Plymouth Hoe to the Crown, although it was not his to sell, and the people of Plymouth never received a penny piece for what had once been their undisputed heritage.
  I challenge the Under-Secretary of State for War to deny any of the historical facts which I am putting forward. Not only was Plymouth Hoe transferred to the Crown by the manoeuvres which I have described, but one of the first acts of King Charles was to build a citadel on Plymouth Hoe, and the guns were carefully pointed, not towards the sea but

  1173
  to dominate the liberty-loving people of Plymouth.
  I am not quite sure about your political ancestry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but if Mr. Speaker had been in the Chair I should have summoned to my aid his Covenanter ancestry. I am not sure whether you have a Covenanter ancestry, but I hope that the facts which I am now reciting will excite some sympathy in your breast, as I as sure they would in the breast of Mr. Speaker if he were here tonight.
  The fact is that this deed of depriving the people of Plymouth of their Hoe was done almost exactly 100 years after the battle of the Armada, and the enemy it guarded against was not the insolent Spaniards or the obstinate Dutch—the enemies of that King were the people of Plymouth. To add insult to injury, this citadel—this symbol of despotism—was erected on the very place where Drake had played bowls when awaiting the Spanish fleet. The citadel still stands on Plymouth Hoe. What military purpose it serves nobody has been able to say, so far as I know. If the Under-Secretary of State can tell us exactly what is its military purpose today he will at any rate have given us one piece of information.
  I am told that today, when a senior officer pays a visit to the citadel, the cooks have to be called to mount guard. The whole situation is farcical. Among the claims I am making to the War Office this evening is one to hand over the citadel and Drake's Island to the people of Plymouth.. The claim has been made by many spokesmen from Plymouth over the past 200 years and I think it is high time that the War Office listened to these requests.
  Ever since the days of King Charles II, the ownership of Plymouth Hoe has been disputed. The people of Plymouth have always sought recompense for this piece of Stuart robbery. It is true that agreements were reached between the Government and Plymouth Corporation in 1821 and 1886, and it is upon those agreements, I gather, that the War Office base their present claim. But both those agreements were no better than feeble compromises. They were not agreements which the people of Plymouth regarded as settling the problem.
  1174
  I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the copy of the 1821 agreement which he sent me some months ago at my request, but I think it is a matter of some significance that there is no copy of that agreement in Plymouth, so far as we have been able to discover. We have been unable, therefore, to check exactly what was their account of the proceedings, but what we have in the City of Plymouth Library and in the archives of the City of Plymouth in reference to the 1821 agreement is the record of the many protests about it at that time by the people of Plymouth.
  What is a fact is that in 1823, two years after the agreement was signed, the same mayor who signed the agreement with the War Office had to take steps to beat the bounds on Plymouth Hoe in order to establish our claim to a large part of it. Certainly if any one examines the records they will see that the agreement of 1821, which is the entire basis of the War Office's present claim, was not considered valid by a large section of the people of Plymouth.
  As for the agreement of 1886, it leased to the people of Plymouth from the Crown a considerable part of Plymouth Hoe. The Under-Secretary of State may claim that that agreement, too, settles the matter. In view of what I have described of the way in which the War Office have taken back from the City of Plymouth land which was available to us under an agreement of 1905, and in view of the fact that they took back this land without consultation with the people of Plymouth, we cannot rest satisfied when our claim to a large part of the most important section of Plymouth Hoe rests on a lease which will run out in some years' time; and rests, therefore, on the grace of the War Office as to whether we shall be able to retain it.
  I do not believe that either of those agreements—either the 1821 agreement or the 1886 agreement—in any way invalidates the main argument which has been put forward by all the Plymouth historians that Plymouth Hoe was stolen from the people of Plymouth and that the War Office, therefore, are in the position of a receiver of stolen goods. What I am asking tonight is that the War Office should make an effort to remedy that situation.

  1175
  Even if they dispute our legal claim, as the Under-Secretary of State has disputed it in the letters which he has sent to me on the subject—although not one scrap of evidence has yet been produced to invalidate the recital which I have given of the events which led to the stealing of the Hoe—surely the War Office should have sufficient magnanimity to approach this matter in a rather more open fashion than the hon. Gentleman has done in the letter which he sent to me. He sent me a letter which I have here—a very politely written letter, but one in which he said that while he recognised that it would be a welcome gesture for the Hoe to be restored to the people of Plymouth, he did not think it would really be necessary.
  I think the hon. Gentleman should show a more magnanimous spirit this evening. I ask the War Office to appoint an independent inquiry which can examine, first, the question of the disputed ownership of the Hoe; and, next, the question of whether the citadel can be given to the people of Plymouth as a show place. One of the most wonderful panoramas any one can see in the whole wide world is that from the precincts of the citadel. Further, the citadel serves no military purpose which can be defined. I ask that this inquiry should consider giving access to the citadel as a show place in Plymouth. Next, I ask that it should consider giving public access to Drake's Island, and consider also the question of returning Eastern Kings and Western Kings to the people of Plymouth. And this independent inquiry should be given the chance to look at all the land which is held by the War Office in the City of Plymouth and make recommendations as to how it should be restored to the public ownership.
  That is a perfectly reasonable request. It is not one that would do any damage to the War Office. The War Office would be able to state to such an inquiry the security grounds on which they wish to retain some of the land. They would have made a gesture to the people of Plymouth and they would have shown recognition of the services which the people of Plymouth have rendered to the War Office. It would be a fine gesture if, in Coronation year, Plymouth Hoe could be restored by the second Queen Elizabeth to the same status which it held in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. I believe
  1176
  that this request would be greeted with enthusiasm in the City of Plymouth, and it would inflict no damage whatsover on the War Office.
  I ask, therefore, that the Undersecretary shall not reply by turning down these proposals. I ask him to say that he will carefully consider these proposals, that he will examine the historical and legal claims and also recognise the moral claims. I ask him to realise how wise it would be for the War Office to show this spirit and recognise that it would be a fine thing for the City of Plymouth to regain titles which they held 500 and 600 years ago.
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not know what reply the Undersecretary is to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), who has just made what seems to me a very clear and cogent case for handing over Plymouth Hoe and the citadel to the people of that great city, but in case he is going to plead that this would set up a precedent I should like to remind him that 20 years ago it fell to me, as one of the representatives of Portsmouth, to put forward to the War Office—true, there was then a Labour Secretary of State in charge—a similar claim on behalf of the people of Portsmouth.
  I am delighted to remember that Lumps Fort and the earthworks and buildings which then comprised that old fortification were made over to the City of Portsmouth and it has since been a great amenity for the people of that great city. Therefore, I hope that, following that precedent, the War Office on this occasion will see fit, in Coronation year, as my hon. Friend has said, to let the people of Plymouth once more enjoy what undoubtedly has in the past belonged to them.
  10.34 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison):In spite of the rather sensational touch which the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) gave to this matter, we are anxious to examine the various aspects of this question, dispassionately and to do all that is possible to give effect to what the people of Plymouth want. Indeed, I think that a detached and objective view of what has passed between the Service Departments and the City of Plymouth would lead one

  1177
  to the conclusion that we had, in fact, tried, in difficult times, to follow that precept.
  I must say straightaway that I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the letter which he sent me telling me, broadly, the points that he proposed to put forward. There is certainly one point of agreement between us. Nobody will dispute the great historical interest and importance of the City of Plymouth and of the parts which have been the object of the hon. Member's survey. The relationship between ourselves and the citizens and the Corporation of Plymouth are, we think, good, and there has really been no issue between us for a very considerable time.
  As time is rather short, I should prefer to treat my remarks in a rather unorthodox way by saying what we think we can do and then coming back to a number of points to which I should like to bring the hon. Gentleman's attention, because I thought he put a gloss upon them which is not entirely fair. We are not prepared to have an independent inquiry—the Service Departments must really be the judges of whether the defence of the country requires something—but we are prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman and representatives of the Corporation of the City of Plymouth to discuss any site about which they want to make further representations. We can then sit down and explain why a certain area is required by us and see whether anything can be done about it.
  Having said that, I want to go a little into other aspects of the problem. I believe that before I had time to come into the Chamber the hon. Gentleman said that the War Office were holding too much land and land which is too good. We hold 600 acres and other Government Departments about 160 acres of War Department land between them. For a port of the importance and the vulnerability of the City of Plymouth, I do not think that that is an excessive amount if we are to provide the defences which are necessary.
  I should also like to point out that, even if we wanted to, the War Office could not hand certain of the disputed land back to the City of Plymouth, because it belongs to the Crown Commissioners of Lands. Consequently, if any such step as the hon. Gentleman has suggested were possible, the procedure would
  1178
  be that we should have to hand this land back to the Crown Commissioners. So the hon. Gentleman would have to start his attack all over again upon the Crown Commissioners.
  Turning to the question of the Hoe itself, the hon. Gentleman referred to an agreement made in 1821. I would point out that the agreement was a very serious document and not by any means the sort of ramshackle affair it appeared to be from his remarks. The agreement ended by saying that it was entered into for the purpose of
  "putting an end to … discussions and disputes and for quieting the title of the respective parties to the said several pieces of land."
  This was the very purpose of the agreement. Of course, there are always dissentients to any agreement between cities and Government Departments, but the whole purpose of the agreement was to achieve amity and to iron out and cause to disappear the disputes which had taken place until then.
  The hon. Gentleman challenged me once or twice to deny his historical facts. I should not think of doing so. I have no doubt that they were correct, and his was an interesting historical survey. But it is not possible for Government Departments to go far back into history of that kind, and then to hand over the land because of some doubt way back in early history as to somebody's title to the land. We should have to go back to "1066 and all that." Where that would finally stop, I tremble to think.
  May I say that I think it is important to note that the public have access for recreational purposes to all parts of the coast owned by the War Department except the area of Western Kings. I have examined that area with care, and found it would have cost a substantial amount of money, because of the installations there, for security measures to be taken so that access could be given without there being interference by passers-by. I was also told that, in fact, it was a rare occurrence for people to want to use the pathway on this site.
  The present position of the Hoe is that the Corporation of Plymouth has undisputed ownership of the Hoe itself, and, in addition, have a 99 years' lease dating from 1885 originally of about 28 acres, including Hoe Park, of adjoining

  1179
  land, subject to the right of the War Department to resume occupation for military purposes. From time to time small areas of the land have been resumed for these purposes, but 25 acres still remain under lease. So, really, it is an exaggeration to say that the people of Plymouth have been deprived of the amenity of this area and, indeed, of the Hoe itself. The great majority of what is generally regarded as the Hoe is in the undisputed ownership of the Corporation and, therefore, of the people of Plymouth.
  I was asked what was the mystery about the citadel. The answer is that at
  1180
  present it is used partly as a Territorial Army establishment and it is also to be modernised as part of the general coast defence services of Great Britain.
  Mr. Foot: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to give a misleading impression about the ownership of the Hoe. The area which—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Central London Rebuilding Programme
  Central London Rebuilding Programme
  Building Trades Training Centres
  Building Trades Training Centres
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Merchant Navy and Police (Liability)
  Merchant Navy and Police (Liability)
  Civil Defence Mobile Column
  Civil Defence Mobile Column
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Ex-Service Men (London Appointments Office)
  Disabled Ex-Service Men (London Appointments Office)
  Blind Workers, Sunderland
  Blind Workers, Sunderland
  Borough Exchange
  Borough Exchange
SCOTLAND
  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Spastic Children
  Spastic Children
  River Purification Board, Ayr (Draft Proposals)
  River Purification Board, Ayr (Draft Proposals)
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Estimates, 1952
  Estimates, 1952
  Pricing Offices
  Pricing Offices
  Hydro-Electricity Board (Constructional Schemes)
  Hydro-Electricity Board (Constructional Schemes)
  Abortions
  Abortions
BRITISH ARMY
  Mineworkers (Territorial Service)
  Mineworkers (Territorial Service)
  Forces, Korea (Mails)
  Forces, Korea (Mails)
  Lord Gowrie (Servants)
  Lord Gowrie (Servants)
  Lieutenancy Dress (Forage Caps)
  Lieutenancy Dress (Forage Caps)
  1st Lancs. Fusiliers, Kenya
  1st Lancs. Fusiliers, Kenya
  Pay Account (Personal Case)
  Pay Account (Personal Case)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  First-Feature Films (Production)
  First-Feature Films (Production)
  Wood Flour Order Application (Cost)
  Wood Flour Order Application (Cost)
  Anglo-Indonesia Trade Discussions
  Anglo-Indonesia Trade Discussions
  Match Industry (Monopolies Commission's Report)
  Match Industry (Monopolies Commission's Report)
  Vegetable Imports (Quotas)
  Vegetable Imports (Quotas)
  Steel Door Frames
  Steel Door Frames
  Food Imports (Value and Duties)
  Food Imports (Value and Duties)
  New Factories and Extensions, Scotland
  New Factories and Extensions, Scotland
  London Builders' Conference (Inquiry)
  London Builders' Conference (Inquiry)
  >SCHEDULE
  >SCHEDULE
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Shillings, Reading
  Shillings, Reading
  Foreign Aid (Sterling Value)
  Foreign Aid (Sterling Value)
  Colonial Territories (Dollar Surplus and Sterling Assets)
  Colonial Territories (Dollar Surplus and Sterling Assets)
  Clergy (Easter Offerings)
  Clergy (Easter Offerings)
  Members' Expenses (Tax Liability)
  Members' Expenses (Tax Liability)
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES)
  GREATER LONDON (POPULATION DECENTRALISATION)
  GREATER LONDON (POPULATION DECENTRALISATION)
  BRACKNELL NEW TOWN (WICK HILL)
  BRACKNELL NEW TOWN (WICK HILL)
  HOUSING Rent-Restricted Dwellings (Repair)
  HOUSING Rent-Restricted Dwellings (Repair)
  Local Authority Statistics
  Local Authority Statistics
TRANSPORT
  Fraserburgh Lifeboat Disaster
  Fraserburgh Lifeboat Disaster
  Driving Tests, Leeds (Inquiry)
  Driving Tests, Leeds (Inquiry)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Batchers' Shops, Scotland (Meat Price Tags)
  Batchers' Shops, Scotland (Meat Price Tags)
  Slaughterhouses (Siting Policy)
  Slaughterhouses (Siting Policy)
COAL
  Domestic Supplies
  Domestic Supplies
FUEL AND POWER
  Fuel Saving Equipment (Loan Scheme)
  Fuel Saving Equipment (Loan Scheme)
  North Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Breadalbane Project)
  North Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Breadalbane Project)
  STEEL PLATE DELIVERIES, SUNDERLAND
  STEEL PLATE DELIVERIES, SUNDERLAND
  FLYING SCHOOLS (DISPLACED INSTRUCTORS)
  FLYING SCHOOLS (DISPLACED INSTRUCTORS)
AGRICULTURE
  Peas Marketing Scheme
  Peas Marketing Scheme
  Annual Price Review
  Annual Price Review
  Proposed Developments (Notification to Owners and Occupiers)
  Proposed Developments (Notification to Owners and Occupiers)
  Calf Certifying Officers
  Calf Certifying Officers
  Grey Squirrels (Bounty Scheme)
  Grey Squirrels (Bounty Scheme)
  ARMED FORCES (VOLUNTARY ENGAGEMENTS, 1952)
  ARMED FORCES (VOLUNTARY ENGAGEMENTS, 1952)
  HEALTH SERVICES (STATISTICS)
  HEALTH SERVICES (STATISTICS)
  TELEPHONE KIOSKS AND PDXAR-BOX (ESTATE, HUYTON)
  TELEPHONE KIOSKS AND PDXAR-BOX (ESTATE, HUYTON)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON BILL
  Read 3a, and passed.

THE SUEZ CANAL ZONE
2.37 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the event of an Agreement being reached between this country and Egypt in regard to the Canal, the Agreement will contain a provision requiring its ratification after first publication, so as to provide an opportunity for Parliament to consider the terms of the Agreement before it actually comes into force.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, the noble Lord is presumably referring to the possibility of our reaching agreement with the Egyptian Government on outstanding issues, including the Canal Zone garrison and base. In that eventuality, Her Majesty's Government would have to consider whether there should be a provision in the Agreement requiring ratification so as to provide Parliament with an opportunity to consider the terms of the Agreement. I cannot at this stage anticipate the decision of Her Majesty's Government. There will be a number of considerations to be taken into account. I can, however assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government will give full weight to the fact that in the case of an Agreement of this importance ratification would be normal.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for his Answer.

ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT ON THE SUDAN
2.38 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask whether the Government will make it clear that they accept neither the unilateral repudiation nor the unilateral observance of treaties; and whether they will therefore make it clear that, if General Neguib and his agents continue to infringe the spirit and intention of the recent Anglo-Egyptian Agreement providing for Sudanese independence, the British Government will regard it as invalid.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the views of Her Majesty's Government concerning the unilateral repudiation of treaties have already been made abundantly clear on many occasions As regards the observance of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement of 12th February, 1953, concerning the Sudan, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to carry out this Agreement in the letter and the spirit. It can, however, work only if both parties to the Agreement co-operate.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, was not the purpose of this Agreement that the Sudanese should be free to decide their own future, immune from any pressure or propaganda? Is that really the position to-day? I think few of us would believe it. May I further point out that on March 26 Mr. Selwyn Lloyd was reported as having said in Khartoum that this Agreement will work only if the two co-domini will abstain from propaganda, a view which I have held from the first?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I rather think the noble Lord has succeeded in answering his own two supplementary questions to his satisfaction.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, my point is this. Does the noble Marquess

353
really believe that that is the situation to-day? Are not the Sudanese being subjected to quite illicit propaganda?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am very anxious to say nothing at the moment which might disturb the delicate position which exists in the Sudan. As I have said already, this Treaty can work only if both Parties agree to co-operate, and. we must continue to hope that that co-operation will be forthcoming.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government agree that the time has now come to make it clear to the world, as well as to Egypt, that the Egyptians were driven from the Sudan, with heavy losses, in 1884–85, not by the British but by the Sudanese; and further, that in 1898–99 the Egyptians were led back to the Sudan by the British; and that the present good government and good administration of the Sudan are entirely due to the British and the British-manned Sudanese Civil Service, and not in any degree to the Egyptians?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, if the question which the noble Lord has just asked can be summed up as saying that the Sudan service has, during the past years, been a very admirable service, nobody, I think, would dispute it. I believe that on that we are all in agreement. Perhaps we can leave it at that.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
2.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, it falls to me this afternoon to move the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill. I cannot, I imagine, hope that this is likely to be an entirely uncontroversial measure. I shall no doubt be told by one or other speaker on the opposite Benches how wicked it is for any Government to undo their predecessors' work. That, my Lords, is an argument that we have already frequently heard since the present Government came into office, and it has, I can fully appreciate, considerable merit for the Party to which noble Lords opposite belong. For under that thesis, as it is expounded,
354
it is apparently perfectly legitimate for them to make whatever changes they like in our social and economic system, however fan-reaching these changes may be, but it is morally wrong for us, when the country entrusts us with the reins of power, to attempt to undo them. That is one-way traffic, with a vengeance. And it must, I should have thought, lead ultimately to the complete socialisation of this country. That, presumably, is what noble Lords opposite would like; but I think it is fair to comment that if the country also had wanted that, it would not have returned us to power. The fact that it has returned us, I suggest, is a sign that it does not want it.
At the same time, I will certainly agree so far with noble Lords opposite as to say that violent fluctuations between unrestricted private enterprise and totalitarian Socialism are not likely to be to the advantage either of industry or of the country. Her Majesty's Government recognise that fact, and they are therefore not by this Bill proposing the return of the industry to unrestricted private enterprise. What we have tried to do is to find some middle line between the opposing views—what I think the Minister of Supply on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place called a "commonsense solution." That, I believe personally, is right; for in politics—as we all know if we have any experience of them—one can never, even if one wants to, put the clock right hack where it was before. In any case, to try to do so is not, I should have thought, compatible with an evolutionary society, and that we are an evolutionary society is, I think, common ground and, an the same time, our proudest boast.
It is perfectly true that we, on this side of the House, believe in private enterprise and in the encouragement of individual incentive. We do not share the view which was once expressed by one of the leading members of the Labour Party that individual incentive is "an appeal to the selfish motive." We do not share that view. Nor, I imagine, is there any large body of opinion in this country that does entirely share that view, at any rate when applied to their own lives. I suspect that even some noble Lords on the other side of the He use have at one time or another felt the spur of individual incentive. That is what at has brought them to the top of their professions. Without

355
that spur this country would be a very "poor" place indeed, in every meaning of that adjective.
For that reason, Her Majesty's Government have decided to return the industry to private hands—under which, after all, it became great—so that individual initiative can have fuller play. But they believe, equally, that it is to the interest of the community to harmonise individual initiative and the national interest, both by co-operation between privately-owned companies and also, as your Lordships know, by a public supervisory Board, composed of members representative of management, the employees and the consumers, with the addition of some members of an independent character. That is an example of that evolution which first materialised, as your Lordships know, in the machinery of the Iron and Steel Board, established by the late Government and operated by them between 1946 and 1949.
If I may say so with real deference, had the late Government continued on the lines on which they started, we might well by now have achieved an agreed solution of this very difficult problem. For the machinery of that Board, it is, I think, common ground to say, proved extremely successful in combining private enterprise with public supervision. It was during, that period that private enterprise laid the foundation of the expansion which is taking place to-day. It has been claimed, I understand, by some spokesmen of the Party opposite, that this expansion was the result of nationalisation. I hope that they will not make that claim here this afternoon. No doubt, any case can be bolstered up by a trained advocate, by means of a judicious manipulation of figures. I myself could claim, if I wished, that nationalisation had demonstrably failed merely because production seriously declined, as we all know it did, in 1951. But I do not propose to use that argument, because any of us who have studied this question at all know that the decline in that particular year was largely due to a shortage of raw materials.
Equally, it would I think be entirely bogus—if I may use such an epithet—for noble Lords opposite to argue that nationalisation had been proved a success merely because production recovered in 1952 to 16.4 million tons of ingot steel
356
and is likely to be higher yet this year, reaching a total of 17.5 million tons. Noble Lords must know perfectly well, if they have any experience of the subject—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, and others have—that this gratifying increase is largely—I should say mainly—due to capital expansion schemes which were put in hand by the industry under private ownership in the years immediately after the war, before nationalisation became an accomplished fact. It was the new blast furnaces which were planned at that time which increased pig iron production from 9.633 million tons in 1950 to an expected total of over 11 million tons in 1953. Further, raw materials were secured under the industry's own arrangement to expand home ore production and increase supplies of imported ore. But all the admirable arrangements which have produced this most desirable result were made, I would emphasise, not by the Iron and Steel Corporation but by the industry itself; and increased supplies of scrap were secured through organisations built up by the industry in collaboration with scrap merchants' organisations.
I am not going to argue to-day that nationalisation has already wrecked the iron and steel industry; that, clearly, is not true. During the period that has elapsed between the passing of the late Government's Act and now, individual iron and steel companies—fortunately, as we think—have remained separate entities, with their own local responsibility; and much of the old spirit which existed before nationalisation—at any rate according to the information which I have received—still obtains to-day. Moreover, of course, the very efficient central services which the industry itself built up also continued by agreement with the Iron and Steel Corporation.
But that situation, however happy it may be, is one which I am quite certain it will be agreed could not permanently continue. Indeed, the Corporation was constrained—or, if it had continued, would have been constrained—by its obligations under the 1949 Act to assume ever-increasing control of the companies. It was bound to do this; and as a result, quite inevitably, there would have been more and more centralisation, more interference in the planning of finance, of production, of the supply of raw

357
materials, and in the day-to-day work of the individual companies. As a result, the individual initiative of these companies to which I have referred would have been gradually sapped by this increase in centralised control. All the dangers which flow from monopoly—and I would point out that while monopoly can be private, it can equally be public—would have made themselves gradually felt. Either the removal of healthy competition would have led to a slackening off of effort, which would have been utterly disastrous to us in our present situation, or, even if that did not happen, the consciousness of those engaged in these industries that they were not risking their own money would inevitably, whatever they intended, have led to irresponsibility and to that type of extravagance which I am sorry to say has made itself felt in so many other nationalised industries in the past.
Moreover, apart altogether from these general perils which are inherent in nationalisation, there are for the iron and steel industry, I submit, special dangers flowing from the policy of the late Government. As your Lordships know, the effect of the existing Act, the Act of 1949, was to divide the industry into two parts—that owned publicly and that owned privately. The arbitrary and illogical nature of this division was perhaps to some extent inevitable in an industry which has so many ramifications as the iron and steel industry, especially as this division was based on ownership and not, as it ought to have been, on the nature of the work being done. But the result, and a very bad one for the industry, was that under the Act part of it came under the control of the new Iron and Steel Corporation and part did not. Nor in this anomalous situation has there been any serious attempt to provide common services for the whole of the industry. Indeed, the Corporation—and I am not trying to say that they have done poorly in the matter—since they were owners of only a part of the industry, were not in a position to do this. The situation was saved only by the realism of the Corporation, who came voluntarily to an agreement with the Iron and Steel Federation, under which the latter continued their existing activities of providing services for both the publicly- and the privately-owned concerns. But that
358
was a position which clearly could not continue permanently in a predominantly nationalised industry. Finally, the Act created a monopoly—and a monopoly to which the Government's own Monopolies Act did not apply.
Such, in our view, were the disadvantages of the Act which is at present on the Statute Book, however well intentioned it may have been. Her Majesty's Government believe that those errors are mistakes which can be put right by the provisions of the present Bill—which I should now like to expound very briefly to your Lordships. I will do this as shortly as I can, for I know that there are many other noble Lords who wish to speak. Nevertheless, the fact that the Bill has already beer discussed and ventilated in another place does not, in my view, relieve the Government of the responsibility of saying something about the provisions here also.
I begin by saying that Part I of the Bill provides for the repeal of the Iron and Steel Act of 1949 on a day to be appointed by the Minister, and for the transfer of all the assets and liabilities of the Iron and Steel Corporation, with the exception of rights and liabilities in respect of Iron and steel Stock, to a new Holding and Realisation Agency to be set up for the purpose of restoring iron and steel undertakings to private ownership. The Corporation will cease to exist as soon as they have presented their final accounts to the Minister—and this, it is expected, as your Lordships know, will be accomplished within a month of the appointed day.
Part II of the Bill covers the first leg, if I may so call it, of the Government's policy for the iron and steel industry, namely the creation of a new supervisory body to cover the whole industry; and I would emphasise the word "whole." It provides for the setting up of an Iron and Steel Board and lays down the qualifications for membership of the Board. The intention is that members will be drawn from iron and steel producers, the consumers and the trade unions, with an independent chairman and a number of independent members. The Board's primary duty will be to exercise a general supervision over the iron and steel industry, including companies owned for the time being by the Holding and Realisation Agency to which I have

359
already referred. Your Lordships will see that the operations covered by the term "iron and steel industry" are defined in the Third Schedule to the Bill. Broadly, they include all processes using the main materials of steel making—that is, pig-iron and ferrous scrap, and all processes which convert these materials into the raw materials for engineering and other industries.
The Board's powers of supervision are widely drawn. It has particularly to keep under review productive capacity; the supply and distribution of raw materials and fuel; prices; the arrangements for the promotion of research, training and education; the safety, health and welfare of employees in the industry; and joint consultation. In addition to these general duties of supervision, the Board is given direct powers at strategic points, in particular in the three vital matters of development, prices and raw materials. Accordingly, the Bill provides that the Board shall take steps to secure the co-operation of the industry in the adequate provision and use of production facilities in Great Britain, and any investment overseas that may be necessary to safeguard supplies of iron ore. Where, for one reason or another, it is unable to persuade the industry to undertake developments which are considered necessary—and experience since 1939 suggests that such circumstances are not very likely to arise—the Board may report to the Minister, who is given power, on receiving such a report, to finance and undertake the development himself.
The Board is also empowered—again often consultation—to require its consent to be obtained to schemes of major capital development which are likely to affect the efficiency and the balance of the industry in the country. But it is quite clearly laid down that it can refuse a proposal only if it is likely seriously to prejudice the efficient and economic development of production facilities. For the Government, believing as they do in the advantages of private enterprise, feel that it is a serious matter to refuse to allow a company to spend its own money in the way it thinks best. For this same reason provision is also made for an appeal to the Minister against a veto by the Board.
Another provision enables the Board to determine maximum prices to be charged,
360
in the United Kingdom, for iron and steel products. Such a provision, it is felt, may be necessary to enable the Board to ensure that the price structure of the industry is sound and consistent with its general policy and is such as to encourage the most efficient and economic, as well as adequate and competitive, production. It will also enable the Board to protect the consumer should there be a case where competition amongst producers is inadequate to secure a fair and reasonable price. In another clause, the Board is authorised to arrange for the importation of raw materials and finished steel, in case industry itself should fail to make adequate arrangements—although I would say again that our experiences in recent years suggest that there is no reason to suppose that the Board will, in practice, have to exercise this power. It is a reserve power for use in case of emergency. Your Lordships will, indeed, have noticed that throughout Part II of the Act—I should say "of the Bill": I do not wish to be premature—emphasis is placed on the need for full consultation between the Board and both sides of industry. This is in line with the Government's view that private enterprise should be given full play, subject to such guidance as is necessary in the public interest.
In a word, the Board is there only to guard public interests and to guide private interests. It is the Government's hope and belief that it should be able to do this more by its prestige and influence than by the use of its direct powers and they are confident that the Board will receive the fullest support and cooperation from the iron and steel industry itself. I ought perhaps to mention here that one of the means by which the Board will be able to make its influence felt is through the publicity which will be given to the annual report which it is required to prepare for submission to Parliament. Noble Lords may also note, from the White Paper on Iron and Steel policy, that the Government will consult the Board when any question arises of modifying the import duties on iron and steel.
But however well the supervision of the iron and steel industry may operate, we recognise that there are bound to arise some matters of wider national interest on which the Government of the

361
day may wish to intervene. Accordingly the Bill gives reserve powers to the Government on the important matters of development, price and raw materials. I have already referred to the Minister's power to finance and undertake development where the Board considers it necessary in the interests of efficient economic and adequate production. He is also empowered, after consultation with the Board, to undertake development or to keep works in being on his own initiative, where he is satisfied that it is in the interests of the country to do so. There may, for example, be strategic reasons at one time or another for doing so.
There is once more a provision that the Minister may direct the Board to fix the maximum price of any iron and steel product where this is necessary in the national interest and is consistent with efficient and adequate production. Finally, the Minister is empowered to direct the Board to import finished steel where, after consultation with the Board and with industry, he considers that the supply of this product is, or is likely soon to be, inadequate. These reserve powers of the Minister will in themselves afford a valuable opportunity of Parliamentary scrutiny, which I think it is common ground in all parts of the House should be stimulated where possible.
There are two further matters which perhaps I should mention before leaving this Part of the Bill. The first is the provision to ensure that the Board is kept in touch with, and consulted about, matters concerning the European Coal and Steel Community. This provision will, I am sure, commend itself to all your Lordships, in whatever part of the House you sit. The second matter has been the subject of considerable discussion in another place and in the Press, and that is the position under the Bill of the iron and steel foundries. The Government consider that it would be quite illogical to exclude foundries from the supervision of the Iron and Steel Board since they consume some 5½ million tons of pig-iron and scrap a year—about a quarter of the total supply. The foundries, as is well-known, are, in the main small although numerous. The large numbers ought to ensure that competition within this section of the industry, and, indeed, between it and other in-
362
dustries, such as drop forging, can keep prices competitive; and the small size of the unit makes it very unlikely that the Board would wish to have schemes of development submitted to it for approval. In view, however, of the concern that has been expressed in another place, Her Majesty's Government have excluded foundry products from the clause of the Bill dealing with the consent to the provision of production facilities; and they have specially limited the circumstances in which the maximum prices of castings and forgings can be fixed by the Board.
I should like now to turn for a few minutes to Part III of the Bill which deals with what I may call the other leg of Government Policy, that is, the restoration of nationalised companies to private ownership. The disposal of the shares in steel companies will be undertaken by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency which is to be appointed by the Treasury. Your Lordships will have noted that this Part of the Bill gives the utmost flexibility. This is intentional because the Government are determined to get an adequate price for these shares and if, indeed—I can say this quite clearly and frankly to your Lordships—satisfactory offers are not forthcoming, the securities will not be sold. There is, therefore, no obligation upon the Agency to effect such sales within a given period of time—that is the elasticity to which I referred. The Agency will be under the general control and direction of the Treasury, who in turn will be answerable to Parliament.
It is not our intention that the Agency should interfere in the day-to-day management of the subsidiary companies, but it will be responsible for promoting efficient direction, primarily through its power of appointing the boards of directors, and it will have power to merge or regroup Agency companies where this is felt to be necessary. In order to ensure, however, that nothing shall be done which is likely seriously to prejudice the efficient economic and adequate supply of steel and iron products the Agency is required to consult the Board before proceeding with the grouping or regrouping of the undertakings of an) subsidiaries of the Agency. If the Board advise against the Agency's proposal, it cannot be proceeded with under this Bill unless the Treasury

363
direct the Agency to do so; the Treasury, in turn, can give such a direction only after they have laid a minute before Parliament and two sitting weeks have elapsed since the minute was laid.
The provisions of this Part of the Bill may seem complicated to those of your Lordships who, like myself, I must confess, have no particular claim to a knowledge of accountancy; but I am told by the experts that they will enable effect to be given to the most business-like arrangement for disposing of the assets; for providing for the continued finance of development in the industry in the interim; and for winding up the affairs of the present Corporation. I would emphasise once again the Government's determination to get an adequate price for these assets and to dispose of them in such a manner as to avoid any interruption in the steady expansion of iron and steel output.
My Lords, such is the nature of the Bill which it is my agreeable duty to recommend to the House to-day. I recognise entirely that it will not satisfy doctrinaire extremists at either end of the Parliamentary scale—neither those who approve only of free enterprise without any restraint whatsoever, nor those who believe that no industry can flourish unless it is completely socialised, both in its ownership and its administration. It will not satisfy either of those two extreme groups. No doubt those two schools of thought, and especially perhaps the latter, are well represented in both Houses of Parliament. But there is one thing of which I personally am quite certain—they are neither of them characteristic of the British people as a whole.
It has often been said in this House, even since I have been here, that the British are not a nation either of doctrinaires or extremists; they are, above all, practical and objective. They know perfectly well that in the modern, highly integrated world, liberty cannot be entirely unrestrained; and equally, they do not believe for one moment that all the problems in an industry can be solved by handing over the shares to some public body. What they want, I am certain, is the largest measure of individual liberty that is compatible with the overriding needs of the community, and that is
364
what, in the industrial sphere, this Bill seeks to provide. It is for that reason that I commend it with confidence for the consideration and, I hope, the approval of this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
3.12 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I am sure you will have shared with me my satisfaction that the noble Marquess, the Lord President of the Council, is in charge of this Bill to-day, for it is a complicated and peculiar measure and we are greatly at advantage in having his clarity of mind and charm of exposition to help us on our way. The Government are indeed especially fortunate, for it does call for very particular gifts to commend this remarkable Bill to an analytical and critical Assembly such as this. When the noble Marquess described the ideal, average, reasonable man, as being neither entirely prejudiced in favour of bureaucratic all-pervading Socialism nor completely favourable to unrestricted private enterprise, he was describing in flattering terms my own point of view.
Because the Iron and Steel Act, 1949, which this very cumbersome Bill is going to repeal and which was passed after so much deliberation, inquiry, consideration and debate, established a "middle of the road" course, and because it was neither unrestricted private enterprise nor Whitehall bureaucratic Socialism, many of us supported it. When we examine this present Bill and the state of affairs which will obtain if and when it has been passed, I think we shall be grievously worried as to whether we have got an improvement. I doubt very much whether at this time of day, if they had not committed themselves hastily to political pledges which many must now deeply regret, the Government would have proceeded with this Bill at all, because it is conceived in political prejudice and it is, if ever a Bill was, dictated by blind adherence to dogma. Here is a doctrinaire measure designed merely to satisfy a political doctrine—it fulfils no other purpose.
The iron and steel industry in this country in present circumstances cannot be a truly competitive private industry. I believe in private enterprise. I believe that private enterprise has conferred great

365
boons upon the community, and that by private enterprise we have much yet to do and far yet to go. But there are some special services, some vital undertakings, which are so woven into the fabric of our life, which comprise so important a part of everybody else's business and which are, as in this case, so essential to our trade and commerce in peace and to our defence and survival in time of war, that they cannot be left to competitive private enterprise. To impose these obligations upon boards of directors who, by the very nature of their office and the obligations of their articles, are required to serve the interests of particular groups of shareholders; to impose these national obligations, often charged with heavy financial commitments and responsibilities, upon groups,of company directors appointed and elected for entirely different purposes, is to make nonsense of phrases like "private enterprise" and all these doctrinaire words. What we have to do, I suggest, is to find a way of operating this industry which will give us the highest measure of competitive efficiency in the markets of the world, which will supply the raw materials to other industries in the most efficient manner, in adequate quantity and quality at the lowest possible price, which will give a good life to the people who work so hard in the industry—and it is a hard industry all the way through—and which will at the same time regard as a paramount obligation the national considerations upon which the very survival of our people depend.
It is my sincere belief that the original arrangement which was worked out for the transfer to public ownership of the essential iron and steel-making concerns in the 1949 Act, was the best way we have yet devised of securing the highest common factor of the somewhat conflicting obligations. It was a new form of public ownership. It was worked out especially for this quite unusual and unique industry. I am not ashamed of some responsibility for it myself. It was the very opposite of the centralised, bureaucratic, Whitehall-controlled undertaking which we used to think about as the only possible way of securing nationalisation. It left intact all the many companies which came under its purview. Their famous names, their world-wide reputations, the particular and
366
peculiar skills resident in their own staffs, their boards of directors, were not interfered with. I have been looking at the Report of the Iron and Steel Corporation which was presented last year. I see that as regards the 450 directors of the companies that were taken into ownership by the Corporation, there were only thirty-nine changes, so that there was continuity of management. Boards of directors continued to function with no more change in their daily work than if the shares in their companies had been sold by individuals to one another—a thing that is taking place on the Stock Exchange every day.
One of the advantages claimed for the 1949 Act was that it did, in fact, preserve all that was best in private enterprise, while relieving the boards of directors of those national financial obligations which it is no part of their business, and no part of the business of their shareholders, to undertake. That Act was passed, and this industry has bet operated under these new conditions now for over two years. I certainly do not claim that the record of the steel industry during these last two years is entirely, or chiefly, due to the circumstance of nationalisation—if that is what the Government call it; I much prefer to call it public ownership." But, surely, we had a right to expect that the noble Marquess, on behalf of the Government. would have produced some reason, would have pointed to some flaw in the functioning of this apparatus, which justifies this revolutionary, doctrinaire change; because this thing is working. During the last year production and profits have been rising. Consumers of the raw materials manufactured by this industry have every reason to approve of the present organisation, and one would have expected that there would have been marshalled some facts of failure, some flaws of organisation, something which would have justified once more throwing this industry into the melting pot—perhaps that worn-out metaphor is justified when talking about this particular industry—for into the melting pot it is,going.
What is going to happen from now on if this Bill is carried into law, at this time, when the overriding need of this industry and of all dependent upon it—and it makes the raw materials of more than half of our total export trade apart

367
from its own—is to have the means for a surge forward in capital development, which has lagged behind owing to the years of the war and preoccupation with armament requirements? Everything is uncertain. Nobody, in any of these companies, knows what is going to happen to them. They are to be handed over to this Agency which the noble Marquess said, I think, is the third leg, or the second leg of the Government's policy. In point of time, and it may be for a very long time, this is the only leg that will be walking. This is the receivership which is charged with the duty of selling-off all these assets to someone else. To whom? There are over ninety major producers of iron and steel. They employ hundreds of thousands of people. Upon their future the fate of whole cities and towns and districts depends.
It was alleged at the time when the transfers were made that the price paid in compensation was far too little, that the shareholders received far less than the real value of the undertakings. Well, that may be so; I am not going to argue about it now. But, at any rate, the amount paid out was over £250 million. Where are the buyers for £250 million worth of assets to-day? There is a provision in the Bill which must surely be a meaningless provision, and must have been known to be meaningless by those who drafted it, that the Board shall try to find, and give preference to, the original shareholders. Which of the original shareholders is coming into the market for these vast undertakings, many of which have been amalgamated and others of which will be amalgamated and made still larger before the sales take place? I should think there is only one possible class of buyer—the great investing corporations or the insurance companies. Is this private competitive enterprise? Why go to all this trouble, and cause all this upset and uncertainty, to transfer the holdings from a public agency to, say, a Prudential agency? What particular virtue, knowledge or experience have the staff of an insurance company which will enable them as owners to run such a concern as Guest Keen Baldwins better than the people who are owners to-day? Yet that is what this means. You can use the words "private enterprise," but if you mean
368
real, competitive, thrusting private enterprise in the steel industry, it will not come back. What we have here is a national industry performing a national function, and no amount of use of political slogans will change it.
What is going to happen when this Agency is established? It says in the White Paper that it will take years—yes, it actually says years, here in the White Paper—to sell off these assets. What is going to happen during all these years, vital, critical, years, not only for the iron and steel industry but for the future of Britain? What is going to happen to this most basic of all British industries? It is going to be in the hands of a receiver with the duty of selling it off as best he can. As to who will constitute this Agency, we are left in complete doubt. They are people who are going to be appointed by the Treasury. They are not even to be appointed by the Ministry of Supply, which has acquired great knowledge and experience of this industry. The Treasury is concerned purely with financial circumstances, yet, during all these years, it is this little body of Treasury appointees who are going to administer the steel industry in place of the Steel Corporation. It might go on for years and years and, in effect, the companies are in vicarious receivership, waiting for a buyer. What sort of circumstances are these for driving forward into a new world where we have to take our place and hold it? How long is it going on? For many years.
The noble Marquess made considerable point in his very able speech about the desirability of not having a split between the national sector and the private sector. Here is not a split, but a chasm, between those who have been sold to so-called private buyers and those who cannot find a buyer and remain nationalised. There is a split, if you like. Who is going to be sold first? Presumably, the most prosperous will be sold first; but the most prosperous undertakings in this set-up are by no means the most vital in the national interest. And it is those that will be left in the hands of the receiver, seeking and searching for a buyer; and through the long weary years the Treasury gentlemen will have to carry them on somehow. I do not think there will be many of your Lordships who will contradict me when

369
I say that this is an unheard of piece of commercial organisation, introduced with a frivolity and a complete lack of responsibility to satisfy doctrinaire politicians who gave hasty promises in the hope of attracting votes. It cannot he justified either on the facts of the industry's position or on the outlook for the future, so far as anybody can see.
Now we come to the regulatory and supervisory functions. What sort of supervisory functions are there? It seems to me that those who believe most in private enterprise can pick the biggest quarrel with this kind of supervision. It is control of a niggling, roving, negative kind, which does all sorts of harm and very little good. My right honourable friend in another place described this ramshackle vehicle as having been fitted with brakes but having no accelerator. It can stop things, but it cannot promote things. It can say, "No," but it cannot insist on, "Yes." It has all sorts of power to inquire and obtain information, but no kind of power to do anything with it. It has power to stop schemes of development which it does not like, but it has no power to promote development where within the industry itself that development is not forthcoming. So this remarkable carriage not only has brakes but no accelerator: it seems to me it has an exhaust pipe but very defective steering gear. In fact, it can do nothing to influence the real future of this industry. It can only make itself a nuisance and impose those kinds of control which are the most irritating and at the same time unproductive.
I will not detain your Lordships with further discussion about this industry. It has had considerable political uncertainty in recent years. In view of the loyal way in which the industry has carried out the Act of Parliament that was passed, after so much deliberation in two Parliaments, I should have thought it had earned a period of political quiescence, when it might concentrate on the business of bringing the industry fully up to date, and of making those changes to which attention is drawn in the most interesting Report of the Anglo-American Productivity Council, which says that the industry is too diverse, is badly sited arid has too many small capital units. That is the kind of treatment this industry wantsߞpolitical peace and every kind of help to go forward on its immense task. This
370
Bill can do nothing but bring the maximum amount of uncertainty, and the future remains obscure indeed.

KENYA: MAU MAU OUTRAGE
3.36 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, perhaps the House will permit me to intervene for a few moments to make a statement similar to the one being made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place.
On the night of Thursday, March 26, a number of Mau Mau gangs attacked simultaneously in al area roughly six miles by three in the Uplands District about twenty-five miles from Nairobi. The attacks were carefully planned. The method adopted was to wire up huts from the outside, set fire to the roofs and cut down the people with axes and swords as they tried to escape from the windows. Between 40 and 50 huts were burned. Of their inhabitants, 71 were murdered, 51 are still missing, and 50 were wounded. Most of the dead are women and children, who were cut down as they ran away through the maize plots. The heat of the fires was intense. Many people ran away in terror: often only the charred bodies of the victims were left. Thus it is difficult to estimate the casualties with accuracy, and the final figures will probably prove higher than those which I have given. About 2,000 inhabitants of the location have been screened and some hundreds have been detained, of whom at least 150 have been identified by survivors as having taken part in the massacre. A large party of police and an extra company of the King's African Rifles are now conducting an extensive investigation in the area.
About the same time a gang attacked Naivasha police station and killed three constables and some prisoners. They were unable to break: into the police armoury but forced the adjoining Kenya Police Reserve armoury and stole about thirty 303 rifles, eighteen Lanchester submachine guns and a double-barrelled shot gun and some rifle and revolver ammunition. While the attack on the police station was going on, another part of the gang re-leased 137 remanded prisoners, of whom some 50 have since been recap-

371
tured or have returned of their own accord. Military and police forces are now combing the district.
I am sure the House will wish to express their deepest sympathy with all the victims of this outrage. The Governor has assured my right honourable friend that every possible step will betaken both to follow up the criminals and to prevent a recurrence of these hideous and ghastly crimes.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Munster, for making this statement. We on this side of the House should like to join with him in expressing our deepest sympathy with all the victims of the outrage, which he has graphically described. He told us that his right honourable friend has been assured by the Governor that every possible step will be taken to follow up the criminals and to prevent a recurrence of these hideous crimes. On that, may I ask the noble Earl whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the report appearing in the Daily Telegraph last Saturday from their representative in Kenya, which reads as follows:—
"This double episode,"
that is, the episode described to-day—
"the blackest yet in Kenya's five-months-old emergency, seems to have caught the Colony's Government largely by surprise. Already there has been considerable criticism of the alleged slowness on the part of the Nairobi authorities to initiate counter-measures on the scale called for by the gravity of these audacious Mau Mau attacks. So far as I can ascertain not one senior police or military officer has visited Uplands up to this evening"—
that was on Friday evening. The report continues:
"In Nairobi the Government Information Department appears to be attempting to minimise the incidents. For nearly twenty hours after the Uplands massacre began the information service refused to issue any figures of the numbers killed."
Does the noble Earl regard those criticisms as just with reference to the Government's action in Kenya?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, my attention has been drawn to the article which appeared in the Daily Telegraph and to which the noble Lord referred, but I have no information either to support or
372
refute that article. With regard to the point, also mentioned in the article, that the information service appears to be attempting to minimise the incident, I can assure the noble Lord that the Governor, and, indeed, my right honourable friend, do not minimise this incident in any way whatever, but take a grave and serious view of it. I may add that the Governor has informed my right honourable friend this morning that he is himself making a three-day tour of the trouble areas, including Kiambu, to investigate the situation for himself.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, one question that causes me some anxiety is the security and protection that is given to these places where arms are kept. Here you have machine guns, rifles, and that sort of thing, which are obviously weapons which should be kept absolutely safe. Is the noble Earl satisfied that proper precautions were taken to guard these weapons; and if not, will he take steps to see that an admonition goes out from here, pointing out how vitally important, in this centre of trouble, such protection is?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I feel sure the noble and learned Earl is perfectly correct in saying that it is vital that these police stations should be adequately and properly protected. Although I have not any further information I can usefully give to the noble and learned Earl at the present moment, I can assure him that my right honourable friend and the Government of Kenya are very alive to the particular point he has made.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I have not the slightest wish at this moment to criticise anybody on the spot, but the noble Earl, Lord Munster, will recollect the great improvement which took place in the campaign in Malaya after direction of the campaign had been concentrated into fewer hands, if not, indeed, into a single pair of hands, and that the liaison between the military, police and civilian authorities was very much improved. Can the noble Earl say whether he is satisfied that steps have similarly been taken in Kenya to concentrate the direction of the campaign against Mau Mau into fewer hands, and to ensure that the liaison between all the authorities concerned has been improved and is working smoothly?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think I can give the noble Lord an assurance that the liaison is working far better than it did a short time ago. But I have nothing to add to the information given by my noble friend Lord Swinton on January 28 last about the set-up in Kenya.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, would the noble Earl differentiate carefully between the circumstances in Malaya and those in Kenya? The background appears to be totally different in the two cases.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I quite agree that the background is different in the two cases. Nevertheless, the murder and the slaughter of people are identical.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl and his right honourable friend will look into the question of the allegation of complacency that has been made in this article in the Daily Telegraph. We have had to fight that in Malaya and in Kenya, to a large extent. When troubles die down a little it so often happens that the local people seem to become complacent, and then there is another frightful outrage, or something of the kind. This sort of allegation is distressing to us all.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I agree that it is distressing, but I hope the noble Lord will not press me now either to confirm or deny the accuracy of what appeared in the Daily Telegraph. I will certainly make inquiries into the point. Let me add that I am certain there is no complacency in Kenya at the moment in regard to destroying this evil Mau Mau organisation which has arisen.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, it is evident that the country has been profoundly shocked by the news that has come from Kenya in the last two or three days. On behalf of Liberal Peers, I should like to join with the expression of sympathy that has just been made with the victims of this tragedy, and also to express the hope that the steps to be taken by the Government will be adequate to deal with what is clearly the worst development yet in that country.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
3.46 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, the Liberal Party will support the Bill before the House—but with some mental reservations. To Liberals, the form of organisation of any economic industry is not a matter of principle but one of expediency, as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, has said. How can the public interest best be served? Clearly the answer depends on the nature of the activity concerned. None of us would disagree about the public ownership of the Post Office, although perhaps there is not quite such a unanimity of feeling about the railways. So far as Liberal opinion in the country is concerned, we feel that in the cage of the iron and steel industry the disadvantages of public ownership heavily outweigh the advantages. Technical efficiency, continuous development and change are essential in a commercial enterprise, as the noble Lord who has just sat down said, and especially so in a basic industry on which our future prosperity in this country depends more perhaps than it does in any other country in the world. In the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill in 1949 this issue was fully discussed.
It is possible—and indeed it happens—that because of the scale of its operations, protection by means of a tariff, and for other reasons, the monopoly element may enter into the iron and steel industry. But even when this happens, even when there is agreement on markets or on prices, it still remains essential that there should be competition inside the industry. It remains essential to preserve such elements of competition as the possibility of individual firms backing their view against. the orthodoxy of the moment in regard to technical pressure, in the matter of organisation, and in particular, of freedom to make appointments to staff.
The late Government made the claim, and the noble Lord who spoke last repeated it, that their scheme was something quite new: that by making the Corporation a holding company, and preserving the individuality of the publicly-owned companies, they were setting up something that was capable of

375
maintaining this essential element of inner competition, and at the same time finding the best way of securing the public interest. I am afraid that some of us do not agree with that view. We feel that it was inevitable that, under the system set up, though it would not happen in the first place, the industry would tend year by year to become more and more centralised. That is our basic reason for disagreeing.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Can he point to any evidence that that has occurred?
LORD LAYTON: The Act has been in force for a matter of months.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: For two years.
LORD LAYTON: Yes; but for the last year under the certain knowledge that it was going to be repealed. Actually, so far as its effective operation is concerned, it was only a matter of months. I suggest that, while it is true that this was a new experiment, the late Government did not make the best of this good intention. For example, it was a great mistake—I hope noble Lords will forgive me for putting it dogmatically, but one expresses one's opinions—to purchase all the stocks and shares of all the companies which were taken over, because it cut the line between the management of those companies and any part of the public; it made them dependent upon the Central Government. It was of no interest to anybody to publish individual reports. Why worry whether the chairman's speech appeared in the newspapers? The only place where you could find out about Dorman Long, or whoever it might be, was in the last pages of the appendix of an annual report. The real contact between the commercial public and the firms was cut. It also altered the situation radically from that of a normal holding company, in the sense that the shareholders were in continuous session. The concept of the shareholders in relation to a strong independent board of directors was utterly different, under the Act of 1949, from that of the normal relationship between a board of directors and its shareholders.
It was for that reason that your Lordships' House sought to strengthen the in-
376
dependence of the individual firms during the passage of the Bill through this House in 1949. For example, three Amendments were proposed on the Report stage. The first Amendment instructed the Corporation in quite general terms to decentralise as much as possible That Amendment was accepted and embodied in the Act. The second Amendment called upon the Corporation to prepare and table a statement as to the relationship between the Corporation and the individual companies. That was passed, contrary to the wishes of the then Government in this House, but was thrown out by the Commons. Finally, an Amendment was introduced to give to boards of directors for five years that degree of security of tenure which was given to them by their Articles of Association. That Amendment was resisted by the Government, and was not passed.
The noble Lord who has just spoken said that competition had been taken out of the iron and steel industry under private enterprise. Does he really think that it is kept alive under Government ownership? On the contrary, the only thing that will happen under Government ownership is that gradually, point by point, you will develop administration by rule. We support this Bill very largely because it divorces control from ownership. Liberals think that, in spite of the disadvantage of making another big change within so short a time, it is right to return the industry to private enterprise, rather than to attempt to amend the existing system of public ownership. But it is also right to establish a Board with powers of control. Clearly, that should not be the same body which deals with the financial problem, and although it may seem complicated it is quite right that there should be these two quite separate organisations. It also follows, and is sound in principle, that if the Board thinks it necessary to develop production, and no one is willing to do it on the terms suggested, the Government, and not the Board, should undertake the production.
From our point of view, one of the chief merits of this Bill is that it straightens out a confusion of functions that all too often arises in nationalised schemes. The Bill is also sound in establishing a link between the body responsible for steel policy in this country and the Authority recently set up to control

377
the coal and steel industries in the countries who are parties to the Schuman pool. This Coal and Steel Community which has come into operation just across the Channel will vitally affect British basic industries for a long time to come. Before the war, Britain produced approximately 10 per cent. of the world's steel. Ten years later, in 1948, it still produced 10 per cent. of the world's steel. But in 1952 that figure had dropped to under 8 per cent. The chief reason for the difference was the fact that in most countries of the world steel production had gone up, but the main item in the increase arose from the fact that in four years the Schuman group of countries, the six countries in the steel pool, had increased their output from 23 million tons to 41 million tons. Whereas these countries nearly doubled their output in those years, British output only crept up from 15 million tons to just over 16 million tons.
Your Lordships will at once say, quite correctly, that the major part of that increase in the European Steel basin was German production rising from the depths to which it had fallen after the war years. That particular increase will not be repeated. But the High Authority of the Coal and Steel Community is planning on the assumption of an increase of 1 million tons year by year for the next decade, which would bring the output of that Steel Community to some figure between 50 million and 60 million tons. The High Authority justifies this on the ground that in Europe the consumption of steel is far too low; that mechanisation has not gone nearly far enough, and that the ordinary worker in Europe has not sufficient plant at his disposal to maintain anything like the standard of living they are trying to maintain. Increase in consumption per head is rising and may continue; and if that is so the output figures suggested are not fantastic. But what is Britain doing to catch up on that tremendous increase? Is this Bill likely to put us on level terms?
May I look at the matter from another point of view? I do not think that any economist or politician believes that it is possible to maintain 100 percent. full employment all the time and to eliminate the ups and downs of trade. Supposing ups and downs occur, this country will be facing a greatly enlarged steel indus-
378
try on the Continent and one which, because it is united, may be much more efficient in competitive power than in the past. This is not the time or the place to discuss what our relations with the Schuman group of countries should be. But there can be no doubt at all that we must be linked in some way with the Authority set up by those countries. Therefore, in my judgment, Clause 4 of this which sets up the channel of communication between the new authority in this country and the Authority which has been set up in Luxembourg, is perhaps the most important clause in this Bill; and I congratulate the Labour Members in another place upon having secured -its inclusion in the Bill.
Mention of the Schuman Plan leads me to some critical comments to which I referred when I said that Liberals had some mental reservations. It is right to set up separate and independent Board-controlled policy. But does the Bill give the right powers and the right instructions? I confess that I find the provisions in Part II of this Bill vague and indefinite. The powers were summarised and explained by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. The Bill instructs the Board to
"exercise general supervision of the iron and steel industry with a view to the promotion of efficiency and economy and of an adequate supply of iron and steel under competitive conditions."
That is a rather familiar sort of clause, of a very general lend. The Bill does specify for this purpose that the Board shall keep under review productive capacity, arrangements for dealing with raw materials, promotion of research and training and arrangements for safety, help and welfare, and for joint consultation between employer and employee in the industry. It is to watch what is going on. The Bill does not, however, make very clear what policy is to be followed by the Board, or what powers it is to use. There are some powers specifically included in Clauses 5 to 12 but very little is said on the last three of those items.
As regards production, the Board is responsible for consulting and, therefore, for initiating proposals for development. In certain circumstances, it can veto proposals corning from the industry. But its positive authority for getting its proposals

379
accepted stems from the fact that it can recommend the Government to start production on its own account—tthat, in fact, is the sanction behind its programme. As to prices, the Board's powers are limited to fixing maximum prices which can be enforced in the courts; but there is no directive as to price policy. Your Lordships will remember that towards the end of the discussions on the 1949 Act the point was constantly mentioned that we should trust the Minister. In spite of what has been said by the noble Lord who has just sat down, the policy in regard to iron and steel was, in fact, left vague in a hundred ways. Yet we were asked to put our faith in what the Minister might do. I confess to a certain feeling that in the present Bill we are again setting up the machinery, although with regard to what that machinery of control can do we must just hope for the best.
A NOBLE LORD: And fear the worst.
LORD LAYTON: I have been led to make these comments after re-reading, during a visit which I had occasion to pay this last week-end to the seat of the High Authority at Luxembourg, the Treaty setting up the Coal and Steel Community. The Bill now before the House and the Treaty setting up that Community have come into being for different reasons. In some respects they cover different fields and are not, therefore, strictly comparable. I should be out of order in considering in detail the operations of that organisation, but there are certain respects in which a comparison of the Bill and of the Treaty can throw light on this debate. Both of them are concerned with the supervision of their respective steel industries by bodies which do not own those industries; and a large number of the economic clauses in the Treaty cover precisely the points mentioned in the Bill.
The most obvious contrast between the two documents, the Bill and the Treaty, is that the Treaty deals with policy in very much more complete and considerable detail than the Bill does. It is more specific and more widely drawn than the Bill. The consumers and the employees also play a much greater part in it. Like the Steel Board the High Authority will discuss programmes of development and, as I have already indicated, perhaps in-
380
augurate a very great increase in the production of steel. Like the Board, the Authority cannot impose reconstruction or extensions on privately-owned works; but whereas the Bill proposes to allow the Government to build works if they are thought necessary, the Treaty endeavours to secure the same result differently—by financial inducements; for it is empowered to levy a rate on the whole production of the six countries, and to use that fund as the basis of capital which will be used for the reconstruction of the industries of Europe. There is a very important and very powerful financial apparatus set up by that Treaty in the reconstruction of Europe's industry. I do not find anything in the Bill which is comparable to that.
In the matter of prices, the High Authority is authorised to fix maximum prices and to enforce them by imposing fines on an increasing scale for offences repeated or prolonged. But unlike the Board, the High Authority has the right also to impose minimum prices under certain conditions. That has led to the suggestion that it is a cartel. But it is very far removed from the kind of monopolistic organisation which is generally conjured up by the use of that word. Articles 58 and 59 of the Coal and Steel Treaty deal respectively with conditions of surplus (in the case of Article 58) and of shortage (in the case of Article 59). If a crisis is threatened—as it may be by a surplus over demand—production quotas may be introduced into the organisation, but only with the consent of the national Ministers of Economics and—this is an important point, which I want particularly to emphasise—only after consultation with the Consultative Committee which has been set up, consisting of producers, workers, consumers and dealers. Reference must be made to these same bodies also if there is a serious shortage. In the event of the declaration of such shortage, the High Authority may establish priorities and make allocations among the industries, subject to its jurisdiction for exports or for other forms of consumption. These powers, including the power to appoint minimum as well as maximum prices, may be felt to bear the stigmata of a cartel. If so, it is a very public form of cartel and one which operates with the support of public opinion.
LORD CALVERLEY: To what is the noble Lord referring? Is he referring to this Bill?
LORD LAYTON: I will point the moral in a moment. I have indicated that we are going to compete with an organisation which, in its control, is developing and creating a powerful financial inducement. In the case of prices, the Authority has not only the power to fix maximum prices, but power also to fix minimum prices. And by fixing minimum prices it can endeavour to stabilise prices to tide over and meet the situation which may come through the ups and downs of trade. I am contrasting powers because my thesis is that the Bill gives no clear indication of policy for the Board, and that there is a vagueness about the powers which may be given to the Board.
LORD CALVERLEY: Is the noble Lord talking about our Board or the Schuman Plan Board?
LORD LAYTON: The Board and the Bill are the Board and the Bill before the House.
LORD CALVERLEY: Good.
LORD LAYTON: The contrast is with the organisation set up by the six Powers. There is no reference in the Bill to cartels, or to any possibility of having a price stabilisation policy. The only reference is to the fact that cases may be brought before the Monopolies Commission: in other words there is a prohibition only against high prices, whereas we are competing with countries which are trying to develop a price policy. My criticism of this Bill is on its vagueness in regard to the policy that should be followed by the Board, and the insufficiency of the powers which have been conferred upon it. I have already referred to the attempts made in this House in 1949 to secure from the Government a statement of the way it intended to work the Act, which left a very great deal of discretion to a new and untried authority. We asked that there should be a formal statement at the very beginning of the new regime indicating how that relationship should be established. I think that something of the same kind is badly needed in the present case. I ask the Government to consider whether, when this Bill conies into effect, they will table either in the form of a
382
directive or in the firm of a statement, made in consultation with the new Board, a policy which will give the industry and the public a better indication of the great tasks which lie ahead of it.
4.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRUCE OF MELBOURNE: My Lords, I do not think it will be necessary for me to delay your Lordships at any length, but I have been somewhat closely associated with the iron and steel industry over the last few years, owing to the fact that the Finance Corporation for Industry, of which I am the Chairman, has found all the finances for the carrying out of the development programme after the announcement of the proposed denationalisation was made. I have been particularly interested to-day by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot. The noble Marquess had indicated his views on the subject of nationalisation and private enterprise. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, followed him and said that he really agreed with what the noble Marquess had said. To me that was very refreshing, because I have spent a considerable part of my time over the last few years saying that the way in which this question of nationalisation and free enterprise was being magnified into a fundamental issue was a tragedy. What I have heard to-day has given me the slightest hope that perhaps our British traditional common sense is at last going to assert itself; that We are going to discard the idea that these things are great principles, and recognise that, while some great undertakings are suitable for public ownership, others, particularly those concerned with consumer goods or those entering very largely into international trade, are much more fitted for private enterprise. It is essential that we should get to that point, because to-day we are faced with our great obligation for rearmament and the vital necessity of increasing our exports. Unless we have an efficient, generally accepted and smoothly working industrial machine, there is no hope that we can achieve the objectives in front of us.
The other factor which I think we have to bear closely in mind when we are considering this measure is this. After all, steel is probably the most vital of all our forms of production: that was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, in making his point that it should be

383
under public ownership. It is so vital, that we must remember with regard to it that what is of vital importance in the case of steel applies also to a great number of other industries in the country. We have to remember that the two World Wars have completely upset the equilibrium of our financial and economic system and that, while before the First World War you could have private enterprise which went forward without very much regard to what the national policy, or even the national interest, might be, to-day Governments the world over have been forced to intervene on basic economic policy. It is essential that you should create machinery by which you will get the best out of private industry, but under which its efforts will be integrated into the overall national policy of the country. To a great extent, this measure has to be examined by us on the basis of whether it is going to do that and whether this is the best way to do it.
I venture to say that this steel industry had created for itself an ideal system for doing what we all believe is essential—that is, to make the greatest possible use of the initiative, the enterprise, the experience and the knowledge of private enterprise but, at the same time, to integrate what the industry was doing into the overall national policy. I would remind the House that this industry has done it. I have always regarded this industry as being an example to a good number of other industries in this country that I could mention as to how they ought to have conducted their affairs. The way it has been done is by the Steel Federation. That was completely a private enterprise organisation, composed of all the great steel producers of this country. But there was also the Iron and Steel Board, on which was representation of private enterprise, the trade unions, the public or the consumers, with an independent chairman. In 1945, the Government of the day invited the Federation to prepare a five-year plan to meet the needs after the war of modernisation of our steel works, and to meet the needs of industry over the succeeding five years. The Federation prepared that plan and it was submitted to the Iron and Steel Board. The Board approved the plan, with minor alterations, and it was then put into operation. There you
384
have a plan; you have all the best elements of private enterprise co-operating and the whole thing is integrated with Government policy. You have the approval of every section of the community—the trade unions, employers and consumers. That plan had been operating for about two years. The figure involved originally was £160 million, but it subsequently rose to £240 million. Great development projects had been undertaken when, suddenly the Government announced that they were going to nationalise the steel industry.
That might have caused something in the nature of a disaster; but, happily, it did not, because after the war, mainly on the initiative of Lord Catto who was then the Governor of the Bank of England, the Finance Corporation for Industry had been formed with a capital of £25 million and borrowing powers of £100 million. When it became apparent that the position would be utterly impossible for steel companies that had launched themselves on great projects and were committed to expenditure on projects that were started but not finished, and that no money could be got through the ordinary channels for the reason that nationalisation had been announced, I saw the authorities and I got their agreement to change the Act, so that if my Corporation advanced any money to carry out this development programme, should nationalisation succeed—and it was clear that it was going to take two years to do this—the Corporation would be repaid in cash and not in Government securities. The Act was altered, and as a result we undertook to find £54 million. Actually on the vesting date we had advanced just about £40 million, or a little over. If there had not been anything of that sort there would have been two years of frustration in the industry and, when nationalisation succeeded, an industry in an almost chaotic state would have been handed over.
Why should the Government have done that? I heard the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, speak of doctrinaires and his detestation of them. But I think it is obvious that the original Steel Bill was brought forward entirely on a doctrinaire basis, because the idea of public ownership was subscribed to. That is evidenced by what I have tried to tell the House—that, above all, this was the one

385
industry that had really organised itself and was a model for all other industries. But that action was taken. I am in favour of this Bill. I should make it clear that I am not a doctrinaire on either side. I entirely agreed with the nationalisation of the coal mines; I entirely disagreed with this effort on steel. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, made what was on the surface a good case for how the Corporation "did its stuff" during the period it was in action. There was a slight dispute as to whether the period was one of one year or of two years. The period of time was two years, but the Corporation had a chance for only one year, or an even shorter period, of doing any job of work according to its own ideas.
It is quite true that during that period all the directors were not changed in all the companies. No doubt the figures quoted are quite correct. But I would say that, had the Corporation really been master of its own house during the second year, the figures quoted by Lord Wilmot would have been much higher than those he gave. An atmosphere was being created. I was closely in touch with the industry—when you have a very big stake, naturally you are closely in touch. After the Government came along and were responsible for our debt, I still had the association that had been created when we loaned the money. The atmosphere was getting more and more poisoned every day, and it was quite certain that once the Corporation went on to exercise its paramount control, we were going to lose the best men in the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, left the impression that they did not control it; but, after all, one of his attacks was on the new Board. He said that it was going to be quite inadequate, that it was going to give rather irritating interference instead of real control of the industry. Surely that is the implication behind his words. If the Act which it is now proposed to repeal had gone on, it is clear in Lord Wilmot's mind that the Chairman and the Board of the Corporation were going to take in hand and control this industry.
I have made quite clear my belief in the necessity for real co-operation and, to some extent, real control over an industry such as this; but it seems to me that that is what this Bill provides. It
386
really restores what existed under the old Iron and Steel Federation-cum-Board—the organisation which was disrupted when the Bill for nationalisation was brought forward. I should be in entire agreement with Lord Wilmot if he said that under his Bill all the Board was going to be able to do was to interfere in a rather niggling fashion. The Board must do much more than that. They should be completely and absolutely independent. They should consist of the best meat that it is possible to get; they must exercise their influence over the whole of this industry. By the authority they will create, by their competence, and by their whole attitude, they will establish the desired position.
One point in the Bill frightened me a little, and that is the suggestion of the power of some overriding authority to the Minister. If you create a Board of this sort which is going to be subject to appeal to the Minister and will become an instrument of political pressure, then the Board will be useless—it will have no authority whatever, and the sooner it is got rid of the better. At first blush I saw a danger of that happening under this Bill. I am somewhat reassured by the two statements made by the Minister in another place. In his final speech he said:
"It is only when the wider interests of the nation are affected that in our opinion, the Government should consider intervening."
He stated later on:
"Our intention is that there should be a Board which is a strong, independent, statutory body and not just an appendage of the Ministry of Supply."
I am somewhat reassured by those words. I should rather that the Board were even freer than they are under this Bill. I see the Government's difficulty: that when it comes to wide issues of vital importance to the nation, one must retain some power of intervention; but I trust that the Government will carry out the intention expressed in the Minister's words in another place.
One other point, I understand that there is an idea—I think a statement about it was made by the Minister—that a certain number of the members of this Board are to be permanent and all-time. I think it will be completely disastrous if that is done. I do not believe you can possibly get the people you want, certainly from the great figures on the

387
management side of the iron and steel industry, to take on a full-time job with this Board. You could get them to give part-time service and they will be invaluable in doing it, but you cannot get them to do it full time. That means you are going to get second best on to your Board, and that is going to be thoroughly bad. I should imagine—I would not desire to speak with authority on it—that if a really top-ranking trade unionist who is vitally concerned in the iron and steel industry severed all his connections with his trade union to take a full-time position on the Board, it would mean that we should not get the best representation of labour on it, either. I make the plea that the Government should give a lot of thought to this matter before they commit themselves to the principle that any of the members of this Board must be full-time members.
I have another reason for holding this opinion. Having had a certain association with the iron and steel industry, I have a dim glimmering how this Board would operate, and I cannot see any conceivable job that would keep members of the Board in a full-time position. Yet if you put them there they are going to feel they have to justify their existence, and they will start getting into fields where they will do incomparably more harm than good. I make a plea to the Government for a reconsideration concerning full-time members of this Board.
4.33 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, from the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, I rather feel that he has not appreciated the fact that this Bill is not just a denationalisation Bill but, in fact, creates an entirely new organisation for the supervision of the iron and steel industry. I am personally interested as a considerable buyer of steel that we should have a really fine organisation. We are not just tearing down the 1949 structure without putting anything effective in its place; we are, in fact, setting up an instrument of supervision over the whole of the industry rather than dealing with certain parts of it as was done under the 1949 Act. I think it is true to say that we are all agreed that there should be some form of supervision in this great industry, and
388
this Bill, I maintain, is a most effective and flexible method of attaining this end.
I certainly do not deny that there is a difference of opinion between us on this side of the House and noble Lords opposite as to the method of supervision of the industry. We maintain that the steel industry can best be served under the stimulus of free enterprise, with suitable safeguards and supervision by a Board who thoroughly understand the industry rather than by the dead hand of public ownership. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, who I am sorry to see has just had to leave his place, said that the 1949 Act established a middle of the road organisation. I am afraid the answer is that the organisation which was established would soon move well out of the middle of the road and into the byways of extreme bureaucratic control. It could not do otherwise, as the Iron and Steel Corporation were charged with financial responsibilities and control of the industry. I think the noble Lord said that the new organisation is rather like a car with brakes and no acceleration. I would say that it is a more modern one, with a fluid flywheel that is perhaps able to smooth over any difficulties that might arise.
I have no doubt that the Bill will give the Board all the powers necessary to enable it to discharge its duties in a satisfactory manner in spite of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Layton. But we also believe that it is the responsibility of the Government, and not the Board, to decide what are the wider national interests, and this has been allowed for in the Bill. On the other hand we are not prepared to give the Government unlimited powers over the Board. In fact, in another place, the Opposition endeavoured to obtain more powers than were provided under the1949 Act, and I hope we shall be spared a similar endeavour in this House. Surely it is far better for the Board to handle the industrial and technical matters that may arise, rather than a Government Department, and in our view private enterprise should be allowed to manage its own affairs as far as possible, so that incentive and flexibility in management is retained. I would further emphasise that this is one of the reasons why we propose to bring to an end the Iron and Steel Corporation, which will be one of the effects of the passage of this Bill.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: The noble Lord realises that it was not a Government Department.
LORD TEYNHAM: No, it was a public body. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, also sail that no reasons have been given to-day for the new Bill before the House. I will try and give one or two reasons. I suggest that the steel industry is quite unsuited to bureaucratic control by a public board like the Steel Corporation, because of the difficulty in defining the border-line between iron and steel making and general engineering industries. As noble Lords are aware, the 1949 Act did much more than—in the words used—"nationalise appropriate sections of the iron and steel industry." It brought under the control of the Corporation a good many firms engaged in general engineering. Steel firms were nationalised if they produced over a certain tonnage of steel, and this policy left some steel firms under private ownership. Many of these private firms not only produced steel but were engaged in the finishing field. The result of this policy has been that the Corporation has had control of the major part of steel making but only a part of the finishing process.
As a result, this policy has upset the organisation of the industry, such as the conference system and the competitive balance of the member firms. The tendency is naturally for the Corporation and the private firms to drift apart, and there is nobody in a position to speak for the industry as a whole in its relations with the Government or even to provide common services, although, as I think was mentioned by the noble Marquess, the Iron and Steel Federation has continued to give these services. In the past the industry has been organised on a product basis through the conference system. Now the Corporation has a majority on many of these different conferences which handle the different products, but the Corporation does not and cannot take much interest in the minority. I suggest that competition between the Corporation and private firms can hardly be fair when private firms are dependent on the Corporation for their raw steel and the Corporation is their principal competitor in the finishing processes.
It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, that there has been little change in the working of the industry since 1949.
390
On the contrary, I would say there has been a great deal of gradual change for the worse and it has been going on all the time, more or less on tie lines I have put forward, and if allowed to continue would undoubtedly have a damaging effect on the industry, though luckily it has not gone far enough to interfere with production. If the Steel Corporation had been allowed to continue many changes would have taken place which would have involved more control of the companies and would have created among them an over-cautious and bureaucratic outlook. It was not so long ago that changes in the board of a large steel company were made by the Corporation, and the Socialist idea that the Corporation would be simply a holding company cannot be substantiated. I have endeavoured to point out one or two reasons for the introduction of this Bill. We are determined to set up a really comprehensive and flexible system of supervision of the iron and steel industry and one which will at the same time allow the maximum freedom for the companies concerned, and I feel sure that it will produce a lasting and efficient organisation.
4.40 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I think that on all sides there is a realisation that this Bill represents a distinct change by the Government. We were told during the Election campaign, and we have been told since, that the Government stood for freedom for the little man. But in this Bill neither the little man nor steel is set free. It is, in fact, a transfer from nationalisation to trustification from the Steel Corporation to Steel House. The Board's duties are wide, but, as my noble friend Lord Wilmot, has pointed out, its powers are narrow, almost minute. The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, has confirmed that view today. He said that he could not conceive what the Board was going to do with its time, and he suggested that its members should be either reduced in. number or part-time members. The Bill creates a statutory ring to avoid the! scrutiny of the Monopolies Commission. It has all the evils of private monopoly; with none of its few advantages. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, described it as a spur. He did not say upon whom the spur was to act but I

391
presume he meant the steel owners. But there is no spur here at all. I do not like to use the term "feather-bedding," because that is now patented with reference to the farmers, so I will use the word "sofa." It is a sofa, a half-way house, a limbo into which the industry is put. The Bill permits the creation of "Breakages, Limited and we shall expect in due course to see Mr. Crassus, its creature, in the Government.
The Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency is created by the Government for a specific purpose. I suggest that that title is a complete misnomer. In the Transport Bill the Disposal Board could not dispose. In this Bill, the Realisation Agency will not, so far as a considerable proportion of the industry is concerned, be able to realise. It will, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, has pointed out, certainly sell the profitable undertakings fairly quickly. It will have to keep, maybe for years and maybe for ever, the unprofitable ones, which, however, may be intensely important both to the country and to the industry. The duds, like the poor, will be always with us, the taxpayers. It is a sad thing to think of many of these great industrial undertakings being hawked around, as it were, from door to door. The Government and their friends, the industrialists, are to be congratulated upon this Bill, because it is the finest three-card trick in history. No thimble-rigger at a fair, no seller of gold bricks in Piccadilly, can ever equal this transaction. The public will be left with the most monumental gold brick, in the shape of these unsaleable industries. It must be at the moment the prayer of every industrial magnate: "God bless the Government, and may the supply of 'suckers' never run dry!"
The difference between our plan and this is one of great moment. It has been succinctly put by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, and I will not detain your Lordships by traversing it in detail. But I should like to ask the Government why they are changing. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said today that we on this side of the House would regard it as morally wrong to change. We do nothing of the sort. We do not in the least say that it is morally wrong. If the Government believe that
392
it is industrially right and commercially right, to do so, they have every right to change. But we say that it is infernally foolish to change at this particular time and in this way. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, said that under the 1949 Act there was certainty of centralisation, and he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. But neither gave any evidence at all in support of that contention. The only evidence they gave was that the original Act, under which the industry is now controlled, had been in force for so short a time that there was no evidence either way. Why is there this Tory desire to change? Why do the Tories want to change everything? Why are they so doctrinaire? If the system is going well—as I hope to show that it is—leave well alone.
The noble Marquess said that we should be able to keep an eye on the industry as a whole, because every year the Board which the Government are setting up would publish a report. We do not have to be long in Parliament before we realise the value of a report for keeping an eye on anything, especially if the report is written by civil servants. In the first place, the report generally comes out months late. Just recently there was a debate on Wales, and it was admitted by everyone that the report dealt with in that debate was completely out of date. That debate, of course, took place in another place: we have not had such a debate here. But it was seven months before that report was considered. Then, too, reports usually deal in rather a vague and nebulous way with current happenings. They do not give any real illumination on what is happening or what is likely to happen. As a rule, there is no forecast in any Departmental report. Your Lordships may remember that we criticised the Colonial Report on that very ground. If your Lordships will look at the Economic Survey for 1953, published this morning, and turn to the paragraphs, nebulous as they are, dealing with steel, your Lordships will see clearly that there is very little guidance to be obtained there for this debate. So, really, if that is to be the sheet anchor of the public, that they can read a report issued every year by the Board, in order to keep any sort of control of the industrial matters, it is a sheet anchor that will soon become fouled.

393
The position is this: I think we may as well realise it—as, indeed, I am sure most of us do. The first post-war development plan with reference to steel was approved by the Government in 1946. It was a plan to modernise the steel and tinplate industries, and to raise the production of steel from 13 million ingot tons a year to 16 million ingot tons a year. In order to achieve this objective, it was necessary to expand pig-iron production from 8 million tons in 1946 to an annual rate of 10½ million tons. On this development £300 million was spent. Both these objectives have been achieved, and both have been achieved before the time set for their achievement. And in the process the productivity in labour increased by 25 per cent. There was also a very great increase in tinplate production—indeed, that increase is one of the reasons for the unemployment in the tinplate industry. We had figures given is recently, in the course of a short debate in this House, so I will not weary your Lords-ships by quoting them at length to-day. But there is a very great increase in tinplate production. Three works in South Wales will soon be able to produce all that is required to meet the total demand that exists at the present moment for tinplate—three works instead of 200. Those are magnificent achievements, and I think great credit is due to the industry and to the Government, the joint partners in this particular expansion.
Now the second plan, based on the success of the first, was to increase steel production to at least 20 million ingot tons a year, and pig-iron production to 15 million tons a year. In order to enable this to be achieved, the National Coal Board will have to increase the coking coal supply by more than 7 million tons a year to meet the demands on them. I have not so far noticed any mention by noble Lords opposite (they have not, of course, said that they are not going to deal with it) of the question of coking coal, which is an important factor in this matter. We cannot get more steel unless we get more coking coal, as we in South Wales realise only too well. This plan was submitted in November last to the Minister of Supply. Apart from the question of coking coal, with which, presumably, the National Coal Board will deal, a vast
394
expenditure will have to be made for new coke ovens, rolling mills, blast furnaces and open hearth furnaces, and ships and carriers to bring ore to this country. It will be an enormous expense, affecting not only the steel production industry but all the industries that go to make the finished product. The total cost of the second plan is estimated at £250 millions. Where is the money coming from for all this? We hear these enormous sums bandied about, but where are they coming from.
During the tinplate debate in your Lordships' House the other day, I mentioned Mr. Lever, the chairman of the Steel Company of Wales. That was an important debate, in the sense that an important industry was discussed, but not, I regret to say, with much satisfaction, so far as the Government reply was concerned. The noble Lord who replied did his best—I am not complaining about that—but the Government, as a Government, did not come out of it particularly well. Mr. Lever was speaking on the 19th of this month at Port Talbot, and this is what he said on the question of finance:
"The scale of modern industrial organisation meant that money was wanted on a large scale. The great industries wanted to count on having the money as and when they needed it.
"'The money may not be there at the right time and the right price,' said Mr. Lever. 'Indeed, it may not really be there at all.'
"Taxation was not leaving in the hands of persons or companies the surplus ever their needs which they used normally to invest, but worse than that the redistribution of income tended to put additional money into the hands of persons who had no easy way to invest in industry.
"'How, then, is industry going to find the money it needs for capital development? 'asked Mr. Lever."
Clearly he did not know. He assumed that it might be possible to get some out of the insurance companies, and he made one or two rather pertinent remarks about insurance companies.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will admit that the iron and steel industry found £350 million for their five-year plan quite easily.
LORD OGMORE: With the support of the Government.
LORD TEYNHAM: I do not see why they should not be able to find the £250 million.
LORD OGMORE: After all, Mr. Lever is one of the people who will have to find the money if this plan goes through. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, to say that it is quite easy to find £250 million. They found the £350 million with the backing of the Government. The whole point of Mr. Lever's address at Port Talbot was that he did not see how he was going to find the money and he asked how the steel industry was going to do so. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and for his ability, but in this matter I would rather take the doubt of the man who has to find the money than the confidence of the man who has not.
May I turn for a moment to the position in South Wales, because it is a very important area as regards to steel, as I am sure your Lordships realise? Approximately two-thirds of British steel sheet, and vast quantities of other steel products, are produced in South Wales. So when we talk about the British steel industry, we are talking largely about South Wales. This should be the South Wales Iron and Steel Bill, because we have for so long produced much of the important products of our steel industry.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, there are one or two other areas that produce steel. As a Yorkshireman I must protest.
LORD OGMORE: Yorkshire produces a lot of other things, and it has produced the noble Viscount. I am sure that it is very proud of its products. I am giving the figures, and if the noble Viscount wishes to correct me, I will willingly stand corrected.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, there are many other kinds of steel produced elsewhere, as the noble Lord knows well. He referred to coking coal. South Wales is not the only place from which coking coal comes.
LORD OGMORE: I grant that. In this House, as in another place, no doubt we tend to exaggerate the importance of the part of the country in which we are interested. It is true that South Wales has a considerable stake in the steel industry,
396
but as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said, other parts of the country take their share. We must not over-exaggerate our importance, but I want to bring South Wales into this picture, because it is important to us. Although other areas, like Yorkshire, produce steel, that is not so important to them as it is to us, because heavy industry, wrongly but in fact, has been our life-blood; and if that goes wrong, there is not much that can be done to save us.
As your Lordships know, between the wars Wales suffered badly from industrial unbalance. The Distribution of Industry Act of 1945 provided a more balanced structure, with heavy industry at the base of the pyramid and built upon it tiers of light industries and companies manufacturing consumer Roods. In heavy industry there was already Ebbw Vale and now there are the new strip mill at Margam and the tinplate mill at Trostre. In a year or two, there will also be the new mill at Velindre. Margam will roll thin plates, as well as sheet. The largest blast furnace in Europe is now being built at Shotton, in Flintshire. What does this add up to? The great strip mills at Trostre, Ebbw Vale and Velindre are replacing the 200 hand tinplate works in South Wales. The Margam works are a beacon for the future. The day of the small steel works is over, as the day of the small tinplate works is over. The light metals and alloys have arrived. Ten years ago the volume of the output of light metals and alloys was less than one-ninth of the steel output of this country. To-day it is one-sixth; and in a decade it may be one-third.
Then there are new discoveries, such as sypheroidical graphite cast iron, which is one-fifth stronger than cast steel, and titanium, which, with half the density of steel, does not corrode. It is an alloy half-way between aluminium and steel. It is a wonderful metal for using for aircraft, because it is so light and has such tensile advantages. Aluminium alloys and aluminium metals have captured many former steel markets, and wrought magnesium alloys are being used more and more. This new age is an aircraft age, and for the construction of aircraft strong, light metals are needed. These metals have brought many new challenges to steel. Wales and steel are largely meeting them at Margam, but they can be

397
met only by large capital outlay, by intensive research, by new techniques, by the sort of integration that nationalisation provided. This is the jet age and we cannot go back, as in this Bill, to the horse and buggy age In South Wales we fear that the intensive competition which steel has to meet will not be met by a return to the old "catch-as-catch-can" conditions of pre-war days. Furthermore, the danger is that the delicate and intricate pyramid structure that I have described, a structure carefully built up, may be rudely overthrown by blundering Ministers and grasping industrialists. That is what is feared by many people in South Wales.
In a powerful speech this afternoon the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, talked about the steel magnates. We have had experience in the past of coal owners, steel magnates and iron masters; and, quite frankly, we in Wales are through with them. They landed us between the wars in a terrible mess, and we thought that that was a page of history that would never again be turned. Between the wars our mines were despoiled of the best coal—a problem which the National Coal Board are now up against; our industries were left to decay; our people were driven out by unemployment in a sad exodus to the four corners of the world; our skilled workers were singing in the gutter for bread. That is the situation which we fear may once more be brought about by this Bill; and that is what Wales cannot and will not stand again.
5.2 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, as this is the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House, I ask for the usual indulgence given to people undergoing such an ordeal. I have not had the advantage of House of Commons experience, as have so many speakers nowadays when they first stand up in your Lordships' House. I should like straight away to disclose my personal interest in the matters about which I propose to speak. I have for many years been employed in an industry which both produces and consumes its own iron castings. So, naturally, my arguments are directed to expressing that point of view. However, it is with the position
398
of the iron foundries that I am even more concerned—that is to say, those foundries which are not tied to any particular concern but which make for all and sundry. It is paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of subsection (1) of Clause 3 which, in spite of the Amendments inserted by the Minister of Supply in another place, disturb the iron founders. I understand that the steel founders are more or less satisfied with these Amendments, but the iron founders are definitely not of that view. They see no reason why they should ever have been included in this Bill and put under the supervision of the Iron and Steel Board. Other noble Lords will no doubt put forward many arguments on this broad aspect, but I should like to draw particular attention to Clause 3 (1) (f).
Iron founders and steel founders are part of the engineering industry, not of the steel industry. Their production unions are different from those of the steel industry, as also are the hours of their guaranteed week. Therefore, we say it is wrong in principle that the Board should have the right of interfering in the delicate machinery of industrial relations in this section of the engineering industry. Up to a point, the Minister seems to have appreciated this view, because he took out the tied foundries from this field of supervision when the Bill was before another place. But the existing foundries are still left in. Surely, this is illogical. We feel that the Iron and Steel Board may introduce measures for the existing foundries which will cut right across the existing consultation machinery of the engineering industry, which up to now has applied to tied and independent foundries alike. My friends fear that the Iron and Steel Board may be prevailed upon to make regulations which are out of step with those what exist in the tied foundries.
I have no doubt that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are quite familiar with the arguments that I have attempted to advance. I know that there have been many meetings, that many letters have been exchanged with representatives of the iron and steel founders. But the Government have refused to alter their attitude in regard to these independent foundries. The argument of the Government has been that, although they intend that the Board should retain its powers of supervision, there is no inten-

399
tion that the powers should be used, and that the Board would not dream of interfering with the existing negotiating machinery. Then why are they so anxious that the Board should retain these powers?
The Minister has also used the argument that it is undesirable to exclude from the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill any particular group, just because it is a party to specific agreements or conciliation machinery. This may be the view of the Government, but what they are now saying cannot be done has, in fact, been done in the past. It was done in the Road Haulage (Wages) Act, 1938. There was a special clause in that Act which prevented the Minister from referring matters to the industrial court in cases where there were already in existence arrangements for the settlement of disputes. Is it too late to insert a clause of that kind into the Bill which is at present before your Lordships?
My friends feel that the trouble is that, in regard to foundries, the Minister of Supply got off on the wrong foot. I gather that when the Bill was first presented the Minister was under the impression that the majority of the iron and steel founders were happy about Clause 3. I feel sure he now realises that that was not the case. The iron founders have held a ballot, under the auspices of Messrs. Price, Waterhouse and Company, and 93 per cent. of the votes cast were against inclusion in the Bill. Therefore it cannot be said that there is any doubt to-day about the views of the iron founders. As a supporter of the Government I must apologise for speaking critically, but I have been so impressed by the volume of dissatisfaction expressed to me by iron founders that I felt it my duty to speak as I have done.
5.8 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sure it is the wish of your Lordships in all quarters of the House that we should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, upon the maiden speech he has just delivered. He has expressed a positive point of view, and he has demonstrated a combination of fluency and technical knowledge which I am sure we are all glad to welcome in your Lordships' House. We undoubtedly
400
look forward in future to further contributions from the noble Lord, presented with the same knowledge and fluency.
I rise for only a few moments to speak on one point, which I propose to address to noble Lords who form the Opposition. It is this. Have we not, in regard to the iron and steel industry, now arrived at a time when we might between us declare political peace? I believe that political peace is as important to this industry as the industrial peace it has enjoyed for so many years past. One asks oneself this question: Must this industry work always in the future with the threat of political action against it, quite irrespective of whether it has done well or badly, whatever may be the national interest in two or three years' time? If the national interest is best served by this industry enjoying the success which we on this side of the House feel sure it will enjoy, irrespective of the economic conditions which may be ruling in two or three years' time, if the noble Lords come into power are they really pledging themselves to reverse what is being done now? If they are, then I submit to your Lordships that such a pledge is not a proper or a patriotic one to give in the national interest.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Will the noble Lord forgive me? This is a Government Bill which is tearing up the peace of the industry at the present time.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am coming to that in a moment. No one has claimed that the short period of eight months during which the organisation which is now being done away with has run has had a harmful effect or a particularly good effect.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Let it have a good trial.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: But the Labour Party Act dealt with an industry which, unlike that described by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was a successful industry. Once the protective tariff was put on, the steel output of this country increased between the wars by, I think, 35 per cent. as compared to America's 12 per cent. The Socialist Party were interfering, for political purposes, with an industry which was rendering a tremendous and successful national service and was enjoying industrial peace.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: That is what is happening to-day.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: No. This organisation set up by the Socialist Party has been functioning for some eight months, as it were, living on the momentum of what had been going on before. Surely, whatever our political views may be, it cannot be right for an industry as vital as the steel industry to be subject to a Socialist Party pledge to renationalise, irrespective of what the conditions may be in two or three years' time. Here is a proposal in this Bill for a marriage between State and private enterprise. As my noble Leader Lord Salisbury said in his speech, it does not please the extremists who want nothing but private enterprise on the one hand, and it does not please the Socialists who want nothing but State enterprise on the other. It is a marriage between private enterprise and the State and, broadly speaking, it is acceptable to all elements functioning within the industry.
I ask the Labour Party whether they should not hesitate before committing the industry to years of uncertainty and the prospects of a third upheaval. We may differ politically, but I am sure that noble Lords opposite have the national interest at heart, just as we all have. We may have different political ideas as to how we can achieve national interest, but fundamentally we are all patriotic citizens; and if, in two or three years from now, this industry is fulfilling its purpose, functioning satisfactorily and serving, in the broadest sense, the national interest, could it not be left alone to progress and develop along the lines of the success which it has been enjoying for many years past and which was unaffected by the short period of eight months when the new organisation was functioning?
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Tell the Government that.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am telling the noble Lord.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Tell them; it is their Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: We are arranging a marriage between private enterprise and the State in an industry which was successful for many years past and which would have been
402
brought to failure had the experiment of the 1949 Act been allowed to continue.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Will the noble Lord give me one shred of evidence that there is any sign of failure in that industry to-day?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble Lord should read Lord Bruce's speech in Hansard to-morrow.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, made no such contention. He knows the industry far too well.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, said that the ever increasing centralisation was creating feelings of frustration and bitterness. The noble Lord has only to read Hansard to-morrow to see the opinion of the noble Viscount, as to how the industry was going under the set-up for which the 1949 Act was responsible. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, is getting rather hot under the collar. What I want to try to say to him is this. If there an industry which was successful from 1930—from the tariff time right up to the war—and if there is an industry which contributed an essential service in a magnificent way during the war years, and we now wish to put that industry back so that it can continue those services, and remove it from the dangers of what we call political nationalisation, surely the noble Lord and others are big enough to say that they will not let motives of political revenge or doctrinaire views or Party pledges commit them now to renationalising the industry if and when they have the power.
I believe we are on common ground when I say that the steel industry has to play a vital part in our armaments over the next few years and, also, since Mr. Butler has committed us to the multilateral world trade policy, that the steel industry will have to face heavy competition. I do not think that the national interest will be best served if during the next few years this uncertainty is to hang over its head. There is no question but that it does. The noble Lord has but to look at the concluding speech of the ex-Minister of Supply in another place, Mr. Strauss, winding up on the Third Reading, when he pledged his Party to repeal this Bil1 and to renationalise the

403
industry as soon as they had the opportunity so to do. If the noble Lord wants the quotation it is col. 2910 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for March 17. The final words of Mr. Strauss are very clear. It is out of order to quote verbatim proceedings in another place, but if the noble Lord will read it he will see that the pledge was clearly given.
In the calmer atmosphere of this House one would not ask any of the Leaders of the Opposition to throw over Mr. Strauss, but could they not say that the pledge given by him for renationalisation is, of course, subject to the overriding national interest as and when the time may come for them to have a chance of doing it? It is not an unfair suggestion. After all, we as a Party were given a mandate for resuscitating university representation, but the Government considered it not politically right or justifiable to fulfil that pledge at the present time. If we can do that over one thing, surely the Opposition can do it over this. We feel that we are passing a measure which is going to help an industry which has achieved much in the past, and it will be the responsibility of the Opposition if that industry is to continue in a period of uncertainty as to whether it will be renationalised for the purposes of fulfilling a Party programme.
5.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: My Lords, it is not often that I have the honour of addressing you, and on this occasion let me first declare my interest in the subject which we are debating. I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will not be too pleased, but I am sure I shall get a hearing from both the noble Lords, Lord Calverley and Lord Lawson, because they are concerned with a part of the country which I regard as the greatest steel-producing area, and it is there that my interest lies. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, was in some difficulty. He found it difficult, I think, to criticise this Bill, for the simple reason that it is not. as some noble Lords have said, a completely denationalising Bill it is a Bill merely to produce a much more efficient system of running an already efficient industry. I am not going into detail, because the Committee stage will provide abundant opportunities for doing that, nor am I proposing to discuss technical points. But I should like to
404
make a few remarks on two subjects of the Bill—first, control and, secondly, ownership.
Now, under the provisions of this Bill control will be handed back to those persons who know how to run the industry. It is not a criticism of civil servants to say that they do not know how to run the industry. It is not their job they were not trained for it. I ought to know: I was amongst them for a great many years of my life, and a more efficient service no country has ever possessed. But the fact remains that they are not qualified, either by training or by their responsibilities, to run, control or advise a highly competitive industry which must, if it is to succeed and to compete successfully in the markets of the world, remain in the hands of the persons who have the training.
EARL JOWITT: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? Surely the civil servants are not running the industry. The noble Viscount is a master in this industry and I am not, but I should like to know to what extent civil servants are taking any part in running or controlling this industry to-day.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: Perhaps I might answer the noble and learned Earl by saying that one of the difficulties with which the steel trade has had to contend (and would increasingly have had to contend, owing to the centralisation which has been referred to) has been that there is between the consumer and the producer a thin red line of persons who deny them that close association which this Bill will give back to them. That applies particularly to consumers in the engineering industry. When it comes to control, the Board which will be set up will be manned, according to the Bill, by persons who will represent all the partners in the industry, under an independent chairman, and certain other persons with high qualifications. The overriding power will rest with the Minister, because the steel industry is a national industry which must ultimately serve the national interest.
What, I am sure, is not appreciated is this—and I hope Lord Ogmore will forgive me if I say that it really is not much good quoting the iron and steel industry between the wars. If you look at the board of the company of which I have the honour to be a member you will see

405
how much the industry has put its management, its production and its efficiency into the hand, for direction, of experts of the highest degree and servants of the greatest technical knowledge. There may have been times—there were times which I remember well after the First World War—when the engineering industry, including large armament firms, thrust out branches into South Africa, and firms opened pulp mills in Newfoundland. But nowadays you can accept it as a fact that the great steel industry is managed and controlled as efficiently as possible by the Boards that are left. That is why I believe it is equally true to say of the men, as of the management, that they want as little interference from Government and as much freedom as possible to run their industry. If they are going to be controlled by a Board, then let that Board have knowledge of the industry, so that we can sit down and discuss things together.
The other matter which I should like to mention is this. There is among the people engaged in the steel industry a great loyalty to their companies. I am speaking for myself only and in no way as representing the trade when I say that in my own experience, moving as I do amongst the men and management, I find that there is one great hope among both these sections of the industry, which is that having been given their freedom, they will not be interfered with again and will be allowed to go on in peace. I wish now to come to the other subject I mentioned—that of ownership. Noble Lords have suggested that it is not ownership that matters—but it is a very odd experience to attend an annual general meeting with only one shareholder present so that there is not even one to second a resolution. I myself—and again I am speaking personally and not for anyone else—sometimes dream dreams about this; I would much prefer to have 40,000 shareholders—
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: How are you going to get them?
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: They would come all right. Many of them would be employees, whether among the management or from the floor of the factory. They would have their own interest in the company and they would certainly
406
come. I believe that one of the things that would produce the finest results, and the beginnings of which are contained in this Bill, would be what has come to be called a property-owning democracy. That would result from these people having a stake in the enterprise. That opportunity would be completely denied to them if this great industry remained in the ownership of the State. This is a long-term view. But sooner or later I believe that this country will find itself in a situation in which we shall have a great progressive private industry under conditions which will enable its operations to be flexible and enable it to compete in the markets of the world.
If I may recall a speech which I made on the Second Reading of the other Bill, would say to your Lordships that one of the problems is that however much you may try to disguise the fact that the Government owns the industry, you will never deceive the foreign customer. It is all very well to say that these companies kept their names, but everyone abroad knew that they were owned by the State. I remember that between the wars, when the country was in the depths of a depression, a thing was done which no Government would or could have done. The companies in which I am interested took a great gamble to keep their men employed. They went out and built the Sydney Bridge. It was a tremendous gamble but the men were kept employed. We got other bridges and we got more men employed. That is private enterprise. No Government could have faced the potential loss, which fortunately in the course of time righted itself. It was a potential loss which no Government could have asked another place to face.
That is what we want to get back. We want to get back the initiative; we want to get back to the quick decision; we want to get back to the situation where private enterprise can go out into the world, take quick decisions and get trade. One last point is this. The steel trade is the provider of the greatest exporting industry, on the engineering side, in this country. In order to provide the maximum of the right type of steel at the right price in the right place, it must be left to co-operation between the consumers who want it and the men who produce it. Under this Bill there will be

407
a far greater measure of that co-operation than could exist under the present Act.
5.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, like the noble Viscount who has just spoken, I must declare my interest. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will be even more critical of me than of the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, because of my being connected with both the production of steel and the use of steel, and also with iron foundries. I think that this Bill is much clearer than the Bill which we have recently been discussing on road transport, at least, in regard to that part of that Bill which dealt with denationalisation. In that case the unit which had been built up since nationalisation was to be disbanded and sold, while in this case there are units which have not yet been built up under nationalisation proposals and which are to be sold back.
The procedure adopted after nationalisation, as has been said by many noble Lords, was to leave the companies as they were. No claims could really be made either for or against the success of that system because it had practically no time in which to operate. It is generally agreed that, after the previous Election and the change of Government, nothing had yet been done to alter the industry; but there was a general feeling amongst those responsible for the industry and engaged in it that great changes were likely to be made had there not been the present change of Government. It is widely held that plans were afoot for amalgamations, for the combination of plants and for the moving of plants which would have made very great changes. It is doubtful whether changes of that sort are either necessary or even possible in the industry as we know it to-day. It cannot, therefore, be said that to change back will cause any upset. I do not think it is going to cause in the industry any feeling beyond one of relief. So far as one can ascertain, there never was any great enthusiasm amongst the vast majority of the workers in the steel industry for nationalisation as such, and I do not think there is any great feeling for denationalisation, either one way or the other.
But where there is a strong feeling is in the minds of those responsible for the
408
management and organisation, both in the higher ranks and in the lower ranks. Those men have often expressed a fear as to what may happen under national ownership, a fear that it may be difficult, with only one owner, in effect one shareholder owning all the companies, for a man to get on with some other plan if he does not get on well. It may hamper him and may make him unwilling to take risks and to put most of his ingenuity and effort into the business. There is a fear that those responsible for the management will not be allowed scope for their activities. I have heard of cases where it has been difficult to persuade men from engineering and civil industries to come into the steel trade because of their reluctance to accept employment in an industry which they look upon as nationally owned. So, at any rate, I feel convinced that for a large number of men of that kind, of the greatest importance to the industry, this Bill will be a practical relief and encouragement.
We must remember that foreign competition in steel is growing. We have been importing steel at great cost to ourselves and, although steel produced in this country is the cheapest in the world, except for that produced in Australia, the Continental prices are beginning to move towards ours. We have to look forward to a period of competition. It is not only in steel itself, but in products manufactured from steel, that the price becomes of importance. Competition of that kind in export markets requires the utmost initiative and flexibility. I believe that the system proposed under this Bill will be a very material help. After all, for a period after the war the industry experienced a control of the kind envisaged under this new Board. A system was then evolved, and it worked very well. It was, of course, combined with the Defence Regulation control of prices, which was bound to continue for a certain time.
There is, however, one point about some form of Government control not only for steel-making but also for heavy industry, such as coal mining. The location of the industry is a very important question. Here comes in the question of the power of the Board to influence and to decide on extensions and to advise the Government to build any plant which has not been proposed by the industry and which may be needed for the sake of the

409
country as a whole. I have always held that the proper view of controlling the steel industry, from the point of view of location and employment, should be that the economic facts and considerations should be put forward by those in the industry and those who are running the plant, and that the social considerations, such as the obvious effects on employment, should also be brought up. Surely it is the Government who must step in and be, as it were, the independent authority to decide that important question.
It is as an independent authority that I think the Government have a much greater standing than they would have were they themselves the owners of the plants. I always felt that under the Nationalisation Act; and I believe that this Bill will help to carify the situation. There was under the Defence, Regulations power for that kind of control vested in the Government. I think that the power to discourage increases of plant where they should not be, and for the Government to step in and to build plant where it may be necessary, should fill that gap. It is a very important thing that the Government are taking power through the Minister, on the advice of the Board, to invest money in building plant, because, if it is held that the industry, as noble Lords have suggested, may become what I think has been referred to as a trust or a monopoly, there is power in the Government's hands to put up competition at once. The plan which has been so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has indeed been a great success. That was a plan carried through by the industry as a whole, and I think it is recorded that rather more than half the money for that construction was found by the companies from savings out of their earnings. So that it is not at all impossible to imagine that, had they been on their own, they would have been able to put up a good enough case for the investor to find it worth his while to put money into the companies.
As to the difficult question of the makers of castings and forgings, who are no more iron and steel makers in the real sense of the words than are many others, I believe they would have been better left out. I think it was quite a mistake to include them; but, as the Bill is drafted, perhaps it is as well to leave them as they are, though I do not really believe that
410
any of the provisions will do them any harm, and I speak after some experience of firms occupied in castings. After all, the worst thing from the foundry point of view is the control of raw materials. It seems to me that if there is a shortage of raw materials or a shortage of money with which to buy them, in one form or another, whether by Defence Regulation or some other means, the Government will certainly control them; and the fact that in this Bill they come under the Board for control would seem to me to make very little difference. If, on the other hand, we ever achieve a state where we can import as much raw material and obtain as much pig iron as we want it is not likely that the Government would wish to stop any foundry from getting its supplies of pig iron or even scrap which would be available under those sort of conditions.
I have been bothered about the power which is taken to control prices where it is thought that a monopoly may result from the production of one-third of any product by one firm or small group of firms. It would seem to me that that would rather hamper production. I do not think that one-third of the output of any product is enough to control the price to such an extent that it is going to be unfair to the consumer, and the power to fix a price on an industry which may be developing some new process, which may be growing or which may be evolving a different technique and may try to charge a higher price to meet its expenses, may have the effect of hampering the people engaged in that pursuit.
My Lords, having separated, and rightly so, Government control from ownership, there arise a few points of difficulty on the procedure of the Agency while they are in the process of selling the shares. As I understand it, first the Agency have the power, indeed the duty, to rearrange the capital structure of these companies. It is inevitable that that must be done in the case of a great many companies which, as soon as they were nationalised, spent very large sums indeed on their plant construction programme and have not been in a position to borrow money as they would have done before, but have had money advanced by the Government Steel Corporation. Therefore the company that is sold will not

411
be the same as it was before. There will have to be a change in the arrangement of the shares. In some cases expenditure will have to be capitalised, and that which appears as for sale will be entirely different from what it was before.
I have no doubt that it is right that, with the help and advice of the Treasury, the Agency should be in a position to make these arrangements. There are, however, two points which ought to be considered. One is that shares will be sold from time to time; the companies will start operating as they did before, and if they are engaged, as are many of the bigger concerns, in a capital construction programme, they will need money from time to time. So no doubt it will have to be arranged that when the companies are prepared for sale, as it were, they will have to be provided with money by the Agency by which to finance these programmes, because it will be impossible for them to go to the public or to make other arrangements to get money until they get fully on their feet.
I should also have liked to see in the Bill a reference to the effect that the Agency will itself consult the Board about any amalgamations or rearrangement of companies, and also be required to consult the companies themselves. I say that because, with the best interests at heart and with the best advice, there may be amalgamations or rearrangements of one or two of the companies owned by the Agency in such a way as to make it rather more difficult to run them as they might have been run. It would seem to me fairly simple for there to be that sort of discussion. Then there is the fact that in the interim period the Agency are the people who act as the shareholder. After all, they will be responsible for such business as annual meetings, the appointment of directors and so on. It would therefore be reasonable to expect them to have consultations on those points.
There is another point which affects quite a number of companies, and one which will have to be got over before they can be sold. A number of companies have substantial interests in coalmining, and on that account are still owed very large sums by the Coal Board in satisfaction of the assets which were taken over. Eight or nine companies nave claims totalling several millions of
412
pounds. Until those claims can be at least decided, if not even paid, it will be impossible to say what in fact is being sold in the form of shares. Claims are argued one way or another, and they will have to be settled. It is indeed surprising that nearly seven years after the coal mines were nationalised, due to difficulties and obscurities in the legislation, the late owners of the collieries have not yet been paid in full. What I am referring to in fact is not what are called the coal assets, but ancillary assets in the form of coke ovens, railways and that sort of thing. It is quite clear that something will have to be done to speed up the settlements before it will be possible to sell the companies' shares.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, talked about "feather beds" and "sofas," as if the steel industry was just being given freedom to do exactly what it liked. I should like to make one point which may perhaps qualify his view on that matter. How does one imagine that the actual running of these companies is to be done? If the companies were themselves, for example, to issue a prospectus and ask for money from the public who would take up shares, that would be done through the directors. In drawing up the prospectus they would state the capital assets and liabilities, the earnings of the company, give a record of past profits, and that sort of thing. I am glad that at this moment it is not going to be the directors of the company who will do that; it is to be done by the Realisation Agency. I will tell your Lordships why I am glad. It is not because I believe that the money cannot be found, or because I do not believe that the steel industry can pay its way, but because, as between one company and another, I do not think it is at all easy to say which of them is going to be the more profitable.
Under the Bill the prices of all products are controlled by the Board and the prices of raw materials are in the same way at present controlled. There are levies on the output of ingots—several pounds a ton—and there are levies on scrap used in steel-making and certain intermediary products also so used. Steel and scrap are also imported and a lot of money is spent in importing finished steel. You can imagine the complications of that system and the anxiety for each

413
company in trying to make these arrangements to obtain either home or imported ore; the doubt there is whether to use more pig-iron or scrap in steel making, whether 2s. 6d. will come out of the levy fund or whether you will have to pay 3s 6d. That kind of obscurity has grown up through the years. It started when the Import Duties Advisory Committee began and the system was used extensively during the war with a purpose of keeping the less efficient plants going. Now the time has come, if the industry is to go forward, when there must be a return to something like real costs. It must be possible to make a forecast of what costs are going to be.
I must quote a case of a most modern blast furnace plant with a very low consumption of coke, very efficiently run, and with very good performance figures, but the margin between selling prices and the cost of running the plant, based on these levies and subsidies, did not allow enough to meet depreciation of the plant. That is extremely serious, and a difficult question to have to face, and all the time these firms are juggling off one group of products against another. Any producer may come out either better off or worse off. I very much hope that when the Board is set up it will settle down to bring these things to a level of practical reality. I do not believe the industry can really be sound unless it pays for its materials what they are worth and gets a proper value for its output. That is the way I believe the industry would be successful, and I am convinced that the proposals in this Bill will be for the benefit of the steel industry and the country.
5.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I rise only for a few moments to support the Bill on the whole—except on the question of iron foundries. We have listened to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, who has made it quite clear that there is grave misgiving in this country among all iron founders at being included in this Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, at the beginning of his speech said that while he thought it a pity, he did not think it would do very much harm. It appears to me that the reason why the iron founders have been included is, as Lord Ridley said, in case
414
there is a shortage in the future—or, it may be, that there is a shortage to-day. There is. But that shortage is growing less and less, and the iron founders cannot see why they should be singled out for inclusion in this particular Bill.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, as I have said, did not think much harm would come, and that, in the event of a crisis, all the companies would have to "toe the line. "That makes my point all the more reasonable—why is it necessary to include them now? So far, no member of Her Majesty's Government neither the Minister so far as I can make out, nor any other member has made that clear. All we have heard is that it would be illogical to leave them out. That is not going to be very much consolation, I am afraid, to some 12,000 to 15,000 iron founders. If there is this shortage, and if Her Majesty's Government are afraid of it, why do they not apply this Bill to other industries which use steel, such as engineering, shipbuilding and motorcar manufacture? I see no reason why they should not.
On the other hard, the plea I want to make before this Bill goes into the Committee stage is this: Would it not be possible to insert a clause in this Bill to the effect that, if a crisis is foreseen or happens to fall upon this country, then iron foundries would immediately come under the control of the Board? I cannot see, as the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, pointed out, that any good purpose will be served by including them at this moment. In any case there is this grave misgiving and doubt in the minds of all those iron founder, and I hope that, before we go into Committee stage, a definite statement will be made by Her Majesty's Government. I think the Minister or the noble Viscount who is to reply this evening should try to do away with the confusion that rests in the minds of the iron founders at this present moment. I am quite confident that they will always come up to scratch if they know exactly what is in the mind of the Minister. At present they do not, because by a vast majority lf e iron founders have turned down -inclusion. With these few words, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will remember the plea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, in his maiden speech and also the humble one that I put forward on behalf of the iron founders.
5.56 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: This is the second occasion within a week on which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has upset a fait accompli. I was therefore all the more interested when, the other week-end, reading the life of his grandfather by Captain Kennedy, I came across the following:
"It became one of his rules that once a measure had become the law of the land he would not go back on it."
That rule is evidently not part of the family tradition.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord did not follow my speech very carefully. I said quite clearly that it was impossible in politics to put the clock back where it was before, and that this was intended to be a middle course, an attempt to bring two opposing sides together. I cannot believe my grandfather would have been against such a course as this.
LORD WINSTER: I agree that there is an attempt to arrive at a compromise about which I hope I may be allowed to say a word later.
The speeches this afternoon have been full of interest. The real struggle on the Bill is going to be on the Committee stage, as it was with the Transport Bill, and I am sorry that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is not here at the moment, because on the Third Reading of the Transport Bill the noble and learned Earl used these words (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 181, col. 321):
"…some of us are getting rather old; and some of us have not very much money, and we are bound to ask ourselves, 'Is our journey really necessary?' When we come to the House on these Committee stages and find we are not going to do any good or make any alterations, it may well be that we shall gradually fade away."
He was not complaining that Amendments were not accepted, but he felt, with some justification, that on one or two occasions arguments in favour of Amendments had not been listened to very carefully; and that once or twice some rather brusque replies had been received. In fact, we had hardly got to work, on the first day in Committee, when I got the impression that we were being told that, if we did not behave ourselves, we should be sent to bed without any supper. It was that sort of thing about which I think the noble and
416
learned Earl was very properly complaining. I take a slightly different view, however, about making such things a reason for not coming here to debate these matters, because I feel that a constitutional point is involved. It is the duty of an Opposition to oppose, and to do so even if they are not receiving quite all that courtesy which they would like to receive, and which, I am sure, we shall receive in Committee on this Bill. And it is especially the duty of an Opposition to oppose when the Opposition happens to represent very nearly half the voters in the country, who have an absolute right to expect their case to be put by their representatives.
But there is a further point still. It seems to me that the Committee stage is a most essential part of our Parliamentary system, since it is the stage which compels the Government to think its Bill right through again from the beginning. That is peculiarly a duty in a House which rightly prides itself on being a revising Chamber. Still, one can only put forward one's argument in favour of an Amendment and hope for the best. As I have made one quotation from Captain Kennedy's Book, I will venture to make another. Captain Kennedy tells us that the noble Marquess's grandfather said:
"It is the duty of every Englishman, and of every English Party, to accept political defeat cordially."
With that, I most cordially agree.
The object of my remarks is to try, if I can, to reinforce some of the arguments which have been advanced about the Board set up by this Bill. Just as the scheme was the essence of the Transport Bill, so the Board is the essence of this Bill. Some of us, including myself, thought that under the Transport Bill, the Commission had a very unworkable job imposed upon them. Similarly, under this Bill, I think the Board will have a very difficult job indeed to carry out. Indeed, I doubt whether, with the best will in the world, it will be able to carry out its supervisory duties. The Board is charged with the duty of—these are the words:
"promoting the efficient, economic and adequate supply under competitive conditions of iron and steel products."
Of course, competitive conditions exist to-day. They were not abolished by

417
nationalisation. But these are very wide duties and very heavy responsibilities in respect of some 2,400 companies—is not that the figure?—which will come under the supervision of the Board.
The duties, in fact, are so heavy that I think the Board should have correspondingly comprehensive powers. And I doubt whether it has. For instance, it has the power to demand information from any of the 2,400 companies which I have mentioned, but not to demand it from the two organisations which import and distribute the raw materials of the industry. The Board can stop any development scheme which is likely to affect the production facilities of the country, but it cannot stop expenditure on works reconstruction, even if it thinks that that expenditure is not worth while. I do not find that these power are very closely or directly related to the administrative duties imposed upon the Board or to the supervisory duties which the Board is expected to perform.
Next, I should like to say a word about compromise. The noble Marquess, who has now left the Chamber, said that this Bill attempts to effect a certain compromise. Sonic time ago, I said that I thought it impossible for industry to carry on under a process of being eternally torn up and started again, and I recognise that this is an attempt to effect a certain compromise. But, having read the Bill, I think that the country is likely to be very disappointed indeed if it believes that although this industry is being returned to private hands, there is a Board which can ensure that the industry operates only in the public interest. I think that that is a fallacy, and that if the country believes it, it will be deeply disappointed. I think we may be sure that when the industry does revert to private hands, these private undertakings will be largely opposed to the Board's having any real powers at all. There are others who share that view. The Statist, in a recent issue, described the Board as largely a matter
"of political expediency"
and said that it was unlikely to be
"in a position effectively to exercise the supervisory functions it has been authorised to perform"
but was likely to become:
"an ineffective nuisance or a rubber stamp for the trade associations."
418
The Board replaces—or will replace when this Bill becomes an Act—a Corporation which had full powers over planning and direction. The Board, on the contrary, has duties, but not powers; it can restrain but not enforce development. It has no new powers over prices. It cannot enforce amalgamations.
A question which I should like to ask is: Who, in the future, is to be responsible for drawing up a major plan for the industry? I may have read the Bill too hastily, and I may not have "spotted" something in it; but I could not find who will have that responsibility of drawing up a major plan for the industry. Is it to be someone's responsibility, or is there not to be an overall scheme of that nature? I notice that the Board may set up an enterprise if no firm will do so, because there seems to be no hope of its being an economic proposition. It is a case of shareholder versus taxpayer. The shareholder must not take a risk; the taxpayer is expected to shoulder it. If, after the Board has started an enterprise, it becomes economic, does private enterprise take it over and profit from what the taxpayer has paid for? It seems to me that that is rather a case of: "Heads I win, tails you lose."
As I read the Bill, I felt that the Government see no reason for the Board to have any great powers, because they think that the industry can be relied upon to play the game. I would not for one moment cast any doubt upon that; I say only that I hope the Government will not be disappointed in those expectations. But I cannot help feeling that the Government realise that there may be disappointment, for if the two organisations which import and distribute the raw materials of the industry give cause for dissatisfaction, the Board may set up its own agency. If that safety clause is inserted, it seems to me that it is expected that some disappointments may be encountered. But is it seriously believed that, in those circumstances, considering that this Board is really a Board without any dentures at all, so far as I can see, the Board could set up an agency?
Is it contended that the supervisory Board, plus a Holding and Realisation Agency which is to take over and dispose of assets now in Sate ownership, will do better than the Iron and Steel Corporation? Why is it supposed that that combination will do any better than the

419
Corporation has done. The Board plus the Agency represents division, not integration. The Agency are to be responsible for running that part of the industry which remains at any time in their hands. Apart from that, I think they are driving members of the Agency to develop a split mind. I do not know what is the term for a mind split in three directions, but they might easily find that afflicting them. From where are the members of this Agency to be drawn? From what has been said to-day I understand that they will be financial experts, but they will also have administrative duties on their hands, and they may have no experience qualifying them to perform such duties.
As regards the duties thrown upon this Realisation Agency, they will have £250 million worth of securities to dispose of. I have seen a calculation that if they succeed in disposing of one-third of these securities before the next General Election they will have done very well. Is it really believed that investors are going to rush in to buy? At any rate I know someone who does not believe that—I refer to the editor of the Financial Times. On November 26 last he said:
Mr. Sandys must be only too acutely aware that he is proposing a Bill to sell the steel industry when there are few signs that many want to buy it."
So this Realisation Agency will have a very heavy job on their hands. I should prefer—and I believe many others share my opinion—to see these assets made the responsibility of the Board and the latter, in turn, made responsible to the Ministry of Supply. The Agency should be responsible for the financial side of the sales, but groupings and all administration should be the responsibility of the Board. The Bill seems to me to involve the Agency, to some extent, in responsibility for groupings, although surely that should be the sole responsibility of the members of the Board who will have experience of the industry which members of the Agency may not have.
I have concentrated on the Board as the weak point in the Bill—indeed, the more I think about it, the more I think it is a most curious Board. The Government can give it directions but the Board may not have powers which alone would enable it to carry out these Government directions. The Board is not financially
420
responsible to the industry but it can levy on the industry for its expenses—and for its failures, too. The Minister can impede the Board at every step, but it is noticeable that the Minister has little power over the Realisation Agency. The Board is responsible to the Ministry of Supply; the Agency are responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why this division of responsibility? I repeat, if the public think this Board can reconcile private ownership with public control, they are going to be greatly disappointed and mistaken. I find myself in agreement with what Sir Albert Herbert, the great machine tool expert, wrote in The Times. He said:
"I question whether denationalisation of steel is worth while. It might be better to accept the fait accompli and avoid the bitter controversies and vast amount of work the Bill will involve."
What is the complaint about the way the Corporation have been working? The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said he would give us some reasons for thinking the Corporation have not been working well. I listened with great attention, and I really should like to know what is the criticism of the Corporation. In the debates on the Transport Bill we asked similarly to hear what was the case against the Transport Commission. The only thing we got was a complaint about three parcels from Welwyn Garden City which went astray. What are the specific complaints about the way in which this Corporation have been doing their work? Where is the evidence of that "dislocation, chaos and confusion" which were prophesied by the present Prime Minister. The public companies are producing 98 per cent. of ingot steel output, 94 per cent. of the iron ore output, and 97 per cent. of the pig iron output. Production in the industry is up by 9 per cent. over 1951, and will probably beat the 16¼million ingot tons of 1950. After seven months' work the Corporation were showing profits at the rate of £65 million a year. What is the charge against this Corporation? Not only should I like to know that, but may I ask for categorical reasons why it is expected that this Bill will make things better than they are under the Corporation?
6.17 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, first I should like to say how gratified we are to find a new speaker in this House in

421
the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, who can speak strongly and argue on his feet. I hope we shall hear him many times more. This Bill has a touch of romance about it. To me it conjures up the vision of the steel maiden, seized by the wicked State ogre and kept in captivity by a gaoler, awaiting a fate worse than death. Then up comes the handsome and debonair knight who puts the gaoler to flight and releases the maiden and, in this Bill, is about to cut off the head of the ogre. I think the noble Lord, Lore Winster, has totally misread the steel situation. Nationalisation has not really started. We have managed to stop the rot. The handsome and gallant knight arrived in time. The industry was rapidly becoming more and more a State-controlled and State-managed enterprise, but we have arrived in time, and to all intents and purposes the industry is still being operated as under private enterprise. The Iron and Steel Federation have not yet disappeared and, of course, they will be in a position to make plans for submission to the Board, about which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, was so worried.
What I am anxious to find out is why noble Lords object so much to this Bill. I can understand the Marxists objecting to it because to them every hour of Parliamentary time not spent in transferring property or power from the individual to the State is time wasted. Their sound and fury over this Bill is quite natural. It sets back their progress for some years, their work and designs being frustrated for the time being. But what about the others, the non-Marxists? There are various lines of thought that have occurred to me in considering why they might oppose this Bill. I do not think the hoary old fable about the armament manufacturers creating war, about armaments being made from steel and the steel manufacturers creating war in order to sell their steel to the armament manufacturers, will wash nowadays. But there are some who might think that full employment in the steel industry is only possible under State ownership. The arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, incline to make me believe that he has some ideas in that direction. But surely that is muddled thinking. To create employment you need orders. It is not ownership that creates orders; it is some form of stimulus to the steel-consuming
422
industries that is required, not ownership of the steel industry itself.
I have been thinking of what we should do if a slump came along, and I notice that the economists have started to think on those lines, too. The conclusion they seem to becoming to is that orders to steel-using industries should straight away be stimulated by the Government—again, presumably, orders for railway wagons, ships and so on. That is what maintains employment in steel, not State ownership of steel works for which there are no orders. In connection with slump, and so on, I notice in the Bill that the Board have power to fix maximum prices. I believe they should have power to fix minimum prices, also, and I intend to move an Amendment on the Committee stage to that effect—and I believe that I may have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Layton in that matter; we shall see.
LORD STRABOLGI: Does the noble Lord mean minimum prices for the home market, or for export?
LORD HAWKE: I have not differentiated. The noble Lord has certainly given me a line of thought. I have seen it stated that the Board will lack the capital for development of the industry, and that argument has been advanced today. Capital formation to-day, of course, is a great problem. But it is a different problem in the two different categories—the fixed interest problem and the risk capital problem. The fixed interest is a much less acute problem than the other, because the present tendency in the nation is to save by way of pension funds, insurance policies and the big Government funds, such as the National Insurance Fund. These funds are, of course, habituated to invest in fixed-interest securities. But there is no doubt that there is a tendency for them to move away from that line towards a more risk-bearing form of security, particularly with some of the other financial institutions. In any case, if the industry is profitable, surely the industry should be able to provide a great deal of its risk capital out of its own resources. Of course, to-day taxation is enormous. I have no doubt that the speech from which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, quoted, while seemingly directed at some audience, perhaps in South Wales—I do not remember—was

423
really directed at the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
LORD OGMORE: I think it was largely directed at the insurance companies, as I read it. It is a quotation from the Western Mail. They were about the only people who Mr. Lever thought would have resources to come in.
LORD HAWKE: That could be described as a side-cut at the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why should they be the only people with resources to come in? Because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has looted the rest. In any case, is taxation of the risk-taker going to remain perpetually at the present level? At the moment, abnormal expenditure on armaments represents 3s. 6d. in the pound on the income tax. Is the expenditure on armaments always going to be abnormal? I hope it is not. That would ease the problem. But, in any case, the problem is surely no greater than that of any other industry. Every industry in the country is in exactly the same boat; they all have to raise capital somehow or other. Surely, this industry is on at least as good a wicket as any other, if not better than many of them. We have, I am glad to say, abandoned free trade, as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye pointed out. I cannot see that any Government in this country would ever again allow great plants and men to stand idle while steel came into the country from Europe or Japan. They would be forced to come to the rescue under modern conditions.
Again, we have the modern doctrine of high level of employment. What does this mean but a high level of activity in the steel industry? All Governments are committed to that. I feel certain that this industry has as good a chance of producing capital out of its own resources as any other. In any case, suppose it cannot. What is in the Bill? I read that there is to be possible provision of £150 million of permanent capital, £10 million of temporary capital, and the whole resources of the Realisation Account which have not been pouched by the Treasury. If those resources were left in the Realisation Account, the resources which are a counterpart to £224 million of assets, the potential capital available for this industry is quite immense. I do not think that that story will "wash" at all.
424
Another story we hear is that only the good plants will be sold. The purchase price of all these things was a function of assets and earning power as depressed by the threat of nationalisation. The sale price is a function of assets and earning power alone. If you subtract the poor assets from the good you get a larger price for the good—the balance is worth more. I, for one, hope that no great attempt will be made to sell the poorer assets. There is provision in the Bill for them to be leased. I hope that that will be found the most convenient method of dealing with plants which are obsolescent, because I believe that if they are leased it will be the easiest method of ensuring that they stay in operation so long as is really necessary, and pass away as soon as new capacity comes into being. It is the most painless method.
I am glad to see that the co-operative arrangements for the purchase of ore supplies remain. Of course, we are favourably situated for steel, with our plants near our coking coal, and in most cases near the sea for the receipt of ore supplies. The world is increasingly being scoured for large deposits of good quality ore which are near the seaboard. We ourselves are looking more and more to the Empire for this. This is an ideal way of Empire development, because the equipment used, the railways, the cranes and the port facilities, are our classical exports, and the result of the development immediately produces a 100 per cent. increase in the exportable capacity of the country where it is installed. I believe that there is a great future in that direction. If I had been told to draft an arrangement for releasing the iron and steel industry, I believe I should have come to something very similar to this Bill, and for that reason I give it my hearty support.
6.30 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the first spring blossoms have appeared on the trees, the buds are out and the sunshine has come. Apparently that has roused the blood of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and he thinks there is a touch of romance in this Bill. Well, I think the whole thing is absolutely fantastic, and I am extremely sorry for the very able Ministers in your Lordships' House who have to pilot this monstrosity through this House. It was shot to pieces and riddled

425
with criticism in another place with no really effective answer, because no effective answer was possible. This scheme is just not going to work, and I am going to add a few reasons to some of those already put forward.
For one thing, the Bill is extremely inopportune because, thank goodness, there looks like an improvement in the international situation which will have certain results, Suppose, if I could use the expression, peace breaks out in Korea—which everyone is profoundly hopeful will happen—the cold war becomes less frigid and there is a general improvement in the international situation. We may then find an acceptance of the American proposal made only a week ago that there should be one more attempt to reach an all-round reduction of armaments. That will put a stop to the present extravagant and colossal production of armaments all over the world. In that case, there may be a temporary trade recession; the beginnings of a slump, perhaps even a quite serious; slump, and a temporary falling off in the demand for steel. If this Bill is then an Act and in operation, we shall not have the broad national policy of the present Corporation made possible by keeping the industry in being and keeping it going until better times come, and we shall have another succession of Jarrows. The first thing the ironmasters will do, if there is a slump and a falling off in world demand, is to close down. They have always done that. They are not in business for their health, but for profit. That is the essence of private enterprise.
LORD HAWKE: What does the noble Lord suggest they should do?
LORD STRABOLGI: They cannot do otherwise. I do not blame them for a moment. Under the present dispensation the works can be kept going and kept in being and the men need not be dispersed. You need not completely demolish places, as was done in the days of Jarrow, and make it impossible for them to start up again in the national interest so that you can maintain a great steel industry which you require, ready for a revival of trade or in case of war. I submit to your Lordships that this is the worst time possible to make this change over.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and other noble Lords, have referred to the raw material question, and your Lord-
426
ships know that in the Bill there are arrangements for carrying on the present policy of providing raw material for the industry. But the proposed Board will have no real executive powers there at all. It can function only if the supplies are short and, therefore, you wait until the trouble arises, then you try to meet it. May I give to your Lordships an actual example of what happened before the present Corporation was in being, before the 1949 Act? This is a personal experience and I hope your Lordships will allow me to give it. A couple of years before the 1949 Act was introduced, I went to Newfoundland to visit my noble friend, Lord Macdonald, who was then Governor. As an old miner he had taken a great interest in the question of iron ore supplies and other raw materials for Imperial use. He told me—I had not hard of them before—of the fabulous deposits of iron ore in Labrador, partly in his territory and partly in Canadian territory. I believe I am right in saying that it is agreed that they are the finest and greatest new supply of iron ore in the world. It had come to my noble friend's notice that the Canadians had not the capital resources to develop them, because it needs a railway down the St. Lawrence and great expenditure, and they were having to turn to the Americans in default of British capital.
I went on to Canada and I investigated the position. I saw the people who had the concessions, and it was perfectly true. They had been trying to get British capital to develop this greatest iron ore field in the world. They had failed, and they were having great difficulty in keeping American capital out. The American iron ore deposits are becoming worked out and the Americans are looking for iron ore everywhere. I came home and I saw my right honourable friend, the present Leader of the Opposition, and other Ministers, including my noble friend, Lord Wilmot, on this point—I think he will remember it—and I put this problem to them. Here was a great source of iron ore which could be kept within the Commonwealth, but there was no one to provide the capital. The great iron and steel companies in this country, even through their Federation, had no machinery for providing the immense capital required and nothing could be done. The opportunity was lost

427
and now the Americans are in there. I do not say that we shall not be able to get iron ore, but we could have had a much more sure and safe supply. I think I am right in saying that much the same thing happened in Liberia. It was British pioneering and exploration which discovered the iron ore deposits, but because there was nobody to take advantage of it I think that that iron ore field is lost to us as well. I have not the facts about that case, but with regard to the Labrador situation I have the exact facts, and I think they disclose a state of affairs which justified the setting up of the present Corporation, if nothing else did.
When the original proposal of the Labour Government was introduced to nationalise the iron and steel industry, I confess—and I have said so publicly—that I felt some dubiety about it. I was not quite sure that it was the right policy. But now that I have seen the workings of the Corporation and seen what has happened, I think it was completely justified, and that it is an act of political levity to break up and destroy the organisation which has been created. Nobody can say that it is a failure. I will quote the figures given in another place by my right honourable friend who was the Minister of Supply and who carried through the original Act which we are now destroying. I will quote only these figures, because they must be authoritative. They are the profits of the industry before nationalisation and afterwards. This is a point which no one on the other side in the other place has attempted to answer, and I shall be very interested to hear whether there is any answer to it here. In 1949, the profits taken over—that is to say. The profit-making capacity—was £42 million a year. In 1950 they were £53 million a year, and in this year they are likely to be about £75 million. Therefore, you have that spectacular increase in profits in an industry which, after all, has not been primarily operated for profits. It has been operated for the national interest but the profits have been made. If profits are a test of efficiency, you certainly have efficiency in the present set-up and organisation, and I repeat that it is an act of political levity, indeed, almost lunacy, to destroy it.
Now I have referred to the raw material situation, which I think is very disturbing indeed, because under the
428
Corporation we were beginning to open out new sources of supply of raw material and to organise the supply of the ore. I am not at all satisfied that, under the Bill now before your Lordships, the powers to do that remain. It is only when there is failure or shortage, only when there is another 1951, when shortages of raw materials almost crippled us and cut down the activities of the steel industry substantially, that the Board could act.
I should like to reinforce what was said by my noble friend Lord Wilmot on the question of finance. It is. I think, generally agreed that during the next five years £60 million should be, perhaps must be, spent in enlargement, improvements and developments each year. That is £300 million in the next five years. That would be raised in the ordinary way, if we had not this act of political madness to destroy it, on Government guaranteed stocks. Now, presumably, the companies will have to raise their own finance. I do not think I am far out in saying that there will be a difference of perhaps 1 per cent. or even l½ per cent. between the rate for Government guaranted stock such as the Corporation could issue and the price required to raise money on the money market by the companies.
LORD HAWKE: Surely the noble Lord has misunderstood the situation. Is my inference not correct, that there is £150 million of permanent capital plus £10 million of temporary capital plus a Realisation Account, which could amount to over £400 million in all?
LORD STRABOLGI: I am talking about money which has to be raised, not for re-purchasing plants but for enlarging and improving the industry—a five-years' plan in other words. That money will perhaps be raised now by private enterprise which so attracts the noble Lord. Lord Hawke—and it will cost more to raise by 1 per cent, or 1½per cent. than if it was raised by Government guaranteed stocks.
LORD HAWKE: There is the potential £400 million of Government money. Surely that is in the Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: No, there is nothing about that. I should be glad if the noble Lord would be good enough to

429
tell me the relevant paragraph. If he is right I will be the first to admit it.
LORD HAWKE: I will refer the noble Lord presently to the relevant clauses. They may be a little involved, but that is how I read them.
LORD STRABOLGI: There is another aspect of the financial side of the Bill which my friends and I find very disturbing. It has already been referred to. It is the price at which the plants, presumably the more attractive financially, are going to be sold. In another place an Amendment was moved that they should not be sold at less than the compensation price paid, allowing for enlargements and other changes in the interim. This Amendment was rejected by the Government. I hope we shall have better luck with this particular Amendment in this House. What is laid down in the Bill is that there shall be "financially adequate consideration." That can mean anything. If it is a sellers' market, no doubt the price will be good; but if it is a buyers' market what is "potentially adequate consideration" going to be worth? And there will be pressure all the time—pressure for political reasons. The Government dare not come to Parliament and explain, or let it be known in the country, that they cannot sell, that they cannot find buyers; and there will be a pressure to sell quickly before we come back into office—which I hope will be soon—and undo this mischief, as we shall have to do. We shall have again to chain up the beautiful maiden of Lord Hawke's romantic dream—but I do not think she will suffer or be in worse hands.
EARL JOWITT: Chain up the Minister!
LORD STRABOLGI: No not for one moment would I think of that. I would not chain up any of the Ministers in this House. I am sorry for them, and I would express my sympathy with them for having to pilot through this House such a rotten Bill.
There is one other consideration which I venture to put before your Lordships, and that is regarding the powers of this Board. I have read very carefully what it says in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill and in the White Paper, and I agree with every word that has fallen from my noble friends Lord Wilmot and
430
Lord Winster. This Board, in effect, will have no real powers. The noble Marquess who leads this House said that this Board will have great prestige and considerable influence and that by persuasion and consultation it will be able to do everything that is required. But when you come to it, my Lords, what is required is power; and this Board will not have that power. It is only after its consultations and conversations have failed that the Board will go to the Minister, and then the Minister will go to the Treasury and finally something may be done.
Take the case which is provided for in the Bill, where the Board are not satisfied and so report to the Minister that production is not being increased or that improvements are not being made. What can be done? The Board, with the Minister's consent in consultation with the Treasury, can proceed to provide the extra or improved or more modern plant required. But then what staff will the Board have? What administrative machinery and what experts will they have? What will they have in these directions to compare with the present Corporation. On the other hand, is the endeavour going to be to keep the staff down, and is very discouragement to be given to the important experts not to take service under this body? We know what happened when the Corporation was set up; there was the greatest difficulty in persuading men of technical eminence, against pressure of their colleagues and friends in the industry, to take service under a Socialist Government in a nationalised industry. Will the same thing happen to the Board? Will they be able to build up a staff of experts and build up machinery adequate to the purpose? It would take a long time to build up this machinery and all the services needed. Will this body have the necessary machinery and staff to enlarge and improve as may be required in the national interest—and not only in the interests of private enterprise? It is said that this may be lone by companies which are to be formed. But it would take time to form these companies, get them over their growing pains, and obtain the necessary experts and staff. That will mean delay and loss of time, and the country will suffer in the meantime.

431
Those are only one or two of the objections which I have to put forward to this very inefficient and inadequate Bill. If we had not a clear mandate—as I have had to confess—for introducing the original Bill, I do not see how the Government can claim a mandate for introducing theirs. But they put it in their Election Manifesto. The Prime Minister, in one of his romantic moments, promised that the omelette should be unscrambled. Yes: and what was the result? Votes given for their policy were fewer than the votes given for ours. So if it is a case of mandates I do not think they have any particular strength in their claim. No, my Lords, this is a wanton Bill. I could say some hard things about political prejudice and spite, but I do not want to say them. It is a foolish Bill, and I am very sorry indeed for the able and long-headed men who adorn the Government Front Bench in their task of piloting this Bill through.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I might make a small correction here. I said "up to £250 million might in certain events be available"; it is available only to those companies whose securities are held to a substantial extent by the Agency.
6.51 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill, with one small exception. I regret very much that the foundries were included in the Bill. I do not think that it was necessary to include them. They are now excluded, I understand, from everything except the control of raw materials. I do not think it is a very good idea to legislate in that way. I should have preferred to see them out but, having fought the passage of the earlier Bill in 1948 and 1949, I felt that I must say just a few words to-night in support of this Bill. I took a certain amount of trouble to see what were the main reasons for introducing the Iron and Steel Act of 1949. That Act was introduced in this House by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, who used these words, which I think are very important—I now quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 162, col. 985:
"I am not going to base the case which I shall submit to your Lordships on the question of the efficiency or otherwise of this industry. I make no charge that the industry is in-
432
efficient, for I have knowledge that in the main the present management of the British iron and steel industry is good; but it will be admitted that a substantial proportion of its plant is out of date and inefficient."
The noble Viscount based his case on this. At col. 984 he said:
"There are only three ways in which this industry can operate. It is conceded on all sides that a return to unregulated, uncontrolled private ownership is completely out of the question. The memories of the inter-war years are still fresh in our minds. There must be no return to those conditions, when output was only one-third of what it is at the present time, when unemployment in this industry was 42 percent., as compared with 21 per cent. for industry as a whole, and when employers were almost bankrupt. The second suggested plan is that the industry should remain under private ownership, tightly organised within the Steel Federation, leaving it to wield an immense influence on British industry as a whole—and indeed, on the State itself—and to remain a vast monopoly or cartel possessing great powers over the economic life of the nation, but without any responsibility."
This Bill before us to-day, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, is a "middle of the road" Bill. I think the Government have tried to meet that by introducing under Part II of the Bill a public control Board. It is true that the industry is to be returned to private enterprise, but it will be controlled by this public Board; and if one reads Part II of the Bill carefully, it will be seen that the Board has very wide powers.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, went on to say that he very much feared that the industry would not be able to finance itself in future. That is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has just been raising. It is abundantly clear, from the speech made to-day by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that in this great programme which was prepared by private enterprise in 1946—and I had the honour and privilege of seeing some of the work in this big undertaking in 1949, when the programme was well away; and the first stage has been completedone—one-half of the £250 million required (that is, £125 million) was able to be financed by the companies' reserves. I am certain that if there had not been nationalisation, they would have been able to find the money on the public market and would have had support from their shareholders for the other £125 million.
As to the future, I do not share the fears of many people that when this industry does go back there will not be

433
buyers for its assets, because it is the life-blood of this nation. It will be able to find the money that it requires for the next five years for the£350 million programme. With those few words, I should like heartily to support this Bill, as I say, with the one exception that I think it is a pity that the foundries were ever put in. However, I do not see how we can make any further form of amendment now without taking them out of the Bill altogether, because they are in only for the control of raw materials. But many of the big firms feel strongly about that. With those few words, I should like to support the Bill.
6.56 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, your Lordships need have no fear that I am going to make an elaborate speech. I shall occupy your Lordships' time for but a few moments—if only for this reason. The noble Lords, Lord Wilmot, Lord Ogmore, Lord Winster and Lord Strabolgi have all made such powerful speeches showing your Lordships how we on this side of the House regard this Bill that there is little that a person like myself, with no technical knowledge, can usefully add. I do, however, want to say something in the course of these few remarks, about our function on this side of the House. We are, of course, not going to attempt to divide against this Bill on Second Reading. I say that at once so that any of your Lordships who wish to go may regard yourselves now as free to do so. I should like to reply to some of the observations that have been made. The noble Marquess who leads the House, whom we are delighted to have conducting this Bill, was a little apt to caricature what we said when he said that we suggested that the Party opposite were doing something morally wrong in bringing in this Bill. I do not suggest for one moment that his amount of original sin is any larger than mine. I am sure that the quantum he has acquired since that date is probably much less than mine. It is not on the ground of any moral obliquity that we oppose this Bill. We think it is an unwise Bill. We think it is a Bill which is founded on doctrinaire principles and doctrinaire prejudices; we think it is a Bill which is almost certain to bring about repercussions in the fullness of time. Therefore, we think it is an
434
exceedingly unwise Bill. But there is no question at all of moral right or wrong.
The noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, who knows far more about this industry than I pretend to know (I look upon him as one of the great steel masters, in the best sense of the word), seemed to think that at the present time the industry was being run, or was in danger of being run, by a lot of gentlemen who were admirable civil servants from Whitehall. Let me tell him that I could not agree with him more fully than I do; as he and I well know, they are most admirable people in their place, but, if they are going to run the steel industry then heaven help us all! If he could make out that the Act which we introduced in the last Parliament but one had that effect, he would really score a point. But I deny it entirely. I cannot see how it can be said. The existing boards of all the companies—there are some ninety-odd companies—still have their staffs, their traditions and all the rest of it. I do not see any civil servants coming into the scheme at all. Possibly under the Board which is now to be set up we may see civil servants creeping in. I hope the Board will be composed of people who understand a good deal about this industry. Let me say here that I am confused about the position as between the Agency and the Board. If the Board is to consist of people who understand the industry, as I understand is the scheme, and the Agency are to consist of financial experts, which I also understand to be the scheme, why should the Agency be responsible for controlling and running businesses until they are sold off? Why not the Board? That is one of the matters which we shall have to consider when we come to the Committee stage.
Then Lord Layton seemed to think that competition is essential. Under the system we have got to-day competition is possible. But I think we are all agreed that overriding all competition, there must be some real measure of State control. My objection to the Board is that I think it is a sham, a mere façade. I do not think it has nearly enough power to do anything. Indeed, I think that if this is all the power it is to have, it might as well be cut out from the Bill altogether. I should like to see the Board greatly strengthened. In due course, we shall move Amendments with that object

435
in view. Lord Hawke said (probably he is right about this) that the body which will really run the industry will be the Federation. I strongly suspect that that is about the long and short of it.
My Lords, why do we think that we must have a really effective national control? I think Lord Ridley is the only person who touched on the point, but it is one which we have all to face sooner or later. In our condition to-day, if we are going to support a population of 50,000,000 in this Island, it is quite obvious that our industries have got to be as efficiently run as they possibly can be. I speak not of my own knowledge; I take my information from the Anglo-American Council on Productivity, who know the industry. They point out that
"…the greatest limitation upon productivity to-day is the size of the unit of plant.
"The average capacity, of the forty British steelworks making bulk steel in 1950 was about 325,000 tons per year. The industry is planning to increase its output of steel to meet a demand estimated at near 20 million tons, of which over 90 per cent. will be bulk steel. It follows that if all these steelworks are expanded or even retained it will not be possible to reach anything like the minimum size for efficient operation. Therefore it will be necessary for development and re-equipment to be concentrated in the works most suitably sited for expansion."
They go on to add:
"This process is already under way, and is endorsed here"—
that is, in this country—
"in the belief that it is essential for raising productivity and increasing efficiency. It will present many human problems, as must any change; but it is better to anticipate these problems rather than to wait for the economic death of the inefficient firms, coupled with a delay in the growth of the industry's efficiency."
As I say, I speak without personal knowledge, but I believe that statement to be profoundly true. I think we have all got to realise that an immense human problem is here involved. It is the problem of Jarrow over again. I do not know at what point the situation comes when one ought to say, "Well, that steelworks should go"—with all that that means—"in order that we may concentrate our money on this steelworks here." Unfortunately, with the very limited amount of money in our possession, if we are going to get our steel industry really efficient, somebody having complete knowledge and complete advice has got to address
436
himself to that question, notwithstanding all the human tragedies that are going to be involved. As Lord Ridley pointed out, that somebody must, in the last resort, be the Government of the country. It would be intolerable, as I am sure everybody will agree, that the decision on whether you should close down this, that or the other steel works should depend simply upon the mere fact that some particular company is or is not making a satisfactory profit. You must look at it from a much wider point of view than that, and I find myself in entire agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, in what he said about this problem.
At the same time, if I am right in thinking that this problem is already casting its shadow upon us, it is essential that the Government should not fall into the position into which this country fell over a somewhat comparable matter after the Great Fire of London. On that occasion, owing to the fact that there was a great site vacant, Christopher Wren had a chance of making a plan and of building; but that plan was destroyed because, not unnaturally—it being a feature of human nature—everybody wanted to protect his own little bit of land. Frankly, I am frightened lest, in the solution of the problem that faces this industry (I am not attempting to criticise or to say a word against its efficiency; it is a problem that confronts the industry), every one of these forty-odd steelworks should come forward and say, "Not us; let us do what we can," and between them all, in the chaos and confusion that results, you may lose the benefit of a clear plan.
I myself believe that that is the critical problem. I believe that what we have all got to try to do is to get the industry as efficient as possible. I believe, therefore, that we must put the industry in the hands of people who know how to run it, and not in the hands of civil servants. I believe that we had evolved a scheme whereby we had the shares, and consequently the control; and that, without interfering, leaving the running of the industry to the highly technical people who understand it, we had a possible solution. I deeply regret that, as it seems to me, that solution has gone. As I said before, I believe that this Board is an ill-thought-out and unreal thing, with no adequate powers at all to do anything—it is merely a fifth wheel to the coach. I

437
deeply regret that the scheme we evolved has been thrown on one side.
In so far as I have asked and tried to find out, I believe that the existing scheme was popular with the men who work in the industry. I have had no evidence to the contrary. I am not so impressed as was the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, with the statements that some of these people made to him about the dread of State control or State management. I remember very well in the days of the Coalition Government when, for a time, I was charged with considering what we ought to do in regard to the electrical controversy. I met a large number of technical gentlemen in the electrical industry who all came and gave me their opinion that it was right that the industry should be nationalised. They all said, quite frankly, "You must on no account state my name. You must not mention my name, otherwise I shall have to bow the knee in the 'House of Rimmon.' In order to protect my bread and butter I shall go about saying what a terrible prospect this ugly nationalisation is." So I am not so impressed as is the noble Viscount with statements that have been made.
May I conclude with one word about Amendments?—the noble Marquess will not mind my saying this. I felt a little aggrieved the other day when I had taken great pains, as I thought, to indicate quite plainly what I thought was the duty of the Government and the Opposition with regard to Amendments. If I may quote my words, I said this (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 181, col. 320):
"I entirely agree that no Opposition can expect to have Amendments on points of principle accepted. I will go further: I think no Opposition can complain if their Amendments even on points of detail are not accepted. The Government must govern. But what every Opposition are entitled to expect is that all their Amendments shall be carefully considered and treated as serious Amendments and that argument shall be met by counter-argument. That is the minimum…"
I think that is a perfectly fair and proper statement. What was my surprise to find that the noble Marquess only a page or two after I said that, I hope with clarity and resounding voice, was saying this (col. 346):
"But if noble Lords who have spoken here this afternoon really meant to argue—I hope they did not; I do not expect they did—that the Government should accept all the Amendments moved by the Opposition of this House,
438
however fundamental they might be, however disastrous they might appear to us to the future of tile Bill, merely because the Opposition here are in a minority and therefore deserve special consideration—if they meant that, I could not accept it and no Government could accept it."
It is not only that I had not said any such thing; I said precisely the opposite and I say again precisely the opposite, I do not say for one moment that the Government are bound to accept any of our Amendments, either on points of substance or on points of detail. But for the reasons I gave, I very much hope that our Amendments will be carefully considered and looked at; and that, if there is an opportunity of going a little way to meet us, your Lordships will not hesitate so to do.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As the noble and learned Earl has mentioned some remarks I made I think I ought to make my position clear. The noble Earl himself has quoted words he used which were, as always, moderate and measured words; but again and again it has been said in this House, by some of his colleagues, not that Amendments had not received sufficient consideration, but—and this was the complaint made—that they were not accepted. I have always said what the noble Earl has said to-day: that every Amendment has a right to consideration, and full consideration, in this House whether it is acceptable or not; and that is the essence on which we govern But the complaint that has been levied, so I understand, not by the noble Earl but by other members of his Party, is thin, whereas when the Labour Party are in power this is a revising Chamber, when the Conservative Party are in power it is a rubber stamp. That is not so.
As I understand it, what was said the other day was that they could not prevent its being a revising Chamber in the late Parliament because they were in a minority, but they put right the Amendments effected in this House when the Bill reached another place. I believe, however, that, in the event, in this Parliament this House hat, acted as a revising Chamber just as mach as, if not more than, it did in the last. I repeat, I did not complain in the least of the noble Earl's saying that Amendments should have full consideration. I agree with him: they should; and so far as it is in my power they always will, and in the

439
last Bill that was throughout the intention of the Government.
EARL JOWITT: I have no intention of going back to the last Bill. As the noble Lord said, how one compares this Bill with the last is a matter of opinion. My opinion does not coincide with his own, therefore I am wrong. But I hold to the opinion as I expressed it.
I think it was a pity, when the noble Marquess came to make these remarks, he did not pay some acknowledgment to the fact that I enunciated the principle in the way I think he would have enunciated it. I will not say that he is wrong, but I am unaware that anybody has suggested—certainly I think it would be undesirable—that any Government should be bound to accept any Amendment moved by the Opposition. I cannot conceive how any such argument could be advanced. I have never heard such an argument, and I did not know that it had been advanced. I shall be interested if the noble Marquess comes across a case. I shall do my best to convince any member of this Party, should he hold such an opinion, that such a claim is monstrous; that it would be the end of any Government. All I want of this Bill is that Amendments should be considered most carefully. I made no threats as to what is going to happen, but I think that, in the circumstances of today, if we can meet each other we should do so. I hope that our Amendments to strengthen the position of the Board and to alter the position between the Agency and the Board will receive the consideration they deserve. I forbear to deal with the matter again: it was so admirably dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, in his speech, with every word of which I agree. It shows the lines on which we hope that, refreshed and reinvigorated by the Easter holidays, the Government will give their kind consideration to Amendments to this end.
7.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I should like to begin by replying immediately to something the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, because I heard that part of his speech with great interest and I immediately made the most careful inquiries. I was greatly exercised when the noble Lord said that the steel industry
440
had declined to make any investment in order to get iron ore from Canada, and that though he had come back and seen Ministers no result was obtained. I made careful inquiries about this, and I am told that the facts are these. The iron and steel industry was extremely anxious to make investments in Canadian iron ore. The place selected was Newfoundland, which is much easier of access for iron furnaces in this country than Labrador. What happened? The companies were most anxious to make the investment. They asked the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to be allowed to do so, but I am told that for eighteen months they were refused any dollars. I am not criticising the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the time. I am not aware what the exact exchange position was at that moment. It may have been a necessary decision on the part of the Labour Chancellor.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Who was he?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not know. I think it may have been Sir Stafford Cripps.
LORD STRABOLGI: I was talking about Labrador, not Newfoundland.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The point whether iron ore was obtained from Newfoundland or Labrador does not make a great deal of difference: it is wise to get the iron ore from that place from which carriage is easiest. But the whole point, as conveyed to the House, was that the iron and steel industry would not make an investment in Canadian iron ore. That is not the fact. The fact, as I am informed, is that the iron and steel industry was only too anxious to make an investment in Canadian iron ore. But, for reasons which were unfortunate, but which may have been necessary at the time, it was eighteen months before the Chancellor of the Exchequer would sanction the transfer of any dollars to make that investment. On those facts, I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to charge the iron and steel industry of this country with negligence in a matter of that kind.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry that I did not make this clear. No doubt it is my own fault for not explaining properly. I was not accusing the iron and steel industry at all. There were a number of individual entities, but an organisation for that sort of thing did not exist.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Of course it existed, as it exists to-day. Really the noble Lord, if he will forgive me for saying so, must get to know something about this industry before he criticises it. The industry has a complete organisation, a composite body financed by all the units in the industry for the whole purpose of bringing iron ore supplies to this country. I think that practically the whole imports of iron ore (the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, will correct me if I am wrong in this) that come into this country are purchased and imported by B.I.S.C. (Ore). It was that composite co-operative body, representing the whole of the iron and steel industry, which was not only ready but anxious to make this investment in Newfoundland; and, as soon as the Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed it to make the investment, it did, in fact, make it. Those are the facts.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sure the noble Viscount does not want to misrepresent me. I am well aware of the existence of this buying organisation; but it is a buying organisation; it is not for developing untapped resources.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: On the contrary, it can and it does invest in the development of resources. I understand, in connection with this Newfoundland company, that a great deal of money is being invested in order to mine iron ore in Newfoundland and bring it to this country.
Then the noble Lord said, in effect, "Of course the Corporation, if it was not destroyed, was doing magnificent work in beginning to open up new sources of raw materials." I have made inquiries of the Ministry, and I am informed that the Corporation had taken no action at all in this matter. This has all been done by the industry's own central organisation B.I.S.C. (Ore). As the noble Lord's charges against the industry will no doubt be broadcast, I think it is only right that the House should have the facts.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Would it not also be right to explain to the House what are the relations between the Corporation and -B.I.S.C. (Ore) during the last two years, and what steps the Corporation have taken to reorganise and improve it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If the noble Lord will put down a Question, I will do what I can to get him that information. I understand that in the last fourteen months the Corporation have been, so to speak, in a state of suspended animation. I am coming to that in the course of my speech. But I understand that no charge can properly be made against the iron and steel indusry of failure to develop and to get supplies.
Let me now come to the Bill. I think the very reasoned tone of this debate is a good augury that this Bill will have as agreeable a passage here as it has had in another place. I do not hail that so much as a victory for the Government as—as the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, said in another connection—a triumph for common sense, though I must say (I am sure the House will allow me to say this) that my right honourable friend the Minister of Supply deserves a great deal of credit for his moderation in framing and adapting this I think there are a great many people—and not only on one side of the House—who wish that this industry had never been brought into politics, and who would be very glad to see it outside politics. No one, on any side, doubts the fundamental importance of the steel industry. As has been said, it is at the base of some of our most important industries, including some of our most important exporting industries, to-day. The real problem is how can we get the best out of it—or perhaps I should rather say hew can we enable it to give its best. Everyone, I think, agrees that there must be a measure of effective public supervision. That has always been accepted. It has been accepted by our Party, by all Parties, I think, and by the industry itself. The technique of public supervision and co-operation between the Government and industry was evolved and steadily improved before the war, during the war, and after it. But supervision must cover a wide enough field. It must cover production, raw materials, prices, research, and welfare. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Earl that it must be administered by a competent and representative Board—people who really know the industry, and its problems: producers, users, workers. And I think it is also important to bring in applied science. On this, I think there is agreement.

443
The real issue is whether nationalisation is necessary to get this supervision and to get an efficient industry. It is said, on the one hand (I want to put it fairly), that this industry is so important—the noble and learned Earl reiterated that in his closing speech—that it must be nationally owned. On the other hand—and this is the view which we hold—its very importance, its competitive character, its own variety, and the infinite variety of interests which it serves, all make it necessary that its firms should have the stimulus of individual initiative, of competition and of individual financial responsibility. Lord Wilmot, in a speech which, if I may say so, I thought was a first-class debating speech—it was a pleasure to hear, and it was none the worse for not being unduly long, as the noble Lord took the course of concentrating on a few arguments—said, in effect, that this Bill is quite unnecessary; and he asked what justification there was for interfering with an industry which was doing very well. It occurred to me—and no doubt it occurred also to other noble Lords—that the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, made was a speech which he might well have made to his colleagues during their long and (as I understand) not altogether harmonious discussions on whether or not to nationalise the steel industry. Perhaps, indeed, he did make it then. I hope he did. If he did, I only wish that he could have prevailed.
The noble Lord added another argument, and it is one with which I must deal. He said that the steel industry must be nationalised because it is so important for defence. Of course I agree that it is. But that would be an argument for nationalising the aircraft industry. I do not know what the newest movements in the policy of the Party opposite are, and whether that is going to be one of the industries to be brought in. But surely the nationalisation of the aircraft industry would be a frightful disaster. Before and during the war, all the aircraft—Spitfires, Hurricanes, Mosquitoes, Lancasters: the aircraft that won the Battle of Britain, and later gave us mastery in the air—were the products of private enterprise and the brains of the designers in the private enterprise firms. To-day their counterparts—Hunters, Swifts, Canberras, the Delta bombers, the Valiant bombers, and,
444
in civil aircraft, the Comet—are all the products of private enterprise, private initiative, and private design. So I really do not think that an argument can be founded on defence.
Then the Act of 1949 split the industry in two unfortunate ways, as we see it. By substituting nationalisation for supervision and control, the Act narrowed that field of supervision. It included under national ownership a number of engineering activities—bridge-building, locomotive construction and so on—which had nothing to do with the basic industry of iron and steel, except that they used iron and steel in production. Thus forgings, bright bars, hot finished tubes and cold-rolled products were outside the range of control, though essentially steel products, because they were not nationalised, while, as I have said, firms engaged in structural engineering and the manufacture of mining machinery and locomotives were brought in because they or their parent firms were nationalised.
I must say a word about the foundries. Certainly we are going to have criticism from all quarters of the House, as we always do: it is quite the custom for the Government to be "shot at" not only from one side. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, on his maiden speech. I hope that his remarks will not always be directed quite so intensively against the Government, but we gladly welcome his intervention. We shall have an opportunity, no doubt, of considering this in more detail, but I should like shortly to give one or two arguments on the other side. Founders use exactly the same materials as are used by heavy steel-makers, and they use them in large quantities. That is an argument not for nationalisation but for bringing them under a measure of supervision. As it has reached us, the Bill recognises the special position of these firms. There are a great many small competitive units. It is important that, before noble Lords in any quarter criticise the Bill, they should read it and understand it. It may not always be easy to understand, but I can understand these clauses about foundries.
Take capital development. The noble Lord did not use this argument, but it was used by somebody, either in a speech or in a letter to the newspapers by some iron founder, that he would not be able to put up a shed without getting a per-

445
mit. There is not a vestige of truth in that suggestion. I suppose he was referring to the fact that large schemes of development would require the approval of the Board. These are the kind of schemes the noble Earl was talking about, developments like those at Margam and Trostre, which, incidentally, took place under private enterprise. Small improvements and enlargements will not require anybody's agreement. Nor are prices to be controlled. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 9, he will see that prices will be controlled only under monopoly conditions. Here, I might also reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who, on the question of monopolies, said that the Agency, would create a statutory ring to avoid the Monopolies Act. The noble Lord generally reads his Bills, but he has not read far enough in this one. If he reads on as far as Clause 27, he will see that all companies, whether owned by the Agency or not, will be subject to the Monopolies Act, whereas under the 1949 Act nothing was subject to the Monopolies Act. I am sure he will withdraw that criticism.
May I also refer here to one argument raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winster—he will forgive me if I do not reply to all his arguments. I gather that certain features of the Board and the Agency are to figure in later debates, and I do not want to keep the House too long. But as I understand him, the noble Lord used one basic argument: that there is unnecessary duplication. In effect, he asked, why should not the Board do the work of the Agency? It is an essential and an integral part of our plan that their relations should be wholly separate, that the Board should stand in exactly the same relation in their functions of supervision to every company, whether the company becomes privately owned under the Bill or whether their shares remain vested in the Agency. If the Board were to carry out the functions of the Agency, if it were to have the ownership of any of these companies vested in it, then it could not occupy the same independent relationship to the companies which it owned as it would to the companies which stood outside.
To the more detailed arguments which the noble Lord raised, we shall no doubt come on a later occasion. Financial control, which of course the Corporation have, means control of responsibility, and
446
sooner or later—probably sooner—the suppression of individual initiative by the companies. As we see it, that is just the control we do not want. But the control we do want was much less effective under the 1949 Act. I have given examples. Prices could be controlled only where the Corporation owned. If there is to be control of prices, that ought to take place over the whole field, whether the elements are publicly or privately owned. I think that an independent Board of this kind will have better and more independent relations with iron and steel workers than if they owned the industry and were virtually their employers. Certainly labour relations in this industry have always been a model to the whole industrial world. That reflects equal credit upon the trade union leaders and upon the leaders in the industry.
Fortunately, nationalisation did not have time to get very far in its effects. The old impetus continued. Capital development and the acquisition of raw materials were the result of long-range plans, which were prepared long before nationalisation. The new plants at Margam and Trostre which I have so often heard rightly praised, were the result of private enterprise and private planning, private co-operative planning. The Iron and Steel Federation kept up their old central services in order to tide the Corporation over and, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said in opening, they served both the nationalised and unnationalised sections of industry. In consequence, firms have been able largely to retain their own boards, their own managements, overseas connection and good will, and their own initiative. That good will is tremendously important. There are firms whose names are household words all over the world. Their good will was built up by their own initiative and salesmanship. We shall not keep it by keeping the old name on the door. We shall keep it only by keeping the spirit and enterprise that made these firms great.
Quite inevitably, if it had gone on, the Corporation would have had to interfere more and more. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, said that the Corporation had interfered very little; and, indeed, had left most of the boards of directors alone. But we must remember that the Corporation had only eight months of

447
effective life. Noble Lords have talked about two years, but as soon as the present Government came into office the Board knew that they would be abolished. Indeed, the Corporation themselves, in their Report, at which I have been looking, point out that very soon the Minister gave them a direction which precluded them from interfering with the management and personnel of firms without the approval of the Minister. The Corporation themselves say, in paragraph 40 of their Report, that in the case of three companies they were in the process of changing the boards of directors, but that the change was not proceeded with because the Minister had given them a direction. I do not blame the Corporation for this, because you cannot tell them to take the whole of the financial responsibility, and make them responsible for all the shapes and sizes to suit every customer, and so on, as is laid down as a statutory duty in Section 3, and expect them not to interfere.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, who has done so much for this industry, said that inevitably that kind of interference would go on more; that there would be increasing difficulties and differences between the Corporation and the directorates. As I have said, this is not a criticism of the Corporation. You could not give them those functions, and order them by Act of Parliament to discharge those functions—financial and detailed functions—and not expect to have the responsibility taken more and more from the individual companies. That is why we are acting in time. It is no blame to us. I think it is fortunate that we are able to act in time. There is an old proverb about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Fortunately, here we can, we hope, shut the stable door in time.
LORD STRABOLGI: It is after the horse has been stolen, not bolted.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I did not like to use that word. I am obliged to the noble Lord, who for once has put me right. After the horse has departed—if I may use an anodyne word.
Of all the nationalisation schemes, I think this nationalisation of steel is the one about which even the nationalisers themselves have been most in doubt. We,
448
at any rate, always made it clear—and here we are at one with all the Liberal Party—that we should be bound to change it. We always made it clear that we stood for adequate supervision and control. I believe that a number of people supported nationalisation hesitantly, doubtfully, because they believed that nationalisation was necessary for supervision. Anybody who looks at Part II of this Bill can no longer contend that. On the contrary, I believe that everyone, looking at it impartially, would agree to-day that supervision under this Bill would be more effective and would cover a wider field. To-day, in the face of our need for exports, and increasing competition in every market, I feel sure that a large majority of people in this country are convinced of the need to restore to the iron and steel industry its old independence and initiative. That supervision and independence, that partnership, are the dual purposes of this Bill. I believe that both are equally needed, and I submit with confidence that this Bill will meet both those needs in what I am convinced is a fair, and what I trust may be a final, solution.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
ACCOMMODATION AGENCIES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
AGRICULTURAL LAND (REMOVAL OF SURFACE SOIL) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION (ADVERTISEMENTS) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, without amendment.
RHOANGLO GROUP BILL
Reported, without amendment,
GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY (CREMATORIUM) BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments

FAWSLEY HALL, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE
LORD METHUEN LORD METHUEN asked Her Majesty's Government if Fawsley Hall (Northants.) has been scheduled in respect of its important Tudor namely the Hall and Oriel: and if stops are being taken for its preservation And maintenance.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT: Fawsley Hall, or House, is not scheduled as an Ancient Monument. It will be included in the list of buildings of special architectural and historic interest in the Daventry Rural District when that is issued by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. But although the building has interest, the Minister of Housing and Local Government is advised that the structure, including the Great Hall with its oriel window, was greatly altered and enlarged during the last century. The only undoubted original work of the Tudor period is the exterior of part of the south front, and the small wing on the west, which has a lesser oriel window. The Minister is informed that the Mansion is in use in connection with the estate, and the exterior is being kept wind and weatherproof. The Tudor West wing has been restored and converted into two dwellings.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eight o'clock.